When my parents were children, and even as recently as when I was a child, parents were content to allow their children to play unsupervised, knowing that they did not need to worry about their children getting into too much trouble (the operative words there being "too much"). Obviously, the parents cared for the safety of their children, and wished to know where and with whom their children were spending time, but they did not feel the need to hover over their children and know every minute detail of their children's lives, trusting them to keep themselves safe and make good decisions for themselves.
However, it seems that today is different, and that parents are excessively protective of their children, needing to know every detail of their lives and constantly checking their whereabouts and activities.
I dislike this practice, because it restricts the freedom of the children and does not allow them to be themselves. I certainly can concede that parental neglect is a horrible thing, but if parents are too protective of their children, those children shall become too reliant upon their parents and be unable to function as independent people. While I cannot imagine myself being a parent at any point in the near future, if I ever do become one, I promise to never be a "helicopter parent" and respect my children's privacy and independence.
What does everyone else say about this? Do you believe that parents today are too protective of their children? Why or why not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Some are, some aren't. Same as ever. It is easier to keep track of kids today via phones and what have you, though. There's a lot of competition out there, and many parents become obsessed with pushing their kids as hard as they can. But my friends with kids all seem fairly laid back. It's almost as if most people actually tread the middle ground between neglect and "helicopter-ism"
Personally, I both look forward to and dread the day my seven year old will let me sleep in past 6:30 on a weekend. Is there such a thing as "helicopter kids"?
Some definitely are... but it's certainly not all. In many ways it's a very strange time in parenting. You have some parents that will try to sit in on job interviews or try to blame schools for their child poor grades (I know of one parent that actually tried to bully a teacher into giving his kid a real grade on a plagiarized paper), and at the same time many of those same parents have no idea what their kids are doing on the internet...
If making your children play with a Tablet all day long, clapping at whatever time they insult you, ignoring when they fight with their siblings and letting them at the care of Nanny TV is being overprotective, then Yes.
That's a tough question to answer and just out of curiosity to those that have and will answer, how many of you have or have had a child?
I ask because for me, my views on raising children changed once I actually had one and I'm sure my views will continue to change as my son grows older and I have to deal with new situations.
Before it was easy for me to criticize parents as being lazy when they sat their kids down in front of the television or gave their child a tablet to play with. Now I can see why they would do that, sometimes you need to get things done around the house and you want your child to be distracted with something like playing a video game or watching the television and not getting into things they shouldn't. I'd much rather my son watch an episode of curious george than taking markers to a wall or trying to climb my television that I paid a lot of money for, while I wash the dishes or take out the trash.
Right now he's really young and at the grocery store for example, I can do things like make faces or tickle his feet and he's entertained, even though I look like an idiot to everyone around me - it keeps him from acting out while my wife gets the groceries. When he gets older that's not going to entertain him and so I'll probably let him play a game on a tablet so he's not acting out when he's bored at the grocery store.
As far as being protective, my wife says I'm like a mother hen with my son. For me, I love my son and I want to make sure he's safe and I worry about his safety. When he does something like climbing on the couch I worry that he's going to fall and hurt himself. I look around a room and I see potential danger. I drive myself crazy sometimes, I really do and I know I do.
But of course, there's another aspect and that I know I can't prevent him from doing everything. He's going to make mistakes and that's not a bad thing because he'll learn from them. Still, it's very hard as a parent because I don't want him to get hurt, so I try to keep this in mind.
Over all though I think the question is a bit broad. I'm not sure what is considered too protective, for myself - I try to limit the danger and mischief my son could get into as best as I can and let him make little mistakes, like for example he might swing a toy around too hard and bop himself on the head. I let him bop himself on the head because to him, I'm just stopping him from doing something he wants to do and he doesn't understand why, but when he bops himself on the head - it hurts and he learns not to do that and he's more cautious when he swings the toy around.
...my views on raising children changed once I actually had one and I'm sure my views will continue to change as my son grows older and I have to deal with new situations.
Same here, 2 kids myself.
We all like to think, I'm not gonna be one of those parents that does "X", but the truth is, you don't know until you're in the day-to-day of raising kids yourself that you have to make a call one way or another > sometimes in the interest of self-preservation! (if you've done babies, you know what I'm talking about).
And the thing is this;
Every child is different > you have to tailor your parenting style to each child.
In the case of a trouble-maker little ***** that destroys everything they touch, I can imagine a helicopter parent evolving.
Personally, I think some of the issues with the "helicopter parent", have to do with people in general having kids later in life, and less of them.
Because of this, the parents are likely to be a little more financially secure, and have more free time, so they are going to be more capable of being a helicopter. should they wish to be.
In the case of a trouble-maker little ***** that destroys everything they touch, I can imagine a helicopter parent evolving.
I think you have a different understanding of what a helicopter parent is than I do. The helicopter parent of my understanding isn't worried about their kid destroying other stuff. They are worried about other stuff hurting their precious baby. The parent hovers over the childs constantly trying to protect the child, to the point that if their child doesn't get a ribbon in the sportsball event, *no* child should get a ribbon, because it would hurt their child to be excluded. If their child didn't get invited to the birthday party, no children should be allowed to invite kids to birthday parties at school, so that their child doesn't get their feelings hurt. The behavior continues, and gets to a point where you have adults in college whose parents are calling the professor/university to make sure that everything is ok, and nothing that could possibly hurt their little angel's feelings (like getting a bad grade) are happening.
Why, yes, I do think helicopter parents are a problem. Kids need to be exposed to life. Maybe not all at once, but over time, yes. It is OK for my kid to go t a track meet and not get a first place ribbon, when he didn't win the race. Participation prizes are great for toddlers. Not so much for 7 or 8 year olds.
In the case of a trouble-maker little ***** that destroys everything they touch, I can imagine a helicopter parent evolving.
I think you have a different understanding of what a helicopter parent is than I do. The helicopter parent of my understanding isn't worried about their kid destroying other stuff. They are worried about other stuff hurting their precious baby. The parent hovers over the childs constantly trying to protect the child, to the point that if their child doesn't get a ribbon in the sportsball event, *no* child should get a ribbon, because it would hurt their child to be excluded. If their child didn't get invited to the birthday party, no children should be allowed to invite kids to birthday parties at school, so that their child doesn't get their feelings hurt. The behavior continues, and gets to a point where you have adults in college whose parents are calling the professor/university to make sure that everything is ok, and nothing that could possibly hurt their little angel's feelings (like getting a bad grade) are happening.
Why, yes, I do think helicopter parents are a problem. Kids need to be exposed to life. Maybe not all at once, but over time, yes. It is OK for my kid to go t a track meet and not get a first place ribbon, when he didn't win the race. Participation prizes are great for toddlers. Not so much for 7 or 8 year olds.
Exactly this...
While I dont have kids (yet) my wife was a high school English teacher briefly... it does not take very many stories of parents calling the school blaming the school for their child's punishment or trying to lie for their kid to know that some parents just plain go too far. 16-year-olds shouldn't have daddy calling to claim that little Johnny spent a lot of time working on that paper that came back as 80% Googled sentences.
I have two kids, one is on the autism spectrum. I never imagined how much work it is, how expensive it is, and how little help and useful advice is available.
I have two kids, one is on the autism spectrum. I never imagined how much work it is, how expensive it is, and how little help and useful advice is available.
I also have two kids, and a third on the way. And a special needs brother (significantly mentally handicapped). But, what are your thoughts on helicopter parents?
It can be hard at a glance to tell how much "helicoptering" a kid needs. It's easy to pass a drive-by judgement on a parent, but that judgement is probably best unspoken.
I don't even consider a parent to be "helicoptering" until that child is an adult. Up until then, that child is the parent's business. Now, if a parent is demanding their child's college exam scores and arguing for points from professors, they've gone too far.
It can be hard at a glance to tell how much "helicoptering" a kid needs. It's easy to pass a drive-by judgement on a parent, but that judgement is probably best unspoken.
I disagree. When a parent's overprotective actions impact on more than just their child it is time to speak up. A prime example: At my high school I was on the swim team and the water polo team. It was customary for my entire time there to have team gifts at the end of the season, and to also have a separate additional "state team" gift for all the athletes that made the cut for the state team. I only made staes once, but it was still pretty cool.
Now, my brother (five years younger than me) did the same sports. As with me, he made the state team once. Unfortunately for him, the one year he made it their was a helicopter parent who didn't want her son to be "left out" and demanded that everyone on the team get the gifts. The solution was that nobody got a state team gift that year. Not only did the helicopter parent ruin something for a bunch of other peoples kids, it had the opposite of the desired effect, because all the kids knew whose mom it was and the kid was ostracized because of it.
there is *absolutely* a time pre-college to speak out about a parent being too overprotective of their child, and that time is when the parents over protectiveness is negatively impacting my child.
I don't even consider a parent to be "helicoptering" until that child is an adult. Up until then, that child is the parent's business. Now, if a parent is demanding their child's college exam scores and arguing for points from professors, they've gone too far.
Unfortunately, the example of parents calling up a college to helicopter their kids isn't an exageration :(.
I think our definitions of "helicoptering" differ. That sounds like something else entirely is going on. I agree, once a parent is affecting children outside of their own, it needs to be either ignored or put a stop to.
My husband and I have six children with a seventh on the way. Our oldest is 15, and our youngest, aside from the one due in December is 4.
We are not helicopter parents. Helicopter parents irritate me, as I know how much trouble that eventually causes the child.
My husband and I have been doing this parenting thing for a long time now. Our children are turning out well so far. And we don't hover, ever.
My husband and I have six children with a seventh on the way. Our oldest is 15, and our youngest, aside from the one due in December is 4.
We are not helicopter parents. Helicopter parents irritate me, as I know how much trouble that eventually causes the child.
My husband and I have been doing this parenting thing for a long time now. Our children are turning out well so far. And we don't hover, ever.
In my experience, the more kids, the less helicoptering.
Also, I feel like will all be pushed towards helicoptering. We probably our parents were a bit stupid with their helicoptering (I can post whatever I want on Facebook, don't bother me) but to them, the idea is the same as it will be for us when our kids say "I've sent naked pics to so many guys, this guy won't post it online, gawd, dad, stop oppressing me!"
Depends on your definition of "overprotective." If I had a kid, they wouldn't be allowed to use the internet or have a cell phone. There are 7 year olds walking around with iPhones. It's utter insanity. When I was a teenager I remember how many creeps a la "To Catch a Predator" were online and hitting on me and I had the good sense to refuse and block. Who knows how many teenage kids didn't refuse and block and went out to have immoral relations with some pedo.
Nowadays, it's all about certain sites that allow the user to sext and bully teens online. And people don't realize that once it's online, it's on there for good.
If you mean helicopter parenting, it's a bad trend but not a new one.
I had a long post explaining the whos and whys, but I will just say a few sick people and a media that started to dwell on the negative/bad things in society scared the crap out of parents and changed how parents could raise their children.
I was a child before the likes of John Wayne Gacy. When we were kicked out of the house after breakfast and were expected home at sun down (actually when the street lights came on). I noticed how much more parents hovered after the shocking news stories that there were adults preying on children. Where I would walk or ride my bike miles to a friends house, or to play, go fishing, swimming. After the knowledge those people who prey on kids was out there, parents would not allow kids to do these things alone.
So yes, todays kids are raised different then yesteryear, but there is a quite real reason why. I doubt it will ever go back either.
Now are todays parent too over protective? Depends on your definition of over protective. I would say some lean towards it, but not all.
I had a long post explaining the whos and whys, but I will just say a few sick people and a media that started to dwell on the negative/bad things in society scared the crap out of parents and changed how parents could raise their children.
I was a child before the likes of John Wayne Gacy. When we were kicked out of the house after breakfast and were expected home at sun down (actually when the street lights came on). I noticed how much more parents hovered after the shocking news stories that there were adults preying on children. Where I would walk or ride my bike miles to a friends house, or to play, go fishing, swimming. After the knowledge those people who prey on kids was out there, parents would not allow kids to do these things alone.
So yes, todays kids are raised different then yesteryear, but there is a quite real reason why. I doubt it will ever go back either.
Now are todays parent too over protective? Depends on your definition of over protective. I would say some lean towards it, but not all.
I think it depends a lot on what each person think is "over" protective. But, I imagine that most people would agree that parents should not be going to job interviews with their children... or dealing with their children's college professors in most cases. When it comes to the dangers of a child being online or alone out of the house I can't imagine where the line of protection versus giving the kid space should be drawn because I think a lot of the will depend on the child and the area each person lives in.
I had a long post explaining the whos and whys, but I will just say a few sick people and a media that started to dwell on the negative/bad things in society scared the crap out of parents and changed how parents could raise their children.
I was a child before the likes of John Wayne Gacy. When we were kicked out of the house after breakfast and were expected home at sun down (actually when the street lights came on). I noticed how much more parents hovered after the shocking news stories that there were adults preying on children. Where I would walk or ride my bike miles to a friends house, or to play, go fishing, swimming. After the knowledge those people who prey on kids was out there, parents would not allow kids to do these things alone.
So yes, todays kids are raised different then yesteryear, but there is a quite real reason why. I doubt it will ever go back either.
Now are todays parent too over protective? Depends on your definition of over protective. I would say some lean towards it, but not all.
I think it depends a lot on what each person think is "over" protective. But, I imagine that most people would agree that parents should not be going to job interviews with their children... or dealing with their children's college professors in most cases. When it comes to the dangers of a child being online or alone out of the house I can't imagine where the line of protection versus giving the kid space should be drawn because I think a lot of the will depend on the child and the area each person lives in.
Some parents raise their children to be functioning members of society, others dont want to let their kids grow up.
Depends on your definition of "overprotective." If I had a kid, they wouldn't be allowed to use the internet or have a cell phone. There are 7 year olds walking around with iPhones. It's utter insanity. When I was a teenager I remember how many creeps a la "To Catch a Predator" were online and hitting on me and I had the good sense to refuse and block. Who knows how many teenage kids didn't refuse and block and went out to have immoral relations with some pedo.
Nowadays, it's all about certain sites that allow the user to sext and bully teens online. And people don't realize that once it's online, it's on there for good.
If you mean helicopter parenting, it's a bad trend but not a new one.
As a 15 year old, I would consider this overprotective. If my parents were like you, many things would be different. For starters, I would not be on this forum arguing with you because I wouldn't be allowed to use the Internet. My social life would be ruined, as it is based around texting, Skyping, Facebook, and Minecraft. I probably wouldn't have gotten into Magic, at most I would have been a casual. I wouldn't have had as much of an interest in history without the ability to research it independently from a young age, which would have stopped me from joining my school's scholastic bowl team. Without access to YouTube, I would not have started listening to more current rock bands. The lack of a phone would have also have stopped me from going to two concerts. Without the Internet, I would be a worse off person and a fringe scenario involving pedophiles and sexting along with a realistic concern about online bullying should not cause you to prevent your kids from accessing the wonders of the Internet.
Depends on your definition of "overprotective." If I had a kid, they wouldn't be allowed to use the internet or have a cell phone. There are 7 year olds walking around with iPhones. It's utter insanity. When I was a teenager I remember how many creeps a la "To Catch a Predator" were online and hitting on me and I had the good sense to refuse and block. Who knows how many teenage kids didn't refuse and block and went out to have immoral relations with some pedo.
Nowadays, it's all about certain sites that allow the user to sext and bully teens online. And people don't realize that once it's online, it's on there for good.
If you mean helicopter parenting, it's a bad trend but not a new one.
As a 15 year old, I would consider this overprotective. If my parents were like you, many things would be different. For starters, I would not be on this forum arguing with you because I wouldn't be allowed to use the Internet. My social life would be ruined, as it is based around texting, Skyping, Facebook, and Minecraft. I probably wouldn't have gotten into Magic, at most I would have been a casual. I wouldn't have had as much of an interest in history without the ability to research it independently from a young age, which would have stopped me from joining my school's scholastic bowl team. Without access to YouTube, I would not have started listening to more current rock bands. The lack of a phone would have also have stopped me from going to two concerts. Without the Internet, I would be a worse off person and a fringe scenario involving pedophiles and sexting along with a realistic concern about online bullying should not cause you to prevent your kids from accessing the wonders of the Internet.
There's a social life outside texting and the internet. It's called going out with friends. It's something I do and continue to do. I was able to research for UIL and History Fair without the internet, which is how I won them. Primary sources from books win out over blog posts. Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything.
The Internet is a vast wasteland of nothing good nowadays. It stifles social creativity and exacerbates social isolation. You need a real friend, not some digital image.
Fringe scenario? These pedos are everywhere, and your naivety isn't going to make them go away. And sexting for teens is a state sex crime felony where I live. Kids have gone to prison over sexting.
Your anecdotes aren't going to sway my opinion, especially since I'm pretty sure you conveniently left out less savory aspects of the internet you have probably accessed, either by accident or by choice. And concerts as an argument for teens using the internet, really? I'm able to find out about good punk rock concerts via word of mouth because they don't publish that information online.
The internet was best when DOS was around. Now every idiot can use it and have a voice. It's mobocracy in action with certain social media sites that rely on upvotes and opaque moderating. I remember when Usenet was around and you could have an actual friendly, political debate in the Clinton era. When I was on Myspace political forums it was subject to internet drama involving naked pictures and cheating, Tea Party Patriots and PUMA trolls infecting the place, and porn bombs.
Depends on your definition of "overprotective." If I had a kid, they wouldn't be allowed to use the internet or have a cell phone. There are 7 year olds walking around with iPhones. It's utter insanity. When I was a teenager I remember how many creeps a la "To Catch a Predator" were online and hitting on me and I had the good sense to refuse and block. Who knows how many teenage kids didn't refuse and block and went out to have immoral relations with some pedo.
Nowadays, it's all about certain sites that allow the user to sext and bully teens online. And people don't realize that once it's online, it's on there for good.
If you mean helicopter parenting, it's a bad trend but not a new one.
As a 15 year old, I would consider this overprotective. If my parents were like you, many things would be different. For starters, I would not be on this forum arguing with you because I wouldn't be allowed to use the Internet. My social life would be ruined, as it is based around texting, Skyping, Facebook, and Minecraft. I probably wouldn't have gotten into Magic, at most I would have been a casual. I wouldn't have had as much of an interest in history without the ability to research it independently from a young age, which would have stopped me from joining my school's scholastic bowl team. Without access to YouTube, I would not have started listening to more current rock bands. The lack of a phone would have also have stopped me from going to two concerts. Without the Internet, I would be a worse off person and a fringe scenario involving pedophiles and sexting along with a realistic concern about online bullying should not cause you to prevent your kids from accessing the wonders of the Internet.
There's a social life outside texting and the internet. It's called going out with friends. It's something I do and continue to do.
I do it too. However, there are several problems with that. It often costs money. It can't be done with friends who aren't there (I was able to still communicate and play online with one of my friends when she was in Paris for a month). And, most importantly, without having a phone, it is difficult to get friends together. My best friend left my school before I got a phone and he doesn't use Facebook. Because of this, I haven't talked to him in a year and a half and probably never will again. I went to a different high school than my other friends. If it wasn't for phones and the Internet, I wouldn't be able to talk to them anymore. That is especially true since one of them is in college. The only way that I can get together with my friends is through joint planning through texting. I play D&D with them and if we couldn't text, call, or message, even if we still somehow stayed in touch, we never could get our acts together from different schools. The only reason why I have a social life is my phone and my computer.
Also, you can't go over to a friend's house several miles away when you finish your homework an hour early. You can text them.
I was able to research for UIL and History Fair without the internet, which is how I won them. Primary sources from books win out over blog posts. Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything.
I've been doing this since I was 6. Infinite knowledge at the press of a button was what I wanted then. To this day it still helps me more than books when I just want a quick fact. Having to go to the library just because I was curious about the Battle of Manzikert or the voyages of Zheng He and get out a full book on it just to get some quick facts is not optimal.
The Internet is a vast wasteland of nothing good nowadays.
Dude, you are posting here using the Internet. Unless if you view this forum part of the wasteland, you are being hypocritical. Also, as I said before, most of my access to Magic knowledge comes from the Internet. I just watched the Pro Tour off of Twitch, built a Standard deck on MTG Vault, and then posted on this forum after reading some Daily MTG. Do you view that as a wasteland? What about the webcomics that I read everyday such as Erfworld, Sea3on, Darths and Droids, Sandra and Woo, and The Order of the Stick? How about the D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder handbooks that I can find online for free? Or being able to play Civilization V?
It stifles social creativity and exacerbates social isolation.
Not really. My social life is much wider now that I actually can talk to people.
You need a real friend, not some digital image.
Outside of this forum, I only really talk to people who I know on the Internet. As I said, that is how I stay in touch with friends.
Fringe scenario? These pedos are everywhere, and your naivety isn't going to make them go away.
And your paranoia isn't going to make them appear.
And sexting for teens is a state sex crime felony where I live. Kids have gone to prison over sexting.
I don't deny that. But the benefits of instant communication and all of the knowledge of mankind outweigh a few idiots making poor decisions.
Your anecdotes aren't going to sway my opinion, especially since I'm pretty sure you conveniently left out less savory aspects of the internet you have probably accessed, either by accident or by choice. And concerts as an argument for teens using the internet, really? I'm able to find out about good punk rock concerts via word of mouth because they don't publish that information online.
I just went to a Rise Against concert because I was browsing online and saw one. I wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the Internet. Then I texted a friend to ask her to go with me. I couldn't have done that without a phone. Also, I wouldn't have discovered Rise Against or gotten into punk rock at all if I hadn't discovered Three Days Grace off of Paramore and Fall Out Boy on Pandora, followed that to Breaking Benjamin, and clicked on a link on YouTube to a Rise Against video. So yes, I got into music because of my phone and the Internet.
The internet was best when DOS was around. Now every idiot can use it and have a voice. It's mobocracy in action with certain social media sites that rely on upvotes and opaque moderating. I remember when Usenet was around and you could have an actual friendly, political debate in the Clinton era. When I was on Myspace political forums it was subject to internet drama involving naked pictures and cheating, Tea Party Patriots and PUMA trolls infecting the place, and porn bombs.
You are posting this on a forum that has political debates, an upvote system, and moderators all while allowing anyone to participate. That is irony.
The nature of the this debate is cyclical (I don't have children, but my parents were hands off and non-helicopter. I'm the youngest of five) and I grew up during the advent of the Internet. I had access to the Internet very young (mid 90s) and was a legacy Apple user at that through my parents' work. They had an ISDN line which allowed me to be a bleeding edge cool kid playing early computer games and MMOs, but it was an activity I shared with my parents. I'm an outlier in that sense.
The nature of people/parenting/kids' access to the internet can definitely split off into another debate and probably should since its volatile. But modern parenting contending with the pressure and presence of social media has created more helicoptering maybe. Think of a cellphone as a leash for your average teen these days. I've spoken to some more savvy/creative parents who can just keep up with their kids via the find my iphone GPS locator. It makes me laugh but it's a sign of the times too.
However, it seems that today is different, and that parents are excessively protective of their children, needing to know every detail of their lives and constantly checking their whereabouts and activities.
I dislike this practice, because it restricts the freedom of the children and does not allow them to be themselves. I certainly can concede that parental neglect is a horrible thing, but if parents are too protective of their children, those children shall become too reliant upon their parents and be unable to function as independent people. While I cannot imagine myself being a parent at any point in the near future, if I ever do become one, I promise to never be a "helicopter parent" and respect my children's privacy and independence.
What does everyone else say about this? Do you believe that parents today are too protective of their children? Why or why not?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Personally, I both look forward to and dread the day my seven year old will let me sleep in past 6:30 on a weekend. Is there such a thing as "helicopter kids"?
I ask because for me, my views on raising children changed once I actually had one and I'm sure my views will continue to change as my son grows older and I have to deal with new situations.
Before it was easy for me to criticize parents as being lazy when they sat their kids down in front of the television or gave their child a tablet to play with. Now I can see why they would do that, sometimes you need to get things done around the house and you want your child to be distracted with something like playing a video game or watching the television and not getting into things they shouldn't. I'd much rather my son watch an episode of curious george than taking markers to a wall or trying to climb my television that I paid a lot of money for, while I wash the dishes or take out the trash.
Right now he's really young and at the grocery store for example, I can do things like make faces or tickle his feet and he's entertained, even though I look like an idiot to everyone around me - it keeps him from acting out while my wife gets the groceries. When he gets older that's not going to entertain him and so I'll probably let him play a game on a tablet so he's not acting out when he's bored at the grocery store.
As far as being protective, my wife says I'm like a mother hen with my son. For me, I love my son and I want to make sure he's safe and I worry about his safety. When he does something like climbing on the couch I worry that he's going to fall and hurt himself. I look around a room and I see potential danger. I drive myself crazy sometimes, I really do and I know I do.
But of course, there's another aspect and that I know I can't prevent him from doing everything. He's going to make mistakes and that's not a bad thing because he'll learn from them. Still, it's very hard as a parent because I don't want him to get hurt, so I try to keep this in mind.
Over all though I think the question is a bit broad. I'm not sure what is considered too protective, for myself - I try to limit the danger and mischief my son could get into as best as I can and let him make little mistakes, like for example he might swing a toy around too hard and bop himself on the head. I let him bop himself on the head because to him, I'm just stopping him from doing something he wants to do and he doesn't understand why, but when he bops himself on the head - it hurts and he learns not to do that and he's more cautious when he swings the toy around.
We all think this way before we have kids. But your future partner may not think this way.....
Same here, 2 kids myself.
We all like to think, I'm not gonna be one of those parents that does "X", but the truth is, you don't know until you're in the day-to-day of raising kids yourself that you have to make a call one way or another > sometimes in the interest of self-preservation! (if you've done babies, you know what I'm talking about).
And the thing is this;
Every child is different > you have to tailor your parenting style to each child.
In the case of a trouble-maker little ***** that destroys everything they touch, I can imagine a helicopter parent evolving.
Personally, I think some of the issues with the "helicopter parent", have to do with people in general having kids later in life, and less of them.
Because of this, the parents are likely to be a little more financially secure, and have more free time, so they are going to be more capable of being a helicopter. should they wish to be.
I think you have a different understanding of what a helicopter parent is than I do. The helicopter parent of my understanding isn't worried about their kid destroying other stuff. They are worried about other stuff hurting their precious baby. The parent hovers over the childs constantly trying to protect the child, to the point that if their child doesn't get a ribbon in the sportsball event, *no* child should get a ribbon, because it would hurt their child to be excluded. If their child didn't get invited to the birthday party, no children should be allowed to invite kids to birthday parties at school, so that their child doesn't get their feelings hurt. The behavior continues, and gets to a point where you have adults in college whose parents are calling the professor/university to make sure that everything is ok, and nothing that could possibly hurt their little angel's feelings (like getting a bad grade) are happening.
Why, yes, I do think helicopter parents are a problem. Kids need to be exposed to life. Maybe not all at once, but over time, yes. It is OK for my kid to go t a track meet and not get a first place ribbon, when he didn't win the race. Participation prizes are great for toddlers. Not so much for 7 or 8 year olds.
Exactly this...
While I dont have kids (yet) my wife was a high school English teacher briefly... it does not take very many stories of parents calling the school blaming the school for their child's punishment or trying to lie for their kid to know that some parents just plain go too far. 16-year-olds shouldn't have daddy calling to claim that little Johnny spent a lot of time working on that paper that came back as 80% Googled sentences.
I also have two kids, and a third on the way. And a special needs brother (significantly mentally handicapped). But, what are your thoughts on helicopter parents?
I don't even consider a parent to be "helicoptering" until that child is an adult. Up until then, that child is the parent's business. Now, if a parent is demanding their child's college exam scores and arguing for points from professors, they've gone too far.
I disagree. When a parent's overprotective actions impact on more than just their child it is time to speak up. A prime example: At my high school I was on the swim team and the water polo team. It was customary for my entire time there to have team gifts at the end of the season, and to also have a separate additional "state team" gift for all the athletes that made the cut for the state team. I only made staes once, but it was still pretty cool.
Now, my brother (five years younger than me) did the same sports. As with me, he made the state team once. Unfortunately for him, the one year he made it their was a helicopter parent who didn't want her son to be "left out" and demanded that everyone on the team get the gifts. The solution was that nobody got a state team gift that year. Not only did the helicopter parent ruin something for a bunch of other peoples kids, it had the opposite of the desired effect, because all the kids knew whose mom it was and the kid was ostracized because of it.
there is *absolutely* a time pre-college to speak out about a parent being too overprotective of their child, and that time is when the parents over protectiveness is negatively impacting my child.
Unfortunately, the example of parents calling up a college to helicopter their kids isn't an exageration :(.
We are not helicopter parents. Helicopter parents irritate me, as I know how much trouble that eventually causes the child.
My husband and I have been doing this parenting thing for a long time now. Our children are turning out well so far. And we don't hover, ever.
In my experience, the more kids, the less helicoptering.
Also, I feel like will all be pushed towards helicoptering. We probably our parents were a bit stupid with their helicoptering (I can post whatever I want on Facebook, don't bother me) but to them, the idea is the same as it will be for us when our kids say "I've sent naked pics to so many guys, this guy won't post it online, gawd, dad, stop oppressing me!"
Try not to helicopt.
Nowadays, it's all about certain sites that allow the user to sext and bully teens online. And people don't realize that once it's online, it's on there for good.
If you mean helicopter parenting, it's a bad trend but not a new one.
I was a child before the likes of John Wayne Gacy. When we were kicked out of the house after breakfast and were expected home at sun down (actually when the street lights came on). I noticed how much more parents hovered after the shocking news stories that there were adults preying on children. Where I would walk or ride my bike miles to a friends house, or to play, go fishing, swimming. After the knowledge those people who prey on kids was out there, parents would not allow kids to do these things alone.
So yes, todays kids are raised different then yesteryear, but there is a quite real reason why. I doubt it will ever go back either.
Now are todays parent too over protective? Depends on your definition of over protective. I would say some lean towards it, but not all.
I think it depends a lot on what each person think is "over" protective. But, I imagine that most people would agree that parents should not be going to job interviews with their children... or dealing with their children's college professors in most cases. When it comes to the dangers of a child being online or alone out of the house I can't imagine where the line of protection versus giving the kid space should be drawn because I think a lot of the will depend on the child and the area each person lives in.
Some parents raise their children to be functioning members of society, others dont want to let their kids grow up.
Why would a parent not want their child to become an adult?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
As a 15 year old, I would consider this overprotective. If my parents were like you, many things would be different. For starters, I would not be on this forum arguing with you because I wouldn't be allowed to use the Internet. My social life would be ruined, as it is based around texting, Skyping, Facebook, and Minecraft. I probably wouldn't have gotten into Magic, at most I would have been a casual. I wouldn't have had as much of an interest in history without the ability to research it independently from a young age, which would have stopped me from joining my school's scholastic bowl team. Without access to YouTube, I would not have started listening to more current rock bands. The lack of a phone would have also have stopped me from going to two concerts. Without the Internet, I would be a worse off person and a fringe scenario involving pedophiles and sexting along with a realistic concern about online bullying should not cause you to prevent your kids from accessing the wonders of the Internet.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Isnt that the eventual goal of having children? You cant keep them young forever.
There's a social life outside texting and the internet. It's called going out with friends. It's something I do and continue to do. I was able to research for UIL and History Fair without the internet, which is how I won them. Primary sources from books win out over blog posts. Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything.
The Internet is a vast wasteland of nothing good nowadays. It stifles social creativity and exacerbates social isolation. You need a real friend, not some digital image.
Fringe scenario? These pedos are everywhere, and your naivety isn't going to make them go away. And sexting for teens is a state sex crime felony where I live. Kids have gone to prison over sexting.
Your anecdotes aren't going to sway my opinion, especially since I'm pretty sure you conveniently left out less savory aspects of the internet you have probably accessed, either by accident or by choice. And concerts as an argument for teens using the internet, really? I'm able to find out about good punk rock concerts via word of mouth because they don't publish that information online.
The internet was best when DOS was around. Now every idiot can use it and have a voice. It's mobocracy in action with certain social media sites that rely on upvotes and opaque moderating. I remember when Usenet was around and you could have an actual friendly, political debate in the Clinton era. When I was on Myspace political forums it was subject to internet drama involving naked pictures and cheating, Tea Party Patriots and PUMA trolls infecting the place, and porn bombs.
I do it too. However, there are several problems with that. It often costs money. It can't be done with friends who aren't there (I was able to still communicate and play online with one of my friends when she was in Paris for a month). And, most importantly, without having a phone, it is difficult to get friends together. My best friend left my school before I got a phone and he doesn't use Facebook. Because of this, I haven't talked to him in a year and a half and probably never will again. I went to a different high school than my other friends. If it wasn't for phones and the Internet, I wouldn't be able to talk to them anymore. That is especially true since one of them is in college. The only way that I can get together with my friends is through joint planning through texting. I play D&D with them and if we couldn't text, call, or message, even if we still somehow stayed in touch, we never could get our acts together from different schools. The only reason why I have a social life is my phone and my computer.
Also, you can't go over to a friend's house several miles away when you finish your homework an hour early. You can text them.
I've been doing this since I was 6. Infinite knowledge at the press of a button was what I wanted then. To this day it still helps me more than books when I just want a quick fact. Having to go to the library just because I was curious about the Battle of Manzikert or the voyages of Zheng He and get out a full book on it just to get some quick facts is not optimal.
Dude, you are posting here using the Internet. Unless if you view this forum part of the wasteland, you are being hypocritical. Also, as I said before, most of my access to Magic knowledge comes from the Internet. I just watched the Pro Tour off of Twitch, built a Standard deck on MTG Vault, and then posted on this forum after reading some Daily MTG. Do you view that as a wasteland? What about the webcomics that I read everyday such as Erfworld, Sea3on, Darths and Droids, Sandra and Woo, and The Order of the Stick? How about the D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder handbooks that I can find online for free? Or being able to play Civilization V?
Not really. My social life is much wider now that I actually can talk to people.
Outside of this forum, I only really talk to people who I know on the Internet. As I said, that is how I stay in touch with friends.
And your paranoia isn't going to make them appear.
I don't deny that. But the benefits of instant communication and all of the knowledge of mankind outweigh a few idiots making poor decisions.
I just went to a Rise Against concert because I was browsing online and saw one. I wouldn't have if it hadn't been for the Internet. Then I texted a friend to ask her to go with me. I couldn't have done that without a phone. Also, I wouldn't have discovered Rise Against or gotten into punk rock at all if I hadn't discovered Three Days Grace off of Paramore and Fall Out Boy on Pandora, followed that to Breaking Benjamin, and clicked on a link on YouTube to a Rise Against video. So yes, I got into music because of my phone and the Internet.
You are posting this on a forum that has political debates, an upvote system, and moderators all while allowing anyone to participate. That is irony.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The nature of people/parenting/kids' access to the internet can definitely split off into another debate and probably should since its volatile. But modern parenting contending with the pressure and presence of social media has created more helicoptering maybe. Think of a cellphone as a leash for your average teen these days. I've spoken to some more savvy/creative parents who can just keep up with their kids via the find my iphone GPS locator. It makes me laugh but it's a sign of the times too.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.