Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child

On 18 Jul 2003 09:19:38 -0700, (Elizabeth Reid)
wrote:

I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
more common now than they were during their own childhoods
a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

Agreed. There were plenty of high school dropouts, teen girls getting
pregnant, heroin addicts, etc. in the 1950's and 1960's. You just
didn't hear about them as much.

PF

JG wrote:

Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly think
kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous), nor
do I recall kids manifesting the
conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in settings/situations
that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short attention
spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do today.

You're kidding, right? In my own family I can think of a kid who died in
a drunk driving accident, a kid who unfortunately DIDN'T die in the same
accident (brain damaged for what is turning out to be a long life) and a
baby who died of heart failure (with a Mom who didn't know how to make a
fuss about getting her treated.) Oh, and a fifteen year old who gave
birth in a home for unwed mothers, several shotgun weddings with babies
born six months later and enough depression to recognize why the
song "Mother's Little Helpers" was such a hit. And let's not forget the
night one of my cousins shot and killed his brother with the family
handgun thinking he was an intruder.

That's just from the 50's and 60's in my family. A bit of awareness of
dangers and issues and some better parenting might have saved a lot of
grief.

Oh, and hyperactivity. Don't you know that boys will be boys? (I'll
leave off the hyper stories because they're from the seventies.)

You left off the good old days without homosexuality. I have a gay cousin
who was bullied to bleeding and kept having to leave schools from the age
of middle-school onwards. That was in the sixties and seventies in the
midwest - he was lucky not to get killed. He's still emotionally wrecked
about his sexuality, though. Too bad his parents denied it
(vehimently) and he was never able to get the parenting he needed.

--Wendy

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:56:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden
wrote:

JG wrote:

Bravo! You had some information (pen cap--possibility of dying if
one
gets lodged in the throat), you pondered it, and you acted upon it,
ALL
without an "expert" (e.g., a pediatrician) advising you on a course
of
action. I'm sure *most* parents would do the same thing.

If they heard about the hazard. Did you? Perhaps the only one who
would
think to mention it to them is their pediatrician.

Exxxxxactly. Would JG instead perefer that each social circle suffer a
mishap from a particular threat before anyone becomes aware of it? How
about learning from past mistakes instead?

My point exxxxxactly.g *I* think virtually all people (parents) are
capable not only of learning from (others') specific past mistakes, but
also of drawing analogies such as that, say, between drapery cords and
sweatshirt drawstrings. Those who've never heard a single strangulation
story (from some source/someone other than their pediatrician, that is)
are pretty damned tuned-out.

JG

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jul 2003 09:19:38 -0700, (Elizabeth Reid)
wrote:

I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
more common now than they were during their own childhoods
a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

Agreed. There were plenty of high school dropouts, teen girls getting
pregnant, heroin addicts, etc. in the 1950's and 1960's. You just
didn't hear about them as much.

Funny thing, most of those who dropped out of high school in '50s and
'60s had probably learned more by the time they left school than most
graduates know today! It was somewhat easier to drop out then, of
course (you just left); today administrators bend over backwards to keep
kids enrolled (= more money for the district, as well as a better
reputation; districts around here tout their low dropout rates), even if
it means pampering them in "alternative learning" programs.

Teen pregnancy? Sure, more girls aged 15-19 *gave birth* in the '50s
and '60s than today, but you know what, PF? It's likely they were
*married*. Why don't you look up some statistics to compare, say, the
number of sexually active teens 40 years ago versus the number today?
(STD stats should be interesting, too.) While you're at it, perhaps
you'll stumble across statistics regarding the number of teenagers
('50s/'60s vs. today) obtaining abortions.

Just how many *kids* (they're whom we're discussing, after all) were
using heroin (and pot, don't forget pot, PF!) in the '50s and '60s? Do
you honestly think the number (or rate) could possibly hold candle to
the number of teens using illegal drugs--ecstasy, cocaine/crack, meth
(speed), inhalants, pot, heroin, ... (oh, and let's not forget
*legal*--prescription--drugs, e.g., Oxycontin and Ritalin) today? What
are *you* smokin', Riley? g

As to why "you just didn't hear about them [problems] as much," the
explanation's simple: The (*much* smaller) government had its hands
full performing functions considerably more important than "public
health" (i.e., than nannying the populace), and the problems discussed
above were perceived as *private* (family, and, to a certain extent,
community) matters, not matters into which the government had any
business sticking its nose. (BTW, items such as who was using drugs and
who "had" to get married usually *were* common knowledge within a
community; lots of stuff was heard "through the grapevine," or by
eavesdropping on your mom's bridge group. :-D)

JG

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
...

Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best
for
Your
Child
by Frank Furedi


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...6524641/ref=pd
sim
boo

Maybe. I can certainly get behind getting parents, and Americans
in general, to relax and stop worrying and let their kids be
kids. I just find it richy ironic that this guy wants you to
buy a book about how parenting books are twaddle.

Hmmm... I don't think Furedi is attacking parenting books per se
(many
I've examined aren't totally authoritarian and actually do a fairly
decent job, while covering "the basics" of infant/child care, of
assuring parents
that kids are unique; i.e., that there's no single, unequivocally
right
way of doing most things); I think he's simply trying (1) to
encourage
parents to rely more on their instincts/intuition and not obsess
about
the latest "expert" advice and (2) to reassure them that the results
of
doing so will (overwhelmingly) result in "okay" kids.

That's reasonable, I guess. Another book that I liked for this
(and I know this is controversial, but as a former child developement
researcher I thought a lot of it was astute) was 'The Nurture
Assumption'. Parts of the author's thesis seemed shaky to me,
but the part that held up the best was the shakiness of the evidence
that any particular child-rearing approach had a predictably
good or controllable outcome.

While there's apparently a dearth of *empirical* evidence to support
Harris's contention that peers have greater influence (than parents) on
the social/personality development of kids, her beliefs would tend to
bolster my assertion that we're devolving into a society of, at best,
intellectual and moral mediocrity. Coincidentally, I just finished
reading the op-ed page of Sunday's Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News; it
contained a column by Ronald S. Martin (available at
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show...olumnsName=rma). In it (the
focus was on role models for black youth in light of Kobe Bryant being
charged with rape), Martin wrote, "It may sound stupid, but there are
black kids right now who choose to fail in school because their friends
consider them to be 'acting white' by studying and making good grades."

I also have
trouble imagining people dippy enough to furnish the kid's room
with shelves of parenting books doing a good job when set free
of their fears.

I'm not sure it's possible to set them "free of their fears," but I
think it's worth trying. Unfortunately, the livelihoods of too many
people (those in the so-called "caring" professions), only a minute
fraction of whom actually write books or use the mass media to
disseminate their "expert" opinions/advice, depend on keeping people
dependent (i.e.,
fearful). Think how many gubmnt

As an aside, I do wish you'd stop using that silly 'abbreviation'.
It makes you look illiterate, and I know you're not.

When I perceive legitimate action (not just lip service) being taken to
reduce/limit/restore our government to that envisioned by the framers of
the Constitution, I'll return to your (apparently) preferred spelling.
I'm not counting
on seeing such action in my lifetime. I seriously doubt anyone would
think I'm illiterate (I certainly wouldn't give a rat's ass if they
did!), and the intentional misspelling is an efficient way of giving
politically savvy people a clue to my political beliefs. (Believe it or
not, some folks are actually so ****ed off
they've dropped additional letters. g)

Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
think
kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous),
nor
do I recall kids manifesting the
conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
settings/situations
that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
attention
spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
today.

It's sort of interesting; cnn.com's lead headline right now is
'Kids living better, but getting bigger.'

Humph. "Better" is entirely subjective.

I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
more common now than they were during their own childhoods
a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

So before we discuss the causes of these perceived changes, I'd
want some evidence other than your memory that they actually
exist.

Look up stats for both legal (prescribed) and illegal drug usage. For
divorce. For teen sexual activity/STD rates. (Okay, so contraceptives
for kids
weren't as readily obtainable in the '50s and '60s...) While you're at
it, look up the stats (you might find some at the BLS; www.bls.gov) for
the number (and demand) for social workers and psychologists. Either
the
"need" (demand) for those in the "caring" professions has increased
exponentially OR individuals are going into these fields and
*creating*/maintaining a (false) demand for their services. (And, lest
anyone be tempted to trot out the tiresome "Well, we're simply better at
diagnosing problems," explanation, forget about it; it's a load
of--excuse
me--crap.)

As I've remarked before, the tendency of adults to
gloss over their own generation's misbehaviors and say that
the behavior of the current generation is disgraceful and will
be immediately followed by the collapse of civilization is a
pretty standard part of aging. (It's sort of like how your
generation listened to *good* music, not the crap that's
available now. No matter what generation you're from.)

Ahem... I'm not THAT old. g Will American civilization "as we know
(knew?) it" collapse? Undoubtedly it will, eventually. I don't expect
a total implosion (nor conquest by outsiders) in my lifetime (how long
did ancient Rome survive, 800-1000 years?), but neither do I expect a
reversal of the overall decline that I perceive.

I'm having trouble getting a fix on how smart you think the
average person is. They're easily bamboozled by every passing
book-writer and pediatrician, but deep down they're smart
enough not to need advice, except for the ones who are too
stupid to take it. Or something.

Pretty close g. I think the "average" person is "average" smart,
which is certainly smart enough to raise a healthy child without a
blueprint furnished by a pediatrician and supplemented by advice
from
(out to make a buck, or at least a name for themselves?) "experts."
I
also believe an "average" person (parent) can take information from
a
variety of sources (e.g.,
news reports/articles, direct observation, anecdotes related by
family/friends), ponder it, and determine what to do with/about it.
I
DON'T think the average person needs an "expert" to interpret the
same
information for him/her and use it as a basis for advice. Perhaps
an
example is in order; I'll borrow one from Wendy's post:

"...a local kid strangled to death on her hooded sweatshirt cord
when it
got caught as she was going down the slide. (Her father and brother
were playing in the yard with her and didn't notice her struggle.)
As a
direct result of htis story, my kids didn't have hooded sweatshirts
until they were middle-school aged..."

Wendy got some information (we don't know whether by word-of-mouth,
direct observation, or a news report, and it doesn't really matter).
She acted on it (no hooded sweatshirts for her kids). Did she need
an
"expert" (pediatrician?) to advise her not to put hooded sweatshirts
with strings on her kids, or at least to remove the strings from
them?
NO!

But you're assuming that every individual parent is going to hear
a story about every individual danger,

Not at all! I'm assuming that virtually every parent (likely well in
advance of becoming a parent) is going to hear about a choking incident.
(Hard not to, of course, with 2500+ choking-related deaths a year!) And
who
hasn't, by adulthood, had a food-related choking incident *themselves*,
i.e., one in which the possibility of passing out, if not dying, didn't
briefly
cross his/her mind? I think the average parent can extrapolate; if
they'd stop to think about it, they'd realize that a bite of hot dog is
similar to a piece of carrot, a chunk of fruit, or a piece of popcorn.
(Fact is, people can and do choke on innumerable food and non-food
items.) Saying "I didn't know (a kid could choke on a bite of hot dog)"
is absurd; a believable statement would be, "I wasn't thinking (when I
gave my toddler a hot dog)."

which seems really unlikely.
I don't know anyone who strangled on a sweatshirt cord, and to
be honest, without the advice of professionals wouldn't have ever
given it a second thought. To an adult, sweatshirts, the
cords that hang from blinds, buckets with small amounts of
water in them, etc., just don't look all that dangerous. Hoping
that each parent will happen to read a story about a kid dying
from one of these hazards is really inefficient, aside from the
obvious defect that a kid has to die every once in a while to
serve as an object lesson for others to write articles and
tell stories about.

It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
skills? Wendy's drawstring strangling death would have been averted
(had the family members present been keeping a closer eye on the girl),
as would, I daresay, virtually every (especially non-food-related)
choking death.

Are there parents so tuned-out to the world--so oblivious to
it--that
they NEVER hear such stories (information)? I suppose it's
possible,
but I find it *very* difficult to imagine.

Why? By their nature, these events are relatively rare; most
kids are going to survive sweatshirts with strings on them.

Of course. Again, I believe most parents are capable of drawing
analogies; e.g., "Kids have strangled on drapery cords, therefore it's
conceivable they could strangle on drawstrings."

Surely confident, *informed* parents are preferable. I'm simply
perturbed by the attitude of *some* advice-givers (which is actually
*most*, in my experience g) that *they* have to
elucidate/interpret
INFORMATION for everyone. I'm particularly bothered when
self-declared
"experts" venture outside their realm of expertise, such as when
pediatricians dispense *safety* ( guns, bikes, swimming pools,
car
seats...) advice rather than sticking to *health* matters.

So your view is that parents should be given the information,
"Sometimes garments with drawstrings that fasten around the
neck kill children"..

More or less. (As I've repeatedly stated, though, I don't think it's
necessary
for pediatricians to even convey this sort of information; it's widely
available.)

[Slight correction: A person's *actions* (inattentiveness?)
with inanimate objects might result in injury/death; garments with
drawstrings don't kill children any more than guns kill children or than
French fries and Oreos make people fat.]

and that's okay, but that following that
with the sentence, "... so therefore it's a good idea for you
to take the strings out" is insulting because it's an
interpretation?

It's insulting because that's the conclusion to which a thinking person
would arrive on his own.

JG

"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message
...
JG wrote:

Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
think
kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous),
nor
do I recall kids manifesting the
conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
settings/situations
that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
attention
spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
today.

You're kidding, right? In my own family I can think of a kid who died
in
a drunk driving accident, a kid who unfortunately DIDN'T die in the
same
accident (brain damaged for what is turning out to be a long life) and
a
baby who died of heart failure (with a Mom who didn't know how to make
a
fuss about getting her treated.) Oh, and a fifteen year old who gave
birth in a home for unwed mothers, several shotgun weddings with
babies
born six months later and enough depression to recognize why the
song "Mother's Little Helpers" was such a hit. And let's not forget
the
night one of my cousins shot and killed his brother with the family
handgun thinking he was an intruder.

Your family, especially in light of the fact that so many mishaps seem
to befall it, should perhaps be *exceptionally* careful.

That's just from the 50's and 60's in my family. A bit of awareness
of
dangers and issues and some better parenting might have saved a lot of
grief.

Seems like the latter would have been more beneficial.

Oh, and hyperactivity. Don't you know that boys will be boys? (I'll
leave off the hyper stories because they're from the seventies.)

I wonder how many of the kids--boys and girls--I regularly played with
in the summer and after school would be hauled in today to be checked
for ADHD? Heck, we were constantly on the move, only pausing for lunch
and dinner and when we were called in as it got dark. If we weren't
playing games (kick-the-can and Red Rover were my favorites), you'd find
us roller skating (on rickety skates you fastened to your shoes with a
skate key) or riding our bikes (both sans helmets--what WERE our parents
thinking?) to the community center pool or to the ballpark (I don't
think any of knew what soccer was!), or running through the woods
playing army (most of our dads had served in WWII). Rain did slow us
down; we'd usually go to someone's garage and play board games
(Monopoly, Parcheesi, Clue--which I wouldn't play if I couldn't be Miss
Scarlet g) while sucking on Fizzies, or do other fun stuff like see
who could shoot (blast) a roll of caps (with a rock; we only used cap
guns in the woods) fastest while we waited for the ice cream man or the
mail truck to come by. (Gene the mailman would let us climb in the back
and ride around, back door open, for a couple of blocks. Guess it's
lucky he didn't go very fast, huh, seeing that there weren't any seats,
let alone seat belts!) I'm sure our go-go-go lives would drive lots of
today's moms bonkers. (Come to think of it, we could be rather mean, by
today's standards. I distinctly remember our "gang" running to the top
of a small hill that separated our cluster of houses from the next one.
When one particular, rather chubby--"husky" was the current
euphemism--boy would emerge from his house, we'd cry out, in unison,
"XXX, XXX, two by four, couldn't get through the bathroom door, so he
went on the floor!!!" We'd then turn and run, as fast as our legs could
carry us, past our houses and into the woods. Well, one day his dad was
home (yikes!). No sooner had we gotten "XXX, XXX" out of our mouths
than here came his dad, holding the ends of a folded-over belt in one
hand and slapping the loop across the other (YIKES!!!). Of course we
bolted as he stalked towards us. Unfortunately, my (derogatory
adjectives deleted g) brother literally ran out of his shoes (he
wasn't slowed in the least; guess adrenaline has that effect...), but
Mary Carol ("M.C."), our tacitly acknowledged leader (earned by merit;
this was well before the "feminist movement"), fearless soul that she
was, did a 180, scooped up the shoes, and caught up with us in a matter
of seconds. Mr. XXX didn't catch us (I've always wondered whether he
could have g), nor, apparently, did he tell our parents (talk about
living in abject fear for a couple of days!) Did we ever taunt XXX
again? Nope. (Nor did we include him in our activities, however.) Was
he scarred for life? I doubt it. Last I heard, he was a corporate VP
living on Park Avenue. Yup; I'd say things were a helluva lot better
for kids 40 years ago. sigh

You left off the good old days without homosexuality. I have a gay
cousin
who was bullied to bleeding and kept having to leave schools from the
age
of middle-school onwards. That was in the sixties and seventies in
the
midwest - he was lucky not to get killed. He's still emotionally
wrecked
about his sexuality, though. Too bad his parents denied it
(vehimently) and he was never able to get the parenting he needed.

And you don't think these problems still exist? (Ask Judy
Shepard--www.matthewsplace.com --whether she thinks gays actually have
it much better now.)

JG

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:54:30 GMT, "JG" wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...

Exxxxxactly. Would JG instead perefer that each social circle suffer a
mishap from a particular threat before anyone becomes aware of it? How
about learning from past mistakes instead?

My point exxxxxactly.g *I* think virtually all people (parents) are
capable not only of learning from (others') specific past mistakes, but
also of drawing analogies such as that, say, between drapery cords and
sweatshirt drawstrings. Those who've never heard a single strangulation
story (from some source/someone other than their pediatrician, that is)
are pretty damned tuned-out.

So what about the educated, conscientious mom who simply didn't know
about the risk of hot dogs? Was her son's death "necessary" so that
people could learn from her?

PF

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:00 GMT, "JG" wrote:

It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
skills?

Give me a break. You've tried to make this ridiculous suggestion
before. Why you think it's condescending and/or insulting to parents
if I warn against specific hazards but somehow it's not even more so
if I simply "advise" them to "keep a close eye on their young kids" is
beyond me. It's like when you said I should tell people to avoid
choking hazards but not elaborate lest I insult someone, when what
would typically happen is that the ones who would want me to go into
more detail would be the ones least likely to ask me to for fear that
I would think they're stupid, as my initial failure to go into more
detail would be a tacit implication that they should know such details
already without having to ask.

Here's an idea. Instead of trying to warn about every conceivable
hazard, which is impossible (except when it comes to obtaining
informed consent for vaccines, according to Roger), why not have
pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, and
advise selectively on those particular hazards? Oh wait, that's what I
do already.

PF

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:37 GMT, "JG" wrote:

[Ray Bradbury-esque memoirs of a simpler time from JG omitted.]

You don't honestly expect us to accept your own childhood memories as
"proof" that the good ol' days really were better, now, do you?

PF

"PF Riley" wrote
pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, ...

When do you give all this advice, anyway? The only time I ever
take my kid to the ped is when she is sick, and then all I ask
about concerns the diagnosis and treatment of the problem.
I would never ask about choking. If I wanted parenting advice,
then I'd consult a parenting book. There are lots of good cheap
books that are a whole lot better than talking to a ped.