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

81–90 of 280 posts

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

#81

Post by harryh »

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…

But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do.

Speaking of "perceived but unreal risk"....

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

#82

Post by JonnieCache »

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 english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy.

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

#83

Post by rdtsc »

harryh wrote: post #81
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…

But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. Speaking of "perceived but unreal risk"....

One would think, but seeing what happened to my co-worker, I don't want to go through that.

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

#84

Post by Radle »

Are there places in America where things are not this extreme?

I am looking for a career in IT, so coming to the Valley might be something I am going to do in my career.

But I would want my kids to grow up in a different, more independent way. Like I did in my home country.

(If I was in America now and thinking about getting children, this article would be a 100% reason to go back to my home country, it totally gave me the creeps.)

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

#85

Post by harryh »

rdtsc wrote: post #83
harryh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do. Speaking of "perceived but unreal risk"....

One would think, but seeing what happened to my co-worker, I don't want to go through that.

A couple of very slightly uncomfortable conversations seems like a small price to pay for raising your kids in the manner you deem appropriate.

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

#86

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

gervase wrote: post #71
gph wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think a child being left alone in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent will have the equivalent risk of a child of an otherwise caring parent who accidentally left them at home alone? I'm not saying the reason itself changes the risk. I'm saying the reason gives me insight into the kind of parent a person is and the likelihood of their being higher risks in the child's environment. Or to use your analo…

I think you may have misunderstood the parent; the argument is that an unattended child in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent is at the SAME level of risk whether that parent left them alone to purchase drugs, or whether they went to work, but that observers don't rate the two situations as comparable.

Well that sounds completely unreasonable to me.

Isn't it more likely that the drug-addicted parents are more likely to leave drug related paraphernalia around. I'm talking about mostly-empty baggies of cocaine, methamphetamine, weed, whatever. Needles, bongs, half empty bottles of booze.

Isn't the drug-addicted parent more likely to not be aware or not care or not notice all sorts of other safety related issues.

Probably the working-parent shouldn't leave a child under a certain age unattended. But it seems perfectly reasonable that people should judge the drug-addict house as more dangerous.

I don't claim to have full knowledge of every situation, but as someone who spent the better part of a decade injecting meth on a very regular basis I feel my opinion ought to carry some authority.

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

#87

Post by cmdrfred »

tn13 wrote: post #40

If you ever see a kid alone outside the best course of action is to call cops. 1. If you try talking to kid while the kid is alone you might be charged as a sex offender, attempt to kidnap and what not. 2. If you dont try to help and if something happens to the kid may be later you might face some charges or come under suspicion. This is absolutely nothing to with what you feel and think. The risks for not calling co…

>The risks for not calling cops are simply very high.The risks for not calling cops are simply very high.

I see lots of kids in my neighborhood walking around, no issues yet. If we used your apparent definition of 'very high' the odds of winning the lottery are simply guaranteed.

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

#88

Post by orthecreedence »

tn13 wrote: post #40

If you ever see a kid alone outside the best course of action is to call cops. 1. If you try talking to kid while the kid is alone you might be charged as a sex offender, attempt to kidnap and what not. 2. If you dont try to help and if something happens to the kid may be later you might face some charges or come under suspicion. This is absolutely nothing to with what you feel and think. The risks for not calling co…

What?? If I see an 8 year old walking around outside by themself, my first and only reaction is to do absolutely nothing and let that child go about their business.

If something did happen to the kid, every person who happened to see that kid and didn't flip their shit and call the cops is not morally or even legally responsible in any sense.

If I saw a kid get snatched into a van, I'd call the cops and do everything in my power to make sure that the kid was returned to his normal life, but holy shit, do not call the cops because you saw a kid outside!

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

#90

Post by cujo »

StavrosK wrote: post #56
gph wrote: post #32

I understand the overall thrust of this article, but I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. For instance a parent that would leave a 2-year old alone to go play pokemon probably has other terrible parenting judgement/skills and most likely the environment they leave the kid in IS actually more dangerous than someone who accid…

> I somewhat disagree with the suggestion that my judgement of morality should have no impact on my judgement of the risk to a child. The risk to the child for a specific situation does not change based on the reason why a parent put the child in a situation, the same way that the probability of getting hit by a landmine doesn't change based on whether you're walking across a minefield to cheat on your spouse or to s…

>The researchers wasn't asking "how good of a parent do you think they are"

They may not have asked that question, but that seems to be the question people were answering. Isn't it somewhat obvious that we almost never answer the literal question?

If I consider the situation where the parent left their 2 year old alone to go meet a lover vs going to work to put food on the table, I'll judge the former situation more harshly. To explain myself, I'd say both situations put the child at the same risk, but the first situation is not a responsible reason to assume that risk.

In short, when you present these scenarios, you're not asking me, "mathematically, which situation is more dangerous for the child?". You're implicitly asking me, "is this parent making a responsible decision?".

Post reply on HN