Smother Love

　　Every morning,Leanne Brickland and he sister would bicycle to school with the same wordsringing in their ears:“watch out crossing the road.Don't speak to strangers”.“Mum would standat the top of the steps and call that out,”says Brickland,now a primary-school teachet andmother of four from Rotorua,New Zealand.Substitute boxers and thongs for undies(內(nèi)衣),andthe nagging fears that haunt parents haven't really changed.What has altered,dramatically,isthe confidence we once had in our children's ability to fling themselves at life without a grown-up holding their hands

　　Worry-ridden Parents and Stifled Kids

　　By today'sstandards,the childhood freedoms Brickland took for granted practically verge onparental neglect.Her mother worked,so she and her sister had a key to let themselves in afterschool and were expected todo their homework and put on the potatoes for dinner.At thefamily's beach house near Wellington,the two girls,from the age of five or six,would disappearfor hours to play in the lakes and sands.

　　A generation later,Brickland's children are growing up in a world more indulged yet moreaccustomed to peril.The techno-minded generation of PlayStation kids who can conquer entirearmies and rocket through spacecan't even be trusted to cross the street alone.“I worry aboutthe road.I worry about strangers.In some ways I think they're missing out,but I like to be ableto see them, to know where they are and what they'redoing.”

　　Call it smother love,indulged-kid syndrome,parental neurosis(神經(jīng)癥).Even though today'schildren have the universe at their fingertips thanks to the Internet,their physical boundariesare shrinking at a rapid pace.According to British social scientist Mayer Hillman,a child's playzone has contracted so radically that we're producing the human equivalent of henhousechickens-plump from lack of exercise and without the flexibility and initiative of freerange kidsof the past.The spirit of our times is no longer the resourceful adventurer Tom Sawyer butrather the worry-ridden dad and his stifled only child in Finding Nemo.

　　In short,child rearing has become an exercise in risk minimization,represented by stories suchas the father who refused to allow his daughter on a school picnic to the beach for fear shemight drown.While it's natural for a parent to want to protect their children from danger,youhave to wonder;Have we gone too far?

　　Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool

　　A study conducted by Paul Tranter,a lecturer in geography at the Australian Defence ForceAcademy in Canberra,showed that while Australian and New Zealand children had similarsmounts of unsupervised freedom,it was far less than German of English kids.For example,onlya third of ten-year-olds in Australia and New Zealand were allowed to visit places other thanschool alone,compared to 80 percent in Germany.

　　Girls were even more restricted than boys,with parents fearing assault or molestation(騷擾),while traffic dangers were seen as the greatest threat to boys.Bike ownership has doubledin a generation,but“independent mobility”---the ability to roam and explore unsupervised---has radically declined.In Auckland,for example,many primary schools have done away withbicycle racks because the streets are considered too unsafe.And in Christchurch,New Zealand'smost bike-friendly city,the number of pupils cycling to school has fallenfrom more than 90percent in the late 1970s to less than 20 percent.Safely strapped into the family 4x4,childrenare instead driven from home to the school gate,then off to ballet,soccer or swimming lessons--rarely straying from watchful adult eyes.

　　In the U.S.Journal of Physical Education,Recreation&Dance,New Jersey assistant principaland hockey coach Bobbie Schultz writes that playing in the street after school withneighbourhood kids--creating their own rules,making their own decisions and settling disputes--was where the real learning took place.“The street was one of the greatest sources of my lifeskills,”she says.“I don't see‘on-the-street play’anymore.I see adult-organized activities.Parentsdon't realize what an integral part of character development their children are missing.”

　　Armoured with bicycle helmets,car seats,“safe”playgrounds and sunscreen,children are gettingthe messageloud and clear that the world is full or peril--and that they're ill-equipped to handleit alone.Yet research consistently shows young people are much more capable than wethink,says professor Anne Smith,directorof New Zealand's Children's Issues Centre.“The thingthat many adults have difficulty with is that children can't learn to be grown-up if they'reexcluded and protected all the time.”

　　Educational psychologist Paul Prangley reckons it's about time the kid gloves came off.Hebelieves parenting has taken on a paranoid(患妄想狂的)edge that's creating a generation ofnaive,insecure youngsters whoare subconsciously being taught they're incapable of handingthings by themselves.“Flexibility and the ability to resist pressure and temptation are learnedskills,”Prangley explains.“If you wrap kids up in cotton wool and don't give them theopportunity to take risks,they're less equipped to make responsible decisions later in life.”

　　Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective

　　Sadly,high-profile cases of children being kidnapped and murdered--such as ten-year-old HollyWells and Jessica Chapman in the United Kingdom;five-year-old Chloe Hoson in Australia,whosebody was found just 200 metres from where she lived;and six-year-old Teresa Cormack in NewZealand,who was snatched off the street on her way to school--only serve to reinforceparents'fears.Teresa Cormack's death,for example,was one of the rare New Zealand cases ofrandom child kidnap.In Australia,the odds of someone under the age of 15 being murdered bya stranger have been estimated at one in four million.A child is at far greater risk from afamilymember or someone they know.

　　However,parental fear is contagious.In one British study,far more children feared an attack bya stranger than being hit by a car.“We are losing our sense of perspective,”write Jan Parkerand Jan Stimpson in their parenting book,Raising Happy Children.“Every parent has to negotiatetheir own route between equipping children with the skills they need to stay safe and notrestricting or terrifying them unnecessarily in the process.”

　　Dr.Claire Freeman,a planning expert at the University of Otago,points to the erosion ofcommunity responsibility as another casualty of that mutual distrust.Not so long ago,adultsknew all the local kids and werethe informal guardians of the neighbourhood.“Now,particularly ifyou are a man,you may hesitate to offer help to a lost child for fear your motives might bequestioned.”

　　More Space and More Attention to Kid's Needs

　　As a planner in the mid-1990s,Freeman became concerned about the loss of green space todevelopment and the erosion of informal places to play.In a study that looked at how childrenin the British city of Leeds spent their summer holidays,compared with their parents' childhoodexperiences,she found the freedom to explore had been severely contracted--in somecases,down to the front yard.Freeman says she cannot remember being inside the house as achild,or being alone.Growing up was about being part of a group.Now a mother offour,Freemanbelieves the “domestication of play”is robbing kids of their sense of belonging within a society.

　　Nevertheless,Freeman says children's needs are starting to get more emphasis.In theNetherlands,child-friendly “home zones”have been created where priority is given topedestrians,rather than cars.And ponds arebeing incorporated back into housing estates on theprinciple that children should learn to be safe aroundwater,rather than be surrounded by abarren landscape.After all ,as one of the smarter fosh says in Finding Nemo there's oneproblem with nothing ever will.

　　令人窒息的愛

　　每天早上，利安娜·布里克蘭德和她妹妹騎自行車去上學(xué)時耳邊總會回蕩著：“過馬路當(dāng)心!別跟陌生人說話!”這樣的話。“媽媽總是站在臺階頂上，叮囑著”，布里克蘭德說。她如今是一名小學(xué)老師，已是四個孩子的母親，住在新西蘭的羅托魯阿。時過境遷，但物事依然：父母對孩子換內(nèi)衣褲之類生活細節(jié)的嘮嘮叨叨、對孩子安全的擔(dān)心受怕、老不放心的心態(tài)并未改變。[1]發(fā)生巨大變化的，是我們對孩子曾經(jīng)有過的信心：相信他們沒有大人的扶持，也能經(jīng)受得住生活中的摸爬滾打。

　　父母過分擔(dān)心，孩子受壓制

　　按照今天的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，布里克蘭德認為兒童理所當(dāng)然應(yīng)該享有的童年自由實際上被父母忽視了。[2]她小的時候，母親要上班，便給了她和妹妹各一把鑰匙，放學(xué)后她們就自己進家門，自己做家庭作業(yè)，然后拿土豆當(dāng)晚餐。她們家的房子靠近海灘，在惠靈頓附近;兩個小女孩從五六歲開始，就常從家里跑出來，到礁湖和沙丘里去玩上幾個小時。

　　到了下一代，布里克蘭德的孩子們已是成長在一個生活越來越來越放縱但危險也越來越多的世界。如今一代的孩子都在游戲站長大，腦子里裝滿了各種各樣的技術(shù)，他們可在游戲機上橫掃整支軍隊，或乘火箭登上太空，但單獨過街卻無法讓人放心。“好多年我都是步行或騎車上學(xué)，但我的孩子們沒有，”布里克蘭德說。“我很擔(dān)心路上的情況，擔(dān)心陌生人。在某些方面我覺得他們正在錯過一些東西，但我還是想能看見他們，知道他們在哪兒、在做什么，這樣我才會放心一些。”

　　這叫令人窒息的愛、溺愛子女綜合癥、父母神經(jīng)質(zhì)。如今的孩子，盡管多虧了因特網(wǎng)，大千世界的知識都能夠唾手可得，但他們親身經(jīng)歷的世界卻在迅速萎縮。[3]根據(jù)英國社會科學(xué)家邁爾·希爾曼的說法：孩子的玩耍空間急劇收縮，人類自己也變得如同養(yǎng)雞場的小雞一般-----缺乏鍛煉，容易發(fā)胖，缺乏以前自由自在的孩子們所有的適應(yīng)能力和進取心。我們這個時代的精神，不再是湯姆·索亞那種足智多謀的冒險家，而是《海底總動員》中老是擔(dān)心受怕的爸爸和他那被壓制的獨生子。

　　簡而言之，撫養(yǎng)孩子已經(jīng)成為了一種風(fēng)險最小化的操練，很多事情都說明了這一點，比如一位父親不準(zhǔn)女兒參加學(xué)校的海灘野餐活動，因為擔(dān)心女兒可能會溺水。作為家長，想要保護孩子遠離危險是很自然的事情，但是你不禁要問：我們是不是管得太多了?

　　父母把孩子裹在棉絮中

　　位于堪培拉的澳大利亞國防軍學(xué)院地理講師保羅·特拉特的一項研究表明：澳大利亞和新西蘭的孩子無人監(jiān)督的自由活動量相近，但比起德國或英國的孩子要少得多。[4]譬如說，澳大利亞和新西蘭僅有1/3的10歲兒童被允許單獨去學(xué)校以外的地方玩，而在德國這一比率達到了80%。

　　與男孩相比，女孩受到的限制更多，父母擔(dān)心她們會受到攻擊或騷擾;[5]而對男孩來說，交通安全被視為最大的威脅。在新一代人中，擁有自行車的人數(shù)翻了一番，但“獨立活動能力”-----無人看管的行動或探險的能力-----已經(jīng)急劇下降。譬如，在奧克蘭，許多小學(xué)都規(guī)定自行車要拆除座后架，因為人們覺得街上太不安全。克賴斯特徹奇市是新西蘭最適合騎自行車的城市，但在那里，小學(xué)生騎車上學(xué)的比例也從20世紀70年代末期的90%多下降到了目前的不到20%。孩子們被安全地綁在4X4家用越野車內(nèi)，開車從家里送到校門口，然后送去跳芭蕾、踢足球或?qū)W游泳-----很少離開大人關(guān)注的視線內(nèi)。

　　[6]新澤西州一位小學(xué)副校長、曲棍球教練博比·舒爾茲在美國《體育、娛樂與舞蹈》雜志中寫道：放學(xué)后與小區(qū)里的孩子一起在街上玩-----他們自己創(chuàng)立規(guī)則，自己做決定和解決爭端-----這是真正可以學(xué)到本領(lǐng)的地方。“街道是我獲得生活技能最大的源泉之一。”她說，“[6]如今我再也看不到‘在街上玩耍’的場景了。我看到的只是一些成人組織的活動。父母親卻沒有意識到，他們孩子的個性發(fā)展中極其重要的一部分正在煙消云散。”

　　孩子們被自行車頭盔、車用專座、“安全”運動場和防曬遮光劑等精心保護著，這明顯地向他們傳遞了這樣的信息：這個世界充滿著危險-----而且他們涉世尚淺，無力獨自應(yīng)付。但研究卻一再表明，年輕人遠比我們所想象的能干得多。新西蘭兒童問題中心主任安妮·史密斯教授說：“許多成年人不能理解的是，如果孩子總被阻攔著或保護著，他們將永遠學(xué)不會長大。”

　　教育心理學(xué)家保羅·普朗格雷認為，該是把孩子的保護套拿掉的時候了。他認為：做父母的幾乎快成為幻想狂了，以至于制造了一代幼稚、不可靠的年輕人，他們潛意識里得到的教育是，自己沒有獨立處理事情的能力。“適應(yīng)能力以及抵擋壓力和誘惑的能力，是后天學(xué)會的技能，”普朗格雷解釋說，“如果你把孩子裹在棉絮當(dāng)中，不給他們冒險的機會，他們?nèi)蘸缶透锌赡苋狈ψ龀鲐撠?zé)任的決定的能力。”

　　父母應(yīng)該有正確的判斷力

　　[7]可悲的是，一例例觸目驚心的孩子被誘拐并謀殺的案件------例如英國的10女孩霍莉·韋爾斯和杰西卡·查普曼案;澳大利亞5歲女孩克洛伊·霍森，就在離她住的地方200米處發(fā)現(xiàn)了她的尸體;還有6歲的新西蘭女孩特莉莎·科馬克，在去學(xué)校的路上被人擄走------所起的作用，無非是加深了父母親心中的恐懼。譬如，特莉莎·科馬克的死亡是新西蘭罕見的隨意誘拐兒童的案件之一。在澳大利亞，15歲以下的青少年被陌生人謀殺的概率據(jù)估計是四百萬分之一。而孩子遭受來自家庭成員或熟人的危險的可能性要大得多。

　　不過，父母的恐懼頗具感染性。在英國的一項研究中，擔(dān)心被陌生人襲擊的孩子比擔(dān)心被汽車撞的要多得多。簡·帕克和簡·斯廷普森在她們的育兒書《讓孩子快樂無憂》中寫道：“我們正在喪失正確判斷和能力。教育孩子掌握確保安全的技能，與在此過程中對他們進行不必要的限制和帶給他們不必要的恐懼，這兩者之間，每個父母都必須對自己的套路細加惦量。”

　　[8]奧塔哥大學(xué)的規(guī)劃專家克萊爾·弗里曼博士指出公眾責(zé)任感的削弱是人們之間互不信任的又一犧牲品。就在不久以前，成年人能認識當(dāng)?shù)厮械男『ⅲ梢猿洚?dāng)小區(qū)內(nèi)孩子們的非正式監(jiān)護人。“如今，特別是如果你是一位男士，你在向一個迷路的孩子伸出援手時可能要猶豫一番，生怕人家會懷疑你的動機。”

　　給孩子更多的空間和關(guān)注

　　作為20世紀90年代中期的規(guī)劃專家，弗里曼開始關(guān)注因發(fā)展而造成的綠色地帶喪失、隨意玩耍的去處減少等問題。在一項關(guān)于英國利茲市兒童如何過暑假的研究中，她發(fā)現(xiàn)：與他們父母的童年經(jīng)歷相比，現(xiàn)在孩子探險的自由嚴重受到限制-----有時候，只許在自家的前院里玩。弗里曼說，她不記得自己小時曾在屋子里待著過，也沒有一個人獨自玩耍的情況。成長就是要成為群體的一分子。[9]如今已是四個孩子母親的弗里曼認為，“只許在家玩”的做法剝奪了孩子們成為社會一員的歸屬意識。

　　不過，弗里曼又說道：孩子們的需求已開始得到越來越多的重視了。[10]在荷蘭，人們劃出了適合孩子們待的“家居區(qū)”，這一區(qū)域?qū)π腥藘?yōu)先，對車輛進行限制;根據(jù)孩子們應(yīng)當(dāng)學(xué)會如何與水安全相處的原則，池塘被規(guī)劃進了居住的房產(chǎn)地塊內(nèi)，而不是讓其僅存于荒效野地。畢竟，就像《海底總動員》中一只聰明的魚所說的那樣，跟你的孩子說“永遠不會有事的”是很成問題的，因為如果你這么說的話，那他也就不能經(jīng)歷任何事情了。

　　1.According to Brickland,parents nowadays have changed their____________.

　　A)standards of the children's proper dressing

　　B)worry about the children's personal safety

　　C)ways to communicate with children

　　D)confidence in the children's ability

　　2.When Brickland and her sister were little,they kept the home keybecause_____________.

　　A)they wanted to be trusted

　　B)their mother had to work

　　C)their mother didn't live at home

　　D)they were very naughty and wild

　　3.Mayer Hillman indicates that children now have less and less_____________.

　　A)space for playing

　　B)contact with animals

　　C)concern about others

　　D)knowledge about nature

　　4.Paul Tranter finds that eighty percent of the children were allowed to visit placesother than school alone in_____________.

　　A)Australia

　　B)New Zealand

　　C)Germany

　　D)Britain

　　5.What is ranked by parents as the greatest threat to boys?

　　A)Gang crimes.

　　B)Online games.

　　C)Extreme sports.

　　D)Dangerous traffics.

　　6.Bobbie Schultz points out that real learning takes place in______________.

　　A)on-the-street play

　　B)adult-organized activities

　　C)student-centered teaching

　　D)home and nature

　　7.What accident had happened to a little girl called Chloe Hoson?

　　A)She was robbed on her way to school.

　　B)She was kidnapped and murdered.

　　C)She fell a victim to domestic violence.

　　D)She disappeared for no reason.

　　8.Claire Freeman thinks that lack of mutual trust results in__________________.

　　9.Freeman concludes that kids are robbed of their sense of belonging to the societyby___________________.

　　10.Netherlands has placed the rights of pedestrians before those of cars in such areascalled____________.

　　1.[D][定位]首段末句。

　　解析：題止中的changed與原文該句中的altered為同義詞，可見altered的賓語confidence為答案的關(guān)鍵間，在4個選項中，只有D與confidence有關(guān)，為本題答案。A中的dressing試圖將考生的注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到首段倒數(shù)第2句的boxers(四腳褲)和undies(內(nèi)衣)，雖然這兩個詞比較陌生，但看到該句末的haven't changed，就無須考慮太多，可以肯定A并非本題答案。其他兩個選項的內(nèi)容在原文并未提及。

　　2.[B][定位]根據(jù)題干中的Brickland, her sister及home key定位到第1個小標(biāo)題Worry-ridden Parents and Stifled Kids下首段第2句。

　　解析：原文該句中的...so...表明了與題干要求的同樣的因果關(guān)系，so前面提到的原因與B相同，因此本題應(yīng)選B。其他選項均來提及。

　　3.[A][定位]根據(jù)題干中的Mayer Hillman定位到笫1個小標(biāo)題Worry-ridde Parents and Stifled Kids下第3段第3句。

　　解析：該句中的contracted與less and less意思相近，與contracted前的play zone

　　同義的選項為本題答案，因此A為本題答案。要小心B。原文該句中提到的henhouse chickens可能會誤導(dǎo)考生選擇B.事宴上，henhouse chickens用于比喻受過分保護的小孩，與animals沒有關(guān)系。

　　4.[C][定位]根據(jù)題干中的allowed to visit places 和school alone定位到第2個小標(biāo)題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下首段末句。

　　解析：原文該段提到多個國家的名稱，只要按照題干中的eighty percent，再結(jié)合選項中的國家名稱。應(yīng)該很快可以確定本題答案為C。

　　5.[D][定位]根據(jù)the greatest threat to boys定位到第2個小標(biāo)題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下第2段首句。

　　解析：原文該句while引出的分句明確表明traffic dangers是對男孩最大的安全威脅，D是對traffic dangers的同義改寫，為本題答案。

　　6.[A][定位]根據(jù)題干中的Bobbie Schultz和rcal learning定位到第2個小標(biāo)題Parents Wrap Kids up in Cotton Wool下第3段首句和第3句。

　　解析：將首句中破折號前后的內(nèi)容結(jié)合起來可以知道playing in the street after school with neighbourhood kids就是真正學(xué)到本領(lǐng)的地方。在該段第3句Bobbie Schultz將此簡稱為on-the-street play，因此A為本題答案。

　　7.[B][定位]根據(jù)題干中的Chloe Hoson定位到第3個小標(biāo)題Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective下首段首句。

　　解析：該句笫2個分句中的body暗示Chloe Hoson被murdered(該句開頭提到的)，因此本題應(yīng)選B。本段提到的是kidnap和murder，其他選項提到的各種罪案在原文并未提及。

　　8.[the erosion of community responsibility]

　　[定位]根據(jù)題干中的Claire Freeman和mutual定位到第3個小標(biāo)題Parents Should Gain Proper Perspective下末段首句。

　　解析：空白處應(yīng)為名詞(詞組)。原文該句中的...as another casualty of...，表明mutual distrust導(dǎo)致the erosion of community responsibility，題目中的lack of mutual trust是對mutual distrust的同義改寫，由此可見，the erosion of community responsibility為本題答案。

　　9.[the“domestication of play”]

　　[定位]根據(jù)題干中的Freeman和kids are robbed of their sense定位到最后一個小標(biāo)題More Space and More Attention to Kids’Needs下首段末句。

　　解析：空白處應(yīng)為名詞(詞組)。對比原文與題目可見，兩個句子的語態(tài)相反：原文rob為主動語態(tài)，而題目中rob為被動語態(tài)，兩句的主語和賓語位置相反，所以原文rob的主語the“domestication of play”即為本題答案。

　　10.[child-friendly“home zones”]

　　[定位]根據(jù)題干中的The Netherlands和pedestrians定位到最后一個小標(biāo)題 More Space and More Attention to Kids' Needs下末段第2句。

　　解析：空白處應(yīng)為名詞(詞組)。題干與原文中where引出的定語從句內(nèi)容相同，兩句對比可見.題目中缺少了原句中的主語child-friendly“home zones”。