Risk Taking

[SeaCat]

In another thread James brings up an interesting idea. That is that a young person doing something riskfull is tantamount to child abuse.

Is this the way our society is progressing?

Most of us over the age of 40 grew up with an entirely different mindset than those younger. And while my own experiences growing up may be different than many here I think that more than a few can relate.

Growing up when I did was not as coddled as it is now. As kids we were expected to be out and about. Camping, Hiking, Fishing in the country. Stickball and working in the cities.

By the time I had finished Elementary School I had established and ran a Trapline for Muskrat and Fox in Upstate New York. (That's grade six for those who don't know.) I had already been hunting for several years and had also been camping on my own for periods of a week or more in both summer and winter weather. This wasn't considered strange or different by our neighbors, it was normal. I had also built with the help of my father and been riding several Motorcycles.

In Seventh Grade we moved to Cape Cod. I still rode my homebuilt Motorcycles and I found other work. I fished from shore and bridges and I camped on the beaches. I also camped in New Hampshire and Vermont. I also hunted yearly.

By the age of 16 I had been hit by a drunk driver and spent six months in Mass. General.

By the age of 18 I had worked for several years on the Trawlers going out to Georges Bank and I had with my father undertaken such endeavors as month long camping trips in Denali and "The Wilderness". I had also solo hiked the Presidential Range both in summer and winter.

A common thing for me and my friends was to take our Sunfish Sailboats to Woods Hole and then across to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. No one said a thing about this.

So when did things like this become too dangerous for kids? When did it become Child Abuse?

Cat

 

[SweetWitch]

I gotta agree with you, Cat. The other day, the big Maple out front was full of kids. One of them was my own. A neighbor woman threw a fit about it, saying I was a bad mother for letting them all climb the tree.

It's wrong for kids to climb a tree? Since when? I have scars on my legs from tree bark, and each one of them holds a fun and happy memory. Trees and kids go hand in hand.

Of course, the woman in question has two over-weight children that do nothing but eat and play video games. I'd rather my daughter take a chance at getting a scraped knee than sit on her butt all day.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

Thankfully there is a counter movement, bringing common sense and adventure to parenting and childhood. Free range kids, and the book "the last child in the woods" are good google search starters.

Bt yeah somewhere in the 80's something snapped and kids had to be protected in bubble wrap 24/7.

 

[TE999]

'We learn by doing' is an old expression applicable both to the current and the last generation of youngsters. Parents expend every effort in making sure Dick and Jane never get a boo-boo or experience life except through a 70" screen or a 'puter monitor. No wonder 'children' are still living at home in their twenties where their every need is satisfied.

When I could walk properly, my Mom put a pair of shorts and a t-shirt on me, opened the kitchen door and said "Go play." I had my share of bone breaks, cuts, bumps, scrapes and bruises, yet somehow I lived. I shot .22's and BB guns, rode my bike all over hell and gone, built forts and tree houses, swam in the ocean, climbed trees, got into fights, dug tunnels, got dirty and had a fine time.

When these little pre-diabetic, overweight, mollycoddled shrinking violets hit the real world they'll either go catatonic, be traumatized or go hide in college for eight years postponing the inevitable a bit longer.

 

[amicus]

I will no doubt take some heat for this, but, oh well....I wonder if the feminist movement; all the single moms raising children, is a causal factor in repressing risk taking activities by modern children and for the outcry against such behavior?

Amicus

 

[SweetWitch]

I will no doubt take some heat for this, but, oh well....I wonder if the feminist movement; all the single moms raising children, is a causal factor in repressing risk taking activities by modern children and for the outcry against such behavior?

Amicus

Speaking only for myself, and as a woman who is married to the father of her only child, I think you're completely off the mark here.

My husband does not encourage activity in my child. He's happy if she's on her butt watching TV and staying quiet. He's afraid she might get hurt, or worse, cause him to be inconvenienced. And he was raised mainly by his father while his mother worked odd shifts at the hospital.

I'm the one who kicks her out the door and tells her to find something fun to do. He's not inclined to be bothered by it all.

I've many friends who are single mothers--a few by choice, but mostly because the fathers decided they'd rather be elsewhere. None of their children are over-protected or afraid to get out there and enjoy life. We mothers are more inclined to climb the trees with our kids than to yell out the windows at them to be careful. My experience with fathers is that they would rather not have to deal with any of it.

Say what you want, dear Ami, but you really don't have a clue what it takes to raise a kid--especially if you are exactly what you portray yourself as: the traditional man/father/masculine figure that you so adore. Most traditional fathers could barely remember the names of their children, let alone have any influence in their lives. Shows like "Father Knows Best" were fairy tales.

Things change. Get used to it. You're under the misconception that we women shut you men out intentionally and take away your rights to fatherhood. I can name at least a dozen women who would love to have fathers for their children--and not the drunks, or abusers, or unfaithful wretches that they divorced or were too smart to marry.

There are a great many good men out there, men who have value in the lives of their children. Good for those kids. My daughter's father would give his life for his child and that makes him special in her eyes. He talks to her. That's special in my eyes.

For other kids, the mom has to be all things. There's no point arguing it. It may not be the best for you, but for those kids, it's the best for them.

On the other hand, I know of several fathers who are raising their children with no mothers. The difference between the motherless kids and the fatherless ones is dramatic. The ones with mothers tend to be more out-going than the ones with fathers.

 

[colddiesel]

I will no doubt take some heat for this, but, oh well....I wonder if the feminist movement; all the single moms raising children, is a causal factor in repressing risk taking activities by modern children and for the outcry against such behavior?

Amicus

Using similar facts Amicus, I wonder whether the absent father movement is at least as important a causal factor. The father that provides the sperm but then walks away when the going gets tough, imagining that financial support (if indeed he pays it) is sufficient parenting.

Deserted Mothers (so much less attractive a term than single Moms eh) generally do a pretty good job, it's the irresponsible fathers who are usually the primary problem.

So many men seem to be incapable of dealing with women on an adult basis and are only comfortable if they can trivialise and sentimentalise women and their role. I don't think we need to fear 'the feminist movement' nor for that matter be so afraid of women that we cannot treat with them with respect as adults and equals.

So Amicus no heat but maybe the issue needs looking at from a different point of view.

 

[amicus]

Well said, Sweetwitch and Colddiesel as well, very well said...

Not that it matters, but I raised eight children, five girls, three boys and I have nearly two dozen grandchildren, most of whom adore 'papa', and I enjoy them very much.

Although the words 'traditional' and 'conventional', are looked down upon in our current times, I suggest that much of our past reflected the true human nature of the male and the female in a family environment and that the female was the nurturing one and the one most concerned with a child's safety. "Come down out of that tree right now, Johnny!"

I attempt to remain objective on this forum; to express thoughts and ideas and concepts without including personal experience as it tends to bias ones' position somewhat. That does not imply that I am unaware of personal events in my life or others.

I learned the hard way, that try as one might, it is impossible to be both the father and the mother to the child; it simply cannot be done.

The two sexes are different by nature and by nature's intent and, as such, are essential for a balanced masculine/feminine interpretation in the nurturing of a child.

Statistically and in my experience, children raised by a single parent, male or female, enter the adult world with disadvantages and psychological problems that can never be healed.

Following World War two and countless other conflicts and natural catastrophes, men and women and children alike had to deal with the circumstances they found themselve in, the world around them as it was.

My contention has always been that the circumstances society finds itself in now are fabricated, artificial and totally unnecessary. There is no need for 40 percent of all children to be born to single mothers; there is no need for the conflict between men and women that prevents them from a natural, cooperative effort to raise children, hold a family together and plan for a mutual future.

Sweetwitch, is was not and never is my intention to criticize the personal efforts of you or any individual attempting to live life in the best manner they can achieve. I am well aware of others living life as you described and I repeat it is not my intention ever to criticize.

I have spent a lifetime studying and thinking and offering my thoughts to an open forum including radio, television and the written word in many forms. I have learned, I hope, from those many years and thousands of encounters, that a great and dramatic change has taken place, is taking place in society over the past half century. I but do my utmost to understand what that change involves, why it came about and where it is taking us.

I have no guarantee that anything I have learned contains even a grain of truth, but truth is my destination, whether I reach it or not.

I leave next week to spend time with one of my daughters who is seven months pregnant, has four other children by different fathers, and is, at the moment, a single mother. So please do not assume that I am unaware of the difficulties that many face in our time.

Instead, I implore you and everyone who reads and thinks, to look beyond your personal experiences, try to learn why we are what we are and what it means in broad terms to our social environment.

regards...

Amicus

 

[Chantilyvamp]

In our area even the schools have got in on the coddling of children. My daughter wasn't allowed in nursery(preschool) to wear sunglasses on the playground unless we took her to a doctor and got a note saying why she would need to wear sunglasses. Guess who pissed off the school and showed up with a note? Apparently it was a health and safety issue and she might hurt herself on her glasses on the playground.

They can't wear goggles in the swimming pool for the same reason at the school. Certain play eqipment is not allowed as they might really climb and break a limb. I'm getting ready to find the health and safety officer and wring his damn neck.

Some of the other parents nearly shit themselves when they saw pictures of my kid on a childrens quad bike...I mean crap it is faster than most battery quad bikes and it is larger but hell it's still battery operated. She's ran over a few things and even whacked a tree but she isn't hurt.

I let her do more things than others maybe from being raised in the south and being used to doing certain things outside whenever. Some people didn't have that so they might not know how to let go a little and it may seem more scary for them. I know my sister-in-law refuses to let her kids play on swings because it might hit them in the face when they get off! Okay she has lots of rules for them that just drives me nuts. I just want to take them on our own and see what they would actually want to do without her eternal swaddling because she is scared to do some things.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps a great deal depends on the child itself...it seems that all are different in many ways, almost from day one.

My youngest daughter came into this world red faced, screaming, kicking and flailing her little arms...I wanted to name her Calamity Jane...sighs...she is pretty much the same 26 years later.

Raising an individual child is a joy and a challenge; multiply that to a housefull of exhuberant children and it becomes a learning experience. Some are shy and hold back and one is tempted to draw them out; others are boisterous and outgoing and one is tempted to hold them back.

Some show early physical agility and others remain basic clumsy their entire lives. Some have a predilection for music or art, others could care less. Some girls love to help in the kitchen, others prefer a walk in the woods in solitude.

Each is, or should be, to their parents, special individuals with their own, totally unique personality. In a school or daycare setting, there are no individuals, they must all conform to a given norm.

Placing a child in 'pre school' or daycare, at a very early age, some as young as a bare year old, begins to have an effect on the personality of the child. Some adapt to the group conformity, some rebel and some are chastized for any difference they exhibit.

It seems common sense to me that a child raised by parents who respect and cherish the individuality of the child is a far better environment than the group directed daycare or school.

Please do not lecture me that most working mothers have no options other than daycare, school care and after school facilities, I am well aware of that. However...to look to the public schools or to the government to provide those options, has consequences that may not become evident until later in the child's life.

Some sizeable percentage of stay at home mothers do somehow manage either to find a dependable husband or work from home or perhaps have independent means of support.

I sense that many are dissatisified with the way things are and would be overjoyed to find a better solution.

Perhaps things will change for the better...

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CAT youre a moron to equate being alone on the ocean 1000s of miles from help with climbing a tree. Your premise is absurd.

Sailor kid ran smack into problems she couldnt cope with; if the problem was a medical emergency she'd still be days from assistance. And allowing a minor to be beyond timely help is abuse.

 

[SeaCat]

CAT youre a moron to equate being alone on the ocean 1000s of miles from help with climbing a tree. Your premise is absurd.

Sailor kid ran smack into problems she couldnt cope with; if the problem was a medical emergency she'd still be days from assistance. And allowing a minor to be beyond timely help is abuse.

Snerk.

Been called that more than a few times.

No climbing a tree is nothing like being alone in a boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or the Atlantic or the Pacific.

What did she run into that anyone else sailing solo wouldn't have? How did she deal with the problems? No one knows as she hasn't yet said. Was she hit by a Rogue Wave? Did she turn turtle? Did she have too much sail on for the conditions? Again, we don't know.

Cat

 

[trysail]

Snerk.

Been called that more than a few times.

No climbing a tree is nothing like being alone in a boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean, or the Atlantic or the Pacific.

What did she run into that anyone else sailing solo wouldn't have? How did she deal with the problems? No one knows as she hasn't yet said. Was she hit by a Rogue Wave? Did she turn turtle? Did she have too much sail on for the conditions? Again, we don't know.

Cat

Her vessel suffered at least three knockdowns ( the reports are not clear if the vessel did 360°s or not ) and was dismasted ( there goes the antenna! ) With no other ability to communicate, she activated the EPIRB.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm glad she's okay. She's fortunate to have parents sufficiently wealthy to indulge her with her own personal sailboat. However, I'd like to be there with a camera when they get the bill for the patrol plane that had to go out in dangerous weather and find their little darling, sailing alone in the worst ocean in the world--in winter! Poor kid almost ended up with a Darwin, IMO. If you're going to circumnavigate, make sure you're doing the Southern Ocean in mid-summer.

 

[trysail]

I'm glad she's okay. She's fortunate to have parents sufficiently wealthy to indulge her with her own personal sailboat. However, I'd like to be there with a camera when they get the bill for the patrol plane that had to go out in dangerous weather and find their little darling, sailing alone in the worst ocean in the world--in winter! Poor kid almost ended up with a Darwin, IMO. If you're going to circumnavigate, make sure you're doing the Southern Ocean in mid-summer.

According to the news report I read, the Aussies aren't going to tender a bill ( remember, I'm only the messenger ).

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMT...m/s/ap/20100612/ap_on_re_us/lost_sailor_found

The topic does touch on the attitude of search and rescue organizations respecting costs. It's a complex area; many of the SAR folk believe that billing for their service might have the unintended consequence of discouraging someone in dire straits from requesting assistance.

As one who is not enthralled by the idea of cell-phone wielding idiots/potential Darwin Award winners being subtly encouraged to make stupid choices due to a belief that help is but a telephone call away, a hefty bill seems both just and appropriate. Apparently there was a horribly egregious case of SAR abuse on Denali this spring by someone who should have been taught a hard lesson instead of being accomodated.

 

[ishtat]

I'm glad she's okay. She's fortunate to have parents sufficiently wealthy to indulge her with her own personal sailboat. However, I'd like to be there with a camera when they get the bill for the patrol plane that had to go out in dangerous weather and find their little darling, sailing alone in the worst ocean in the world--in winter! Poor kid almost ended up with a Darwin, IMO. If you're going to circumnavigate, make sure you're doing the Southern Ocean in mid-summer.

There won't be a bill Bear. Rescue services are governed by International conventions and are free. In this case the French Government will pick up the costs of the fishing boat and the Australians will pay for the aircraft which found her.

Although Australia is the sixth biggest country, as an island it has the longest navigable (non iced) coastline so gets to do a fair bit of this work. However if you look at the list at the bottom of the attached article Australians are also a disproportionate number of people who might need rescue. Swings and roundabouts.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Watson

What does seem ironic to me is that in an age almost governed by celebrity Abby will probably get more attention for failing than Jessica did for succeeding. I made this observation to a journalist friend: her response, "Of course she will, she almost drowned and she's better looking too"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I can understand that as a policy 'at sea'. I do know that there is an argument going on in California about such things. Too many mountain rescue people are getting killed or badly injured trying to get idiots out of trouble they shouldn't have been in at all. Even some serious wilderness types think that its about time that anyone who heads into a wilderness area should sign a waiver saying, "I'm doing this on purpose. If I screw up, I expect to pay for it. Don't come after me." Others in the community are horrified.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What does seem ironic to me is that in an age almost governed by celebrity Abby will probably get more attention for failing than Jessica did for succeeding. I made this observation to a journalist friend: her response, "Of course she will, she almost drowned and she's better looking too"

And she's a California blond. And rich.