Hello NealS,
Those were the days. :) I remember them well. I would go back and relive them all over again. Today's youth have missed so much. Yes, they have new gadgets and make believe video games, but they are weaker in so many ways. There are some that have parents that steer their children and raise them better, but today thanks to the necessity for two income families and other societal engineering changes, our youth are not the hardy, resilient offspring of generations past. The nanny state and the PC police have seen to that.
Regards,
O.A.

Jan, your stare is more welcome than almost any other;;;;
my wife can make me back off with just a glance!!! -- j
.

I never had a skateboard growing up. Don't think they were around then. My two brothers and I grew up in NE Ohio, had a creek behind the house with a 200-300 foot bank to get to the river. It had about a 65 to 70 degree slope. In the winter we would ride our toboggans down the bank even though it was infested with trees. Dangerous, maybe, FUN,,, HELL YES!!!
I don't ever remember being told not to do it???

Ha. I do not have a TV, though I occasionally watch shows on my computer. The ads on those are pretty pathetic.

Jan

The cable box's one hour rewind actually makes it possible for me to watch some TV. I get to skip over all the commercials. I'm getting to a point now that once in while I just let the commercials run just to see what's new out there. At least I never have to watch Geico or Progressive Insurance commercials anymore.

Just looked it up. You are right!

Risk averse, risk averse, risk averse...(need to retrain the fingies).

But still staring right back.

Jan

You are welcome. I think that people who watch a lot of TV have learned to tune them out instead of studying them.

Jan

I do not like to think of mine own gender in this manner, but consider it a 'lowest common denominator' situation: If one of the parents is silent and the other one says , "There are monsters under your bed." then you imagine monsters.

So, in spite of the fact that more dads are involved in raising their children, the advent of women into politics and work has tilted our society in the direction of risk adverse - the 'monster'. A parental team would have to work together to counterbalance this, or a dad would have to be strongly charismatic and risk tolerant to counter it by himself.

Jan

An interesting thing here on this over protection is that practically everyone I know and everyone I talk to claims to have given their kids almost total freedom to be kids. Then where is all the over protectionism coming from? Are the incidents we see and hear the only incidents that are taking place, or is this really an epidemic? I wonder what is happening in and around our small cities in the Midwest. Is there a silent majority lurking in the background?

LOL! Love that last sentence...

Your bike downhill reminded me of my youngest son. He at about age 14 and friend sat on a skateboard together and rode it down Bennett Hill, about a 30° slope perhaps a quarter mile long. Near the bottom he tried to use his heels out front to slow them down. The immediate friction cause his legs and feet to go behind them and they both went over the front of the board face down. Fortunately the worst was skinless knees and elbows. They were lucky to still have their noses on their faces. Can anyone think of a law that might have prevented this experience? Experience is the best teacher, I know, I've experienced a good share myself. When I was about 9 I poured gasoline on a small fire. Many months later I was okay after my skin grafts healed. When I think about it I always remember my Dad, he caught me and put me out. I never wondered why he had gray hair.

Yes. I'm just trying to figure out why the trend is toward more safety even as fathers are more involved than in the past. If this safety obsession were going to happen, I would expect it to have been more likely when children were seen as women's domain.

Yep. I remember my mom giving me a lecture about consequences (which I have given to my son). She also taught me to open a door for a lady.

Now, I'm a damned caveman.

Some of the downhill bike riding we did really was insane, though. Just one screwup from death...

I have noticed. They are using the model that tobacco and auto makers have used for decades. I never smoked and I buy used cars. Instead of doing my part to boost the economy (that is, boost the tax collections of governments, and the unearned interest of banks) I am resisting the consumer virus and following part of Galt's example. I won't be "bought off and silenced by gizmos and toys."

hey, it really is "risk averse" -- no kidding! -- j, staring you down
.

sure was colorful, though!!! -- j
.

Have you ever noticed that Apple doesn't sell computers? It sells the idea that if you buy their products you will be one of the cool kids.

If you see an ad showing you what you can do with the computer it's a Microsoft/PC ad, not an Apple one.

Last time I was interested in a new car was '89. Guess I haven't really listened to car ads in 25+ years. Thanks for catching me up, Jan.

When I am sitting in a waiting room, sometimes the TV is on - and I see ads. And I watch the billboards.

Since about the mid-1990's, car ads have presented the theme of, 'buy this car means buying love' (family, spouse, strangers). Dealers advertise that if you buy a car from them you will purchase their friendship. These are not overtly sexy ads, but seem to say that you can be loved, but their car is the entry fee.

More recently, what I have been seeing/hearing is car ads that say 'this car is yours and while you are in it you are comfortable and in control'. The ads suggest that when your boss is mean or your significant other is bad moody you get in your car and there life is perfect and YOU are in charge.

Not rationally based - these ads pander to insecurity, low self esteem, and the willingness of the listener to buy into the illusion that the car is they key to a better life for them.

Jan

I think you are correct there. I know several 'house husbands'; these guys would not have been socially acceptable when I was young. But my Reply to your post was not to indicate that you are wrong, but to suggest that, even as a father would teach his son baseball (though his mother took care of the child every day), the mother would still have influence on the child, even though the child was raised primarily by the dad.

Jan

Don't watch tv unless its stripped of ads, don't buy magazines or newspapers, don't listen to radio, block ads in my browser. Blissfully unaware of most advertising, but very aware of slanted presentation of most media content.
Selling love? Sounds like a good idea if rationally based. Who is doing that?
DOn't know what you mean by advertising solitary control.

I agree, but I would expect men's influence in the home to increase, as some women shift some attention to work outside the home.

I am soooo gunna reach right through this email and 'risk adverse' your nose! Pow!

Jan, grinning

"If it bleeds, it leads." If a man doesn't say anything cautionary, but a woman says, "that dog will bite your face" then a receptive child may be more influenced by the latter than by silence.

This is all just theoretical.

Jan

I noticed the same thing. So many ads today sell products on the basis of fear.

But have you noticed that a second group started selling love? And a third group began advertising solitary control?

Jan, does not hear many ads, but studies the one she comes in contact with