# Is Society Overprotective of Children?



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

On the thread about removing shoes in the house, it was mentioned that some hosts requested it to protect their priceless children from "street germs." As I commented there, I think modern society--American society--has become hysterically overprotective of children!

I think much of this stems from the fact that many contemporary mothers, especially in the more educated and influential segments of society, put off having children until the old biological clock is ticking down fast. They then quite often feel guilty about leaving their little darlings in the care of ill-educated women from the Third World or flighty European au pairs while they go back to their lucrative, fulfilling careers, and this heightens their overprotectiveness all the more.

I can still remember my kiddie car seat. It was a flimsy affair with a white frame and brown canvas seat. It had colored beads I could twirl to amuse myself. Today the little tots are strapped into seats that look as if they could withstand being catapulted out of a jet fighter's cockpit and they are strapped into the BACK seat of the car. Amazes me how I made it!

Then there is the matter of helmets. The do-gooders decreed here in California a good many years ago that all children under age 18 must wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. More recently they enacted the same law for kids riding scooters. C'mon, I can never recollect or imagine a child getting brain damage from falling off a bloody scooter. Many parents insist on helmets with skates as well, although I am not sure that they are mandated by law. Batters' helmets have been the norm for many years for kids playing baseball. We never had them, but they probably make more sense than the foregoing. It amazes me that my little playmates of 55 or 60 years ago didn't die in droves or end up brain-damaged vegetables, but not a solitary one of the dear little tykes ever came to harm!

There is also a much great climate of fear. I would fearlessly walk around the neighborhood with our dog at 9:00 or 10:00 at night when I was eight or ten without any concern. I was a big kid for my age and the dog was a Great Dane, which may have made me feel safer. By way of contrast, my stepson and his pals required being driven or escorted the few blocks between their houses until they were well into their teens! You may say. "That was then--a safer, more peaceful time--and this is now." There is an element of truth in this, but they neighborhood that we live in is a good deal more upscale and peaceful than the one I grew up in about three or four miles west of downtown LA. I think a lot of this fear is the result of intense, repetitive media broadcasting whenever an abduction or sex crime against a child occurs. My stepson was particularly afraid the gays would try to "get" him, which struck me as most improbable, and I always told him so.

Getting onto the sexual side, I am dumbfounded by the savage, draconian punishments meted out to adult women who sexually initiate pubescent boys these days. I and my friends have always considered such women not predators but benefactresses of my sex! Whenever I hear about one of these cases, I always think, "Where were such women when I needed them"...at least if the accused is reasonably good looking.[}](I know, I said the same thing on another thread recently. My apologies!)

Children's entertainment, by and large, seems much more saccharine and didactic from what I've seen (not so much in the past few years since my boy has outgrown them) than the violent, sadistic cartoons we had when I was growing up.

Protecting the priceless children is also a favorite ploy of censors and assorted bluenoses trying to crack down on popular entertainment.
Child protection has also been a Trojan horse for a lot of anti-gun legislation, proposed or enacted, in recent years.

Well, I could go on, but I'd kind of like to head home for dinner. I'd be interested in any reactions to this.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I would agree with much of this, except for the late-parenthood-guilt thing. I was born late to a career mom and I wasn't raised anything like this, and I know a lot of young stay-at-home-mothers who won't let their children walk to school or ride their bicycles out of sight of the house(!)

(What is the point of that? They might as well have stationary exercise bikes.)


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

On the one hand, I agree on all counts. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm any less overprotective than any other modern parent. I certainly have the fear that a 2 minute car trip without everybody strapped in to their carseats will result in fatal injury. My girls are 2 and 5. It remains to be seen if I can relax a little more as they grow up.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> I know a lot of young stay-at-home-mothers who won't let their children ride their bicycles out of sight of the house(!)
> 
> (What is the point of that? They might as well have stationary exercise bikes.)


Wow.

My grandfather and his brothers used to ride nearly 20 miles to the airport to watch planes take off and land. Certainly out of sight of the house!

No wonder kids these days are obese...

---------------------

Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

I am so glad that we have solved all the real problems and can now worry about this.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

LWoD, I'm pretty sure that for parents, their kids are the only issue that really matters.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

So what about de facto segregation in public schools along socioeconomic lines? Schools with classes taught in bathrooms and gymnasiums with not even enough outdated textbooks for half the student population (that bothers to show up anymore) next to public schools that operate as private schools under magnate mandates and receive about as much funding?

There are real problems. Complaining that the world is coming to an end and society is crumbling because children today now wear helmets, play on clean floors, and ride in safer car seats is quite literally offensive.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

So is the idea that you have a monopoly on which issues may be deemed worthy of our consideration.


----------



## Long Way of Drums (Feb 15, 2006)

More that I think those who would bemoan the collapse of society due to the presence of kneepads and batting helmets and a handful of minor, stupid laws are willfully and agressively divorced from any real sense of perspective.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> More that I think those who would bemoan the collapse of society due to the presence of kneepads and batting helmets and a handful of minor, stupid laws are willfully and agressively divorced from any real my sense of perspective.
> 
> ...


fixed


----------



## eleccon (Oct 15, 2005)

I agree with much of what you say, *JLibourel*.

I've raised my soon to be 17 year old daughter in what many may now consider an appallingly liberal fashion. She was repeatedly exposed to the searing Caribbean sun, allowed to swim in and explore the ocean without an overarching paranoia, hiked in the bush to pick mangoes (and be stung mercilessly by mosquitos), allowed sips of beer and rum during family parties from about age 13, and a whole host of other 'unsafe' things.

I actively encourage her to somewhat safely test her limits and I have found over the years that it has helped to build a good judgment base and trust between us. I've always tried to take the mystery out of adult things and present her with a sort of participatory / guided tour, rather than always saying something to the effect of "none of _that_ until you're xx age!" What I've hoped for is a slow bleeding off of the wild curiosity and unfettered behaviour common to youth when finally let out sight...

To be sure, my approach probably isn't to well suited to many others, but I've seen a lot of damage from the opposite approach. It seems to have worked thus far -- she's 3rd overall academically at her high school, socially ahead of peers, and up for scholarship consideration. We'll see how the rest goes.

As for western societies as a whole, there does seem to be some sort of fear mongering and aversion going on at every level, with the twin social strategies of the 'thin end of wedge' and 'trojan horse' used to full effect. The public safety / save the children mantra is especially loud and pervasive in the UK, with lots of public surveillance, regulatory agencies and all sorts of nanny-state apparatus gnawing steadily away at personal privacy and revenue. They seem well on their way to some sort of.....well, I'm not really too sure. I certainly would feel alarmed living in such a society if the wrong sort of people should come to be in charge of that sort of equipment....it's chilling to think how it may be abused. Such may be the price of allowing others to dictate how much safety and security one _gets_, rather than how much is _desired_.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> So what about de facto segregation in public schools along socioeconomic lines? Schools with classes taught in bathrooms and gymnasiums with not even enough outdated textbooks for half the student population (that bothers to show up anymore) next to public schools that operate as private schools under magnate mandates and receive about as much funding?


The "overprotection" of children that Jan is complaining about is related to the very serious problems you identify, or so I believe. It would take an extended essay to fully demonstrate this link, which I haven't time for at the moment, but I'm sure if you think about it you'll discern the relationship yourself. For starters, the link is rooted in the contemporary American notion that public space is either a place of profit or a place of fear; it is not a commons. Remember, we are currently engaged in a endless war on . . . what? Not a foreign power, no longer even a tactic, but a state of mind: a "war on terror." It's always "Indian country" someplace.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Sounds to me the same kind of complaints that were offered when 10 year olds were barred from carrying coal in the mines (1840's or so).

Progress will always face these kind of detractors. Best to press on and damn the torpedoes.



------------------


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sounds to me the same kind of complaints that were offered when 10 year olds were barred from carrying coal in the mines (1840's or so).
> 
> Progress will always face these kind of detractors. Best to press on and damn the torpedoes.


Ten-year olds were still carrying coal in U.S. mines well into the 20th century. My 10 year-old maternal grandfather, fresh off the boat from County Kerry, went down into the West Virginia coal mines in 1913. He wasn't the last, by any means.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> The "overprotection" of children that Jan is complaining about is related to the very serious problems you identify, or so I believe. It would take an extended essay to fully demonstrate this link, which I haven't time for at the moment, but I'm sure if you think about it you'll discern the relationship yourself. For starters, the link is rooted in the contemporary American notion that public space is either a place of profit or place of fear; it is not a commons. Remember, we are currently engaged in a endless war on . . . what? Not a foreign power, no longer even a tactic, but a state of mind: a "war on terror." It's always "Indian country" someplace.
> 
> "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


I was about to make a very similar point. We seem to live in a world of dread and unfocussed anxiety. Once courage and resiliance were virtues. Now they are symptoms. There is a big price to be paid for being fearful. This generation's Farragut is much more likely to say "let's wait until its safe" than "Damn the torpedoes. Full steam ahead"

Aus_MD


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sounds to me the same kind of complaints that were offered when 10 year olds were barred from carrying coal in the mines (1840's or so).
> 
> ...


It's not that at all. Of course I think good carseats are important and I don't mind helmet rules. You teach kids not to take stupid risks, but some risktaking and autonomy is necessary for growth.

When we were kids, we'd disappear ALL DAY in the summer. We'd build forts, play and catch lizards and search for arrowheads in a nearby canyon (this was in the southwest) and hang out on playgrounds and in the park. Sure we read and watched a little bit of TV, but we didn't spend hours locked up with our own television, computer and XBox getting a cathode tan. We made up games and played cops and robbers on bikes rather than being involved in tons of structured activities to which we were driven each way.

I walked for 45 minutes each way to school because I thought the bus was tiresome and smelly. Do you know many parents who'd let children do that today? Are there really more rampant molesters now than in 1980? Or does the media just scare the hell out of everyone?

Kids don't even carry books anymore - they have carts with wheels.

It's not just parenting - in my neighborhood, 60% of houses have intrusion alarm services and our house came with a laser motion detector. It's a neighborhood of young families and many of the mothers stay home all day. I don't think there has been a crime here in 10 years besides flagrant jaywalking.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Precisely. This is exactly what one no longer sees, at least in my part of the country. Why?

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> Precisely. This is exactly what one no longer sees, at least in my part of the country. Why?


Killer attack poodles?

I've had a similar discussion with globetrotter, and found out that I was coddled because we had dedicated umpires for our baseball league [] Seriously though, my neighborhood/development went up on what had been rural and forest land back in the early 80s. There are still no fences and kids play in the woods in all directions. I don't know if that's a pocket of sanity, or if it's the norm and the over-protective pockets get all the press.

Tom


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

I've thought for a long time that this was a result of the growing isolation in neighborhoods. Neighbors don't know each other or trust each other like 40 years ago. My mother didn't feel like she had to watch us all the time becasue she knew some adult in the neighborhood was probably keeping an eye on things. The adults were a united front in many ways. They were protective as well as disciplinary. That whole generation (WW II types) just seemed to naturally function a lot more like a team.

Regards,


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> On the thread about removing shoes in the house, it was mentioned that some hosts requested it to protect their priceless children from "street germs." As I commented there, I think modern society--American society--has become hysterically overprotective of children!


I also think American culture provides an absurdly over-extended adolescence to men at least. Maybe into their 30's nowadays.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> I also think American culture provides an absurdly over-extended adolescence to men at least. Maybe into their 30's nowadays.


I agree

Regards,


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look at what many men wear.

It's really quite offensive.

As for overprotection of children, I think some aspect of it has to do with society, which has in certain elements become more dangerous.

People don't play on the streets anymore.

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> More that I think those who would bemoan the collapse of society due to the presence of kneepads and batting helmets and a handful of minor, stupid laws are willfully and agressively divorced from any real sense of perspective.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone is bemoaning the collapse of society on anything here. These fora, and this forum in particular, are similar to group of people getting together to discuss various issues. As I've gotten older, this topic, and variants thereof, have been discussed at numerous dinner parties I've attended. There's usually no real conclusion except that things today sure are different than the good old days. Nevertheless, there's no harm in a lively and perhaps controversial discussion.

Start a thread on what you consider deep political and social importance and no doubt others will join in.


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

The problem you describe, and the urban upper classes that you use as an example, seem simply to be having fewer and fewer children per couple, hence the increase in the amount of attention that is given to each child. They are also usually educated and keep up with latest studies and trends in childcare which constantly makes them wonder if they are raising their children in the best way, they are stressed about getting their children into the "right" school which, once upon a time, simply the ability to pay the tuition, and the right pedigree, conferred exclusivity, today their children have to prepare and excel from a very young age. If your only child is a disaster well...but if you have eight children.....


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

1. I think that it does have to do with people having children later, and less. I can think of 2 good examples - we hve friends who had a single boy, using all sorts of fertilization help, after the age of 40. they both dot on him, and are both extremly paranoid about him. a while back, they wanted my wife to baby sit him for a day, on a school holiday, because they have never used a babysitter and had an emergency. my wife insisted that they leave a car seat for him, because we always make sure that if we need to leave the house we can. they wouldn't give us their car seat for the day, because they never move the car seat themselves, they go to the fire station and have a fireman adjust it. the other thing is that I know that having one kid myself, and maybe we will have another, but not more than that, gives me a lot of time to wory about him. I don't think that my few friends who have 5 or more kids love their kids less, but they don't have, on a practical basis, as much time to worry about each one. 

2. I drove around in a smokey statoin wagen without childrens seats as a kid. didn't kill me, but I honestly think that my mother's smoking when she was pregnant and when I was a kid, cost me a few inches in hieght. not the end of the world, and they made up for it in other things, but it is something to think about - it used to be perfectly normal to let kids ride around without seatbelts (I never used them) and for parents to smoke in the car with kids. 

3. I see a lot of kids in the third world who are victems of pretty horrible accidents, alot of the kind of thing that we have tried specifically to avoid here. 

4. I was pretty obsessive about germs when my son was born, but I have become very flexible about it now. the fact is, anything that doesn't kill him does, in fact, make him stronger. he got sick alot when he was 1-2, now he hardly gets sick at all. 

5. like Tom said, we discussed this a while back - when I was kid, I would go out for the day with a bike, fish, play in the woods and fields, get together with friends to play baseball or other ball games, without any adult supervision. I never see any kids doing that kind of stuff today, and I honestly don't know if I would let my son run around unsuporvised in a few years. I remember running around playing with 4 or 5 kids and GI joes and the age of 5, in the nieghborhood. I can't see letting my son out to play like that in a year, and I can't see any of his friends parents doing that. I don't like it, but that is the way it has turned. 

6. my father used to go hunting by himself when he was 12 or 13. I went on a hitchiking trip with 2 friends the summer I was 16. I think that those days are over in america. I regret it, but that is what it seems to me.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Are any parents out there pre-registering their children as future Ask Andyers? [^]


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

I agree that too much is made of cases where boys are 'seduced' by older women. I can't imagine how an adult woman could be attracted to a 14-year old boy, and it's pretty clear to me that these women have 'issues', but I think the boys are victimized more by the media attention than the sex. Teacher-student relationships are inappropriate and the teacher should be fired, but that's beside the issue of the constant media focus and the overwrought demonstrations of moral outrage that are expressed by the professional hysterians. In those cases, I don't believe the attention is rooted in overprotectiveness of children as much as it's rooted in a lust for sensationalism.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 6. my father used to go hunting by himself when he was 12 or 13. I went on a hitchiking trip with 2 friends the summer I was 16. I think that those days are over in america. I regret it, but that is what it seems to me.


I think hitchhiking in general is 'over' in America.

However, Daniel Boone was out hunting by himself when he was 12, as was your father. That is still not uncommon for one or a small group of boys to go out hunting or fishing today (for , at least in the South, and in the West.

---------------------

Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:I think hitchhiking in general is 'over' in America.


As is, apparently, the time-honoured tradition of 'riding the rails':


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that children are probably at least somewhat overprotected.

I can remember being four and my mother having me walk four blocks to the store to buy bread. (We lived in a small town about 15 miles from Saginaw, MI.) After the first trip, she made me take my toy wagon because I ruined part of a loaf of bread by dragging on the ground. She would give me a quarter and tell me how many pennies I should bring back home. (This was about 1960.)

No harm ever came to me. (My younger brother was an infant and my going to the store meant she could stay home with him.)

I wonder if our world is really all that much more dangerous. I think a lot of it is media hype. As tragic as it is when someone is murdered, we need to remember that 270,000,000 Americans were NOT murdered that day, too. 

(Forgive me, my population estimate is probably off.)


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

A lot of the replies to this have been interesting. (I have been away from the forum for about 30 hours, longer than usual for me.)

One thing I forgot to mention, and only Globetrotter touched on it is the whole hoo-ha about protecting children from the horrors of second-hand smoke.

As a child of the 1940s, I grew up in household of four or five smokers. Much of my childhood was spent in a blue haze of cigarette smoke! Did it stunt my growth? Well maybe. I only got to be 6'3" and have weighed well over 200 pounds for almost my entire adult life. Now if I had grown up in a smoke-free household, maybe I could have played offensive tackle for the Miami Dolphins in the Don Shula era, but I kinda doubt it.

Actually, I never had a lot of athletic ability, but nature compensated by giving me strength, vigor and endurance most of my days. I'm still hanging in pretty well, I like to think, as I am getting ready to celebrate my 64th in a few weeks. If second-hand smoke harmed me, it's pretty hard to discern how.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Jan, 

This is always a hot topic within my family too.
My parents have no grandsons, just a handful of very pretty grand daughters. 
My brother and I are protective of our girls, that is a given.

But I whole heartily agree with you over all.
But how did we get this way?

In Mufti wrote:
That whole generation (WW II types) just seemed to naturally function a lot more like a team.

A Litigation crazed society has struck fear in the heart of anyone who might otherwise step up to the plate and help. Lack luster punishment for those who commit crimes has a huge element of the population afraid of retaliation for stepping up against a crime in progress.

The only possible counter effect was the advent of the cell phone, people who once helped, now just call 911.


VS wrote:

When we were kids, we'd disappear ALL DAY in the summer. We'd build forts, play and catch lizards 

didn't spend hours locked up with our own television


As did we, I remember knocking on doors in the neighbor and asking to use the washroom, or for a glass of water, everyone knew everyone. Today, everyone has a fence around their yard, their own pool, all the public pools are closing. Remember the fun of the corn roasts and dances at the pool! Dancing with Rosemary M to Stairway to Heaven......

Television was only used as a tricky way to try and extend bed time, it never came on before dinner in our house. Never.
Television has become the baby sitter, a big pacifier for many parents.

There are no fields left to run in, there are no more woods left to build forts in. The trees are in parks today. Suburban sprawl goes on as far as the eye can see. My brother and I had a single shot 22 we would go into the woods with, we only lived 15 minutes from downtown Montreal.
Where could you possibly fire a rifle today? Even the sand pits are chained up under video guard.



JLibourel wrote:
I grew up in household of four or five smokers

The tobacco companies are alleged to have treated the tabac to give the nicotine rush faster, to make it more addictive. Why did we suffer less? People are not smoking the same product today as our parents did.



VS wrote:
Or does the media just scare the hell out of everyone?
Yckmwia wrote:
we are currently engaged in a endless war on . . . what? Not a foreign power, no longer even a tactic, but a state of mind: a "war on terror." It's always "Indian country" someplace.

Agreed!
Fear has become the biggest motivator and weapon against the population.
Governments use it daily to rally support and shape public opinion.
Companies use it to sell you everything from a cell fone to cars and security systems.

Jan, we grew up in much simpler times. My only concern as young boy was to be home, at the dinner table, with clean hands, before 5pm. A freedom and joy of childhood my daughters, sadly, will never know.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I don't think that society is overprotective of children; it seems like more than ever, children have become a commodity. Instead, I think the problem is that people are seeking to empower themselves "in the name of the children."

Politicians seek to accumulate more power for themselves and government "in the name of the children." Mothers seek social power and power through the judicial system because of their status as "mothers" and in the name of their children. Social service agencies and charities all front with the "children" issue. "Children" are the trump card in any discussion of policy and the cynical are pretty quick to play them.

I know that there are exceptions and I am speaking in generalities. But even as "the children" are all we hear about, they are warehoused in day care from birth, spoiled rotten out of mother-guilt, forced into schools at hours convienent to the military-industrial complex, and, quite often, forced to conform their schedules and needs to their parent's career ambitions. The angst this seems to cause results in "the village" coming at us with mandate after mandate "in the name of (everyone else's) children."

So I think society is much less protective of the individual child than it used to be, but much more vocal in asserting the needs of children in general for the benefit of everyone but the children themselves.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Think about when we started to structure every minute of our children's lives, after school events we needed to drive them too, saturday and sunday soccer, or T ball or whatever, always in groups, children never alone..think about the efforts that our communites have gone to in order to keep drugs away from the children. I do indeed think this is hte beginning of the real overendulgence of our children, we are so scared that they may do what many of us did, or what has become so easy to do know...sex and drugs are easy for kids to get, have anyone heard of the Flyer parties happening on the West Coast?

We have all created what are children are today, the spoiled, self indulgent, self centered little brats are just demanding what we have given them..nothing more and nothing less, and parents are pathetic in their need to overprotect (myself included) because we know what thje outside world has in store for the unaware, the unsophisticated.

As far as woman initiating boys to sex, that is one issue that this thread need not deal with, but I would venture to guess that most boys will not feel psycologically or physicailly harmed by this occurrence. 

The overprotectivenss of watching every germ, you got some really disturbed parents on that one...my mother made us take off our shoes because she did not want to clean the mess we would bring into the house..germs were never an issue, of course you could eat off her floor, but that is for another topic...

Just my $.02 for whatever it is really worth.

BTW. look at many 20's and even 30's young people today, see any differences in those of us in our 50's and how we think of others and ourselves?

guit


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by guitone_
> 
> BTW. look at many 20's and even 30's young people today, see any differences in those of us in our 50's and how we think of others and ourselves?
> 
> guit


well, I am still not 40, but I think that I was raised pretty old school - I think that most people I see in their 20's today, and a hell of a lot in their 30's seem to have been raised with a very extended adolesence and not as much independence or reposnsibility.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I think you hit it on the head gobetrotter, it is all about how we bring our children up and so many parents have just been too indulgent with their children, making them think that they are more special than any other person or child, and they believe this and act on this.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Where I grew up, we were allowed to run through the woods with BB guns and 22s, play unsupervised with fireworks, take off for hours at a time, rode three wheelers with no helmets (for those of you who don't remember 3 wheelers, they were the very unstable predecessors to the 4 wheeler), drive the ski boat at 12, or mount the horses at 8 AM and head off and not return until sunset. We didn't sit on our butts all day playing video games because there was so much else to do (and I'm young enough that I had pong when I was 5 and had every single subsequent gaming system). I was born in 1974 and certainly grew up after the current fearmongering had started. None of my friends were killed, dismembered, permanently brain addled, paralyzed, abducted, or victims of spontaneous combustion. A few broken bones and scrapes make good character. 





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

While I mostly agree, I think there's a lot of overgeneralization going on. For instance:


> quote:_Originally posted by zegnamtl_
> VS wrote:
> Or does the media just scare the hell out of everyone?
> Yckmwia wrote:
> ...


Remember the Commies? Yeah, the use of fear as a controlling device was around in spades in the '50s. guitone, I would hope that those in their 50s have different worldviews than those of us in our 20s, n'est pas?

Tom


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Perhaps a generalization, but not over the top by any means.
I am unaware of the state of advertising in Germany,
But here, the "get peace of mind" and fear status runs rampant.
It has been taken to new levels of late, levels unseen since the high of the cold war perhaps, although I am too young to have lived that.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> While I mostly agree, I think there's a lot of overgeneralization going on. For instance:
> 
> ...


Such tactics have been a constant in American life, present since the nation's inception, as revealed by this excerpt from the Declaration:

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That is why I noted that it is "always Indian country someplace." Both here and abroad, there are always places of nameless dread where "merciless savages" plan the "undistinguished destruction" of good Americans of "all ages, sexes, and conditions." These enemies are implacable, irrational, and can only be dealt with by fire and sword. A common feature throughout the ages has been that these "merciless savages" are never provoked and are never aggrieved; they work day and night for our "undistinguished destruction," motivated by sheer bloodlust and evil. Thus, we are always innocent, always violated, always at the mercy of the unreasoning monsters, the "evildoers," who will attack us for no cause, and without warning. With the "war or terror" this form of collective derangement has been taken to a new level of abstraction; marry this to a both a professed worship of "the market" - a commodification of everything, such as Liberty Ship notes - and an infantilized news media that devotes endless hours of coverage to lurid crimes, and what do you have? A nation of terrorized money-grubbers, who amass private arsenals and won't let their children out of sight for fear of "sexual predators." It is both amusing and instructive to observe this contrived climate of fear backfire, as it has with the recent UAE/port imbroglio.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Yckmwia, you may be on to something here. Usually you are a bit strident, and maybe here, too. 

I agree that the constant media coverage brings a level of paranoia to things. (Not to mention high salaries to those who fan the flames.)

I imagine that there have always been sexual predators, but parents (I was born in 1956) were not so paranoid when I grew up. 

(My previous post about doing errands for Mom at age 4. Mom was not irresponsible; she just saw this as safe and probably even felt it taught me a bit of responsibility.)

We made our own decisions about what we were going to do most of the time when we did not have chores during the summer, when school was out. A lot of educational professionals today say that children today are so structured, that they do not know how to make decisions. This can't be good.

I wish we were more in tune to the dangers of second hand smoke as a child, but only because I happen to be allergic to tobacco. 

While you can find studies to show the problems with second-hand smoke, I think that ethics in our scientific community are so cloudy that many studies are designed to prove a point and set up to do exactly that. (On both sides of any controversial issue.)

(Edited to correct spelling of Yckmwia's name. I hope there is some real significance to you! I can NEVER remember how to spell it. LOL)


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

JL:

I have not read many of the posts to follow your initial thread, but I have to comment on your comments concerning helmets and car seats. I am a pediatric neurosurgeon. I happen to be on call and have had to take care of one youngster who was an ejected passenger in an automobile accident because she was in a car seat in the front seat. She was launched from the vehicle like a missile and would not have suffered the injuries that she had if she were in the car seat in the back! I also have had to treat a child who fell off his bike and suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage that has precipitated a few seizures. Could have been avoided if he were wearing a helmet. I think that I am qualified to respond to my interpretation of what you have written that they (helmets and car seats) are not really needed. That is crap. (Sorry to get so defensive). While society has gotten overprotective, not letting kids walk next door to play without an adult escort, it has gotten smart in some areas. I believe that it is abuse not to make sure that your child (if size and age warrant) is not in an appropriate car seat or booster that is positioned and fastened properly. Not to make sure that your little one, or you for that matter, are wearing a helmet when bicycilng, 4-wheeling, scootering, skiing etc... is asking for trouble. I am sorry that you have not seen the consequences of such negligence, I make a living on taking care of children, unfortunately so, with such. And the little seats that you mention, the bouncy seat. I have seen a number of kids who bounced themselves out of the seat which happened to be on top of a counter and suffered a skull fracture or two. Granted a little common sense....

As one half of working parents, the hardest thing that my wife and I have done was to leave our children in the care of a nanny. Hey, I would love it if we both didn't need to work, but we do. One can never be sure that the nanny is safe. This weekend, in addition to the two that I have written above about, I have declared two, not one but two different children, brain dead from injuries inflicted onto them by the nanny or the nanny's boyfriend, respectively. 

I think that it is smart to be somewhat more protective than we have been in the past, but temper that with a little common sense.



"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you that the car seats and helmets are probably a good thing. Although, what percentage of people who do not use them is such a good thing?

Edited to remove judgemental statement about someone I don't even know.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I think the irony here is that if you WERE to allow your children to play until sundown(I've never heard of molesters approaching a group of eight children and running off with one of them)... erm, well, who would make up the other kids in the group if none of their parents let them out of their sight? Being the only child who walks to school makes that child conspicuous.

Being the way our parents were (trusting us not to do stupid or dangerous things and to run away screaming from "funny men" if necessary) would probably mark a parent of today as some sort of unattentive, uncaring cavalier parent.

Of course people love their children and want to protect them from harm, but I'm not so sure about holding them prisoner out of fear.

Maybe we should move to a farming village when we have children.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

But cows and horses kick sometimes - - - (I got bitten by a horse once, too.)


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

Forsberacct2000: Perhaps, I am reading a little much into what you have written concerning being a neurosurgeon and my spouse working b/c "she wants to, not b/c she has to." Are you trying to exclaim that I already make enough money? Everything we do in life is a choice. Bottome line, given collegiate loans, medical school loans, lifestyle etc... we must both work. I guess one can see it as a choice, just as a choice that I had in becoming a neurosurgeon and the the time and effort in doing so. I am sorry, but I take at offense at someone who can criticize another b/c one assumes that other may make alot of money just b/c of a title or an occupation. I get defensive when I think people are attacking phsyicians for how much "they earn." Again, maybe I am assuming something that I should not. But, when one boils it down we both work, and you are correct, and that is an individual choice that we both make. 

I really do not want to waste time on the above. Rather, it is important to be an advocate for children!

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> But cows and horses kick sometimes - - - (I got bitten by a horse once, too.)


I was afraid of my sister's horse because it had bitten two people. I never wanted to be within three feet of his face.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bwep, I edited my post because I could see that I at least was implying a judgement about you when I don't know you and have no right to make such a judgement. I usually stay away from that kind of thing and honestly don't know why I did it that time. (I edited it sometime before you reposted, but maybe you had not seen the edit.)

You are responsible for your life and certainly have the right to make your own decisions. I should not have been so personal, and I was hoping I edited before you (or too many other people) read it. Obviously, I was not fast enough. 

I apologize.

While I am not a parent myself, I think when possible, it is best for a child to be in the care of his parents. This does not give me the right to tell others how to make parenting decisions, especially when I have never taken that step myself.

However, I still do think we are overprotective of our children and smother them in a lot of ways. (not carseats and bike helmets) There is probably a middle road where there is enough supervision to keep kids away from alcohol and drugs (in my case, I did way too much of this kind of thing in my high school years and am lucky I did not get into big time trouble) and a situation where the kid is so overscheduled that he makes no decisions for himself ever.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> Bwep, I edited my post because I could see that I at least was implying a judgement about you when I don't know you and have no right to make such a judgement. I usually stay away from that kind of thing and honestly don't know why I did it that time. (I edited it sometime before you reposted, but maybe you had not seen the edit.)
> 
> ...


this is, like many parts of life, a huge problem with no easy answer.

I regret the fact that my son will not have the same type of childhood that I had, in some ways. I am happy that, in many ways, he may have a better one.

I certainly broke enough, and scraped enough, and did enough stupid things, and it was basically good for me. it is a hard balancing act to help him put himself in a little harms way, but not too much.


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

forsbergacct2000: Thanks for your response. I did not see before the edit or repost. Having children definitely changes one's perspective. I used to feel that we, society, smother them with protection these days. I think that we do in some ways and we are better in others. I understand the spirit that I think (again personal interpretation) JLibourel intended his post, but I do not necessarily agree with some of the details. I am a big proponent of helmets, car seats, safety devices around the home and safety devices on toys etc. It is odd how many children do not run and play through the neighborhoods anymore. The likelihood of being picked up by a total stranger is exceedingly low. The risk that they can get hit by a car etc, much higher. We must use common sense.

Along the same lines of overprotection, parents are doing more for their kids. I mean I cannot tell you the work that is being done by parents rather than the child for homework, on a pre-school or elementary school level. Do parents think that teachers can't tell who did the work? 

Or, what about the overbearing parent that forces their child to attempt to be a prodigy in an activity that they have no interest in participating in. Trying to get your three year old to be the next Tiger Woods or Mary Lou Retton is a little sick to me. We are starting children in sports at much earlier ages than we used to and I am not sure what they get out of it.

Basically, society and its relationship with children has changed. We just need to apply some common sense.

"...always aspire to live simply and elegantly." - Madeleine Finn


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that it's best not to push kids too much. I was precocious musically and adults made too much out of it. I played piano and keyboards professionally as an adult (on the side) for a long time, but adults took all the enjoyment out of it by the time I was a teenager. 

They probably meant well.

Your dreams are not necessarily your child's dreams. 

We agree about a lot more than we disagree.

Thank you for accepting my apology.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bwep_
> As one half of working parents, the hardest thing that my wife and I have done was to leave our children in the care of a nanny. Hey, I would love it if we both didn't need to work, but we do.


I thought your message cogent, but this in particular caught my eye. Some have a different idea of "need". I wouldn't mind begining a discussion of whether we really "need" to have two parents working as often as we think we do. That last phrase being the important qualification, as I am sure with the rise of health costs among other things (such as the decline in real wages and buying power), those in the middle and working class have had to have both parents working. Often, I think those in the upper-middle class and above have both parents working out of choice or to finance artificial wants and, er, needs.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> That is why I noted that it is "always Indian country someplace." Both here and abroad, there are always places of nameless dread where "merciless savages" plan the "undistinguished destruction" of good Americans of "all ages, sexes, and conditions." These enemies are implacable, irrational, and can only be dealt with by fire and sword. A common feature throughout the ages has been that these "merciless savages" are never provoked and are never aggrieved; they work day and night for our "undistinguished destruction," motivated by sheer bloodlust and evil. Thus, we are always innocent, always violated, always at the mercy of the unreasoning monsters, the "evildoers," who will attack us for no cause, and without warning. With the "war or terror" this form of collective derangement has been taken to a new level of abstraction; marry this to a both a professed worship of "the market" - a commodification of everything, such as Liberty Ship notes - and an infantilized news media that devotes endless hours of coverage to lurid crimes, and what do you have? A nation of terrorized money-grubbers, who amass private arsenals and won't let their children out of sight for fear of "sexual predators." It is both amusing and instructive to observe this contrived climate of fear backfire, as it has with the recent UAE/port imbroglio.


Y: First off, I'm not saying you're wrong. I think the climate of fear engendered by the media is distressing at best, dangerous at worst. I'll add that it's not uniquely American, nor uniquely Western. The fearfulness espoused by religious leadership in the Middle East would offend even you. Americans eat babies type stuff. Take a look at the recent Turkish film depicting an (actual) American raid mistakenly targeting Turkish soldiers and a (fictional) Jewish doctor taking organs from innocent Iraqi prisoners for sale in America and Israel.

I also believe that the preponderance of fear mongering comes not from either political party (though both sides do their best) but from the media. After all, it's what sells papers. So instead of reporting on the nearly unreal calm that broke out over Iraq following the bombing of the golden mosque, USA Today and all the others told us it was the first shots in all-out civil war.

That's why I get all my news from an unimpugnable source--the internet 

Tom

PS I should update my profile to show that I'm not in Germany nor particularly impressable by German advertising.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

The postings on cycling helmets are a prime illustration of how obsessive we have become in cossetting our children.

I am going to stick my neck out and say that bicycle helmets for children are in the main, useless, and are peddled (no pun intended) by their manufacturers as a way of cashing in on our fears about child safety.

Now, I am sure the gentleman who is a neurosurgeon has seen a lot of nasty cases of child head injury. One would expect that, but these things have to be kept in proportion.

The efficacy of cycle helmets is much disputed - they are polystyrene and plastic hats, not a magic talisman against injury. Assume, however, for the moment that they are.

If children should wear helmets while bicycling, surely they should wear them for all activities - walking, climbing ropes, swimming, boating, building treehouses, even sleeping in bed (might fall out on the floor - I did that often as a child). They should CERTAINLY wear them while sitting as passengers in a car as anyone who's seen a car crash will know what head injuries can ensue.

And while we're at it, why should helmets just be restricted to children? Surely adults should wear them for all activities, just in case they are injured? Why restrict themselves to helmets - why not body armour too? OK this has been a _reductio ad absurdum_but you get the point.

I will, no doubt be attacked for wanting to 'see little kids get injured' etc. I'm just glad I had my childhood before all this hysteria got underway!

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> The postings on cycling helmets are a prime illustration of how obsessive we have become in cossetting our children.
> 
> ...


about 10 years ago I was hit by a car while riding my bike. the car hit me directly from behind, at about 20 mph - it had slowed down as it saw me. the angle was perfect for me, luckily. I was thrown foreward, in the air, landing on the rear wheel of my bike, and then the bike kept going forward and I landed on my butt, rolling back and hit my head on the asphault. the impact crushed my helmet, as it is supposed to do - the force was obsorbed by the helmet which cracked. although stunned, I was able to roll out of the road, at which point the car that hit me was hit from behind, and shot forward and rolled over the spot that I had been lieing in the road, and rolled right over my bike.

If I hadn't been wearing the helmit, I would have certainly gotten a concussion. much more importatnly, I do not believe that I would have been able to roll out of the way and I would have been crushed by the car while I lay on the road.

I have no doubt that bike helmets save lives.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

_I have no doubt that bike helmets save lives._

Certainly there are instances where a helmet could reduce injury, or even save someone's life - though I would argue such instances are rare, and the statistical, as opposed to the anecdotal evidence would appear to bear this out. If helmets do save lives, then we should also be wearing them just to cross the road or drive our cars, but we don't, do we? I have been cycling in London for twenty years and never injured my head, but I've injured it quite badly while putting up a shelf at home - so should I wear a helmet while doing DIY?

My point is not to do with the efficacy of helmets however, it is to show that many activities in children's lives which once aroused little concern (eg, cycling, playing without adult supervision) are now perceived to be more dangerous than the statistics bear out. A hysterical news media that feeds on fear promotes this, manufacturers of safety equipment promote this, etc etc.

Yet we are oddly selective about what we get scared about. Statistically a child is most likely to be sexually abused by a close relative, yet we persist with fears of strange men lurking in bushes waiting to pounce on them; statistically the number of child murders has not increased in about thirty years, yet we still assume children are at risk of being slain, we assume second hand tobacco smoke is 'killing kids' while ignoring the carcinogenic gases being pumped out by our cars, etc etc.

It all comes down to an irrational view of life as something to be feared and cowered away from, that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

Many tough questions here.

I'm 29 years old, I have never worn a bike helmet except when BMX racing as a child. I played with Lawn darts, had a BB gun and never shot an eye out or killed a neighbour.

It's easy to blame the overprotectiveness on the media, but it's difficult to ignore the parents role in all of this. It is fear. Too many people work hard today to get 'the Perfect Life' and will do almost anything to protect it. That means forcing your kid to wear a helmet on a scooter, not letting them out after supper and a whole host of other things.

It's indicitive of society as a whole I think. Too afraid to do the RIGHT thing, so we do whatever seems easy.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Concerning a "climate of fear" and to what extent it is media fuelled, it may be instructive to note that parents over years have often used fear as a tool to control their children. My grandmother used to tell my uncle that if he strayed far from the house he might be abducted by the gypsies. When the gypsies ceased to hold much terror for him, she warned him that the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan might "get" him, this being the 1920s when the Klan was numerous and powerful nationwide. Why an Aryan white boy like my uncle would run afoul of the Invisible Empire she probably never bothered to explain.

I have read that for centuries after the Crusades, Arab mothers would warn their errant children that "Malik Rik" (King Richard the Lion-Hearted) would get them. Given that he has been dead for about 807 years, using old Coeur de Leon as bogeyman seems comparatively innocuous compared to Arab parents warning their children that the Jew would get them to grind their bones for the Matzoh of Zion, as I have heard is not uncommon!


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> Concerning a "climate of fear" and to what extent it is media fuelled, it may be instructive to note that parents over years have often used fear as a tool to control their children. My grandmother used to tell my uncle that if he strayed far from the house he might be abducted by the gypsies. When the gypsies ceased to hold much terror for him, she warned him that the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan might "get" him, this being the 1920s when the Klan was numerous and powerful nationwide. Why an Aryan white boy like my uncle would run afoul of the Invisible Empire she probably never bothered to explain.
> 
> I have read that for centuries after the Crusades, Arab mothers would warn their errant children that "Malik Rik" (King Richard the Lion-Hearted) would get them. Given that he has been dead for about 807 years, using old Coeur de Leon as bogeyman seems comparatively innocuous compared to Arab parents warning their children that the Jew would get them to grind their bones for the Matzoh of Zion, as I have heard is not uncommon!


JLib -- what are the stand-out works that you've read on the Crusades?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know if I could name a "standout" work I have read on the Crusades. I am not sure I have ever read a comprehensive work on all the Crusades, but I have read quite a few touching on various aspects of the Crusades, such as histories of the Templars and the Hospitalars. I have enjoyed several works by Steven Runciman, but I don't remember reading his multi-volume history of the Crusades. If I had to recommend a single work, that's probably what I would recommend.

I might mention that I never could claim a specialist's knowledge in the Later Middle Ages. It was a period I only studied superficially/


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

Is society overprotective of children? No.

Re: bike helmets: 67,000 head injuries in US per year, but deaths declined 38% since 1975 (as helmet use was mandated and became more common). Number of deaths is approx. 500/year in US, vast majority children. In only 2 to 9% of the deaths was the person wearing a helmet. Studies rate helmets at 50-85% effective in preventing serious head injury.

Re: infant car seats: J-Lib take heart; many of today's parents do not require their children to be in proper car seats, despite the clear benefits. [The court system calls these parents "the next friend of the decedent."]

Re: trusting adults: read the Boston Globe's coverage of the church's sexual abuse scandal and you might think twice about whose supervision you would leave your child under.
Thousands of parents regret the decisions they made in the 1950s and 1960s.

Re: crime: spend a day at your local district court listening to the criminal docket.

Finally, I read with amazement the number of intelligent people here who fail to see the fallacy in the statement "I did it for 20 years and I'm okay" or some variation thereof.

So, no, I don't long for the good old days of rear-facing Ford LTD wagon seats. Things weren't always better way-back-when.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

This is a little off topic but I feel obliged to query this statement:

_Studies rate helmets at 50-85% effective in preventing serious head injury._

I assume you're quoting Rivara and Thompson. This study has been the subject of much dispute.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

As a relatively new parent (our oldest is 2), I am kind of on the fence about this. I don't want to come across as hyper-protective and smothering, but I also don't want to be one of those parents you read about in the newspaper - the ones who have their child injured or killed in some tragic accident which causes you to shake your head and say, "how could these parents be so stupid?"

The trick seems to be finding the balance between being reasonably protective and being over-protective to the point of smothering. I think requiring car seats and bicycle helmets, for example, is being reasonably protective. I think installing toilet seat locks, for example, is being over-protective. As a relatively new parent, I feel more comfortable being closer to over-protective than under-protective, but I also realize that I need to allow my children to grow and to accept to responsibilites as they age. I hope to deal with events such as these in a manner that will adequately ensure my childrens' safety without stifling or hindering them as they grow.

As for the media, I do think it plays a part in the climate of heightened anxiety which exists among parents today (and it's not just real and perceived threats - it's also things like, "I have to get my child into the best preschool or his whole life will be ruined" and "my child has to participate in at least 5 extracurricular activities or no good college will ever look at him"). However, with regard to dangers, they've always been there. Traffic accidents have always happened. Children have always gotten injured or killed while riding bicycles or skateboards. There have always been individuals out there who would do children harm (I'm sure all of us remember the "never talk to strangers" speech we got from both our parents and in school). I do remember often going out to play by myself at a reasonably young age without my parents (although always in the company of other kids). There were times when we were far enough from home that, if something bad were to happen, no adult would have been able to respond to our needs quickly. Were we ever in any real danger? The percentages probably say no but, then again, you never really know, do you?

I guess the point of this ramble is that while there is no doubt that parents are more protective of their children today than in the past, the most horrible thing any parent can imagine is something tragic happening to their child. The goal, it seems to me, is to find the appropriate means to respond to this fear. It's not always easy.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> 
> This is a little off topic but I feel obliged to query this statement:
> 
> ...


No, as suggested by the "number of studies" and range of effectiveness, it's not any one study. This was taken from the Insurance Institute website. I've found the every study on any topic has been called into question somewhere in the world.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

JBZ: I guess for me it was a peace-of-mind issue. How could I live with myself if I didn't, say, install a lock on a cabinet and it caused an injury? A child who falls in a toilet seat lacks the upper body strength to excise himself. Weigh the cost vs. the risk.
The child would not even know about the lock, and the effort to put it on is minor to me.
Same goes for the little plastic plugs in the power outlets. My in-laws thought that was silly. I thought it was protective. My child was not scarred for life emotionally because I put on safety locks or plastic plugs.
This is really a no-brainer: protect your infants from harm in whatever way you can. When they are old enough to think, let them explore life, but give them the tools to protect themselves.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree with Mr. Checks and JZB completly. one other interesting thing - my nieces, the oldest of which is 13, have never had a filling. my teeth were pretty much a mess by that age, if I remember correctly. this has to be due to all sorts of activites that we are doing now that we didn't do 25 years ago. I can't see a down side to that. 

my point being - I have always been very uncomfortable around electricity. I have assumed that it was because at some point in my wise toddlerhood, I stuck something into a socket and got zapped. My son has avoided that, due to my using the same plastic things that mr. checks mentioned. I had a number of concussions and a few minor broken bones as a kid. I am hoping that my son will avoid those, too.

on the other hand, I have to say that I wonder if this will make it harder for him to be prepared for life. this is a very hard call.


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Checks_
> 
> JBZ: I guess for me it was a peace-of-mind issue. How could I live with myself if I didn't, say, install a lock on a cabinet and it caused an injury? A child who falls in a toilet seat lacks the upper body strength to excise himself. Weigh the cost vs. the risk.
> The child would not even know about the lock, and the effort to put it on is minor to me.
> ...


Mr. Checks - sorry - I didn't mean to single you (or anyone else) out with the toilet seat thing. It was just an example. As I said, everyone's different, and our goal is the same - to take care of and protect our children (for the record, we also have the plastic plugs in all of our outlets, and I'm glad - my 2 year old is fascinated with the vaccuum cleaner and my wife's hair dryer). Of the two of us, I think I'm more protective than my wife. Part of this has to do with my profession (lawyers are generally cautious folks), and part of it has to do with my upbringing (my mother is extremely protective - I see it when she takes care of our children - last night we were at my parents' house for dinner, and it was cold outside - for the ten second walk from their front door to our car, my mother put our two year old in his winter coat (fine) and then proceeded to pull up his hood and attach the velcro strap in the front - a bit much - she also routinely pulls his socks up to his knees for fear that he will be cold).


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

As an addendum to the above, for whatever reason, it's been difficult to adapt the child proof locks to our cabinet doors. Thus, we have been using rubber bands to keep the doors of some of our kitchen cabinets closed (my son was able to get through the child safety door latches at a very early age). Recently, he's figured out how to get by the rubber bands. Thus, anything we don't want him to get into (particularly household chemicals) are now being moved to higher shelves.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Checks_
> 
> Number of deaths is approx. 500/year in US, vast majority children.


Did you know that in the US penicilin kills between 500 and 1000 people per year?

That 500 danes every year die from stress related to traffic noise?

Or that Salt is blamed for the deaths of 150,000 people every year to high blood pressure?

If it were my child, no statistic would take away the pain of the loss. However, some things do need to stay in perspective I think.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## Grayishhues (Feb 25, 2006)

What I do not understand is that even though people seem to be becoming more and more protective and cautious about the health and safety of children, society seems to be forgetting about morality and the general goodness of todays children. More and more kids today are experimental with drugs, alchohol, and sex(although I have noticed that recent studies show that these statistics are down as of late). I think that it is sad that we live in a world where it is more acceptable to be a homosexual alchoholic 16 yr old, than a 12 yr old helmetless cyclist. Look at television today, you never see an unhelmeted bicycling child, or a kneepadless rollerskater, but watching 2 hours of mtv or an episode of "The O.C" shows that it is acceptable to demoralize women, be scantily clad in public, and attend unsupervised drug and alchohol laden parties. My strong belief is that maybe we need to start being a little less protective of children at innocent play, and become more protective of the moral and mental well being of todays children.

The sound of silence, is deafening.


----------



## Hugh Morrison (May 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeansguy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. Remember also the place you're most likely to die in is your own bed - so shouldn't the Government be banning beds?

There are of course lies, damned lies and statistics, and they can always be manipulated to make a good news story or provide justification for pressure groups with their own vested interests.

I think we all have to base our decisions on a weighing up of relative risks after a reasonable an assessment of the facts.

Eg, I choose not to wear a cycle helmet after an analysis of the statistical risk as well as the data on performance testing, I also choose to smoke cigars occasionally after a similar analysis of data.

The problem with society today, I believe, is that governments and pressure groups do not want people to have this free choice but simply want to try to make society 'risk free', which of course is impossible.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> There are real problems. Complaining that the world is coming to an end and society is crumbling because children today now wear helmets, play on clean floors, and ride in safer car seats is quite literally offensive.


???

Expression of opinion offends you? Maybe you use the wrong media. If you don't like to discuss, write in a blog, not a forum.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sounds to me the same kind of complaints that were offered when 10 year olds were barred from carrying coal in the mines (1840's or so).
> 
> Progress will always face these kind of detractors. Best to press on and damn the torpedoes.


What a bizarre statement.

As a matter of fact, a training to act and think independently enables people to perform best. This is at least true for my generation - all the pampered whimps got maneuvred out on or after university.

The real dangers for children, measured in terms of probability, are indeed obesity, television and drug addiction. You will get exactly these results if you don't push your children to think and act as independent persons who are responsible for themselves.

+++++++

_"You look like you're ready for bed."_

(HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh to the President of Nigeria, who was dressed in traditional robes)


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeansguy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was trying to offer "perspective" by pointing out to the cost/benefit analysis of, say, putting childproof locks on your cabinets. That's also why I pointed out that my child wasn't emotionally scarred by the plastic plugs in the power outlets. Ditto for the car seat usage. In short, there's no downside, and lots of upside to those simple safety measures. That's perspective.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Hugh Morrison_
> The problem with society today, I believe, is that governments and pressure groups do not want people to have this free choice but simply want to try to make society 'risk free', which of course is impossible.


I think most people would agree that it's inappropriate for individuals to have complete freedom of choice about what kind of risk they can subject their minor children to.


----------

