I think there’s a real huge socio-economic divide on how kids are treated. Toward the upper end, there’s a real sense of children as something whose performance and potential should be maximized- lots of books bought and read to them, preschools, health checkups, parent-teacher conferences, educational toys and outings, etc…
On the lower end, it seems to me that the kids are just sort of accepted as part of the family, but there’s not much in the way of special consideration- they’re just there, and the parents provide for them, but there’s not a lot of parental involvement in trying to help/make the children successful.
The 30 million word gap seems to be a certain indicator of this difference of attitude- the lower the socio-economic status, the less the parents speak to the children, and what is said is more negative.
I think a lot of it is due to different family planning (or not, as the case may be) attitudes. Most middle class and above children are conceived intentionally, so the parents are much more likely to be willing and able to be involved in their children’s lives in an active fashion. I’m not so sure that the same is true for lower socio-economic groups- the kids may not be intentional, and may be a major burden for the parents.
I also wonder how much family planning/contraception differences over generations have changed the parenting landscape, for much the same reasons- I think a lot more kids were born, if not actively unintentionally, then at least unplanned in the past.\
So ultimately, it’s not surprising that you might think that some children are treated like gods, if you’re from lower-income groups, or from an older generation. But it makes a little sense when you think about it in terms of family planning vs. unplanned families.
That’s an important point. Of course your children are incredibly valuable if people want to steal them. It is a realistic concern though, unlike some of the others.
Parents may be overly protective but the environment is different than in the old days. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s moms were primarily at home, and they paid attention to all the kids in the neighborhood. If my mom had to go out somewhere she could just ask the mom next door to watch us for a while. Doing that now might result in a call to CPS from the mom next door. So in some way what we see now may be a rational reaction to the change of attitude where the care of children is no longer the public’s business. It’s either the parents or the authorities these days.
The parents I see with one kid (including myself) are way more solicitous of that kid’s welfare than those with two, and those with two more so than those with three, and so on. And at least around where I live, most people seem to have one or two kids, whereas when I was growing up, three or more was much more common.
The quote seems utter bullshit to me. A baby is, in point of fact, more vulnerable than an adult, more likely to be injured in a car crash (or in any other way).
The fact that parents are protective of children isn’t evidence of them being “treated like gods”, unless you commonly put your god in a play-pen for exercise and make him wear a diaper.
Similar protective signs are found for the elderly:
This does not indicate that they are “gods”, but that they require special care.
That said, the best satire of such signs was from The Simpsons, something like: “Thank goodness we have a Baby on Board sign, At last, people will stop intentionally ramming our car!”
I recently stayed with some good friends in a different city. And was able to observe the inter actions of the family.
When the 16 year old son wanted a ride to visit his girlfriend, The parents didn’t whine, didn’t remark that this was the third time this week. They just gave the ride. Even though it would mean another return trip at midnight, which was past the normal bedtime of the parents.
The same thing happened when the 15 year old daughter wanted a ride to a party.
We had a big party planned one night. There was a lot of preparations to do. There was no “Hey kid, mop this floor, take out the trash. Remember, I gave you that ride.” The children helped as needed.
What I was witnessing was unconditional love. And I thought it was very beautiful. Nothing like the treating children as gods as referred to by the OP. And I am quite sure that these children will grow up to be a benefit to society.
I left thinking of how I wished these parents would have been the ones to have raised me.
As many of you know, I live in Mexico. If that matters.
Society has grown more protective in all sorts of ways though - not just with children.
When I was growing up in the 70s in Canada, it was still normal to smoke inside of cars, offices, elevators and airplanes, it wasn’t considered a problem for adults to ride in the back of pick-up trucks, and it wasn’t uncommon for hunting rifles and shotguns to be simply laid on a rack above the door (the latter two in the country of course).
Now, all those would be considered dangerous - indeed, in some cases, unthinkable, or subject to hefty penalties.
Now, all of those above I think are things I agree with, while children prohibited from freely roaming is something I do not; but there are some legitimate safety concerns in the city at least about young children freely roaming - not so much kidnappers as bad drivers. I’m willing to bet child fatalities from vehicular traffic outnumber “stranger danger” by some orders of magnitude.
When I was a kid myself, I used to think there was something wrong and unfair about all the charity appeals to “save the children,” “help the children,” “feed the children,” etc. What about the adults? Doesn’t anybody care about them? Why shouldn’t we save them too? Will nobody ever care about me when I’m an adult?
When I became an adult myself, I understood better the appeal of such things, both on an emotional level—we have an instinctive drive to protect and provide for small children—and a practical one—adults may have some responsibility for, and power over, the circumstances of their own lives, but children do not (or at least are less likely to).
I agree - think of the term “paternalism”. “Paternalism” is seen as a bad thing when applied to other adults, not so much when applied to children. Children should have their liberties curtailed for their own good - and the flipside, they should be protected and nurtured, because they can’t do it for themselves.
I agree with most of what you say (and it isn’t that far up the page, so I won’t quote it all), especially the parts about parents driving their kids to school when it’s within walking distance, and that if an adult saw an 8-10 year old kid walking down the street by him/herself, the adult might well call child protective services.
I will defend the play date, though. I don’t know how it was when you were growing up, but I was born the year you finished HS, so mid-boom, new 'burbs, and all that. I grew up on a cul-de-sac with 12 houses on it, and there were 7-8 kids (besides me and my sister) within 1 year of my age on the street. Now I have a 7 year old son (came to parenting kinda late :)), and on our block with ~2 dozen houses, there’s not a single other kid within 2 years of the Firebug’s age.
So if he wants to play with other kids on a weekend, a play date is the only option. It would be great if there were lots of other kids his age on our block, but there aren’t, and I can’t wiggle my nose and conjure them into existence.
I think the bigger problem here is the fact that apparently every single parent and adult human in our society has the exact same attitude and behavior toward every other human being of each of these age groups. Why has no one noticed this before?
I guess most people ultimately aren’t humanitarians then but only care about propagating the genes. If you’re older than say, 20, in theory you have already given up your best genetic code, so your life is ultimately dispensable now. That’s what I think.
Having been a parent of a child born in 1977, I can attest to the fact that, right around the time of the Baby On Board window sign, there was a huge lurch forward in mindless child protection right around that time, and it was in fact emblematic.
I think its part of a marketing thing. Parents are encouraged to put their kids into sports at younger and younger ages. We started “The Little Gym” at 1 year. Golf, basbeall, soccer, hockey and whatever else starts at age 3. Kids also can sign up for acting, music, and other lessons at younger ages than before.
But I agree I hate the idea that every year past age 3 or so your kid becomes less appealing to society.
I’m seeing a pretty profound disconnect between what was said and how you interpreted it. Part of being a humanitarian is recognizing that some people have more power to change their circumstances than others. That’s why we fight to protect those who are disadvantaged in society - the elderly, the poor, minorities, disabled folks - and children.
I sympathize with the idea that people of all ages are important and should be protected from harm. But honestly it’s pretty difficult for me to swallow the ‘‘children are treated like gods’’ argument given the vast amount of fucked up shit that happens to children in this country. But I’ve also had the experience of studying child welfare policy and maybe you have to hear 100 stories like this one before you really get how catastrophically bad we are at protecting children.
The only thing that gets me is when people say: “Oh children are so sweet and innocent.”
No they are not! Children are fucking assholes. They will make fun of and be cruel to any kid who happens to be different.
If children are being sweet, it’s because the adults are around and they have to be.
/Kidding with a hint of truth.
The reason people call it the third rail of American politics is because *old people themselves *care a lot about their SS benefits and vote at a high rate. It’s not because too many other people care about it.
I don’t know if it’s that simple. Young people certainly don’t care much about Social Security, they may have the attitude that there won’t be anything left when they’re old enough to benefit, but well before retirement age people tend to start thinking more about retirement and want the system to be there for them 20 to 30 years down the road. It’s much like healthcare in that regard.