I am amazed that no one has posted a comment on this. When I was growing up in Los Angeles (a long time ago!) I used to walk all over our neighborhood alone from the age of 5 or 6, but I can't imagine letting my 9-year-old loose in any big city today. Perhaps at 11 or 12, if the child was extremely mature.

On Lenore Skenazy's own website several people point out the contradiction in letting her child go off on his own but not letting him carry a cell phone for fear he'd lose it.

Comments

Kids are over supervised today and over worried about bc of feminism. How so? I believe the following three facts are indisputable although one might perhaps draw different inferences from them.

1)Women are naturally more protective and cautious then men.

2)Since the feminist movement, many more households are run by single mothers.

3)Of the households that are populated by 2 parents, Mom no longer defers to Dad in their opinion about (among other things) what is ok for kids to do & not do.

Put those three facts together, & I infer kids are shut down today from being free outside because of feminism.

Hadley Paige--you're joking--right?

My mom walked me to school on my first day of kindergarten to show me the way. After that I was on my own. (Granted, it was 1967). I walked to school every day. I remember once when I was about 12 she left my brother and me at Golden Ring Mall because we failed to meet her at the appointed time. We had to walk home to Hamilton. Yes we are living in different times, but I wouldn't trade my childhood for the sheltered life many children lead today.

Oh, BTW my brothers and sisters and I had to walk because dad took the family car (singular) to work.

RayRay- I think many of us would not want to trade our childhoods for the sheltered life many children lead today. Children today do not have the same quality of life we experienced growing up. It is a problem. We are indeed living in different times. It's a function of sprawl, crime, increased automobile traffic, many more vehicles parked on the road impeding visibility, speeding cars, decreased pedestrian presence on the streets, many new roads built without sidewalks, and diminishing areas of greenspace and walkable areas. I don't know what the answer is. I know many adults (myself included) who would not feel it safe to walk some of the locations I did as a child. Parents today are more protective simply because there are more threats to our children's safety.

Hadley Paige- I always thought the concern about single mothers (of which I am one) is that their children are unsupervised, neglected, latch-key kids.

I think 99 times out of 100, the kid would make it home o.k.

To: Dahlink | posting of January 20, 2009 6:48 AM "your joking--right?"

No, I am not joking. Which of the 3 facts I stated do you thing is not true? 1)Women are naturally more protective and cautious then men; 2)Since the feminist movement, many more households are run by single mothers; 3)Of the households that are populated by 2 parents, Mom no longer defers to Dad in their opinion about (among other things) what is ok for kids to do & not do.

If you disagree with my inference derived from the three facts, what inference would you come to?

Don't commit the logical error of confusing what you would like to be true or not true, with what a truly neutral observer, with no political agenda might observe.

I invite your logical response to my offered observation.

To: Laura Lee |posting of January 21, 2009 2:59 PM Writes : “I know many adults (myself included) who would not feel it safe to walk some of the locations I did as a child” and “single mothers (of which I am one)”

Laura, your response to my observation confirms my observation. To wit-- you say that today its not safe. I wrote that; 1) moms worry more than men and; 2) you are a single mom and call the shots in your household. Therefore your kid is more restricted.

So, my old science teacher once took a frog and trained it to jump on command. He would say, "Jump" and the frog would jump.

Then he cut off one of the frog's front legs. He said, "Jump" and the frog jumped. He cut off the other front leg and said, "Jump." The frog jumped. My old science teacher then cut off one of the frog's hind legs and then commanded, "Jump." The frog jumped. Finally he cut off the the other hind leg and said, "Jump."

The frog just sat there. My old science teach said, "Jump," again. The frog just sat there.

Which proves that if you cut off all of a frog's legs, it goes deaf.

To: Bucky | posting of January 26, 2009 9:25 AM—The Frog Story

Very entertaining story which warns us to be cautious with our inferences bc we might infer the wrong thing from our observations. Excellent advice.

So Bucky, I am duly cautioned. I assume you told this story to take exception to my inference. What inference would you have arrived at from the facts stated?

Hadley Paige - I infer nothing, relative to this topic, from the three facts stated (all of which are probably true.) They are three observations. I think it's a very long leap from those observations to the conclusion you arrived at.

In my experience, Dads are also more cautious nowadays than they used to be. I know I am. It has, in my case, nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with my view that it can be a dangerous freakin' world out there and the application of some common-sense caution can make it less dangerous.

Bucky, dear, thanks for answering Hadley Paige. I'll hold my thunder for another occasion.

To:: Bucky | Post of January 26, 2009 12:46 PM **dangerous freakin’ world**

My inference is consistent with the 3 facts stated. Nothing you offer disproves that. You say you infer nothing-- that does not disprove my inference. You offer you own individual experience and perception -- that does not disprove my inference.

You offer your individual behavior (one person) to dispute my inference that ** in general **kids are more clamped down today bc moms call the shots more (a general statement). Of course, when most do something there are still some who do not.

You offer the observation that **it can be a dangerous freakin’world**. Of course, where you live would dictate a specific logical response to danger for you. But in general the country is more safe with less crime than it was 40 years ago (statistics generally available). What has changed?

People’s perception of the likelihood of a dangerous thing happening to their kids.

For the purpose of this intellectual exercise I will concede that your point that** Dads are also more cautious nowadays**. That **fact** is still consistent with my 3 observations and my inference. For example, dads may be 12% more cautious and mom’s 142% more cautious.

Hence I stick to my conclusion that (feminism >>women calling the shots with respect to their kids freedom [safety concerns]) + (women worry more than men) = kids clamped down more.

Anecdotal experiences don’t disprove this my observation.

Mr Paige seems to like to play word games and just goes in the same circle each time. Mr Paige, I know Spring1 and you are no Spring1.

RtSO,
Run away - - -Run away!

I'm poking my head out of my meditation cave momentarily. Oh no, time to go back in the cave.

HP's logical process is pretty shabby.

OM! We've missed you...

Yes, OMG, give us a dose of your logic!

My brain's a little too hurty for this right now. I just formatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows.

I infer kids are shut down today from being free outside

It's hard to argue for or against a conclusion that is illiterate and moronic. So I won't. Silly Rabbis, Trigs are for kicks. And yeah, I'M BACK! Don't be guppies, bait is just bait. Every time I go away one of these morons shows up. So I infer.

To: Owl Meat Gravy re: post of January 30, 2009 12:48 PM -- “HP's logical process is pretty shabby.” And post of January 31, 2009 3:02 AM “Every time I go away one of these morons shows up.”

1) You make the assertion that my logic is “pretty shabby”. A logical response (rather than emotional) response to my suggested observation. Yet you offer no supporting statement as to why my logic is shabby. Why is my logic shabby?

2) I assume that you feel that I am the moron that showed up. Why is that? Because I offer an inference based upon undisputed facts, which you don’t agree with? And that inference does not fit in with your world view which is miraculously populated with 100% perfect policies which have no negative unintended consequences.

OMG-- You don’t agree with me? –Fine. I can respect you for that. What have you got that weakens my argument. I’ll take a look at it with an open, non-agenda laden, relatively impartial mind, can you do the same? --Perhaps not.

People, I offer up a perspective which may or may not be true. I happen to think it is. I offer what I believe to be the underlying causes. I ask for constructive responses. What I get it personal attacks and hissy fits.

Question: Do we want to have a rational discussion about this; or do we want to call people names and run away? If you don’t want to explore this but merely give each other affirmation I’ll stop. I thought we are here to perhaps learn something.

Hey OMG, what are you doing up at 3:02am?

HP, I have a lengthier reply but for now I need to say that you offer no facts at all. Facts have references and sources. There is not one single "fact" in your statement. Not one.

Your first fact is a compound conjecture. So how could anyone including you draw any conclusions from them? I can neither agree nor disagree with your conclusion because there is no foundation upon which to build a conclusion.

Furthermore, I don't know what your conclusion is. You need to state it more succinctly and concretely. Don't pull your punches. Let us know how you really feel. Go big or go home.

To: OMG2.0 post of | February 2, 2009 12:36 AM re: you offer no facts at all.

I agree that facts have references and sources. I just chose not to cite them bc I felt that the facts offered would be widely accepted as such.

So since you questioned my first fact offered I will give you some sources.

My first fact offered, namely that women are naturally more protective and cautious then men, I don’t think is seriously debatable.

Do a google search with the terms “women” & “more fearful than men”--- You’ll get a flood of articles and scholarly papers.

The overwhelming weight of scholarship supports my assertion.

What have you got that seriously disproves this? I don't think you will find much.

Time is relative to location.

You must accept my apology for a poorly worded comment. I was still groggy from travel and not used to speaking English again.

I would say that your "facts" are really suppositions, so no conclusions can be drawn from them.

I can live with assumtion #1. It makes sense on an evolutionary basis.

For example this statement:
Since the feminist movement, many more households are run by single mothers

1) When did the feminist movement start? If we know your asumption (which is really a subjective conclusion) on that, then we can look at demographic data to see what the real facts are on single parent households. The government collects good data on that.

I find it impossible to even discuss your ideas since there are no clear definitions. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that no logical conclusions can be drawn from suppositons, especially when genuine data and definitions are available.

So before anyone could discuss this logically, you will have to define some things:
1) What do you mean by feminism? Is it just the American brand? For example French feminism was philosophically quite different and in my opinion superior.
2) What is the population? American children, urban children, middle class, East coast, white, suburban? All valid topics.
3) How do you measure "kids [being] shut down today from being free outside"? Can you give a concrete definition? Something measurable?
4) My guess is that the period with the greatest percentage of single parent households in the last century was during WWII, which has nothing to do with feminism.

Without a clear statement of your assumptions, building a conclusion is like herding cats.

Let me try to restate your argument:
1) Women are more risk averse than men
2) Feminism caused an increase in single parent households headed by women
3) In dual parent households, women are more dominant now in child-rearing [because of feminism].

Your conclusion is that feminism made women more dominant in the household makeup and power structure and that this greater dominance causes their more risk-averse nature to be imposed upon the children.

Is that it?

I was told there would be no homework on the blog...

HP offers this fact:

But in general the country is more safe with less crime than it was 40 years ago (statistics generally available)

Let's look at the facts:
Source: U.S. Statistical Abstract
http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-23.pdf

We will look at the rate of criminal offenses per 100,000 population. The numbers will represent these rates for 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2002 (the latest complete data). SO the five numbers in sequence will show you a rough trend.

All crime = 1887, 3984, 5950, 5802, 4118

Clearly there is much more crime now than in 1960. There are no reliable comparable statistics prior to 1960 because the FBI changed their methodology.

The numbers above include property crime, which is less frightening or publicized than violent crime. Let's look just at violent crime rates for the same period:

Violent crime rate = murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

(1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2002)
Rate = 161, 364, 597, 730, 495
with the peak in 1991.
Violent crime has decreased since its peak in 1991, but is still many time higher than in 1960.

Based upon these data, your assertion that we live in a safer world can be rejected.

to Owl Meat Gravy - post of February 2, 2009 2:19 PM -- Let me try to restate your argument:

Yes. Basically that’s it.

In a two parent household pre- feminist era (70s), what the kids could do and not do skewed more to dad’s view. In a two parent household post-feminist era permitted activity skews more toward mom’s view. In mom only households, it totally the mom’s view that prevails.

And in too many households, it's totally the kid's view that prevails.

Coward!