How Dangerous is Childhood

"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
ps.com...

Knit Chic wrote:
"toto" wrote in message
...
http://health.theledger.com/article/...11/FAMILY/1478


IMO the author of this article has very poor logic skills. The
information
that is used to back up her issue has nothing to do with the issue that
has
been presented.
Comparing apples to oranges ...

Oh? Give examples please? Hard to have a good conversation without
knowing your reasons.

Cathy Weeks

I haven't chosen a "side" IMO the article has no real value as it is
illogical.
If your asking me if I think some parents are over the top w/ how they act
w/ their children and dangers, I would have to say yes. Do I think that
some parents are not attentive enough w/ their children and dangers, again,
I would have to say yes.
If you asked do I think that I handle the issue w/ my family in a healthy
and positive way, again I would have to say yes ... and I may say about
you even though that you may chose to handle it a completely different way
.... it doesn't mean that I think your dealing with it incorrectly or "wrong"
(I have no idea how you deal w/ it, it's a hypothetical you)
I also don't think that making a child aware of dangers and making a child
fearful (as an adult or a child) go hand in hand.
I believe that making a child aware of dangers is the easy part ... giving
them the tools they need to deal with those dangers ... that's not so easy.
And it's often overlooked.

wrote:

This is something we don't hear enough about. That is, how exactly are
adults to balance the need to protect kids - since most molesters are
not strangers - with the undeniable need to teach kids to be respectful
and obedient, even to those teachers they hate and consider to be
generally unfair, since kids very often can't understand
teachers'/adults' rules anyway?

Obedient? To whom? The only need for *true* obedience is when
children are very young, and for safety issues. To me, obedience is an
absolute - "Do as I say" - mentality. I want a kid who can think for
himself, TYVM.



I'd love to know if any conservative child experts have addressed this
in detail. Certainly, Dr. John Rosemond hasn't, SFAIK - and I'd
certainly think a smart man like him could. Especially since he has no
outdated qualms (unlike Dr. Laura) about putting a four-year-old in an
after-school program so Mommy can work outside the home. (DL was
furious when he said that, in July 2000.)

I'm sorry for your children, if you think the philosophy that a parent
is the best caregiver for a preschooler is "outdated". As for Rosemond
and Schlessinger -

Blech!. Phheeeew!

-L.

In article .com,
"L." wrote:

wrote:

This is something we don't hear enough about. That is, how exactly are
adults to balance the need to protect kids - since most molesters are
not strangers - with the undeniable need to teach kids to be respectful
and obedient, even to those teachers they hate and consider to be
generally unfair, since kids very often can't understand
teachers'/adults' rules anyway?

Obedient? To whom? The only need for *true* obedience is when
children are very young, and for safety issues. To me, obedience is an
absolute - "Do as I say" - mentality. I want a kid who can think for
himself, TYVM.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. I want my kids to be
respectful and obedient. I also want them to think for themselves. The issue
is teaching them when they OUGHT to disobey, and that judgement, IMHO, is
difficult enough for adults to make. A child is definitely going to find it
difficult to distinguish between disobeying a teacher because the teacher is
asking them to do something immoral, and disobeying because the teacher is
nasty.

I suspect that if you spend a lot of time emphasising disobedience, you will
just end up with a bolshy kid who knows all about his rights but not his
responsibilities, but I could be wrong. What do the people with older kids
think?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Chookie wrote:

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. I want my kids to be
respectful and obedient. I also want them to think for themselves. The issue
is teaching them when they OUGHT to disobey, and that judgement, IMHO, is
difficult enough for adults to make. A child is definitely going to find it
difficult to distinguish between disobeying a teacher because the teacher is
asking them to do something immoral, and disobeying because the teacher is
nasty.

Guess I don't see a lot of difference - neither demands or deserves
respect. It's getting them to undertstand when the line (for each)
has been crossed that is the problem, because it's always open to
interpretation.


I suspect that if you spend a lot of time emphasising disobedience,

If the "you" is not generic and is, in fact, directed at me, I never
said or implied anything about "emphasising disobedience." My approach
would be one more of "de-emphasising obedience". I have no problem
whatsoever teaching my child to question authority.

And I do believe *civil disobedience* is an intregal - and necessary -
part of culture in the US - one that is greatly underused, ATM.


you will
just end up with a bolshy kid who knows all about his rights but not his
responsibilities, but I could be wrong. What do the people with older kids
think?

"Responsibilities" are also open to interpretation. It's a difficult
subject, to be sure...

-L.
(posting from my other account...)

"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
oups.com...

FlowerGirl wrote:
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
oups.com...

I disagree .. the way I see it is that Chris is teaching her son to be
aware
of his surroundings (ie "stranger danger").

I think you missed my point. That she *risks* doing so, not that she
*is*. If she's handling it carefully, she probably WON'T cause it.
Just as if she lets him go into a bathroom alone, he will probably
never be harmed. Are you seriously claiming that there is no risk to
stranger danger teachings?

I'm saying that I don't think teaching a kids about stranger danger leads to
adults with serious trust issues. A healthy mistrust of strangers is a good
thing IMHO.

Howabout that Utah kid, who was so distrustful of strangers, that when
he became separated from his family in a national park, he hid from
rescue searchers for several days?

Never heard about the Utah kid, but we're in Oz so it didn't make the news
here.
I wonder if the recent murder of the 8 yo girl in a public toilet in Perth
(while her uncle and brother waited outside) made the news elsewhere?

And stranger danger is SERIOUSLY overrated. The vast majority of all
strangers are not out to get your kid. I think we should teach them
"stranger caution", not stranger danger.

Semantics.
...and I personally don't think stranger danger is overrated but then that's
my opinion.

I seriously doubt that Chris not letting her 6 yo son go to the men's
dunny
by himself will turn him into a "fearful, distrustful child, who then
turns
into an adult who has trouble connecting with people".

Me too.

...but I reckon
even a comparatively mild encounter with a sleazebag in a public toilet
would accomplish that *really* well.

Perhaps. But the chances of that are REALLY low.

....and that was also Chris's point ... the chances are low, but the
magnitude of the consequences is huge. I'll be picking the option I find
easier to live with, as I'm sure you also will.
Amanda

"Knit Chic" wrote in message
et...

"toto" wrote in message
...
http://health.theledger.com/article/...11/FAMILY/1478

How Dangerous Is Childhood?
NICOLE NEAL
c. 2006 Cox News Service

How Dangerous Is Childhood?
NICOLE NEAL
c. 2006 Cox News Service
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate


IMO the author of this article has very poor logic skills. The
information
that is used to back up her issue has nothing to do with the issue that
has
been presented.
Comparing apples to oranges ...

I agree ... there's a bit of quantum leaping going on methinks!

Amanda

I'd love to know if any conservative child experts have addressed this
in detail. Certainly, Dr. John Rosemond hasn't, SFAIK - and I'd
certainly think a smart man like him could. Especially since he has no
outdated qualms (unlike Dr. Laura) about putting a four-year-old in an
after-school program so Mommy can work outside the home. (DL was
furious when he said that, in July 2000.)

I'm sorry for your children, if you think the philosophy that a parent
is the best caregiver for a preschooler is "outdated". As for Rosemond
and Schlessinger -

Blech!. Phheeeew!

-L.


Um, I didn't say that. What got Dr. Laura so mad (I think) is the idea
that a 4-year-old is old enough to start being in some sort of day-care
- i.e., old enough to start making some sacrifices for the greater good
of the family and to start revolving around the parents' wishes instead
of the other way around. (This is why, in all likelihood, Dr. Rosemond
doesn't approve of DL's mantra "I am my kids' mom," since HIS mantra -
for both parents - is: "Put your marriage first.")

People sometimes spread lies about Rosemond, BTW. For example, they've
said he claims that parents should not play with their kids after age
three because it spoils them. He didn't. What he DID say was that by
age three, kids should be able to amuse themselves without complaint
whenever a loving parent simply must work on something else. Again, the
issue is making kids understand at an early age that from that age on,
they and their whims are not the center of the universe anymore.

Also, check out this list of School Year Resolutions for parents:

http://rosemond.com/index.php?action...ebPageID=11490

Excerpt: Resolution #4 - "I will not take my child's side in a dispute
with the teacher, even if I think the teacher's being slightly unfair.
If I think she's being very unfair, I'll ask someone else's opinion
before talking with her."


Lenona.

Chookie wrote:

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. I want my kids to be
respectful and obedient. I also want them to think for themselves. The issue
is teaching them when they OUGHT to disobey, and that judgement, IMHO, is
difficult enough for adults to make. A child is definitely going to find it
difficult to distinguish between disobeying a teacher because the teacher is
asking them to do something immoral, and disobeying because the teacher is
nasty.



Thank you, that was pretty much what I was getting at. Even an
unpleasant teacher is likely to give a student the benefit of the doubt
once in a while if the student is consistently well-behaved and polite.
Formal politeness, as Miss Manners has pointed out, gives both adults
and children the freedom to say, nonverbally, "I have the right not to
like you or be friendly, ever" without being rude.

Another problem, as you hinted, is that molestation is hardly the only
way adults might exploit kids. Even parents might use their kids to
help them shoplift, for example. Or, there are many cases of teens who
get seriously hurt in their after-school jobs because their bosses
ordered them to do dangerous tasks that are illegal for minors to do,
and the teens couldn't figure out how to say no without risking getting
fired, assuming they knew the tasks were illegal in the first place.
(And, of course, many families simply cannot afford to have their teens
lose their jobs.)

Lenona.

wrote in
ups.com:

Um, I didn't say that. What got Dr. Laura so mad (I think)
is the idea that a 4-year-old is old enough to start being
in some sort of day-care - i.e., old enough to start making
some sacrifices for the greater good of the family and to
start revolving around the parents' wishes instead of the
other way around. (This is why, in all likelihood, Dr.
Rosemond doesn't approve of DL's mantra "I am my kids'
mom," since HIS mantra - for both parents - is: "Put your
marriage first.")

heh. we're not married. i'm *sure* he has something wonderful
to say about that...
*my* mantra is "we are a family. we cooperate to get things
done so we can play"
'i'm the mom' is for those occaisions the kid doesn't want to
do something that needs doing before we do something else &
asks why *he* has to do it

People sometimes spread lies about Rosemond, BTW. For
example, they've said he claims that parents should not
play with their kids after age three because it spoils
them. He didn't. What he DID say was that by age three,
kids should be able to amuse themselves without complaint
whenever a loving parent simply must work on something
else. Again, the issue is making kids understand at an
early age that from that age on, they and their whims are
not the center of the universe anymore.

Rosemond is an idiot. no need to spread lies about him. just
ignore him.

Also, check out this list of School Year Resolutions for
parents:

Excerpt: Resolution #4 - "I will not take my child's side
in a dispute with the teacher, even if I think the
teacher's being slightly unfair. If I think she's being
very unfair, I'll ask someone else's opinion before talking
with her."

what if the teacher is a total loon? what if she singles out
*your* child as the class scapegoat? what if she stands by
your child's desk, & taps on it while telling the entire class
that people from X state (that your child was born in & moved
from recently) are so very stupid? do you take your child's
side or tell him that he must obey & respect that teacher?
lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

"L." wrote in
oups.com:


toypup wrote:

I remember in a documentary recently that she was six
aisles over, which can't be very far.

I wouldn't leave my six year old at all.

i don't leave mine anywhere, but he's allowed to go an aisle
or two away.

A security guard took Adam out of the store and left him
there when the boys started arguing. I hope that guard
feels as guilty as she should for her part.

I would think the mom should have heard her son arguing
and maybe should have kept a closer eye on him, but the
guard should never have escorted a six-year old out of a
store and left him there.

nope, he shouldn't have, but it's fairly common in malls for
the store security (anchor stores) to kick kids out of thier
stores back into the mall. usually not coordinated with mall
security either.
i used to work in a mall & you'd be amazed at what parents
do. people used to try to leave kids in my store *all the
time* because we sold video games & had test stations set up.
if i saw the parent do that, i'd tell them as they headed for
the door that babysitting was $25/hour, per child. funny how
no one wanted to pay.
if i didn't see them in time (helping other customers or
whatever), i'd call mall security to take the kids to the
office. retail sales people are NOT babysitters, no matter
what our store sells. i'm not & my employees aren't resposible
for watching your kids.
oh, & we had a pedophile manager for a brief time until one
of the other employees & i got him fired... so remember that
can happen too.

I have never read anything about a security guard being
involved - and I have read Walsh's books. (Albeit a long
time ago.) I will have to check that out! In fact, I
thought they looked for him in the store for quite along
time - seems a guard would know he had been put outside...

*a* guard may have known he was put outside, but the security
guards don't always communicate with each other. if it was
shift change, the guard who put him out would most likely not
tell his replacement about it, or anyone in another
department.
lee

--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson