I wonder if what is defined as "support" is actually, meddling, undermining, and pressurzing children into fulfilling the parents needs.

In other words, even taking kids to school in a car instead them walking (or at least on the bike, but their own feet still involved, therefore they are themselves 100% in control in going to school) is the support that is not the in the list of "support" but will be in the long run. I should mention, I do recognize the time constraints of current society.

Support was defined by the wealthy parent providing financial support, whether through a stipend, gifts, or whatever. It turned out that, despite the best of intentions, such support almost inevitably wound up with destructive emotional dynamics.

Whereas others were perhaps struggling with everything so the parents gave much more support.

Everyday example: the parents of disabled people dedicate almost everything they've got to help their children, and often end up poor and with a poor quality of life themselves as a result.

See the list of "self made" billionaires who started with a small loan of a couple 100 mil from their parents for examples.

You can get the book for $2.74:

https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Amer...

Unless there is some other reason you don't want to buy it?

Here you go.

Poor black and brown women are disproportionately targeted by child welfare authorities starting literally from birth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372952/ This makes it particularly important that we actually change the laws around what constitutes neglect or endangerment, not just create a culture shift.

We might agree they're focused on a symptom, not a disease, but conservative policy objectives are definitely causing disparities that now even poor white people are finally feeling.

Conservatives shut down public pools in reaction to integration and then proceeded to shut down socialism.

hope someone finds the happy medium of allowing growth without unnecessary stress

What I've read of history shows it to have been full of wars with things like genocide and mass rape. We didn't even have a name for genocide until after WW 2 - it was just a standard thing that happened regularly.

And pillaging was just taken for granted as a standard solution to the problem of supplying an army in the field. It was much easier to take whatever the local peasants had and then move on than to have a good supply chain. The fact that the peasants often starved as a result was just one of the costs of war. Better them than us, and we have the weapons.

However, I have a lot of friends with children and some of their takes are completely irrational to me.

“Let the kids WALK three blocks to school? Not anymore, things aren’t like what we grew up with. It’s scary out there!”

Exactly. Violent crime, etc has been on a general and significant downward trend since we were kids (80s and 90s). It’s not what we grew up with - it’s significantly safer. The media drives a tremendous amount of anxiety and it’s extremely detrimental to parents, kids, and society overall.

It used to be “sex sells” (still does) but more and more it’s “fear sells”.

One truth in this regard: people will straight up call the cops, or worse, CPS, on unattended children. In their perception that things are scary, people manifest their fear and become villains with "good intentions."

And, to the hilarious dead response to my first comment, I'm just gonna repeat this back to you: "You're one of billions of ultimately meaningless voices."

And there will never be any meaningful consequences leveled against those people, empowering bad actors far beyond any meaningful social sanction they could ever have generated by themselves.

Making sure concern trolls and the hysterical can't fuck up a working community is something poorer societies (SE Asia, Continental Europe) inherently do better than richer ones (UK, US), mainly because the former simply can't afford to indulge it.