The thing is most bad things that happen to kids never were from strangers in the first place.
Our fear is directed at the wrong things.
-
Features
Victimhood culture and Stranger Danger
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
The thing is most bad things that happen to kids never were from strangers in the first place.
Our fear is directed at the wrong things.
Leashes are actually a very good idea for young kids. It lets them wander without allowing them to dart away, perhaps into traffic. I've only seen leashes on kids too young to be trusted to keep out of traffic.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,563
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
So we should be telling children not go home or visit their uncles?
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,739
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
To be fair, kids are most likely to be harmed by people they know--not just their parents but clergy, teachers, coaches, neighbors, scout leaders, relatives. Of especial danger seems to be the romantic partners of their mother if that romantic partner is not their biological father. Not that parents cannot and do not harm and even murder their kids. Unfortunately that happens.
I also grew up 'free range' more or less. Lots of mothers and older folks home during the daytime hours. Neighbors all knew each other. We were given boundaries where we could and could not ride our bikes (and mostly stayed within those bounds. Mostly. And when it got to be too tempting, we'd coax an extension of boundaries.) Still, my parent's bigger worries were that we would be hurt if we went into a wooded area about a mile from our home with no responsible adults around or if we went riding on country roads, a careless motorist would hit us. I think our parents relied heavily on the secret mother network where people knew and were not afraid to call your house and tell your parents if there was any sort of trouble. My parents generally knew before my feet hit the threshold if I had done something out of bounds...
When we visited family on their farms, we were given great latitude to explore, including a wooded area, pastures, etc. We were warned to stay away from silos (which are very dangerous places) and out of barns and away from hog pens (also dangerous places). But we were pretty free to roam.
When we went camping, again, we were free to roam and explore the woods around us. We followed trails up and down ravines and hills and swung on grapevines, etc. Largely, our mothers did not know exactly what we were doing so they didn't think to forbid some of the riskier things we did. Once made the mistake of showing them a particularly delightful grapevine that swung way out over a very steep ravine. We were promptly forbidden from every using that grapevine again. Not all grapevines: we had showed some pretty innocuous ones to the mothers and they didn't mind those. So, like any normal child, the first thing I did was to locate an even more daring grapevine over an even steeper ravine. And forbid anyone from telling our mothers.
My husband grew up in a nice area of NYC during the same '60's era. He routinely took public transit to his elementary school. Alone. Without a parent accompanying him. This was considered normal. Since he and his family frequently used busses (or cabs) or walked everywhere, this was just normal.
We all walked to and from the grocery store and post office for our mothers.
When our kids were young, we moved from a major metropolitan area (suburban area) to a small city/town area where our kids could easily walk to and from school, or to parks or to the convenience store or video store (they had those back then) or library or to many friends' houses. They were given boundaries dependent on their ages: they needed to be a certain age to cross certain streets without an adult. My daughter chafed and was certain that she was being terribly restricted when in fact, she had a great deal more freedom than if we lived in a major metropolitan area where the roads were far busier and where there were no friendly neighbors benignly looking out the windows, watching kids go by and intervening if necessary.
Now, in the same town, virtually all small neighborhood schools have been closed in the name of 'progress' and few kids walk anywhere, ever. Or bike without parents along side them. Or play in parks. Or go to the grocery or post office for their parents.
It's really sad.
I also grew up 'free range' more or less. Lots of mothers and older folks home during the daytime hours. Neighbors all knew each other. We were given boundaries where we could and could not ride our bikes (and mostly stayed within those bounds. Mostly. And when it got to be too tempting, we'd coax an extension of boundaries.) Still, my parent's bigger worries were that we would be hurt if we went into a wooded area about a mile from our home with no responsible adults around or if we went riding on country roads, a careless motorist would hit us. I think our parents relied heavily on the secret mother network where people knew and were not afraid to call your house and tell your parents if there was any sort of trouble. My parents generally knew before my feet hit the threshold if I had done something out of bounds...
When we visited family on their farms, we were given great latitude to explore, including a wooded area, pastures, etc. We were warned to stay away from silos (which are very dangerous places) and out of barns and away from hog pens (also dangerous places). But we were pretty free to roam.
When we went camping, again, we were free to roam and explore the woods around us. We followed trails up and down ravines and hills and swung on grapevines, etc. Largely, our mothers did not know exactly what we were doing so they didn't think to forbid some of the riskier things we did. Once made the mistake of showing them a particularly delightful grapevine that swung way out over a very steep ravine. We were promptly forbidden from every using that grapevine again. Not all grapevines: we had showed some pretty innocuous ones to the mothers and they didn't mind those. So, like any normal child, the first thing I did was to locate an even more daring grapevine over an even steeper ravine. And forbid anyone from telling our mothers.
My husband grew up in a nice area of NYC during the same '60's era. He routinely took public transit to his elementary school. Alone. Without a parent accompanying him. This was considered normal. Since he and his family frequently used busses (or cabs) or walked everywhere, this was just normal.
We all walked to and from the grocery store and post office for our mothers.
When our kids were young, we moved from a major metropolitan area (suburban area) to a small city/town area where our kids could easily walk to and from school, or to parks or to the convenience store or video store (they had those back then) or library or to many friends' houses. They were given boundaries dependent on their ages: they needed to be a certain age to cross certain streets without an adult. My daughter chafed and was certain that she was being terribly restricted when in fact, she had a great deal more freedom than if we lived in a major metropolitan area where the roads were far busier and where there were no friendly neighbors benignly looking out the windows, watching kids go by and intervening if necessary.
Now, in the same town, virtually all small neighborhood schools have been closed in the name of 'progress' and few kids walk anywhere, ever. Or bike without parents along side them. Or play in parks. Or go to the grocery or post office for their parents.
It's really sad.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
I think kids need to explore on their own or with a child near their own age. Having an adult mind there to explain every question a kid has does not challenge and exercise the small mind.
Beyond free range, I sometimes wonder if my parents were of the mind that if the worst happened, two out of three ain’t bad. I exaggerate. My parents didn’t even drink. But I am the youngest and suppose most parents let their guard down a little more with each successive child, especially a male child.
Toni’s comment about the “mother network” reminds me of those fucked up rubber boots with the buckles I had to wear in the winter. The over-shoe type. I hated those things. When I stopped by my friend’s house on the way to school, I’d ditch them in the bushes so I could slide on the ice on my way to and from school. Well, one day after school they were gone. So I walked home without my boots. What would I say? Nothing and wait to get noticed of course. I open the side door and there they are, sitting on steps. Busted by the mom network.
Beyond free range, I sometimes wonder if my parents were of the mind that if the worst happened, two out of three ain’t bad. I exaggerate. My parents didn’t even drink. But I am the youngest and suppose most parents let their guard down a little more with each successive child, especially a male child.
Toni’s comment about the “mother network” reminds me of those fucked up rubber boots with the buckles I had to wear in the winter. The over-shoe type. I hated those things. When I stopped by my friend’s house on the way to school, I’d ditch them in the bushes so I could slide on the ice on my way to and from school. Well, one day after school they were gone. So I walked home without my boots. What would I say? Nothing and wait to get noticed of course. I open the side door and there they are, sitting on steps. Busted by the mom network.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
Same as most people here, we either walked or rode our bikes everywhere. The phenomenon of a school morning where cars are bumper to bumper in order to drop off kids simply didn't exist back then. Same with after school. Same with little league and football.
Maybe one of the things that makes parents more wary these days is the knowledge that yes, bad things can happen to kids. More to the point, bad things can happen to your kids. There's a greater awareness, more graphic news stories, and therefore greater fears.
OTOH, our parents always warned us not to get into cars with strangers/don't ever hitchhike, etc., along with the catch-all of "don't do anything stupid." But there wasn't some overriding terror with respect to being out and about.
At the same time, look at the shit they have online. Phones and video games are how the kids socialize now. I don't like it, and I think it robs them of the types of invaluable experiences that have been wonderfully written about in this thread, but such is cultural change. And I have no doubt that had I been born in 2005 that I would be very much part of the cultural norms of today's kids.
I think it's important that we don't devolve into the grumpy old fucks who constantly harp on the younger generations, and try to understand that our worlds have changed, and that such is inevitable and not always bad.
Maybe one of the things that makes parents more wary these days is the knowledge that yes, bad things can happen to kids. More to the point, bad things can happen to your kids. There's a greater awareness, more graphic news stories, and therefore greater fears.
OTOH, our parents always warned us not to get into cars with strangers/don't ever hitchhike, etc., along with the catch-all of "don't do anything stupid." But there wasn't some overriding terror with respect to being out and about.
At the same time, look at the shit they have online. Phones and video games are how the kids socialize now. I don't like it, and I think it robs them of the types of invaluable experiences that have been wonderfully written about in this thread, but such is cultural change. And I have no doubt that had I been born in 2005 that I would be very much part of the cultural norms of today's kids.
I think it's important that we don't devolve into the grumpy old fucks who constantly harp on the younger generations, and try to understand that our worlds have changed, and that such is inevitable and not always bad.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
^This. Part of not seeing kids outside is that they're playing the video games. And there is a lot of interaction there with strangers, too, without all the victimization bruhaha claims.
It really is. And the saddest part is that it is really not for any good reason. The kids aren't more at danger than we were. My nephews are free range and they wander all over the town just the two of them together and have since they were 6. They are more than fine. Their parents also take them on trips, and let them roam wherever they go.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,563
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Video games existed when I was a kid. Kids do bike around in my neighborhood... play at the park. People do walk outside with their kids.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
I beg to differ.
To be clear, I don't agree with the characterizations in the OP or your post - "victimization bruhaha claims".
That said, my daughter is nearly 30, and we were already discussing online "stranger danger" when she was still in Girl Scouts.
I do agree with Toni and others that focusing exclusively on the big bad random cartoonishly scary "stranger" does not protect our children except in the very rare situation. Adam Walsh, Jaycee Dugard, Daniel Morcombe... more than enough that "stranger danger" needs to be a part of protecting children, but not by any means the only part.
On-line, however, "stranger danger" is very real. Adult predators are very real, and according to the FBI, a growing problem.
Some stats:
Approximately 1 in 7 (13%) youth Internet users received unwanted sexual solicitations.
9% of youth Internet users had been exposed to distressing sexual material while online.
1 in 25 youths received an online sexual solicitation in which the solicitor tried to make offline contact.
In more than one-quarter (27%) of incidents, solicitors asked youths for sexual photographs of themselves.
The most common first encounter of a predator with an Internet-initiated sex crimes victim took place in an online chat room (76%).
In nearly half (47%) of the cases involving an Internet-initiated sex crimes victim, the predator offered gifts or money during the relationship-building phase.
An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.
About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.
Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child.
https://www.nsopw.gov/en/education/factsstatistics/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Exactly. We keep preaching stranger danger when the real threat is those they trust. Kids generally know to be wary about the intentions of strangers, they tend to follow the dictates of those they trust. Thus it's much easier for those they trust to harm them.
The problem here is that the right answer isn't to wrap your child in a cocoon--that just results in rebellion when they turn 18. Rather, instead of trying to prevent such solicitations (and note that most are other teens, not predators) you teach them to deal with them. None of the things you list here are harmful to those who know what to do about it.
Does that not suggest that stranger danger isn't the right approach?
Underseer
Contributor
Aw, isn't that adorable! The rightist is complaining about "victimhood culture"!
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
That million woman march in Washington was fake news, right? We had some nationwide marches protesting climate denial and anti-science in Washington. I guess I must have hallucinated that I attend the one in Houston. These guys are idiots.
Curious if anyone here took the time to listen to the conversation had in the OP video. Don't expect anybody to have, since it is so long, but curious if anybody did.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,563
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Agreed. You need to wrap them in a strawman!
laughing dog
Contributor
Wrong. Strangers are a real threat, just not as likely a threat from a statistical point of view. It makes perfect sense to teach children about how and whom to trust - it is fairly low cost and effort. Frankly, it is easier to deal with stranger danger than familiar person danger with a child: something anyone who has brought up children would immediately understand.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
where did I suggest it was?
No. It suggests that this should be ONE aspect of teaching our children.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,739
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
There is nothing wrong with discussing stranger danger: even in my small community there have been a few instances of strange men attempting to lure young children into or near enough to snatch into their vehicles. It’s necessary but it isn’t enough. It’s important to teach kids that their bodies are to be respected and cannot be touched without their permission and that they always have a right to say no to anyone, even a trusted adult. And that if anyone hurts them or touvmches them in a way that makes them feel upset, they can and should tell a trusted adult. Of course that may be flawed as it is usually trusted adults who have access to harm children. It is important to name a variety of adults: parents or grandparents or a trusted teacher or friend’s parent, etc.
Elixir
Made in America
That's a shame. I spent many a night as a young teen wandering the very worst districts of San Francisco, and never came to any harm from it. Also (later teens) hitchhiking thousands of miles, sleeping wherever fatigue dictated and still - no problems. Maybe things have changed since the mid-sixties? I always suspected they would, having read about lemmings.