Comment by rbn3
5 hours ago
but the fact that " Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion" seems so absolutely self-evident to you has been brought about by a century of regulations, public education and resulting stigma/taboo. believe it or not, but giving (small amounts) of alcohol to toddlers and even infants (by way of drinking a shot before breastfeeding) was actually a shockingly widespread practice across many countries over 100 years ago. it took real effort by governments to get people to stop doing that and get us to a point where we are now - where such behaviour is self-evidently bad to anyone in their right mind and we've collectively agreed that it's in everyone's best interest that the state takes children of parents who do this to them into custody. it is not unthinkable that future generations, perhaps not even that far into the future will regard and regulate tablet/phone/[smart device] usage by toddlers in the exact same way.
"over 100 years ago", you wish. The last case I was personally told about was from the 1980s. Yet, regulations and/or taboo didn't help that child. A hopelessly negligent and stupid mother is just that, case closed. And that is pretty much my point. No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors. And pretending the responsibility is with evil large corporations or the government is only clouding the truth, namely that parents are responsible for their children and what they consume. I am sooo fed up with all these excuses. And I have reasons. My mother wasn't and still isn't the most rational person. And no amount of regulations would have protected me from her mental health issues. It wasn't the fault of the car industry that my mother told me at the age of 14 that she wants me to go with her on a car trip visiting my grandmother because she would prefer me also dying in case she had an accident. No amount of industry regulations would have protected me from the schock I had when I heard that sentence. Openly talking about the responsibilities of parents and not hiding obvious stupidity would have perhaps helped a bit.
> No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors.
More people need to be talking about this. The children of parents who abdicate their responsibilities of parenting are going to become the adults we deal with on a daily basis. I think the scope of the issue is not perceptible until you get to know how much damage a person with all the power can bring onto their child. That kind of thing is lifelong and not everyone can afford the therapy you will end up needing.
It shocks me that even the nicest parents I know - on the surface - still give their children phones.
This is why I see the drive for child safety regulation as an unspoken admission that the problems of an individual parent are falsely seen as insurmountable, so people start pointing fingers at whoever is in the vicinity, when in reality the parent was the one responsible for choosing their own fights by purposefully exposing their child to the modern Internet. Parenting has existed for thousands of years, social media for just 20. This is a solvable problem but parents have to change their behavior. When the majority of childhood is spent with one's family, there is no other solution.