A disconnect at camp

On 11 Aug 2006 05:16:06 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article .com, L. says...


Rosalie B. wrote:
And they need to know some other skills for coping OT just running to
the cell phone and calling mommy.


How do you expect a child to "cope" with situations like these?

http://www.campsafetyproject.org/id14.html

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.

So, have you perfected your teletransporter yet?

Did these kids have cells? Do you think that would have made the difference?
If so, explain. Were they prevented from calling home on a camp phone?

IOW what's the rest of the story, and how do these relate to this discussion?

Really, digging up these rare instances and pointing to them they way you do
belies a distortion of reality. A former highly respected regular here, Chris
Biow, had a signoff that is very good to keep in mind. It's the few stories
like this that stick in some folks' minds, not the millions of successful camp
experiences. It's like folks who are afraid to fly, because they focus on the
few crashes that hit the news, not the thousands of daily successful flights.

"Beware the vividness of transient events."
Karl von Clausewitz


Banty

I remember Chris. Whatever happened to him?

Nan

On 10 Aug 2006 22:42:54 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:

Oh, come on Nan, haven't you heard about all of those YMCA-sponsored rape
camps, in which all of the staff members are involved?

All it takes is one rape, and yes, it happens.


What, exactly, does "All it takes is one rape" mean? That children
have been raped? Yes, we know that. No reasonable person denies that.


So joke and laugh all you want but the fact is, kids are at risk when
they attend camp. You might not think it was so funny had it happened
to you, as it did me.

Your biggest problem is that you don't see the forest for the trees.
You have this fixation on never, ever letting your child get beyond
your all-seeing eyes. You're the one who, in months past, was
castigating people who let their children get on school buses with
"strangers", right?

It all goes back to my oft-repeated refrain that the fear-mongering,
paranoid parents like yourself do not understand the intrinsic difference
between a possibility and a probability. They focus on the possibilities -
and particularly on the dramatic, and yet, realistically tiny chance that
something bad will happen. They refuse to acknowledge that the true
probability is that *nothing bad* will happen. That millions of times
a year, children go to summer camps, in the care of, *gasp*, strangers,
and have a safe, sane, and pleasantly memorable experience.

Now, I'm sure the fear-mongers will immediately feel the need to jump
in with, "Oh, but when it happens to YOUR child, won't you be sorry!",
and so on. And they're right - I would be sorry. I would also be
sorry if I was driving my car and get broadsided by a drunk, and my
child is hurt. I would be sorry if someone broke into my house
in the middle of the night, and caused us harm. I would be sorry
for any number of things. But you know what? I'd be sorry too,
if I raised my children to fear all things and all people, because
"something might happen." I'd be sorry if my children led shallow,
ultimately meaningless lives, unwilling to put their trust in
anyone or anything, because I failed to teach them about reality,
or how to evaluate risks. And the probability is that teaching
your children to fear all people and all things *WILL* lead them
into those shallow, meaningless lives. If I wanted to raise sheep,
I would have gone into farming, thank you very much.

- Rich

--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

In article , Nan says...

On 11 Aug 2006 05:16:06 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article .com, L. says...


Rosalie B. wrote:
And they need to know some other skills for coping OT just running to
the cell phone and calling mommy.


How do you expect a child to "cope" with situations like these?

http://www.campsafetyproject.org/id14.html

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.

So, have you perfected your teletransporter yet?

Did these kids have cells? Do you think that would have made the difference?
If so, explain. Were they prevented from calling home on a camp phone?

IOW what's the rest of the story, and how do these relate to this discussion?

Really, digging up these rare instances and pointing to them they way you do
belies a distortion of reality. A former highly respected regular here, Chris
Biow, had a signoff that is very good to keep in mind. It's the few stories
like this that stick in some folks' minds, not the millions of successful camp
experiences. It's like folks who are afraid to fly, because they focus on the
few crashes that hit the news, not the thousands of daily successful flights.

"Beware the vividness of transient events."
Karl von Clausewitz


Banty

I remember Chris. Whatever happened to him?


He's still the active techie for misc.kids.moderated. I think he's just too
busy for much Usenet stuff.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

..... and in the spirit of this whole thread, an interesting, albeit somewhat
watered down look at paranoid, helicopter parents, and the trend to
raise children who never experience negative consequences and situations:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...12-000010.html

Ironically enough, it was just pointed out to me by a 6th-grade teacher
friend who was complaining about certain of her students who
never have managed to grasp the concept that they are not the center
of the universe.

- Rich

--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

"bizby40" wrote in message
...
One of the problems with instant world-wide communication is that we hear
constant horror stories of what might go wrong. And it's natural to want
to protect our children, but you can go overboard. I know a woman who
almost won't let her kids out of her sight. She does surprisingly let
them go to school, but if they have a field trip and she can't go, then
she keeps them home from school for the day. They can't go to day camp
unless she or her husband are there with them. The parents still attend
all birthday parties with the kids (the older is going into 3rd grade).
She will likely keep them safe, but at what cost? The older child is
known for asking "What if?" questions like when we were talking about tool
safety in cub scouts, "What if someone took a saw and sawed through that
pole and then the whole house fell down?"

Even I can look back on my own childhood and realize that I had much more
freedom at a much earlier age than my kids. It remains to be seen what
all this ultra-dependence is going to do to this generation of America.

Are you sure it's because of today's society or is it just those particular
parents? You have those parents no matter what the generation. My mom
never let me sleep over at anyone's house. I couldn't go to camp. I
couldn't date. I was the only kid who couldn't attend s*x education class.
My kids will get to do those things. It's the parents, not a sign of the
times.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
I'm not saying that we have to get along without those things, but I
think one of the points of some camps is to show children that they
CAN get along without them.

That's a very good reason, which I very much agree with. I just don't like
the reasoning of we didn't have it, why should they? That is not a good
reason.

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:53:09 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
. ..
But using a land line to report problems to your parents isn't "at
will". Sorry, but with the invention of new and better(?) ways to
communicate, the perceived 'need' for immediacy (thanks for the
phrase, Banty ;-) has been born. If we got along okay without it
before, then kids can get along without it now.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. You guys can hash it out.
Actually, I like the idea of cellphone-free camps, but I'm not arguing
this
point.

I just cringe whenever anyone says we got along okay without X our kids
can,
too.

Cringe? Why would anyone "cringe" when someone states that kids can
get along without their precious cell phone for a week at camp?

I am not cringing about not being without a cell phone. I am cringing about
the reasoning behind it. Rosalie came up with an explanation which I
heartily agree with. What I disagree with is the reasoning that we did
without it, so our kids don't need it, either. If you read my post, I do
agree with the concept of going cell phone free for a week.

In article , toypup says...


"bizby40" wrote in message
...
One of the problems with instant world-wide communication is that we hear
constant horror stories of what might go wrong. And it's natural to want
to protect our children, but you can go overboard. I know a woman who
almost won't let her kids out of her sight. She does surprisingly let
them go to school, but if they have a field trip and she can't go, then
she keeps them home from school for the day. They can't go to day camp
unless she or her husband are there with them. The parents still attend
all birthday parties with the kids (the older is going into 3rd grade).
She will likely keep them safe, but at what cost? The older child is
known for asking "What if?" questions like when we were talking about tool
safety in cub scouts, "What if someone took a saw and sawed through that
pole and then the whole house fell down?"

Even I can look back on my own childhood and realize that I had much more
freedom at a much earlier age than my kids. It remains to be seen what
all this ultra-dependence is going to do to this generation of America.

Are you sure it's because of today's society or is it just those particular
parents? You have those parents no matter what the generation. My mom
never let me sleep over at anyone's house. I couldn't go to camp. I
couldn't date. I was the only kid who couldn't attend s*x education class.
My kids will get to do those things. It's the parents, not a sign of the
times.



Well, it's both, of course, but that you yourself describe that you were the
only kid who couldn't attend a um-um class ;-) says, that in your day, almost
every kid could.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

In article , toypup says...


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
I'm not saying that we have to get along without those things, but I
think one of the points of some camps is to show children that they
CAN get along without them.

That's a very good reason, which I very much agree with. I just don't like
the reasoning of we didn't have it, why should they? That is not a good
reason.



Well, I don't think it was an argument of "we didn't have it, you can suffer
too". Nor was it even an argument like is sometimes heard about seatbelts "we
lived without them, right?". It's more like TV. It's absolutely legit to
consider how people indeed managed to live without TV, even if the conclusion
for any particular family may be to have TV's.

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

user wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:42:54 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:

Oh, come on Nan, haven't you heard about all of those YMCA-sponsored rape
camps, in which all of the staff members are involved?

All it takes is one rape, and yes, it happens.


What, exactly, does "All it takes is one rape" mean? That children
have been raped? Yes, we know that. No reasonable person denies that.


So joke and laugh all you want but the fact is, kids are at risk when
they attend camp. You might not think it was so funny had it happened
to you, as it did me.

Your biggest problem is that you don't see the forest for the trees.
You have this fixation on never, ever letting your child get beyond
your all-seeing eyes. You're the one who, in months past, was
castigating people who let their children get on school buses with
"strangers", right?

People let their kids go willy-nilly and then wonder why they get
molested, abducted, verbally abused, beat up and bullied. A pinch of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. You don't want your kid to have a
cell phone, fine - don't give him one. My kid will have one and will
use it *if* he needs to. That relates in no way to "never letting [my}
child get beyond my all-seeing eyes" - you're just being an asshole
with that comment. If you don't think so, then learn to read for
comprehension.

-L.