Hacker News Reader

Comment by chongli | Hacker News Reader

social problem of neighborhood culture

Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights. Neighbourhoods are not communities anymore because there aren't enough adults around during the day. With both parents working 9-5, there aren't any moms around to keep an eye on the kids playing during summer break.

It was bad when we as a society told women they're not allowed to work. Now women have to work just to be able to afford a house on two incomes which previously cost only one.

View on HN

I'm sorry but this is BS through and through. I grew up in a very small town with, by today's standards, very little with regard to what was available to entertain us. My friends and I always had things to do. Kids want to be outside, play outdoor games and pretend outdoors. It's the parents that mess it up by assuming there's nothing for them and then by also being overprotective and limiting the ability to explore. Growing up during my summers off my Mother and Father worked during the day. Starting around age 10 I was trusted with the responsibility of maintaining myself as well as household tasks. The reality was >90% of my parentless time was free. And I was always doing something. Most of the time it was friends self-organizing and the rare (for me) structured outing with the local town's rec center.

As a parent now I encourage free and outdoor play whenever possible. Winter, summer - doesn't matter. They love being outside and self-organize. Sure they're young enough still to want help with setting up games from time to time, but it's crazy how much imagination and natural inquisitive nature is in them. Parents overcommit kids today. Play is work now. And work sucks as a kid. Don't do that.

But the premise that communities are gone because parents aren't around isn't founded in anything but an assumption and is wildly inaccurate in my daily life.

I agree. I grew up in a tiny town where basically all parents had to work so we (the kids) had more or less no adult supervision of any kind. There were no mobile phones, no internet, no consoles (that any of us could afford anyway), sometimes not even a football, so most of the kids spent all day out inventing games and fun activities with a key around our necks. Everything could be a toy, everywhere could be a playground.

As a kid I never even considered an adult could contribute in any way to my free time and to the degree to which I will enjoy it. Of course they had a contribution but it was more akin to teaching an autonomous car to drive rather than you driving the car yourself. The end result is still a functioning car, but the implications of each case are vastly different.

Maybe the particulars of the situation made it possible. Small, safe town with friendlier people, fewer distractions available, more relaxed legal framework, fewer dangers out there, etc. But the implication that you need adults to build and maintain an environment in which kids can play is only valid if that's the way you lived it so it's the only way you can imagine it. It is sufficient but not necessary. There are plenty of other ways that don't involve parents to build their kids' playing universe. And having just one more possibility invalidates the premise of the original comment.

Not true, as there was more to neighbourhood society than stay at home mums. When I grew up in the 70s, in a major city, and there were many more stay at home mums in one earner, two parent households, for sure. But...

The local shopkeepers and retired would keep an eye on the local kids too. If anything we'd be more likely to be pulled up and ticked off by the old lady doing her gardening or the old fella taking the dog for a walk than the local mums. The mums were often busy with the youngest of the family, cooking, and other jobs keeping them inside. Not all had toddlers of course.

The local shopkeepers - newsagent, butcher, baker all knew our mums as they were in every week so if we pushed too far it was certain to get back home. Everyone seemed to know everyone else. A non-automated surveillance state. :)

So what did we kids do? Went and played on the demolished old factory site, along the canal, or on the disused railway station and line. No one got to keep an eye on anyone there.

The situation of women having to work is just as repressive of women's rights as not allowed. I'm sure there's a lot of women, and some men, who would stay home with the children whilst young if it were possible. The expectation now is they have to juggle both.

The local shopkeepers in many places are getting pushed out by corporations, especially in less-populated areas. Walmart is your one-stop mini-city for groceries, all household goods, prepared foods—and they are not going to take on the liability of allowing employees to watch over children playing.

Then again they're getting pushed out because the "community" prefers the convenience and cheap prices of the local corporation one-stop shop to the more expensive and less well stocked bevvy of butchers and bakers and corner shops. It's no surprise that the only ones surviving are those crewed by and catering to immigrant and "ethnic" food cultures not well-served by corp marts and fringe spaces (e.g. local coffee roaster, expensive / foodie grocery store, tea shop).

Of course it's never quite that simple.

Now that the supermarkets mostly "won", local bakers, greengrocers and butchers etc are usually cheaper and far better stocked than any of the supermarkets yet of far higher quality. Supermarket prices just aren't competitive any more, as they mostly stopped trying, though of course they beat the open all hours corner shops. Cut price Aldi are now the fastest growing supermarket in the UK. Tesco are laughable on price and quality by comparison with Aldi or Lidl.

There's also an element of having to prefer the one stop shop of a supermarket thanks, in part, to most of us having to have both partners working to survive. I strongly suspect if more couples were still able to support a home and family on one income there'd be many more of those butchers, bakers and greengrocers around and still thriving.

Still, we are where we are, and probably stuck with it.

as for how the economics of a society affects & recreates the spatial design of various localities, we should always keep in mind that technology is part of play, and also enhances play

tho only the rare & remarkable ppl are at the leading edge of that (as is the case with anything else in society)

https://dynamicland.org/

i agree with all the others here that the claim by 'chongli' is false & inaccurate and illustrates a person that is incredibly biased due to their a) limited experience, and b) knowledge

this mega-problem of there being insufficient spaces for play in our current society is undeniably a human crisis (tho this likely has always been the case as 'play' as a concept is relatively new in the history of ideas)

if or not there's less overall spaces for play relative to the past is unknown, and it would seem supa difficult to get data on. but if anyone has extensive evidence on the topic, i'll like to see the links

it's likely accurate that most places in 2019 has this problems (that kids dont play outside). but there are also places, including within cities, where kids do run around and play on the roads

i'd say the contingency of this affordance is based on how good of an area you live in to be able to give this privilege of play to kids, as well as everyone else in society

Depends where you grew up.

For me, this was early 90s in a big European city, there were zero shops even near where we were playing outside most of the time. So sure, this was after school and being 10-14, but it wouldn't really matter (for this topic) if there was someone at home, because most days I'd be outside just after school anyway.

I think both experiences could be true, in American suburbs and towns there is no such thing as a shop keeper or butcher in your neighborhood, it's _all_ residential. In that context it would only be the mothers and retired available.

During my days of play we never were around businesses though we did occasionally see retired people most of our limited oversight was mother based.

That's not the reason. I grew up in the 1970s in a neighborhood where there were usually several different roving packs of kids playing in a variety of ways for hours on end, after school and all day on weekends and holidays. Thinking back on it, I estimate 75% of the Moms had jobs, and the Moms who didn't were rarely seen anyway.

In other words, there were usually no parents supervising anything in my neighborhood in the 70s, yet our play culture was dramatically different from present day play culture.

This might be a factor, but I live in a neighbourhood where there are plenty of SAHM's and it's not like kids play is flourishing like it did in my generation (and there are plenty of kids). There are multiple factors. I also think a big one that contributes to the "helicopter parent" perception. Is our towns and cities. We built them around cars. I remember reading there are 3-4x cars on the road now as opposed to in the 80s. My parents would let us wander very far from home when we were young because they knew we could bike many places without hitting a really busy or high-speed-limit street for a while. Nowawadays, there are cars everywhere and it does lead to a heightened sense of danger (real or perceived).

Meta-guess: SAHM means "stay at home mom".

>Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights.

The economic pressure to work to support your family is not what I would call a right, but a modern requirement (of both men and women). If anything, this is an advancement of an employers right to extract cheap labor while maintaining a moral high ground in the name of equality and phony, corporate backed, dollars-and-cents egalitarianism.

>It was bad when we as a society told women they're not allowed to work.

To be clear I agree, and, upon further inspection, so do you: :-)

>Now women have to work just to be able to afford a house on two incomes which previously cost only one.

Posting anyway because maybe there's something to be said about the choice of words ('rights' to work) here, which should perhaps be considered for rephrasing en masse (as I'm sure you're aware, but was not explicitly said).

I grew up in the late 90s and early 2000s in an apartment complex where about a dozen of us kids in the area spent all day out and about. We built clubhouses in the woods, played Pokemon and Yugioh on the sidewalks, and as we got older started trekking up and down a walking trail next to the complex to convenience stores and towns up to several miles away.

At the same time, there were probably another half dozen kids we knew of living in and around the area whose parents refused to let them come out to play. In hindsight, they were the rising tide that seems to have taken over parenting, despite all those kids probably now being able to testify they missed the opportunity.

And boy all those private investors are thrilled to keep nearly all of the productivity gains from having double the labor pool available!

And lots of women enjoy having a professional career.

No doubt about that one :) It goes without saying that their financial security is thoroughly important. Still, all workers in 2019 have diminished purchasing power compared to the amount of hours worked (and commuted)

Yes, but someone needs to raise the children.

We fathers can also take time off from work to stay at home with the kids and many of us do exactly that.

I think women are better at taking care of children, especially at the beginning (eg. breast feeding). Later, it's father's role to teach (raise) children.

My wife and I are equally capable of both taking care of and teaching our child. Breast feeding is a pretty small part of it, and it only lasts for a year or so.

Are you a parent?

Yes, I am parent of 2 kids: 7 and 4 years old. But my (single) case doesn't matter. From my observations women are naturally much more capable than men to deal with kids. One simple fact: they're more talkative. So the kid has better contact with language. Simple example: when kid gets hurt mum is usually trying to cheer up while father is trying to say something like "oh, it's nothing, go on and play". At the beginning, the attitude of woman is needed by kid, later - the one from father. Both are very different and very important.

Why? What’s better, slaving away in a cubicle from 9 to 5 doing meaningless work so some corporate big wig can meet his bottom line and get a bonus... or watching your children grow up, spending all day playing with them, raising them, hanging out with other parents while kids play...

I thought this should be obvious, but it seems women want to be like men and suffer through the generally horribly competitive, generally meaningless, and often monotonous drab of having a “career” in some goal of chasing an ever higher number on a direct deposit every two weeks. Why? Why not have the obviously much more fun, relaxed life of being a stay at home mother and be there as your child grows into an adult and builds their own unique personality?

Haven’t there been lots of studies showing women’s self reported happiness declining in recent decades? Specifically those who pursue these cutthroat executive positions dominated by pyschopathic, aggressive men working 80 hour weeks? Why would anyone be jealous of this lifestyle?

For some, staying at home is also meaningless and monotonous.

Women want to be treated equally and fairly. Up until recent history, women were treated as second class citizens under many laws. Even today, women overwhelmingly face discrimination and harassment in all walks of life, moreso than men.

Nobody wants to work 80 hour weeks. Women's rights is about not having your gender be a basis of disqualification for anything. If a woman wants to work the same miserable demanding job a man works, she should have every right to. Her gender should not be a disqualifier for a job.

Your argument for why wouldn't a mother want to stay at home and be with her kids could just as easily be applied to any father.

Who are you to say what women should prefer or not prefer?

I think this was a rhetorical question. Like, given the choice between raising your kids and staying at home, and going to a soul-sucking corporate cubicle job, WHY would ANYONE choose the later over the former, if both are a viable option for your family finances?

I'm guessing you haven't spent time at home looking after pre school kids. It is exhausting and relentless. Just going to the toilet alone for 5 mins seems like an unimaginable luxury. So an office environment, with opportunities for adult chit chat, and the relative prestige compared to child care, seems attractive to many of either gender who have experience of both.

Alternatively, perhaps this is the source of wage stagnation. We doubled the labor pool but did not necessarily double consumption.

That's because costs have gone up while wages have stayed the same; people need a double income now, while 30-40 years ago my parents could afford to own a house on a single income. Me, I was only able to buy one on a single income a year and a half or so ago, at an age where my dad had two kids with the third on its way with seven years less education and no degree. Mind you, different / cheaper area of the country, too.

>That's because costs have gone up while wages have stayed the same

I think you misunderstand. Wages may have stayed the same because there are twice as many people competing for jobs, compared to times when women were socially discouraged from working.

Labor gets cheaper, i.e. people are paid less, when there are more people competing for jobs. Supply and demand just like any other market.

I grew up in India so maybe the situation was different, but during summer vacation i would be practically out of my house from 7am to 9 pm ( apart from breakfast at 9am, lunch and then be at someone's home for a bit in afternoon) completely unsupervised. Lack of gameboys, mobile phones and playstations meant that even when we went to somebody else's place for a family dinner/lunch/get-together, all the kids would go outside and play on their own, again unsupervised.

As my childhood was in last soviet days and early post-soviet times all the parents were working. There weren't moms looking after kids after school. But there there were always elder neighbors that were already pensioners that were always observing yard in case of children were getting too wild. They knew all the kids of the building and were running out another unknown kids from other blocks (especially if they seemed to be aggressive). If some "own" child was misbehaving too much they were reporting to parents. So IMO this thing had also an effect of involving lone elders into community.

> Now women have to work just to be able to afford a house on two incomes which previously cost only one.

I frequently see people argue that you now have to have two incomes to have a normal middle-class lifestyle, but it doesn't square at all with my own experience. I come from a pretty conservative sub-culture, where it's much more common for a husband/father in a family to be the primary breadwinner and for the wife/mother not to work. Sure, a lot of our friends are highly-paid engineers and the like, which makes that easier. But others aren't - off the top of my head, I can name teachers (in a state known for terrible teacher pay), law enforcement officers, city maintenance workers, etc. All of these people are figuring out how to live a fairly normal middle-class lifestyle on one income.

How is that possible? We make other choices that support the goal of a single-income family. Most of us shop at Aldi, not Whole Foods. Nobody drives new cars (our nicer car is a 2005, for example). We do a lot of home maintenance ourselves. We share clothes, toys, and kids' supplies with each other, or get them on consignment. You get the idea. (Oh, and we also don't have to pay higher-tax-bracket taxes on the second income, high property taxes on big homes and new cars, or pay for daycare when we're at work.)

There's of course nothing wrong with women working or with nice cars or shopping at Whole Foods, and I respect the fact that different people choose to handle these issues differently. But don't be deceived - it's still possible for most middle-class Americans to live on one income, as long as they're willing to choose to make the sacrifices in other areas that facilitate that lifestyle.

(I won't claim to be able to speak to how this goes for poorer classes.)

Increased remote working or changing the core hours people work would both solve the issue of adults not being around during the day.

Massively increasing the supply of housing so a parent regardless of gender could stay at home and still afford a house would also fix the problem.

A universal basic income would also fix the issue of both parents needing to work to afford a house.

We could also consider parenting a job and pay parents a living wage to stay at home and raise their kids.

The fact you immediately suggested the only solution to this problem would be to limit women's right to work is a bit sad. There are plenty of good solutions that would work well and don't need to restrict or rollback the progress we've made towards equality. At the very least you could have suggested limiting families to one working parent rather than specifically women.

> Increased remote working or changing the core hours people work would both solve the issue of adults not being around during the day.

If you plan on spending you're remote working hours supervising children, your not really working. Working at night will not allow more time to supervise children during the day.

I'm not convinced the OP was suggesting that limiting women's rights was a solution, merely that increased female labor participation will result in less time spent with children.

> There are plenty of good solutions that would work well

I'm not sure there are many.

> progress we've made towards equality

We've made progress in some areas, and regressed in others.

This is an issue about the amount of available time. Focusing more time in work will divert time from other activities. There is no other way of looking at it.

edit:spelling

If you plan on spending you're remote working hours supervising children, your not really working. Working at night will not allow more time to supervise children during the day.

Remote working means you don't waste time commuting, you can be available during breaks because you're already at home, and you can step away from your keyboard and be there immediately in an emergency. All those things are huge benefits over office work if you have kids.

Changing core hours doesn't mean working nights. It means things like starting at 6am and finishing at 2pm, so you're available to look after your kids in after school hours, or starting at 10am so you have time to take your kids to kindergarten. Or, as you say, working at night so you can be there all day (if you're one of these lucky people who don't need much sleep.)

There are solutions to this problem.

> Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights.

We live in 2019 -- who says it's the women that need to stay at home? I'd happily swap with my wife and stay home while she was working, but I seriously doubt she'd let me. :D

Other than that, you're right. We need people working less (on average), and we need to start building actual communities instead of online social networks.

That is simply not true. Children do not need adult supervision 24/7, and from age 10 and up they are more than capable to be out and about for hours without parents checking in on them. Well, they are if they've been allowed some independence anyway.

During my summer vacation growing up we played for hours, completely unsupervised. There needs to be a culture of allowing kids to play without parents watching over.

> Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights.

You know you can also have men keeping an eye on children while their spouse (of any gender) work.

If both adults can have a job, price of living adjusts until both have to have a job.

Um, ok so why don't you suggest that dads stay home then...

I know most people are disagreeing with you but I mostly agree. I think it is a big cultural change. Most parents today won't even let their kid outside without them because they are worried about abduction or some other tragedy. You are missing a couple of things though. Houses used to all have porches and the retirees sat out there and could also keep an eye on people (kids or strangers).

The other issue is that most people don't even know their direct neighbors or spend any significant time together. That is definitely their choice but that is what is required to turn a group of houses into a neighborhood. This is much harder in the suburbs than in the cities where there are already known collecting spots like stores, parks, playgrounds and courts. In the suburbs, most people get home after dark from work and kids activities and then it is off to bed for the kids and Netflix for the parents. We all need to slow the hell down.

I think having a more disperse mix of generations would solve this. Not every family's kids need parents in the backyard, but some retirees could be there. Not necessarily to be actively engaging with the kids, but keeping an eye on them. Just to make sure they are safe.

Solution I have seen around me is more semi-structured groups. I.e. I am kinda sad we missed-out on sunday-school, but I will be trying to get my girl at least to some scouting org :)

The important thing seems to be a balance between the structured activity in the group (I have seen peers that had so many activities, but little connection with the kids they were around, because there is little time to interact in i.e. gymnastic class) and just messing around :)

> Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights.

Reducing required household market labor for basic living, perhaps. But, even to the extent that is true, just because in the past that was done by constraining women's choices doesn't mean that it can only be done with gendered constraints.

>without rolling back women's right

May I rephrase this: "without strengthening parental and co-parental rights" (this includes grandparents and the extended family).

> Yes it is, but you aren't going to solve it without rolling back women's rights.

Framing it as "rolling back" plays into the feminists' hands. Yes, your rolling back, but you're rolling back what's effectively a regression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com