If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
Parent Stress Index another idiotic indicator list | Greg Hanson | General | 11 | March 22nd 04 12:40 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |