An interesting theory that I hadn't seen before
What Really Scares Helicopter Parents
It does ring true for me. Letting my DD drop out of the gifted program to go to the middle school she wanted to attend was way scarier than letting her ride city buses by herself, for example.

Absolutely.

This is, on some level, a good argument for some acceleration, actually. The reason is that a certain degree of intervention beyond that expected for older peers is more acceptable.

That is, nobody expected my 12yo to be driving herself to auditions, board meetings, etc. the way that they would have had she been 18 instead.

The side benefit was that her executive function was still permitted to be twelve and not 17 or 18.

My parents also lacked the credentials, and lacking them-- failed to understand some of what leads to high level credentialing in the first place. So when I was "invited" to join honor societies, etc. my parents just looked at the immediate costs and benefits, without really understanding how important those things were in terms of gatekeeping-- some of it informal, even, but that stuff is like being members of the right "club" when it comes time to network in college and after.

We didn't make those mistakes. We knew that leadership positions, honor society memberships, etc. are the things that make a resume look "right" for the kinds of opportunities that lead to high level credentialing.

As a child, DD didn't have the perspective to understand the ramifications of choosing to spend her free time on video gaming, versus community service. Now, we didn't deprive her of things that she truly wanted to do-- but we did offer advice regarding equally-desirable activities, when it was clear to us that one of them had a better long-term benefit.

I consider that an extension of things like;

"Sure, candy tastes better than Brussels sprouts and kale-- but I'm the parent, and I know that long-term, one of these is a better choice than the other. No matter how bright you are, you're still a child. Lacking life experience and full brain development, you're a hedonist who is going to choose the most pleasurable thing in the here-and-now rather than the most beneficial thing to yourself long-term. That's why you have me, and why I get veto power over a lot of ideas that seem really great to you. You're seven."

I'm a bit helicoptery. But I *think* I'm focusing on the areas that actually need my attention - I have to say I notice a lot of behaviors by other parents around me that really drive me nuts.
Like drying and dressing kids after their swimming lessons, kids as old as 7 who have just swum multiple lengths of the pool with 4 different strokes so are obviously capable of dressing themselves but stand there like big lumpy puppets getting their arms and legs stuffed into their clothes.
And like collecting their kids schoolbags, drink bottles, shoes for them after school, and carrying them for them.
It's obviously just impatience because we're all too busy to stand around waiting for kids but I'd rather put in a few minutes now than be valeting my child forever because they don't know how to do anything.
I try quite hard to give my DD8 her own appropriate life choices, like clothes, haircuts, room decor, extracurricular activities, and I think she does quite well. At 6 she decided to quit ballet and take up Girl Guides, which I was hesitant about but it turned out to be a great choice for her. She's currently eschewing French lessons in favor of indoor rock-climbing, which again I'm uncomfortable with but am trying not to be!
The important decisions we'd certainly discuss with her but we'd probably make the final choice. Perhaps she's more sensible than me but all I can think of is that I made my choice of high school based on which school uniform I liked better *eyeroll*

Add to that the shrinking-middle-class problem and widespread economic uncertainty, and suddenly it looks like rational behavior.

Which is, of course, framed in the press largely as a pathology of women/mothers...

It strikes me as a bit ironic, given that being able to think on one's own, be creative in generating income and find internal motivation is likely to be increasingly important when the world you're going to be an adult in will likely be very different than the world today.

That said, the article makes some good points. I rather suspect, though, that the kids who find the most lasting future success are not going to be the ones whose parents force them through the most largely meaningless school and activity hoops. Just my theory.

Exactly, DeeDee. It really resonated for me, when I thought about what kind of stuff I was prepared to let DD try and what kind of stuff I wasn't.

Well, I think we're already seeing some the results of those sheltered upbringings, in the form of college student demands/desires for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and out-of-proportion reaction to Mariachi band Halloween costumes. Honestly, kids who've been raised by parents overzealously protect them from scary fairy tales and shield them from ideas that might make them feel bad aren't going to suddenly turn 18 and be able to handle the very large diversity of opinions they encounter at any random college. Why would they if they've been shielded their whole lives and made to believe that all strangers are dangerous and probably out to hurt them?

I know some kids who were really pushed hard through hoops-- they were my HS classmates. Lots of them are neurologists etc. now. They seem happy with the deal they have.

I don't think there is an easy answer here, but I am pretty sure that pointing fingers and blaming parents isn't a workable solution for society's ills.

Perhaps it works for some... or those for whom it works are those who are well suited for that sort of upbringing (high IQ, good internal motivation, enjoyment of reaching those kinds of goals). I didn't have anything approaching pushing and have been successful in part because I was allowed to follow my own development path. Anecdote of one. :-)

It is complicated. Some of it is society's ills -- and you are right that blaming parents, and especially, as you pointed out earlier, making it a mommy blame thing, isn't fixing it (although it does sell). But as parents, sometimes we also need to be the ones stepping back and saying to society: is this really what's needed? Rather than mindlessly buying into the proverbial hamster wheel mentality that says a top college is the only route, for everyone.

I'm fascinated by what I'm seeing with some friends who are homeschooling with a great deal of child-directed learning or sending their children to alternative types of schools. The children really are turning out to be amazing leaders who seem very balanced.

Honestly - I have long since given up the idea that I could force/encourage/cajole my kids into doing anything they don't want to do. Exceptions being swimming lessons (because - safety) and music lessons - because it's a good idea and they have some talent there. Even with music I don't push the practicing - they do what they do, and still seem to be learning and getting something out of it.

Other than that - it's not worth the battle - a big waste of time, money and good will all around to try to push them into a sport or activity they've decided they don't like.

I have to say - I do help DS7 with changing after swim lessons. He has DCD and really would have a hard time doing it himself - especially when standing there shivering. Ditto with collecting his things from school at the end of the day. I'm sure he will eventually develop these skills - but it will take him longer than other kids.

I used to have the rotors whirring ready to scramble at a moment's notice before my DD was skipped and what some call helicoptering I call advocacy.

Post skip a lot of my DD's issues throttled down a few notches and now she is in middle school we are encouraging her to self advocate.

As for coddling, sensitivity training in my house means teaching how not to be overly sensitive and grow thicker skin LOL

But do you notice how columnists who write about these problems cite one or two examples and assume it's happening all over? I don't think it is; I certainly don't see much of that where I am.

There is certainly a conversation happening about sexual assault and one about the racist histories of campuses in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement; but these are not the only or the main thing going on in most institutions of higher ed.

I think there's a lot of faulty/overzealous journalism about higher ed...

I wish the "safety" thing would work - I felt the same way until I had (my) kids. We made pretty much no progress on swimming lessons until DD11 decided that she wanted to do it. Then she got herself to swim class after school, and progressed rapidly through levels, and is now a pretty competent swimmer. DS7 still won't put his ears or face under water, no matter what, so I just keep paying for level 1 classes over and over again. I think we're going to take a year or two off and try with him again when he's more interested.

Well, there is that. DS7 also refused to put his head under water - until one day he just decided he was going to learn to do this - and spent a whole 30 minute lesson doing only this. On his own. Without anyone encouraging it.

I've no idea why he decided that was the moment, except that maybe he listened to his friend who a month or so earlier had told him putting your head under water was 'easy'. so...

Don't think there was anything we could do to speed up the process - other than keep taking him to the pool...

Isn't it interesting how easy it is to have principles before children. :-)


There may be some use in finding an "adapted swim" program. These are generally aimed at kids with a variety of disabilities-- which for swimming purposes can include "terrified to be there."

Our adapted swim teachers did a lovely job convincing one of my kids to not be terrified of water on his head. They started with *DS* sprinkling *her* with a watering can, and went from there. It was very nice.

OTOH, you are the parent, and if this feels like a bad investment to you at this time, you probably aren't wrong...

You are so right.

I may be jaded because of the adapted program we found for DD when she was little. Kids were fitted with life jackets with lots of flotation, so they couldn't sink if they tried, and then the floats were gradually removed as they progressed. They were allowed to dog paddle during this stage, and they didn't switch to "normal" swimming skills until the kids could comfortably get themselves to the edge of the pool on their own when they needed to. DD completely stalled out, and refused to relinquish even one float, and they never even got to thinking about putting her face in the water - but we were spending an exorbitant amount every week for her to refuse. At least the lessons DS is in now are cheap (and I still think we're going to give it a break for a while).

But back to the topic of the thread....

A recent poll found that 63% of 800 surveyed nationwide college students favor the use of trigger warnings. This finding implies that the problem is widespread.

And honestly, there are too many reports for me to think that the safe-space and speech restriction stories are isolated incidents. Brown, Yale, Amherst, Claremont-McKenna, the Uni. of Louisville, Colorado College, Rutgers, Brandeis...the list goes on. For an example, look at this list of disinvited speakers since the year 2000, and note how it's grown since 2009.

I understand that we can't blame parents for everything that their kids do, but that doesn't mean that helicopter parenting doesn't do damage. In my opinion, one way it can do damage is by creating thin-skinned students who shout down or disinvite speakers like Ayaan Ali Hirsi or Geraldo Rivera because they disagree with them.

I also understand that individual parents aren't acting in vacuum, and that our society's overly risk-averse posturing also creates thin-skinned young adults.

A striking example of both the parents and the society doing damage together is that many elementary school kids aren't allowed to walk home from school alone or with friends these days, because so many people are afraid they'll be kidnapped or abused (yet crime statistics show that the US is a much safer place than it was when Gen Xers like me were running around town on our own as kids). The same is true for people not letting their kids play outside unsupervised, and people calling the police because they see kids walking alone. All of these things send kids a message, which is that the world is too dangerous for them (I met a 3-year-old once who told me that if she went into the hallway of the mall alone, someone would kidnap her and kill her). Given the circumstances of their upbringings, it's hardly surprising that a lot of newly-minted adults fear the world and want to run from people or ideas that aren't like them. Some of them must be both terrified and lacking in skills for coping.

Over the summer, DD was actually escorted home by a police officer. She was 9 at the time. DD claims that her friend, who has a cell phone, accidentally butt-dialed 911. Since his English is very weak, he couldn't answer the questions of the dispatcher, so DD took the phone. The dispatcher demanded to know her name and age and exact location (her exact location was the sidewalk about 2 houses down). I had told DD to not give info like that to strangers, esp. since about three days earlier we got a police announcement that there was a perp in the neighborhood who was approaching kids claiming to be the "candy man". DD didn't know she was speaking to the "authorities", so she freaked out and made up a fake name and told them she's 13. Her fake name was something like "Gloria". She hung up the phone and then the police called back on the cell phone and demanded the correct information. DD told them the call was a mistake and they weren't in any trouble. But the police showed up and picked the kids up in the squad car. Now there is a police report in the system about this, because the police think that DD was deliberately cranking 911. They didn't believe her story that it was an accidental call. The police claimed they had to make sure it was not an actual kidnapping situation. So that's an example of how easy it is for people to get worked up and things to spiral out of control. DD was crying and freaking out after the cop left. The whole thing made me wonder if I messed up as a parent . If DD had been a year or two younger we probably could have had a CPS investigation because the kids were unsupervised. It turned out she wasn't old enough to get into "real" trouble for purportedly calling 911, but old enough that we didn't get into trouble as parents for letting them play down the block.

The additional end result of Val's latter observation is that when truly unavoidable horrible stuff does happen to your child-- a lot of judgment ensues. That's right-- in the bonus round, your family will accept SHAME for not preventing it from happening.

Never mind that "stranger danger" doesn't teach kids a darned thing about that nice teenaged babysitter they've known since birth... that lawnmower parenting your way through Mommy-and-Me gym classes don't prevent your child from developing a life-threatening medical problem, etc.

The real stuff still happens. The big stuff, I mean. It's just that now, there is a genuine expectation that it doesn't happen to the RIGHT kinds of parents. Er. I mean, their kids. Sure I do.

Speaking as a parent who has pretty much heard it all over the years about how we (apparently) didn't love our child enough to not cause her to have a life-threatening chronic medical condition (because we vaccinated/didn't feed her right/kept her too clean/let her play with animals/sent her to daycare/didn't have five siblings/take-your-pick)... um, yeah. You'll have to pardon my family if we snort in the general direction of trigger warnings and all that comes with them.

WORDS and ideas aren't what makes spaces safe or not, in general. And yeah, I get that I'm saying some of that from my privileged position of majority... but still.

This is pretty small stuff, when you consider what it means to live without your basic needs met as a human being. Real trauma is pretty problematic in that it unfortunately doesn't follow the rules about what is triggering in the first place-- which means that all of this is just a tempest in someone's teacup to begin with. I kind of want to grab a bullhorn and tell the people sitting in and swearing that they could do some good in the world with all of that energy. They could start by volunteering to help families with children who are critically ill or disabled. Maybe volunteer at the local women's shelter or food bank or something. Then they could appreciate what privilege really looks like.

But that's me, being middle-aged and cranky, I am sure.

I'm surprised that these articles don't address demographics and their attendant economic impacts as influencing parental behaviours. DeeDee suggested wisely up thread that what is perceived as negative behaviour could well be a rational response. Consider that fertility rates have fallen well below replacement levels in much of the western world, with the US just hovering at or a hair below replacement levels.

Speaking in the crass terms of human investment, parents are less broadly diversified in their offspring than in previous generations. As a result, the expected biological and financial rates of return to reproduction are lower on an aggregate family level than previously. Add to this phenomenon the fact that age at first childbirth of educated women, in particular, is rising. In a not insignificant share of the population, fertility is delayed to the end of women's reproductive years, at which point the ability to respond to shocks in the family "portfolio" by having more children is limited.

At the same time as fertility rates have fallen, costs associated with credentialing children into fields with a high probability of high earnings and stability are outpacing average income growth a few times over. (Here's a brief article on the Canadian case, which isn't atypical of the west: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ort-warns/article4535869/?service=mobile)

Add to that climate the belief among economists that the west is poised to enter a long term period of sub-2% real economic growth, with attendant hits to employment opportunities and real wage growth. In many countries, slower forecast economic growth is accompanied by fiscal instability and intergenerational overhang of pension and other social safety net costs. (Average per capita Canadian public debt alone is approaching $40K, so newborns are inheriting a hefty load.) I urge you to refe, as well, to this info graphic on private debt in Canada as cautionary, particularly the reference to the 12% of the population-- basically adults under 35--whose household debt is >2.5x gross income. Given the share of private debt from mortgages in this segment, there is arguably a professional class that is disproportionately overexposed to housing market risk in the younger generations. Considering these economic drivers, is it surprising that we're witnessing more risk averse parenting styles among a segment of the population?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...atistics/article24322565/?service=mobile

So, families are relatively resource constrained and less broadly diversified, and the demographic and economic drivers are poised to soften over the next decade. What do they do in response? They intensify their attentional resources on their small stock of offspring to maximize the probability of their children successfully self-sustaining and reproducing, as proxied by chaperoning developmental decisions to a greater degree, and later in the child's life, than witnessed in previous generations. Rational? Yes. Prone to maladaptive application? Also yes.

I find myself being a helicopter parent because I think it is a different system. When I went to school, they tested us, they accelerated the ones that needed to be accelerated, the schools were good. My parents sat back, they came and said we have to accelerate your kid, OK? They said OK? They came and said, we need to put her in special enrichment, they said OK. But---I did push myself to skip more in high school, I chose my university, handled my admission, decided on my courses since I entered high school.
I went to a meeting yesterday with the school board, sort of an IEP. They talked about DD not doing so well in groups, listening to other kids. Getting distracted. I thought about myself, doodling, my mind racing. Working in groups, people would talk, then I would act and they would yell at me to stop, they were still discussing. I thought "why?" When I talked to DD after and told her they said she was still (came up before in teacher conference), she said she does listen, they say something ridiculous, she then explains why it doesn't work, but they still want to try because they can't see the laws of physics not working. I digress, not about helicopter parenting, but it hit me yesterday, more than anytime before how much her nature is like mine. And I think I have to step back and let her make choices. And make plans to figure out her path. Afterall, she is 11