Family+-+'Let's+Stop+Scaring+Our+Kids'

Family: "Let's Stop Scaring Our Kids"

I guess the best place to start would be to say that I applaud Skenazy for trusting her child and letting him get home alone. I really hate how society seems to be one irritating cycle, and Skenazy is taking steps to break the cycle, which is leading nonsensical "solutions" to the "problem" of child safety. The "problem" parents are responding to is the "reality" of a more dangerous world where "walking to a friend's house, playing in the park, staying out till the streetlights came on - have somehow morphed into acts of daring on a par with shark hunting in a hamburger suit (106)." So what makes this current world more dangerous than previous decades? Absolutely nothing. What brings people to thinking the current world is more dangerous? Lots of things, mostly media, especially news networks which "exists to scare the pants off of you (108)." Of course, this is reasonably logical; there used to be three or so news stations and little competition, then more shows and channels come on the air so you need something that gets the viewers hooked, no more weather, traffic, and some world events, there needs to be more, give some time for the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and voilà: modern news as we know it, where evil lurks around every corner. So now comes a very interesting question: just how safe are we. If we look to media records, we are progressively getting worse; you'd never find this kind of thing in the 1950s. Right, but hasn't it been established that terrible things happened during the 50's just as much as today? Yes, it has. So which is it then? Is it dangerous because we //know about it// or is it dangerous //because it happens//? Now when put into this perspective, it's fairly clear: it's dangerous because it happens. So why do we now seem to have a more-protective stance than in the 1950's? It's all perspective; media gives us non-stop murder, rape, theft, terrorism, disease epidemics, and the like, and we just assume it's actually happening everywhere. So people get the conclusion that no one is safe, and then we get "a dad ... [who] won't allow his eight-year-old to play in his own driveway (106)", a "dad [who] "let's" his 12-year-old walk the single block to her friend's house, so long as she calls him the second she arrives (106)." All of this creates the cycle that begins with media reporting a child abduction, parents get scared and over-protect their children, which makes children abductions rare, which then means that the media reports a child abduction because it doesn't happen often and is big news; and this can be said for nearly any criminal news story, but parents need to remember that the news only represents a small minority of all the other, amazingly cool, importantant, and wonderous things that are going on in the world.

So now we're left with an intriguing question: if the world really is safe, and even if it were the terrifying world the media portrays, what is the age that parents need to let go and let their children become children? It's a question that's been around for a while, and each generation has its own answer, but this generation's answer, I think, is kind of disturbing. Let me just say that this generation's answer is //__not__// a young age; this generation's answer is to coddle the youth, which destroys any thought of responsibility and independentness, which causes the stereotypical man-child. However, it's not just dudes, kids are living at home longer and longer, and with the combination of the recession, the parents continue to coddle because, hey, they don't have a chance out there. I thought it was interesting how the different ages the children were in the article were anywhere from elementary school to 12-years old, and I'm sure there are older. When Skenazy let her son embark on the journey that was the cause for the article, "he was nine and had been begging me [Skenazy] to please let him find his way home from someplace (105)." Now some people would say that's too young, but again the question is at what age do you give a child responsibility. They may answer that a child is ready when he or she shows that he or she is capable of responsibility; this doesn't work. If the parent coddles the child at a young age, say through elementary school, the child grows accoustomed to the coddling, which means the child won't develop a sense of independence, which means the child isn't ready to accept responsibility, it's been given everything on a silver platter, why should the child have to do anything itself? Others may say that when the child becomes a teenager, the child is ready for responsibility; this doesn't work either. Assuming the child isn't spoiled to death by now, this statement is saying that teenagers are capable of rational thought; in actuallity, they're hormone driven, rash, and, at times, out-right dangerous. Now the opposition may point out that teenagers are given driver's licenses, but this is a weak arguement because it goes against their point. Driver's license age requirements have been just as a hotly debated topic as what age a child is ready for responsibility. In fact, if you were to ask the people who insist that Skenazy's son was too young for his journey what the difference between him and them is, and the only thing they'll come up with is something age related. If they come up with "I'm more mature", ask what makes them more mature; you'll either get an age difference or a blank stare. The fact of the matter is that a child is ready for responsibility when the child shows it's ready for it, and the parent agrees; and neither of those are going to happen if the parent is coddling the kid.

I think one of the most important parts of the article, which is only briefly mentioned, is China where "biking or not ... the people ... are much more fearful these days. They don't trust their neighbors the way they used to. They don't let their kids out as much (106)." Now, I sit and wonder: why. Sure, I could quickly cast it aside by saying that China's media is very censored, and could be pulling strings to do things on par with American media, but that doesn't seem to fit. For one thing, it's censored, and more importantly, //controlled//; wouldn't that mean that it would be more like 1950s American news: few stations and only the essentials. Then again, China is a developing nation, and a fast one to boot, it wouldn't be hard to see China as letting go a bit and letting different media outlets existing, which is more likely the case. Even if we were to assume terrorism plays a large role in American fear, would it have the same effect in China? The answer is probably yes, radical muslims and christians are keen to fight those who aren't in their group, and officially æthiestic China fits that description quite nicely. The quote is important because it shows that the entire world is becoming more fearful, and that means that there's something near universal that we're all afraid of, I may be over dramatic in saying this, but it almost seems as though it would have to be more than abductions and murder; there may be crime everywhere, but there can't be that much crime everywhere. However, aside from the forces that be in world events, the article shows, and I agree, that when it comes to simple, every-day activities, there's very little to fear about, and certainly a different way of handling the growing fear.