If we’re supposed to be concerned about an eight-year-old playing unsupervised in a park, are we also supposed to be concerned about an eight-year-old playing unsupervised in their backyard? If Mommy is watching TV while Timmy is tinkering with his toys in the backyard, where any pedophilic kidnapper can snatch him up, is Mommy being irresponsibe? At what age can a child be trusted to supervise themselves without an adult actively watching them?
I can think of several conditions in which an 8-year-old playing in a park unsupervised isn’t an issue. If there are other kids and/or adults at the park. If he has a cell phone with him. If his residence is just across the street. If he’s been given 30 minutes of playtime and his parents will come looking for him if he’s a second late. If he’s engaged in a purposeful activity (flying a kite, practicing his hook shot, building a sand castle) versus drifting around aimlessly. If the neighborhood is a safe one. If the 8-year-old has demonstrated some maturity and street savviness. Fixating on an arbitrary age without considering these other factors is completely insane.
W.e have a representative democracy, not a bureaucratic state that’s allowed to make arbitrary decisions. In the absence of a law defining when kids can play unsupervised, parents should have ultimate authority. Currently, the guideline is supposed to be, “authorities should only intervene if the child is in danger.” Problem is, nowadays authorities will often define the act of playing unsupervised as dangerous in and of itself. The fact that parents get charged, and the charges are almost always then dropped, indicates to me that we’re having a breakdown between the bureaucracy and the law. So we need to have an open debate on what the law should be, and eventually implement such a law. Maybe set the limit at ten? Nine? Or maybe the threat of an actual law would mobilize parents to oppose it? But the current system of police and bureaucrats just replacing their judgement for the parents’ is unacceptable.
I agree that there should be an actual legal definition, and that leaving it ad hoc to police and bureaucrats to define as they wish in any given situation is wrong (not to mention potentially chaotic).
Monstro, it’s easy to seize upon the upper end of whatever age I state and nitpick it. But does your specifically saying “8 year old” repeatedly mean that you would not stand by the same assertions if “7 year old” were substituted?
I think the biggest concern with an 8 year old in the park is how they got there. While walking may be safer on average than driving, I am not sure I buy that it automatically follows that an 8 year old walking a mile through residential streets and crossing 3-4 of them is safer than an 8 year old being driven a mile through residential streets. My concern here is not pedophiles–it’s dingbat kids not looking both ways before they cross the street. But an eight year old who lives a 200 yards away and only has to cross one street, and that one leading into a cul-de-sac? Very different scenario.
Yeah, I mean there are places where you can go to the neighborhood park (in the midst of a subdivision, off the high traffic roads) just by walking down a sidewalk a little ways. That’s definitely different. I’m really thinking about a traditional grid plan, and the kid crossing several intersections, to get to a park that is too far to be seen from the house.
Yes. It makes far more sense than what you’re advocating, which is an extreme overreaction without data and a zero tolerance justified by large doses of “think of the children.”
Yes. You wouldn’t let your own kids do this at age eight, and you think the authorities should be called if children eight or younger are doing it. What’s the problem with this synopsis?
Okay, so it’s definitely disingenuous then. I really don’t think you’re that dumb.
What’s the problem? Because you implied that I have two categories: “the age I’d let my own kids do it” and “the age I wouldn’t let them do it, and would call the cops about any other kids that did”. (Not sure why I even waste my time typing this, but I guess I’m conditioned to think a moderator wouldn’t blatantly troll, or at least that others would have that impression so I’d better offer a response.)
My older sister lives in the 'burbs, where she has raised her daughters. There’s a convenience store maybe a mile from where they live. My sister’s in-laws strongly disapproved of her allowing my nieces to walk there. Mind you, this was when my nieces were 13 or 14 years old. More than old enough to walk a mile by themselves, in the opinion of my sister’s side of the family.
Anyway, I was relaying this story to a coworker, expecting him to agree with me that my sister’s in-laws were being ridiculous. Instead, he totally sided with them. He went all, “Times are different now! They could be kidnapped and RAPED!” All I could do was laugh in his face.
The thing is, I am the same size as I was when I was 14. I’ve aged in the face and I’m not as cute up close, of course, but I’m no stronger than I was back then. So if a guy is going around snatching up random pedestrians on the side of the road, I’m just as vulnerable as any teenager. Granted, a teenager is more vulnerable to kidnappers who disarm with charm. But we lecture kids on “stranger danger” for a reason. If they never get a chance to flex their “NO!” muscle, then what’s the freakin’ point of teaching them anything.
Your coworker and your sister’s in-laws are entitled to their opinion, but that’s certainly an age at which I would not support there being any role for the state in intervening. But sure: people have all kinds of opinions. Some might also not like girls that age showing any skin, or even wearing tight clothing…etc. But I think that’s a fairly extreme and relatively small group.
So you’re bent out of shape because you think I implied I can’t tell the difference between eleven and eight? I said you wouldn’t let your own eight year old do this and you don’t think anyone else should be allowed to. How is that inaccurate?
I’d also say that it’s different if the streets the kid are navigating are pedestrian-friendly. If there are no marked crosswalks or sidewalks, if all the streets are 35+mph and multiple lanes, if there are no “WALK” signs in the intersections, and if there isn’t a lot of pedestrian traffic…then I might be concerned about an eight-year-old crossing multiple streets.
Well, no. If it were just the coworker, I could say it was a relatively small group. But my sister’s in-laws (including siblings, parents, and aunts-in-law) were against it. And to let my sis tell it, her fellow parents have all drunk this particular brand of Kool-Aide as well. Apparently she gets a lot of shit from different corners about how “free” she has raised her children. And IMHO, she still protects them a lot more than how we were brought up.
Could just be SDMB demographics. The median Doper age seems to be somewhere in the mid 40s, and there are plenty of 60+ geezers like me on this board to tell you about how great the Good Old Days were, as we chase you off our lawns by boring you to death with our stories.
There were 12,411 child unintentional injury deaths in 2000. 9,143 in 2009. That’s 3268 fewer accidentally dead kids. Great news.
But there were 2933 fewer motorvehicle deaths of children. Was that decrease due to parents supervising their children? Probably not, although I’d love to hear otherwise if you’ve got something.
Putting kids in safer cars, seatbelts, and car seats seems to have saved lives. We also have more kids wearing bike helmets. How many kids has that saved? We also have better medical care. How many kids has that saved? We have widely available drownproofing classes for toddlers. How many kids has that saved?
I don’t know those numbers. Do you? Only with those numbers can we answer: where are the gains from parental supervision? We could possible get a number for that.
But then we need to know how the amount of unsupervised time has changed over the years. Do you know how much it has changed? Given your posts thus far, it sure doesn’t look like it.
So you don’t know how to quantify parental supervision’s contribution to the decrease in deaths of children due to unintentional injury. You also don’t know how much time today’s children spend unsupervised vs yesterday’s children. Yet you are drawing conclusion from…something. Maybe one of your well-supervised children is in school and is learning how basic science and statistics work. It might make for a quality discussion during family time.
I think it’s great that you spend time with your kids. That you walk to the park with them. Or anything else. Really, I do. Lots of parents can’t be bothered to enrich their children’s lives. And if they get hurt, I’m glad you’ll be there to whisk them off to the hospital quicker than if they were on their own. But let’s not pretend that it makes a huge difference re: their survival rate. We just don’t have the data to support that. What we do know is that most accidental injury deaths of children involve a vehicle collision. And that death rate is plummeting.
The reason most parents have moved away from “free-range” parenting as the OP styles it, is the expansion of news in our society. 40 years ago, the only national news most people got, was on the front page of their local paper or the 6:00 pm national news broadcast. Child molestations, kidnappings, accidental deaths, drownings, etc. were not as widely publicized. With the dawn of cable news networks, the internet news sites, etc. we now hear about these incidents much more readily than our parent’s did. This causes parents now, to think more cautiously about how we let junior or sissy roam about the neighborhood. Maybe rightly so, or not.
Well for starters there are a number of studies suggesting a positive link between young adults raised via “helicopter” parenting and increased medication use for anxiety and depression as well as the recreational consumption of pain pills.
Most “free range” parents I know are well aware of the statistics for the various risks to their children and make their own choices as parents as to which risks are acceptable. They don’t ignore their kids. What they do is gradually introduce the children to increased responsibility for their own well being at age appropriate intervals.
Unfortunately there have been a number of stories recently of parents being charged with “child endangerment” for crimes such as leaving a 10 year old home alone for an hour or playing in the park alone. At the age that many of us were babysitters or had other jobs ourselves, police are decided our children can’t even stay home alone. I saw at least one story of a parent being detained for leaving a child in a car; the “child” in question being the same age I was (13) when I started my first business.
Unfortunately in many cases police and judges are using their gut feelings that the world is a dangerous place (probably because all they see is the worst of humanity) instead of statistics showing that a child playing alone in a park with other kids is at a much smaller risk of injury or death than if he were riding around in a car with a parent. Throw in the risk of mental illness and obesity then it’s a clear win to me.
A board which is dedicated to “fighting ignorance” shouldn’t support parents being punished for actually studying the issue and acting in their child’s best interest instead of blindingly following the accepted, but statistically incorrect, parenting superstitions.
For the record, I personally participated in “Take Our Children to the Park…and Leave Them There Day” this year and will again next year.
If the kid is 7, I might require additional conditions. For instance, being accompanied by a person signifcantly older than him/her in addition to those other conditions I mentioned.
If you noticed a 7-year-old playing in their backyard with no adult present, would you be concerned? Because I wouldn’t be. I was allowed to play unattended in the backyard when I was five years old, in the middle of the inner city. There was always someone within screaming distance (not necessarily parents), but I was pretty much unsupervised. Of course, I knew that straying from the yard was grounds for a butt-whupping (whch I don’t condone, btw). So “free range parenting” shouldn’t be equated with lack of parenting. As far as I was concerned, my parents shared the same crystal ball that Santa Claus and Jesus used for their survelliance activities. This belief helped to keep me out of trouble.
Meanwhile, along with the Pew stuff I already cited (which noted among other things that Millennials have a more positive outlook than other generations), there’s this, which indicates that parental time with kids has gone up 300 percent for mothers and 600 percent for fathers since the 1970s, and further that “research has been done that suggests the more time we spend with our children, the better for cognitive development”.
This is such bullshit. You call for an exact accounting of the effect, or else it should be assumed (against common sense) not to exist. Why should the burden of proof not go the other way, with you being required to show that it’s just a coincidence that the mortality rate for unintentional injuries plummeted by 70 percent from 1970-2007 (not sure why you shifted to using 2000 as the baseline BTW). You might also aim some of that snark about statistics at the CBER, who came to a similar conclusion as I did and whose Wiki article includes the following:
Let me ask you something else too, since so many people try to pawn it off on safer cars: if that category that you described as “motorvehicle deaths of children” only includes children as vehicle passengers and not as pedestrians hit by cars, why is there no listing for the latter category? That makes me think the stat combines both, which means more supervision should absolutely reduce those deaths. It’s very basic common sense that supervised kids are less likely to be hit by cars when they are pedestrians. If you are going to dispute that, you may as well tilt at windmills.
In addition to the increase media presence, we’ve also got different family and community dynamics. Families are smaller and more mobile than they used to be, which means that neighbors are less likely to know one another. Neighbors also don’t socialize as much as they used to because the internet provides all the social outlet that most of us want/need. If your neighbors are all strangers, the neighborhood becomes a place where everyone is potentially untrustworthy and scary. It also becomes a place where no one wants to discipline or even talk to another person’s kid, for fear they will be accused of getting in someone’s business.
