4 ms·

One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time (obviously it is a big place.) I always wonder what proportion of it is due to genuine misplace

One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time (obviously it is a big place.) I always wonder what proportion of it is due to genuine misplaced concern for the children, and how much of it is strife of the "they don't like the color of your house" variety. One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy.

jackcosgrove 10y ago
Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  Nannying is just one aspect of a more pervasive underlying cultural problem: a lot of people here seem to feel entitled to impose their opinions and judgment on others. Not just share them, but actually impose them.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    I think this creates an interesting circular problem. Only recently in society have we come to think of children as effectively the parents property. In many other cultures it is expected that other adults will discipline children. We have this problem in our library often when kids who are resettled refugees come in and misbehave. The parents send them to the library with the expectation that they will be disciplined if they misbehave. When the kids see they will not, they misbehave knowing they can get away with it. On the other hand, this protectiveness of our personal standard of parenting means that in order to enforce our standards, we must see the kids and people must defer to the parents for discipline. It almost means that because we don't allow others to impose their judgements on our kids, that they then impose their judgements on the parents.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I'm not sure this is anything particularly new. There have always been busybodies. What probably is newer is that the local government is, for better or worse, quicker to inject themselves into domestic situations than they may have been in the past. The challenge is that, if someone sees behavior that isn't the norm in their experience, and that they personally consider (rightly or wrongly) to be insanely dangerous, what are they really to do? OK, they probably shouldn't raise a stink if some kid is riding a bike without a helmet. What if they're playing with firecrackers?
    - CodeMage 10y ago
      I agree, there are busybodies everywhere and they have always existed. What's new to me, who have lived in two very different countries before coming here to the US, is how often and how easily those busybodies recur to authorities. Unlike other places I've lived in, here there is a real fear that someone will dislike the way you raise your children and report you, creating much more serious problems for you than they might do elsewhere, at least not with the same ease. I think it has a lot to do with what @stinkytaco said in his reply. It's a breakdown in communication and the same thing happens in other aspects of our lives, not just the child-rearing. I believe that this is what happens when there's so much emphasis on personal, individual freedom at the expense of larger communities those individuals form part of, all the way to the largest community -- the society itself.
- Nadya 10y ago
  I personally disagree and coming entirely from my own personal experience - the nannying comes from a stereotypical, overprotective stay-at-home-parent. It is {thing} the parent would never in a million years let their kids do (generally due to a perceived risk) and therefore other parents are actively endangering their kids if they let their kid do {thing}. Whether or not the risk exists and whether or not some small amount of risk is "better for the development of the child" (eg: independence/navigational skills developed by being able to walk to/from school unattended) My own mother is one of those overprotective judging types. She'd never report to CPS unless it was clear-cut endangering the child (eg: physically beating them/doing hard drugs). But she still looks down on the neighbors for letting their kids play in the front lawn. The street being dangerous - kids should only play in the back yard! And only under adult supervision. My mother refuses to use a babysitter (even family) lest they let her children do something she would consider "too dangerous" or "stupid". I've gotten into a few arguments with her how I think that is doing more harm than good but they're not my kids so I don't have a say in it. E: And what CodeMage said. 100% agree there as well.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have. IRL, anecdotally, I've found the opposite to be the case. It is almost always parents who feel something is wrong with the other person's parenting style. I've also found it depends to be a culture desire to passive aggressively impose your will/lifestyle on other people.
- compiler-guy 10y ago
  The article explicitly states that mothers (who have children) judge other mothers more harshly than everyone else. In fact, the ranking of most likely to overestimate risk to least likely is: 1. Mothers 2. Childless women 3. Fathers 4. Childless men In other words, the ones who know the most about child rearing (in our culture, that is mothers), are the worst at assessing risk.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > In other words, the ones who know the most about child rearing (in our culture, that is mothers), are the worst at assessing risk. Leaving aside the dubious connection to knowledge about child rearing, including the suggestion that childless women have more knowledge than fathers on that point, "most prone to overestimate risks in low-risk situations" is not the same as "worst at assessing risk". I suspect if a ranking was produced of those most likely to underestimate risk in high-risk situations, you'd get exactly the reverse ordering.
  - MandieD 10y ago
    Actually, it was: 1) Mothers 2) Fathers 3) Childless women 4) Childless men (Childless woman here, defending our honor)
    - compiler-guy 10y ago
      Thanks for the correction. Too late to edit my post.
- cafard 10y ago
  A few years ago, I heard of the expression "sanctimommy" ("Oh, you let your children eat non-organic vegetables?"), so this is not limited to the childless.
jff 10y ago
> One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy. Yes, the English idea of privacy is that you, the commoner, should leave well enough alone while the State surveils you.
- JonnieCache 10y ago
  That kind of privacy problem is more to do with our woeful subservience than preferences for interpersonal autonomy, although the two are linked. "Leave well enough alone" does sum it up nicely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Negative_politeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Negative_pol... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu-eMcEF3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu-eMcEF3s
dragonwriter 10y ago
> One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time I suspect that -- like the reports of crimes against children that spur them -- the frequency of such excessive, busybody complaints is far less than it appears from the frequency with which one hears about them.
- mentat 10y ago
  Right, but who's going to risk their child being taken away by the state.
neumann 10y ago
Anecdotally, we found the midwest of America so much more relaxed then our home country of Australia. When we came here, I was amazed to see kids with no supervision roaming our inner-city neighbourhoods and playing like we did growing up. It was refreshing and nostalgic even when compared to Australia now where kids in the city are rarely seen even biking/walking to school due to safety concerns.

jackcosgrove 10y ago

Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have.

CodeMage 10y ago
Nannying is just one aspect of a more pervasive underlying cultural problem: a lot of people here seem to feel entitled to impose their opinions and judgment on others. Not just share them, but actually impose them.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I think this creates an interesting circular problem. Only recently in society have we come to think of children as effectively the parents property. In many other cultures it is expected that other adults will discipline children. We have this problem in our library often when kids who are resettled refugees come in and misbehave. The parents send them to the library with the expectation that they will be disciplined if they misbehave. When the kids see they will not, they misbehave knowing they can get away with it. On the other hand, this protectiveness of our personal standard of parenting means that in order to enforce our standards, we must see the kids and people must defer to the parents for discipline. It almost means that because we don't allow others to impose their judgements on our kids, that they then impose their judgements on the parents.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I'm not sure this is anything particularly new. There have always been busybodies. What probably is newer is that the local government is, for better or worse, quicker to inject themselves into domestic situations than they may have been in the past. The challenge is that, if someone sees behavior that isn't the norm in their experience, and that they personally consider (rightly or wrongly) to be insanely dangerous, what are they really to do? OK, they probably shouldn't raise a stink if some kid is riding a bike without a helmet. What if they're playing with firecrackers?
  - CodeMage 10y ago
    I agree, there are busybodies everywhere and they have always existed. What's new to me, who have lived in two very different countries before coming here to the US, is how often and how easily those busybodies recur to authorities. Unlike other places I've lived in, here there is a real fear that someone will dislike the way you raise your children and report you, creating much more serious problems for you than they might do elsewhere, at least not with the same ease. I think it has a lot to do with what @stinkytaco said in his reply. It's a breakdown in communication and the same thing happens in other aspects of our lives, not just the child-rearing. I believe that this is what happens when there's so much emphasis on personal, individual freedom at the expense of larger communities those individuals form part of, all the way to the largest community -- the society itself.
Nadya 10y ago
I personally disagree and coming entirely from my own personal experience - the nannying comes from a stereotypical, overprotective stay-at-home-parent. It is {thing} the parent would never in a million years let their kids do (generally due to a perceived risk) and therefore other parents are actively endangering their kids if they let their kid do {thing}. Whether or not the risk exists and whether or not some small amount of risk is "better for the development of the child" (eg: independence/navigational skills developed by being able to walk to/from school unattended) My own mother is one of those overprotective judging types. She'd never report to CPS unless it was clear-cut endangering the child (eg: physically beating them/doing hard drugs). But she still looks down on the neighbors for letting their kids play in the front lawn. The street being dangerous - kids should only play in the back yard! And only under adult supervision. My mother refuses to use a babysitter (even family) lest they let her children do something she would consider "too dangerous" or "stupid". I've gotten into a few arguments with her how I think that is doing more harm than good but they're not my kids so I don't have a say in it. E: And what CodeMage said. 100% agree there as well.
fweespeech 10y ago
> Honestly, I think a lot of this nannying comes from middle aged people who never had children, but maybe who wanted them and could not have them. So there's an element of ignorance about how autonomous children can be, and also jealousy and revenge against those who have what they wanted and can no longer have. IRL, anecdotally, I've found the opposite to be the case. It is almost always parents who feel something is wrong with the other person's parenting style. I've also found it depends to be a culture desire to passive aggressively impose your will/lifestyle on other people.
compiler-guy 10y ago
The article explicitly states that mothers (who have children) judge other mothers more harshly than everyone else. In fact, the ranking of most likely to overestimate risk to least likely is: 1. Mothers 2. Childless women 3. Fathers 4. Childless men In other words, the ones who know the most about child rearing (in our culture, that is mothers), are the worst at assessing risk.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In other words, the ones who know the most about child rearing (in our culture, that is mothers), are the worst at assessing risk. Leaving aside the dubious connection to knowledge about child rearing, including the suggestion that childless women have more knowledge than fathers on that point, "most prone to overestimate risks in low-risk situations" is not the same as "worst at assessing risk". I suspect if a ranking was produced of those most likely to underestimate risk in high-risk situations, you'd get exactly the reverse ordering.
- MandieD 10y ago
  Actually, it was: 1) Mothers 2) Fathers 3) Childless women 4) Childless men (Childless woman here, defending our honor)
  - compiler-guy 10y ago
    Thanks for the correction. Too late to edit my post.
cafard 10y ago
A few years ago, I heard of the expression "sanctimommy" ("Oh, you let your children eat non-organic vegetables?"), so this is not limited to the childless.

jff 10y ago

> One thinks of Homeowner Associations and the way they place fines and pseudo-legal orders on people, a concept which is utterly anathema to the english. The two cultures have very different ideas of privacy. Yes, the English idea of privacy is that you, the commoner, should leave well enough alone while the State surveils you.

JonnieCache 10y ago
That kind of privacy problem is more to do with our woeful subservience than preferences for interpersonal autonomy, although the two are linked. "Leave well enough alone" does sum it up nicely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Negative_politeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory#Negative_pol... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu-eMcEF3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbu-eMcEF3s

dragonwriter 10y ago

> One hears of this kind of thing happening in the US all the time I suspect that -- like the reports of crimes against children that spur them -- the frequency of such excessive, busybody complaints is far less than it appears from the frequency with which one hears about them.

mentat 10y ago
Right, but who's going to risk their child being taken away by the state.

neumann 10y ago

Anecdotally, we found the midwest of America so much more relaxed then our home country of Australia. When we came here, I was amazed to see kids with no supervision roaming our inner-city neighbourhoods and playing like we did growing up. It was refreshing and nostalgic even when compared to Australia now where kids in the city are rarely seen even biking/walking to school due to safety concerns.