the same element who would gladly prey on her son were he to get into their car or van is riding the SUBWAY, ready to make a move on some vulnerable child. at the risk of being crude, she is offering her son up as boymeat to one of them...by their own admission, these people look for unattended kids.

i don't like the subtext in this story.....

Millions of kids walk home from school everyday. No difference in taking a subway and is safer as a larger number of adults are around this kid.

"Fear Destroys" as Jon Anderson once so wisely penned.

With all of that , I want you all to know that I now have a 9 year old son. He, like myself, is small for his age BUT he is a very intelligent self aware young person (Lenore commented in her article that her son is 10 going on 40 and so is my son). If I still lived in NYC I would let him at least ride the buses by himself. And explore his neighborhood alone (but preferably with friends.. it's much more fun that way). Thanks to the State of Connecticut, I am not allowed by law to leave him alone unattended until he is at least 12 years old. And by law, he is supposed to still be in a child safety seat in our car (because he is still not 80 pounds). I can understand that we all want our kids to be safe, but things are getting way out of control. What ever happened to just hanging out with your friends after school? We're not letting our kids have the experiences they will need to become responsible adults. We now have college kids who email their school papers home to be checked over by their parents. I've also heard of many young adults who bring their PARENTS on jobs interviews! Enough is enough people. It's time to let our kids grow up as we did. And if the start is to let our 9 or 10 year olds ride the subway for 5 stops or so, let it be. I only wish my son could have that opportunity too.

For they are far better informed about paedophiles and other crazies than we were as kids.

This also applies to the population in general, we are all far more savvy about kiddie fiddlers and far more likely to intervene in a situation that we feel is suspect or even just a little odd.

There will always be paedos, there'll always be abductions,molestations and killings.

They will also always be incredibly rare.

So should we raise generations of kids to fear everything and everyone?

Riding the NYC subway in daytime is pretty much as safe as you can get, coz even the gang bangers and carreer criminals will look out for a little kid.

It's little kids kicking the tar out of other little kids that is far more likely.

You have to learn how to survive on mass transit in
NYC. Them's the rules and if you don't, you're at a
serious disadvantage later in life.

We know a lot about what's going on out there, and it's better to protect kids than not to.

(The story is hardly newsworthy, but it has stirred up a few comments)

I fully support Ms Skenazy's decision, however were it my own child (I confess here that I have no children and am completely aware that if I did, I may assess the situation differently) I would probably have suggested my child took a friend (OKd by said friends parent, of course).

In the past (in my 70's - 80's childhood and adolescence for instance) this kind of independence was often possible and allowable, even with parents who might be deemed 'overprotective', because of the nature of kids to 'gang' together.

Admittedly getting away from the point a little, this 'safety in numbers' allowed me to explore the world and negotiate a microcosm of society with minimal risk. There was always someone else with you to give a different opinion on how best to respond to trouble, or to run for assistance if someone got hurt (no-one ever had their life ruined by a childhood broken arm - one of the most serious incidents I can remember).

My pal and I WERE confronted on a beach by an old paedo at the age of 11 at about 5pm. He offered us money to touch 'it' but shrank away into the encroaching dusk as we howled with laughter and shouted his suggestion into the twilight, drawing the attention of other adults in the area.

He was a silly old sausage, and we were confident, both that WE were smarter and HE was ridiculous. We were never frightened for a second, and I still believe, were never in danger.

Sorry for such a long post - but as well as wanting to moot my support for the active independance of children, I also wanted to suggest that parents who do want to encourage this, need to band together in their streets, apartment buildings and neighbourhoods and encourage their kids to know and explore with each other.

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to say that today, 9 year olds shouldn't be allowed to do so. Are 9 year olds of lower intelligence today than they were in the past? Ludicrous.

I think the big difference is that folks are hyper aware of the potential dangers around, and tend to overreact a bit with kids these days.

But I think that by 11 or 12, most kids would be ready. My older son was barely 11 when he started taking the public bus on his own (we live in a small city). He was totally ready and we did talk about 'what to do if' kinds of things. But still, the other mothers here are shocked when I tell them he rides the bus on his own. Rampant irrational fear. It's a shame, really.

Are you a fool?

In my grandmother's farm neighborhood not one of the kids I played with is still alive. Army accident, hunting accidents, killed by father of girlfriend, drunk driving driver, drunk driving passenger, drunk driving pedestrian, fell off all terrain vehicle, cocaine overdose. Everyone of my generation on her "block" of farms was dead before 30. Every one.

I'm glad that all your friends lived, but to presume this is true of all kids everywhere is asinine in the extreme and insulting to the parents who grieve their lost children.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/why-i-let-my-9-year-old-ride-subway-al one