Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 280 posts

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#141

Post by jff »

JonnieCache wrote: post #82
rdtsc wrote: post #77

Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…

One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time (obviously it is a big place.) I always wonder what proportion of it is due to genuine misplaced concern for the children, and how much of it is strife of the "they don't like the color of your house" variety. One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the e…

> One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy.

Yes, the English idea of privacy is that you, the commoner, should leave well enough alone while the State surveils you.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#142

Post by Jtsummers »

r00fus wrote: post #131
Jtsummers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME, suburbs are home to the most paranoid. There's a reason they live there and not in an urban area.

While paranoia may be a reason to live in the suburbs, it could also be because they want their own backyard or are priced out of major metros. Or maybe just because they've always lived there - more and more folks are living near (or with) family these days.

I didn't say it was the majority in the suburbs. To clarify, I've lived in both urban and suburban areas. People in suburban areas seem to have a higher incidence of fear (like discussed in the article) than urban areas.

Which isn't the only reason to live in the suburbs, but it's a major reason for a rather significant number of people. I mean, a suburban town not far from me got started to get away from the blacks (the way the honest locals phrased it, not proudly), and that was just 50 years ago. Fear drives a lot of suburban movement.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#143

Post by sotojuan »

ch4s3 wrote: post #136
sotojuan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a working class NYC neighborhood. Not dangerous, but not completely perfect (and some parts are best avoided). There are kids out alone everywhere! Go up a few blocks to Park Slope, an extremely safe and cleaned up place, and there's no kids in sight.

Really? I was just in Park Slope 20 minutes ago and saw a few kids ambling about. Yeah, not as many as you see in Crown Heights, but some. I suspect Park Slope kids are a bit more likely to be overscheduled (like suburban kids) than their peers in surrounding neighborhoods.

I admit I don't spend much time there, so just going off what I've seen! I'd be happy to be wrong. I just know here in Sunset Park kids roam free.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#144

Post by 1123581321 »

Afton wrote: post #15

I'm most interested in the enshrinement into law of these risk assessments, where if you disagree with the risk assessments you get flagged for CPS or criminal judgement. Even if you 'win', society just imposed a massive, massive cost on you (and your children) for disagreeing about the relative risk of an action. There needs to be some way of walking this back, but I can't think what that might be except literally t…

I think the struggle for civil forfeiture reform offers some suggestions. Child Services operates similarly to these programs in that they can size children and impose sanctions without a court finding any wrongdoing first.

Child Services makes use of broad powers and would indeed be "gutted" if they couldn't act until neglectful parents were tried or pled guilty. I think that is a good tradeoff. Similarly, I don't mind that civil forfeiture reform lets drug dealers continue to drive sometimes. This is a major political controversy, though.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#145

Post by stinkytaco »

CodeMage wrote: post #121
jackcosgrove wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have.

Nannying is just one aspect of a more pervasive underlying cultural problem: a lot of people here seem to feel entitled to impose their opinions and judgment on others. Not just share them, but actually impose them.

I think this creates an interesting circular problem. Only recently in society have we come to think of children as effectively the parents property. In many other cultures it is expected that other adults will discipline children. We have this problem in our library often when kids who are resettled refugees come in and misbehave. The parents send them to the library with the expectation that they will be disciplined if they misbehave. When the kids see they will not, they misbehave knowing they can get away with it.

On the other hand, this protectiveness of our personal standard of parenting means that in order to enforce our standards, we must see the kids and people must defer to the parents for discipline. It almost means that because we don't allow others to impose their judgements on our kids, that they then impose their judgements on the parents.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#146

Post by B-Con »

Parenting is a 24/7 job. Parents make thousands of decisions balancing many ideal and pragmatic factors. Seeing one parenting decision is not sufficient for assessing their entire parental lifestyle. Putting aside the specifics of this topic, it is curious how many people are quick to condemn a parent the moment they make a single decision not up to the observer's standards.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#147

Post by ghaff »

CodeMage wrote: post #121
jackcosgrove wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have.

Nannying is just one aspect of a more pervasive underlying cultural problem: a lot of people here seem to feel entitled to impose their opinions and judgment on others. Not just share them, but actually impose them.

I'm not sure this is anything particularly new. There have always been busybodies. What probably is newer is that the local government is, for better or worse, quicker to inject themselves into domestic situations than they may have been in the past.

The challenge is that, if someone sees behavior that isn't the norm in their experience, and that they personally consider (rightly or wrongly) to be insanely dangerous, what are they really to do? OK, they probably shouldn't raise a stink if some kid is riding a bike without a helmet. What if they're playing with firecrackers?

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#148

Post by TeMPOraL »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #128
scatters wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're the same parent. The drug-addict parent is the working-parent is the drug-addict parent. The drug-addict house is the working-parent house is the drug-addict house. Do you still feel the child is in more danger if left unattended by the drug-addict parent leaving to buy drugs versus the working parent leaving to work? How about the drug-addict parent leaving to work versus the working parent leaving to buy dr…

In my experience that isn't always the case. For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.

Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem. There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action.

Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#149

Post by ihaveahadron »

rdtsc wrote: post #77

Even since I was 10 or so I would often come back to school on my own. Then let myself into our apartment. Eat some lunch, do homework, play until my parents came home in the evening. I was effectively often alone for about 4 or so hours. I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. My co-worker let hi…

What a pussy, you aren't a parent. The government is. I don't care how my comment is perceived, your a pathetic wuss, not a parent. "I wouldn't parent my kids because of what the government thinks." Drooling moronic vagina is what you are.

Re: Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

#150

Post by JonnieCache »

jff wrote: post #141
JonnieCache wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time (obviously it is a big place.) I always wonder what proportion of it is due to genuine misplaced concern for the children, and how much of it is strife of the "they don't like the color of your house" variety. One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the e…

> One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy. Yes, the English idea of privacy is that you, the commoner, should leave well enough alone while the State surveils you.

That kind of privacy problem is more to do with our woeful subservience than preferences for interpersonal autonomy, although the two are linked. "Leave well enough alone" does sum it up nicely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Negative_pol...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu-eMcEF3s

Post reply on HN