Eek! A Male! (The MSM brainwashing is working....)

[tangent4ronpaul]

The author of this piece is one we are familiar with. She is the author of: "Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry"

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Range-Kids-Children-Freedom-Without/dp/0470471948

Reviews:
Library Journal Starred Review - Skenazy flies the black flag of ?America?s Worst Mom,? a title this syndicated columnist and NPR commentator earned by allowing her nine-year-old son to ride the New?York City?public transit alone in 2008. Here, she puts parents? fears to bed by examining the statistical likelihood of the dangers we most fear (murder, baby-snatching, etc.). Drawing on facts, statistics, and humor, she convincingly argues that this is one of the safest periods for children in the history of the world, reiterating that ?mostly, the world is safe?and mostly, people are good.? Even the lowest-flying helicopter parents would have trouble disagreeing that ?we have entered an era that says you cannot trust yourself. Trust a product instead.? Skenazy argues that it?s time to retire the national pastime of worrying and that ?childhood is supposed to be about discovering the world, not being held captive.? The obvious has never been so hilarious.

?Skenazy will find plenty of supporters for her contention that, in a world where the rights of chickens to roam freely are championed, it's time to liberate the kids.? (The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2009)

"Skenazy advocates for a child's right to separate gradually from a parent's assistance and to learn the joy and self-confidence that comes from trying out independence." --Christian Century (November 2009)

Her web site: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

===

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073752925629440.html

Eek! A Male!
Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer.

Last week, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Timothy Murray, noticed smoke coming out of a minivan in his hometown of Worcester. He raced over and pulled out two small children, moments before the van's tire exploded into flames. At which point, according to the AP account, the kids' grandmother, who had been driving, nearly punched our hero in the face.

Why?

Mr. Murray said she told him she thought he might be a kidnapper.

And so it goes these days, when almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep. I call it "Worst-First" thinking: Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.

Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening."

Now, a guy turned on by diaper changes has got to be even rarer than a guy turned on by Sponge Bob. But "Worst-First" thinking means suspecting the motives of any man who chooses to work around kids.

Maybe the daycare center felt it had to be extra cautious, to avoid lawsuits. But regular folk are suspicious, too. Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said—until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.

Given the level of distrust, is it any wonder that, as the London Telegraph reported last month, the British Musicians' Union warned its members they are no longer to touch a child's fingers, even to position them correctly on the keys? Or that a public pool in Sydney, Australia last fall prohibited boys from changing in the same locker room as the men? (According to the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the men demanded this, fearing false accusations.)

What's really ironic about all this emphasis on perverts is that it's making us think like them. Remember the story that broke right before Christmas? The FBI warned law-enforcement agencies that the new Video Barbie could be used to make kiddie porn. The warning was not intended for the public but it leaked out. TV news celebrated the joy of the season by telling parents that any man nice enough to play dolls with their daughters could really be videotaping "under their little skirts!" as one Fox News reporter said.

This queasy climate is making men think twice about things they used to do unselfconsciously. A friend of mine, Eric Kozak, was working for a while as a courier. Driving around an unfamiliar neighborhood, he says, "I got lost. I saw a couple kids by the side of the road and rolled down my window to ask, 'Where is such-and-such road?' They ran off screaming."

Another dad told me about taking his three-year-old to play football in the local park, where he'd help organize the slightly older kids into a game. Over time, one of the kids started to look up to him. "He wanted to stand close to me, wanted approval, Dad stuff, I guess. And because of this whole 'stranger danger' mentality, I could sense this sort of wary disapproval from the few other parents at the playground. So I just stopped going."

And that's not the worst. In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her. You know: A man driving around with a little girl in his car? She ended up at a pond and drowned.

We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.

====

Why does the MSM and the gvmt push this stuff?

Media - it's profitable. Just like "if it bleeds, it leads"

Gvmt - well that did get their foot in the door to the Internet, it's also led to the justice dept growing rapidly in manpower, budget and power - all over what is basically a non-issue. Your kid is more likely to be struck dead by lightning than to be abducted by a stranger.

CONTROL! - if you can separate generations, the lessons of the older generations don't trickle down to the younger ones and it's easier to program and control them.

PROFIT! - There is some big money to be made for some organizations to make up lies, manipulate statistics and spread fear. Most of it you are paying for via taxes.

-t

[JamesButabi]

Just watch the lifetime channel. Every show/movie that comes on has is based around a man serial killer / rapist / pedophile.

[Dreamofunity]

Great piece.

[lynnf]

bet this Skenazy person hasn't heard the Adam Walsh story: (of John Walsh -> America's Most Wanted tv show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Adam_Walsh

lynn

[BuddyRey]

Huge bump for this article. I too have noticed this recent wave of Androphobia sweeping the western world and it's a real shame, because boys and girls alike are being forced to live in sterile bubbles now, devoid of any positive male influence. I have a friend who once got tailed by a nosy lady in a supermarket because he was shopping alone with his infant grandson. When he confronted the stalker, she claimed to be following him because she suspected he was a pedophile.

One time, several years ago, my sister invited a girlfriend from school to sleep over, but the friend's parents said no because we lived with our single dad. That one really pissed me off at the time, because it hit so close to home; they didn't even know my dad, and if they had, they'd know there isn't an abusive or exploitative bone in his body.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a friend who once got tailed by a nosy lady in a supermarket because he was shopping alone with his infant grandson. When he confronted the stalker, she claimed to be following him because she suspected he was a pedophile.

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here with this, but it's important:


Contrary to popular belief, the Gestapo was not the all-pervasive, omnipotent agency in German society.[17] In Germany proper, many towns and cities had less than 50 official Gestapo personnel. For example, in 1939 Stettin and Frankfurt am Main only had a total of 41 Gestapo men combined.[18] In Düsseldorf, the local Gestapo office of only 281 men were responsible for the entire Lower Rhine region, which comprised 4 million people.[19] "V-men", as undercover Gestapo agents were known, were used to infiltrate Social Democratic and Communist opposition groups, but this was more the exception, not the rule.[20] The Gestapo office in Saarbrücken had 50 full-term informers in 1939.[20] The District Office in Nuremberg, which had the responsibility for all of northern Bavaria employed a total of 80–100 full-term informers in the years 1943–1945.[20]

The vast majority of Gestapo informers were not full-term informers working undercover, but were rather ordinary citizens who for whatever reason chose to denounce those they knew to the Gestapo.[21]

According to Canadian historian Robert Gellately's analysis of the local offices established, the Gestapo was, for the most part, made up of bureaucrats and clerical workers who depended upon denunciations by citizens for their information.[22] Gellately argued that because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933-45 was a prime example of Panopticism.[23] Indeed, the Gestapo, at times, was overwhelmed with denunciations and most of its time was spent sorting out the credible from the less credible denunciations.[24] Many of the local offices were understaffed and overworked, struggling with the paper load caused by so many denunciations.[25] Gellately has also suggested that the Gestapo was "a reactive organization" that "...which was constructed within German society and whose functioning was structurally dependent on the continuing co-operation of German citizens

[virgil47]

Well it is very obvious that the author places no value on her offspring. To just let them roam freely with no restraints or close observation is not the sign of good parents. Even the lower animal life forms watch over their offspring better that this lazy uncaring product of the permissiveness that has become endemic in our society.

[Anti Federalist]

Well it is very obvious that the author places no value on her offspring. To just let them roam freely with no restraints or close observation is not the sign of good parents. Even the lower animal life forms watch over their offspring better that this lazy uncaring product of the permissiveness that has become endemic in our society.

Nah, there are a half a million references that I could pull up regarding how much more mature and responsible and independent children were just 50 years ago.

It's this incessant coddling and "protecting" that has resulted in 35 year old man-children still living at home with mom and dad.

Tough as it is, you have got to allow your children the chance to fall down, lose, get hurt and get bruised, if for nothing more than to learn how to pick themselves back up and carry on.

[NYgs23]

Well it is very obvious that the author places no value on her offspring. To just let them roam freely with no restraints or close observation is not the sign of good parents. Even the lower animal life forms watch over their offspring better that this lazy uncaring product of the permissiveness that has become endemic in our society.

There's a spectrum between smothering and neglect and, unfortunately, our society has slid way over to the smothering side not the neglectful side. Children of my parents and grandparents generation roamed their neighborhoods quite freely. The slight increased risk is offset by better skills, independence, and psychological health.

[BlackTyrone]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/chris_hansen.gif

[Brian4Liberty]

For some reason this brings to mind "The Crucible". We do love our witch hunts, don't we?

[klamath]

For the most part people are pretty damned decent. Like this article. It is fine line between coddling and neglect. It will always be debated. I was pretty free as a kid and because of it I also leaned to respect boundries and my parents fears.

[Heimdallr]

Fantastic. That was a good read. Spread this.

[axiomata]

Her Free Range Kids book was popular among libertarian economists.

http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/02/freerange-kids-and-the-economic-way-of-thinking.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/i_loved_free-ra.html#

[axiomata]

Well it is very obvious that the author places no value on her offspring. To just let them roam freely with no restraints or close observation is not the sign of good parents. Even the lower animal life forms watch over their offspring better that this lazy uncaring product of the permissiveness that has become endemic in our society.

Here's the membership card:


I'm not lost, I am a FREE-RANGE KID!

I have been taught how to cross the street safely. I know never to GO OFF with strangers, but I can talk to them. I like being outside and exploring the world. If you are a grown-up, you probably did the same things when you were a kid, so do not be alarmed. The adults in my life know where I am, but if you want to talk to them, feel free to give them a call.

The number is: _________

Have a Free-Range Day!

[silentshout]

//

[silentshout]

There's a spectrum between smothering and neglect and, unfortunately, our society has slid way over to the smothering side not the neglectful side. Children of my parents and grandparents generation roamed their neighborhoods quite freely. The slight increased risk is offset by better skills, independence, and psychological health.

This. I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s, and the way she parents was the norm then. After about the age of 6 or so, we would be out playing with a gang of neighborhood kids all day, unsupervised. We would come home when the street lights came on. Raising kids of my own today, I couldn't even come close to doing that, not because things are riskier, but because people would report me. We have gone way overboard to the smothering side, and it's sad.

[MelissaWV]

This. I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s, and the way she parents was the norm then. After about the age of 6 or so, we would be out playing with a gang of neighborhood kids all day, unsupervised. We would come home when the street lights came on. Raising kids of my own today, I couldn't even come close to doing that, not because things are riskier, but because people would report me. We have gone way overboard to the smothering side, and it's sad.

Absolutely. I watched R-rated movies with mom when I was just starting elementary school. There is a topless photo of me hanging on the wall in the house (I'm less than a year old, but no matter; you know such things can be reported). I used to go fishing with my dad when I was itty bitty, getting up at an abusively early hour to drive out to a lake and spending all day in the company of him and a bunch of pudgy old men, most of them with trucks or vans. I spoke to "strangers" throughout my youth, mostly because I realized early on that adults were interesting. I never had one invite me to go help find their lost puppy, or offer me free candy, or whatever; I stayed in public with them, and I minded my manners. Remember when minding your manners with grownups was more important than viewing them all as wanting to touch your privates?

No one taught me that giving gifts was wrong. I gave gifts to the mailman, to the teachers, and so on. It did not matter if it was a male teacher. I did not stop and consider whether or not the gift might give a green light to a pedo. I grew up in a culture where hugging and kissing is the accustomed greeting. Unfortunately, I couldn't do that as much as I'd like by the time I started getting into HS. People would gasp and think something untoward was going on if I gave the teacher a peck on the cheek when I wished him Merry Christmas. That was in the late 90s, though, and I think minds were changing for the worse.

The only "smothering" that went on was once I gained my own mobility. Even into adulthood, I speak to my parents regularly, and I let them know if I'm going somewhere distinct (like on vacation, or leaving the country, or state, or whatever). When I was working as a teen, I would call them when I was done working (at nearly midnight) and I'd drive home. Checking in is not so tiresome as it seems, but my parents would not flip out if I was "late" or whatever. They'd just know, in case something did happen, more or less what time I left work or wherever, who I was with, and more or less the route the "something" would have happened along. It's no biggie.

I wandered around multiple yards as a kid, I played with grasshoppers and tracked animals through the forest, I visited adult neighbors who had no children at all... and I was still safe. I even, on vacation, walked a few miles with my cousins to go get treats from this elderly lady who made and sold them out of her home. On the way home, we'd all smile and wave to the old childless man next door to the family home, and he'd smile and wave back. He didn't molest any of us.

[Vessol]

Smothering is not the right word for parenthood now. Incessant paranoia is the more correct word.

If parents were smothering their children and were worried about their well-being you wouldn't see such record amounts of divorces, of a lack of stay at home parents, or any of the things that harm a childhood.

No, there is no smothering going on, there is only the paranoia of outside threats.

I and my roommate one day decided were watching my roommate's girlfriends daughters when we took them to the park so that she could study. While we sat on the bench and talked for awhile about video games and such, eventually we got bored and decided to play on the playground ourselves. We got the dirtiest looks from everyone who passed us.

Also I grew up at the tail end of freedom given to children, about the 1990's. I remember spending all day outside fishing, or playing capture the flag or anything. I always told my parents where I was and they rarely worried about me.

[virgil47]

There's a spectrum between smothering and neglect and, unfortunately, our society has slid way over to the smothering side not the neglectful side. Children of my parents and grandparents generation roamed their neighborhoods quite freely. The slight increased risk is offset by better skills, independence, and psychological health.

You are correct about the spectrum. I firmly believe that a society that allows it's teenagers run the streets at all hours of the night is anything but smothering. Head downtown in any major city at night and observe the street corners and night life areas. Many if not most of these kids are under the age of 18. When I was a teenager I was home when the street lights came on and I stayed there under the watchful eyes of my parents.

[NYgs23]

You are correct about the spectrum. I firmly believe that a society that allows it's teenagers run the streets at all hours of the night is anything but smothering. Head downtown in any major city at night and observe the street corners and night life areas. Many if not most of these kids are under the age of 18. When I was a teenager I was home when the street lights came on and I stayed there under the watchful eyes of my parents.

Only people over the age of 18 should be allowed outside at night? I know teenagers who I'd trust more on the street than a lot of adults.

Also, insofar as teenagers do act out poorly, it could likely be due to the very phenomenon I'm talking about: they're allowed no freedom or privacy or independence, they're treated like infants who can't do anything for themselves, so then they act rebel but without any social skills or ability to navigate the outside world.

Adolescence didn't even exist as a separate cultural category before modern times with the rise of things the compulsory schooling.

[virgil47]

Only people over the age of 18 should be allowed outside at night? I know teenagers who I'd trust more on the street than a lot of adults.

Also, insofar as teenagers do act out poorly, it could likely be due to the very phenomenon I'm talking about: they're allowed no freedom or privacy or independence, they're treated like infants who can't do anything for themselves, so then they act rebel but without any social skills or ability to navigate the outside world.

Adolescence didn't even exist as a separate cultural category before modern times with the rise of things the compulsory schooling.

So running the streets at all hours of the day and night is something you support? This simply goes back to life experience. Until children understand and accept the boundaries that society sets and expects them to adhere to they should not be just turned loose. Whereas age alone is not always an indicator of maturity it is the best marker society has to determine maturity. One of the primary reasons modern society has an age related marker is because in times past children got into and caused way to many problems.

[MelissaWV]

So running the streets at all hours of the day and night is something you support? This simply goes back to life experience. Until children understand and accept the boundaries that society sets and expects them to adhere to they should not be just turned loose. Whereas age alone is not always an indicator of maturity it is the best marker society has to determine maturity. One of the primary reasons modern society has an age related marker is because in times past children got into and caused way to many problems.

It depends on how "past" the time you're referring to is. Marriage was often something a woman did as soon as she "reached womanhood," which is not related to any real number. Jobs were obtained when you were able to do the work. You could get booze when you could see over the bar.

Of course, if you were caught fiddling around outside marriage (let alone pregnant outside of it), slacking off at work, or getting too drunk, you'd actually get in trouble. From your parents. Does society value parents anymore? Not really. Government knows what's best, and "what's best" is usually tied to an age rather than any real test of ability. You won't work until you're 16 in some states (I believe, anyhow; I haven't looked recently) and if you're under a certain age you must have breaks on time, limited hours, and so on. You're "free" to marry when you want... unless you're too young, or your ages are too far apart, or some other random reason (like your gender being the same). You will not drink before 21! If you do, you might get into deep shit, but more importantly the adult who thought you might be able to handle your liquor will be in deep shit.

[Freedom 4 all]

You know, it's kind of weird. We live in a country so ridiculously squeamish about racial profiling that the TSA will treat an 88 year old white woman with knitting needles like a terrorist rather than show discretion, and this will be applauded by the ultraliberals as equality, but discriminating against males in a position to deal with children is fair game. Now I'm not saying that we should racially profile for Muslims at airports, but I don't get why are Muslims protected from discrimination as a demographic group and males not. Seems kind of inconsistent.

[Kludge]

Just watch the lifetime channel. Every show/movie that comes on has is based around a man serial killer / rapist / pedophile.

That's not... ENTIRELY true. My step-mom had the TV on Lifetime almost all day every day.

Occasionally, there is a movie about a murderous super-bitch. Oh, and there are often movies about lesbians and terminal illness.

[HazyHusky420]

As someone who was a teenager not long ago, all I have to say is let them go. I don't mean just let them do what they want, but quit treating your teens like little kids who don't know what they're doing. They have an idea. Of course they need guidance, but people take that way too far. Essentially, be libertarian towards your kids. Don't make them hate you =)

Keep one word in mind parents: privacy

[virgil47]

As someone who was a teenager not long ago, all I have to say is let them go. I don't mean just let them do what they want, but quit treating your teens like little kids who don't know what they're doing. They have an idea. Of course they need guidance, but people take that way too far. Essentially, be libertarian towards your kids. Don't make them hate you =)

Keep one word in mind parents: privacy

If parents do not set boundaries for their children society will teach them the hard way as to what is appropriate behavior. Unfortunately children that learn in this fashion tend to hate their parents and feel that the parent didn't care enough to set limits and put up with the hassle of guiding their children into adult hood. Of course these feelings don't develop until the children are much older and realize how badly they've messed up their lives. Stop and think. Would you rather give your children free rein to do as they feel they are entitled to do and then later deal with the mess they've created or would you rather set limits, give up some of your free time and raise responsible adults?

[HazyHusky420]

If parents do not set boundaries for their children society will teach them the hard way as to what is appropriate behavior. Unfortunately children that learn in this fashion tend to hate their parents and feel that the parent didn't care enough to set limits and put up with the hassle of guiding their children into adult hood. Of course these feelings don't develop until the children are much older and realize how badly they've messed up their lives. Stop and think. Would you rather give your children free rein to do as they feel they are entitled to do and then later deal with the mess they've created or would you rather set limits, give up some of your free time and raise responsible adults?

Not everyone is the same. Different strokes for different folks.

[oyarde]

That's not... ENTIRELY true. My step-mom had the TV on Lifetime almost all day every day.

Occasionally, there is a movie about a murderous super-bitch. Oh, and there are often movies about lesbians and terminal illness.

That lifetime stuff is terrible . Slightly better than a prison sentence maybe ....

[axiomata]

That's not... ENTIRELY true. My step-mom had the TV on Lifetime almost all day every day.

Occasionally, there is a movie about a murderous super-bitch. Oh, and there are often movies about lesbians and terminal illness.

But are their movies about murderous super-lesbo-bitches with terminal illnesses?

[dannno]

If parents do not set boundaries for their children society will teach them the hard way as to what is appropriate behavior. Unfortunately children that learn in this fashion tend to hate their parents and feel that the parent didn't care enough to set limits and put up with the hassle of guiding their children into adult hood. Of course these feelings don't develop until the children are much older and realize how badly they've messed up their lives. Stop and think. Would you rather give your children free rein to do as they feel they are entitled to do and then later deal with the mess they've created or would you rather set limits, give up some of your free time and raise responsible adults?

What your parents did to YOU was fine, but a lot of other kids would have been kinda messed up by the experience.. It depends on their personality.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Of the kids I grew up around, the least messed up ones were also the freest.

-t

[coastie]

This. I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s, and the way she parents was the norm then. After about the age of 6 or so, we would be out playing with a gang of neighborhood kids all day, unsupervised. We would come home when the street lights came on.

This is the life that I lived, and the one my kids are living now. Street lights come on? Nah, not here. We know-personally-every one of our neighbors. Their kids/our kids will be at each others house well past mid night on the weekends, up to about 7-8 on weeknights depending on what's going on, roaming the street between houses as well. My 1st grader is a straight A student, 6th grader pretty close to it.Not a worry.:)


Raising kids of my own today, I couldn't even come close to doing that, not because things are riskier, but because people would report me. We have gone way overboard to the smothering side, and it's sad.

That really sucks, I'm really lucky we live in a very liberty-oriented neighborhood.

From one of AF's recent posts:

The vast majority of Gestapo informers were not full-term informers working undercover, but were rather ordinary citizens who for whatever reason chose to denounce those they knew to the Gestapo.

;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Nah, there are a half a million references that I could pull up regarding how much more mature and responsible and independent children were just 50 years ago.

It's this incessant coddling and "protecting" that has resulted in 35 year old man-children still living at home with mom and dad.

Tough as it is, you have got to allow your children the chance to fall down, lose, get hurt and get bruised, if for nothing more than to learn how to pick themselves back up and carry on.

QFT!! EPIC nanny-state fail around these parts. :P

[heavenlyboy34]

If parents do not set boundaries for their children society will teach them the hard way as to what is appropriate behavior. Unfortunately children that learn in this fashion tend to hate their parents and feel that the parent didn't care enough to set limits and put up with the hassle of guiding their children into adult hood. Of course these feelings don't develop until the children are much older and realize how badly they've messed up their lives. Stop and think. Would you rather give your children free rein to do as they feel they are entitled to do and then later deal with the mess they've created or would you rather set limits, give up some of your free time and raise responsible adults?

Maybe if we're talking about children. But we're talking about teenagers and pre-teens. People in that age are young adults, not children who need to be coddled. They need to be free and suffer the consequences of bad decisions. This builds character and makes for stronger adults. I was a free-range kid, for the most part. And this was in the early-mid 90's! Nothing bad or sinister happened to me. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Nah, there are a half a million references that I could pull up regarding how much more mature and responsible and independent children were just 50 years ago.

It's this incessant coddling and "protecting" that has resulted in 35 year old man-children still living at home with mom and dad.

Tough as it is, you have got to allow your children the chance to fall down, lose, get hurt and get bruised, if for nothing more than to learn how to pick themselves back up and carry on.

I'd give you +rep, but it won't let me right now. :(

[Pericles]

That's not... ENTIRELY true. My step-mom had the TV on Lifetime almost all day every day.

Occasionally, there is a movie about a murderous super-bitch. Oh, and there are often movies about lesbians and terminal illness.
Yeah, just stuff from everyday life .......:rolleyes:

[virgil47]

What your parents did to YOU was fine, but a lot of other kids would have been kinda messed up by the experience.. It depends on their personality.

My parents did not "do"anything "to" me they did "for"me.

[virgil47]

Maybe if we're talking about children. But we're talking about teenagers and pre-teens. People in that age are young adults, not children who need to be coddled. They need to be free and suffer the consequences of bad decisions. This builds character and makes for stronger adults. I was a free-range kid, for the most part. And this was in the early-mid 90's! Nothing bad or sinister happened to me. :cool:

Until someone reaches the age of majority they are children. A preteen is most definitely a child whereas a teen may at times be considered a budding adult depending upon their level of maturity. Maturity is not automatically granted a teen it must be gained through the combination of guidance and experience. Experience alone is not a sure way of gaining maturity.

[Todd]

This article is right on. When I worked in the school system, you always had an uneasy feeling you were being scrutinized because you were a male around kindergartners.
When I was a teen, I used to babysit regularly because I liked my neighborhoods kids, was pretty well respected and it was good easy money. Nobody ever thought anything of it. I'll bet most teenage boys wouldn't be considered for that these days.

[Seraphim]

I have never had a personal experience of "EEK A MALE!", but I know it's prevalent. My experiences are the opposite though. Just the other day I was at the movie theatre, standing outside the washroom waiting for my brother to finish in there. A nice looking 40ish year old mother asked me to go into the men's bathroom to check on her 7 year old boy and his same aged friend. Yes, you read that right. She asked me to actively go into the washroom to check on two little boys, and apologized for bothering me. She was more worried about them struggling to reach to wash their hands then me touching them.

Sanity still exists. I urge you to actively look for it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Until someone reaches the age of majority they are children. A preteen is most definitely a child whereas a teen may at times be considered a budding adult depending upon their level of maturity. Maturity is not automatically granted a teen it must be gained through the combination of guidance and experience. Experience alone is not a sure way of gaining maturity.

I've known 15 year olds that were more mature than many adults. I knew a 35 year old that lived in his mothers basement and was less mature than most teens. "age of majority" is a bullshit line in the sand imposed and enforced by force by the state. It's completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with how grown up a person is.

-t

[virgil47]

I've known 15 year olds that were more mature than many adults. I knew a 35 year old that lived in his mothers basement and was less mature than most teens. "age of majority" is a bullshit line in the sand imposed and enforced by force by the state. It's completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with how grown up a person is.

-t

Yes it is an imaginary line. However it is the only way of judging the approximate level of maturity of an individual short of a written, oral or investigation of an individuals past and present actions. With a population of over 300 million people that approach is not realistic. Of course the approach of just allowing everyone regardless of demonstrated maturity to do whatever they pleased is also an approach. I don't believe that is a prudent approach. Do you?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Of course the approach of just allowing everyone regardless of demonstrated maturity to do whatever they pleased is also an approach. I don't believe that is a prudent approach. Do you?

Yes. But parents should have a say here for teens.

In Switzerland, if you are big enough to sit at a bar, you will be served. That means able to get on the bar stool and be seen over the counter. I think Germany is the same way.

-t

[jtstellar]

Yes it is an imaginary line. However it is the only way of judging the approximate level of maturity of an individual short of a written, oral or investigation of an individuals past and present actions. With a population of over 300 million people that approach is not realistic. Of course the approach of just allowing everyone regardless of demonstrated maturity to do whatever they pleased is also an approach. I don't believe that is a prudent approach. Do you?

do what you wish.. you should not feel threatened by others' beliefs so much so that you feel the need to get defensive on an internet forum.. so long as you don't support laws that promote your beliefs and take away the rights of other parents to do with theirs.

[tangent4ronpaul]

do what you wish.. you should not feel threatened by others' beliefs so much so that you feel the need to get defensive on an internet forum.. so long as you don't support laws that promote your beliefs and take away the rights of other parents to do with theirs.

+rep

[dannno]

Yes it is an imaginary line. However it is the only way of judging the approximate level of maturity of an individual short of a written, oral or investigation of an individuals past and present actions. With a population of over 300 million people that approach is not realistic. Of course the approach of just allowing everyone regardless of demonstrated maturity to do whatever they pleased is also an approach. I don't believe that is a prudent approach. Do you?

It's not up to the state to judge, it is up to the parents..

Free range kids tend to be more mature, partly because most parents are smart enough not to let their kids out like that if they aren't, and they also tend to be more socially adaptable.

[MelissaWV]

Yes it is an imaginary line. However it is the only way of judging the approximate level of maturity of an individual short of a written, oral or investigation of an individuals past and present actions. With a population of over 300 million people that approach is not realistic. Of course the approach of just allowing everyone regardless of demonstrated maturity to do whatever they pleased is also an approach. I don't believe that is a prudent approach. Do you?

Why would you need to "judge" anyone's maturity unless you were contemplating entering into a contract with them, or if they did harm to someone/something?

That cuts down greatly on the number of kiddos you'll be judging.

[virgil47]

Yes. But parents should have a say here for teens.

In Switzerland, if you are big enough to sit at a bar, you will be served. That means able to get on the bar stool and be seen over the counter. I think Germany is the same way.

-t

How nice. Do they also get issued drivers licenses if they can walk in to the licensing office. If not ... why not?

[virgil47]

do what you wish.. you should not feel threatened by others' beliefs so much so that you feel the need to get defensive on an internet forum.. so long as you don't support laws that promote your beliefs and take away the rights of other parents to do with theirs.

Threatened? LOL. You are dreaming. By the way I do and will continue to support laws that echo my beliefs and I suggest you do the same.

[virgil47]

Why would you need to "judge" anyone's maturity unless you were contemplating entering into a contract with them, or if they did harm to someone/something?

That cuts down greatly on the number of kiddos you'll be judging.

Every time someone goes to the store, goes to school, is in public or in a conversation with a stranger they are judged. If you don't believe this then you don't get out much. Everything you do as an individual causes you to be judged. The judgments of your fellow citizens determine how seriously you are taken. The level of maturity you exhibit is closely scrutinized.

[tangent4ronpaul]

How nice. Do they also get issued drivers licenses if they can walk in to the licensing office. If not ... why not?

14yo for 2 wheeled vehicle with a gas tank capacity under 50cc's.

If it's not on public roads, I'm pretty sure it's like it is here - no age requirement. I learned to drive a tractor and a boat before I learned to drive a car.

A better question from you would have been "can see over the dashboard and reach the peddles as well as demonstrate they can operate the car safely." These are quite different categories, really. In one case, can you stagger safe, in the other - can you avoid killing someone. BIG DIFF!

-t

[virgil47]

14yo for 2 wheeled vehicle with a gas tank capacity under 50cc's.

If it's not on public roads, I'm pretty sure it's like it is here - no age requirement. I learned to drive a tractor and a boat before I learned to drive a car.

-t

Why can't they drive at 13. Why can't they drive on public roads when younger than 14. Could it be that their society has judged them to lacking in maturity?

[MelissaWV]

Why can't they drive at 13. Why can't they drive on public roads when younger than 14. Could it be that their society has judged them to lacking in maturity?

"Society" did not get together and make that law. You seem to have missed the second part of the statement.


Every time someone goes to the store, goes to school, is in public or in a conversation with a stranger they are judged. If you don't believe this then you don't get out much. Everything you do as an individual causes you to be judged. The judgments of your fellow citizens determine how seriously you are taken. The level of maturity you exhibit is closely scrutinized.

I know that, and it's stupid. It's none of your business, really, but if you feel a need to sneer at someone for being "inappropriate," by all means do so. That's how societies best pressure "undesirable" behavior into stopping. What we are discussing, though, is the rationale behind age restrictions on various activities. The fact that you don't think someone is mature enough to be driving doesn't concern me. Whether or not the person in question damages people or property does.

There are safety problems that become more numerous as you head down the age spectrum, but that does not mean that every 13 year old is incapable of driving. For that matter, should every 16 year old be driving? Every 18 year old? Oh, I see, they have to pass a test and get a license. If that's the case, and younger teens are so inept and immature, why not just let it ride? They won't be able to pass the test, obviously, right? In a society without licensure, they will run into people in such numbers that parents will be forced to take their kiddos in hand or face the wrath of people whose loved ones are killed or maimed, or whose property has been damaged. This would all come to light very rapidly if all those teens are such awful drivers.

I will ask it again, though: are all 18 year olds capable of driving? If not, you can see the biggest and most glaring flaw in your logic. Right now, you can sneer at those same 18 year olds, but they're legal. They could be falling down drunk and fondling their passenger's breasts while not wearing their seatbelt and blaring crappy music whose bass threatens to shake your vehicle to bits, but they are legal. Maturity doesn't come into it; if it did, we'd base the licensure on ability and knowledge alone, regardless of age.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why can't they drive at 13. Why can't they drive on public roads when younger than 14. Could it be that their society has judged them to lacking in maturity?

Around 14 is generally when you hit puberty, which is the gateway to adulthood we've been talking about in this thread. Other factors would include height (they don't call them knee biters for nothing) and strength to control the wheel, shift, apply brakes, etc.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Just for giggles I looked up ages you can get licenses in the US. In a number of states, you can get learner permits at 14yo. Some allow restricted licenses at 15 or 16yo. For unrestricted licenses, some states are rather draconian:
California: 18
Connecticut: 18
DC: 21
Florida: 18
Georgia: 18
Illinois: 18
etc.

Others allow an unrestricted license at 16. As states recognize each others licenses, this leads to the abserd situation where a 16yo can drive on a unrestricted license in a state where a local 16yo could only qualify for a learners permit at best.

This is similar to the fact that you can enlist in the army at 17 and be allowed to shoot all sorts of things that it is illegal for you to own till you are older, or to drive an Abrams tank - a vehicle that excels at driving over and crushing cars, before you are old enough to have an unrestricted civilian license because you might not be mature enough to handle a car safely until you cross a certain age based line in the sand.

-t

[virgil47]

Around 14 is generally when you hit puberty, which is the gateway to adulthood we've been talking about in this thread. Other factors would include height (they don't call them knee biters for nothing) and strength to control the wheel, shift, apply brakes, etc.

-t

Thank you for making my point. At 14 some may be physically capable of driving however fewer will be emotionally and mentally capable of driving safely. There is a reason that age plays a role in being allowed to do certain things. That reason is a combination of physical and mental maturity. While being of a certain age is no guarantee of maturity it works quite well in the majority of cases. As you pointed out there are exceptions to just about everything however the exception should not be the rule.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Thank you for making my point. At 14 some may be physically capable of driving however fewer will be emotionally and mentally capable of driving safely.

I didn't make your point.

I also said nothing about mental or emotional capability.

Puberty - the point where you are able to reproduce and the growth hormones really kick in to make you a lot bigger and stronger quickly.

Pay attention to what I said, not what you wish I had said.

-t