3 ms·

> I'm retrospect, what most bothered me was probably the inversion of caregiving burden between a parent and a young child. Sorry for going off-thread a litt

> I'm retrospect, what most bothered me was probably the inversion of caregiving burden between a parent and a young child. Sorry for going off-thread a little, as I appreciate the subject here is men experiencing negative behaviours when showing vulnerability. But I wrote about the issue of "inversion of caregiving" (good compact phrase) in Digital Vegan in respect to technology. It's become perfectly acceptable for parents/adults to lionise the supposed skills of children around tech. They say things like: "Oh well kids just instinctively know about technology don't they", or feel perfectly happy recounting with a laugh how "My five year old has to show me how to use the TV remote". If adults are too lazy or stupid to understand any technology and its attendant risks, handing it to children under their care is neglect. I think this is part of a wider problem of shrugging abdication of agency under condition of "convenience" worship.

ejiblabahaba 4y ago
I think it's possible to be proud of your children for adapting to modern interfaces more quickly and easily than you, while simultaneously remaining cautious about risks those technologies can present. I don't think the straw-parent in your example needs to know how to work the remote (or the computer) to understand most of the important risks, e.g. of unmoderated content consumption. I'm pretty sure it's still unacceptable in most spheres for parents to admit no boundaries or limitations to TV or internet usage, especially conditioned on age or subject matter. Understanding the technology and understanding its attendant risks aren't completely orthogonal, but neither does one imply the other - or else the kids who "instinctively know about technology" would also instinctively know the risks. On the other hand, it's probably faster and easier for someone who understands the technology to learn about the attendant risks, and understanding the technology may be required to personally validate the risks or to invent the best remediation strategies. But a considerable amount of parenting is, and always has been, received wisdom, for better or worse. I can see an argument to describe "lazy" as neglectful, but I take issue with "stupid": the scope of a parent's best reasonable effort to understand and mitigate technological risks for their children should be conditioned on what level of understanding they can realistically achieve, or else "neglect" is reduced to an IQ test.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It is possible to be simultaneously cautious and proud of one's children for quick adaptation, but it is far from common. In fact it's rare in my observation, and the pride is misplaced. These "straw parents" are very real and embodied. I talk to them often through Digital Self Defence classes and have a first hand feel for their struggles (while also being a parent myself). > Understanding the technology and understanding its attendant risks aren't [s] completely orthogonal, but neither does one imply the other This is a very interesting point you make. My opinion is that they are very much orthogonal right now, and that is a major problem. Much of what passes for "understanding" is shallow marketing hype, at best dangerously incomplete, but more typically misleading, deception and propaganda. I quite agree with comedian Stuart Lee's assessment of Vodafone's guide to online child safety as "Mr. Fox's Guide to Hen-house Security". We are in desperate need of a renaissance in digital literacy. I have called for Digital Literacy 2.0 as a movement to repair much of the cavalier and avoidant half-arsed education around technology these past 30 years. Despite the likelihood that the implementation will be a shitshow - regressive for many necessary forms of speech to challenge technofascism - in the UK our "Online Safety Bill" contains much good stuff in the margins and has my broad support. I get the sense that you are neither defending bad technology nor bad parenting. But together these the things feed off each other - and the results are self-evident in depressed, suicidal, distracted states of anxious acedia and nihilism so many children suffer today, along with the frustration and confusion of parents who feel their children "need" to engage in technologies and habits that are clearly harmful to them. EDIT: My main point stands though - that ot is unacceptable for parents to transfer the burden of responsibility to their children. That is neglect, however you frame the abilities and knowledge of the parties. respects

ejiblabahaba 4y ago

I think it's possible to be proud of your children for adapting to modern interfaces more quickly and easily than you, while simultaneously remaining cautious about risks those technologies can present. I don't think the straw-parent in your example needs to know how to work the remote (or the computer) to understand most of the important risks, e.g. of unmoderated content consumption. I'm pretty sure it's still unacceptable in most spheres for parents to admit no boundaries or limitations to TV or internet usage, especially conditioned on age or subject matter. Understanding the technology and understanding its attendant risks aren't completely orthogonal, but neither does one imply the other - or else the kids who "instinctively know about technology" would also instinctively know the risks. On the other hand, it's probably faster and easier for someone who understands the technology to learn about the attendant risks, and understanding the technology may be required to personally validate the risks or to invent the best remediation strategies. But a considerable amount of parenting is, and always has been, received wisdom, for better or worse. I can see an argument to describe "lazy" as neglectful, but I take issue with "stupid": the scope of a parent's best reasonable effort to understand and mitigate technological risks for their children should be conditioned on what level of understanding they can realistically achieve, or else "neglect" is reduced to an IQ test.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It is possible to be simultaneously cautious and proud of one's children for quick adaptation, but it is far from common. In fact it's rare in my observation, and the pride is misplaced. These "straw parents" are very real and embodied. I talk to them often through Digital Self Defence classes and have a first hand feel for their struggles (while also being a parent myself). > Understanding the technology and understanding its attendant risks aren't [s] completely orthogonal, but neither does one imply the other This is a very interesting point you make. My opinion is that they are very much orthogonal right now, and that is a major problem. Much of what passes for "understanding" is shallow marketing hype, at best dangerously incomplete, but more typically misleading, deception and propaganda. I quite agree with comedian Stuart Lee's assessment of Vodafone's guide to online child safety as "Mr. Fox's Guide to Hen-house Security". We are in desperate need of a renaissance in digital literacy. I have called for Digital Literacy 2.0 as a movement to repair much of the cavalier and avoidant half-arsed education around technology these past 30 years. Despite the likelihood that the implementation will be a shitshow - regressive for many necessary forms of speech to challenge technofascism - in the UK our "Online Safety Bill" contains much good stuff in the margins and has my broad support. I get the sense that you are neither defending bad technology nor bad parenting. But together these the things feed off each other - and the results are self-evident in depressed, suicidal, distracted states of anxious acedia and nihilism so many children suffer today, along with the frustration and confusion of parents who feel their children "need" to engage in technologies and habits that are clearly harmful to them. EDIT: My main point stands though - that ot is unacceptable for parents to transfer the burden of responsibility to their children. That is neglect, however you frame the abilities and knowledge of the parties. respects