Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Duly noted. Apparently, some parents manage to do it the way my mom did. But yeah, we'll see.
I wouldn't call it "neglect", and I wouldn't call it bad at all really. But I wouldn't call it a necessary action in order for a kid to enjoy a bit of independence and space. My son already plays in his room alone fairly often. And he has no trouble being around and getting along with other kids.
No offense.... but..your son is what? 2? Of course his need for independence is limited. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Actually, my mom was more suspicious of family members than she was of anyone else. For good reason too! Half of 'em were druggies. And yeah, you have to really know whoever you're leaving your kids with (and doing so will make some call you paranoid). And yeah, there's a higher risk involved in many things parents do with their children without thinking. But usually, there is a notable difference in the end results between doing it and not doing it. Not staying the night with family is quite different from staying the night with family. Here, there is no apparent difference between letting your kid play at the park unsupervised and letting your kid play at the park while supervised. Not necessarily. People can try and make their claims that not letting them play in public unattended is associated with some general characteristic or personality trait on the part of the parent, but it just isn't.
And as I have repeatedly stated, for some children and some families, there is a notable difference between playing supervised and playing unsupervised. Playing supervised may mean not playing as often (especially given how over scheduled many parents and children are these days). And for some children, it may mean not playing in the same way or getting the same benefits. There are too many variables to simply state that for all families supervised play is exactly the same as unsupervised.
And again, we do take risks with our children that have a much higher risk of harm. And many of those risks are not needed. If you put your child in a car, you risk them. Now, some risks are needed- school, the doctor, etc. But no child NEEDS to go to the zoo, the park, out to eat, etc. The child would probably grow up fine without these things.
No offense.... but..your son is what? 2? Of course his need for independence is limited. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I don't think so. In fact, I think some toddlers feel even more need for independence than some older children. And mine is already learning to try and figure things out for himself. I don't help him with anything I even suspect he can figure out with a little patience and determination. We also let him do things his way quite often, within reason.
The problem is, so many of you are equating learning independence (the ability to manage alone) with actually being alone. I understand that, with many children, a parent being around sort of invites the child to run up to the parent for help with the slightest challenge, whether it be social or otherwise. But what I've been trying to get across here is that this in and of itself means absolutely nothing. I remember some of my younger cousins being scolded for tattling over little things. Don't remember my mom doing it, but that's probably because I already knew not to.
That's just an example. And forgive me if I drift, but it's hard not to without being given a specific concern ("Independence", "freedom", "social skills"; it's all so vague) As of now, I see absolutely no harm in being there when my kid's at the park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
There are too many variables to simply state that for all families supervised play is exactly the same as unsupervised.
Hmm, rather there are so many variables at a parent's fingertips that supervised vs unsupervised play in public can be a factor of negligible weight. You've made it clear that you wouldn't have had some of the memories you have now if your mom had done it my mom's way. And you've made it clear that you see this loss as something necessarily harmful to who you are and how you are today (i.e. you would've been worse off).
What you haven't explained, is how? Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
And again, we do take risks with our children that have a much higher risk of harm. And many of those risks are not needed. If you put your child in a car, you risk them. Now, some risks are needed- school, the doctor, etc. But no child NEEDS to go to the zoo, the park, out to eat, etc. The child would probably grow up fine without these things.
Already addressed this. Not going to the zoo, to the park, or out to eat at all is different from getting to go to all these places. Going to these places with your parents and going without your parents are not in any sure way different. Not necessarily.
Sure it is. Kids will react and respond to situations differently without a parent present to watch them. Kids also may take greater or lesser risks without their parent watching them. Wait until your little one is in daycare or preschool and go sneak in one day to observe without him knowing you are there. You will see how much more confident,or less confident, he is in is actions- how he reacts and responds to people differently. It works because their little brains know they don't have their parent their to hold them back or bail them out so they must think of their own way to solve a problem, decide how high they want to swing before jumping off, how to react to the kid who hurt their feelings- They may not feel so bold or brazen without a parent there, or maybe quite the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I don't think so. In fact, I think some toddlers feel even more need for independence than some older children. And mine is already learning to try and figure things out for himself. I don't help him with anything I even suspect he can figure out with a little patience and determination. We also let him do things his way quite often, within reason.
The problem is, so many of you are equating learning independence (the ability to manage alone) with actually being alone. I understand that, with many children, a parent being around sort of invites the child to run up to the parent for help with the slightest challenge, whether it be social or otherwise. But what I've been trying to get across here is that this in and of itself means absolutely nothing. I remember some of my younger cousins being scolded for tattling over little things. Don't remember my mom doing it, but that's probably because I already knew not to.
That's just an example. And forgive me if I drift, but it's hard not to without being given a specific concern ("Independence", "freedom", "social skills"; it's all so vague) As of now, I see absolutely no harm in being there when my kid's at the park.
Hmm, rather there are so many variables at a parent's fingertips that supervised vs unsupervised play in public can be a factor of negligible weight. You've made it clear that you wouldn't have had some of the memories you have now if your mom had done it my mom's way. And you've made it clear that you see this loss as something necessarily harmful to who you are and how you are today (i.e. you would've been worse off).
What you haven't explained, is how? Why?
Already addressed this. Not going to the zoo, to the park, or out to eat at all is different from getting to go to all these places. Going to these places with your parents and going without your parents are not in any sure way different. Not necessarily.
Sure it is. Kids will react and respond to situations differently without a parent present to watch them. Kids also may take greater or lesser risks without their parent watching them. Wait until your little one is in daycare or preschool and go sneak in one day to observe without him knowing you are there. You will see how much more confident,or less confident, he is in is actions- how he reacts and responds to people differently. It works because their little brains know they don't have their parent their to hold them back or bail them out so they must think of their own way to solve a problem, decide how high they want to swing before jumping off, how to react to the kid who hurt their feelings- They may not feel so bold or brazen without a parent there, or maybe quite the opposite.
What if they know their parent isn't going to hold them back or bail them out even if they are there?
Some parents are tough (even to the point of being unresponsive or just plain mean) though watchful. This is how I was raised (minus the "mean" part). Like I said, kids in my family generally got in trouble for tattling. And I must've been raised from an early age to figure things out for myself and not run to my mom or anyone else for help unless there was something I literally could not do.
If you really think about it, there's a whole other side of this debate going untouched, and that's self-discipline. A kid who doesn't run to mommy or daddy because mommy and daddy aren't there isn't necessarily self-disciplined. A kid who refrains from running to mommy and daddy even when they are there is showing quite a lot of it!
Oh well. I guess we'll all just have to live and parent according to our values and the way we interpret everything discussed on this thread. My understanding is different from yours. No better, no worse. Let's have one more round of "Well it didn't hurt me any!"s and call it done for tonight.
Mine: When I was a kid, I was always being watched by some adult when I went to the park. They didn't interfere. They might as well not have been there, except that they knew I was at even less risk (than the already small risk) of being kidnapped or jumped. This "overprotective", "paranoid" sort of "living in fear" somehow produced a grown man who's independent, social, disciplined, and responsible.
Hmm, rather there are so many variables at a parent's fingertips that supervised vs unsupervised play in public can be a factor of negligible weight. You've made it clear that you wouldn't have had some of the memories you have now if your mom had done it my mom's way. And you've made it clear that you see this loss as something necessarily harmful to who you are and how you are today (i.e. you would've been worse off).
What you haven't explained, is how? Why?
I have explained it. Being unsupervised meant I was outside for eight or more hours a day. These were very active hours, full of running, climbing trees, playing games that developed hand/eye coordination, etc.
If my active play had been restricted to when my parents were available to supervise, I might have gone to the park a few hours a week. My physical health would have suffered. Instead I would have been inside watching TV, playing video games, or on the computer- because again, both of my parents worked and wouldn't have had the time to 'play with me'.
How many parents today do you think could supervise their child at a park or outside for long hours, let alone the majority of the day? Supervised active play in many families means less active play. And activity is healthy.
For me, as an introverted person, more time indoors would have meant more time exposed to the natural chaos of a small house and a large family. It would have raised my stress levels, and stress is associated with all manner of physical illnesses.
These are examples of real harm. An extroverted child might not have the same mental results...though the fact would still remain that in most families their physical activity would be reduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Already addressed this. Not going to the zoo, to the park, or out to eat at all is different from getting to go to all these places. Going to these places with your parents and going without your parents are not in any sure way different. Not necessarily.
Still, no one NEEDS these things at all. It isn't that we carefully measure the risk and decide it is worth it. It's that we don't consider these risks at all or compare them to the risks associated with unsupervised play. I'm trying to illustrate to you how big a role the media and perception play in our choices.
And for some children, being allowed only supervised outdoor play does mean they don't get to play at all on some days, or their play is restricted, as I've noted.
Also as a side note, if I had only been allowed to play outside when my parents were supervising, I would haven't have developed the friendships I did. If I had to wait for my parents to be available, I would have been restricted to playing only with kids who were already at the park. Or perhaps I could bring a friend or maybe two along, but I doubt my mother would have been willing to supervise a pack of ten or more on her own. If other parents were also supervising, I would only have played with my friends when their parents' schedule could be arranged to match with my parents'. So my social life would have been very, very different. I wouldn't have been able to simply walk out my front door and meet up with a dozen friends to have adventures with.
I do not know where your stats are coming from but this is false!
If anything crimes against children has gotten worse. As technology rises so does crime period.
Before it was more difficult to catch a pedophile or a child killer. Now? We have megan’s law and sex offenders reporting sites. I do not know about you but I have looked up where I reside on the better side of town and there are still a high number of pedo’s in the area and these are the ones that reported as were mandated too upon their release.
There are internet predators/pedos, have you ever seen dateline?
Allowing child predators easier access to our young impressionable highly naïve children!
Directed towards the OP?
I am not going to judge you but I am glad you posted this.
8 years old? At this age? Children still live in a fantasy world and the real world, they have no concrete reasoning, they see bad men on tv and we can warn them but one thing they do not understand is that danger sometimes shows up in sheeps clothing!
Okay you feel that allowing your 8 year old to hang at the park for one hour after all so long as there are children there, they are ok?
There have been multiple horror stories of young children being abducted from a public place in the presence of friends let alone strangers.
Somehow pedos have an MO and they can sniff a kid out, they profile too you know.
Let us not discuss accidents which happen all the time.
I know as a parent that your child can hurt themselves in your presence however at least YOU are there and can take action.
8 is way too young. We live in different times now. So seriously? You want to take your child to the park for an hour and yet want to give them independence? Drop them off for one hour and park close by, sheesh, read a book on your kindle, surf the net on your phone , read the paper, catch up on work..
I useto drive my son to the skate park when he was 12 and I would park there and read or catch up on work, what does it cost you? And you do not know how many times he stated “Mom you are way too protective” and how many times he came to the car and asked “Mom I need money to get a water, mom can you get me and my friend something to eat we are hungry” lol.
I became the cool mom who bought pizzas for the gang.
And at the same time I was able to scope out the older kids who frequented the skate park that would take a break and go to their cars and all of a sudden I would smell “dead skunk” yup pot smokers. Call me whatever you want but my main job? Is not to worry about what you or others think of me! Why? Because I am my son’s mom first, I am legally responsible for him until he is 18, I HAVE 18 years to give him as much knowledge as I can and steer him on the right path and to make sure he makes it to 18. AND HOPEFULLY some of my teachings will rub off.
I do not know where your stats are coming from but this is false!
Could you quote something on that page that states "Crime has gotten worse" or "Crime against children hasn't dropped", etc.? Thank you.
JJCat, I think you are overdramatizing the difference between, once more. Even concerning your own life, I don't believe you can say with certainty that you wouldn't have become as healthy or socially wealthy as you are today. I didn't get to play in the park every day (or even every other day) for long hours at a time, and I'm every bit as healthy as 90% of my peers, if not more. I'm physically active, too, particularly when compared to most of the people I see my age. I also have plenty of good friends in spite of them being different friends from what I might have met and bonded with if I had been at the park more often. That's because I still played outside in general quite often (around my house, a friend's house, a relative's house; all supervised) and still got to go to the park when my mom found the time - which I agree with you, isn't always possible. And I made friends at school, at church, in my neighborhood, etc.
I do not wish to take away from you that you see your life as better than what it could have been, nor what you attribute it to. But it's simply a theory of yours that this difference is one of benefit and harm.
Vic, why do you insist that people prove to you that their having radically different childhoods would have been harmful? Of course it's "simply a theory." None of us can know or prove otherwise, any more than you can prove that your being less sheltered as a child would not have made you a more independent person and less fearful parent.
You do not accept what some people regard as risks and harm ... I think we get it.
Vic, why do you insist that people prove to you that their having radically different childhoods would have been harmful? Of course it's "simply a theory." None of us can know or prove otherwise, any more than you can prove that your being less sheltered as a child would not have made you a more independent person and less fearful parent.
You do not accept what some people regard as risks and harm ... I think we get it.
I'm not insisting that it's proven. But it seemed to me that even what I put in bold, JJCat was not agreeing to. Maybe you should have directed that at her?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
