Kids today are just as safe as they were in the '70s, says author

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon

Over the past year, syndicated columnist Lenore Skenazy, 49, has become something of a heretic. She's an American mother of two boys, now 11 and 13, who dares to suggest that today's kids aren't growing up in constant state of near peril.Amid the cacophony of terrifying Amber Alerts and safety tips for every holiday, Skenazy is a chipper alternative, arguing that raising children in the United States now isn't more dangerous than it was when today's generation of parents were young. And back then, it was reasonably safe, too. So why does shooing the kids outside and telling them to have fun and be home by dark seem irresponsible to so many middle-class parents today?

Skenazy first instigated a kerfuffle about contemporary parenting mores when she and her husband allowed their then 9-year-old son Izzy to ride the subway alone in April 2008. After she wrote a column about Izzy's independent excursion, she and the little subway veteran made the rounds on TV morning shows and cable news, where Skenazy fielded heated questions about her common sense, if not her outright sanity. The tsk-tsking wasn't limited to the TV talking heads, either. This year, a train conductor on the Long Island Rail Road called the police after then 10-year-old Izzy took a train ride by himself. (For the record, it's entirely legal.)

In her new book, "Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts With Worry," Skenazy suggests that many American parents are in the grips of a national hysteria about child safety, which is fed by sensationalistic media coverage of child abductions, safety tips from alarmist parenting mags, and companies marketing products that promise to protect tykes from every possible danger. She by no means recommends that mom and dad chuck the car seats, but says that trying to fend off every possible risk, however remote, holds its own unfortunate, unintended consequences.

interview.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This will piss off You-Know-Who. And I don't mean Voldemort.

[fozzie 41]

I'm in partial agrrement with her. I still wouldn't let a 9 year old ride the subway alon though. Thats just stoopid!

[alienlovechild 75]

In her new book, "Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts With Worry," Skenazy suggests that many American parents are in the grips of a national hysteria about child safety, which is fed by sensationalistic media coverage of child abductions, safety tips from alarmist parenting mags, and companies marketing products that promise to protect tykes from every possible danger. She by no means recommends that mom and dad chuck the car seats, but says that trying to fend off every possible risk, however remote, holds its own unfortunate, unintended consequences.

Most of the hysteria went back to the 1980s and a declining birthrate. People had to protect their shrinking litter of kiddies as "milk carton" kids stared back at you during breakfast. Nevermind most of the kids were taken by family members.

I don't know if always been this way but you see a lot of kids who are scared of adults in broad daylight even with their parents around. Fear of going outside has been a factor in fatter kids who stay inside honing their computer skills but have little knowledge of nature. Why else would that movie The Blair Witch Project scare anyone with teenagers

stuck in the woods of Maryland and believing it was true story at the time it came out?

Edited May 4, 2009 by alienlovechild

[jundp 191]

I agree with her to a certain extent too.

My husband and I have discussed this because in Germany it seems there's much more freedom given to young kids and there doesn't seem to be a rash of abductions, killings, etc.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree with her to a certain extent too.

My husband and I have discussed this because in Germany it seems there's much more freedom given to young kids and there doesn't seem to be a rash of abductions, killings, etc.

It's difficult for parents these days because there seems to be a lot more openly public scorn when something happens to a child or the child gets into trouble. We don't know our neighbors as well as our parents did...we've lost the sense of community.

[alienlovechild 75]

My husband and I have discussed this because in Germany it seems there's much more freedom given to young kids and there doesn't seem to be a rash of abductions, killings, etc.

Has there been a rise in abductions and killings or just more news coverage?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Overall, I think kids are safer today, because they are much more awareness of hazards, and frankly, the kid's freedom to wander is much more restricted than it was when I grew up, which was the decade of the sixties, plus and minus a few years. There was much more oppurtunity for mischief, although the adults (including your parents) were more apt to "bust you", figuratively, and actually. Plus, back then, kids learned of many of the household hazards on their own, and there was no such thing, as a "kid-proof home."

The most important lesson I learned as a child? "Don't get caught!"

Edited May 4, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There was a time when neighbors look out for one another.... keeping an eye on the kids when they were playing nearby, or letting you know when your kid was getting himself into trouble. It's hard to be neighborly like that when we're all strangers these days.

[Ling Ling 22]

There was a time when neighbors look out for one another.... keeping an eye on the kids when they were playing nearby, or letting you know when your kid was getting himself into trouble. It's hard to be neighborly like that when we're all strangers these days.

I've said it before, if you take the neighbors out of the neighborhood, all you're left with is the "hood".

Yes, people not knowing the people who live around them, and being afraid to interface/intervene with the children due to either legal liabilities or because they don't think it concerns them...those problems compounded with the incredible amount of violence that children are exposed to (via TV and movies) and participants in (via video games)

has created a very dangerous and de-sensitized world. Psychologists and psychiatrists know that the more you see something (violence) the more you become desensitized to it, and the more you become conditioned to believing it's the norm. There was a time when you could turn on a radio or TV and see a college debate. Today's child's references for conflict resolution don't include much less than violence. I also believe that many children have been too pampered, similar to what happens to a bear cub raised in captivity. Our youth today may be worldly in some ways, but lack a lot of the common sense and street smarts that many of us grew up with before being handed a GameBoy and a laptop.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

I agree with her to a certain extent too.

My husband and I have discussed this because in Germany it seems there's much more freedom given to young kids and there doesn't seem to be a rash of abductions, killings, etc.

It's difficult for parents these days because there seems to be a lot more openly public scorn when something happens to a child or the child gets into trouble. We don't know our neighbors as well as our parents did...we've lost the sense of community.

agreed

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There was a time when neighbors look out for one another.... keeping an eye on the kids when they were playing nearby, or letting you know when your kid was getting himself into trouble. It's hard to be neighborly like that when we're all strangers these days.

I've said it before, if you take the neighbors out of the neighborhood, all you're left with is the "hood".

Yes, people not knowing the people who live around them, and being afraid to interface/intervene with the children due to either legal liabilities or because they don't think it concerns them...those problems compounded with the incredible amount of violence that children are exposed to (via TV and movies) and participants in (via video games)

has created a very dangerous and de-sensitized world. Psychologists and psychiatrists know that the more you see something (violence) the more you become desensitized to it, and the more you become conditioned to believing it's the norm. There was a time when you could turn on a radio or TV and see a college debate. Today's child's references for conflict resolution don't include much less than violence. I also believe that many children have been too pampered, similar to what happens to a bear cub raised in captivity. Our youth today may be worldly in some ways, but lack a lot of the common sense and street smarts that many of us grew up with before being handed a GameBoy and a laptop.

We're lucky to a big, beautiful park practically right behind our condo, and there's usually a decent number of parents with their children there, but back in the areas around the condominiums, there's not mingling because there's really no place to mingle.

[DeadPoolX 9]

There was a time when neighbors look out for one another.... keeping an eye on the kids when they were playing nearby, or letting you know when your kid was getting himself into trouble. It's hard to be neighborly like that when we're all strangers these days.

I've said it before, if you take the neighbors out of the neighborhood, all you're left with is the "hood".

Yes, people not knowing the people who live around them, and being afraid to interface/intervene with the children due to either legal liabilities or because they don't think it concerns them...those problems compounded with the incredible amount of violence that children are exposed to (via TV and movies) and participants in (via video games)

has created a very dangerous and de-sensitized world. Psychologists and psychiatrists know that the more you see something (violence) the more you become desensitized to it, and the more you become conditioned to believing it's the norm. There was a time when you could turn on a radio or TV and see a college debate. Today's child's references for conflict resolution don't include much less than violence. I also believe that many children have been too pampered, similar to what happens to a bear cub raised in captivity. Our youth today may be worldly in some ways, but lack a lot of the common sense and street smarts that many of us grew up with before being handed a GameBoy and a laptop.

I can agree and disagree with that.

I think it's important to know your neighbors and have a general sense of community. Even if you have little intention of becoming friends with your neighbors, it's good to know who lives on your block. One of them might actually be a threat to you and your kids, but you'd never know if you don't meet them.

I don't believe in the whole concept of "desensitization." I know many psychologists and psychiatrists push that idea, but just as many don't. You don't hear about the ones who don't because they don't make the news. It's more interesting to cherry pick kids who've reacted negatively to video games than it is to point to well-adjusted children.

If kids were really so influenced by games, the world would experience far more gaming-induced violence due to the sheer number of video game players. Yes, many games are violent, but so are movies and TV shows. A lot of video game content is based on real life events -- take a good look at how many WWII-themed games exist. No one would deny that WWII was violent and replaying the events in a video game only serves to reinforce that idea that war causes destruction and costs lives.

If someone acts out based on a video game, there's usually an underlying cause. Maybe that gamer had a psychological disorder or lives in a violent environment. Whatever the case, the cause of violence often goes beyond clicking a mouse or pushing buttons on a gamepad.

Many people mistakenly believe that video games are "murder simulators" of some sort and these games train kids to be killers. Ask anyone who's ever used a firearm and they'll tell you that clicking a mouse button is nothing remotely like firing a real gun. If games really trained people, I could be a professional baseball player.

One last thing I'd like to say: kids are hardly the only people who play video games. It's that mistaken belief that causes so much controversy. The average age of today's gamer is around 30 years-old. Ratings exist on games from E ("Everybody") to AO ("Adults Only). It's rare that you'll find an AO-rated game since those games are equivalent to NC-17 in movies and won't be stocked on store shelves. The highest rated game will usually be M ("Mature") and those titles are not for kids.

Some games are for kids and some are for adults. You'd think a game entitled "Grand Theft Auto" would tip parents off that maybe it's not suitable for their 3rd grader. Yet some parents still buy it and then are shocked and horrified over the game's content. Sometimes they'll even sue the game company. Well, guess what? A game company's job is to create and sell games. The game has a rating on it. It's the parents' job to judge what is and isn't appropriate for their kids and if they can't (or won't) then it's their fault and no one else.

Edited May 5, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[john & jean 37]

OFF THE STREETS AND ON THE CREEKS

[Ling Ling 22]

There was a time when neighbors look out for one another.... keeping an eye on the kids when they were playing nearby, or letting you know when your kid was getting himself into trouble. It's hard to be neighborly like that when we're all strangers these days.

I've said it before, if you take the neighbors out of the neighborhood, all you're left with is the "hood".

Yes, people not knowing the people who live around them, and being afraid to interface/intervene with the children due to either legal liabilities or because they don't think it concerns them...those problems compounded with the incredible amount of violence that children are exposed to (via TV and movies) and participants in (via video games)

has created a very dangerous and de-sensitized world. Psychologists and psychiatrists know that the more you see something (violence) the more you become desensitized to it, and the more you become conditioned to believing it's the norm. There was a time when you could turn on a radio or TV and see a college debate. Today's child's references for conflict resolution don't include much less than violence. I also believe that many children have been too pampered, similar to what happens to a bear cub raised in captivity. Our youth today may be worldly in some ways, but lack a lot of the common sense and street smarts that many of us grew up with before being handed a GameBoy and a laptop.

I can agree and disagree with that.

I think it's important to know your neighbors and have a general sense of community. Even if you have little intention of becoming friends with your neighbors, it's good to know who lives on your block. One of them might actually be a threat to you and your kids, but you'd never know if you don't meet them.

I don't believe in the whole concept of "desensitization." I know many psychologists and psychiatrists push that idea, but just as many don't. You don't hear about the ones who don't because they don't make the news. It's more interesting to cherry pick kids who've reacted negatively to video games than it is to point to well-adjusted children.

If kids were really so influenced by games, the world would experience far more gaming-induced violence due to the sheer number of video game players. Yes, many games are violent, but so are movies and TV shows. A lot of video game content is based on real life events -- take a good look at how many WWII-themed games exist. No one would deny that WWII was violent and replaying the events in a video game only serves to reinforce that idea that war causes destruction and costs lives.

If someone acts out based on a video game, there's usually an underlying cause. Maybe that gamer had a psychological disorder or lives in a violent environment. Whatever the case, the cause of violence often goes beyond clicking a mouse or pushing buttons on a gamepad.

Many people mistakenly believe that video games are "murder simulators" of some sort and these games train kids to be killers. Ask anyone who's ever used a firearm and they'll tell you that clicking a mouse button is nothing remotely like firing a real gun. If games really trained people, I could be a professional baseball player.

One last thing I'd like to say: kids are hardly the only people who play video games. It's that mistaken belief that causes so much controversy. The average age of today's gamer is around 30 years-old. Ratings exist on games from E ("Everybody") to AO ("Adults Only). It's rare that you'll find an AO-rated game since those games are equivalent to NC-17 in movies and won't be stocked on store shelves. The highest rated game will usually be M ("Mature") and those titles are not for kids.

Some games are for kids and some are for adults. You'd think a game entitled "Grand Theft Auto" would tip parents off that maybe it's not suitable for their 3rd grader. Yet some parents still buy it and then are shocked and horrified over the game's content. Sometimes they'll even sue the game company. Well, guess what? A game company's job is to create and sell games. The game has a rating on it. It's the parents' job to judge what is and isn't appropriate for their kids and if they can't (or won't) then it's their fault and no one else.

I'm gonna guess you either play a lot of games, or you're in the industry. If you're in the industry, and work for RockStar, I'm pretty pissed off about a course of last minute events involving a guy names Francois K. that prevented my wife from being able to remodel the kitchen this year...but that's another story.

I agree that the media only sensationalizes the critics that are able to assist them in taking advantage of the kid who has a psych disorder, and just happens to have video games, or rock music, or hip-hop music, or WHATEVER in his collection. Reminds me of a song that says, "Fight breaks out at a soccer game, soccer blamed for violence; fight breaks out at a music concert, music blamed for violence; fight breaks out at a peace rally, PEACE blamed for violence". The media do not serve the public, they serve their owners and stock holders whose goal is not as much to disseminate fare and unbiased news, as it is to generate profit.

With regard to the desensitization, I've spoken to some friends in psych, and they've made a good case for it...I buy it. Doesn't mean I'm right or you're wrong, but I do believe that the increased exposure to violence has it's place in evolution. I also agree that the fact that today's parents don't take or have the time to become more involved in the plethora of media that surrounds their children, we have a more dangerous world per se. It's really sad when you walk into someone's home and they have a home theater, an X-Box, PS3, and Wii, but no books for the kids to read, no board games for participation in games that mom and dad can understand, and no real firearms so the kids can learn about their 2nd amendment right, and the joy of watching real soda-pop cans dance in the air from a well aimed .22lr.