First step Daniel, and which not written, is clarifying the fundamental nature of any child. I think a close description is "totally trusting their parents and giving total unconditional love and total attention and totally dependent on them"... hence their vulnerability.

I think we all know or have experienced childhood where we were harmed at some point that lasted on in fear of that... The effects of it start showing up after 18 and on, struggle on, and by 36 when the 'adventure of adult life' starts weaning then we start decompensating...

So lets use us as the bench mark for our children. For any society that encourages each adult to act in their own interest first is doomed for catastrophe, and a society of adults that keeps all children as their priority and achieves this sets itself up for a happy future with capable happy adults...

So what do we have to do?... first what are the children going through now... and dont ask the parents for the answer will be a self serving one... I think every child, particularly in the first 6 years of life, be assessed every 6 months for markers of stress and dysfunction by closely monitored and reviewed staff of professional bodies(all on video record) set up by the government with effective remedies. Sounds radical... well its worth it if we make sure it works to achieve a happy content and thriving child...

Will it happen, well the first problem is women as a group whom do not want any interference in her care of their child... overcome this with all its deceit and hidden facts as a society and yes...

Sam

Daniel's right in that public policy about children usally addresses issues for the smaller population facing significant risks and problems rather than for the larger population that is more secure. This is probably necessary. Few would aregu that vulnerable children should be protected. It is also a fact that children's policy (childcare, education) is frequently based on the needs of parents or the wider economic needs of the society - human capital formation, workforce issues etc.

The truh is that children are innocent and they are vulnerable. That's why advertisers like to target them. It is important to listen to children and assist them to solve their own problems but it is also important to nurture a critical understanding of the world in them rather than leave them to figure it out for themselves - it needs to be intentional. Young children, even young adolescents, lack life experience so are often not well placed to understand or advocate for their own best interests. That is the job of parents backed by sensitive public policy.

Most parents want their children to grow up to be nobody's fool. Listening and responding to children's preferences is an important part of this but the security fostered by the establishment and maintenance of clear structures in their lives is critical if not always popular.

Daniel still insists on using ambiguous and potentially populist phrases. And his ideas are potentially dangerous:

"the average child is capable of supporting its own development and dealing with certain amounts of stress, especially with adequate supports. If children couldn’t do this, we’d be seeing far greater numbers of dysfunctional adults than we already do."

I don't know about you but I know PLENTY of dysfunctional adults. Just because they get up in the morning and get themselves to work and back again doesn't imply that they are "functional". Kids are also very good at making themselves seem normal when the exact opposite is the case - trust me, I WORK with them ALL THE TIME (rather than live an idyllic rural existence growing tomatoes and quoting other people's work).

Daniel will really need to change his line at some point because sooner rather than later his arguments will be gradually taken apart and he will be shot down rather humiliatingly.

Let go of this "idolising childhood" meme and start to recognise that people want to protect children for very VERY good reasons! (even if some of the time it doesn't work right)

Another advertisement disguised as a lightweight OLO article. Wasn't a spot on Life Matters enough? If readers rush they can listen to the podcast and assess the merits of this author and his love for kids climbing trees. I'm sure the book will also be a jolly good and simple read.

I dont think that it isn't that parents dont trust themselves to raise their own children, I think that the problem is that parents dont respect each other enough to consider that more often than not the childs parents know what is best for our own children. Children are all different they are not and never will be the same.

Petal, Children are remarkably resilient creatures, if given the proper support when things go wrong. Most of the time, parents and extended family can provide that support. One of the problems facing society at the moment is that we are fractured from our extended families and therefore lack a lot of the support that has been there in the past. This can be recreated with a network of friends, but the worst offender is the lack of time we now spend at home with our kids. What do you do if your child falls over and skins their knee? Rush out with kisses, bandaids and lolly-pops? Teach them to wail at the smallest misfortune that affronts them? Try dusting them off, giving a hug and telling them what a silly duffer they are. Teach them that setbacks happen, and that they should take them in their stride. Sure, if they fall out of a tree and break their arm, thats a different kettle of fish, but it still doesnt warrant over-fussing. Children (and adults for that matter) need to learn how to take both physical and emotional setbacks, deal with them, and then move on with their lives. And yes, we need to trust ourselves as parents to teach them this.