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

For parents perhaps *too* concerned--obsessed--with their child's health
and safety (e.g., his/her diet, bowel habits, sleeping position...), the
following might be of interest/value...

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

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Book Description (from the above site; click on "see all editorial
reviews"):
Hardly a day goes by without parents being warned of a new threat to
their children's well-being. Everything is dangerous: the crib, the
babysitter, the school, the supermarket, the park. High-profile
campaigns convince parents that their children's health, safety, and
development are constantly at risk. Parents are criticized by one
child-care expert after another, but even the experts can't agree on
matters as simple as whether or not it is wise to sleep next to a child.
Parents don't know whom to trust; the only clear message is that they
can't trust themselves. Fresh and accessible, Paranoid Parenting
suggests that parental anxieties themselves are the worst influence on
children. Based on new sociological research as well as dozens of
interviews with parents and experts throughout the United States,
Canada, and Great Britain, this groundbreaking book will bolster
parents' confidence in their own judgments and enable them to bring up
confident, imaginative, and capable children.

"JG" wrote in message ...
For parents perhaps *too* concerned--obsessed--with their child's health
and safety (e.g., his/her diet, bowel habits, sleeping position...), the
following might be of interest/value...

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
ks 1/103-5500506-6099835?v=glance&s=books

Book Description (from the above site; click on "see all editorial
reviews"):
Hardly a day goes by without parents being warned of a new threat to
their children's well-being. Everything is dangerous: the crib, the
babysitter, the school, the supermarket, the park. High-profile
campaigns convince parents that their children's health, safety, and
development are constantly at risk. Parents are criticized by one
child-care expert after another, but even the experts can't agree on
matters as simple as whether or not it is wise to sleep next to a child.
Parents don't know whom to trust; the only clear message is that they
can't trust themselves. Fresh and accessible, Paranoid Parenting
suggests that parental anxieties themselves are the worst influence on
children. Based on new sociological research as well as dozens of
interviews with parents and experts throughout the United States,
Canada, and Great Britain, this groundbreaking book will bolster
parents' confidence in their own judgments and enable them to bring up
confident, imaginative, and capable children.

So, basically, you can't trust the experts, experts are always
warning you about dangers and telling you you can't trust yourself -
but you should trust *this* expert, who is warning you about
a brand new danger, all the other experts! Worry! Don't worry!
Worry that you're worrying too much! Worry that you're worrying
too little! Stop all that worrying! Buy my book, whatever you
do!

Beth

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...

"JG" wrote in message
...

For parents perhaps *too* concerned--obsessed--with their child's
health
and safety (e.g., his/her diet, bowel habits, sleeping position...),
the
following might be of interest/value...

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
ks 1/103-5500506-6099835?v=glance&s=books

[...]

So, basically, you can't trust the experts, experts are always
warning you about dangers and telling you you can't trust yourself -
but you should trust *this* expert, who is warning you about
a brand new danger, all the other experts! Worry! Don't worry!
Worry that you're worrying too much! Worry that you're worrying
too little! Stop all that worrying! Buy my book, whatever you
do!

Hey, if a single book can convince parents that they're capable of
raising their kids (primarily because kids, by and large, are incredibly
resilient), I'm all for it. Kids, IMO, *generally* fare better with
confident parents, even if those parents might make what one
psycho/socio/medico-babbler or another would consider "mistakes." I
know if I were a kid (still one, at heart), I wouldn't be very happy,
let alone very assured, growing up surrounded by shelves of "how to"
(raise a child) books!

Just think how much money--money that perhaps could be spent on
expanding/enriching a child's knowledge and experiences--would be saved
should (now) apprehensive parents gain faith/confidence in their
parenting abilities and stop buying (literally and figuratively) every
new "how to deal with your child" tome...

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote
So, basically, you can't trust the experts, experts are always
warning you about dangers and telling you you can't trust yourself -
but you should trust *this* expert, who is warning you about
a brand new danger, all the other experts! Worry! Don't worry!

You can't trust all the so-called experts on child-rearing, even if
you want to, because their advice is contradictory. Even on some
simple issue like spanking, some say it is good, and some say it is bad.

Elizabeth Reid wrote:
Me, I think the average person would have happier kids if they
all stopped seeing child abductors behind every tree and
weren't convinced that Harvard was the only path to life
success, but I don't have the faith in the power of confident
and uninformed parenting that you seem to.

Well said. I also think that many of the dangers are not intuitive and
you NEED to be told about them. I think you can only make reasonable
decisions if you have adequate knowledge to evaluate the risks versus
benefits of things.

For example, a local child died in bizarre accidents I would never have
thought of: he swallowed a pen cap that got lodged in his airway and he
suffocated in front of half a dozen EMTs. So, all pens in our house have
air-holes. Am I paranoid about pen caps? No, I have never mentioned this
to my children that I can recall - I just made a simple choice in
pen-purchasing that relieves that lowers the odds of that tragedy
happening at my house.

Now you might consider me paranoid about the next one: 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. I never made a fuss about it, I just chose not to buy
them or take them in hand-me-downs.

Those are esoteric dangers, but how many people don't take doors off of
cast-off refrigerators? How many people don't adequately keep toddlers
away from pools? How many don't restrain their kids in the car? These
are serious environmental dangers. When I add up the dead kids in my area
(it's a small town and we KNOW each one - they leave a huge hole) it's
usually drowning or being hit by a car. A little parental awareness is
not a bad thing, in my opinion.

That said, I do allow my children to both walk outside AND (gasp) swim.

Wendy

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...

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.


Yeah - that about sums it up.

Either everyone or no one is an idiot depending on which suits her at the
moment.

--
CBI, MD

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

"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
ks 1/103-5500506-6099835?v=glance&s=books

[...]

So, basically, you can't trust the experts, experts are always
warning you about dangers and telling you you can't trust
yourself -
but you should trust *this* expert, who is warning you about
a brand new danger, all the other experts! Worry! Don't worry!
Worry that you're worrying too much! Worry that you're worrying
too little! Stop all that worrying! Buy my book, whatever you
do!

Hey, if a single book can convince parents that they're capable of
raising their kids (primarily because kids, by and large, are
incredibly
resilient), I'm all for it. Kids, IMO, *generally* fare better with
confident parents, even if those parents might make what one
psycho/socio/medico-babbler or another would consider "mistakes." I
know if I were a kid (still one, at heart), I wouldn't be very
happy,
let alone very assured, growing up surrounded by shelves of "how to"
(raise a child) books!

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.

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 services/programs could be reduced
(eliminated?) should people no longer "need" them! (And of the monetary
savings and the truly productive uses to which it could be put!) Think
about how many sociologists and psychologists would have to find *real*
jobs should people realize, "Hey, I CAN do this for myself... at least
I'm willing to TRY!" Face it, there are a hell of a lot of "caring"
people who
rely on others' dependency; acting in their "rational self-interest,"
there's no incentive for them to "cure" those whom they're so dedicated
(snicker) to "helping."

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.
No doubt the change can be attributed to a number of factors, none
mutually
exclusive: the number of parents who, for whatever reason, turn the
rearing of their young children over to virtual strangers; the
"breakdown" of the nuclear family and the increasing mobility of
families (i.e., the physical separation of generations); the evolution
of a society in which traditional values (e.g., honesty/truthfulness,
integrity) are increasingly perceived as being situationally relative; a
public school system that, *overall*, is egregiously failing to produce
an educated populace; media that offer, more often than not, total crap
that further (assuming that's possible!) dumbs down kids *and* adults;
.... (A dozen other possible reasons readily come to mind, but I've
probably ****ed off enough people already. g)

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!

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. Are there parents who,
despite hearing such stories *and* possessing the intelligence/acumen to
perceive their "lesson," nevertheless DON'T apply it to their own lives?
Sure! (SOME of these individuals don't apply the lesson because, after
carefully considering it, they come up with rational reasons not to.
[I'd put most parents who forgo certain vaccinations in this category.]
SOME don't apply it simply because they DON'T ponder it--they simply
ignore it altogether. THESE people, in my book, are the "idiots.") Are
there parents who, despite hearing such a story, CAN'T (don't have the
ability to) perceive its lesson and thus don't apply it? Undoubtedly,
but I assert they constitute a *very* small minority of the "parent
pool." (THESE are the people for whom an argument that advising is
needed could be made.)

Me, I think the average person would have happier kids if they
all stopped seeing child abductors behind every tree and
weren't convinced that Harvard was the only path to life
success, ...

I agree!

....but I don't have the faith in the power of confident
and uninformed parenting that you seem to.

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.

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.

I can't say that I've mentioned it to all that many of my friends. I read
a couple of different papers and retain a lot of information - most of my
friends don't. But I don't get into conversations with them on the
subject of all the dead kids of whom I've ever heard.

-- Wendy

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?

PF

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:44:43 GMT, "JG" wrote:

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 services/programs could be reduced
(eliminated?) should people no longer "need" them! (And of the monetary
savings and the truly productive uses to which it could be put!) Think
about how many sociologists and psychologists would have to find *real*
jobs should people realize, "Hey, I CAN do this for myself... at least
I'm willing to TRY!" Face it, there are a hell of a lot of "caring"
people who
rely on others' dependency; acting in their "rational self-interest,"
there's no incentive for them to "cure" those whom they're so dedicated
(snicker) to "helping."

You are wrong, and I expect more from you, being among those whom I
consider to be the least paranoid in this newsgroup. You have hinted
at this before -- your belief that those who help others, in this case
psychologists, actually consciously provide suboptimal therapy in
order to prevent the patient from no longer needing his services any
further. This is pure bull****. Any competition is not for billable
hours. It's for the reputation as the best so that you have more than
enough business to keep you busy.

Would you apply the same logic and conclude that I would undertreat
ear infections, hoping they'll recur, so I can see the patient again
and charge for another office visit? Or that I'd try to pick an
antidepressant that I know won't work so the patient has to come back
over and over again for medication changes?

the evolution of a society in which traditional values (e.g.,
honesty/truthfulness, integrity) are increasingly perceived as being
situationally relative;

Ah, like, say, asserting, as you and Roger have, that it's OK to lie
to your doctor (as opposed to simply refusing to answer) if he asks a
question which you believe is none of his business?

PF