Response to: Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone

This was meant for the Digg comment section but some site error kept me from posting this. I need to spill this out somewhere. But I guess this is the typical mentality of a blogger anyway.

re: Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone
----
Although I appreciate her faith in humanity and agree with her assertion that we are bombarded with negative stories, I find fault with two things: first, the dismissal of crimes as infrequent and thus, able to be ignored with open defiance no less; and second, this idea of over-protectiveness as an actual danger.

She brushes off the Carlie Brucia story with startling levity. She classifies the act as a rare instance of one bad apple. The consequences of allowing a city of kids to run free without guidance becomes an issue of temptation and the sudden appearance of numerous opportunities to snatch up children, who may not all have the capacity to make informed decisions. Nine-year-olds aren't all made equal. One may be able to avoid putting herself in a dangerous situation, while another may have his mind wander and get hit by a car. Similarly, I would like to believe that all adults are informed enough to pass this information to their kids, but unfortunately many parents are oblivious to the possibility of various tricks or ruses, which really tempted, impatient, and particularly insidious criminals would gladly take the time to think of. (And don't dismiss criminals as dumb. That is a sad generalization that is more of a vain, comfort-thought that such horrible people are logically as stupid as they come. There is no way a low-life can be cunning AND a pedophile. Spare me the snobbery.)

This isn't a small town where everyone knows everyone and everyone is identifiable. If you are in a county with a small populace, then you will probably notice your neighbor bringing home a child when you swore he was single and know that he is an eerily disposed recluse. A big city where identities get lost in the fray of the daily bustle, where anonymity is achieved through the logistical impossibility of keeping track of everyone that walks through your store.

She believes that coddling your child to the point of losing ability to function as an adult is a likely outcome of being over-protective. As with most behaviors (or anything at all), going to the extremes is a flimsy basis for an argument.

And for goodness's sake, there are other ways to develop your child's independence or give your child a lesson in self-reliance. Not that this should be an issue anyway. These are your kids. It is genetically etched into your mind to make sure that child grows up safe. Nature entrusts you with this. Why shunt this responsibility for the sake of a lesson that can be learned elsewhere? I do not know how salient this episode may remain for her son when he grows older, but personally, 99% of everything that occurred before puberty has been lost with the years (I am 23). His future would be better served if, when older, he volunteered on a regular basis or takes a trip to study abroad, among other possibilities.

The mother approached this with a smidge of due diligence, offering the child a few options to reach for help. But what bothered me the most was this line: "No, I did not give him a cell phone. Didn’t want to lose it." She may have said this facetiously in the service of irony, but if that was at all blithely written, it was a sad irony that she would value a phone over her child.
----