Playing outside

I think it depends on where you live. I live in San Francisco Ca. and in Spokane Wa. (not on the same days) and in S.F. there are hardly any kids even visible anywhere on the streets. I can't even imagine raising kids in S.F. In Spokane I see kids all over the place walking, riding their bikes, playing ball in the street and all that good stuff I used to do as a kid in L.A. When I first arrived in Spokane, I was amazed at how my neighborhood was so full of kids without fear of predators or evil. That is one of the reasons I love Spokane. It has a small town feel to it without being backwater. It has it's areas where kids should not roam around willy-nilly but there are neighborhoods that are like they used to be when I was a kid. Heck, my neighbor told me she does not lock her doors when she leaves within an hour of my moving in next door to her![huh] In S.F., my new neighbor looked at me as if I were insane when I waved and yelled, " welcome to the neighborhood" the day they moved in. They still have not waved back at me.

Crime statistics?

Matt Deckard said:

But are these fears realistic? yes terrible things happen, though sounds like the media hype that draws the kids in in your part. I know ther is danger, though I don't think to the degree that causes society to abandon the outdoors. I understand your reasoning, though is it justified?

Click to expand...

I did not see J's post.

Is it the perception of danger due to the protrayal of such events on the news and in TV dramas? MAYBE.

The questions are:
Are crimes against Children rising, falling or staying the same.
What is the breakdown for Urban, Suburban and rural areas.
What are the parallels to other crimes?
What is the likey source of crimes against children?

I think another part of the problem, aside from the accessibilty off video games, MySpace, AIM, and the like, is social stigma. It's just not cool to go play on the swings when your best friend has an Xbox with Halo II and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow.

I for one, was at the park most of my young childhood. My mom would walk my sister and I to the park where we would meet some friends. The mothers would take residence on a bench and talk while us kids played ourselves out on the swings, monkey bars, ladders, the works.

Today, although I see much less of it, there are still moms taking their kids to the park, boys ages 10-16 are usually showboating in the nearby skate area, and high schoolers playing a game of basketball in the adjacent court have been a sight around town since as long as I can remember. Like I said, there's much less of this activity, but it is still there.

I've seen the effects of "overprotection," and the sight is enough to induce retching. I have a friend who wasn't allowed to ride his bike around town with friends until he was thirteen years old. And even then he had to be home in an hour. To this day (he's sixteen now,) he still has to call home every hour to "check in." His mother has turned him into a pansy, but she chooses to turn a blind eye to it.

I noticed that too

Matt Deckard said:

I was talking to a friend of mine from Spain and we started on the subject of cultural differences. One of the things that was brought up was the absence of children on playgrounds nowadays. When I was younger and my grandfather would take me and my brothers and sister to the park you would have to wait your turn for the swings, now they are vacant, at least around where I live. when I was overseas the parks were chalk full of the native inhabitants, old and young playing boccie and other games and using the playground equipment. The TV I know for certain is less of a draw in those countries. The work ethic is more relaxed, and the families still sit down together for meals more so do than most US families.

Japan and the US in my eyes are similar in the respect of less and less outdoor play, I think China more like the US than the Japanes as their growth and hunger for economic clarity (away from communism) leads them to be more like the US and a bit arrogant (though deservedly so).

Anywho, before I meander too much, less children playing outside in the US do to the net and TV, and parents just don't want to spend the time to take them. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I agree that children are playing outside much less and I think TV and video games are partly responsible. Many kids (and adults) are drawn to instant gratification, which they can easily get from sitting in front of a TV (and now Tivo, DVR, cable, etc.). Because kids are not playing outside as much, many are becoming obese at a very early age.

On top of that I think that a lot of kids lack the imagination and creativity that previous generations had. When we were kids, we didn't have all this technology to do all the thinking for us. We had to figure out things on our own.

Whoa this is a pretty heavy thread. I have been working with young people, and families on the margin to about 20 years. What I see is some pretty sound arguments being presented. As the my situation here in Australia, I would have to say that there are not as many kids on the street, and in the parks as there was 20 years ago. I live in a new and expanding area on the fringe of one of the main cities in Australia. One thing I have noticed that is far different from when I grew up in London too many years ago, now there is not the same feeling of community that I knew. For example. There was always someone watching out for you, like a neighbour or a family friends. In my town that doesn't seem to exist anymore. our fences are getting higher, and we are less inclined to worry about what is going on outside of our own home. Certainly the things like PlayStation computer games and Internet have affected life for young people today.

jamespowers said:

Lets put a face to the fear of abduction:

All of this is sobering but the last paragraph about sums it up. The Statistical Abstract of the United States lists our population at around 300,000,000. Figuring the portion of the entire US that is actually "missing" makes the whole fear ridiculous. Out of our population that means the 2/10ths of 1% are likely to go missing in any given year. Whittle that down witht he Attorney General's comments and it is statistically insignificant that anything will ever happen. You are more likely to win the lottery--any lottery!
Fear of abduction is irrational but there is that small percent that you certainly do not want to be a part of. With reasonable care, I think your children will be more than fine. It reminds me of John Stossel's series about Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death.


Regards to all,

J

Click to expand...

That is SO interesting. Unfortunately, most people don't read things like this. They get most of their information from the sensationalized news and Oprah (who makes it her personal business to scare the nation's parents half to death).

I am a teacher and I can tell you this first hand, parents who allow their children to play outside a lot are considered, at least to people at my school, to be bad parents. I hear other teachers, the principal and even students saying this often. Last school year, I had two little girls in my class who were very good friends. Then, as is the nature of children, they weren't friends. When I asked what happened, one child told me, (I swear), her mom didn't want her to be friends with the other little girl because she was "in the street too much" (we live in an urban area so most of the kids play on the sidewalk or street in front of their house). Very often if a child is chastised for doing something wrong, even if it's minor, there is a chorus of little voices chiming in, "he's bad Ms. Stephens, he's always outside, riding his back, on his skate board, running, other outdoor activity". It makes me wonder, in today's world, maybe in certain areas, is allowing children to play outside equate bad parenting? (I of course am not saying it is, I'm saying as viewed by other parents).


BTW, I don't have any children and as a child, I was nearly abducted (though not in a violent fashion) by a stranger.

http://muttscomics.com/art/dailyarchive.asp?month=3&date=30&year=2006

Thought this was fitting lol

Birth rates?

I believe that the birth rates for both the US and Europe are down. I am a baby boommer and back then there was a push to get kids outside and play with others. Today, many adults are of the opinion that children are a drag and preffer to have a lifestyle that does not include children. Is there a connection to the drop in birth rates and the choice of adults to go childless with the attitudes of the current crop of parents?[huh]

Talk amongst yourselves!

John in Covina said:

I believe that the birth rates for both the US and Europe are down. I am a baby boommer and back then there was a push to get kids outside and play with others. Today, many adults are of the opinion that children are a drag and preffer to have a lifestyle that does not include children. Is there a connection to the drop in birth rates and the choice of adults to go childless with the attitudes of the current crop of parents?[huh]

Talk amongst yourselves!

Click to expand...

Well, let's see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4768644.stm



"The number of live births increased in 1998 to 3,944,046, a 2 percent increase over the previous year. The US population grew by 1,605,976, exclusive of immigration. The birth rate, defined as the number of live births per 1,000 population, increased slightly to 14.6. The US fertility rate, defined as the number of births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years, increased 1 percent to 65.6 per 1,000. While modest, this increase was the first since 1990, halting the steady decline in the number of births, birth rates and fertility rates in the 1990s.

Birth rates for teenagers in all age groups declined from 1997 to 1998. Rates for women in their 20s increased 1 to 2 percent, and for women in their 30s increased to the highest levels in at least 30 years, to 87.5 per 1,000 (aged 30 to 34) and 37.4 per 1,000 (aged 35 to 39). The rate for women aged 40 to 44 years, 7.3 per 1,000, was nearly double the low point of 3.8 in 1981.

The latest data on multiple births is from 1997, indicating a 3 percent rise in twin births since 1996, and a 52 percent jump since 1980. The number of triplet and other higher-order multiple births rose 16 percent from 1996 to 1997."

So, in short the Europeans are worried that they are not even at a birthrate level to replace themselves due to a huge decline in the birthrate over time. Whether this is due to the hedonism you touched on or due to rising infertility is up in the air. Personally I think it has a lot to do with both.
The US birthrate of 14.14 births per 1000 population(estimated 2006 by the CIA-The World Fact book) compared to 11.99 of France, 8.25 of Germany, 8.72 of Italy and 10.72 of Portugal is quite high and expected to get higher but in the "older" category of 35-45 year old range. We are at least replacing ourselves and these numbers exclude immigration of any kind. Our numbers just replace us though.
Lifestyles have changed and I think we are seeing it here based on these numbers. People in the US are delaying having children until they can afford it and probably also because they want to be unhindered as long as possible or as Jan Andersen says:
"Currently, one out of every five women worldwide is delaying having her first baby until the age of 35, a number that is rising steadily, together with the growing trend for middle aged women to add to their existing family. There are many reasons why a woman chooses to have a baby in her forties; the establishment of a career before embarking on parenthood, for example, or a woman who has re-married and wishes to have a child with her new partner. Despite this, there still seems to be very little optimistic information available that is specific to midlife mothers. The focus definitely needs to shift towards the positive aspects of midlife parenting, particularly since medical studies have established that there is little added risk for a healthy woman in her forties embarking on motherhood."
I think her article is worth reading for the "older parents." Geez, I hate that term. What was my father at 39 a senior parent? Geez! Anyway, here is the article for further review:
http://www.sideroad.com/Parenting/older_mother.html
Whatever the case, it seems that parents are being swayed by the media to be little jailors. I often wonder what their agenda is. You can let your kids be kids within reason. Chances are they will be more than fine. We were.

Regards,

J

James -- some great posts here by you. Thanks.

Things may have changed in the last twenty years, but they have really changed since the Golden Era. In 1951, when I was a nine-year old girl, I walked to school by myself -- up a side street, down an alley, cut across a vacant field, then an excavation site, passed a dilpidated, empty house (a "haunted house"), where I sometimes stopped and peeked in, down another alley where I threw some rocks, through some trees, down a hill, to my school. Could you see anyone letting their kid do that today?

Now, I see little armies of kids walking to school, sometimes hand-in-hand, usually accompanied by an adult or two.

Children are now over-protected. People can get in trouble now for not over-protecting their children, i.e., you could no longer hire an 11-year old babysitter and have the law find out about it (my girlfriends babysat for money when they were that age). Your kid has to be strapped in a car until he or she is six, wear bicycle helmets, rollerskating and skateboarding helmets. I read about a mother who got in trouble leaving her 11 and 7-year-old sons alone after school until she got home. They had not done anything wrong and were sensible children. CPS came to visit her.

I know of people in Daycare centers who no longer hug or comfort children for fear of being branded as a child molester. My brother coached girl's softball and always had someone's mother on hand so if one of the girls got injured, there would be someone who could handle the injured girl. My brother dared not touch them.

Some of that, I think, is the cultural influence of a global village and the scare tactics of a huge news media, and also fearful parents wanting their children never to be harmed or hurt. A child's death now is a rare event and the greatest tragedy a family can have. Years ago, children died all the time: people had large families in the hopes that some of their children would survive to grow up and take care of them when they were old. I am wondering if the rarity of death in this day and age makes parents more cautious because it is so rare, therefore unnatural, whereas years ago, it was expected.

We also have schools cutting out recesses so children do not "linger" on the playground, cutting out gym classes, and we have an electronic age so children have access to indoor activities and games, etc., etc.

I do see more children playing outside in this working class Iowa neighborhood than I did in San Diego. Less money for fancy toys and no computer?

Even in the Golden Era, kids who "hung out" on the streets, especially in the evening, were suspected of being hoodlums. Or, if they were teenagers, juvenile delinquents. It just seems more extreme now.

Glad to have been a kid when I was. I don't think I would like being house-bound and strapped in and helmeted.

karol

K.D. Lightner said:

Glad to have been a kid when I was. I don't think I would like being house-bound and strapped in and helmeted.

karol

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. I don't think I could have said it better---especially the last part. I grew up just a little later than you and it still had not become that prevalent but the nannies are everywhere today even though the statistics prove they are wrong and making nothing but shrinking violets out of their children. No other previous generation has been so over protective. I fear a whole world of Woody Allen type characters running around. Whine, whine, whine.
I had a good laugh at the first part of this story because I am indeed an only child but the way they describe us way back then is ludicrous. Do I seem shy and socially withdrawn? Check it out:
http://ok.essortment.com/onlychildren_rsuq.htm
This is sort of another good reason why population growth is slowing. it might also be why everyone is so over-protective. Placing all your hopes on one child can make you that way I suppose.

Regards to all,

J

Preconditioned for total goverment invasion?

We maybe raising generations of children for whom the concept of being selfsufficient is so foreign that any such persons will be subjected to laws and demands that would be unconceiveable just 10 or 20 years ago. Our county is being shaped by people that would have been incapable of building such a country and perhaps seek its destruction by eliminating the drive that makes for the pioneering spirit.
[huh]

The parks near me are busy almost all day, but especially from three to seven. I have to call ahead to reserve a swing for my little peanut.


Not so much in the winter.

maybe it's just distrust of the criminal system?

I think that maybe there is an underlying distrust of the criminal system and people don't think that the Bad Guys are being locked up like they used to sentenced. This has lead to a lot of cynicism.

Then with so many two parents working there is no one in the neighborhood. In times past there were a lot of stay at home moms, who were out in the yards doing various things. But look at the typical housing tract today and who or what do you see? Not much. Maybe a gardener or pool guy. So the perception is that the neighborhood is empty and people just naturally don't want to let their kids roam in an empty neighborhood.

When I was a kid, I was told that if I were on my bike and I was approached by a stranger I was to take off, if I was walking and I was accosted I was told to kick him as hard as I could between the legs, drop whatever I was carrying and run until I saw a screen door with an open door and to jump through the screen into the house.

Personal Demons?

One thing that does come up is the fact that those that prey on children in a sexual manner, pedophiles, molestors and the sexual predators are not easily detered. Even when convicted and sent to prison or the state hospitals they do not "cure" easily if at all. With all of the focus on what happens to these people when they released also drives the fear factor up with good reason. They seem to be devored by their appetites and are driven to insane actions.

John in Covina said:

One thing that does come up is the fact that those that prey on children in a sexual manner, pedophiles, molestors and the sexual predators are not easily detered. Even when convicted and sent to prison or the state hospitals they do not "cure" easily if at all. With all of the focus on what happens to these people when they released also drives the fear factor up with good reason. They seem to be devored by their appetites and are driven to insane actions.

Click to expand...

I think you have a point about recidivism. Although there is plenty of that going around. This is from a long term study (15-30 years) of pedophiles and recidivism done in Canada:
"In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)."
The whole study findings can be found here:
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm

We still have to remember that such incidences are the aberation and not the norm. The fact that we have a population of these types around that keep going in and out of prison does not negate that. it simply means that we need to find a more effective method of dealing with them over the long term. A 61% recidivism rate is pretty darn high. We know who they are that is for sure.
That does give us tools to make sure who is among us so that children can avoid contact. Databases in California and other states let you know who that neighbor is. This is just one of the sites available: www.meganslaw.ca.gov

Regards to all,

J

K.D. Lightner said:

James -- some great posts here by you. Thanks.

I know of people in Daycare centers who no longer hug or comfort children for fear of being branded as a child molester. My brother coached girl's softball and always had someone's mother on hand so if one of the girls got injured, there would be someone who could handle the injured girl. My brother dared not touch them.

karol

Click to expand...

This is VERY true. We are told not to touch the children. Male teachers especially.

Ahh! nostalgia isn't what it use to be.

over scheduled kids

Something I see in my daughter's class mates, that we try hard to avoid, is overscheduling.

Many kids today can't simply run around being kids; they are constantly in some kind of organized activity, be it t ball, soccer, dance, art, etc. And if there are multiple kids in the family, they spend time watching the siblings games.

We know one of her preschool classmates family pretty well; our daughter is 4 and so is the youngest in that family, and he has 2 older siblings. Each of the 3 kids in that family is 'limited' to 2 activities at a time. So if you have a game and a practice each week for each, that's 4 per kid or 12 total. When you add in the time spent shuttling the kids from one to another, there isn't time left to just play in the park.

I was on my way to church for music rehersal last night, and the big city park across the road was jammed with little league and t ball games.

I do think its important to take kids to the park and let them just play; I think its important to have time to just be a kid without having to worry about performing well. But I'm also old school, or I wouldn't be here.

It is fearful when you hear about 'ordinary guys' whose mother thought he was a great kid suddenly killing a 10 year old, abusing her corpse, and planning to eat her. But you do have to let go at some point, and learning to take care of yourself a bit at a time, as you grow up, is much better than getting sent off to college unprepared for being on your own. I live in a college town, and I see that all the time, too. Your child is much more likely to be killed in a car wreck than grabbed on the street and murdered.

Obvious Point

It just struck me that children indoors on the internet unsupervised are probably at greater risk from Predatory Pedophiles than they are outside playing at a friend's house under watchful guardianship.