
Motherhood in the Age of Fear - rafaelc
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/opinion/sunday/motherhood-in-the-age-of-fear.html
======
nostromo
I've noticed how casually people say, "that should be illegal" nowadays.
Usually it's half-joking, but it expresses a real sentiment about how even
mild transgressions are seen as legal matters.

I have no doubt if you took a poll asking people if it should be illegal to
leave a kid in a car for any amount of time you'd get overwhelming support.
And, of course, that's how people like the woman in the article end up fearing
prosecution after leaving her child alone for a few minutes.

> Women are being harassed and even arrested for making perfectly rational
> parenting decisions.

By the way, this may be even more true for men, who are routinely viewed with
a skeptical eye when it comes to parenting decisions. The glee at which our
current culture laughs at the perceived incompetence of men with regards to
parenting has taught us all to expect fathers to be completely boneheaded at
all times.

~~~
magduf
It should be illegal to harass or prosecute parents for leaving their child
alone for a few minutes....

What really astounds me is that I'm not that old, and I clearly remember being
able to run around or ride my bike around town for _miles_ without any adult
supervision, at the age of 8 or so. Things have really changed in this
country.

~~~
api
I did those kinds of things too and a lot more.

Crime rates were much higher back then and there were no cell phones or other
easy communication devices that would allow the kid themselves or a random
pedestrian or motorist to rapidly notify authorities if something is wrong.

The safer our society gets the more afraid we become and the less tolerant we
seem to become of risk.

I wonder if it's a cognitive analog of the hygiene hypothesis for allergies.
There's a part of our brain that is built for a world of conflict, danger, and
scarcity and in an abundant modern developed nation it just has nothing to do
but declare war on phantoms and crusade against minute or non-existent risks.

I've had debates with people recently about how bad crime is becoming and how
dangerous things are. I show them graphs of crime and violence for the past 30
years. I often get total unironic disbelief -- as in they _don 't believe it_
and think the sources are biased and there's some kind of conspiracy to
suppress the real statistics on crime. Things were much more dangerous in the
60s through the early 90s and people felt a lot safer.

~~~
magduf
>The safer our society gets the more afraid we become and the less tolerant we
seem to become of risk.

I completely disagree. Even with our crime rates being much lower than decades
ago, the US is still nowhere near as safe as Japan, yet in Japan they're not
remotely as risk-averse as we are (particularly in regards to kids being
outside without their parents). It's very much part of their culture to have
kids walk themselves to school at an early age.

I'm pretty sure it's similar in western European and Scandinavian countries:
they're very safe too (particularly the Scandinavian ones), and don't treat
kids and parents this way.

This is something unique to the US.

And this really touches on something I think Americans are really, really
horrible at: thinking about the rest of the world. Instead of looking at our
brains and trying to use psychology to figure this out, why not just look at
what other humans in other countries are doing? Americans are not biologically
unique. This is a cultural problem.

~~~
api
The thing that doesn't work with that argument is that our crime rates really
were substantially higher back when we let our kids roam free. We aren't as
safe as some countries but we're a lot safer than we were in, say, 1980 or
1990.

The urban crime wave of the 1970s - 1990s really was pretty awful.

~~~
LanceH
So what you're saying is...the kids were the real criminals all along.

~~~
closetohome
Everything is fine now that we got all those little hooligans off the streets.

------
SketchySeaBeast
Right now on Arstechnica there is an article about the ridiculous rate of
death during labour in the US: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/why-
do-so-many-moms-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/why-do-so-many-
moms-die-and-suffer-in-the-us-stupid-negligence)

I feel like this is all somehow a strange result of personal responsibility
mutated monstrously - society doesn't care about whether you live or die, but
it'll do everything in it's power to make sure you're shamed for the slightest
screw up.

~~~
rabboRubble
That's a great example. I have a family member who works in the health care
data field, with the idea that enough data leads to better diagnosis and
better outcomes. The topic of maternal mortality came up and how the US,
comparatively, is rated worse than every other 1st world nation. His take was
that 1) the other countries aren't reporting deaths correctly, 2) the data
definition is not the same across nations, and 3) US women entered pregnancy
with more comorbidities. So in essence a person in a medical field intended to
keep more people alive for longer failed to recognize that systemically the US
is doing worse than other nations because "data is deficient" and then blamed
the dying women for being fat, old, unhealthy. Read here minorities
specifically. Apparently no other nations in the world have old, fat, or
unhealthy pregnant women.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
That's an excellent example of pushing agency back upon the patient.

And I'm confused how "dying from complications directly caused by childbirth"
would be reported differently in other countries. Maybe that's why Sweden has
such a low murder rate, it's not "death by gunshot", it's "spontaneous
exsanguination during a hospital stay".

~~~
rabboRubble
I think the US has fairly broad definitions of maternal mortality, i.e. death
within 3 months or 1 year of birth or something like that.

Some deaths related to the childbirth happen after the birth is officially
over. Think sepsis from c-section complications or untreated post-partum
leading to suicide.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Yeah, I took a look and that's exactly it - the US records over a year and the
rest of the world a lot lower, so that could pick some stuff up. But I don't
think that explains the higher mortality - I imagine the longer one lives
after childbirth, the better odds one has that they will continue to live
longer, and it certainly doesn't explain why minorities have so much of a
higher rate.

------
jshevek
She makes a good point, here:

"We do not think about the statistical probabilities or compare the likelihood
of such events with far more present dangers, like increasing rates of
childhood diabetes or depression. Statistically speaking, it would take
750,000 years for a child left alone in a public space to be snatched by a
stranger. Statistically speaking, a child is far more likely to be killed in a
car on the way to a store than waiting in one that is parked."

~~~
GW150914
That narrative is unacceptable to power structures that rule through fear. If
people really internalized the fact that (for one example) a person in the UK
is more likely to die from swallowing a bee than through terrorism, many
totalitarian policies would be undermined. Likewise if most Brits accepted
that it’s riskier riding a horse than taking MDMA, the war on drugs would
suffer.

Fear is just such a useful tool to keep people moving in the general direction
you want that politicians and plutocrats will not give it up, and niether will
marketers. Meanwhile the media has generally embraced sensationalism and fear
for a very very long time. People are inculcated into a culture of fear to
sell shit, to control them, to siphon money from them, and who’s left to show
them the way out?

The prototypical example is that so many people fear flying commercially, yet
don’t blink at getting into their cars to drive.

~~~
lainga
I think that's the thrust of this whole situation. When people say "that
should be illegal," it's because they're so accustomed to the idea of an all-
encompassing, all-regulating government, that they can see no other outlet for
their anger than to suggest new criminal laws.

~~~
jessaustin
In many cases the motivating emotion isn't anger, but jealousy. Others live as
they wish they had permission to live.

~~~
kwhitefoot
But in fact they do have permission to live as others do. But they lack the
nerve or the means.

------
jessaustin
I certainly feel sympathy for the writer and anyone in a similar position.
However, she writes as if every American is vulnerable to this sort of
harassment, when in truth it's only those in most of America. In large swathes
of USA, the general public would not call the police over this, and if they
did the police would laugh at them. I live in such a place, although I'm not
so sure about the community in which I've been working recently.

It's no surprise that many communities have this dysfunction. Decades of
carefully cultivating only one approved narrative, that you all must buy the
same things and live the same way has been very good for marketers and the
authoritarian plutocrats who employ them, but very bad for you. In an age of
remarkable policy consensus (more war, more spending, more oppression, more,
more, more), the heated political discourse often amounts to nothing deeper
than, "They _disagree_ with me! How dare they?!?" This doesn't leave much room
for "Well, if Sally's parents let her play by the road, I guess you can too."

You don't have to live where mothers are harassed like this, but let's face it
the job market is better there. Still, you can visit the rest of America. Just
drive in any direction. If you get more than fifty miles from an Applebee's or
Best Buy, you can probably stop right there, or keep driving, or whatever. If
you see a park, drop the kids off. It's fine.

~~~
magduf
That's the problem: the places where you can parent rationally are also places
where it's hard to find good food, good medical care, or good jobs. And
strangely, the voters in those places are the ones that are usually pushing
for more war and more defense spending.

~~~
aantix
I don't think that's the case at all. Lincoln, Nebraska. Population 250,000.
My neighbors would watch my kids if they happen to be out playing by
themselves. I'd do the same for them. No police involved. :) There's even
modern medical care and grocery stores here. ;)

Hillary Clinton won this county (Lancaster). She won Douglas county too (where
Omaha is).

It's nice.

~~~
jessaustin
If you and your neighbors are watching each other's kids, it's only a matter
of time before you have this problem too. Lincoln is not dangerous for
children. They don't need to be watched.

~~~
jf
My assumption here is that aantix is referring the more passive "watching"
that happens in these sorts of environments, meaning "keeps the children in
mind while going about other business" and not the strict interpretation of
"never lets the children leave their line-of-sight"

Functionally, the passive form of watching just means being available to
adjudicate disputes and administer first aid.

~~~
jessaustin
Children's disputes and the kinds of injuries for which neighbors can offer
first aid are _also_ not dangerous. We could imagine a scenario in which a
dispute among children could lead to a death, but that scenario would be
vanishingly rare as an actual event. The children are probably safer with the
neighborhood bully than they would be hopping in the car every time an errand
needs to be run.

------
cridenour
24/7 news cycles have somehow convinced the US that this is the most dangerous
time in history for children when in fact, the complete opposite is true. It's
very sad.

~~~
onychomys
That and the rise of weekly detective shows that focus on sexual crimes. SVU
is in its 19th season, somehow. Criminal Minds is about to start its 14th. And
there are plenty of others like those.

Contrast that with 30 years ago, when we had things like Hill Street Blues,
NYPD Blue, and regular Law & Order. Those shows featured murders committed
because of robberies and affairs and the like. The more modern versions are
basically all pedophiles and rapists.

------
LeanderK
Question: I am a student in germany and in my early 20s.

When I look back, for example at my summer holidays, we were biking for miles
to spend the afternoon at a public swimming pool in a neighbouring village
(approx. 40 min bike ride, maybe more). Or we were filming a lord of the
rings-type movie deep in the woods, complete with building a small "castle".
We also had a river in the woods my parents were always warning me that I
can't get in there because I might drown, since it was more rapid than it
looked like. So in elementary school I had nightmares for a few weeks of
drowning inside the river, but that was all. I was still allowed to play there
with my friends. For example, we once were building paper boats and see which
one makes it the farthest.

Friends in the city were allowed to use the public transport (it's how every
got to school...) to move around freely in the city.

Also, i clearly remember waiting in the car for my mom to get something.

I can't imagine growing up without being allowed to explore the world, be it
nature or man-made.

Is this really different in the US?

------
LordHumungous
> “It’s not about safety,” Dr. Sarnecka told me. “It’s about enforcing a
> social norm.”

That sums it up pretty well. We aren't in an age of fear so much as an age of
self-righteousness. Everyone is constantly on the lookout for an opportunity
to preen their moral superiority, and to condemn the failings of others,
particularly in any situation involving children.

~~~
sverige
Humungous what!? Are you harassing me!?

------
doitLP
Yet another example of what constant consumption of hyperbolic media coverage
about horrific cases does to our collective psychology and ability to assess
risk.

In Iceland they leave sleeping kids parked in strollers outside the
coffeeshop. I can't tell how many times I've wanted to do that. But then I
remember the friend of a friend whose kids were taken away for doing just
that.

~~~
blattimwind
So, leaving your kid in the car _is_ actually a significant danger for them in
America, because it creates a risk of men-with-paper-trail taking your kid.

------
ravenstine
How common is this, really? Are parents in the US being regularly harassed for
minor things like in the article? I'm not trying to discredit this person's
story, but it's easy to believe that this is an "issue" when everything is
anecdotal.

~~~
spamizbad
It's going to vary based on where your live. And even if there are local laws,
you might be subject to just how much of a busy-body your neighbors are.

In Illinois, it's illegal it keep children ages 6 and under in a vehicle
unattended for more than 10 minutes. Someone 14 years or older must either
accompany or be within eyesight of them.

These laws largely exist because of advocacy groups such as _Kids 'n Cars_[1]
whose founders often had children who died while unattended in vehicles and
they want to "save" other parents.

As a parent myself, I think these rules are absolutely bonkers. Kids might be
less safe these days in hot cars because windows are now automatic and not
manual, but there's likely a technical solution to that problem that does not
require jailing anyone or ripping families apart because they ran in to get a
coffee.

[1]: [https://www.kidsandcars.org/](https://www.kidsandcars.org/)

~~~
jessaustin
Wow that organization may be worse than MAD. How many poor families have been
made poorer still because parents who never harmed anyone have been thrown in
prison by our overzealous drunk driving laws?

------
johngalt
I agree with the overall theme of the article. People certainly overreact. It
lost me when it attempted to make it a gendered issue. If anything, it has it
backwards.

Imagine that we had an article that described the tyranny of high expectations
at work for men? And how privileged women were because expectations were so
low that something incompetent for a man would be fine for a woman? I worry
that we got stuck on 'men are privileged' and are incapable of seeing anything
else in any facet of life. Any gap between men and women is measured with the
same male privilege yardstick.

------
acd
I think people are affected about consuming fear from news papers, tv news and
movies.

The Information Age has given us much more access to information than before.
We are not accurately assessing how dangerous something is.

Watching fearful content on tv can affect your subconscious mind that later
leads to rational avoidance of “fear”.

Why couldn’t fear and violent content on tv affect the brain? A tv Programme
could be like a computer program instructions. Then you have to consume the
right type of content.

Micro mort the probability of dying from an activity.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)

------
nisse72
I'm reminded of Lenore Skenazy who in 2008 let her 9 year old son ride the NY
subway alone:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Skenazy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Skenazy)

~~~
ycombobreaker
Lenore is directly referenced in the article! She is the Free-Range Kids
blogger.

~~~
jessaustin
Odd that the headline skimmer didn't expect that...

~~~
nisse72
Haha I read the article but didn't actually remember the subway woman's name
until I googled for the story.

------
imbokodo
A social worker I know told me about little girls with venereal diseases,
which they got from their mother's boyfriends or stepfathers.

Sometimes people make the decision to move to a place which is nice because of
a homeowner association's strictness, then complain that the HOA is enforcing
it's rules on them as well. Or the same really for living in a suburb with an
eagle-eyed police force.

If you live in an area where people want you to watch your kids then you will
have to watch your kids.

The real problem is children of very negligent parents who are not being
protected, not yuppies who move to or travel to some uptight suburb and then
complain the police enforce the law on them too.

~~~
jessaustin
I don't think I understand your reasoning. The busybodies aren't calling the
HOA; they're calling the police. If we punish those who are mostly guilty of
having assholes for neighbors enough, is that going to make life better for an
11yo with gonorrhea? Wouldn't it be better for CPS to have more time to help
children with actual problems?

------
paulddraper
Last weekend I took my family to the beach. A women started hollering that my
ten month old was putting rocks in his mouth.

I had to pretend I was as concerned as she was about it, and that it wasn't
something he'd done a hundred times before in the backyard.

Hearing that similar types of "neglect" get legal action has made my wife
paranoid for years. So far, I assume it's a very rare getting-bit-by-a-shark-
like occurrence. I hope I'm right and she's wrong.

------
spicyusername
Why didn't they just leave the car running though...

------
magduf
This is exactly why I think it's absolute lunacy to have children in the US
these days, and I actively advocate against it. If you want to have kids, move
to a country where you aren't charged with a crime for leaving your kids alone
under the age of 12.

In Japan, kids are basically forced to walk themselves to school at the age of
7 or so, without their parents. Here, that would cause the parents to be
thrown in jail.

Raising kids in this country is dangerous to your personal safety if you want
to avoid jail time. Don't do it. This article isn't exaggerating.

From the end of the article: "Instead I worry about all the ways our country
seems to be at war with children, even as we insist our greatest
responsibility is to protect them." Exactly: we _are_ at war with children,
and parents too. The rational choice is to avoid the situation altogether. If
you're reading on this board, you're probably affluent enough to head to
greener pastures if/when you decide to have kids.

~~~
vowelless
> if you want to have kids, move to a country where you aren't charged with a
> crime for leaving your kids alone under the age of 12.

Or, you know, perhaps try to change the laws?

~~~
shadofx
The laws are put in place as a measured response to real threats. You need to
remove those threats first before the laws can be changed.

~~~
jshevek
Generally speaking, there is nothing 'measured' about the way the democratic
process is influenced by widespread irrationality and emotionalism.

I see no reason to believe that these laws are a result of a measured
response. I see reason to believe the opposite.

------
newnewpdro
Now is simply not a good time to bring people you care for into the world.
It's a shit show on so many levels, and you're not likely to substantially
improve it by raising a family in this environment.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents.

~~~
newnewpdro
Huh? That's not my intention.

It's my genuine view that if one wants to improve this situation, the best
thing they can do is forgo children and get involved in education and
politics. People become hamstrung with familial obligations, and we could
really use a generation of more adults focusing on our nation's hygiene rather
than growth.

~~~
dang
Alas, intention doesn't much influence this. If you bring in a generic
flamebait trope, we're likely to get a generic flamewar thread.

One way to counteract this is to make comments that are much more specific.
Your second comment is a step in that direction.

