Fragile Children =
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| He is on point with almost all of this. |
Anonymous
Are you saying that right wingers are not tribal? I really don’t understand why anyone would change their values or ideology just because they don’t like how someone in a group behaves. Ideals should not be based on the lesser actions of others who you don’t associate with. |
Anonymous
Are YOU saying tribalism, Balkanizm, and the current hyper-partisanship is healthy for our democracy??? (because that sounds exactly like what you are saying). |
Anonymous
He jumped the shark at 1:19. I agreed with everything he said up until then.....social media, 9/11, decrease in recess, decrease in independent play, etc. and then he jumped to "when we protect children form X, Y,Z...we are setting them up to be weak". Nope, bullying doesn't make a stronger person. Yet again, there is someone who is saying we do X and then going to complete opposite B and ignoring the middle. No, an adult should not always be around and protect them from failure but an adult does need to be around during prime development to support them and assist them in navigating. It is one thing to be completely protective of your child, never let them take risks or fail. It is not the same as supporting your child when they do fail, helping them think through what could of been done differently, teaching them at a young age when they are navigating difficult/dangerous equipment "okay what is your next step. talk through what you want to do next" or instilling in them "you can do dangerous things as long as you do it safely". We end up trying to correct in middle school and high school what we don't teach or focus on in early education and elementary school. And he did go back to that towards the end with education but his earlier statement about protecting kids from bullying and making them weak rings false to me especially since bullying is related to tribalism, the very thing he talks about in the end. Regarding the subway....most Americans are isolationists. We have seen plenty of footage of children being harassed, women being accosted, etc. and people just look the other way. The subway can be a dangerous place and a 9-year-old is vulnerable ESPECIALLY if the adults will not intercede or act as community protection. While violent crime may still be going down, crimes against children are historically underreported. I want my kid to walk to school but there aren't crossing guards after the first block even though our county doesn't offer buses for kids within a mile of the school and our street does not have sidewalks. The ridiculous thing is that there are no guards a block down from the elementary school but there is a guard at the high school (like WTF?). There is no community support structure. There are no moms at home watching out for other kids. I plan on walking him for Kindergarten the whole way, meeting him after the 1st crossing in 1st, after the 2nd crossing in 2nd, and the 3rd crossing in 3rd but it gives me a lot of anxiety even though I know he needs the opportunity to do these things independently (but with support removed gradually and in an age-appropriate manner). As to the point about fragility. The world of an 8-year-old in the mid-1900s, including the 1980s, was significantly reduced compared to the world of a kid in the 1990s and beyond. Imagine if your 8-year-old literally only knew your house, their neighborhood, the grocery store, camps/sports, the road to grandmother's house, maybe a plane trip (although unlikely), some parks, TV, and school. Thats it. That is not the world that a current 8-year-old exists in. As a whole, our lives and how we interact with one another and teach children have not caught up to the technological advancements we have made and the way our communities changed in light of those advancements. |
Anonymous
Of course not but human nature is universal and not the exclusive domain of liberals despite your persistent attempts to disingenuously point fingers. How can you rail against hyper partisanship while making comments like that about “liberals”? Just because you don’t support tribalism that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden you stop believing in “liberal” values. |
Anonymous
Amen. Everyone is freaking fragile today because life is a lot more complicated and stressful for humans to simply exist. |
Anonymous
|
Oh come on. It is plainly not more stressful and complicated for people to exist now. This is probably the easiest and least complicated time to exist ever.
It’s unbelievable indulgent and myopic to claim that now is the most stressful and complicated time to exist while living in a country with a history including slavery, multiple wars, Native American genocide, and where most people couldn’t even vote for much of the time. Good Lord. Get some perspective. |
Anonymous
Actually it is a proven fact that hunter gatherers lived a lifestyle with more leisure time and better treatment of women than after the transition to agricultural society. “"Did our hunter-gatherers have it better off?" James Lancester asks in a recent issue of The New Yorker. "We're flattering ourselves by believing that their existence was so grim and that our modern, civilized one is, by comparison, so great," Lancester writes.” “A study back in the 1960s found the Bushmen have figured out a way to work only about 15 hours each week acquiring food and then another 15 to 20 hours on domestic chores. The rest of the time they could relax and focus on family, friends and hobbies.” https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/551018759/are-hunter-gatherers-the-happiest-humans-to-inhabit-earth |
Anonymous
I think physically our lives are a lot less stressful and easier to exist. But our mental burdens are much much greater. People centuries ago lived simple lives, did their daily honest (usually physical) work, went home, slept, repeat. There was a stronger sense of family, community, religion. People knew who they were and where they belonged. Relationships lasted your whole life and weren't torn apart by distance and people moving. |
Anonymous
I think this is an argument for keeping the lives of our children smaller. People today want to expose their kids to "the world" by which they mean as many experiences and exposure to different people as possible. But that has always felt unnecessary to me. Expose them as they are ready, but there is nothing wrong with keeping their worlds small and manageable for them, where they can gain confidence and mastery. The world today is too big for most adults to handle, let alone kids. |
Anonymous
People knew where they belonged? Well that was just dandy if you were a MC or UMC white man. The women knew they were there to serve you. The POC were there to be at the bottom so you felt good about yourself. The era of the mediocre white guy is being completely romanticized by a bunch f basement dwellers that can’t get dates now. |
Anonymous
| The snowflake generation is upon us. |
Anonymous
What the AF are you talking about? I am talking like centuries ago. You can imagine europe if you will but same applies to all communities across the world. Small tight communities is how everyone in the world has lived up until this last century. |
Anonymous
Yes, I long for an era when I could squat in a field and give birth? Or sleep on rocks. 
|
Anonymous
|
If I may clarify wrt to the “complexity” of modern life that I referred to earlier—
Yes. We enjoy a higher standard of living from a physical standpoint than our ancestors, we have modern medicine, food and shelter essentially guaranteed. But in the hierarchy of needs, the top rungs are getting harder and harder for people to achieve. People are aimless, searching for purpose, and often feeling out of place because our economy basically selects for a certain type of person and we just redistribute to the rest. Im not sure what the answer is but it does create a lot of fragile humans. |