▲ 127 ▼ When Mothers Get Arrested for Mothering. Raising independent kids shouldn’t be this hard. (www.theatlantic.com) submitted 13 hours ago by GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world 62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] emmy5482@quokk.au -19 points 12 hours ago* (3 children) Kid was 5, went on a short walk to an open body of water where he would get feathers unsupervised. When drowning is the second largest cause of deaths in children, I don't think this is an acceptable level of risk. Trial will determine whether that's true or not though. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] huey_m@piefed.social 4 points 3 hours ago (1 child) I don’t think this is an acceptable level of risk. I think it pretty much purely depends on whether he knows how to swim and is a reasonably strong swimmer, but that is possible by 5. Mine was only a year older when he had completed swimming lessons and I was confident enough to leave him unsupervised in my in-laws backyard with a pond. Prior to that, to your point, I did have to yank him out one and he absolutely could've drowned had I not been there. If he hasn't had swimming lessons and lots of practice, I agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emmy5482@quokk.au 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children) I think a lot of the downvotes I've gotten are from people who haven't been exposed to much water. I grew up in Australia, we're almost all trained swimmers. But even here swimming lessons aren't common before 5. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 1 point 59 minutes ago I grew up in Florida and most houses have in ground pools, I had swim classes in elementary school and they've expanded that program AFAIK, and people with swimming pools go out of their way to make sure their kids can swim - while I'm sure they're not widespread, infant swim classes are a thing. I was already a strong swimmer at five, I'm pretty sure I was water skiing in a local lake at that age, lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago I agree. I grew up in a place with very, very hot summers and open irrigation canals for farming; we had multiple kids die every year, many who knew how to swim but weren't strong swimmers. Even pool deaths happened every year, and those are fenced in by law. We had PSAs every year for both, it was a big issue. Most kids don't have access to open bodies of water, so most kids don't drown. That doesn't translate to a valid risk assessment of drowning for kids that do have access and opportunity for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Kids that age have been walking around independently since the dawn of time. Kids that young can know how to swim. Kids that young can be taught basic boundaries and responsibility. Some searching suggests the drowning death rate for children globally under 5 is 7 per 100,000 per year, lower in the US. Yes, it's the second leading cause of death of kids, but it's not a high risk. A child has just a 0.035% chance of dying by drowning before their 5th birthday. It's always tempting to say, "but no risk is too low!" But that's idiotic reasoning. Every method of increasing safety also inevitably decreases freedom, independence, and the development of proper self-sufficiency. Every choice to mitigate risk has to be balanced against the long-term risks of preventing kids from growing up into full and independent adults. Lack of freedom stunts emotional and social development and the growth of street smarts. These imprisoned children are then cast out into the world after high school completely unprepared to actually live as independent adults. And they crash and burn. Even if all you care about is safety, you have to balance multiple life risks. For example, we've taken away most of the freedom from our children. They have very little ability to move about in the world on their own. This means they don't really start developing independent life skills until they're in their late teens or even til they graduate high school. And they're going to have to leave the nest eventually. And the less they're prepared for the real world when they're minors, the more they have to figure out when they're out all alone and without close parental support. You can prevent some childhood deaths by taking away children's freedom, but in turn you increase the chances of them dying early deaths of despair in their twenties. The kid that never has a chance to grow up suddenly has to do all their growing up all at once when they're a legal adult. This leaves them unprepared and at high risk for a complete failure to launch, drug addiction, and overdose. Kids who are never allowed to grow up become adults who can't cope with the world and end up dying from heroin overdoses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) Some searching suggests the drowning death rate for children globally under 5 is 7 per 100,000 per year, lower in the US. Yes, it’s the second leading cause of death of kids, but it’s not a high risk. A child has just a 0.035% chance of dying by drowning before their 5th birthday. Careful here, this is where statistics can very much lead you astray and you can end up like the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of one meter. I find it pretty likely the vast majority of kids don't have access to open bodies of water that aren't fenced in, especially in the US where laws tend to require fencing them in. You'd need to break this down to number of kids who actually have opportunity to drown in an open body of water. You can't count kids living in a desert with no pool towards the risk factor of drowning. Drowning is a real risk for any non swimmers, and kids are less likely to make accurate risk assessments, and this isn't the kind of risk you learn from by fucking around and finding out, you're typically dead. I lived in a place that got very hot in summer with open irrigation canals and we had multiple kids die every year from it. Even adults, but mostly kids. This is actually a fair point, I think... if the kid has had swimming lessons, it should be fine, but if he hasn't that's indeed reckless to let him play alone next to an open body of water, I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent [–] emmy5482@quokk.au 1 point 2 hours ago Historically, bodies of water are the most dangerous. Not just due to drowning but the constant threat of predators at the waters edge. But the biggest problem with your statistic is that most kids just simply don't have access to large bodies of water regularly. If you were to factor that in, I think you'd find the risk is much, much higher. permalink fedilink source parent [–] OptimusPrimeDownfall@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 10 hours ago (1 child) You clearly do not have kids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RBWells@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago I do have kids, and was a kid, and agree, and the world is so much safer than when I was running around. My mom taught us water safety and made us do swimming lessons younger than that kid, let us walk down the block or up to the corner store past the apartments, made us walk to school through the neighborhood a couple miles, and again, all this in a more dangerous city than it is now. I was a little more involved, didn't let mine walk to the shop when little as it involved crossing a bigger road, and also didn't leave them unsupervised around a pool or the beach. And bodies of freshwater here have alligators so that's a no for all kids. But some kids can swim and do know how to be safe around water, and aren't idiots. My husband moved around a lot growing up, and talks about wandering for miles in Indonesia when he was 6. Seeing the water buffalo, the farmers, eventually making it to the town. And my kids, when they went to college, said they ended up glad I was, by their standards, lasseiz-faire, because they saw what happened to sheltered kids who were suddenly free. Hopefully she isn't in trouble, kids haven't changed that much. It's good for them to explore. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huey_m@piefed.social 4 points 3 hours ago (1 child) I don’t think this is an acceptable level of risk. I think it pretty much purely depends on whether he knows how to swim and is a reasonably strong swimmer, but that is possible by 5. Mine was only a year older when he had completed swimming lessons and I was confident enough to leave him unsupervised in my in-laws backyard with a pond. Prior to that, to your point, I did have to yank him out one and he absolutely could've drowned had I not been there. If he hasn't had swimming lessons and lots of practice, I agree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emmy5482@quokk.au 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children) I think a lot of the downvotes I've gotten are from people who haven't been exposed to much water. I grew up in Australia, we're almost all trained swimmers. But even here swimming lessons aren't common before 5. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 1 point 59 minutes ago I grew up in Florida and most houses have in ground pools, I had swim classes in elementary school and they've expanded that program AFAIK, and people with swimming pools go out of their way to make sure their kids can swim - while I'm sure they're not widespread, infant swim classes are a thing. I was already a strong swimmer at five, I'm pretty sure I was water skiing in a local lake at that age, lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago I agree. I grew up in a place with very, very hot summers and open irrigation canals for farming; we had multiple kids die every year, many who knew how to swim but weren't strong swimmers. Even pool deaths happened every year, and those are fenced in by law. We had PSAs every year for both, it was a big issue. Most kids don't have access to open bodies of water, so most kids don't drown. That doesn't translate to a valid risk assessment of drowning for kids that do have access and opportunity for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emmy5482@quokk.au 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children) I think a lot of the downvotes I've gotten are from people who haven't been exposed to much water. I grew up in Australia, we're almost all trained swimmers. But even here swimming lessons aren't common before 5. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 1 point 59 minutes ago I grew up in Florida and most houses have in ground pools, I had swim classes in elementary school and they've expanded that program AFAIK, and people with swimming pools go out of their way to make sure their kids can swim - while I'm sure they're not widespread, infant swim classes are a thing. I was already a strong swimmer at five, I'm pretty sure I was water skiing in a local lake at that age, lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago I agree. I grew up in a place with very, very hot summers and open irrigation canals for farming; we had multiple kids die every year, many who knew how to swim but weren't strong swimmers. Even pool deaths happened every year, and those are fenced in by law. We had PSAs every year for both, it was a big issue. Most kids don't have access to open bodies of water, so most kids don't drown. That doesn't translate to a valid risk assessment of drowning for kids that do have access and opportunity for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 1 point 59 minutes ago I grew up in Florida and most houses have in ground pools, I had swim classes in elementary school and they've expanded that program AFAIK, and people with swimming pools go out of their way to make sure their kids can swim - while I'm sure they're not widespread, infant swim classes are a thing. I was already a strong swimmer at five, I'm pretty sure I was water skiing in a local lake at that age, lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago I agree. I grew up in a place with very, very hot summers and open irrigation canals for farming; we had multiple kids die every year, many who knew how to swim but weren't strong swimmers. Even pool deaths happened every year, and those are fenced in by law. We had PSAs every year for both, it was a big issue. Most kids don't have access to open bodies of water, so most kids don't drown. That doesn't translate to a valid risk assessment of drowning for kids that do have access and opportunity for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Kids that age have been walking around independently since the dawn of time. Kids that young can know how to swim. Kids that young can be taught basic boundaries and responsibility. Some searching suggests the drowning death rate for children globally under 5 is 7 per 100,000 per year, lower in the US. Yes, it's the second leading cause of death of kids, but it's not a high risk. A child has just a 0.035% chance of dying by drowning before their 5th birthday. It's always tempting to say, "but no risk is too low!" But that's idiotic reasoning. Every method of increasing safety also inevitably decreases freedom, independence, and the development of proper self-sufficiency. Every choice to mitigate risk has to be balanced against the long-term risks of preventing kids from growing up into full and independent adults. Lack of freedom stunts emotional and social development and the growth of street smarts. These imprisoned children are then cast out into the world after high school completely unprepared to actually live as independent adults. And they crash and burn. Even if all you care about is safety, you have to balance multiple life risks. For example, we've taken away most of the freedom from our children. They have very little ability to move about in the world on their own. This means they don't really start developing independent life skills until they're in their late teens or even til they graduate high school. And they're going to have to leave the nest eventually. And the less they're prepared for the real world when they're minors, the more they have to figure out when they're out all alone and without close parental support. You can prevent some childhood deaths by taking away children's freedom, but in turn you increase the chances of them dying early deaths of despair in their twenties. The kid that never has a chance to grow up suddenly has to do all their growing up all at once when they're a legal adult. This leaves them unprepared and at high risk for a complete failure to launch, drug addiction, and overdose. Kids who are never allowed to grow up become adults who can't cope with the world and end up dying from heroin overdoses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) Some searching suggests the drowning death rate for children globally under 5 is 7 per 100,000 per year, lower in the US. Yes, it’s the second leading cause of death of kids, but it’s not a high risk. A child has just a 0.035% chance of dying by drowning before their 5th birthday. Careful here, this is where statistics can very much lead you astray and you can end up like the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of one meter. I find it pretty likely the vast majority of kids don't have access to open bodies of water that aren't fenced in, especially in the US where laws tend to require fencing them in. You'd need to break this down to number of kids who actually have opportunity to drown in an open body of water. You can't count kids living in a desert with no pool towards the risk factor of drowning. Drowning is a real risk for any non swimmers, and kids are less likely to make accurate risk assessments, and this isn't the kind of risk you learn from by fucking around and finding out, you're typically dead. I lived in a place that got very hot in summer with open irrigation canals and we had multiple kids die every year from it. Even adults, but mostly kids. This is actually a fair point, I think... if the kid has had swimming lessons, it should be fine, but if he hasn't that's indeed reckless to let him play alone next to an open body of water, I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent [–] emmy5482@quokk.au 1 point 2 hours ago Historically, bodies of water are the most dangerous. Not just due to drowning but the constant threat of predators at the waters edge. But the biggest problem with your statistic is that most kids just simply don't have access to large bodies of water regularly. If you were to factor that in, I think you'd find the risk is much, much higher. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) Some searching suggests the drowning death rate for children globally under 5 is 7 per 100,000 per year, lower in the US. Yes, it’s the second leading cause of death of kids, but it’s not a high risk. A child has just a 0.035% chance of dying by drowning before their 5th birthday. Careful here, this is where statistics can very much lead you astray and you can end up like the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of one meter. I find it pretty likely the vast majority of kids don't have access to open bodies of water that aren't fenced in, especially in the US where laws tend to require fencing them in. You'd need to break this down to number of kids who actually have opportunity to drown in an open body of water. You can't count kids living in a desert with no pool towards the risk factor of drowning. Drowning is a real risk for any non swimmers, and kids are less likely to make accurate risk assessments, and this isn't the kind of risk you learn from by fucking around and finding out, you're typically dead. I lived in a place that got very hot in summer with open irrigation canals and we had multiple kids die every year from it. Even adults, but mostly kids. This is actually a fair point, I think... if the kid has had swimming lessons, it should be fine, but if he hasn't that's indeed reckless to let him play alone next to an open body of water, I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emmy5482@quokk.au 1 point 2 hours ago Historically, bodies of water are the most dangerous. Not just due to drowning but the constant threat of predators at the waters edge. But the biggest problem with your statistic is that most kids just simply don't have access to large bodies of water regularly. If you were to factor that in, I think you'd find the risk is much, much higher. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OptimusPrimeDownfall@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 10 hours ago (1 child) You clearly do not have kids. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RBWells@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago I do have kids, and was a kid, and agree, and the world is so much safer than when I was running around. My mom taught us water safety and made us do swimming lessons younger than that kid, let us walk down the block or up to the corner store past the apartments, made us walk to school through the neighborhood a couple miles, and again, all this in a more dangerous city than it is now. I was a little more involved, didn't let mine walk to the shop when little as it involved crossing a bigger road, and also didn't leave them unsupervised around a pool or the beach. And bodies of freshwater here have alligators so that's a no for all kids. But some kids can swim and do know how to be safe around water, and aren't idiots. My husband moved around a lot growing up, and talks about wandering for miles in Indonesia when he was 6. Seeing the water buffalo, the farmers, eventually making it to the town. And my kids, when they went to college, said they ended up glad I was, by their standards, lasseiz-faire, because they saw what happened to sheltered kids who were suddenly free. Hopefully she isn't in trouble, kids haven't changed that much. It's good for them to explore. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago I do have kids, and was a kid, and agree, and the world is so much safer than when I was running around. My mom taught us water safety and made us do swimming lessons younger than that kid, let us walk down the block or up to the corner store past the apartments, made us walk to school through the neighborhood a couple miles, and again, all this in a more dangerous city than it is now. I was a little more involved, didn't let mine walk to the shop when little as it involved crossing a bigger road, and also didn't leave them unsupervised around a pool or the beach. And bodies of freshwater here have alligators so that's a no for all kids. But some kids can swim and do know how to be safe around water, and aren't idiots. My husband moved around a lot growing up, and talks about wandering for miles in Indonesia when he was 6. Seeing the water buffalo, the farmers, eventually making it to the town. And my kids, when they went to college, said they ended up glad I was, by their standards, lasseiz-faire, because they saw what happened to sheltered kids who were suddenly free. Hopefully she isn't in trouble, kids haven't changed that much. It's good for them to explore. permalink fedilink source parent