Report Suggests That Nanny State Might Actually Not Be For the Best

tonyreadsnews writes "Usually, 'thinking of the children' is a starting point to impose limitations on video games and internet in general. For once, a study requested by UK's Prime Minister seems to be a bit more objective than most. In the Executive Summary (PDF) 'Children and young people need to be empowered to keep themselves safe — this isn't just about a top-down approach. Children will be children — pushing boundaries and taking risks. At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.' I think that is an important point that most studies miss, that just 'thinking of the children' and locking the bad stuff away is actually setting them up for failure later in life. A direct link to the full PDF is also available."

Comments

UK Government has Multiple Personalities

[Quattro Vezina]

At the same time, UK Social Services is committing acts of terrorism (yes, kidnapping threats are acts of terrorism) against a family with fat children.

Hypocritical much?

Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities

[geekoid]

Did he direct the social service people to do that?
Of course, in this case the children really have no choice in their diet, so it doesn't apply.
I read that article and thought how terrible...then I looked up how much a ston weighs(14 pounds)(6.35Kilo)

An 11 year old weighing 168 pounds has health issues, and it's not 'Baby fat'.

Clearly the parents need educating, and no there children shouldn't be taken away unless they are being fed a dangers dies and the parents refuse to change.

".' Last year, an eight-year-old girl from the Cumbria area was taken into care because she weighed nine stone."

dear god, 126 pounds! My son is 10 and very tall for his age and he weighs 90 pounds.

Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.

Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities

[plague3106]

Cutting your child is a crime; why should making them fat and giving them life threatening illnesses be fine?

Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities

[Angostura]

Oh excellent. A story from the Daily Mail. The Mail thrives by to scaring middle England through sensationalist reporting. A quick Google search reveals that the Mail is the only paper to have spoken to this family, and we have absolutely no idea what the facts of the case are, other than reported to the paper by the family itself.

Still, by describing this as an act of terrorism, you show yourself as a true devotee of the Mail school of hyperbole. So well done you.

Oh really

[MikeRT]

I was confused there. I could have sworn that creating a risk-averse society was going to lead to a more daring and entrepeneurial economy, a government with balls of steel that stands up for the principles its society claims to hold dear, and a society of people who are independent and capable of functioning on their own without cradle-to-grave hand holding.

Of course the greater issue is how we got down this path in the first place. People don't want to admit it, but it's the feminization of society. It is offensive to modern values to suggest such a thing, but simple observation will show you that the outrage over these restrictions is far more common and fiercer in men than women. Women may disagree with the excesses, but they don't disagree with the principle nearly as much as men do because as voting records have shown countless times in many countries, women tend to value security over freedom. Ever wonder why most libertarians tend to be men?

I'm not trying to bash women here, I'm just saying that society as a whole has taken on an overtly feminized aura to it. There is no balance anymore, the way there used to be.

Re:Oh really

[plague3106]

Hmm, interesting point, certainly something to think about. Perhaps women also tend to, more than anything, even if it means their life is forfeit, protect children. This is then followed by the irrational "if you don't agree with me you don't care about children" line that seems to be shouted at anyone that disagrees.

This and other findings brought to you....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

by the Journal of DUH.

Besides the nanny state, what about this concept that "everybody wins". Society needs mediocrity to reward the true winners. It also needs Darwin Award winners.

Re:I'm all for protecting childrens

[geekoid]

". but why?"
SO they fit in socially. In my house there is no such thing as 'Bad Words' only impolite words. Which is strictly enforced.

Now, I don't knwo what you mean by 'adult'. Exposure to sexual situations buy young children have a negative impact later in life.
As I'm sure you know, kids are not little adults.

"Treat them like children.. they'll act like children..."
treat them like adults.. they'll act like confused children and develop issue.

Now, the care about these situation for a 2 year old is different then an 11 year old.

Re:Life is dangerous: that's why it's fun

[plague3106]

Well, regarding seatbelts, its a good thing one was able to save you. On the flip side though, 33% of the time there's a fatal accident and some of the occupants wore seatbelts and some didn't, those that did were the one's that died. Everything is the same, except wearing of the seat belt.

Now, take it a step further. You choose to wear your seatbelt and it helped. But why do you feel you have the right to tell someone else they must do so, especially given that a third of the time a seatbelt could kill you, not save you? Take it even further, and why shouldn't I be able to choose if I buy a car with seatbelts or without?

I'm not sure if you agree with my conclusions, based on your post's closing it sounds like you could go either way.

children aren't computers

[Quadraginta]

The problem with your thinking is that it seems to assume that children are just like adults, that they think the same way, have similar value systems, et cetera -- they just lack experience, so they should be "brought up to speed" in much the same way an ignorant adult would be.

Not so. Children are fundamentally different from adults. They don't think the same way. They don't experience the world the same way. Check out any good textbook on cognitive development and couple it with close, unprejudiced observation of your own children.

Most importantly, the way children think changes fairly rapidly as they grow. How a child reacts to a naked tit, for example, completely changes from age 1 to school-age, and again in middle school, and once again at sexual maturity. A wise parent considers these changes, and does not try to use the same reasoning and the same solutions at all ages.

And, in recognition of the fact that children don't think the same way at the same age, society tends to say that certain experiences should be shoved into certain age ranges, when they are easiest to successfully understand and cope with (either for the child or for the adults around him). It's among our oldest traditions as a species, the idea that certain experiences are best at certain ages, and it would generally be gross folly to overturn them without damn good reason. ("Gee! Tt seems reasonable to me! What could possibly go wrong?" doesn't qualify, by the way.)

The same arguments apply to purely intellectual stuff, too. For example, the present trend to teach algebra skills as early as grade 5 or 6 is almost certainly badly misguided. The mental circuitry required to easily learn algebra is usually (although not in every case) not "hooked up" until early adolescence. That means kids are tortured with stuff that is very hard to get, when waiting a few years would make it a piece of cake. Again, a failure to understand that children are not merely miniaturized, ignorant adults.

Re:children aren't computers

[unlametheweak]

The problem with your thinking is that it seems to assume that children are just like adults... Many times, when people bring up the point of treating children with respect and intelligence somebody will inevitably say they are not just miniature adults.

Of course children are not adults, either physically, mentally, or experientially. Children are not idiots either, and neither should they be treated like retarded adults or like trained dogs. Children should not be leashed or fenced in like pets. Children are human and need to be treated individually based on their own personalities and intelligence. There is no catch-all parenting method or law that will make children safe, healthy, intelligent or socially upright. Simplistic solutions and ideals are often the worst because they undermine the complexity of the human mind.

Most importantly, the way children think changes fairly rapidly as they grow. How a child reacts to a naked tit, for example, completely changes from age 1 to school-age, and again in middle school, and once again at sexual maturity. A wise parent considers these changes, and does not try to use the same reasoning and the same solutions at all ages. You brought up "any good textbook on cognitive development" and then you made the above statement. I am no expert on cognitive development, but think it is more likely that the way a human views a human teat has more to do with their experiences and upbringing than with cognitive development. As for your mention of "solutions", you seem to be implying that there is a problem that needs to be solved (reguarding "a naked tit").

And, in recognition of the fact that children don't think the same way at the same age, society tends to say that certain experiences should be shoved into certain age ranges, when they are easiest to successfully understand and cope with (either for the child or for the adults around him). It's among our oldest traditions as a species... Yes, the problem is that people rely too much on tradition, and not enough on logic or intelligence.

And in your last paragraph in regards to teaching algebra too early:
Nope, there is no "too early". If a child can't get it, then don't force it upon him and cause frustration. If a child can get it, and shows an interest and aptitude, then by all means teach it. The problem with Western educational systems is that they are largely not geared to the individual needs of a child, and so we see the success of home schooling. Anecdotally, I also did very poorly throughout school, but in my final year of high school I went to a special public high school (that only let in gifted students, and intellectual misfits like myself). The independent and non-structured studies allowed me to get University offers (and even an unsolicited scholarship offer). So yes children of all ages can succeed if we don't impose artificial barriers on their achievement. The funny thing is that I have never told my parents I went to an alternative school or that I received a scholarship offer. Perhaps they were reading too many Readers Digest articles on parenting, because I never did respect the simple solutions that were offered by these articles, nor the people naive enough to implement them.

So my educated (and non-expert opinion) sways me to put more emphasis on the arguments of the Parent poster than too your own. While I value cognitive development textbooks and all other tools of learning, I will not use them to merely promote my own belief systems.

I've said this for years

[jtroutman]

My aunt is very protective of my cousin. She home-schooled him until high school, carefully monitored everything he ever saw or did, that sort of thing. One thing she did was cut out the scene in Bambi where Bambi's mother dies. She just removed it, one second she's there, the next she's not. Anyway, the kid ends up growing up to love hunting. I mean to the extent that he gets up at 4am and goes out before school to kill a couple of ducks or a deer, goes to class, then stops on his way home for some rabbit or quail. Their freezer is full of game meat, they can't eat it fast enough. Hunting and fishing is all he does. As far as I know, he's never even had a girlfriend. I just wonder if, as a child, he had had that moment of sadness watching Bambi, he'd have turned out a little differently.

Re:I'm all for protecting childrens

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. When I was a child, I was simply told the truth whenever I asked. Or whenever I did something bad. I was clearly informed that swear words were rude, and that I shouldn't use them. So for quite a long while, I didn't. I was a very polite little girl, mostly because I knew how to behave since my parents were always honest with me. They didn't believe in shielding me from things.

Things such as R-rated movies. They would explain to me that what they wanted to watch was probably very violent and would have such-and-such monster or something in it, and I could watch if I wanted to, but it'd be my fault if I got scared. (I didn't watch a horror movie until I was 13, yay. |D)

Very few things were ever hidden/withheld from me, and I think I'm a pretty balanced human being.

Humbug

[j_w_d]

The human race has successfully raised children for millenia, risks and all. The idea has always been to see them to adulthood, whenever that happens to roll around culturally, and then see them out the door. If this happens, you have successfully passed your Darwinian challenge course. If they learned enough from you in the process that they succeed in punting your grandkids out the door, the formula has continued to demonstrate its adaptive suitability. "Protecting" children - and even adults from miniscule risks, you know, terrorists for example, or guns even, is scarcely beneficial except to the nuerotic. Consider that the US homicide rate last year was 5.5/100K. The automobile related death rate is nearly three times that, and guns and cars are our favorite risks supposedly. The birthrate, at an all time low, is still one hundred times that. Violent USians haven't even nipped a dent their birthrate. The conclusion is that "protections" for such miserably minor risks do not make any sense demographically or economically. The only sense they DO make is within a society where media defines "social problems" - animal rights, disabled access, child risks, lead based paint, asbestos, ect. - and politicians act to look as if they are earning pay.

its kinda sad.

[apodyopsis]

when I was younger (and no, I'm not that old) me and some friends would regularly meet up in the morning, raid respective parental kitchens for a pack lunch and vanish for 9-10 hours. We'd walk >5miles, make swings from old rope and swing out over the water cress beds, get soaked, throw stuff at each other and generally behave like children. This was before sat nav, gps, mobile phones and our parents had no way of contacting us. We all had small change for the public phones and the one time we needed help (someone broke a coller bone) we managed on our own to organise things.

It was simply how children behaved.

Now mothers are frightened to let children out of their sight, and a whole generation is growing up mollycoddled and unable to think on their own or take risks. Worse, numerous studies show that without exposure to other people, children to play with etc., they grow up lacking many social traits they need to learn from their peers and with little immunity for many common viruses. And don't even get me started on education.

It's sad, and I wonder (a) how we got to this situations and (b) how to get out of it.

Re:its kinda sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now mothers are frightened to let children out of their sight,

It's not just the mothers you have to fear. My wife let my 11 year old walk to the shop around the corner on her own after school. We live in a quiet suburban neighbourhood, but someone reported 'a child roaming the streets unattended'. After a full Child Protection investigation, we're now listed child abusers.

It's really terrifying, we can't explain to anyone, they keep saying that we must be lying, that there must be more to it than that for us to called child abusers. But there really isn't. In this district, it's illegal for a child under the age of 14 to be out of sight of adult supervision outside the home. When I pointed out that I'd been walking to friends houses alone from the age of 9, as long as the parents at each end knew were I was going, I got a lecture on how abused children grow into abusive parents, and that they were there to break the cycle of abuse.

Just remember that, when you hear all the stories about "1 in 4 children grows up abused".

Re:Wouldn't breeding licenses be more effective?

[evildarkdeathclicheo]

It is horrific, but I believe it is necessary. "Intelligent" people breed far less then "unintelligent" people do. Since we're all striving towards democracy, this can only mean the collective devolution and dumbing down of our society (one only need to look at the last few US elections to see this). As horrific as it may be, the only way to keep this from happening is to indeed introduce some means of population control. Why not keep the uninterested and unqualified parents out of the process at the same time? We spade and neuter our pets after all, why not our peers? -W

Re:Middle ground

[chuckymonkey]

The point isn't that I'm doing something stupid, there are a lot of things that have been discovered by people doing stupid things such as playing with radioactive material or experiments with electricity. The point I'm trying to make is that by ruling people's lives you make them into compliant little worker bees incapable of independent thought. That's why I was a career specialist in the Army, I actually used my head and asked the questions that nobody else thought to ask as well as calling shenanigans when I saw them. Lets have an example here, say you're riding a motorcycle without a helmet. You crash and die from a head injury, who's fault is it that you're dead? Under the nanny logic obviously it's the state's fault for not making you wear a helmet, so you may have lived. Now under the logic of it's your own fault because you made the decision to not wear a helmet, well there's no one else to blame now is there? I advocate wearing a helmet because my mind and life are important to me, however I see no need to impose that on someone that has values different than mine. Also good for you not using drugs, get off the high horse though as your morality is not necessarily my morality. Do you drink alcohol though?

Re:I'm all for protecting childrens

[rossifer]

however the actual sex talk probably should wait till around puberty

I think that waiting until the hormones are racing through their body is way too late. I was intensely curious about where I came from by the age of 8. I was also masturbating by the age of 6 (practice early! practice often!). I may have been precocious, but I feel strongly that waiting until the edge of puberty is waiting too long.

My mom told me all about the birds and the bees shortly after my eighth birthday at my request. I remember thinking that the descriptions of sex in her words and in the books all seemed quite hairy. Didn't seem very appealing at the time. But when others had questions years down the road, I was usually the one answering.

My own daughter will find out about the birds and the bees before puberty. I do hope she asks her mom, though...

Re:Farm raised kids vs. City raised kids.

[pleappleappleap]

Depends on the city. Talk to someone who grew up in Bed-Stuy or the South Bronx in the '70's and '80's sometime.

Re:I'm all for protecting childrens

[Marsell]

Exposure to sexual situations buy young children have a negative impact later in life.

They do?

I suppose it's a matter of degree. I have some pretty fond memories as a 5-year-old of feeling up some girls in their teens. I didn't know why I liked it, I just did. A lot.

Re:Middle ground

[AJWM]

If you make everything a crime, then everyone is a criminal.

Bingo.

Insert Ferris's monologue from "Atlas Shrugged" here.

(Oh, alright, here:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris.

"We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

"Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

"Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

-- Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957))

Re:Farm raised kids vs. City raised kids.

[greyhueofdoubt]

I've actually found that those farm boys are the ones with the MOST broken bones and torn ligaments. They don't learn from the pain, they relish it. I work with many of these people, and they all have a perverse need to destroy their bodies over and over again. They then usually bitch about the effete, pretentious doctors who couldn't put them back together quite right.

But I guess if I need a titanium rod up my back to make me not be a creampuff, so be it.

-b

Re:Wouldn't breeding licenses be more effective?

[rtb61]

Well in a modern society that is no longer true. The modern social society establishes itself as a net to provide care and support for all of it's members in the event they need assistance. To absolutely clarify of the issue, a modern society does not consider children to be a possession of the parents, they are not chattel to be bought and traded, once born they a mini citizens with the same rights of care and protection as other citizens, just as you an adult would not wish to be forcibly left under the control of irresponsible or violent people so a child is also entitled to that same opportunity.

So when a society takes on that more humane and social role, it should also consider the burdens placed upon the rest of society, especially when people who are genuinely unfit to raise children are allowed to get in that position. Once you are provided with the protection of a social welfare net and all of it's support services you are bound by the reasonable rules of that social welfare net. You absolutely do not have the right, to reproduce children and then treat them in any manner you wish.

So genetics and overpopulation being what they both definably are, society is forced to wake up to itself and consider the difference between the freedom of an individual and the burdens of the next generation, the next individual, they do not have freedom of choice of genetics or choice over the excesses of their parents. Children are not pets, they are citizens with limited rights and limited only in their expression of their control and not in the right to care and protection.

Nanny State

[Brandybuck]

The term "Nanny State" refers to government treating its citizens like children. It is a contrast to the Daddy State that punishes you if you've been bad, and the Mommy State that shields you from the consequences of your actions. A Nanny State is one that is overly protective. All three assert that adults are too immature to run their own lives and that government must run their lives for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state