The website address was too long, so I'm including the whole long story for discussion.

Is the concern legit to let kids go out alone or should they be watched closely..or is it regional?

Also, by trusting your kid to go out alone,aren't you also trusting the adults out there to be helpful or harmful? I don't think they are related....

Remember 'go outside and play?'
Overbearing parents have taken the fun out of childhood and turned it into a grind.
May 15, 2008


Can you forgive her?

In March, Lenore Skenazy, a New York City mother, gave her 9-year-old son, Izzy, a MetroCard, a subway map, a $20 bill and some quarters for pay phones. Then she let him make his own way home from Bloomingdale's department store -- by subway and bus.

Izzy survived unscathed. He wasn't abducted by a perverted stranger or pushed under an oncoming train by a homicidal maniac. He didn't even get lost. According to Skenazy, who wrote about it in a New York Sun column, he arrived home "ecstatic with independence."

His mother wasn't so lucky. Her column generated as much outrage as if she'd suggested that mothers make extra cash by hiring their kids out as child prostitutes.

But it also reinvigorated an important debate about children, safety and independence.

Reader, if you're much over 30, you probably remember what it used to be like for the typical American kid. Remember how there used to be this thing called "going out to play"?

For younger readers, I'll explain this archaic concept. It worked like this: The child or children in the house -- as long as they were over age 4 or so -- went to the door, opened it, and ... went outside. They braved the neighborhood pedophile just waiting to pounce, the rusty nails just waiting to be stepped on, the trees just waiting to be fallen out of, and they "played."

"Play," incidentally, is a mysterious activity children engage in when not compelled to spend every hour under adult supervision, taking soccer or piano lessons or practicing vocabulary words with computerized flashcards.

All in all, "going out to play" worked out well for kids. As the American Academy of Pediatrics' Dr. Kenneth Ginsburg testified to Congress in 2006, "Play allows children to create and explore a world they can master, conquering their fears while practicing adult roles. ... Play helps children develop new competencies ... and the resiliency they will need to face future challenges." But here's the catch: Those benefits aren't realized when some helpful adult is hovering over kids the whole time.

Thirty years ago, the "going out to play" culture coexisted with other culturally sanctioned forms of independence for even very young children: Kids as young as 6 used to walk to school on their own, for instance, or take public buses or -- gulp -- subways. And if they lived on a school bus route, their mommies did not consider it necessary to escort them to the bus stop every morning and wait there with them.

But today, for most middle-class American children, "going out to play" has gone the way of the dodo, the typewriter and the eight-track tape. From 1981 to 1997, for instance, University of Michigan time-use studies show that 3- to 5-year-olds lost an average of 501 minutes of unstructured playtime each week; 6- to 8-year-olds lost an average of 228 minutes. (On the other hand, kids now do more organized activities and have more homework, the lucky devils!) And forget about walking to school alone. Today's kids don't walk much at all (adding to the childhood obesity problem).



Increasingly, American children are in a lose-lose situation. They're forced, prematurely, to do all the un-fun kinds of things adults do (Be over-scheduled! Have no downtime! Study! Work!). But they don't get any of the privileges of adult life: autonomy, the ability to make their own choices, use their own judgment, maybe even get interestingly lost now and then.

Somehow, we've managed to turn childhood into a long, hard slog. Is it any wonder our kids take their pleasures where they can find them, by escaping to "Grand Theft Auto IV" or the alluring, parent-free world of MySpace?

But, but, but, you say, all the same, Skenazy should never have let her 9-year-old son take the subway! In New York, for God's sake! A cesspit of crack addicts, muggers and pedophiles!

Well, no. We parents have sold ourselves a bill of goods when it comes to child safety. Forget the television fear-mongering: Your child stands about the same chance of being struck by lightning as of being the victim of what the Department of Justice calls a "stereotypical kidnapping." And unless you live in Baghdad, your child stands a much, much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than of being seriously harmed while wandering unsupervised around your neighborhood.

Skenazy responded to the firestorm generated by her column by starting a new website -- freerangekids.wordpress.com -- dedicated to giving "our kids the freedom we had." She explains: "We believe in safe kids. ... We do NOT believe that every time school-age children go outside, they need a security detail."

Next time I take my kids to New York, I'm asking Skenazy to baby-sit

How nice that she played outside 30 years ago!  Wishing something were true doesn't make it so.  Groovy that her son made it home safe.  I ride the New York city subway every day and I can tell you that at 9 you really shouldn't be alone.  It's idealist, a bit neglectful and I think she's an a-hole.  Free range walking targets.

How nice that she played outside 30 years ago!  Wishing something were true doesn't make it so.  Groovy that her son made it home safe.  I ride the New York city subway every day and I can tell you that at 9 you really shouldn't be alone.  It's idealist, a bit neglectful and I think she's an a-hole.  Free range walking targets.


Someone should add that to her collection of comments, here's where I found it:


http://freerangekids.wordpress.com

I'm not posting there.  When you get that many fools gathering in one place, it's a waste of time.  You know when something goes SO far the other way that it misses the mark?  This website is it.   

I mean, articles like "Will Snow Kill Your Kids?" - c'mon!  ::)

I understand their message, it's just a bit ridiculous.  Giving your kids these freedoms does not make the world a safer place.  They're not starting any type of positive change in climate here.

This is an actual quote from a free range parent (who obviously didn't have to wear a helmet when she rode her bike and grew up FINE)

"We should spend more time teaching our kids to say please and thank you , instead of teaching them to be victims".  Well, here's a phrase they can practice:  "Thank you for stealing my metrocard." They do that here in NY.  I hear the high school kids talking about it as I ride the train.

Are they kidding me?  These are the same organic shoes-off fools making those horrible wooden toys that every kid I know hates, all in the name of nostalgia.

I 'm not one for stats, and while I know crime is the lowest it's been in a while NY, the percentage of guns is certainly higher! 
Those free range kids better be wearing converse all-stars, 'cause they steal the better sneakers right off their feet.  They didn't do that 30 years ago because they didn't make sneakers that cost over $100.

At least in this day and age we have the Amber alert when one of these poor kids goes missing... :(

I'm not posting there.  When you get that many fools gathering in one place, it's a waste of time.  You know when something goes SO far the other way that it misses the mark?  This website is it.   

I mean, articles like "Will Snow Kill Your Kids?" - c'mon!  ::)

I understand their message, it's just a bit ridiculous.  Giving your kids these freedoms does not make the world a safer place.  They're not starting any type of positive change in climate here.

This is an actual quote from a free range parent (who obviously didn't have to wear a helmet when she rode her bike and grew up FINE)

"We should spend more time teaching our kids to say please and thank you , instead of teaching them to be victims".  Well, here's a phrase they can practice:  "Thank you for stealing my metrocard." They do that here in NY.  I hear the high school kids talking about it as I ride the train.

Are they kidding me?  These are the same organic shoes-off fools making those horrible wooden toys that every kid I know hates, all in the name of nostalgia.

I 'm not one for stats, and while I know crime is the lowest it's been in a while NY, the percentage of guns is certainly higher! 
Those free range kids better be wearing converse all-stars, 'cause they steal the better sneakers right off their feet.  They didn't do that 30 years ago because they didn't make sneakers that cost over $100.

At least in this day and age we have the Amber alert when one of these poor kids goes missing... :(




(Concern of another writer...):

Doesn't all that, keep your kid on a leash stuff, keep them from approaching other decent people in our current society who have no mind to harm a kid?

An older person was taken aback by the people/parents who won't let their kids interact with another adult...why would an adult want to hang around kids? Some just do for the joy of the experience when they go for a train ride or go to the arcade and share playing video games...or whatever non-harmful reason they have..they may just like seeing kids discover...they aren't looking for a new pet. But some freak if they see a young kid hanging with an older person that isn't the father or uncle....

In my earlier days, I enjoyed younger kids for the reason of (hopefully) steering them ijn the right direction-without the parental approach and they turned out fine grown people. But there was the close scrutiny 'what is this guy doing hanging around with a few of these kids?' My answer was,"talking with them like YOU should be!'-finding out what they like, what bugs them with school or life...

There are organizations like the BIG BROTHERS that love people to relate and educate many single parent kids, but I wasn't the type to 'join' a group and be watch..I knew I wasn't harmful and true to my reasoning, it paid off! But this is a unique example and there ARE those who should have a background check and maybe a psyche check...I am just relating and speaking about understanding 'some' people liike kids and do it for positive reasons.     

Yeah, yeah, priests love children too.... :(

Yeah, yeah, priests love children too.... :(


Priests are magnets tho...

Anyone heard of Victor?

   I wonder how much of todays over-protectiveness (if you want to call it that) has to do with the shrinking size of families.  Birth control is commonplace and barely noteworthy.  Is it common for couples to have 4 or 5 or 6 children like it was before the 70s?  I think it's usually 1 to 3 kids, now.  Places a higher premium on the safety of one's children when one only has 1 or 2 progeny, as opposed to a half dozen...

   For instance, my family includes three girls, two boys (I'm the youngest) so it's okay for me to walk to grade school and back every day, by myself, and take the bus to Richmond (well, I didn't start taking the bus until I was 12 or 13...)

   It makes sense (biologically speaking)...

  Edit to add:  Put simply, with 5 or 6 children you can lose a couple and you're still okay.  With one or two kids, you just can't afford to take chances.  Again, biologically speaking...

   

Priests are magnets tho...

What do you mean>

What do you mean>


As I went to Catholic school, religion was the overall theme, kids would try to be the teachers pet-with nuns, the farthest you could get was helping clean the erasers or chalkboard...with priests, if you did/didn't have a good relation at home with dad, the priest was your new buddy..why not, he worked for the place your parents were sending you,he compliments you and can move you to the top position of helping with serving at the mass or even better(a funeral-where you make some money)if he liked you...he emitted that 'love'which is depicted in statues of Jesus surrounded by children...how many nuns were busted for having sex with their students?

Just saying the priest has the 'attraction' factor...and as in STAR WARS...the force could be good or bad....it's what they do with it...(then their is the alcoholic stats among priests too)...

It's a 'where there's smoke there's fire thing'.

As I went to Catholic school, religion was the overall theme, kids would try to be the teachers pet-with nuns, the farthest you could get was helping clean the erasers or chalkboard...with priests, if you did/didn't have a good relation at home with dad, the priest was your new buddy..why not, he worked for the place your parents were sending you,he compliments you and can move you to the top position of helping with serving at the mass or even better(a funeral-where you make some money)if he liked you...he emitted that 'love'which is depicted in statues of Jesus surrounded by children...how many nuns were busted for having sex with their students?

Just saying the priest has the 'attraction' factor...and as in STAR WARS...the force could be good or bad....it's what they do with it...(then their is the alcoholic stats among priests too)...

I think children are taught to respect priests as men of God; as a safe haven.  I don't think it has anything to do with charisma (if that's the right word).

I think children are taught to respect priests as men of God; as a safe haven.  I don't think it has anything to do with charisma (if that's the right word).


There were those who have/had it though, I  loved going to rollerskate after school because one of the 'adults' there was Father???
And throw GOD into the mix...when being raised you are taught to give all your love to GOD not the DEVIL, when asked who do you love.
So when you know the guy who has the GOD connection, it's like celeb time.

Then there are those who are taught..they are just men serving GOD which we all can do in different ways, they just devoted their whole life and work to Him.

Much like the Bible things get misinterpreted and dismissed over time...just like I stopped confessing to the priests and use the express direct to GOD in my mind.

   I wonder how much of todays over-protectiveness (if you want to call it that) has to do with the shrinking size of families.  Birth control is commonplace and barely noteworthy.  Is it common for couples to have 4 or 5 or 6 children like it was before the 70s?  I think it's usually 1 to 3 kids, now.  Places a higher premium on the safety of one's children when one only has 1 or 2 progeny, as opposed to a half dozen...

   For instance, my family includes three girls, two boys (I'm the youngest) so it's okay for me to walk to grade school and back every day, by myself, and take the bus to Richmond (well, I didn't start taking the bus until I was 12 or 13...)

   It makes sense (biologically speaking)...

   Edit to add:  Put simply, with 5 or 6 children you can lose a couple and you're still okay.  With one or two kids, you just can't afford to take chances.  Again, biologically speaking...

   

I really don't see it that way at all.  I think I would watch all my children like a hawk regardless of how many spares I had.

I really don't see it that way at all.  I think I would watch all my children like a hawk regardless of how many spares I had.


I agree. Each child is special and unique. It would be heartwrenching to lose any of them.

Interesting, the woman is insane letting a 9 year old out in a major city alone.

Yesterday I was reading a lovely article on the instances of violence by all female kids gangs that is going through the roof in the U.K. It was accompanied by a lovely picture of a 13 year old girl with a cigerette hanging from her lips and a mobile phone clamped to her ear who is on bail pending a court case for beating up a pensioner. Part of the reason you wouldn't want to let your kids on the streets is not just the adults it's the other kids!