I absolutely disagree with Mike Lanza’s belief that kids need to be forced to play outside for their own development. Part of me feels that his notion that kids must be placed outside to develop their character is misogynistic and hypocritical to his good intentions because it is actually detrimental to those around him. Lanza touts that over protective moms are a hindrance to the “normal, healthy, boyish aggression.” This is very misogynistic, and even he concedes that “his focus is on boys.” However, he still insists his daughter participate in his neighborhood experiment. If the main benefit of this playground is to “[encourage] boys to take risks and play rough and tumble and get — or inflict — a scrape or two,” I do not see what his daughter …show more content…
Unlike what Lanza proposes, I feel that morals cannot simply emerge in children when they are placed in a open environment without guidance. Lanza cites his own childhood when claiming his playground gives lessons in morality, saying that when he played without adults “[the children’s] focus was not on winning and losing, as when adults are in charge…but simply on keeping the game going” and resolving disputes on their own as they came up. To me, however, at some point his parents must have taught him how to solve disputes, rather than to “inflict” those “scrapes” he mentioned in the prior quote. To prepare children for later in life, children must be supervised to make sure they learn about mutual respect, instead of becoming a bully. But then again, Lanza does feel that the word bully “pathogenizes” the behavior he wants to encourage. Lanza’s approach does not teach children anything particularly good and, more likely than not, fosters disrespectful and immature