5 ms·

Norms are not static and based on your experiences as a child. It's labeled "free range parenting" because it is no longer the norm. Edit: I should have been m

by asift 11y ago

Norms are not static and based on your experiences as a child. It's labeled "free range parenting" because it is no longer the norm. Edit: I should have been more careful in my wording. Whether it is "the norm" is obviously very location dependent. The US is a large country with all sorts of different norms at the community level. I happen to have grown up in a suburban Midwest community (incredibly safe) with large residential areas directly across the street from many schools. However, walking to school was prohibited. Any students caught walking were subject to suspension and the school threatened to report parents to law enforcement. Obviously my particular anecdote doesn't apply to everyone, but there are some communities with insane policies in the US.

Retric 11y ago
As far as I can tell it's still the norm. It's just not actively defended.
horsecaptin 11y ago
It is still quite normal. Just because calling it "free range parenting" is becoming fashionable doesn't mean that most parents aren't "free range". It seems that the more secure our society becomes, the more paranoid and risk averse people are.
- jandrese 11y ago
  Maybe it is the Amiga effect? All of the reasonable people are no longer complaining so the only voices you hear are the extremist ones?
- Natsu 11y ago
  We're more aware of every crazy person doing crazy things in the country now, which feeds our (mis)perceptions of risk.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    I wouldn't have thought that statement controversial, but here's a reference if there's really someone out there that doesn't think that the availability bias plays into our perception of risk: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/fear_and_the_av.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/fear_and_the_... https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychology_of_se.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychol...
rayiner 11y ago
I think it's still the norm. I don't think Citylab's journalists are well-placed to know what is the norm in parenting.
dkhenry 11y ago
No its very much normal still. However due to shifts in parents its not as prevalent as it used to be ( Kids spending more time indoors, fewer "neighborhood" schools, many other things ). So you don't see it as much, but every parent I know is very comfortable letting their kids wander in their neighborhoods even if the kids don't do that as much.
jandrese 11y ago
In an affluent Maryland suburb? That should be the norm. If you live east of the Anacostia in DC then yeah, the kids aren't as safe outside on their own, but that's more from a gang recruitment angle than a traditional "stranger danger". Obviously people who live in crime ridden ghettos can't be quite as free as people who live in safe neighborhoods, and it's something we should fix in the long term, but it doesn't mean we should punish those people who live in safe areas with overly restrictive laws that hurt their children's development. It's kind of sad that the kids who are already disadvantaged by being poor, having failing schools, and likely only a single parent are also the ones who don't get to be free and learn independence as children. It's yet another cog on the cycle of poverty.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Ironically, it's the other way around. In the last few years, my wife and I have lived in New Rochelle, NY; Wilmington, DE; and Baltimore, MD. These cities are poor and have a heavily minority population. But they are also full of kids running around without a parent in sight. It's the affluent Maryland suburbs where the yuppies are too paranoid to let their kids out of their sight.
  - jandrese 11y ago
    I was saying what should be, not what is. To be fair, when my kids are out playing I keep an eye on them, but mostly because they are 2 and still don't always remember to look for cars before running out in the street (but getting better).
- asift 11y ago
  I mentioned it in my edit above, but I grew up in an affluent Midwest suburb where parents were threatened with criminal action if they let their kids walk to school. Even high school aged students were threatened with suspensions for walking. Whether this is the "norm" will depend on where you live, but there are certainly entire communities where letting kids walk to school is not the norm.
  - 11y ago
Natsu 11y ago
I walked to and from school as an elementary student without incident. While there might be areas that are too dangerous for this to be appropriate, the idea that it might be considered by some as 'child abuse' is a bit scary in its own right.
jemfinch 11y ago
> Any students caught walking were subject to suspension and the school threatened to report parents to law enforcement. That's an insane violation of rights; was this policy never challenged?
paulddraper 11y ago
What? How are kids supposed to get to school? Ride a bike to school? Or hitchhike? Or was bus transportation mandatory even if you lived 100ft away?

by asift 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

As far as I can tell it's still the norm. It's just not actively defended.

horsecaptin 11y ago

It is still quite normal. Just because calling it "free range parenting" is becoming fashionable doesn't mean that most parents aren't "free range". It seems that the more secure our society becomes, the more paranoid and risk averse people are.

jandrese 11y ago
Maybe it is the Amiga effect? All of the reasonable people are no longer complaining so the only voices you hear are the extremist ones?
Natsu 11y ago
We're more aware of every crazy person doing crazy things in the country now, which feeds our (mis)perceptions of risk.
- Natsu 11y ago
  I wouldn't have thought that statement controversial, but here's a reference if there's really someone out there that doesn't think that the availability bias plays into our perception of risk: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/fear_and_the_av.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/fear_and_the_... https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychology_of_se.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2008/01/the_psychol...

rayiner 11y ago

I think it's still the norm. I don't think Citylab's journalists are well-placed to know what is the norm in parenting.

dkhenry 11y ago

No its very much normal still. However due to shifts in parents its not as prevalent as it used to be ( Kids spending more time indoors, fewer "neighborhood" schools, many other things ). So you don't see it as much, but every parent I know is very comfortable letting their kids wander in their neighborhoods even if the kids don't do that as much.

jandrese 11y ago

In an affluent Maryland suburb? That should be the norm. If you live east of the Anacostia in DC then yeah, the kids aren't as safe outside on their own, but that's more from a gang recruitment angle than a traditional "stranger danger". Obviously people who live in crime ridden ghettos can't be quite as free as people who live in safe neighborhoods, and it's something we should fix in the long term, but it doesn't mean we should punish those people who live in safe areas with overly restrictive laws that hurt their children's development. It's kind of sad that the kids who are already disadvantaged by being poor, having failing schools, and likely only a single parent are also the ones who don't get to be free and learn independence as children. It's yet another cog on the cycle of poverty.

rayiner 11y ago
Ironically, it's the other way around. In the last few years, my wife and I have lived in New Rochelle, NY; Wilmington, DE; and Baltimore, MD. These cities are poor and have a heavily minority population. But they are also full of kids running around without a parent in sight. It's the affluent Maryland suburbs where the yuppies are too paranoid to let their kids out of their sight.
- jandrese 11y ago
  I was saying what should be, not what is. To be fair, when my kids are out playing I keep an eye on them, but mostly because they are 2 and still don't always remember to look for cars before running out in the street (but getting better).
asift 11y ago
I mentioned it in my edit above, but I grew up in an affluent Midwest suburb where parents were threatened with criminal action if they let their kids walk to school. Even high school aged students were threatened with suspensions for walking. Whether this is the "norm" will depend on where you live, but there are certainly entire communities where letting kids walk to school is not the norm.
- 11y ago

Natsu 11y ago

I walked to and from school as an elementary student without incident. While there might be areas that are too dangerous for this to be appropriate, the idea that it might be considered by some as 'child abuse' is a bit scary in its own right.

jemfinch 11y ago

> Any students caught walking were subject to suspension and the school threatened to report parents to law enforcement. That's an insane violation of rights; was this policy never challenged?

paulddraper 11y ago

What? How are kids supposed to get to school? Ride a bike to school? Or hitchhike? Or was bus transportation mandatory even if you lived 100ft away?