The Free-Range Boys & Girls of Decatur
Decatur Metro | May 1, 2009 | 1:03 pmSpurred by our recent conversation about playground safety, Suzanne follows up with a video and probing questions for readers about the “free-range” chickens children of Decatur.
First up, the video. It features the prof. who recently made the national news for letting her 9 year-old take the NYC subway alone.
Suzanne ties it all back to our little freedom-loving hamlet…
Probably pretty much everyone who spends a little time in Decatur will see them…. free range kids. You see them walking in flocks from school in the afternoons… biking through neighborhoods and occasionally hanging out with friends at Dairy Queen, Greene’s or Chik-Fil-A.
It appears that we may be on the edge of a new trend and are relatively unique. Check out [the] You Tube video on the Free Range Kid movement and also look for Lenore Skenazy’s blog and book on the topic.
…Is Decatur a free range kid utopia? Why? Are Decatur parents who let their kids go free range being irresponsible or are they just letting their kids live a normal and fulfilling life?
Or put the overly simplistic way: Child leashes or MARTA cards?
Whatev. I’m fairly confident in my paranoia. She can be flippant about it until her 9-year old gets raped in the bathroom of the subway station or has GHB slipped into his soda. I try real hard to let my kids just be kids. But as I said just the other day on the thread that spiraled into a bike helmet tug-of-war, everything in moderation. That includes moderation in laissez-faire about child safety. Are these the same parents of the kids in Rockdale on the Frontline special who had a sex ring of 100+ kids in which syphilis ran rampant? I mean, let your kids be kids. But don’t think you shouldn’t still keep an eye on them. Am I paranoid enough?
Sorry, Metro, but you also see these kids smoking freely and openly on the square after school everyday. Is that also considered “free range?”
Why are you apologizing to me? I didn’t state an opinion.
That said, I was almost kidnapped on two separate occasions as a kid so I’m probably going to be a bit more paranoid than usual on this particular topic.
I’m with you all the way on moderation, CSD Mom. But keep in mind that when a situation has moved to a ridiculous extreme (which I believe efforts to reasonably protect children have), you need equally extreme voices on the opposite end of the spectrum just to get people to settle on moderate middle ground.
Without such voices, the only thing we get is the culture of fear. That’s not an accurate reflection of reality.
I guess teenagers are always going to find places to sneak a cigarette, as well as spots for other “unsavory” activities. But in most public places in Decatur, like the Square, they have the eyes of the community on them. The “Mommy Network” quickly reports these sightings to each other. Frankly, I don’t see how Decatur kids can get away with too much, considering all the nosy moms around.
And, I’m speaking as a nosy mom.
Teenagers hanging out is one thing but letting a 9-year-old roam around a city is just nuts. As my mother-in-law says, a clay pot only breaks once. But it’s a good topic for discussion. How old should a child be before he or she can roam around Decatur without parental supervision?
I think there’s a big difference between letting a 9yo roam NYC or letting them roam Decatur. For one thing, as someone above mentioned, there’s the “mommy network” – just yesterday, for example, I busted a friend’s child bike riding in the street without a helmet while he was on a playdate with another child in my neighborhood. (Bike helmets are one area in which I don’t negotiate with my kids – you wear them or you don’t ride. A broken arm will heal – a broken brain will not. My husband and I wear them too.) For another thing, maybe I’m being naive, but I’m much less worried about potential child rapists/date rape drug dispensers/crazies here in our four square miles than I would be in NYC.
As to how old a child should be – that is obviously a personal decision. My ten year old is a dreamy, absentminded sort, and has not gone unaccompanied to Glennwood yet. He will be eleven shortly after school starts, though, and I want him to be able to get himself there and back next year on his own, so my plan is to have him do a few dry runs this month, either on bike or on foot. I think he is so used to me being with him that he doesn’t really look out for himself when crossing the street or whatever….I know he is competent enough – and certainly old enough – to do it and just needs an opportunity to try it for himself.
Moderation is a definitely good thing, including moderation in how much we let fear run our lives.
When my husband and I were last in DC we polled the kids riding the subway alone (to and from public and elite private schools everyday) on how old they were when they first started riding the subway alone…almost across the board @10 kids from different groups said 11 years old. I’ts hard for me to look at my little ones now and imagine a time when I would ever let them ride a subway alone..my own parents never let me out of their sight..so..who knows.
Hmmm… roaming the nyc subway alone at 9 – I just couldn’t do it. At 12 with friends in the daytime – not free roaming but going to a definite location – ugh… still tough.. but …..maybe depending on the kid.
Walking home from Glennwood (1 mile for us) with friends – no problem. Walking to a K-3 school with friends at 9 – OK – but only with friends and only on a well traveled street. Younger than 9? Nope.. not going to allow that. Seven year old walking up our street to a friend.. no problem. Five year old doing the same… only if I’m at one end of the street watching.
Middle schoolers – wandering Decatur at will. OK, I’m “down with that” pretty much.. but they must be with a group and have a cell phone and tell me where they are going and why. This privilege would only last until it was abused.. and it could be revoked swiftly and with no mercy.
Re the mommy network. Yes Decatur has an excellent one. My oldest was once walking home from Glennwood with friends, and they apparently were rough housing at the corner of a busy street. Lo and behold I got a call from a mom that I hadn’t heard from in a couple of years who filled me in on the situation. My child gets home and the first sentence out of my mouth was, “You are on the bus for a month.” Kid says, ” Whaaaat? Whyyyyyy? I didn’t do anything!” Mom says, “Well, a mom just called me to tell me that you were acting like a goofball at the intersection and could have been hit by a car. You need to remember there are moms and dads everywhere and they all know you.” Kid suddenly looks like a cat that ate a canary, “Someone saw that?” Mom, “Yes, there are eyes everywhere – it’s a nationwide network.” Kid, “That is soooo creeeeepy.”
I got a similar call from another mom who saw my kid wandering with a friend on the RR tracks…. that one got another month on the bus and a threat that one more phone call and it was the bus for good. Then there was the mom who gave our dog mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when he nearly choked himself to death when he was out with my kids.
There is also a daddy network.. didn’t mean to exclude the dudes!
Once I spotted a teenage babysitter of ours smoking on the square. I really struggled with what to do for a couple of days. I decided to confront the girl myself. I invited her over talked to her about the dangers and general nastiness smoking (aka smokers smell like wet ashtrays) and told her that if I saw or heard tell of it again I’d have to call her parents. Now, if I had seen her drinking or doing drugs it would have been straight to the parents. I hope I did the right thing – I still wonder if I did.
So, I guess I’m all for free range kids in moderation.. so long as the Decatur KGB is around to report any infractions… .and, when necessary, yank my dog from the icy clutches of death.
The next question is.. Are kids who believe that there is a vast global network of cell phone wielding, undercover, spy moms waiting to bust them for any misstep truly free range?
Mr Fixit, to your last question: I bet the network doesn’t kick in for slight infractions, in which case it seems like a good arrangement. Kids have the illusion and so the experience of free-range, which is good for them, without the hazards. “Trust but verify.”
The key inquiry in deciding whether to let one’s kids “roam free,” in my mind, is a very practical one: what is the likelihood that anything would happen to them? I don’t think it is at all unreasonable for parents to expect/demand their community to be one in which their children would be safe to walk around with their friends unaccompanied by parents (within reason, of course). Like the mother in the video was saying, 20 or so years ago, it was typical for kids to walk to school; now its an anomaly. If we don’t feel that our kids are safe in Decatur, that is something we should work on. I continue to feel that crime is starting to become an issue in our community. I want to start thinking of ways that we can address this.
First off, I don’t care how much training with a subway map that 9 year old got, that is the craziest thing I ever heard. It doesn’t much matter if he knows which stop is his, if some evil doer decided he wanted to drag the kid off with him at a different stop. Even with people around they might assume an adult is a parent and the child is just fussing with his parent. Not in a million years in any city and I have lived in most all east coast cities. There is a fine line between proving a point as a parent that you aren’t going to shelter your kid and putting them in danger.
Secondly, I was taught lots of skills at a young age b/c I grew up in a rural area so I could drive a motorcycle and a stick shift vehicle and ride a horse by the time I was like 10 so I know kids can handle a lot of responsibility for sure. But I always go back to the idea that it isn’t my kid I’d worry about, b/c she is bright and savvy and very aware already, but it’s the other people: distracted drivers, sex offenders etc who are drawn to free range kids in numbers, like around schools, etc. You can never go back and undo something tragic. You can progressively give your kid freedoms when they are big enough to fight back or be more savvy as a teen.
It is probably my biggest worry as to how to teach my kid to be self sufficient and world wise without sheltering her too much or making her scared of everything.
One – NYC subway is probably safer than MARTA. I think more people get robbed over by Decatur Methodist than on your typical Manhattan avenue.
Two – check the Dekalb Co sex offender registry and you’ll find that even in our happy little commune, there are naughty people about.
Three – all those emails about “I grew up in the 50s and didn’t wear a helmet and I was fine” never get emailed to the thousands of kids who *weren’t* fine and broke their heads open.
My opinion – kids earn independence gradually, you can never make your kids totally safe, and being a parent is hard. I think the moms network thing is a cute enough idea but I’ve seen some of those moms at Brickstore and I’m not too sure…
My mother grew up in Decatur and remembers playing for hours in the woods and yards. They had a mommy network then, too. But there were two big diferences: other kids’ moms were comfortable not jst ratting you out to your parents but actually disciplining you – today instead of gratitude from the parent you’d get ripped with a “how dare you talk to my child like that.”. Second, after the mommy network was activated, daddy would come home and remove his belt to “correct the behavior”. Kids could roam free because they knew there were consequences beyond “no wii for a week” if they screwed up.
Preach on brother.
Preach on.
you cannot be serious with the “daddy’s belt” line. i remember those kinds of consequences well and they certainly did not make me more responsible. fearful and hateful towards violent men, yes. responsible, no. so maybe you ought to think a little harder about ways we can keep our kids safe without the ‘good old days’ of daddy’s belt. that is probably the most disgusting post i’ve seen on here and i may not be back.
I go the belt once or twice. It permanently changed my relationship with my father – and I do mean permanently. In the long run it didn’t make me behave either. In fact I’d say it made me much more rebellious as a teenager… and a whole lot sneakier.
Bo, honey, I don’t know what Decatur mommies you’re talking about. I’ve been known to have a beer out with my girlfriends at the BrickStore but that doesn’t mean I’m not an adequate disciplinarian once I get back home. Don’t I get a night out like the daddies? The Decatur moms I know not only rat each other’s kids out, but are more than willing to bring down the hammer on their kids when they hear about their kids from the neighbors ( and I DON’T mean a whipping with a belt nor do I mean just taking away the Wii for a week). I’ve NEVER heard of a mom in Decatur pulling the “how dare you talk to my child like that” stuff. If anything, they are apologetic about their children’s behavior and a bit mortified to hear about it.
Two weeks on the bus for my kid is worse than any spanking.
And Bo, sorry about the belt thing. That might explain a bit about the tone of your posts.
OK chill people. Wasn’t advocating beating your kids, and the brickstore thing was a joke. I do think that kids “back in the day” had more neighborhood freedom but also faced tougher consequences for breaking rules, which might not be such a bad thing. However my parents never hit me and we don’t even spank our kids. Sorry to everyone who thinks I’m a bad guy.
CLMOM, your father was a bad disciplinarian. Discipline in and of itself requires knowing the appropriate time to implement…that’s what makes it successful, and he obviously chose poorly.
My Mom would turn her rings to the inside and always say that we were going to get it….but we never did. However, when we really screwed up, we knew it, and we knew what was coming…from the big man…and most of the time it was a whack on the butt. Just the hand ma’am, just the hand.
Winnona Mom and Mr. Fix it, your condescending tone contributes nothing, except to stroke your own egos at the expense of Bo. Mr. Fix it apparently has a kid over 16 years old. And, IMHO, if you have to spank a sixteen year old, well, you already failed.
Perhaps Bo looks back on the discipline he received with good thoughts. Have you considered that? Maybe he thinks that it made him more disciplined. Perhaps it enabled him to acheive on a level that would have been impossible without that discipline.
Do not lump all people who have experienced corporal punishment into a hateful, violent group. That would be intolerant.
Different strokes for different folks…
I’ve never spanked a child.
Oh, and Bo.. I obviously misread the intent of your post. I thought you were advocating more beltings – thanks for clearing it up.
Here’s a new interview with Lenore Skenazy (author of the Free Range Kids blog and book):
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/05/04/free_range_kids/
The idea that the world is as safe as it was in the 70’s makes me itch. First off, this is not the same world as the 70’s. In some ways we’re safer now, because of legislation against hate crimes, safer schools, more adults being on the lookout, more visibility about sex crimes (i.e. no more private visits with your priest), etc. But OTOH we’re not as safe–freer access to harder, more terrifying drugs (crystal meth, anyone?) for one thing. And I’d wager that crimes against children are more violent and brutal than they were in the 70’s? I’d love to see stats on that. When my sister was 13 a guy flashed her at the Stone Mountain ice rink when she walked past his car. These days, aren’t those perps more brazen? Wouldn’t she be more likely to be kidnapped, raped, or otherwise assaulted than to be “flashed?” Are those crimes still counted as the same–“crimes against children?”
And I agree that while for the most part, my kid is safe while she trolls facebook, doesn’t the internet validate pedophiles’ existence by giving them somewhere to be themselves? To discover they’re not the only one? And therefore to embolden them to take action? I dunno, I’m probably just making stuff up.
I agree that the blame thing is a big deal too. How many times did my mom leave us in the car in the parking lot while she ran in the store to fill a prescription or buy a week’s groceries? More times than I can count. Why don’t we do that today? Because we’ll come out of the store in handcuffs for child negligence. Not because we think they’ll get kidnapped.
When I leave my kids at home to run a 10-minute errand, I think I probably worry more about what another parent would think about that, than actually worrying about the rifraff walking down our street and trying the door.
Scanning down the list here, I was happy to see the thread eventually getting back to the free-ranging of children–the rest of the meandering and back-and-forth from parents is a great indicator of how parents really feel. A lot of these comments are concerned, not with the safety of children, but with parents’ perception of their own reputations–‘oh god, what will the neighbors think!?’. (Look into the words they use in their posts: “roam”, “riffraff”, “meth”, “GHB in their soda”(That’s just laughable: I had a friend who’s mother would worry about him getting struck by lightning.) etc.) Then in time–as children get older–this worry begins to expand to the morbid, and the bombardment from news media of crimes against children prods this anxiety along. However, when another parent has confidence (this is very important) in their child and lets them ride bikes/scooters in the road without a chaperon, the worried parent takes their first option and criticizes the other parent–even, I have heard, to the point of calling the police. It’s all based on insecure parents’ worrying about how they look.
Simply, kids should be allowed to grow up in accordance with their maturity and age–you’ve got to let them go at some point.
A crime is not a crime W. Gibbets. Should we not recognize self defense in murder cases? Insanity? There are lots of examples where crimes are either excusable or the punishments are either greater or lesser because of certain circumstances. We also should recognize that targeting particular groups of people because of who they are is not acceptable in our society. Do you really disagree with that?
Sandi, I don’t see where you are going with this. The fact that we have justifications for homicide that eliminate criminal liability in the case of self defense, or excuses that negate intent in the case of insanity, has very little, if anything, to do with hate crimes, which seek to increase punishment based upon motives.
Hate and prejudice aren’t illegal. And they shouldn’t be. When you make punishment more severe because you disagree with the perp’s motives in this case, you’re a step away from criminalizing his worldview, however screwed up it may be. Criminal laws are meant to deter crime, period. For example, we want to deter muggings altogether, not legislate that some muggings are marginally more acceptable than others.
Thank you dem, well put.
Hate and prejudice aren’t illegal. And they shouldn’t be.
I absolutely agree with that statement. However, when hate and prejudice motivate you to commit a crime against a community, then I believe, like in the case of terrorism, there should be enhanced penalties. I think we have pretty much come to a consensus about that in our society.
Maybe you believe that acts of terror should be treated just like ordinary crimes, but I don’t believe that, and I don’t think it is an unreasonable point of view to hold to believe that. If you want to treat a cross burning, or church arson, as just another case of arson, even when there is evidence that the arson was motivated by bigotry, then fine, but I don’t think that is what most people in our society believe, and I believe that such an opinion goes against our values as a country and a society.
I think those crimes should be prosecuted on an equal basis. The motive will always be secondary to intent. As for the values of our country, that’s a debate that could go on for ever–and it is ultimately pointless when you consider the prevalence of bigotry and out-right cruelty in our society from its very beginning. Equality in this country may be the only realistic thing to try for (unless, somehow, we can make everyone special).
Shouldn’t you all be logging off so you can go watch your children?
Ok, then why is there even a different designation then? Now we, by your own admission, are back to what Left Wing said: all crimes are hate crimes, and you are building straw-men out of your own arguments. Why don’t we get back to free-range kids?
One last thing, since this thread is very far off its original track.
Sandi, I see where you are coming from, but I also think you are mistaken in the assumption that terrorism is in some way treated differently, as if we do consider motives in such cases. We don’t. Think of perhaps the most famous domestic terrorist of recent times, Tim McVeigh. He was convicted of murder and use of weapons of mass destruction — crimes that, without “enhanced” penalties, were sufficient to warrant a death sentence. His reasons for bombing the federal building were irrelevant to the case. So I think much of your argument stems from a false premise.
Frankly, I think your argument ends up in some rather absurd places. If McVeigh bombed the federal building out of a morbid desire to see people die randomly, under your argument, he gets a certain, though not “enhanced”, level of punishment. But if he bombed the building because he wanted to kill African Americans working there, he’d presumably get a higher level of punishment. It’s hard for me to see how that makes sense. It’s also a bit insulting to victims. A perp who mugs an old lady for her purse might get 3 years, but one who mugs a woman because he mates women gets 4 years?
As to whether there is a consensus against racial, sexual orientation discrimination, etc., of course there is. I don’t think there is also a consensus for subjecting crimes motivated by such animus to harsher punishment. We have long criminalized what people do, not what they think, and we should not change that approach. I think hate crimes laws arise froma very laudable desire to condemn racism, etc., but its proponents let that desire interfere with their better judgment on this issue.
On page 40 of this month’s Atlanta mag, Thomas Lake address the question “Are Atlanta Streets Really More Dangerous?”
Among other things, he points out that violent crime dropped 57% between 1989 and 2005, but has risen a bit since 2005. Also homicide rates were highest in the 1950s and 1970s. So, if kids were walking around Atlanta in the 1950s, it doesn’t sound like they’re walking in an any less safe environment today.
Hear, hear, WinnonaMom. The recent story of the woman who allowed her son to walk a half mile to a soccer game which resulted in numerous 911 calls from concerned adults was seen by many as a small town coming to the aid of a child in need. But I disagree. In a real small town, a community like Decatur, we’re likely to know the kid, his parents, and where they live. But even if we don’t we’re at least aware that it’s soccer season and where the kids go for practice.
Lenore Skenazy’s son wasn’t “roaming around the city.” He asked to ride the subway alone, so his parents taught him how to read a subway map, gave him tokens, quarters for a pay phone and $20 just in case, and THEN dropped him off at the station with an agreed upon time/place to meet.
I think the key in determining how much freedom to give kids lies in preparation and in assessing your own child’s abilities and maturity level.
James, I agree that crime is an issue, especially lately in Oakhurst where I live. But the type of crime we experience in Decatur is mostly car break-ins, lawn-mower/ladder type theft, and home invasion (usually day time when no one is home), etc. rather than kidnapping, assault, or harassment of children. I have tried to make my kids aware of potential danger – without scaring them to death – by reinforcing the belief that our local type of “bad guy” probably wants to steal your stuff to sell for money, but isn’t likely to hurt you.
I have to say, after reading this and some related items (and whether or not you agree with her), I have not seen anyone here or elsewhere lay out an equally cogent, and supported, counter-argument. I wish someone would, just so I didn’t feel like I was missing one side of the story.
I drove my daughter to school this morning, as did a lot of people (I’m referring back to the link here). It’s much more difficult to confront the reality of peril when it interferes with the realities we’ve created for ourselves.
I’m thinking that if someone wanted to provide a cogent counter-argument, they would first have to address Skenazy’s “America is as safe as it was in 1970” point. Then they’d have to prove that heightened media coverage of horrible things happening to kids hasn’t influenced their decision-making.
That’s a tall order.
Oh, and I think the whole “your kids are 40 times more likely to be hurt in a car accident than abducted” point is really interesting, soul-searching stuff. Just like the reaction from the John Henderson murder (before the truth came out), nothing scares us more than the random act of intentional violence. Car accidents and domestic violence? Eh, not interested.
I hope that I don’t sound too morbid or maybe callous when I state this. I’m just looking at it from a strictly anthropological point of view.
I believe that the reason that parents fear abductions/murders/rapes more than the more likely event that a child will be killed in a car accident is twofold.
First, a child abduction/rape/murder is a far more horrifying, painful, scary and drawn out way to exit this earth than is a car accident when you are in your car minding your own business and suddenly t-boned at an intersection. If I had to pick one of the two as my way of departing.. I would pick the latter hands down. Murders, rapes and abductions are the stuff of nightmares.. car accidents.. not so much.
Second, there is the blame factor. An abduction that happens b/c a parent willingly let their child go free range could be perceived as the fault of a careless or perhaps even lazy parent who thought through the risks let their kid go anyway. Being t-boned at an intersection may be the fault of the parent.. but it would be one careless moment rather than a misjudgment over a longer decision making process… or it might not be the parent’s fault at all. Plus no parent has ever been considered lazy or careless b/c they drove their kid to soccer.
Anyway, this is really an interesting debate. Regardless of our differences on what is the right path on this issue, I am thankful that we live in a community where going free range is at least a partial option for our children. So many kids live in neighborhoods that are drug infested and run by gangs. They have no hope of ever going free range safely. I would be interested to see Ms. Skenazy address that issue.
Sorry to burst the proverbial bubble CSDMOM, but EVERY crime is a HATE CRIME.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
CSD Mom – Perhaps the world is more dangerous, but even in your comments you admit that you are just assuming that it is. As DM pointed out, a cogent counter-argument needs proof on this point.
No, not really Left Wing. Is an act of terrorism the same as a ordinary crime? If so, then why do we consider acts of terrorism worse, and punish them to a higher degree in our laws, than other crimes that cause just as much or more damage? Because an act of terrorism is intended by the perpetrator to instill fear and intimidate a population. That is all a “hate crime” is. Someone who robs a bank probably just wants to score some money.
Not to mention that we consider the perpetrators intent all the time when deciding punishments. Why the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter? The intent of the perpetrator.
A hate crime is not a seperate new crime. Of course, there has to be an underlying crime, punishable in its own right, in order for there to be a hate crime. We are just recognizing as a society that there should be a greater degree of punishment, for example, for targeting white people just because of their race, or targeting women just because of their gender.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Sandi, there is a difference between motive and intent. The law generally considers the latter and not the former. “Motive is irrelevant” is a refrain drilled into one’s head as a first year law student. Intent refers only to the intent to commit the wrongful act — i.e., did I intend to pull the trigger? — not the underlying reason why I pulled it (i.e., I was angry, revenge, bias against minorities, etc.)
I was under the impression that a hate crime was committed against an individual that the perpetrators perceived was different from them, as in different race, sexual orientation, etc. Terrorism is what large groups of people do to other, usually larger, groups of people in order to force the hand of that group’s government. Sure terrorism involves a great amount of hate, but it is an institutionalized hatred against a group of people.
As for the world being more dangerous now; just because you are more aware of it doesn’t make it true or even applicable: think about a coincidence–it is not any more important when you suddenly become aware of it, it’s just a coincidence.
Sandy, a crime against another person is just a crime–if you make distinctions between types of victims then other crimes are not as important: black on black crime, white on white, whatever, suddenly it becomes a major crime only when the people involved are different.
So should we not have punished cross burnings, bombing of churches, synogogues, etc. differently?
Definitely not, it’s kind of depressing when you hear about a murder and the police claim to be working hard on the case, but then you hear about a case where a policeman is killed and the police are then going to work doubly hard on that case. It seems all crimes against persons should be treated equally. Society is not getting better by designating certain crimes against persons as more important than others. The list you gave is of crimes against property, not people, and those should be prosecuted the same as if someone burned down my house –obviously with no loss of life, you see.
It can’t be a murder case if there is self-defense involved. Insanity, well, I think everyone has a bit of that. But now the tune of your argument has changed, are you for the victim being treated equally or are there just too many other circumstances and we have special prosecutions for different crimes across the board? Targeting anybody should not be acceptable in society, but it is for part of the population anyway.
Who’s up for a thread on legalization?
Now, let’s talk about kids and their freedom, within certain limits of course.
unless, somehow, we can make everyone special
Anybody, and everybody, can be subject to a hate crime. It is not just for minority groups.
As long as “group identity” is used as the basis for “hate crime” legislation, it will be used/utilized mostly to protect minorities. Why no concept of the individual?
I think the basic flaw regarding hate crime legislation stems from it criminalizing thought. Thoughtcrime. This is frightening. Once you go down that path, where will it end? When will progressives stop progressing? IMHO, they will stop when all dissent is criminal.
Aren’t you logged on? My son’s eating his lunch, I can see him right there.
It is probably my biggest worry as to how to teach my kid to be self sufficient and world wise without sheltering her too much or making her scared of everything.
Why the worry though? That is exactly what you should do for your kids: teach them self-sufficiency.
This was intended for Sandi.
That is so insane. Nobody is criminalizing thought. If there is no crime, then the person’s thought doesn’t matter.