Hi Readers!
A Minneapolis paper is doing a story on Free-Range Kids and needs to find a local parent who lets his/her kid ride the light rail alone. Preferably a kid who is not shaving/driving/working as an accountant yet. If that Free-Range Parent happens to be YOU and you’re willing to be interviewed and photographed, please let me know a.s.a.p. Thanks! You can email me directly, if you’d like: Lskenazy at yahoo dot com. (Isn’t that the way we’re supposed to put our email addresses in public places like this? I sure hope so.) Thanks! — Lenore
38 Comments
“and you’re willing to be interviewed and photographed”
You forgot “and be Minneapolis’ worst parent” 😉
Offtopic but – seriously, this woman won’t let her kid use the public bathroom alone until he’s FIFTEEN? Seriously?
http://www.momlogic.com/2009/06/the_not_so_private_body.php
@Uly
Sad. Those kids are going to be so messed up…and “Yaya” sounds like a pet name for a vagina.
Well, it’s hard to count the ways in which that’s messed up. She’s violating the privacy of the women in the restroom. And with the “no naked ever” thing, the kid will have a complex when it’s time for the high school locker room.
Why does it have to be so extreme? Why not simply explain to the kid what he’s not allow others to do to him and he’s not to do to others? Why “no naked, no skin?” What if he’s at the sleepover and he innocently and mistakenly walks in on another kid in the bathroom? Is he going to make some kind of horrible scene? I agree kids should be taught a sense of modesty and privacy and not be stripping off in front of each other all over the place, but she doesn’t think his sexuality is going to get distorted in another way by this obsession?
That little girl was way more harmed by her mom’s flip-out reaction than by jumping around naked at the age of four. Of COURSE the mom should tell her that was inappropriate and not to do it again, and it’s understandable with her background that the mom tends to over-react, but the blog reads like an attempt at a rational defense of this over-the-topness.
Well, I guess that explains the funny looks I got one time when I let my then 5-year-old go alone into the ladies’ room at Wendy’s …
(For the record, since she stopped needing my help with clothes fastenings, flushing, reaching the faucet, etc., and started to grasp the concept of privacy, I have gone in with her only when I also need to use the loo; her dad also sends her into the ladies’ alone rather than take her into the mens’. My main concern is that she will get clobbered by one of those heavy swinging doors, not that she will be molested. But maybe mums of little boys feel differently…)
I’m not in Minneapolis but close. I will post this for my Facebook friends to see…maybe someone I know will respond. I’m always posting your links on FB anyway!
My son never rode light rail, but he rode the bus alot. It was the only way for him to get home since we lived outside the school district.
Karen E.’s response was the best one on that site – by far. I feel sorry for that woman’s kids and what she’s doing to them. 🙁
All the commenters on that site with a couple of exceptions are an example of how fearful and brainwashed people are. There ARE dangers out there, but they are not lurking around every corner and behind every bush.
If people are really worried about public bathrooms, it seems a far better solution than to make your pubescent son share a bathroom with the ladies, is to find a bathroom in a busy spot and make sure you see at least two people go in before you let the boy go in.
Of course, someone probably somewhere one time in the history of the world read a story where there are molesters who travel in pairs just to set up situations like this…..
my kid is far too young to ride the LRT alone but I’ve posted the notice in my facebook.
To play devil’s advocate for the mom who won’t let her kid go into the bathroom alone, she’s a pediatrician who works with victims of child abuse. The risks that “free range” advocates say are small *are* small. But small risks multiplied by lots of people means a lot of kids benefit from the freedom, while a few, a small number, have terrible things happen to them that could have been avoided.
The “free range” advocates don’t see the consequences. Well, a few do. Back in the good old days when “free range” was the norm, it happened too, and was talked about even less. But it’s a small number of kids who suffer as a result, and it’s easy to look the other way when they aren’t in your immediate vicinity.
But that’s because most people see essentially a random selection of kids. And may not know if something terrible has happened even to someone on their block.
She sees the ones who have been victimized. She knows their stories, and what parents could have done (in some cases, not all) to prevent the tragedy. If the kids you saw day to day were that set of kids, rather than some random set of kids who happen to live in your neighborhood, and if you saw the magnitude of the consequences and the small amounts of caution that would have avoided those consequences in many cases, you might feel differently.
So give her a break. She’s taken it too far with the bathroom thing, but you don’t see what she sees. The whole “free range” thing seems to be designed to convince people to focus on the low probability part of the equation, and forget the enormous, devastating consequences that can fall on a small number of kids who are on the unlucky side of that low probability.
Her “solution” to the problem, though, is absurd.
If she thinks her son can’t fight off random predators, what makes her think *she* can? What makes her think predators only lurk in the men’s room – never the woman’s room? What makes her think that somebody can’t follow them into the woman’s room and accost them there? Or that one of her son’s schoolmates won’t see and torment him on that basis – and given the homophobia which is rampant in some areas, that could lead to exactly the sort of situation she feels she is preventing!
That momlogic link is pretty awful… 🙁
And this! In the comments:
“And reguarding sleepovers. My daughter is ONLY allowed to sleepover with either her family (thankfully she’s close to her cousins) OR a friend of the family that I have known for over 20 years.”
Statistically, Uncle is more likely to be abusing a girl than Random Predator. I don’t think this is the way to do it – no sleepovers at friends houses but family and close friends are ok? No. Anybody can be a child abuser. And I’m certainly not saying she shouldn’t allow sleepovers with family, I’m just saying that doing so really isn’t any more likely to make her daughter safe, sadly. Why, the possibilities are endless. Uncle, Uncle’s Friend, Cousin, Cousin’s Friend, Aunty’s Friend… all of these hypothetical people could be abusers. Even Aunty. Women can abuse kids too. Family Friend, now there’s a classic. There *is* no momlogic here, just momfear, and if it was helpful momfear it would be one thing, but this isn’t helpful.
If anyone checks that MomLogic article again, I’ve left a comment there. The thing that bothered me about the bathroom thing was that her son obviously will not be leaving her sight at all until he is 15. How can he go to the mall or the movies with his friends? After all, his mom needs to be there to watch him pee.
“And reguarding sleepovers. My daughter is ONLY allowed to sleepover with either her family (thankfully she’s close to her cousins) OR a friend of the family that I have known for over 20 years.”
Yes, there’s that too. Isn’t it 90% of predators target family members or close family friends?
I agree she’s gone too far. But think about some of the things she’s seen as a pediatrician working with abused children. A lot of the “free range” philosophy is supported by essentially denying the existence of those things. Not explicitly denying them, but arguing that the probability is very low. It is very low. But a low probability multiplied by a large number of kids means some kids being hurt, in situations that could have been easily avoided. And also, the odds are low but the magnitude of the damage is huge. She’s seen that first hand, so I think she deserves a little more understanding.
Some day the “free range” author is going to run into some ambush journalism, on some talk show, confronted by a “free range” mother whose kid was one of the unlucky ones. The more risks you take, the more the chance that your kid is one of the unlucky ones. I wonder what she’ll say to that mother? Maybe that we should think of the millions of kids who enjoyed greater freedom, and a few kids having their lives ended or shattered is a small price to pay?
But some things are more risky than others, and you can’t eliminate risks altogether. Do predators lurk in the women’s room? I sure they do sometimes. But she’s there with the kid, and would not be there in the men’s room. And common sense says that the risk in a men’s room is much greater than the risk in a women’s room. Someone mentioned letting their five year old girl go into the women’s room alone. In fact, I’ve let my own girl do that since she was five. I let her take her younger three-year-old sister with her.
But I wouldn’t let a five year old boy go into a men’s room alone. Do the advocates of bathroom freedom think that’s a good idea?
At what age would I let a boy go into a men’s room alone. It would depend on the environment. A bus terminal? A department store?
But then, again, I’m not a doctor who has seen first-hand the grim effects of what can happen when those low probabilities go wrong. I’m not sure what my answer would be if I were seeing such things day after day.
“But she’s there with the kid, and would not be there in the men’s room.”
And? If her kid cannot defend himself at 15, why does she think that SHE would be able to defend him at all?
“And common sense says that the risk in a men’s room is much greater than the risk in a women’s room.”
It does? Since when? I would like to know what the actual statistics – not your “common sense” – are.
“But then, again, I’m not a doctor who has seen first-hand the grim effects of what can happen when those low probabilities go wrong”
HAS she seen what happens when children are allowed to to go into bathrooms alone? Another thing I’d be interested to know – what percentage of these children she works with were actually harmed by strangers in public bathrooms rather than by family members and close friends – the same sort of people she allows her children to sleep over with, assuming (as her patient’s parents did) that because she knows them, they’re somehow “safe”.
Look at the comments to that post. There are a lot of people referencing themselves or relatives as having been molested – universally by relatives. None of them yet has mentioned being harmed in a bathroom by a stranger.
“Maybe that we should think of the millions of kids who enjoyed greater freedom, and a few kids having their lives ended or shattered is a small price to pay?”
The appeal to fear and shame is not a very sensible approach. It’s the end of logic and the end of thought.
“Some day the ‘free range’ author is going to run into some ambush journalism, on some talk show, confronted by a ‘free range’ mother whose kid was one of the unlucky ones.”
I’ve thought about that a lot, and I’ll bet Lenore has thought about it even more. If Lenore’s message gets out there, then it is inevitable that some Jerry Springer wannabe will set up that confrontation on national TV.
There is nothing you can say to that mother except…I’m sorry…I’m so very, very, very sorry…I cannot imagine what you are feeling, and my heart goes out to you in every possible way. That is all you can say to her. And in that moment, I will be infinitely glad that I am not the one putting myself on the front lines like Lenore is.
But to the rest of us, including to the pediatrician Mom, there is a lot more you can say. You can say, how far are you willing to go in raising your children in a bubble? Are you willing to forbid them from ever being in a car, except when they have to go to school or the hospital? Are you willing to forbid them from ever being alone with a father, uncle, or other male relative? Because the world is full of horror stories of the worst kind, of kids who would still be alive and well today if their parents had only taken those precautions. If you are not willing to do those things, then you are admitting that–*no matter how* terrible the consequences–some risks are worth taking if they are sufficiently low probability. Then we can raise the conversation out of the fear-mongering up into the rational calculation of risks and the rewards of raising healthy, independent, confident children.
I’m in Minneapolis, but at 4 and 5 my kids are too small to ride public transportation alone. I’ll have to see if I can talk any of my friends with older kids into applying for this.
I agree with Nin to the limited extent that, psychologically, the Momlogic poster is almost guaranteed to have a different perspective from the average person — she sees all day at work the kinds of situations that the vast majority of us will never see at all, and that’s bound to skew her perception of how often bad things happen to kids. That’s how the human brain works. I feel bad for that poster and, especially, for her kids — but I do understand why she’s so paranoid.
After that, however, Nin and I part company. Yes, bad things can happen to kids when they aren’t kept in a bubble. Yes, their parents will then be devastated and will likely feel horribly guilty. But, guess what? Bad things can also happen to kids whose parents are right there with them. The odds of any individual bad thing happening to any individual kid are statistically tiny. (Well, OK: it depends on the species of bad thing.) And there are so many of these infinitesimal risks that there is no way any parent can possibly guard against all of them simultaneously: “common sense”, as you put it, dictates that we should focus on the most likely. This is why I make my 38-pound 6-year-old sit in a carseat and wear a bike helmet and look both ways before crossing the street — and why I don’t worry about sending her into the washroom alone or having casual conversations with random strangers on the city bus.
You cannot, as a parent, treat every 0.001% chance of Something Bad Happening as if it were a 95% chance of Something Bad Happening. Because when you do that, not only do you drive yourself completely batty, you also foster really poor judgement in your kids. Would I be devastated if, G-d forbid, something happened to my daughter when I wasn’t watching her? Of course. But I’d also feel pretty bad — and so would she — if she grew up scared and dependent and incapable, unable to trust herself or anyone else, unable to cope without me, because I’d protected her so hard that I’d prevented her from becoming a capable adult. That, too, is a risk we take as parents …
OK, I have to ask. Why is everybody so worried about restrooms? I really don’t get it. Is there a horror story I have missed about a restroom? Are people worried about a Larry Craig-type situation?
On the face of it, it seems like a public restroom, which either has other people in it or where other people might come in at any moment, is an exceedingly *unlikely* place for a child to be assaulted. Yes, people pull their pants down there, but I doubt that many of them are thinking about any sort of sex, let alone pedophilic urges. But it seems like the dreaded public restroom invariably comes up in these discussions. Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why?
AB, I think it’s because if a predator is going to be lurking around looking for kids to harm, it’s going to be in a restroom. There’s relative privacy there, people with their pants down as you say, and so forth.
It’s not a complete non-issue. But Sylvia and Kenny have really nailed it — first of all, you can’t protect your child from every risk, and to focus on one that is statistically much smaller than the ones you expose your kid to every day (by putting them in the car, by feeding them when they could choke, etc.) is not “logic” at all. And secondly, there is a risk to raising a dysfunctional, overly risk-averse kid who assesses every possible action in terms of whether doing it might involve him in an infinitesimal risk. Actually, that’s not even a risk — that’s a downright inevitable reality of a problem.
Good point from Uly about the possible psychological repercussions if word gets out to other kids about how this kid’s mom treats him.
I never write in but I heard you on NPR and feel compelled. I don’t think you are the world’s worst Mom, but you are a bit out there. There are dangers everywhere, yes, but one way we can protect our kids is by keeping an eye on them. I am an urban Mom (in Boston) and I don’t let my kids take the T by themselves (my oldest is 8) and won’t for quite awhile. It is not necessarily out of fear of snatching – I think if anyone approached them, even older kids, it could put my kids at risk for bullying, mugging, or yes, snatching. At 8 or 9, they are not equipped mentally, emotionally, or physically to protect themselves from a random encounter with a stranger.
You mentioned you were scared when the call came from the police officer after the conductor called the police officer on you-I’m sure your son was also frightened. Why risk it this type of fear?
In Mass, it is illegal to leave your child alone at home unless they are 13-but an 8 yr old can ride the T? Does this make any sense?
Yes, when we were kids in the 70’s crime statistics kept us as safe as we are today. Our parents also kept us in cardboard boxes in the back seat because there were no car seats-does that mean modern parents should go back to using cardboard boxes?
Yes, a car accident can very well kill a child more than a kidnapper, but to keep my child safe in the car, I use a seat belt and booster seat. I feel as though parents are the seatbelts for our children in every day life. They probably won’t need us to walk them to school or their friends’ house but isn’t it nice to know that we are there for them? Atleast for their sake?
Is your child vaccinated? This is also a hot topic and deemed unnecessary as parents but we do it. It is an extra measure to keep our children safe even though there isn’t much of a liklihood of them contracting mumps. We do it if for no other reason than schools require it….
Also, do you think your child would have had a different experience on the T if you had waited until he was 13? Probably not. They have their whole lives to make these accomplishments, why rush it?
I keep my kids close for the same reason I don’t walk by myself in the city late at night; probably nothing will happen to me but do I want to give someone walking past me in an empty alley the chance to mug me or assault me? No, I do not. For the same reason I do not give a stranger, bully, kidnapper any oppurtunity to approach my child. Predators look for these oppurtunities-the right place at the right time….
“In Mass, it is illegal to leave your child alone at home unless they are 13”
Seriously??? I really hate the ‘age’ thing (ie: no sitting in the front seat unless you are 12 or older because of the airbags–my son was the size of a 12yo at 10, and my now 10yo is the size of an 8yo). My kids were mature and responsible enough to stay home alone at age 9, and they did. Now we have my 12yo son and 10yo daughter babysit our 7 & 3 year-old! I love the freedom that comes from raising your kids right. It really should be left up to the parents. I cannot see dragging my 12yo son with me every time I have to go run errands. Ridiculous!
“Good point from Uly about the possible psychological repercussions if word gets out to other kids about how this kid’s mom treats him.”
You know, the psychological repercussions were actually at the back of my mind. I was thinking of the possible *physical* repercussions if this is discovered. Children have been beaten up and killed and yes, even raped because of their supposed “gay” tendencies. This is a problem with society, but as it exists, why make it worse for your individual kid?
“Why risk it this type of fear?”
Why teach your kid to be scared of going on the train alone? Why teach your kid to be scared of using the bathroom?
“In Mass, it is illegal to leave your child alone at home unless they are 13-but an 8 yr old can ride the T? Does this make any sense?”
Actually, I just looked this up. Massachusetts does not set a minimum age at which it is legal to leave your child home alone. Most states don’t, and most of those that do only set a general guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule.
“Yes, when we were kids in the 70’s crime statistics kept us as safe as we are today. Our parents also kept us in cardboard boxes in the back seat because there were no car seats-does that mean modern parents should go back to using cardboard boxes?”
False analogy – letting your kid have some freedom is not the same as putting them in a box in the car. This is also a flawed premise – is there a benefit to your child for not being in a car seat? There are many possible benefits to greater freedom in life, though.
“Yes, a car accident can very well kill a child more than a kidnapper, but to keep my child safe in the car, I use a seat belt and booster seat.”
Car accidents – even with seat belts and booster seats – are THE leading cause of death for children under 15. Children who aren’t even driving yet, so this statistic doesn’t include bad teenaged drivers even!
Kidnapping? Not even close. It’s not even on the LIST.
Your child is safer traveling home alone on the T than being in a car that you’re driving, no matter how strapped in they are. Those are the cold, hard facts. (Also, it’s not the T in New York. It’s the train, or the subway. The company that runs it is the MTA.)
“It is an extra measure to keep our children safe even though there isn’t much of a liklihood of them contracting mumps.”
At the moment, the odds of your child contracting mumps are possibly higher than you imagine. However, it’s great that you bring this (irrelevantly) up! Every vaccine has a cost associated with it. Some children, inevitably, will get sick or die from the vaccine. That’s part of how vaccines work. They make the population as a whole safer at the cost of a few children. (And I’m not talking about the incredibly disproven “autism connection”, either.) At some point, the cost of the vaccine outweighs the benefits. That’s why we no longer vaccinate for smallpox, in fact – because even before the disease was eradicated there were more people becoming sick from the vaccine than could become sick from the disease! Lenore is saying – and quite rightly, I think – that the *costs* of overprotecting your children far outweigh any possible benefits. The costs to society may be greater still.
“I keep my kids close for the same reason I don’t walk by myself in the city late at night; probably nothing will happen to me but do I want to give someone walking past me in an empty alley the chance to mug me or assault me? No, I do not. ”
Would it not be a wiser course of action to learn some basic self-defense rather than letting fear restrict your movement? Is it not wiser to teach your child how to take care of himself than to teach him to be scared of risks of such low probability as to likely NEVER come up?
‘For the same reason I do not give a stranger, bully, kidnapper any oppurtunity to approach my child. Predators look for these oppurtunities-the right place at the right time….”
The vast majority of predators (of children and adults) do not “lurk in alleyways” waiting for these opportunities. They prey on people they know – their family, their “friends”, the other people they know. You don’t let strangers go near your kid? How about his dad? How about his uncle, his cousin, his granddad, his friends? THEY are a far greater risk than any stranger will ever be.
And yet you’re not scared of them. Why not?
Because you can’t live that way, that’s why not. It’s absurd! Thing is, it’s equally absurd to be scared of strangers – they’re even less likely to harm you than the people you know.
Sheila, it may have gotten lost in the comment, but she’s wrong. There is no minimum age, not even an unenforced “guideline”, in Massachusetts.
Of course, in Illinois it’s 14, which is just crazy.
Incidentally, just to drag us within spitting distance of the topic (and I’m the one who dragged us off-topic the first time!), there’s no minimum age in Minnesota at which it’s okay to be left alone.
It’s reductionist to say:
“The whole “free range” thing seems to be designed to convince people to focus on the low probability part of the equation, and forget the enormous, devastating consequences that can fall on a small number of kids who are on the unlucky side of that low probability.”
The truth is that “free range” is about teaching your children about risk without terror tactics so that they can think clearly and successfully make their own choices.
Whether or not that mom is providing her son with more protection by making him go to the women’s room with her isn’t the point. The point is that by refusing to let him out of her sight she isn’t teaching him how to assess risk for himself. How about teaching him to open the door to the men’s room, look around, assess the surroundings, decide if he feels safe and then either going in if he does feel safe, or if he doesn’t feel safe not going in and saying, “Mom I need to find a different bathroom”?
Free range isn’t about just casually saying “oh the chances are slim so I won’t worry”. Free range it is about assessing every situation and making an informed judgment about what is and what isn’t safe. And you know what? We still worry!
When my four year old tells me that she can open the car door, get in the car, and put on her seat belt herself I let her try. When I see that she can do it I allow her to continue to do it. I still double check she’s snapped in before I put the car in gear, but I allow her the autonomy to take care of herself. When she tells me she can cut her own bagel in half with the 8 inch bread knife the answer is still “no”. I say this to illustrate that Free Range is about PAYING ATTENTION TO YOUR KIDS and constantly assessing and reassessing their skills.
Lenore is not advocating willy-nilly child neglect, she’s reminding us that our kids, generally speaking, are more capable than the fear-mongers want to give them credit for.
I think the issue with the restroom is the parent’s own problem with nudity. Other articles seem to focus on how wrong it is in general to not be clad in some burqa-esque garment.
Elizabeth, you make a great point about assessing each situation. I think a lot of people believe that Lenore is saying that all kids SHOULD be riding the subway. I don’t get that impression at all – she knows her own child and knows that he is ready. I have a 9 year old daughter. There is no way she is ready to ride the city bus by herself (I do not believe she will be abducted, but will likely get lost and be very frightened). She is very capable of walking to school and navigating our neighborhood by herself. I hope to get her trained to ride the bus by the time she starts middle school, since the school is not walking distance and I would rather not have to drive her every day.
As for bathrooms – I also have a six year old son, and I let him decide if he wants to use the men’s or ladies’ room when we are out. If he uses the men’s room, I do stay right by the door, mostly to make him feel safer knowing I am close by.
Regarding the 15 year old being made to use the women’s public bathroom with his mother – I really hate mothers who do this – what about my right to privacy in the public bathroom? I have seen boys looking under the stalls, gawking at women adjusting their clothes/makeup etc. Once my daughter and I were showering at a state park shower room, and a woman showed up with her 11 year old son while we were finishing getting dressed – totally inappropriate! Kids over a certain age should not be allowed into bathrooms of the opposite gender except in exceptional circumstances.
Situations where a mom forces her almost teen son to use the ladies’ room I consider to be the epitome of selfishness. That son is most likely at least as physically strong as his mother and can do all the same things his mother can in an abduction event, yet these mothers would have no qualms taking an equivalent risk if it was necessary (such as walking along a quiet residential street to the store). It’s more about mothers not feeling worried than any actual regard for their son’s safety or health.
Bummer — just saw this and I’d be willing to be interviewed but we’re on vacation this week.
My stepdaughter came to live with last year and made the transition from deep suburbs to city. She was 15 and never ridden the bus!! We insist that she take public transportation 99% of the time!
MsMan says:
“Is your child vaccinated? This is also a hot topic and deemed unnecessary as parents but we do it. It is an extra measure to keep our children safe even though there isn’t much of a liklihood of them contracting mumps. We do it if for no other reason than schools require it….”
Your child can go to school unvaccinated. All you have to do is sign an exemption form. Many children attend public (& private) schools without being vaccinated! Vaccines make people feel safe. However, If you do your research, you may be surprised at what you find.
(by the way, mumps is usually very mild.)
“Maybe that we should think of the millions of kids who enjoyed greater freedom, and a few kids having their lives ended or shattered is a small price to pay?”
It’s not a small price to pay, it’s a huge price – but it is a price that is very much worth it. The price of freedom must be paid in blood, and it must be paid in the blood of each generation. Sadly this is how it is. “Give me liberty or give me death” – Patrick Henry.
I do not want to see my kid injured or die, obviously. But I’d rather see them die free than live a life where they fail to do great things for Christ because they’re afraid of the world and not willing to go into the world so that they can reach out to it!
Wow~this is quite a group! I do not intend to become a regular poster here but I did find the need to defend my beliefs against some of the comments-whew!
In Boston, we call the train the T-please forgive me for using my regional verbage.
My husband and I are in the process of adopting a child through the foster care system and it was a social worker who told me that it was illegal to leave a 13yo or younger home alone. I trust a social worker teaching a class on adoption may know a bit about the law but maybe I should have had my laptop out looking up websites to contradict her or maybe we can’t find all of our answers on the internet?
RE: the mumps. When my sitter had the mumps last year, it was my pediatrician who told me that the mumps can leave a boy sterile which doesn’t seem very mild.
Also, on the topic of vaccinations, when we registered both of our children for public school, we were REQUIRED to show proof of vaccinations. We were not given the option of signing a waiver. Again, that is my experience~you may go on the internet and find evidence of the contrary. You may find a different scenario in your part of the country.
I’m not sure what to make of Uly’s comments and her verbal attack? I’ve never posted to a parent board before and come under such fire for my view or opinion. I mention vaccinations and car seats “irrelevantly” as you say because it seems as though the discussion was veering towards the ‘risk and reward’ of these every day decsions we make as parents
RE: Uly’s comments on my children’s dad being a pedophile, that is absurd. If your intention is to offend every new poster to this site, you have done your job-congrats!
We all make decisons based on our experience as adults and bring our experience to raising our children. These decisions shouldn’t be attacked by other parents as “right or wrong”. I wasn’t criticizing Lenore’s decision to let her son ride the subway as crazy or fanatical, right or wrong. Letting her son ride the T, oh excuse me subway, is within her comfort zone. Fantastic. It is not within my comfort zone and MOST importantly it is not in my child’s comfort zone. And no, I am not smothering my children or babying them, no matter what other 8yos are doing, I know my child
( BTW and I also know my child’s dad, uncle, cousins, and friends) better than any other parent (especially on a posting board) and riding the T alone is something we will decide on together as a family, not because some parent in cyberspace is putting the pressure on me.
This is my final visit to Free Range. Good luck to you with respect to raising your kids.
name [at] domain [dot] com – so, yeah, you basically had it “write”.
Does anyone know if/when this article about kids riding the light rail ran? I would love to read it. Was it in the Strib?