4 ms·
Yes. EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my
by skrebbel 6y ago
Yes.
EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea.
Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't.
There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons.
I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.
- asgeir 6y agowhy? EDIT: I think that the 10pm/midnight cutoff point is less about some danger switch getting flipped at midnight and more about there being some well-defined point where CPS need to step in and ask the parents why their children are unsupervised. If it's vaguely defined it makes enforcement of the law more difficult or will cause the law to be unevenly applied (something like poor kids get neglected because CPS can't prove neglect).
- watwut 6y agoIf there is no danger, why do you think parental presence is needed at that particular moment?
- asgeir 6y agoAs I said. I think that this is to ensure that child protective services have a fixed guideline to work with. If the definition of neglect is specific you have a better chance of the law being applied equally to all.
- hurxnid 6y agoThey don’t need to be involved at all. Getting coffee with a friend at 10pm on a Friday when you are 16 is not “parental neglect”. Anyone who thinks that the law should get involved with that has so much wrong with their worldview it is almost impossible to unpack. It is not a healthy outlook. And it hurts kids.
- detaro 6y agoSo having a unreasonable fixed guideline, that if consistently applied causes CPS intervention in many totally fine situations, is better?
- asgeir 6y agoI didn't say it was. I've merely speculated on why this particular law is in place.
- hurxnid 6y ago16 is hardly a child. 10pm? That’s insane and psychologically damaging to kids.
- jariel 6y agoIt's not about safety really, or the idea, that in theory, a kid could run around at night and still be ok, because they probably can. But kids out and about consistently, let alone not in bed by 10 pm ... this is not good. Those are extended boundaries allowing kids to get themselves into trouble. As per my note above - have a drive through a ghetto at night - what you see is kids, and it's spooky.
- skrebbel 6y agoWho was talking about consistently? I would sometimes be out until 4 in the morning after a party when I was 16, and this law forbids that. I'm talking a few times a year. Btw I don't think Iceland has ghettos.