As I’ve now said about fifty different times in this thread, it wasn’t for if someone had to pick us up from school. Why do people keep molesting that poor straw man? If only I had followed him into the bathroom, this never would have happened.
And yes, it would **almost never **be needed. My Mom understood that and we understood that. But “almost never” isn’t “never.” I’ll almost never be in a situation where an EMT needs to know that I’m on anticoagulants, but I still carry a card in my wallet with my dosage and the date of my PE. Are you going to consider me paranoid, too?
Why? It’s not like we had weekly “check for the password” drills. It was just something that was there should we ever actually need it. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about “contingency plans” != “paranoid, overprotective psycho.” We were also taught that if someone ever grabbed us, we should shout “you’re not my mom!” or “you’re not my dad!” instead of just screaming–do you think that’s a stupid thing to teach kids, too?
Preparing your kids for worst-case scenarios allows you to give them more freedom and responsibility, not less.
ETA: This thread still shows up as six pages for me. You guys sure you didn’t, like, sleep-change your thread settings?
No, but I think it would never occur to most people to plan for the “In case paramedics need to get my kid because I slipped buying milk in the store” scenario. Until you mentioned it, most people had no idea that it even existed.
Because your “broken leg in the grocery store” scenario is even more ridiculous than the pick up from school idea.
If your kid is old enough to be left alone in the car, the nice paramedic or a police officer or the store manager could explain the situation to them and they’ll understand the difference between “stranger danger” and “this adult can help me”. If they’re too young to understand this, they should be in the store with you.
Eh, it always seemed like a pretty reasonable thing to me. Few things are ever absolute, and that includes “don’t go with strangers.” If there’s a possible exception, you need a way to tell when it’s okay.
Pedos, let that be a lesson to you: be sure to divest children of their flint and tinder as you kidnap them.
ETA: Justin_Bailey, paramedics and police are easy to spot as trustworthy adults. Store managers, especially of small local grocery stores when I was a kid, are not. You seriously think a kid should just say, “Okay, I’ll go with you,” to some random dude in a shirt and tie who claims that Mom said it was okay? :rolleyes:
I ask again: **who does it hurt **to have a family password? Nobody has responded, because the answer is “no one” and you know it.
It appears there has been a shift in the matrix. The pagecount switched back. Perhaps the machines are growing sentient.
But I’m confused, if you were in an accident while your child was at school, why would the paramedics be picking him up? I’m sure hospitals encounter such situations all the time and have a procedure, like calling the school’s office and saying you’re in the hospital and someone else needs to pick him up. Then, the school (someone the kid trusts) would probably inform the kid that someone else will be there to pick him up, neighbor or relative or whatever.
Perhaps informing the kid not to get into a car with someone unless you (parent) or someone they really trust (teacher, principal) says it’s ok would suffice. Sure, that might not protect against an unlikely scenario like a teacher or principal wishing to kidnap the kid, but the password system could easily break down in that event as well.
I’m not trying to discourage your safety system, just stress-testing it.
ETA: I must have been confusing two posts, I didnt know this scenario was for if the kid was left in the car. That seems even more unlikely. In such a situation, it would probably be a uniformed paramedic or a police officer talking to the kid through the car window, and unless you’ve taught the kid the complex rules of when to comply with police officers and when not to, he’d probably do as the officer said, especially if there’s whirring ambulances and such in the parking lot now.
Not to mention that if they’re too young to understand the difference between a cop and some random Joe Schmoe, they’re probably too long to grok the concept of a password.
There’s a lot of crazy-ass behavior that conceivably could be justified by claiming “instinct” or “genetics”. At some point your social obligations need to balance out your fight-or-flight instincts.
If the measure proposed to protect kids intereferes with the comfort/convenience/“rights” of Vigilant Mommies, it is by definition intolerable.
People, when posts are quoted, they link back to the original posts. It’s thus very easy to follow a chain of discussion back to where it started. If you’d bothered to do this, you could read my original post instead of making me repeat myself twenty times.
1.) Do you think that children should be taught not to go with strangers? (Then you can’t make the argument that just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean you shouldn’t plan for it–because a kidnapping by a stranger is highly unlikely, yet here you are planning for it.)
2.) Do you think that there could possibly ever be an exception to this rule? (Many rules do not apply 100% of the time. The specific scenario I posited involved parent in the store for a quick errand, kids in the car, and parent with an injury. If you were injured and your kids were in the car, wouldn’t you want someone to go get them ASAP instead of waiting for the paramedics to show up?)
3.) Putting #1 and #2 together, you need a way for your kids to tell what is a good exception to the “don’t go with strangers who aren’t cops/EMTs/etc.” rule, i.e., a password.
And to repeat myself again, since apparently people in this thread have reading comprehension problems: **who does it harm **to have a family password?
Pfft. I take it you haven’t bothered to read my posts.
I’m the first to acknowledge that excessive parental paranoia can be disfunctional and thus should not be encouraged. Which is an entirely different issue than that of why it develops in the first place.
The people arguing here that parental concern for the safety of their kids is not “genetically hardwired” are simply flying in the face of reality; the rather obvious distain for parents by some posters on this site make them blind to the most basic Darwinian realities, seemingly.
Fact is, as pointed out numerous times above, parents are no better at actually internalizing the real odds of risk, harm and reward from any particular activity than anyone else who smokes, eats junk food or drives cars. It is all very well to point out that any or all of these activies are more objectively harmful than pretty well any other, but they are not more “scary” to anyone.
I’ve got no problem with the password concept, but I think the system itself could fail, so putting all your eggs in that basket could leave you with some broken eggs.
With the kids left alone in the car, someone could break the window and steal the car or the kids, or yell curse words at them and corrupt their minds. No system is infallible and nothing can protect everyone from everything. If you feel falsely secure in your password system and decide it’d be ok to leave your kids in the middle of a mall while you do some shopping elsewhere because, y’know, there’s that password system, bad things will happen.
As long as you know the password system isn’t an invisible forcefield and you still need to practice due diligence, password away.
Well, duh? It’s a failsafe to use in the case of a rare exception to a rare problem. It doesn’t mean your kids are magically safe, and in my family, it was never treated that way.
Just because paranoid parents use passwords does not mean that passwords are only used by paranoid parents. Contending otherwise comes off like a “pot users all turn into heroin addicts” argument.
Oh, I certainly don’t think that all parents that used passwords were being paranoid. If I recall correctly, at the time it was commonly suggested by law enforcement/safety experts/etc. as a good idea. I just think that in retrospect, it was pretty silly, for reasons I’ve previously mentioned.
