Are this generation's children over protected?

Off-topic
1

I started replying to this comment of Bruce’s in another thread in Rec.Sport.Unicycling but it soon went far too far off topic, so here it is in it’s own topic…

Mark is a very talented rider, and you can be sure that he loves his family enough not to put them in any real danger. I believe his wife has also done some acrobatics training and I’m sure they all know how to bail cleanly. Just to try to put things in perspective (well my perspective at least :)), do you get this concerned whenever you drive in the car with your family?

A little off topic, but this vaguely reminds me of how I’m often really disappointed to see the local council/government/etc putting in place all these rules and various other bits and pieces to ‘protect our children’. As a result, kids of today miss out on so many of life’s little thrills that are now deemed too dangerous. I know for sure that some of my fondest memories of childhood are of doing these sorts of things with my friends and relatives, and I think it’s a real shame that the kids of today are going to miss out. I think that doing these ‘dangerous’ things is a vital part of growing up…it teaches you to set your own boundaries, know your own abilities (of course I think things like playing too close to the edge of a cliff for example should be avoided), but most importantly they’re usually really fun!

I wish I could think of an example, because without one I’m not going to make all that much sense.

Aha! Scratch that, I thought of one…fireworks are exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve heard so many fantastic stories of Guy Fawkes Day celebrations from people of my parents’ generation, and my generation missed out on a whole lot of fun. I know for sure that many people won’t agree with me here, but I think it’s wrong to take away the enjoyment of millions to protect a very small percentage of them when there are and always be so many other (more dangerous) dangers in our lives. Kind of like taking away our individual freedom to have fun.

This should not be confused with my views on the more extreme scale of things like, for example, sacrificing a few lives for the good of a larger body (the whole concept of war in my eyes…I’m very anti-war no matter what the circumstances).

Keep in mind that I’m also generally an advocate for wearing helmets and other protective gear…that and the fact that, although I hope marriage and fatherhood’s not too many years away, I’m most likely closer to being a child than a father. Still, I hope my views don’t change too much and I don’t become much more protective. :slight_smile:

Well that turned out to be a very off topic ramble, but now it’s got it’s own thread so I guess we can say that this is the topic. :slight_smile:

What are all your thoughts? I’d be very interested to know.

Andrew

2

a statistical approach

and something that i’d received as an email and new was lying inthe archinves of my gmail somewhere…

People Over 35 Should Be Dead

Here’s why - According to today’s regulators and bureaucrats, those of
us who were kids in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, or even maybe the early 70’s
probably shouldn’t have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and
when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. Not to mention the risks we
took hitchhiking.)

As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a
special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors!

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in
it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside
playing.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no
one actually died from this.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode
down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running
into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we
were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us
all day. NO CELL PHONES! Unthinkable!

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at
all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound,
personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.

We had friends! We went outside and found them.

We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt. We
fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were
no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to
blame but us. Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and
learned to get over it. We made up games with sticks and tennis balls
and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not
put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever. We
rode bikes or walked to a friend’s home and knocked on the door, or
rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who
didn’t have to learn to deal with disappointment.

Some students weren’t as smart as others, so they failed a grade and
were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors!

Tests were not adjusted for any reason. Our actions were our own.
Consequences were expected. The idea of a parent bailing us out if we
broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law. Imagine
that!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem
solvers and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion
of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and
responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all. And you’re one
of them!

Congratulations!

3

Yes, yes and yes!

As someone (supposedly) in charge of a primary school, I’ve got to answer yes to this question.

I constantly wonder how we are educating children to learn how to be safe if we don’t allow them to hurt themselves once in a while. And conversely, if they always expect to (for instance) land without hurting themselves when climbing (bark chippings, rubber flooring, low climbing frames, etc.) then what happens when (if???) they every climb a tree? Will we eventually have to cut off all the sharp bits from trees and install safety surfaces under them? Or fence off all trees to avoid the danger of falls, collisions, scrapes, etc?

I’d love to let my pupils have a go at unicycling, but without full body armour, signed permission from parents and a qualification in unicycle instructing (not to mention full first aid back-up and a risk assessment of the surface to be used, check on condition of the unicycle before each rider uses it and assessment of potential gross motor skills of pupil before allowing them on) I’d be risking the proverbial ton of parental bricks descending upon me if anyone took a knock.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not totally against sensible protection (have to own up to never wearing armour myself when unicycling though normally force my son to wear shin pads as he’s learning and I can still remember the pain…) but we have definitely gone over the top on this now.

The cause? I’m afraid I have to cite the ambulance-chaser law firms who offer “no win - no fee” lawsuits to anyone who has slipped and hurt themselves.

And while I’m on my soapbox, whatever happened to accidents? Does every injury have to come from somebody else’s negligence?

Rant over. But it felt good.

(edit) Hey, Gild, them were t’ days!

4

There’s a word for the type of government that tell the people what’s good for them without letting them decide for themselves…but it’s slipped my mind. Can anyone help me out? A small scale example would be making wearing seatbelts compulsory, if I’m thinking about what I’m thinking about.

Andrew

5

Nanny state.

6

Andrew, my thoughts exactly. You should have been my father. Or my mother really :slight_smile: , as she was the overprotective one, in my view at least. It must be a women’s thing, my wife also tends to be more protective towards our two girls than I am, or would like to be.

Aside from the gender difference, I think that kids generally feel they can handle a lot more than the parents feel the kids can handle. Of course, the kids have limited knowledge or appreciation of all the dangers out there, so the ‘truth’ will be somewhere in the middle. However, since the parents have more power, it is mostly their views that get implemented. Parents should listen more to the wisdom from their kids.

Klaas Bil

7

Paternalism?

8

Nanny-State?
there’s probably a serious answer as well
[edit: this was in answer to andrews original questions, i only saw stevo7’s response after i posted this. i’m not taking a dig.]

seat belts are a bad example tho
not wearing them means u get more bashed up when u’re involved in an accident and that means u cost me more in terms of ambulance fees and hospital costs and and and that’re taken from my tax money

9

Thanks guys, I really enjoyed reading those responses…it’s nice to know that I’m not alone.

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.

  • I liked them all, but that one was great!

As someone (supposedly) in charge of a primary school, I’ve got to answer yes to this question.

  • It must be tough for someone in your position with your views.

Paternalism?

  • That’s the one!

seat belts are a bad example tho

  • Indeed.

Andrew

10

What a great, common-sense thread. I’m enjoying this!

“Nanny-state” is actually a phrase used in the UK to describe an over-protective state (I agree it sounds silly though).

I also suspect (completely uncorroborated this) that less hygiene can help develop a robust defence against bugs, etc. Do we make children wash too much? Can’t help thinking that the great increase of asthma, hayfever, anaphylactic intolerance, etc. could be linked to this.

Anyone know any scientific back-up for this?

11

Also completely uncorroborated, but I’ve often wondered the same thing. I’d love to know for sure.

Andrew

12

andrew, a friend of mine sent me that list i posted about 20 minutes after i posted it
quite a coincidence
i told her about the thread and sent her the link and she wants to know …

Do you know by any chance whether Andrew Carter started life in sunny SA?
Son of Janet and Spike? My system is not allowing me entry …

send word

13

the term ‘nanny-state’ has been used to describe the attitudes of the south african minister of health on a couple of occasions
she revels in the name Manto Tshabalala Msimang and is not the most popular member of our cabinet

14

So.

Just the four of us then…

:frowning:

15

yeah, and two of us have left allready…
:frowning:

16

Ok then, on a positive note, and doing something proactive about this whole sorry affair, a whole bunch of dads from our village go camping every year with our kids (no mums allowed). There were over 60 of us last year.

We do organise various games for them over the weekend and supervise them in the swimming pool, but generally they are allowed to simply roam about the site in their little gangs doing the stuff we all did as listed in GILD’s first post.

Just in case we are asked for evidence, we take a photo of a large bowl of salad, and a child brushing its teeth. Then let them get on with it.

The worst injury we have had was a bad case of sunburn (yes, it can happen in England!)

Oh, and a fair few hangovers amongst the dads…

And, that’s where I learned to unicycle last year!

One of us is a journalist and he sent an article off to the Telegraph which printed it alongside a great photo of a bunch of out-of-shape middle-aged men with pints in hand supervising the “mess tent” full of kids stuffing their faces. The following year we had a request from a film crew to come and do a “fly-on-the-wall” documentary about us, but we declined in order to protect the innocent.

17

How about drugs? My own parents attitudes toward drug use in this day would result in my being removed from their home and placed in foster care with strangers.

I smoked pot and did a little hash starting around age 13. My parents knew and kept an eye on me as did the parents of most of my friends. They understood our curiousity and need to explore and trusted us not to do anything stupid. They were, of course, prepared to step in if necessary but kept as much distance as they could. For the most part by the time we got to college most of us were bored with drugs and pretty much gave them up. I for one haven’t so much as touched any reefer for 15 years.

Does the overprotection apply here as well?

18

Quite a coincidence indeed. This Andrew Carter started life in sunny Queensland, son of Simon and Carolyn.

I tried a search to find out more about what we were wondering about over-clenliness limiting the body’s natural defense against germs, but didn’t find anything. I’m going to email my grandad (a doctor) and see what he has to say. Maybe he can give me some links to look at. Actually, this would be a good one for Ken Looi. I’ll PM him now. :slight_smile:

Andrew

19

Ok then, on a positive note, and doing something proactive about this whole sorry affair, a whole bunch of dads from our village go camping every year with our kids (no mums allowed). There were over 60 of us last year.

We do organise various games for them over the weekend and supervise them in the swimming pool, but generally they are allowed to simply roam about the site in their little gangs doing the stuff we all did as listed in GILD’s first post.

  • Fantastic! Good to hear. The large bowl of salad and photo of a chirl brushing their teeth made me laugh. :slight_smile:

I smoked pot and did a little hash starting around age 13. My parents knew and kept an eye on me as did the parents of most of my friends. They understood our curiousity and need to explore and trusted us not to do anything stupid. They were, of course, prepared to step in if necessary but kept as much distance as they could. For the most part by the time we got to college most of us were bored with drugs and pretty much gave them up. I for one haven’t so much as touched any reefer for 15 years.

  • Sounds sensible to me. I know a few like you who experimented with drugs in their teenage years, and have long since made their own decisions to stop it.

Andrew

20

Quite possibly. In my experience it was booze though, as our local pubs “allowed” us in at around 16 so we’d all gone through the over-indulgence stage quite early. When I got to university I couldn’t believe how many others behaved when they’d had a few.

There is a parallel with sex education (well, in the UK, anyway) where early knowledge (not practice!) is generally believed to stave off the teenage pregnancy issue. I’ve got no figures on this though.