The Next America?

Paul Taylor's book Next America: boomers, millennials, and the looming generational showdown was a very interesting read (from what I got of the first 3 chapters). Focusing on the Millennial Generation, and how the world is changing politically, socially, culturally, and economically due to the great divide between baby boomer's way of life and millennial's way of life. I love how he doesn't just blame millennials for the crappy economy and the "hostile" work environment: he insults Gen Xers and Baby Boomers alike. Baby Boomers, he says, are responsible for the amount of debt America is in, and Millennials are unfortunately stuck back home afraid of the crazy economy and the failing job market. So basically, we're all kinda screwed unless we work to fix it. He talks about the interesting topic of the decline of the white majority and how race and social classes make this generation different from the rest. He describes almost everything about millennials as ambiguous, whereas the baby boomers pretty much had everything black and white. Now, so far this book has been a really good read, and I cant wait to hear more about my generation!

College Seminar in Review!!!

Hello all! I am approaching the middle of my first semester in college!!! I think it would be nice to reflect on what I have learned, primarily in this Me Generation Seminar. In leaning how to think rhetorically, I have used this in my many many readings (english major, it's all I do) to give myself a better perspective in using genre, audience, context, purpose, stance, etc. Those are all elements of thinking rhetorically, and it has come in handy in developing a deeper perspective and understanding in my readings. In this seminar, I have also developed better writing skills. I have learned to incorporate my own voice into my writing, which is something I had stayed away from in fear of being too immature and unsophisticated. I think the most overwhelming part of it all has been the fact that all of this is done over the internet and via google docs and blogger. I am a very "paper" person and I need to use printed documents and journals in order to be successful with my writing assignments. I think that's why I am also just a few days late on assignments due to the overwhelming amount of tabs and articles I need to keep track of in any given writing assignment. I don't really know how to solve this problem, but I know I'll be okay if I just take it all in stride and try not to get myself too worked up. I know I'll get used to it eventually (just like I did with using my voice in my writing. I really like this seminar a lot and am glad I am learning a lot from it. Anyway, that's my small mid-semester reflectionHappy blogging guys!!!

Arguing and Youtube

In the Millennials in the Workplace Youtube Video, I noticed many arguing strategies they used related to "Strategies for Arguing. In this video, it showcases millennial generation workers and how they would typically act in the workplace. They do things like ask their boss for raises and praise just for doing what they were supposed to do in the first place. They're seen on their phones constantly and walking in late every morning. They also are seen asking to take off of work frequently. Then a person pops up on the screen "advising" as to how to deal with the workers and their many superficial demands. It's literally a how to deal with millennials in the office video training video. In the video, there is use of Definition and Description, when they define what a millennial is and describe what he or she may be doing. They also use Examples and give a lot of examples in the form of little skits and scenes of them in the workplace. However, the most effective strategy I saw they used was Humor. The video is clearly Satirical and geared towards poking fun of pesky baby boomer bosses who don't take too kindly to the new generation's ways. It was used to provide a lighthearted way of saying that the older generation just needs to take in what's new and get used to changes. I know I linked the video above, but if you "lazy" millennials are too tired of putting in work on the computer mouse to access the video (Kidding!! ;P), It's also below!

Strategies For Arguing

In Chapter 14, there are many ways (as explained) to argue and get your point across. In the first example, for Analogy in the use of arguments, Barack Obama is quoted saying "our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars" as an example. This use of destiny like 50 stars in the united states flag offers an inspirational mood to the argument, making people feel more together and their dreams more achievable. It's easily a great way to get people on your side. Another argument tactic, classification, which is like going into greater depth of what dogs are by doing deeper into breed, variation, etc. Comparing and contrasting can go deeper, with two primary methods: block method and point by point. Block is comparing one, then the other separately. The example used in chapter 14 was comparing how men see their attractiveness and how women see their attractiveness. Point by point is mashing them both together and compare them each at a time, such as the comparison in childhood used in the book. It's also good to use definition in an argument to make sure the audience knows what side you're on if a topic or phrase is subject to many different interpretations. For description, Williams' description of the atomic bombs was effective because it put the audience at the site of where it all happened, causing more powerful emotions and opinions on the topic. Examples are also good, especially when you can use them to evoke emotions and sympathy from people. Steve Jobs experience with cancer in the chapter example to make his audience feel what he felt, which made his argument to do things before time runs out that much more effective. Humor is effective in arguments, especially for satirical news site The Onion for example had a post about a university cutting all academic funding to make room for their sports, obviously joking at their argument that the university in fact is a mess in the academic department because they focus too heavily on sports. Problem/Solution, a big one with writers gives the audience a way they can help with the problem posed (the argument). It's basically making the decision for them. Reiteration is also a good way to argue because it gets one point in people's heads and makes it memorable for them. a big example of this is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Speech "I Have A Dream". The reiteration of "I have a dream" stuck in people's minds for generations to come.

How Computers Change the Way We Think

After reading Sherry Turkle's article How Computers Change the Way We Think, It makes me think a lot about how I have been affected by computers and technology. While I agree that technology has stunted our capacity for information, for instance we struggle nowadays with long text and sentences because we are so used to social media and tweeting all condensed in a nice 140 character format, I also disagree with her point about powerpoints. Power points I feel are a nice way of getting your ideas across - especially the important parts - to remind the viewer of what's important during your speech or lecture so they know what to keep notes of and what to remember for a test or exam. Other than the power point argument, I agree that technology has limited our privacy and limited our self-identity with the option of creating avatars and IM's ("catfishing" is wayyyy too common nowadays). But despite all these negative things that technology has brought, there has also been good things. Connecting with family and friends who live far away is possible now thanks to social media, and I have access to every major news site at my fingertips. While some may not use technology to its full potential, I am grateful that I can and that its available to me.

Millennials and Youtube

     Hey guys, I took a look at two youtube videos, one called "Millenials: We Suck and We're Sorry" and "Millennials in the Workplace". They have two very clear and very different approaches to millennials and how they are viewed. The first video, which I enjoyed very much, had a satirical approach to the common stereotypes of millennials and how the previous generation - the baby boomers - viewed them. The intended audience was clearly toward millennials and baby boomers alike, to sarcastically ridicule the baby boomer generation for insulting millennials, while they themselves have brought on much more distress to the economy and society than millennials ever have. This video was very effective in their point that millennials aren't really the problem, and their parents are the ones that messed a lot of things up. I would applaud the creators of this video because not only is it hilariously sarcastic, but it's also blatantly factual in the evidence it provides, such as how baby boomers have put us in debt and started wars which millennials were forced to fight in. The other video, however, I disliked entirely.
     In the Millennials in the Workplace video, it was basically a mock tutorial of how to deal with "dreaded" millennials at work. the video displays young workers who are lazy, who take off work a lot, and who expect praise everywhere. The intended audience is clearly older people who also agree with the hassle it is to deal with millennials, and its focused on many of the stereotypes that millennials are faced with today: lazy, self-entitled, attention-needing. This video made me very upset because it provided no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims: they were just bad stereotypes that were imposed from the beginning, just like they were imposed on the baby boomers from the generation before them. all in all it made me very mad.

     Take a look and tell me what you think. Happy blogging everyone!!

Cultural History of Narcissism

In Imogen Tyler's article, she discusses the rise in narcissism in the Me Generation. It focuses at first at the negative implications of being narcissistic. Tyler focuses on Sigmund Freud's concept of narcissism and how "social norms and values are internalized within the formative structures of the psyche by the incorporation of ideals that control the subject by directing his or her desire." I definitely agree with this aspect, mostly because with the upcoming and ever-going social media craze, it's definitely heightened egoism and self-absorbed behavior. I also agree with the point he makes about narcissism being necessary to a certain extent. In my opinion, narcissism is a very extreme form of confidence, so without at least a small percentage of narcissistic ideology, people's insecurities would outdo any warrant to initiate changes and revolutionary breakthroughs. One thing about the article, however, was the introduction of Lasch and his extremely sexist views on women and narcissism. With claims such as

"the liberalization of sexuality and sexual mores has made women, already prone to narcissism, even more narcissistic. The culture of narcissism, he argues, ‘requires that women smoke and drink in public, move about freely, and assert their right to happiness instead of living for others’ (74). Lasch makes analogies between a series of female figures – the prostitute, sexually liberated women, feminists, career women, lesbians and bad mothers – whose narcissism variously illustrates the catastrophic impact of the decline of the patriarchy on the male psyche and wider society."

These claims and ideas just made my blood boil as I read. This insight to the history of narcissism was very eye-opening for me, and I like that Tyler presents these ideas and chunks of evidence to show how narcissism took height in American culture, no matter how much I disagreed with some of them. I also enjoy her little tidbit on how without narcissism, nothing would be how it is today. All the technological, social, and economical advances in our society has been brought here through narcissism and people wanting to better themselves.
     All in all, after reading this article, I agree that there is a happy medium where Narcissism can lie in both being good and bad for this generation and for society in general.

The Only Real Alternative to War is Rhetoric.

     Hey all, I recently stumbled across a book called "Everyone’s an Author" by Andrea Lunsford, and it really is a very interesting read. In the first two chapters, Lunsford expands upon the ideas of Wayne Booth, who said "The only real alternative to war is rhetoric". According to Lunsford, thinking rhetorically means to take a text for example, think about what is being said in the text, gather your own research and information on the text, and then when you have a substantial amount of information regarding the topic of the text, you can form your own response and opinion in regards to what was read.
In addition to thinking rhetorically, Lunsford explains how it is important to be able to analyze what you find - what he calls doing your homework. A good example would probably be buying a new laptop. Before you can just go out and buy any old laptop, you need to step back, assess the situation, and ask yourself important questions to narrow down your search and find the one most suited for you. What is your primary reason for getting a new laptop? Do you need it for work or for a special program? Are you going to be sharing it with others? After you ask the basic motivational questions, you then need to actually start researching the specs of some laptops. Which has more efficient battery life? Which has more programs beneficial to your needs? Which brand/type gives you more bang for your buck? Prioritizing your wants and needs can also help you to narrowing down your search. This example is really what we should all be doing when we think rhetorically and we need to analyze it.
Now, getting more in depth: what is a rhetorical situation? A rhetorical situation is where we have the following: a genre, an audience, a purpose, a stance, context, a medium, and design. Genre is simply the topic the situation is reflecting or based on. The audience is whoever the situation is aimed at and who's attention is trying to be grabbed. Purpose and stance is basically why are you in this situation and what is your place in the situation (think persuading your friend to go to see your favorite movie: your purpose of persuading her is so that you can see the movie, and your stance is in favor of your favorite movie). Context is what is known about the topic of your situation and what has already been discussed about it. Medium and design is where the situation is occurring (spoken, digital, print, media, etc) and how you will arrange it so that the design attracts your intended audience.
A good example of the rhetorical situation and these elements in play is when Lunsford refers to the works of Watson and Crick in their discovery of DNA. They sent in an essay to a magazine that was widely read and revered by the professional science community (their intended audience). They carefully introduced their findings with words like "we suggest" and "in our opinion" and even politely denies the findings of a past scientist. Their use of a subtle approach to the new structure of DNA caught the attention of more readers than if they had just blatantly refuted their peers findings and arrogantly proclaimed that they were the only two right. They knew that in order to gain popularity from their audience they had to write in a respectful and approachable way.
What I think Lunsford is trying to convey is that it is extremely important for writers to think rhetorically. Without careful consideration of the context, audience, genre, and even medium, what is written might not be as good as it could be. It won't be as impactful or as attention-grabbing. By thinking rhetorically, a writer can take the right steps in writing a piece that will be successful in conveying their opinion, and eliciting discussion from the intended audience.
Now, do some rhetorical thinking of your own and read the chapters (linked above), and tell me what you think!

This Just In: "Children Have a Sensory Need to Taste Danger and Excitement"

     When I was younger, I've had the privilege of getting to play outside either through the streets of my neighborhood, or out by the river bank upstate. But get this: my mother was no where to be found. Shocking, right? I can already see the angry parents with pitchforks and torches outside my mother's door. Fortunately for me, my mother was never a "helicopter parent" (which is a phrase I'll get to in a few, I promise). I was allowed to roam the streets with my friends, and walk around with the town kids, I was allowed to build make-shift tree swings, all while my mom was at home, watching TV, cooking dinner, or doing whatever else suited her fancy. It's not that she didn't care about me or my whereabouts - in fact, it's quite the opposite. She always incorporated independent development into my childhood. For instance, when we went to a deli, pizza place, or drugstore, she'd give me the money to buy my things and had me go to the cashier myself. My mom encouraged my own independent playtime and social time because she knew it was an essential part of growing up.
     Hanna Rosin, author of "The Overprotected Kid", said that, "children have a sensory need to taste danger and excitement". Rosin talks about unsupervised risky play and how playing alone in an open environment is needed for a child to fully develop and overcome fears without their parents looming over them all the time. I completely agree, and my childhood experience is a prime example of that. While I'll spare you ALL the details of my very adventurous childhood, I will tell you about what I feel is the most important: playing with fire. Even Rosin explains that fire is not necessarily a bad thing for children to be around. In fact, it actually can help them learn control and responsibility. I have had many experiences with fire growing up. My family has a summer home upstate. It's a tiny two room house built by my great grandfather with no heat and electricity only during the warm weather. Fire was a big part of my summer experience because without fire we'd be freezing our toes off in 30 and 40 degree weather when the sun went down. I had to learn at an early age how to start a fire in our fire-burning oven, and how to maintain one in both the small oven and the giant fire pit out in the backyard. One time, while my mother was on the other side of the house getting a barbecue ready for dinner, I decided that I'd invite my friends from the town over to the fire pit so we could have a barbecue of our own. I told my mom I was heading out, and went to all my friend's houses. Soon enough I had a group of kids from the neighborhood following me to my backyard. All my mom said was, "have fun, be careful!" So with my little group, we took sticks and marshmallows (all the hot dogs were being used by my mom) and went down to the fire pit. I added some small sticks to the fire in addition to the few logs in there from the night before, then put some paper plates and cardboard just like I've seen my mom and grandpa do a bunch of times. We stuck marshmallows on long skinny twigs and roasted them over the fire. At one point, my marshmallow was melting off my stick and was going to fall into the fire. So, with my child thought process, I decided that I really needed to save my delicious treat from falling into the fire. I caught the red-hot marshmallow, hit my arm on the edge of the fire pit, and got a burn on the side of my arm as a result. My friends thought they were going to get in trouble, so they were all running home within a few seconds of the incident. I towed my stick up the hill to my mom and told her what happened. I didn't cry, I didn't want my mom to think that I was too much of a baby for the fire pit. My mom just sighed, told me that now I know what not to do around a fire, and then wrapped my arm in a bandage with soothing cream on it. Nothing else from her; no scolding, no lecture, just a shrug and a simple exchanging of words. The burn on my arm didn't kill me, nor did it cause some life shattering problem. It was just a burn and I learned not to go too close to the edge of the metal fire pit.
     My little fire fiasco as a kid growing up was something that I felt was dangerous, as well as exciting. I was controlling something that could hurt me. It was scary and rewarding. When I started to get a little too comfortable around fire, I learned my lesson. I don't cower and hide around a candle or a flame, and I still continue to spend my time upstate around that fire pit. Unsupervised risky play is essential to a child's development. Exposing children to simple "dangers" won't suddenly kill them or have some terrible effects on them. It teaches them how to be responsible, and how to handle themselves around dangerous (and not so dangerous) situations. Being around fire, I learned what to do and what not to do, how to start it, put it out, lower the flames, and stop it from smoking too much. I've gotten tons of burns, and it hasn't induced an uncontrollable fear of fire (unlike some children I know who are only scared because their parent's never let them go near it). Because of my experience, I am more independent and I know how to take care of myself when my mom can't be there, and probably most importantly I know not to save my drooping marshmallows from their fiery fate.
     A very important part of my experience was the fact that my mom didn't overreact. It's not that she didn't care enough to freak out, because she did in fact care a lot. The main reason why I don't make a scene whenever things don't go my way or whenever I get a little bruise is because my mom taught me to handle small problems on my own, and that complaining and seeking extreme attention will get you nowhere. I see this especially when I think about the way my aunt treats my cousin. Growing up, I'd always witness my aunt overreacting over my cousin's every scrape and cut as though it was the end of the world. My cousin picked up on the attention that her mother gave her every time little things went wrong, and would make a big scene every time something happened. She'd trip and fall and be crying for hours as her mom did everything from getting ice to getting her ice cream just to calm her down. Everything was the end of the world for my cousin, and she knew that if she cried and depended on her mother, eventually she'd get what she wanted. Now starting high school, she has had a rude awakening as she realized that the world does not revolve around her and her every need. This dependance she developed for her mom has inhibited her ability to take care of herself and handle situations maturely and independently. My mom's nurturing yet calm reaction to my fire incident taught me how to fix myself up if I get hurt, and that it's not the end of the world if I get a little burn. My mother went back to allowing me to play alone, which was important because I was allowed to socialize and test out different social skills by myself without having to depend on her to help me make friends or to solve issues (unlike my aunt, who called the parents of whoever made my cousin mad that day, and solved the issues for her).
     Unsupervised risky play is absolutely a necessary tool for children to grow and develop. Without allowing children to make decisions socially and allow them to explore their environment on their own, they are coddled into depending on their parents and are uneducated in fixing their own situations without relying on the help of others. Specifically fire, because in the right environment fire is a great way to help kids learn responsibility and make them feel like they are in control of a task. The only downside to fire is they could get burned, but no normal child would continuously keep putting their hand over the fire after the first time it happens (trust me, I am proof that children are smarter than you think when they learn firsthand just how hot fire is). So parents, do me a favor and let your kids off their leash for a while. Let them explore and play by themselves with other children. Don't hover over them and act like the world is collapsing when they get a minor cut. If they do something stupid, chances are they learned their lesson and wont do it again, so no need to try to take it away from them (it'll only make them want it/want to do it more, I promise you). And finally, trust your kids. They don't need to have their hands held throughout their entire life. They can take care of themselves, trust me.
     Even after the marshmallow disaster, I still spend time with my neighborhood friends at that fire pit to talk and have a good time, especially before going off to college. In fact, I'll probably be back there in a week or so too before the snow falls to catch up with them about school, drama, life, and really good s'mores.


















   

Shitty First Drafts

     Prior to reading Shitty First Drafts by Anne Lamott, I felt as though my first drafts of any kind were supposed to be immaculate - the holy grail of drafts. I felt pressured to impress my peers who helped edit and my superiors who were supposed to evaluate and revise with me. Even with personal writing, I used to get frustrated when the words weren't forming into the magnitude of thought and emotion in my head. I was a mess, to be honest, and still am a mess (sometimes). But after reading Anne's wonderful little article on what's known as the "shitty first draft", my eyes have been opened to a whole new way of looking at the dreaded first draft.
     Lamott uses what she describes as the child's draft approach, where you just get it all out there and let your thoughts and feelings on the topic run wild and free. Then you can edit and fix it up, take tidbits of your child-like mess of a draft, and construct a well-flowing piece of writing. I had never thought to just spill out everything I had to say and then work from there. For a long time I've just been struggling with trying to make sense of it all in my head rather than just getting it all down and looking at it fresh on paper.
     This is something that I've been utilizing with my draft for my seminar on risky play. Instead of my usual struggle to get down a perfect first draft, I went about it the child way and just wrote down whatever I thought on the topic and my experiences with risky play. From there, I found a lot of quotes and pieces that I would be able to bulk up in my essay and expand upon. I also found the best personal experience to use regarding risky play (for the life of me I couldn't decide what childhood story would work best, but getting it ALL out on paper really worked)!
    In my honest opinion, the shitty first draft is now officially something I look forward to rather than something I dread. I encourage everyone to read Lamott's article, especially those struggling with the writing process. If you get rid of the idea that the draft has to be some sacred text of perfection, and focus on letting your inner child wreak havoc on the page instead, I promise you that you'll never look at the first draft the same way again. Who knows, you might even look forward to it!

Sounds and Words: Finding the Unique "Sounds" of Blogger's Writing Styles

     Upon reading a few blogs, and noticing their distinct word choices, structure style, and their flow of the post itself, I decided to post about what type of sound each blog writer would be. The blog posts from Alex Horton, Chicago Pop, and James Loeffler, definitely have individual sounds that are unique to how they write.

    Alex Horton's writing style, based on his post "On Getting By" would definitely be a trombone. As he is writing, I can imagine the feeling of a deep, inviting, and regal-like sound coming from the writing. A lot of elements are in play to help contribute to this classy-style sound, like his military status and the dark colors on his blog, but mostly the way he talks. His style of writing is very dignified, yet speaks to the reader as though he's close friends with them.

     Similarly, James Loeffler emits a classy cello sound based on his writing. When I hear cello, I hear classy, regal, black-tie event type sounds. Loeffler has the writing appearance of a wise old soul, who is completely presidential in his words and structure. When reading his blog post, I could practically hear the deep, formal vibrations of the cello playing.

    Lastly and probably most different, Chicago Pop's blog post gave me a happy and comical feeling,  like an intro to a family sitcom from the 80s. His funny, and talk-speech type way of writing makes him inviting, like an old hilarious friend. His blog post takes readers on a journey through a chunk of his life, almost like the stereotypical theme music from The Brady Bunch or Leave It To Beaver.

     All writers have a specific sound, and this is just an example of how unique every writer can be.

The Real Writer, Battling The Illusion Of The Inspired Writer

      Hello all! I recently read an article which I'm sure many of my readers can relate to called The Inspired Writer Vs. the Real Writer by Sarah Allen. Allen focuses on how real writing is not how many people perceive writing to be. While many believe in what she calls "the Inspired Writer": the writer with precise clean lines and prose where writer's block isn't even heard of. Although a lot of people (especially those who feel their academic writing skills are not up to par) can envision any professional writer as this god-like being, they'd be surprised to know that it's usually not the case. Allen discusses how her colleagues also suffered from poor writing skills, and - to my surprise - even Allen herself has suffered from the perils of writing throughout her undergraduate education.
     This took me back to my junior year of high school, after three years of rigorous writing classes which centered around essays and grammatical structure, my writing skills were put to the test in a college-level philosophy course. Learning about philosophy was intriguing, and fun, but out of nowhere halfway through the course my professor reminded the class of the 12 page paper "we should be starting soon." Even though I had previous experience with writing, I felt extremely underprepared for 12 pages of non-stop writing on the morality of torture. I was bewildered. Torture? Really? All that was running through my head was: how can anyone ever write 12 pages on whether or not torture is morally justified?! In the end, I only managed to achieve a B on the paper, after pages and pages of just reiterating what I already covered in the very beginning. I felt it was near impossible to expand so much on a topic to cover 12 pages. With my bad experience over with though, I've been constantly mentally preparing myself for the workload college has to offer (like the 8 page essay that's set to be due on my birthday, uh oh!).
     Allen gave me hope though, when describing a similar distaste for writing while also expanding on why she writes anyway despite all the nauseating work that goes into it. She says, "...there's the emotion, revelation, clench of teeth, slackening of shoulders, or any other response, that a text elicits from even it's own writer." This is important to me, because although I find writing to be a pain, all the work that goes into it is definitely worth it in the end when your best end work shines through the rubble of rough drafts and trashed ideas.
     Something I also found interesting about Allen was her "formula" for writing about academic topics. She introduces the idea of imitating other writers, specifically ones who you feel are superior to you in terms of writing. Now, the vague idea of it sounds like it's borderline plagiarism, but I see what she means. Allen doesn't mean just taking people's ideas and writings, she means that the writers we look up to we should be influenced by. She talks about a writer from which she uses the same structure when writing a paper. Clearly, if you consider a writer to be phenomenal, there must be something structurally they're doing right, and you should take that in and allow yourself to be influenced by that for the sake of bettering your own writing. It shouldn't cloud your voice, rather it will make your voice and ideas heard more clearly.
     Other than imitating, she also discusses the importance of getting another person's opinion on your writing. Not just have your friend or mom take a look at it, but really ask your professor or another person who is a professional writer to revise your work and see what needs to be changed. It's important to get your professors input to see what needs to be changed to get the best grade, but also another person to help make it more of a working text to be graded.
     This article made me feel much better and much more prepared for academic writing in a college setting, and most importantly allowed me to let go of the illusion of the "Inspired Writer". I hope it's done the same for you guys, my readers, and best of luck to you when your next writing assignment is leaving you stressed and feeling inadequate.

The Play Deficit

     After reading The Play Deficit  by Peter Gray, I'm surprised that there's someone other than Rosin who is encouraging the use of risky play; every adult seems to want to restrict their children more and more these days so some new stance on the area of children's freedom is refreshing. Similarly to Rosin, he talks about his days as a child, roaming around with pure freedom in his neighborhood, knowing his parent's only concern is him being home in time for dinner. Rather than using the phrase "risky play" as Rosin does, he refers to this type of play as "hunter-gatherer". He explains it as having to make compromises and decisions without the help or reliance of his parents, and how his time playing unsupervised with other kids of various ages in his neighborhood helped him to discover rights and wrongs, and a great deal of problem solving. He stresses the importance of hunter-gatherer play with the example of young animals and how they play a lot more than adult animals. Gray talks about the zebra, and how like many prey animals, partake in play focused on dodging and running. This, Gray theorizes, is how they learn to run from predators, which he labels "practice theory of play".

     Gray's stance on children's play, although explained differently, directly parallels Rosin's article in the reasons why children need risky play and hunter-gatherer play. Although Gray doesn't explicitly discuss the importance of implementing dangerous aspects such as Rosin suggests with fire, both explain that free play is something very crucial to a child's development. It allows them to figure out the world on their own in small ways with other children, and the unsupervised aspect allows them to break out of their shells and do things they normally would shy away from if their parents were looming over their shoulder. It promotes independence, social skills, and respect for others. Both Rosin and Gray perfectly execute the same idea of the need for more unsupervised playtime as a child is growing and developing.

     While Rosin leans more towards the idea of dangerous factors in risky play helping children overcome fears and develop independence, and Gray focuses on the importance of hunter-gatherer play (which is excruciatingly similar to risky play, I promise you) and how it can teach a child important skills and is a very good tool for learning, they both conclude that unsupervised play of any sort, and allowing children to get a feel of the world on their own without the burden of their parent's short leash is crucial to a child's development and igniting their independence.

The Overprotected Kid: When Does Protecting Your Child Get Out Of Hand?

     In Hanna Rosin's article, The Overprotected Kid, She touches upon the habits of parents today versus during her time as a child in terms of how protective they are over their kids - and how it affects the way the millennial generation develops. Rosin's concerns about millennial involve their lack of "risky play" and how it's preventing them from getting over their fears and building the confidence and independence that is crucial to their development into adulthood. And quite frankly, I agree with her.
      To further her argument against overprotecting children, she refers to Roger Hart's study done on a group of children by observing how they act when parent's aren't around. He called the distance the kids were allowed to go without checking in with their parents "free range", and discovered how important it was for children to have time away from their parents to help grow their independence on their own. In a traditional playground, a parent's role was simply to sit and let their child run, climb, and make friends. Oftentimes, as Rosin pointed out, Parent's would let their children out alone to play with children in the neighborhood for the entire day and wouldn't expect them back until dinnertime. However, the modern playground experience has been transformed into scheduled play dates, being driven from practice to club, and very limited outside time away from parents. Rosin explains that many parents feel more concerned for their child's safety because of the supposed increase in crime, and the rate at which news travels regarding playground accidents and child abductions is a lot faster than it was a decade or two ago. These fears are irrational, as the rate at which these incidents occur has not changed, and has remained very low since. Perhaps with the rise in social media and technology, the information can get around much more than before, but accidents happen, and the increasing paranoia of something bad happening is only hindering a child's development.
     Back to "risky play". In the beginning of this article, Rosin describes one of the last playgrounds that is known as a risky play playground. Located in Wales, The Land is a fenced in playground that looks more like a dump site. The children, watched over by advisers, are encouraged to do whatever they want: start fires, make things using tools, swing from tubes hung from rope, build, destroy, and most importantly use these elements to overcome what they might find scary or intimidating. By letting a child overcome his or her fear, away from the sight of parents, encourages confidence and independence. Many middle-class parents would take one look at a place like this and most likely have a conniption over the thought of their child stepping foot in there. Rosin notes that the reason a modern parent would disapprove of The Land is they don't see the benefit to the hardly dangerous activities in the playground, and most importantly they are blind to how the benefits outweigh the minuscule dangers.
     Lately, children hardly play outside. While Rosin talks about how parents scare children by making the outside seem dangerous, there's also the possibility that they've been so "joined-at-the-hip" to their parents that children just aren't used to going outside (or anywhere for that matter) without them. That of course is where the lack of developing independence comes in.
     What I loved most about Rosin's article was the fact that she used the example of her 5 year old son Gideon and his experience at The Land. He was pushed down a hill in a bucket and into the cold river water, and instead of freaking out and crying like Rosin expected, he simply acknowledged the cold water, laughed, and moved on to the next activity. It sealed the deal on her argument that risky play is a good influence on children. She used it to show how children can overcome their fears on their own, and instead of having a bad impact on them, it can actually help children to grow.
     With that being said, I think it's safe to say that risky play is in, and overprotecting your child is definitely not.

Insert Blog Title Here

My first post for my ICSM blog!