When I was a kid, we all let the dogs out.

[Requia ☣]

You forgot the bit where the free roaming dogs attack the free roaming children.

[Jenne]

Regret:  That was kind of the point I was trying to make.  Parents aren't "bad" and children aren't really in any more danger now than they were 25 years ago (back when I was my son's age...damn i feel old now).  The media has always and will always play up the bad things and make drama out of pincushions.

But adults (all adults - teachers, parents, grandparents,etc.) have stopped teaching kids "street smarts" for some reason. And that is where the problem lies.  Take my neighbourhood, for example.  There are 4 year olds allowed to play outside in the evenings in my estate without any supervision.  That in itself isn't a problem - I was allowed to play out at that age.  But I wasn't allowed to leave my front or back yard unless my mom knew where I was going.  I was taught "street smarts/safety" from the time I could walk on my own.  These kids aren't.  I watched a four year old about to go off to the shops with a six year old the other night. (keep in mind that the local shops are across a VERY busy road with no zebra crossing or pedestrian lights)  Before they were able to walk off the estate, I yelled to the kids "Do your mom's know where you're going?"  The answer was "no" and I suggested to them that they better ask before setting off.  They each went to their respectives homes and 5 minutes later one of the moms knocked on my door to thank me for stopping her 4 year old from going off. 

FACT:  just because you know a few kids whose mother's a wang doesn't mean ALL kids aren't taught street smarts.

[Jenne]

On the radio today they were talking about some event in moscow that raised security in NYC. Apparently there were visibly armed cops on all the trains last weekend. It's a weird paradox, right? Because on one level, you're glad they're there protecting you. And on another level, you can't help but keep your distance from the guy brandishing an automatic weapon.

One of my best friends is a Discordian and a cop. I liked his insight on the dual nature of protection:

"We're out there to protect you. Cops' presence is supposed to make you feel safer. But when you see a cop behind you on the highway, you never think, Sweet, I feel really protected right now!"

Yeah, I mentioned the same damn thing when I heard about the Moscow Metro bomging last night.  Russia's one of those countries you really don't WANT the security "stepped up" in...they like their government to be thugs.

The powergrabs in the last decade by the US government were all done on the auspices of protecting us from another Moose-lim Terra-Attaq.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I really don't agree with ECH. The 3-year-old who got hit by a car on my street because no one was watching him was no dumber/less fit than his older brothers who survived and reproduced freely and wantonly with various neighborhood girls... he was just less fortunate. Being molested by adult neighbors at age six doesn't make me unfit, nor did it teach me any valuable survival skills beyond those that cause me to keep a watchful eye on my kids... my experience taught me to keep them safe, ie. led directly to my own household's culture of protection.

What is with these imaginary grownups on the porches watching everyone? That didn't happen. They were inside, and they wanted us to leave them alone. Nobody was watching. That is my point. This culture of freedom we think we remember through the lens of nostalgia was actually a culture of carelessness. Dogs attacking kids? That totally happened, all the fucking time. A kid getting bit by a dog was a weekly occurrence. "It teaches kids not to mess with strange dogs", you might say, "It's a survival skill".

Bullshit. You can teach kids not to mess with strange dogs without letting your fucking kids and dogs run the neighborhood. Who thinks it's responsible, somehow, to just open your front door and let your dog out in the city? Sure, it's illegal, for one thing. But it's also just... careless. Not carefree. There's a difference.

So some moms are overprotective. Those moms in the "safe" suburbs... news flash; they've always been overprotective. There has never been a time when the affluent did not coddle their precious offspring. But most urban parents are not being overprotective, they're just not being as bloody fucking stupid as the previous generation was. Teaching the kids safety rules and sending them to the store in twos and threes starting around nine or ten, not putting them outside to play, unarmed with common sense or forewarned of danger, at five or six. Letting them walk to and from school in groups once they've demonstrated basic responsibility and awareness of the route, rather than taking them a couple of times and then sending them off alone to walk to first grade.

The old way was like throwing an unprepared five-year-old in the river to teach him to swim. The new way is more like taking them to the pool once a week until they feel comfortable enough with the water to try to paddle around a bit. Too soft, you think? Not primal enough? Well get off the fucking internet, walk away from your central heating and your car and your vaccines and your refrigerator, go outside, kill something with a rock and eat it raw.

Not all progress is bad.

[Cramulus]

Crime rate per 100,000 population since 1960*

*Note: The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report uses property and violent crimes, which are referred to as “index crimes,” to construct the crime rates.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 (128th Edition), No. HS-23, “Crimes and Crime Rates by Type of Offense: 1960 to 2002” U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States,” various issues in series.

[Jenne]

I really don't agree with ECH. The 3-year-old who got hit by a car on my street because no one was watching him was no dumber/less fit than his older brothers who survived and reproduced freely and wantonly with various neighborhood girls... he was just less fortunate. Being molested by adult neighbors at age six doesn't make me unfit, nor did it teach me any valuable survival skills beyond those that cause me to keep a watchful eye on my kids... my experience taught me to keep them safe, ie. led directly to my own household's culture of protection.

What is with these imaginary grownups on the porches watching everyone? That didn't happen. They were inside, and they wanted us to leave them alone. Nobody was watching. That is my point. This culture of freedom we think we remember through the lens of nostalgia was actually a culture of carelessness. Dogs attacking kids? That totally happened, all the fucking time. A kid getting bit by a dog was a weekly occurrence. "It teaches kids not to mess with strange dogs", you might say, "It's a survival skill".

Bullshit. You can teach kids not to mess with strange dogs without letting your fucking kids and dogs run the neighborhood. Who thinks it's responsible, somehow, to just open your front door and let your dog out in the city? Sure, it's illegal, for one thing. But it's also just... careless. Not carefree. There's a difference.

So some moms are overprotective. Those moms in the "safe" suburbs... news flash; they've always been overprotective. There has never been a time when the affluent did not coddle their precious offspring. But most urban parents are not being overprotective, they're just not being as bloody fucking stupid as the previous generation was. Teaching the kids safety rules and sending them to the store in twos and threes starting around nine or ten, not putting them outside to play, unarmed with common sense or forewarned of danger, at five or six. Letting them walk to and from school in groups once they've demonstrated basic responsibility and awareness of the route, rather than taking them a couple of times and then sending them off alone to walk to first grade.

The old way was like throwing an unprepared five-year-old in the river to teach him to swim. The new way is more like taking them to the pool once a week until they feel comfortable enough with the water to try to paddle around a bit. Too soft, you think? Not primal enough? Well get off the fucking internet, walk away from your central heating and your car and your vaccines and your refrigerator, go outside, kill something with a rock and eat it raw.

Not all progress is bad.

FUCK YEAH. 

Nigel, I'm starting to get the feeling you and I parent similarly.

[Muir]

Quite right, Nigel!  My mom was the same way.... I was allowed to play in the yard and only there until I was 5, then I was allowed to go next door and directly across the street (we lived in a dead end, so there was no traffic).  Once I turned 6, I was allowed to walk up the street to my cousin's (4 houses away) and into town with my older sisters (but only if it was with both of them).  At 7-8 I could walk to and from school (one block away). I wasn't given permission to walk into town on my own (past school) until 10 years old.  And that's good.  I learned to be cautious without being paranoid or getting myself killed because I was too young to be out on my own.

Looking outside right now, I see 6 kids...all of them 8 years old and under. When I went to the shop earlier there were 3 kids "hanging out" in the area.  None of them looked older than 7.  Parents were nowhere to be seen.  My neighbourhood is pretty safe (at least I like to think it is) because it has strict rules about who's allowed to move in (all the houses are owned by a housing association and everyone is police checked before they're offered a house), but the area where the shops are is well, not a place I would let my kids roam unsupervised. :/

[hooplala]

You can never protect anyone or anything fully.  Its a futile attempt.

One of the best parts of my childhood was sitting in the front seat of the car between my mother and father, which would today be considered (at best) child neglect, or (at worst) child abuse.  Do kids die in car accidents?  Of course they do, but I wonder what the numbers are concerning the numbers of childrens car-related deaths in the 1970s and today?  My guess is a lot of kids still die.  

Nobody wants their kid to be the kid that dies, that's obvious, but some kids are going to die.  No matter what we do.  Should everyone be hampered by what might happen to a very small percentage?

At what point do we stop wrapping kids in bubble wrap?

[East Coast Hustle]

I really don't agree with ECH. The 3-year-old who got hit by a car on my street because no one was watching him was no dumber/less fit than his older brothers who survived and reproduced freely and wantonly with various neighborhood girls... he was just less fortunate. Being molested by adult neighbors at age six doesn't make me unfit, nor did it teach me any valuable survival skills beyond those that cause me to keep a watchful eye on my kids... my experience taught me to keep them safe, ie. led directly to my own household's culture of protection.

What is with these imaginary grownups on the porches watching everyone? That didn't happen. They were inside, and they wanted us to leave them alone. Nobody was watching. That is my point. This culture of freedom we think we remember through the lens of nostalgia was actually a culture of carelessness. Dogs attacking kids? That totally happened, all the fucking time. A kid getting bit by a dog was a weekly occurrence. "It teaches kids not to mess with strange dogs", you might say, "It's a survival skill".

Bullshit. You can teach kids not to mess with strange dogs without letting your fucking kids and dogs run the neighborhood. Who thinks it's responsible, somehow, to just open your front door and let your dog out in the city? Sure, it's illegal, for one thing. But it's also just... careless. Not carefree. There's a difference.

So some moms are overprotective. Those moms in the "safe" suburbs... news flash; they've always been overprotective. There has never been a time when the affluent did not coddle their precious offspring. But most urban parents are not being overprotective, they're just not being as bloody fucking stupid as the previous generation was. Teaching the kids safety rules and sending them to the store in twos and threes starting around nine or ten, not putting them outside to play, unarmed with common sense or forewarned of danger, at five or six. Letting them walk to and from school in groups once they've demonstrated basic responsibility and awareness of the route, rather than taking them a couple of times and then sending them off alone to walk to first grade.

The old way was like throwing an unprepared five-year-old in the river to teach him to swim. The new way is more like taking them to the pool once a week until they feel comfortable enough with the water to try to paddle around a bit. Too soft, you think? Not primal enough? Well get off the fucking internet, walk away from your central heating and your car and your vaccines and your refrigerator, go outside, kill something with a rock and eat it raw.

Not all progress is bad.

I think we actually are mostly in agreement, since when I was a kid we were never just utterly thrown to the wolves to fend for ourselves without being taught some basic common sense first. Apparently I misunderstood the degree of protection that you were advocating. Or I may have been responding more to what seems like the typical histrionics of current-day american parenting rather than your specific point, I dunno. I still think the culture of protection is fucking retarded, but that doesn't mean I think kids shouldn't be given the tools to protect themselves however possible.

[East Coast Hustle]

On the radio today they were talking about some event in moscow that raised security in NYC. Apparently there were visibly armed cops on all the trains last weekend. It's a weird paradox, right? Because on one level, you're glad they're there protecting you. And on another level, you can't help but keep your distance from the guy brandishing an automatic weapon.

One of my best friends is a Discordian and a cop. I liked his insight on the dual nature of protection:

"We're out there to protect you. Cops' presence is supposed to make you feel safer. But when you see a cop behind you on the highway, you never think, Sweet, I feel really protected right now!"

FACT: Police exist to protect public order, not to protect individual citizens.

[Freeky]

When I was still with my ex, we lived in an apartment complex with a lot of families. There were probably about a dozen kids, maybe even two, in the area, ranging from preschool to middle school  age. They would all come to play right in my area, and I know I was the only one who ever looked in on them. Some of those kids lived across a busy street, too. So its not all that much changed. Parents still want their kids to gtfo and leave them the hell alone.

[Nast]

I didn't realize that the merit of a thought was judged on whether or not it was pleasant.

It certainly isn't, that was just my (admittedly snarky) reaction to that particular one. I'll explain more:

I'd be the first to say that Little Timmy blithely running out into an intersection is retarded. However, trying to rationalize his death by saying that it somehow benefits society is uncomfortably similar to victim blaming. Kids simply don't know better, and they aren't endowed with the same experience and logic as adults. So when they go doing something contrary to all rationality, it isn't because they're defects, it's because they're still children.
I'm sure we've all done something stupid as kids to put ourselves in danger. Is the fact that we're still here today more testament to our superiority or just dumb luck?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I want to clarify that the reason I drew the analogy between letting dogs out to roam the city and letting kids out to roam the city is because for the most part, people who do one will do the other. There's a lot less of both in most urban areas these days.

There are a lot of those email forward letters going around these days, extolling the virtues of the freedom kids used to have to get their heads stuck between crib slats, splatter against auto windshields, get molested at the public park, etc.

These forwards annoy the fuck out of me. They are, as far as I'm concerned, on par with homeopathy, anti-vaccine prop, and The Secret. Product safety standards are NOT A BAD THING, especially in an era when corporations could really give a flying fuck about whether their pursuit of profit hurts people. Parents keeping their eye on kids is NOT A BAD THING.

Kids are ill-equipped to process things like "fast moving cars + street = danger". It is the job of parents to guide them until they are old enough to remember how to navigate the world responsibly. Trailer trash kids are far more likely to die of accidents than upper-class kids; would you say it's made trailer trash smarter, overall?

Kids doing dumb things doesn't reflect on their intelligence, it reflects on their childhood.

Basically what I'm saying is that I hate those email forwards for the falsely idyllic image they present of neglectful parents, and I want you to hate them too.

[Doktor Howl]

short version: no matter what, the culture of protection is totally fucking whack.

Depends.  Some of it makes sense (helmets on bicycles), and some is ridiculous (no tag on school grounds, to avoid skinned knees).

[Doktor Howl]

On the radio today they were talking about some event in moscow that raised security in NYC. Apparently there were visibly armed cops on all the trains last weekend. It's a weird paradox, right? Because on one level, you're glad they're there protecting you. And on another level, you can't help but keep your distance from the guy brandishing an automatic weapon.

One of my best friends is a Discordian and a cop. I liked his insight on the dual nature of protection:

"We're out there to protect you. Cops' presence is supposed to make you feel safer. But when you see a cop behind you on the highway, you never think, Sweet, I feel really protected right now!"

FACT: Police exist to protect public order, not to protect individual citizens.

THIS THIS THIS