This is a joke, right? ...right?

It's not?

God, the comments themselves are a study. These are some choice bits from the Facebook feed linked in from this joint.

This seems to be the dominant thesis: any risk is absolutely unacceptable, any whatsoever, and if your kids get hurt or the rare and unimaginable happens, it is YOUR FAULT for allowing them any freedom at all. Also, hysteria, moral panic, and gross, GROSS overestimation of risk.

Remember that these comments are in response to letting a ten-year-old, who has taken a bike safety class, by the way (did those exist prior to our generation?), to ride a mile home from school through a residential area. In an era when violent crime is lower than it has been since the 70's and 80's (era of the latchkey kids). That sounds like excellent daily exercise to me, but to some people, it's child endangerment.

For what it's worth, quoted commenters: you're all idiots, and if you don't like it, come at me. And while you're at it, learn to math and common sense.

( This is apparently not sarcasm. )

I love the furious backpedaling that results when people cite reliable sources of crime rates in the past 50 years. Basically, the response becomes that no risk, NONE, is acceptable, and if you accept even the smallest risk for your child, you are a horrid parent, and you don't care. What is that phenomenon called where people are horrid at understanding very small fractions and probabilities on the order of one in a million? And where the number of times an instance is talked about, a person thinks it's more likely?

And why are all these people saying it's not safe anymore? Crime is LOWER than it has been in decades. All reliable statistics corroborate this. All things considered, we live at the safest time in human history. Yes, that is taking into account all the dangers that face us. Life is dangerous. It always has been. There's just more constant sensationalist, borderline pornographic fixation on the rare horrors of life on TV. We're paralyzing a nation in fear. Parents admitting they won't let their kids play in the yard because look at all the rapists and kidnappers on TV? That's their proof? This is like a parody.

I do concede that car congestion, car size, and average speed have increased, which serves as a danger. But why is everybody talking about kidnapping and pedophiles?

This is why we are raising a generation of neurotic, helpless, soft kids. I am in the first half of this coddled 'generation me' or whatever the hell we're calling it now, but I escaped that fate. I was a 90's kid, for reference, in 6th grade when 2000 rolled around. I rode my bike all over our various rural neighborhoods. Hell, as young as 1st or 2nd grade I was given free reign in our neighborhood. I'd walk what seemed quite far to my short legs, down steep hills and canyons, to creeks, given some common sense about local critters and traffic safety. And this was before kids had cell phones. AND, I kept to myself a great deal of the time, so I didn't even have much strength in numbers. But this was considered normal. The positive effect on my self esteem, industriousness, courage, cannot be overstated. Hell, I was a belligerently neurotic kid, a real frady cat by that day's standards. I was afraid I would catch every disease I ever heard of (and I read a LOT, so I heard of quite a few) and even went through a phase where I was convinced every single passing car housed a drive-by shooter. But I kept going out and about, just myself, and usually a book, often with my little sister, against the huge and scary world. It made me into a better person.

I can't imagine how bad I'd still be if I were raised by some of these contemporary parents.

I think the moral panic and fear is getting even worse.

And here's an example of car privilege: people say if the girl had fallen or gotten hit, the blame would be on the police for not stopping her earlier, or the mom for reckless endangerment. What about the driver of the car? Not ONE MENTION of culpability for speeding, reckless driving, distracted driving. The norm for the burden of culpability has shifted dramatically. What about the girl, if she had been the one behaving recklessly? She is old enough to know the road rules. It sounds like she does, and was at no fault. The police backpedaled and lied (the original police report is in circulation) to save face when this story blew up.

And, because we live in this culture of blame and fear, when the hard (a broken bone) or unimaginable (death, kidnapping) happens to a child, the parents live with the additional burden of guilt. As if the burden of losing a child isn't horrific enough.

I think there's a selfishness in not allowing your kids to do ANYTHING, because the risk to your heart is too great. Certainly, there are limits, and parents need to parent and set appropriate limits. But our definition of 'appropriate' has become insane and infantalizing.

Oh, and citing sex offender statistics for your area is a worthless measure of safety. That list also contains college streakers, guys that got drunk and pissed behind a building that one time, 18-year-olds who had relationships with 16-year-olds. According to our lawmakers, *I* should be on that list, condemned for life to de-facto house arrest, brutal monitoring, and de-facto unemployability, not to mention the mindless acts of vigilantism citizens commit on anybody unfortunate enough to wind up on that register. The whole system is a fucking wreck, and no authority will step up and do anything because zie will appear 'soft on sex offenders', or a 'supporter of child rapists'. Another example of our hysterical, dumbed-down, sound-bite-driven voting populace. Either make the list reserved for violent or predatory offenders, or eliminate it.

And let's reserve some of the moral outrage for people who won't slow the fuck down when they drive. Or who can't stop fiddling with their cell phones while barreling through a residential area at 45mph in a behemoth SUV. That is reckless child endangerment. Crack down on the drivers. Let kids have their childhoods.