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

Kids need freedom, too

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#61

Post by jlos »

ssivark wrote: post #36
jlos wrote: post #6

I think the problem "de-risking" childhood is only an instance of the bigger problem of what Roger Scruton calls "Risk De-aggregation". Risk Deaggregation is taking a single point of risk (and its associated metric), and optimizing to reduce that risk as if it exists in isolation from other risks. I.e. Risk occurs in aggregate, not as individual threats. Risk deaggregation happens everywhere from Climate Change polic…

“Risk de-aggregation” sounds like it edifies an implicit perspective that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Is there a specific reference you might recommend looking at, for Roger Scruton’s take?

It's in his book "How to think seriously about the planet: a case for environmental conservatism"

The book itself is worth the read on its own. He has a very specific meaning of conservatism that doesn't map well to political landscapes. The book doesn't dispute climate change, and seems to basically accept it, but creates a framework for dealing with it from a grassroots bottom up perspective rather than an international top down perspective.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#62

Post by hahajk »

caturopath wrote: post #51
tw04 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major difference is the vast, vast majority of households were single income. "Working mother" was a non-existent thing. Men went to work, mothers stayed home. So if you let your kids roam the neighborhood in the summer SOMEONE'S mom was there to keep an eye out. I would say, in general, it also lead to more socializing in neighborhoods because while I would never claim that a stay-at-home mom isn't doing a full-…

Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of…

So would you say the times when "things were good" was before modern suburbanism, or in other words the 1940s and earlier?

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#63

Post by tootie »

I think parents may tend to be afraid of the wrong things, but there's plenty of things to be scared of. My oldest walks herself around Brooklyn daily and my number one fear by a mile is her getting hit by a car. Also, I think every single woman I know who rode the subway regularly as a teenager was accosted or flashed by a crazy person at least once if not routinely. Certainly they grew up without permanent injury, but I don't think I'm depriving my kid of a valuable life lesson by protecting them from that.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#64

Post by semitones »

caturopath wrote: post #58
vlunkr wrote: post #55

I think this debate is too often a false dichotomy. There's a huge range of choices between never letting kids leave your sight until they're 18, and letting them ride a subway by themselves at age 9. Parents are currently leaning on the cautious side, there may be downsides, but I don't think it's some great tragedy.

It's striking to me that the extreme end of 'freedom' here is letting a 9 year old ride a train alone. I must be getting old. I realize it's relevant because Skenazy wrote and talked about doing so, but it's also just so non-extreme.

I agree, it doesn't seem that extreme to me. Maybe something like letting your 9 year old get on a bus to another state, without a phone, and telling them "come back when you're done having fun!" would be extreme.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#65

Post by dpeck »

tootie wrote: post #63

I think parents may tend to be afraid of the wrong things, but there's plenty of things to be scared of. My oldest walks herself around Brooklyn daily and my number one fear by a mile is her getting hit by a car. Also, I think every single woman I know who rode the subway regularly as a teenager was accosted or flashed by a crazy person at least once if not routinely. Certainly they grew up without permanent injury,…

100% agree.

Most other things I accept the risk, but cars around kids worry the hell out of me. Drivers don’t pay attention, kids don’t either. Even places with sidewalks, it doesn’t take a lot of things to go wrong before taller SUVs can easily have a tire hop onto the curb.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#66

Post by semitones »

gilbetron wrote: post #57

Much as we are finding about obesity being caused by the "food environment", there's an unhealthy "kid environment" in many places these days. I have a 12 year old, and he barely would go run around our neighborhood growing up because there weren't any other kids doing it. We tried to get him to do it, but none of his friends would join him. Other neighborhoods achieve a critical mass and have tons of kids that run a…

I'm sorry to hear that, it does sound like a bummer. I grew up in a small residential community, and running around with my friends through the neighborhood from the age of 8-15 was a huge part of my development. Really can't imagine who I would be today if it wasn't for those super fun times.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#67

Post by standardUser »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #25

Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on. If we want a healthy society, of which independent children are a part, we should work to restore social trust. "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

I don't think many people who were not white, christian and straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are harkening back to.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#68

Post by tw04 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #54
tw04 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major difference is the vast, vast majority of households were single income. "Working mother" was a non-existent thing. Men went to work, mothers stayed home. So if you let your kids roam the neighborhood in the summer SOMEONE'S mom was there to keep an eye out. I would say, in general, it also lead to more socializing in neighborhoods because while I would never claim that a stay-at-home mom isn't doing a full-…

>"Working mother" was a non-existent thing. It very much was but not at the relative income level most of HN is at or was raised in so people forget about it.

We must be talking about two very different decades. In the 1950s, which is generally the time people think to when talking about the "good old days" the number of women in the workforce was 27%. It had very little to do with income level. Both of my parents grew up dirt poor, both of them had mothers who stayed home. As the children were old enough to all be attending school, one of my grandma's got a job at the elementary school some of her children were enrolled in a few blocks from the house.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#69

Post by caturopath »

hahajk wrote: post #62
caturopath wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of…

So would you say the times when "things were good" was before modern suburbanism, or in other words the 1940s and earlier?

No, I would say we're living in the best times we've ever seen, and I would not want to roll back history.

I do think that modern sprawl suburbanism has some harmful elements and that other styles of urbanism and of suburbanism that don't look like we've built the last 50 years in North America have benefits.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#70

Post by lghh »

standardUser wrote: post #67
recursivedoubts wrote: post #25

Social trust has been falling for decades, and the blame lies at the feet of nearly all our major institutions: both political parties as well as the permanent bureocracy, corporations, churches, the media and so on. If we want a healthy society, of which independent children are a part, we should work to restore social trust. "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

I don't think many people who were not white, christian and straight felt a ton of social trust in the era you are harkening back to.

Agreed. So is the solution to reduce white social trust as well or to empower non-white social trust?
Post reply on HN