Check out this interesting article - �Three Huge Mistakes We Make Leading Kids� and How to Correct Them� http://growingleaders.com/blog/3-mistakes-we-make-leading-kids

I recall learning to spin 360 degrees around the playground bar with one leg back in elementary. It was terrifying and exhilarating all in one.
It was a surprise to me years later to see they had removed them because of possible injuries. How sad to realize many will never know the thrill of making their clumsy bodies behave as I finally made mine.

Now apparently even Dodgeball is under attack...

Back in the 70's it was all about telling a child something would be fun in order to get them to try it and then the "self-esteem" and "no child left behind" movements followed.

My mom used to tell me when I was in elementary that she was sick to death hearing about how this thing or that thing isn't "fun", and I didn't want to do it. She reminded me that life isn't fun. Fun was the operative motivator in my day.

Much of life isn't fun, just as she said; and it was a cruel thing to do to my generation to make out like it would be.

Thanks, Mark. Loved the article. The best advice I got as a new mom was " children are made out of rubber, not glass." I let my dd3.5 play rough, fall and get back up, hang from breakfast bars,etc.- things that freak my risk-averse husband out. Otoh, my parents let me loose and I did a lot of risky things as a kid that I am not sure I will let my kid do. For example, I travelled cross country alone by train when I was 13. Today, i am a very independent, strong woman. I would like to bring up my dd the same way but in some ways, maybe, the world is more scary today than when i was a child. i don't know.

What makes it scary is how aware you are of the dangers. The ways a kid could be hurt traveling across country are the same now as they were then.

My DW was stalked by sexual predators around age 13, just traveling to/from school.

Agree! Agree! I think my parents were just naive to the dangers that were out there. In the summer time I could leave the house in the morning and ride my bicycle all over town, all day, as long as I was home for lunch and supper and when the street lights came on. Of course we didn't have cell phones back then, so they had no idea where I was. I too was fairly naive until I got a job in the legal system. Today I would never let my kids do what I was able to do, and that is sad, but I know the specifics of what is out there and just how close by the dangers are.

A good book that address's some of this is, The Blessings of a skinned knee, by Wendy Mogel

http://www.amazon.com/The-Blessing-Skinned-Knee-ebook/dp/B000FBJGCC/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

I seem to be the only one here, but I hated the article. I thought that the examples were so over-the-top that it just lacked credibility to me. I have a dd who graduated from college last year and one graduating in a month, and I have NEVER heard examples like the ones that were given. I can't imagine a young adult interrupting a professor in the middle of class to hand him/her the phone to chat with mom, or a mom calling the college president to make sure her child wore a sweater. Ridiculous! One of my dds went to a small school and one went to a big10 university and good Lord, no parent could get right through to the president at either one.
Frankly, I'm pretty happy that things have changed since my parents smoked around us nonstop and didn't use seatbelts... happy that perhaps fewer kids are getting abused by a trusted adult because there are stricter guidelines in many organizations. And I'm thrilled that parents are sharing positive emotions and love that many of our older parents felt awkward doing.
The other stuff has always been an issue, and that's not about being risk averse, IMHO, it's about spoiling, and wanting to be your child's friend. My kids have never whined for a toy in the store (and the youngest is now 11) because it would never have been tolerated. We have always praised effort (but frankly, my kids are smart so I tell them that and say that this means they need to put the effort forth. They have no excuse except laziness for not doing well). I do expect them to join clubs, try sports, experience new things... and stick with them. I expect them to work hard and do chores (and no, not for money, ever). And my kids don't play their parents off of each other (my dh and I always present a united front and our rules are very straightforward). They don't cheat because, according to our dd graduating from college this year, "it was pure fear that you would kill me."
I see nuggets of truth in this article, but mostly I see an incredibly annoying, "oh, back in the day when life was good." Yes, there were good things about growing up in the 60s, 70s and 80s and there are good things about growing up now. But a lot of this helicopter parent drama seems a tad too conveniently urban myth. We're not like that, our kids and our kids' friends aren't like that, but we've heard about someone, somewhere, who is.

Hi Montofour

I agree that the examples are over the top. That being said, I still believe independent behavior as a rule has been hurt by an over informed, over anxious public. Myself included. My 10 year old does not walk to school (Large urban city), and probably won't until he is 12 or 13. We live 2-3 blocks from the school. He does not ride his bike alone in the street. I take him to his friend’s house, or they to ours. I am not alone in this behavior; the same is true of his friends and many of the children I know. I understand things have changed; a large part of social contact is not playing in the street, but playing online. None of my kids have ever gone to a BSA campout without me, I did allow my now 20 year old to go on an 8th grade trip across the country for a week, however on the same type of trip the year before my DW went with him. My parents either through non attention (Maybe) or less fear of danger (Most likely) let me stay out till dark when I was in elementary school. Granted I grew up mostly in a rural area, and did not have the internet and only 3-5 channels on TV. I like you do not tolerate laziness, I try to praise effort, I hold my children accountable, and I do allow and encourage risk. The helicopter parent is not a myth, I see it every day (I can name names, but I won't) I am glad to hear that you are not one. I do however believe that our parents and even their parents looked at raising children differently than we do. Each generation seems to change how they raise children, many in an effort to help them avoid the so called suffering they believed they experienced. I do believe a little hardship can be good for you, and that failure at a young age can make you stronger. Many parents I know protect their children from failure, from disappointment. I am a scout leader and we are big on the scouts doing for themselves, teaching themselves, and failing if needed. For many of the boys this is new, and it takes them (and sometimes their parents) some time to understand the philosophy of this. So although the article is a bit over the top, it does not change the truth that some of the changes of an involved parent can be a detriment when overdone.

Hmmm. Yes, I agree with Edwin.

Also, even as early as 1999-2000, I (and other colleagues, who have periodically informed my DH and I both that it has become even more common since) was getting the occasional phone call from parents-- who wanted to discuss their college student children with me.

Our administration, in fact, began sending out quarterly REMINDERS that we were NOT permitted to do this, because it was illegal to discuss students who were emancipated with any third party. Yes, their parents might have been writing the checks, but those educational records were still private.

I also know of two specific instances in the past five years alone in which the parent of a special needs student became pretty irate with me when I suggested (based on my own faculty experiences) that they needed to let their college student son/daughter take the lead in advocating for their needs-- and that they were NOT doing anyone any favors by "intervening" with campus services, faculty, or administration via phone from across the country. One of those-- really, REALLY not kidding-- involved a mom who freaked out when her DD didn't return texts for some period of time, and became unhinged that campus police wouldn't "update" her on the situation in real time. Because her DD was not feeling great and was sleeping. After letting her dorm-mates know that she was going to sleep for a while. So yeah. Child was behaving fine. Mom, not-so-much.

I enjoyed the article and I really like Tim Elmore. He substitute pastors at my church from time to time and he is always a pleasure to listen to. He usually has relevant good solid advice.

I agree with Edwin and I think (hope) that there are many of us parents who will read the article and understand that we are not part of the problem. That being said, it does not mean that the problem does not exist.

While definitely not a helicopter parent, I am overprotective in regard to safety. I also won't let my almost 9 year old play outside alone, while many other families in the area do. I will also not let her travel alone. I do let her go with trusted friends and relatives without me, but they have to be people who I know VERY well and trust completely and feel confident with their judgement.

I do let her take risks, explore, do things that my mother used to forbid me to do (heck, sometimes wishing I was still young enough, flexible enough to do them with her).

I have seen a lot of parents who don't though and who try to control every little environmental and social factor pertaining to their children.

I completely disagree with the self esteem generation. I believe that you can and should help your child develop a healthy but realistic self esteem. By realistic I mean, not everyone is winners, teach them how to lose with grace and dignity. If an adult in authority reprimands your child, teach your child to respect and listen to the adult. Don't excuse the behavior and discuss in front of your child 100 reasons why the adult was wrong and the feedback is not applicable to your child. Teach your children compassion, accountability, responsibility and respectfulness. These things should help your child develop a pretty wonderful self esteem on their own.

When my daughter was in 2nd grade I was the room parent. I had to plan a game for a party. In this day and age, I realize everyone has to be a winner. So I took a pumpkin bucket and put individually wrapped candies in it. I had the kids play hot potato with the bucket, as they stood in a circle. When the music stopped, the kid holding the bucket could take a piece of candy out of the bucket, but they had to leave the circle and the game.

In the end, the final child who was not eliminated got to keep the bucket and all candy that was left inside the bucket.

When the other kids realized this they started protesting and yelling at me: That is not fair! Hey, we only got one, this is so unfair!!

They criticized and protested, rather then congratulate the student that actually won the game.

I looked at the kids and said, wrong! This game was totally and completely fair. Everyone had an equal chance to win (it wasn't based on intelligence or skill, simply on dumb luck) and everyone received a prize (at least one piece of candy) for playing. I told them how disappointed I was that they were so busy complaining that they failed to congratulate the boy who won the game and acknowledge his success.

The teacher came up to me afterwards and thanked me for saying that.

IMHO, that is a small example of how children are being raised to think only of themselves, with no regard or respect to the others around them.

VERY nicely said.

We struggle with this because my daughter's life (really, not any exaggeration) sometimes depends upon her ability to defy others-- even adult authority. It feels like a tight-rope act, because NO WAY do we want to be raising a "the rules don't apply to me" child. But we DO want her to actually-- um-- "grow up." So there we are. Rock and a hard place.


At the same time, this is very much our philosophy as parents. We also believe in quite hard boundaries-- and a sense of free-range parenting within those boundaries.

Frankly I'm always astonished that other parents do so much of the environmental controlling the way they do. It boggles my mind when I stop and think about it. I mean, we're worried (for good reason, and we have ample history to support our level of obsession about it) about never seeing our daughter breathing and laughing again-- what are THEY worried about? Everything, or so it would seem. They aren't willing to take ANY risks with their children, and life is filled with risks. I'm just more aware, I think, of what is silly to worry about that way, and what is more evidence-based. Maybe that's arrogant of me, but I also fervently believe it to be true after 14 years of watching this sideshow. I tend to ask myself "what is the worst that could happen? Really? How statistically likely is that?" before freaking out and intervening. I'm all for helmets, but I'm not going to keep my DD from skateboarding. Life's for living.


I also believe that the thing that has taught my daughter most of the positive traits on that list is being marginalized and discriminated against herself. She looks for ways to support and be kind to others, and to be more inclusive-- something which is all too rare among her peers. Well, not HER peers, because she's kind of picky about the company she keeps in a lot of ways-- but her peer cohort, perhaps I should say.

They think nothing of excluding others, and are really dismissive even when someone like my daughter gently (but assertively) says; "Hey, did you think about...."



At the same time, I'd say that my daughter's self-esteem is probably "not awesome." She's very hard on herself.

I think it is wonderful that your daughter figured out to take something that happened to her that was a negative and turn it into a positive for others!! Standing ovation here, because this is the type of mind set that we need going forward.

Bad things are going to happen, of course they are! We can't prevent them no matter how hard we try. It is how we react and respond in the face of adversity that defines who we are and who we will become.

I think your daughter must have more self esteem then you recognize because it takes a lot of courage to stand up for someone else. She sounds like me, actually. I have very strict standards for myself, my husband often tells me that no one can possibly live up to the standards that I set. I don't know if it is an idealist personality type or just the fact that you intuitively know that x results in y, and feel frustrated when others can't recognize that which feels obvious and/or necessary.

I am sorry your daughter struggles with authority and I hope that one day she will recognize in the greater scheme of things, most of the time authority is a positive thing. Until then, I guess that is their job to give us grey hair!!!

That's just it-- for her, in one particular domain, MOST of the time, authority doesn't know what it's talking about, and is therefore an active danger to her. (yes, really)

She needs help being MORE assertive in those situations, not becoming comfortable that the teacher/grown-up/boss/manager should just be trusted.

The only authority she 'struggles' with really are the group of adults who are in her inner circle. We sometimes call this "DD's circle of pain" by the way, so she's pretty strong willed there, but with most authority figures, she is a total deer in headlights, shrinking violet type. She does what she's told even when she really shouldn't for her own safety. We worry about this constantly.

The problem is that kids not raised to respect authority, I think, may have an easier job of it when they need to advocate for themselves fairly forcefully. I don't know, though, because maybe nobody listens to them because they are constantly whining on about something... Hmm.

Hmm...that is not good. Is there any way possible to limit her time in that domain. Or is it a place where you feel comfortable that she is old enough to police herself and get help if needed? If not, I would have to question the safety of keeping her in that situation.

I definitely feel that is not the norm and therefore, kids are still much better off learning to respect authority rather then not.

I do tell Emily that if an adult or authority figure tells her to do something that she is not comfortable with, she may advocate for herself, but she has to do it with respect and thoughtfulness.

Nope, no way to limit the domain. Don't. I. WISH.

It's food. Everyone eats, most people do it literally everywhere (often in spite of rules* to the contrary), and everyone thinks that (via familiarity) they know what is necessary and safe for someone with food allergies, and 99% of the time, they are wrong, wrong, wrong about what they know to be "true" there, because sensitivity varies so dramatically.

This is the reason why we originally started homeschooling. Eventually, yes, I trust DD to manage. Nobody else, though. Been burned too many times.

This is admittedly a special situation-- but it probably applies to ANY child with a hidden medical condition that requires ongoing management. Most people think that they know a lot more about it than they really do, and the child is ultimately the boss of his/her own body... gets into really weird territory in a hurry.


* Brings up an adorable anecdote about my DD, though, from when she was about four. She and I were talking about 'differences' and hidden disabilities/challenges. So I explained what 'dyslexia' and related learning challenges are like. She was silent for a few moments, clearly thinking hard, and then she said, plaintively; "Oh, mama... maybe those people eating cookies at the library have a disability that means that they cannot read the SIGN." She kind of wailed, actually-- clearly guilt-ridden for her awful thoughts about those rule-breakers. Maybe they didn't MEAN to break the rules, they just couldn't read what they were...

Yup. Perfect glimpse into my DD's psyche, there. She felt guilty for being mad at those people who were thoughtlessly limiting HER access to a public library.

I apologize if I sound ignorant, I am lost. Is she allergic to ALL food or certain foods? How old is she? Can she manage to carry her own epi pen with her in a fanny pack? I have a life threatening allergy also, so I am not minimizing and know the stress that goes a long with not knowing what might be in something. But I do have to tell you that I work in the school lunch room 3 days a week and we are really trained very well to know who is allergic to what and to always have their epi pens with us whenever the student is with us.

We are NOT a nut free school, but if I know that a child has a nut allergy I make sure that no one in his/her immediate area has anything with nuts. I take the time and explain "nut allergies" to the other students in the child's classroom because if they know it is a serious issue, they help guardian the allergic child. I have had instances where friends of the allergic student have alerted us to a potential allergen in the area.

Additionally, you might be surprised at how well elementary kids can advocate for themselves. One boy raised his hand and I went over to see what he needed and he said that someone at his table had a PB&J, so I immediately moved him to a safe area to eat and asked him to invite one or two friends (without nut lunches) to sit with him.

If your daughter has a food allergy I would definitely teach her to manage her care and educate others around her because you are correct, no matter where she goes she will never be 100% safe and you can never predict when her allergen will appear next to her. But even so, she can still have a safe and happy life if she knows how to identify her allergens and protect herself from them. It isn't fair that she has to live that way, but it is her reality.

I was a helicopter mom, but before you judge all helicopter parents too harshly, you need to hear my experience.

My gifted son was born into a family of strong, well-coordinated people in a small sports-obsessed town. His cousins were football stars in our little town. His first sergeant dad was retired from the army after having worked in military intelligence and was very physically fit. My son inherited his dad's tall build and long legs. He looked like he should be a really good runner or basketball player. Boys in this town are expected to play sports, push themselves physically, and push through the pain. My son didn't look like he should have any trouble doing this.

From birth, I knew something was different. My son did not have the physical strength to walk until he was 18 months old and it had nothing to do with intelligence or lack of trying. He taught himself to read at two just like his older highly gifted half brother. He loved to learn, but in a sports town that doesn't matter as much as physical skills.

Doctors would only tell us that he had hypotonia. Some people here believed that the only cure for weak muscles is lots of exercise and that I was the reason that he was not stronger. He had to quit scouts because I could not get a doctor's statement stating exactly how far he could hike and do other physical things. I was afraid they would push him to do more than he could do if I let him go to the camps after talking to some of the scouts. All I had was my God-given mother's instinct that this was not a good idea. I was asked to leave while my son took an MMA class once. We had told the instructor that he had hypotonia and by then scoliosis and needed to take breaks. I left but watched from outside. The instructor would not let him take a break when he needed to. Instead he made him do a lot of push-ups and pushed him physically to the point that he got sick. When we complained, he said that it wasn't fair to the other students for my son to rest for part of the lesson so he had to quit that.

We only recently got a diagnosis that includes a heart condition. Interestingly, none of his PCPs noticed any problem, since a connective tissue disorder is very much an invisible disability, and we could not get referrals to specialists we needed until a few months ago and he is almost 15. For the rest of his life he is not allowed to lift more than 50 pounds, he can't do sports, he can't do a lot of things. If he does, it can kill him.

I, with my mild social anxiety issues, had to face people who didn't understand and thought I must be lying about my son's issues. All they saw was a helicopter mom. All I knew was that I had to do what I felt in my gut was the right thing to do for my son and I had to learn to not worry about what other people thought.

I am sorry your son is so sick. I know that you feel judged by this thread and it sounds like you were judged by your community, but I just want to say that I find your situation unique and different then what I would consider as a helicopter parent.

In no way would I consider what you have to go through or had to go through to advocate for your son as being a helicopter parent.

An example of a helicopter parent would be: A parent who has to have influence or hand pick a child's teacher every year. Who has to intervene, constantly, in situations that the child could probably handle on their own. For example: Child says: Susie hurt my feelings at lunch today. A non helicopter parent might discuss what happened between the children and give the child suggestions on how to effectively communicate her thoughts and feelings to Susie without ever actually getting involved. A helicopter parent might call the teacher and reprimand them for allowing it to happen, call Susie's parents and try to manipulate the situation to their own child's favor, basically try to mold and shape the environment to their child rather then teach the child how to adapt to the environment.

That is just one example, there are many more. I am sure you have had to encounter these type of parents before.

As far as your situation goes, nobody knows a child better then the child's own parent(s). If you know something is wrong, you don't have to defend yourself or prove yourself to anyone. All you have to do is keep your child safe.

I am glad you listened to your motherly intuition, which IMHO, is worth it's weight in gold.

Kelly, no offense, but your response IS why my DD, now nearly 14, doesn't trust authority figures. Because they know all about her food allergies-- until they don't.

Her sensitivity is such that she really has almost died just from TOUCHING some surface that someone else (apparently? we can only surmise) has touched after loading his/her hands with a food allergen. She is VERY careful about what she touches, so the odds are good that we are talking about <10mg of food. An invisible smear is plenty. Very fast, very scary, very severe-- and no real idea of the 'source' of the allergen exposure. About half the time, there is little possibility for an ingestion of any kind, and this is definitely not in her head-- though she has had adults try to tell her to "just calm down" over what they know "can't" be causing her a problem. Even family has done it. I know that most of the experts in the field maintain that "inhalation" isn't a risk-- except that in her case, it really does seem to be. She's just as much an outlier among food allergic people as she is in terms of cognitive ability. Only about one person in 1000 with food allergies can actually identify with her completely. Her allergist, trained in one of the world's premier centers for food allergy, has only seen a small handful of kids like her in his career.

No way can she safely be "around" those allergens she's most sensitive toward. At all. It's not about emotional management and a need for her to be less anxious. She is right to be fearful when just being in the proximity of one of those things makes her asthma flare, her eyes burn, and her nose run like a faucet through all of her maintenance pharmacology. This is radically different from the common experience, management-wise, and we're aware that not everyone NEEDS to do things this way. She can tell you EXACTLY what that person munching out of her hand at a bookstore has touched in the last ten minutes-- she's very aware and self-protective. She washes her hands almost compulsively and wears long sleeves so that she can pull them over her hands to open doors, etc. I've learned that most of the time, she knows better than I do; to my eternal shame, I have forced her to undertake risks that I thought were fine and she thought weren't-- and she was right.

So yeah. She has learned the signs for an adult that THINKS that they know all about it-- "well, you should just teach her to carry one of those pen thingies" (people can die even WITH epinephrine-- it's not a get-out-of-anaphylaxis-free card, and particularly not in someone with my DD's history) and "you should read labels, then" (uhhhhh... where to even start, here... that is SO inadequate for her since she has a long history of reacting to well-cleaned shared production lines) or our personal favorite "well, don't you know what you can't eat?"

The other thing is that we'd all like to get stickers printed up that say "anaphylaxis-- it's NOT what you think" because most of the time, her life-threatening reactions manifest first with diffuse, sort of hard-to-pin-down cardiovascular symptoms, which are incapacitating in terms of her ability to advocate and self-treat, but not obviously "allergic." Even people who THINK that they know what an allergic reaction looks like are not thinking about an epipen when she looks glassy-eyed and pale-- though that may be the only real warning sign before she collapses and arrests. I know. While well-intended, the more confident adults who are familiar with food allergies are actually the ones that pose the greatest risks to her, because they have to set aside what they "know" and UNLEARN some of it. It's awkward, though, for a child/teen to defy that authority.

We're all about "safe enough" which is mostly about reducing risk to the point where a reaction is only about 10% probable, and such that if one did occur, it would be relatively simple to treat and summon EMS to the location. Many factors impact those things, but basically the ones that elevate risk are-- many independent sources of food, movement + food, crowding + food, remote locations, porous/non-washable shared touch surfaces, and percentage of sloppy eaters (young children top that list). We go nowhere outside of our house-- even just for a walk-- without multiple lot numbers of epinephrine injectors, a charged cellular phone, hand-wipes (for on-the-fly decontamination) and asthma medications.

My child really hasn't ever been to sleep-away camp, to a group banquet, or to a sleepover. She's attended exactly three birthday parties in her life other than her own, and until quite recently, had been on an airplane exactly three times. I didn't drop her off at activities until she was nearly ten years old-- and mature enough to manage her own cellular phone. On the other hand, within a year or so, we would leave her AT HOME ALONE for short periods of time, which seems crazy, right? But she's safer with us or at home than anywhere else. I used to take her to work with me when she was a toddler-- into a lab filled with chemical, biological, and radiological hazards, no less. Still safer than daycare.

So I look like a helicopter parent. I know. In our defense, we have nearly lost our daughter several times in her life, and in spite of extensive sleuthing never discovered what exactly went wrong. I, too, have a life-threatening food allergy (to shellfish) and my experience is NOTHING like the limitations on my daughter's life. I manage the way most people do-- avoiding risks in what I eat and not worrying too much otherwise, but carrying epinephrine just the same. I mention that just to note that our seeming over-protectiveness is about empirical data, not 'what if' types of fears, and to reassure anyone reading that I do know what life with a "normal" life-threatening food allergy is like, and how one can live relatively normally, albeit without sushi or paella.

If we'd been that cavalier/reasonable with our DD, she wouldn't be here. We honed our management the hard way. There was a time in her life when every outing was a 50-50 proposition for needing benadryl/inhaled meds to treat mild-to-moderate symptoms. It's still around the 10-20% mark. There is a reason we've responded with hypervigilance, and it has nothing to do with "wanting" to live this way, or with irrational fear-- but with extraordinary circumstances.

Similarly, I have an acquaintance whose younger DD is treated with great care w/r/t communicable illnesses... due to the profound immunosuppression of an older sibling.

All that to say... be careful what you assume when you judge other parents. None of us knows exactly what is behind the behavior we witness.

Wow, that is really extreme. And no, I disagree, you don't look like a helicopter parent in that situation, like I said to the PP her safety is your first priority, period.

Again, when it comes to medical conditions, I would never judge anyone as a helicopter parent, my examples are more everyday typical average case scenarios that don't need to be micro managed for the safety of the child.

I am glad your DD is so in tune with her symptoms. That would be hard to live with, for sure. I apologize because quite honestly, that is the most severe case of allergies I have EVER heard of.

My life threatening allergy is latex and that sounds pretty benign, but I have inhalation symptoms as well and when we had our interior home painted, my throat swelled shut during the night and I couldn't speak and couldn't get my husband to wake up (heavy sleeper). I thought I was going to die. Luckily my asthma inhaler and going outside provided enough relief to get a small amount of air to pass through and I was able to collect myself and get my epi pen, but yes, it was scarey and I know what you mean when you say people don't understand that you can breathe in an allergen and die from it. It may sound idiotic, but they told me there was no latex in the paint. I beg to disagree.

You have my complete understanding.

Yeah, I developed a latex allergy occupationally over a period of many years, and it is a major pain to live with. Doesn't sound so benign to ME!

My point though was that if all one knew was what was on my DD's medic-alert bracelet, we'd look entirely over-the-top. When we are still asking for meetings/activities to be allergen-free, for accommodations for college/SATs, etc with my nearly 14yo in mind, it DOES look pretty extreme.

It would be extreme for a parent with a teen who has never had an allergic reaction and was diagnosed on the basis of a single blood test showing sensitization at 2yo. I do know of a few people like that-- and yes, that's being overprotective, probably.

The point is that even a few people who know us well enough to know how non-normative our lives are can still readily think that we're into helicopter territory-- until they witness our reality for themselves. This doesn't even include strangers whose cooperation we desperately NEED.

One of my dearest friends saw it for herself; DD was about seven and had a clear, instantaneous reaction to just walking into a room that had her allergen present (across the room). Until then, she'd been nice enough not to say what she really thought, but I knew. Similar incidents made her allergist a true believer, as well-- apparently eating an allergen in a room that DD stood in thirty minutes later was enough to cause systemic symptoms. I can always tell when someone has that epiphany-- because they look HORRIFIED, a little apologetic, and begin asking us questions about how we live with that kind of fear/risk. Basically, you just do. Not a lot of choice. I figure DD's extraordinary cognitive ability and superhuman social/empath skill is a pretty good bundle under the circumstances. Could be much worse. We laughingly refer to DD as "not a beginner project" between DH and I-- this is code for "this person/organization is too inexperienced/overconfident to be fully trusted... be wary." Basically, I look for fear as a marker for determining who actually understands. If they aren't a little afraid, they don't get what they are dealing with. WE are still afraid (well, okay more like healthy respect the way climbers experience heights), and we've been doing this for 13 years without any respite.

But like I said-- this does present us with something of a quandary w/r/t our general parenting philosophy of "respect for adult authority."

I've learned the hard way to ask before assuming when I see a parent doing something very odd or seemingly overprotective. Kids can have a lot of different vulnerabilities that don't leave them LOOKING fragile to others.

Dear HowlerKarma,

I SO admire you and your DD.

KADmom

I liked the article. It tallies with my experience as a member of generation y. I could not believe some of the things I saw in college. Students that didn't know how to use a washer and dryer would save up their laundry and take it home to mom at the end of the month. Many people thought that "knowing how to cook" meant being able to make toast and pasta. It just seemed that many people my age were woefully unprepared to do anything in life except (maybe) succeed academically.

I think this helicopter parenting is a lot more pervasive than we'd like to believe. My friends and I (we are now approaching 30) have spent the better part of a decade trying to get our parents to detach. Parents want to oversee job searches, they want to check your tax forms, they want to tell you what car to buy, they want to know your credit score, they want to put your budget into a spreadsheet for you, they want to organize your pantry, they want to see all your pictures on facebook, they want to make sure you saw the traffic report this morning, etc. (Just to be clear, I run in a very responsible circle -- there's no reason to believe we need to be treated like children.)

Anyway, that's my rant about helicopter parents. Hopefully I can avoid the pitfalls for my two kids. :-)

Reading this, I thought to myself, it really is relative and we wouldn't be on this forum if we weren't helicopter parents.

First, DD has some allergies and had to advocate for herself at school since preschool and know when someone has peanut food. And has touched a surface that someone eating peanuts has touched and then rubbed her eyes, but I was standing there, saw it and when within minutes her eyes started to react, I gave her Benadryl.

But I also know that in that age of running out the back door in the morning and coming back for dinner, while my age was still in single digits, my parents were not worried, or anyone else's about how high my IQ was, or how accelerated I should be etc. You went to school, the school closest and so on and then to college. And you had summer jobs and then you graduated and left home and got a job.

I was on the phone with a friend whose daughter is turning 21. She dropped out of college a couple of years ago. Tried a few things, while the mother supported her. Now she applied and got into a specialty school in London but now doesn't want to go. The mother, my friend, had spent 4 months in her home in CA and now is back in the Hamptons and the daughter wants her to leave again.

This sounded so strange to me but is the attitude that uncommon? Now, in this case, there is serious money available, but stil the attitude of "take care of me" really scared me. Am I creating a child of the same ilk?

I just went through this crazy stressful period to get my kid into the gifted school in Toronto, when we move. And yes, she did get the spot yesterday, but I made myself insanely stressful through a move that is already stressful.

I do let her climb trees and zip down long ramps on her scooter. And she makes me crazy with her injuries, but I am constantly creating a path for her, for her education advancement etc. And at some point, I have to wind this down. I am not sure I can withdraw from letting the path coast.

Well, hovering to the point that the child learns "I'm not really capable of managing any of this myself" sure does.

Saw that up close and personal time and time again when I spent time with my (now ex-) in-laws who were active in regional ADA advocacy. SOooooo many juvenile diabetics never learn to be fully functional, independent adults in a meaningful sense.

You have to deliberately allow mistakes when those mistakes are unlikely to have fatal consequences, I've decided. You also have to act very matter-of-fact about them taking on responsibilities for themselves, etc. NEVER act surprised when they succeed... only UNsurprised. "Oh, of course-- I don't know why you worried..." (even if you, personally, were TERRIFIED).

My DD is pretty independent, actually. She asks for advice sometimes, and if I think she's in way over her head with something... I'll ask if she wants my direct involvement/help... or not. I also respect her decision there, even if I disagree with it.

Really, this is not rocket science, it's about honoring/respecting the child's growing autonomy, and having FAITH that they will be sufficiently competent to manage what they need to take on.

Just the same, though, the risk with helicopter/high-intervention parenting is very real. I also think that this is a deep, deep flaw in the ideals behind attachment parenting. It's great for 0-5. But then you need to start DE-taching, and too many parents don't.

My mother told me repeatedly as I was growing up that if I didn't leave home when I was 18 that she would be leaving herself (jokingly). She was of course quite surprised when I did leave home.... But certainly I was raised with the absolute assumption that I would go to uni, leave home, get a job and manage my own life just fine. I was doing my own washing at 10, cooking a family meal at least once a week, etc. My own kids aren't doing a lot of the things I was and I do worry.

The ideals espoused by API, or a third party interpretation? AFAIK, the tenets are pretty general and encompass any number of potential parenting arrangements across ages. The eighth of their recommendations is to strive for personal and familial balance, which is what you're advocating, no?

From a quick Google:

http://www.attachmentparenting.org/principles/principles.php

Yeah, just interpretation-- a lot of parents use API (well, their own version) to justify all manner of helicopter behavior, though. We are believers in API, fwiw. Just not that vision of it that doesn't view the ultimate goal as having children who grow to become functional, independent adults. I don't know. I see parents who seem to wish that they could freeze their kids at 2-5yo. Yes, they're amazing at those ages, but honestly... I think my 13yo is pretty amazing, too, and I treasure seeing glimpses of the adult she is becoming. Those are just as precious as the sweet preschooler 'I love you mommy' kisses. To me, anyway.

I wonder if part of it is a reluctance to give up that position of omnipotence/asymmetric ability or power that we have when our kids are little?

Well, I suppose there have always been overbearing / overly enmeshed parents. But I'm thinking that the root of helicopter parenting is anxiety. People have been experiencing a lack of faith in our social institutions for decades. It's hard to trust that anyone else has your child's best interest in mind. Some parents find a bit of comfort by micromanaging the experiences of their children. It was an interesting assertion that none of us would be on this forum if we weren't helicopter parents to some degree. I wonder where the line is between involved and over-involved parents.

Also, parenting perfectionism... If research says that talking to your children throughout the day will increase their vocabulary, then doesn't that mean we should talk at them non-stop? That's the trouble I have with attachment parenting... So many parents feel that they have to conform to these standards to an extreme. I get sucked into this trap myself, and my DH has to talk me down and reassure me that I'm doing a good job and the children are thriving.

There was a Sesame street episode about some kids in 3rd world country that went around and found bits of wire and made these "cars" with one strong wire they held as they pushed them. They were being creative and building, and developing all these skills as they "played".

I remember raking leaves (part chore) with friends and we created lines on the lawn and made "homes". Figuring out blueprints. Except for bead assembly packages, my kid doesn't have a natural outlet like I did to use what is in the environment and create. The most is taking all the beach blankets and making tents on the beach.

Too many toys. Too many bought structures. And too much going to a ceramic place for bday parties and painting instead of just getting a set of paints and doing something without structure. Not that she hasn't but there is that element of just going out the back door, meet your friends and figure out how to spend a summer day. I hope there is more of that in Toronto, but I think the days are too overscheduled and getting worse as she gets older.

I was just reminiscing the other day about how I spent time reading a comic book entitled "The History of Money" by the New York Federal Reserve when I was a kid.

Found it in my memento box along with some of my old silver bullion coins.

I almost sold those things when silver went parabolic a few months ago, but I figured that I should just keep them.

Good for you.

I think it's appropriate to have "everybody wins" games for small children--let's say, 5 and under. After that, it becomes ridiculous to have everyone always get a prize and nothing ever be skill-based or even luck-based, where someone wins and someone doesn't. I sometimes think all the competitive urge now gets channeled into the few places it's still allowed, such as sports, and that's why sports has gotten increasingly berserk. Kids need practice being graceful losers and graceful winners.

I guess I have a little anxiety. I had to argue with myself to let my kids sleep when I first had them. My kids are fine, I'm just talking about the kind of parental anxiety that makes you want to stay up all night when you have a new baby. (not that they don't wake you up enough). I had to tell myself, "I have to trust them with their own lives, and this is the first step. I have to trust them to stay alive by themselves tonight." Riduclous, right. At least I'm able to argue with myself.

Someone here didn't let their grown kid go away to college because they didn't trust her not to throw her life away for a boy if she got too far from home. She had to go to a local college. But, on the other hand you have more than one teenager here with several kids. There are probably a million creative ways to mess up your child, only a third of which come from their parents. All people are talented at creating their own unique set of problems.

I err on the side that the article supports, my kid feels very independant. Now I have the problem of convincing him he's not the one in charge of everything and everybody. For his age he's very capable and I've always given him a long leash. See above where I came to grips with the fact that my kids lives belong to them and I'm here to foster and develop their independance. I told myself from the beginning I have to start now keeping that goal in mind that soon I'll have to trust them with their own lives completely. Ironically, this makes me over involved in other ways because I'm constantly trying to teach them so they'll do better, because I know I'm giving them more and more control over their own lives younger than usual. I believe they'll take the wheel sooner than usual whether I prepare them the best I can or not, so that's the best guidance I can give them. You should see some poor people have a heart attack with my two year old on the big slide. I answer, "I was very scared every time she did that last year, but I'm getting better this year." Parenting fills u with intense emotions, more than usual.
HK & Lori, you already know this, but "forget them" and do what you need to do to raise your babies. I don't know if it helps to hear another person voice support for your decisions, but there it is.

I love that post. I find the whole parenting arms race totally asinine, because child-led parenting gives you the right answer most of the time.

Now, my in-laws are a case study in failure to launch. They're a family of children plagued by insecure attachment...intermittently ignored and henpecked. MIL is a classic Munchausen mother, though her helicoptering MO is more about facilitating her children's failure than securing success to fuel her own self-worth. She's all about downplaying children's abilities so she can be the "miracle teacher".

I think there is less new to these "trends" than many make there out to be. The grass is greener, eh? And these things tend to alternate generations. War heroes bred hippies who bred young Republicans who bred Gen Y video gamers who don't breed because they are living in their parents' basements covered in a fine dusting of Cheetos.

Perhaps schools opened their doors wider to parents because some anecdotal study suggested better students come with more engaged parents, but the only parents who came in the door were the ones already queued up outside.

But isn't that the point of the discussion Zenscan? I don't think there is a question that the herd follows the cultural thesis of the times. We are sticking our heads up from the herd and discussing how to get on a different path?

And in doing so, perhaps we will forget the next cultural thesis on raising kids. Maybe someone here will write the book and go on Oprah. Raising your kids to leave home after college. I bet that would be a best seller.

I meant to say forge the next cultural thesis. maybe my subconscious didn't

Sorry, I'm too busy scheduling "play dates".

You can also view it through a lens of credit expansion and contraction.

I'm not comfortable with the statement that we're all helicopter parents to some degree. To me that represents a false binary, where the only choices are between being excessively involved in your child's life, or being completely uninvolved. I see a continuum, with a healthy level of involvement somewhere in the middle... and all of us constantly trying to find that middle, and erring on one side or the other, depending on the situation.

YES!!

Further, I think that it ignores the reality that different children need different 'ideal' parenting to start with.

Benign neglect actually is "ideal" for some kids. Just as fairly involved parenting is right for others.

It's very interesting to have a child that requires so much less involvement than her sisters. She still requires buckets of attention, she's an extremely extroverted 3yr old with the skills to vocalize every single thought that she has, so of course she does. But she does not require extreme measures of baby proofing (only the middle child needed that), or constant guidance towards appropriate behaviour, etc. She's extremely talkative, she has major food issues, but she's otherwise so easy compared to her sisters. Has common sense (reasonable fear of dangerous situations), learns from her mistakes (except with the dog)... The three of them each have quite different needs but #3 is most different.

LOVE THIS!! Thanks for sharing. Sharing with all my fellow parents and teachers . . .

In his recent weekly digest recap of daily posts, Tim Elmore shares two booklists:

1) "12 Must Read Leadership Books for Young Adults" is the featured post dated January 22, 2014 (link-
http://growingleaders.com/blog/must-read-leadership-books-young-adults/)

2) "My Favorite Books of 2013" is his post from Monday January 20, 2014 (link- http://growingleaders.com/blog/favorite-books-2013/) Two of his favorite books of 2013 have recently been mentioned on the gifted forums: The Price of Privilege and How College Affects Students. Possibly as we read Mr. Elmore's thoughts, he is also reading ours?

Thank you, Mr. Elmore, for your thought-provoking and insightful work which helps parents in "Growing Leaders".

I have done something wonderful for my kids by accident. Two of my preemie twins have bladder reflux. A trip to a discount store entailed at least ten bathroom breaks between the two of them and their respective twin also needing to go the normal one time. My husband and I got so tired of carting four kids into a stall that we started scouting out places we could go with visible bathrooms and letting them go alone. They started going to public restrooms unattended at age four (mind you, I could see the door in and out of the restroom and the building at these places). One little twin whose very confident started at age 3. My kids were unaware I could see them, and an issue that could cause a decrease in confidence (constant urination and our frustration over it) instead became something that caused their confidence to soar. Now when they are six and seven, I find myself appalled to see adults attending a restroom with their eight and nine year old emotionally and intellectually healthy child. Aside from that, I have been too overwhelmed much of the time to hover, and that's a blessing since I have OCD and was gifted myself, so I could easily fixate and helicopter them.

Well since you can clearly tell by glancing at the child that you don't know at all that he/she is "emotionally and intellectually healthy" perhaps their parent is actually doing something okay after all? One of my pet peeves - making judgments on whether or not a child that you do not even know and look at for a mere few minutes is "emotionally and intellectually healthy" and making judgments as to what that child's needs are. Someone could see me writing/scribing for my child and be appalled - you can't tell by looking at him that he has EDS and dysgraphia. Just something to keep in mind about being "appalled"

Also a child that looks 8 or 9 may actually only be 6. My kids are very small (eg my 8 year old is 6 year old clothes and my almost 5 year old is barely in 3T) However it seems like many children run big! So, my 4 1/2 year old has friends who are just about as big as 7 year old! Regardless of how big my rather small four year old appears physically I am not letting him go to a public bathroom by himself. So far he is very "emotionally healthy" Mu eight year old does go by himself but that was just since he turned eight and requested it. I do not have multiples but I am still usually way too busy and distracted to be "appalled" by much other than people hitting and screaming at their children... having friends with children with all kinds of needs and special needs and "invisible" issues has made me way less judgmental.

These are kids I know personally. I couldn't know how old a child is or if they were intellectually and emotionally healthy unless I did know them personally, could I? Judging, judging everywhere.

Yes, it's rare-- but it happens to someone's children.

Playing the odds is fine, but understand that as healthy and well-adjusted as the KIDS are-- their parents may have reasons they haven't disclosed to you for particular quirky behaviors. My DD didn't go to the restroom alone until she was about 9yo, and even now, I prefer to be able to SEE the vicinity as described.

I was only 8 when I had the luckiest day of my life--

escaping from a determined child-predator who had me physically cornered... in a department store restroom. I know that I was lucky that day because I remember his face, his build... and he's the same person who was later convicted of murdering two other 7-9yo girls in a nearby town not three weeks later.

I have another friend who has refused to allow his son to serve as an altar-boy. Irrational? Oh, probably. But I have a hunch that I know why.

It is not my intent to attack your parenting viewpoints. However, many of those other parents may merely be following the law even though such laws are often violated, particularly by parents in poorer neighborhoods. In the states where I have lived as well as many (most?) other states, the legislature has long enacted laws that require 8-year-olds (sometimes older) be within sight at all times.

I am the typical sex abuse survivor. It was a relative and I was 7. And the college rape was date rape. The fact is, strangers usually aren't the ones doing this to our kids and I don't want to instill fear in them about strangers and toilet rape. I want them to feel confident. We did the "tricky people" lesson and it has worked. My fiercely independent child was leaving our yard (5) and walking down to the golf course while we slept to have a granola bar by himself. We were horrified when we found out, and every scenario of him being stolen entered my mind. But none of that happened. I did not tell him "someone could have taken you and killed you or raped you" I told him "it is irresponsible when you live with a group of people to depart without telling others where you are going. If you want some down time to yourself, you have to come inform me or your father of your need for it".

And for what it is worth, my mom hovered me totally and I was never allowed to go into a public bathroom alone. I grew up very fearful, and it didn't save me from being sexually abused, or later raped. What I needed was ways to combat those situations, and recognize them. Not run from every potential stranger as a villain. When I was actually raped, I was left reeling about how I had not known to read my internal signals. How I had not known to get away. I was helpless and weak and unempowered. My kids are empowered to listen to their gut.

Totally agree Howler ...

Really sorry you had to go through that.

Twinkies, I think some people felt defensive because you indicated that you are "appalled" that a parent would accompany their child to the restroom and implied that not doing so is better and would result in a confident child. When you say things like that you're gonna alienate people and put them on the defensive. Maybe express yourself with a little less judgment and recognize that people are trying to do their best and that there may be good reasons for what they're doing that you are not privy to.

Irene, if I had read the full thread first, I would of been a ware that not everyone was on the same page. . I read the top comments at the top of page one, thought we were all on the same page, and commented based on that *not knowing some disagreed* make sense? But really, I have issues with hovering because my mother completely and totally engulfed me. We are now estranged and have been for over two years. She left me an insecure and unconfident dependent on her. So, articles like this are very triggering for me, and I thought I found a place whee everyone was in agreement (lesson learned: read entire threads for climbing on a soap box by yourself).

Not a problem-- for what it is worth, my later history is a pretty good match for your own....

and my own mother was the antithesis of yours. She paid as much attention to me as a box of laundry soap, and BLAMED me for each and every bad thing that ever happened to me, or told me to quit being bothersome.

So I think that the lesson here is that neglect doesn't really offer much in the way of good self-image, empowerment, or self-confident assertiveness either.

Actually, I think the lesson should be "be careful of how you express yourself." I could say that I personally am not comfortable or agree with letting my 4 year old kid use a public restroom alone without at the same time bashing or insulting those who do just that. In your case, I can see from what you have said how it was basically a practical necessity. Would I do it with my kid? No. Am I "appalled" you did it and do I have a whole bunch of judgments about you and your kid? No. I can say "well she was doing the best she could in her situation, etc. I can't judge I do not have deal with caring for two sets of twins all day every day." YKWIM? Try to communicate without the harsh judgment. Save it for people who are actually not being good parents, not parents who are really trying their best to navigate the journey and find the right balance.

I personally love contradictory opinions because I do want to question what I am doing and why. My best periods of personal growth usually follow a discussion where I was disagreed with (like this one). I am a Meyers brigg INFJ. My parenting and discussion style are a good reflection of that.

Yes in certain places I have seen signs saying children under a certain age (and I think it is usually like 12?) much be "accompanied by an adult" or "supervised by an adult." I have seen similar restroom signs in various places.

Totally agree.

Oh, I must apologize to everyone. I just went back and re read my thread and the replies trying to figure out what went wrong. OMG. I have been wondering what the frick. I forgot to say something very important and I look like a MORON. I meant Family Restrooms. When I said we started scouting out restrooms and then I didn't elaborate. I meant my kids go into family restrooms alone (or in pair). The kind where they are the only ones there (maybe they don't have these in other countries, but seriously I can't believe I left it out). My boys do NOT go into the men's restroom alone yet. I am so so so sorry. My face is very red and I feel stupid.

Yes squishys, that what I meant. I really feel embarrassed that I didn't proof read and acted like such a moron.

Just to jump in where angels should maybe fear to tread, I've been happy to send my DS into ordinary gents toilets alone since he reached the age where I felt it wasn't quite on to take him into the ladies, which is probably about when he turned 6. Have definitely hovered outside and been ready to rush in if necessary, and preferred it if DH were with us, but sometimes it's necessary (and I've been a lot more anxious about "can't undo the lock on the cubicle door" than about being attacked). Stranger attacks in toilets happen, but they are nationwide news when they happen for a reason: they are very, very rare.

I guess most of us feel other people's risk assessment is weird!

And I think its fine if you let yours go alone, or go in with yours... The point was I looked like an arse saying moms shouldn't go into a public restroom with their kid and was appalled by it, when what I meant was an entirely different situation ...b lay blah blah.

I let my boys go into the women's alone if we are somewhere that doesn't have a family restroom. They are small for their age and it's not caused a problem. The entire men's room thing has been a little weirder to navigate. I have three boys and one girl.

I have two boys. It depends where we are and how many people are around. I am happy to take them in the women's until they are 7 but my oldest is big for age so at 6 he really looks too old while my youngest might pass for 7 when he 9 or 10.

I let my kids take risks at playground etc but I am far more involved than my parents were. I wish my parents had been more involved in my education though.

My DH and I have different enough assessments of what's OK at the playground that DS would beg me to stay behind because if he went with just Daddy he'd be allowed to do more of his favourite things! (We're talking about using equipment not how it was intended to be used - climbing on the roof of a structure designed to be crawled into, at a height where if he did fall, it could be serious - but he and DH agree he probably won't fall...) DH and I each feel pretty strongly and there's no objective truth to be had, so we've just had to settle for making it an educational point about risk assessment! Which it probably is - there's a lot to be said for being aware of the existence of different reasonable points of view and of the notion of deciding to do something that carries risks in knowledge of those risks.

Forbes magazine online recently posted an article (January 16, 2014) by Kathy Caprino, titled "7 Crippling Parenting Behaviors That Keep Children From Growing Into Leaders", which highlights the work of Tim Elmore.

Recently we drove to a scenic location, on a flat plateau, and at the edge was a sheer cliff drop of several hundred feet, in it's natural state, i.e. no man-made safety barrier to stop you falling straight off the edge several hundred feet to near certain death.

We explained to our children the danger and admonished them to stay well back from the edge. Suddenly, when about 30 feet from the edge, DD2 started to run straight towards the edge, with her "hahahaha I being siwwy" giggle. I sprinted and caught her with about 5 or 10 feet to spare.

There are real dangers in the world, and parents need to protect their children.

The following advice is so unbelievably idiotic that I am at a loss for words.

Well....


we do and we don't. Obviously, clear and present catastrophic danger isn't what they are talking about there. So no, I'm not handing my 10yo a $20 and telling her to "figure it out" if she wants to go to the downtown library, and I'm going to rescue a toddler who looks to be flirting with drowning by risking being knocked over in 45F surf.

I'm also going to offer COACHING from the sidelines when that seems appropriate. I also respect my child's decisions about things that don't really matter very much, or have such minor adverse risks that they are completely affordable. Like whether or not to play a particular sport, what to wear to an event, how to style her hair, how much (or how) to study for a midterm, that kind of thing. I've also let her LIVE WITH some bad decisions. I could have "fixed" some of them but did not. On purpose. So that she could learn what it is to have to live with a decision that you hadn't thought through very well.

She opted to be slow in the shower one morning on an international trip. It was BITTERLY cold, and she left herself too little time to locate SOCKS and put them on before meeting the bus at the appointed time. Too bad. She got to walk around Dublin in the BITTER cold all day with no socks. She now knows that the world won't always wait for her-- and that she MUST prioritize her own needs so that something like that doesn't happen again. She also learned in a hurry that complaining only made people LAUGH at her for being so disorganized. It was pretty gentle teasing, but it taught her something important. It wasn't MY job to make sure she had socks on at 13yo. It was her job, and she had been a flake about it... what did she expect? SYMPATHY? Hardly forthcoming. It was above freezing, she was in no real danger of anything but being uncomfortable. I thought it was a lovely lesson.

I'm like McGyvver crossed with a Swiss Army knife-- I had an extra pair of sock in my day pack. But I never said a word, and I certainly didn't offer them to her. I did offer her a band-aid the next morning, just in case she had any blisters. But she didn't.


In contrast, however, I went head to head with one VERY nasty gate agent just before boarding a trans-Atlantic flight so that she'd have some measure of safety during a flight that had 600 miles over nothing but open water. THAT was not a job for a 13yo with anaphylaxis history. KWIM?

I didn't read all the responses here but mostly agree with the article. However, the part about safety kind of grated on my nerves. There are some precautions that we take now as parents that weren't done 30 years ago. WE survived lying in the back on our parents' station wagon with no seatbelt on, but we were lucky. A lot of kids weren't. The precautions that we take now are there for a reason, and a lot of them aren't difficult. 10 seconds or 30 seconds can save a life.
DS fractured his skull snow tubing. In the PICU the neurosurgeon told me he should have been wearing a helmet. DS was unconscious for about 6 hours and his eyes were pointed in 2 different directions when he woke up, but the neurosurgeon told us he was lucky, he had another kid who was in much worse shape after sledding. No one else on that hill had on a helmet so we would have looked like weirdos being the only one putting helmets on our kids. But if we had taken 30 seconds to slap a helmet on his head we could have saved ourselves and DS about 8 months of drama. He had brain damage, and with the type of fracture he had he could have died or gone into a vegetative state if he had smacked his head just a little bit harder. We still don't know if he is completely recovered a year later. Now whenever I hear of anyone going snow tubing I get a bit of PTSD and launch into a lecture about how dangerous it is and how kids should have helmets, there should be lanes so no collisions with other tubes, etc. I have become more helicopterish and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if it prevents another accident.

How is today's world 'absolutely more dangerous'? By what measure? From what? In what location? In the US? In big cities? Are kids in more danger or everyone? Just as you hate to compare kids to kids 30 years ago, I hate anyone saying that life now is somehow more dangerous, they just "know it". The media has really done a great job trying to scare us the past 13 years, but I'm not convinced we are actually any more danger than we were 30 years ago.

Here is one page that compiles many crime statics showing that violence in the US is actually down from the 1980's. http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/

I'd say that it may well be true that life is more complicated. I'm not sure that it's actually MORE dangerous-- but it might be that we're all living effectively with ADD by virtue of the new "always on" way of life, tied to our mobile devices day and night.

On the other hand, kids can keep in touch with a cellular phone now in ways that were simply science fiction when I was my daughter's age. My parents (and those of my friends, too) never had any idea whether we were even alive until we showed up at home on time after dark-- or not.

I can remember being in an auto accident at 16 and having to limp along in a totalled vehicle for several miles to a pay phone to call the state patrol. And our folks, of course.

I didn't want to antagonize you. I was more curious why you felt so strongly that the world was more dangerous because most of what I have been reading tells me that violent crime is down. Not just on that site, I just thought it was a good summery of links. I don't necessary agree with everything this woman posts.

My option is that the world isn't more dangerous than it was 30 years ago, nor necessarily less. Just different.. just like your point that it's hard to compare kids now with kids 30 years ago.

Parts of the U.S are more dangerous and some a lot less. Kind of depends on how you qualify it. Plus sometimes we have traded one type of danger for another. For example parents drive kids to school in larger numbers than before partly because they worry about stranger abduction, traffic on city streets, busy lives, and school locations. These school parking lots have now becomes extremely dangerous with all the parents who are in a rush and don't follow safe procedures. Cell phones give parents a better idea of where there kids are, yet cause their own unique dangers in kids bulling and sexting.

As to the creator of this site, I did take a bit of a look at it. She isn't saying don't supervise your kids, just that we as a society have gone a bit overboard. And are we worrying about the right things. Two biggest child killers are car accidents and drowning. The age at which a child can be home alone, or walk a few blocks to the store, or leave home really really depends on the child & parent and situation.

I think that show Catch a Predator showed the increased risk for kids. Just like you have way more meth addicts now because it is more available. The Internet creates an addiction in some people that wouldn't have taken the risk before. I watched the show one Sunday when it was on MSNBC for a marathon. There was a cardiac surgeon, a big rabbi, people you would never thought have taken a risk like this before.
And there were more rules before and lines that people didn't cross. When I was a kid, my friend's parents were always Mr. & Mrs. So and so. Sex might happen in middle school but not as pervasive as it is now.
The familiarity and the early sexual activity of kids makes for a very different environment.

But it also makes us do way too much for our kids. I find sending her to camp has changed the paradigm where she wants to do more for herself. And I have started to back off. And give her a lot of time to hang and play in nature though I am in the vicinity, but giving her some space. Safe space.

You can give space and responsibility without putting them at risk.

I agree with bluemagic that the world is not more dangerous now than it was when we were kids.

Another fact that many people don't know is that teen sexual activity is down and that teen pregnancy is in continuing decline:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ies-continue-to-decline-new-report-shows

Teen smoking and drinking also continue to decline. Pot use is up, though:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/14/teen-drug-use-marijuana-up-cigarettes-and-alcohol-down/

Sometimes I wonder if anyone else was a teen in the 80s.

Teen births down 50% in the last 25 years
Childhood injury related deaths down 50% in the last 25 years
Missing children down 30% in the last 15 years
is what ten minutes of Googling tells me.

Which begs the question of trends in protectiveness, because are rates low due to alert parents or are they largely independent. It's awkward to know the balance; I'm the over-protective one and still hold my eight year old's hand most of the time in a parking lot.

Re injury, rates have gone down due to better product design and safer roads and cars, IIRC.

Re teen births, as I said, teen sexual activity is down and birth control use is up somewhat. It could be related also to parents talking to their teens about safe sex and their expectations regarding sex (proven to work!)

Re missing children--well, that's a tricky one, and possibly the real question for the free-rangers. Are there simply fewer child abductions because nobody's children go out to play alone or walk/bike alone anymore? Or is the world actually safer now for children alone?

A 40-ish co-worker recounted that when he was a kid growing up in the Midwest, he would play in the neighborhood, unsupervised, after getting home from school. At about 6pm his mother would go to the front door and yell "Jim, time for dinner!", and he would come. He does not consider his parents neglectful, and he has turned out fine.

For much of the 20th century in the U.S., and to this day in other countries, school children walked home and back for lunch. I think it is worth reconsidering how much supervision children need.

An American woman has a 1 in 6 chance of being targeted for sexual assault in her lifetime, and 44% of the victims are under 18. So I'll go ahead and keep an eye on my daughter, regardless of how it worked out that one time for your male coworker (odds for an American man: 1 in 33).

Stats

Sounds like my childhood. I'm in my 40s and grew up in the Midwest. Pretty much all of my friend's parents had the same philosophy. Some of us turned out "fine," others most definitely did NOT. My parents' parenting method was something I like to call "benign neglect." I'm fine now, but for a very long time in my 20's I really wasn't. I wouldn't personally recommend it as a parenting style.
With my own kids I'm not willing to leave it up to chance, not to mention I no longer live in the Midwest and it's no longer the 80s.

Let me repeat it again, though: the worst danger to your children absolutely, positively IS NOT random strangers attacking them on the streets. That is extremely rare, and has always been very rare. It is people they know and trust: their coaches, pastors, family friends, and babysitters. In terms of abductions, most children who are abducted are taken by noncustodial parents.

I maintain a healthy level of concern about sexual abuse and assault, but my awareness centers on the people we know, not the bogeyman in the bushes. Also, because I have this concern, I have, since they were 3 or 4, armed my children with the knowldge that their private areas are private and belong to them and what to do if anyone touches them there, shows them their own private parts, or talks to them in a way that feels inappropriate. We have gone over this many times. We also call body parts by their proper names and have a very open atmosphere about questions regarding sex. In addition, my kids are never required to hug anyone or give kisses to relatives if they don't want to. One rule I am STILL working on with them is the sovereign importance of the word STOP when engaging in roughhousing. STOP means STOP.

If you want to empower your kids against abuse, the best way to do so is not to constantly worry about who is lurking where but to talk to them about these issues. Your kids are going to go out into the world without you. You can't watch them every minute. Nor do they want you to.

I totally see where you are coming from. It's tricky, though. That could be seen as minimizing.

Well worth repeating, IMO.

We've been forced to actually come face to face with just how little real control we have over our day to day lives by life with DD. The actions of a person we will never meet could change our lives forever-- and they'd never even know.

We seem quite conservative about some risks, and quite cavalier about others, I am sure. But we basically look at an individual risk profile and work from what that data (and past experience) tells us is reasonable in a personal sense.

For most people, fearing a trans-oceanic flight is downright ludicrous. For someone with a medical disorder that can be triggered by another passenger's (otherwise inoffensive) behavior, though-- it's probably reasonable to be nervous or even terrified. It's not phobia if the consequences are severe and the probability of the event is reasonably high even with care on your part. I don't control what other people do. At the same time, we all live at one another's mercy on some level.

I'm fascinated by the development (or not) of resilience. Nobody really understands why some kids rise above horrific adversity and others don't-- much less why parenting seems to have remarkably little impact on those outliers-- some of them had almost NO adult mentoring, and yet they rose above those circumstances. Why? What do they have-- and how did it get there? They don't all seem to be optimists, and the characteristic also doesn't seem to track with much of anything else. It's kind of a mystery, from what I can tell. Other than avoiding the development of learned helplessness (which does seem to result from some specific environmental cues), there's not a lot to go by.


Also WELL worth repeating. There are indications that if one includes less clear-cut instances of assault, such as intimate partner abuse, that the numbers rise even higher-- as many as 1 in 3, by some estimates. That means that anyone who reaches old age without some experience of this is probably just... lucky. But the vast majority of those people are victimized by those they know-- often WELL.

While we haven't completely gone the other direction-- after all, I encountered one of those very "rare" individuals as a child-- we do emphasize that adults should NOT be behaving in some ways or suggesting some things to children. Or teens. We have identified 'red flags' in adult (and older teen) behavior.

Still-- it wasn't enough to prevent a predatory older teen from victimizing my child, and I'm pretty vigilant. The risk in presenting "all risks are avoidable if you're careful enough" is that life is for LIVING... and that you aren't really doing that if you spend all of it imagining the ways in which you are vulnerable, and patching those things up. NOBODY is completely invulnerable, and even if you could be, it's no way to live.

That message is also laden with toxicity from the standpoint that it BLAMES the victim for being vulnerable. Well, predators (and I don't mean only sexual predators) walk among us, and they look like us. You mostly don't know that you're tangling with one until you're in it up to your hips (or higher).

Be careful when you say "assaults" have increased. Actually, the definition of assault has changed over the years and statistics reflect this. Threatening someone with no physical contact is assault in some places and reported as a violent crime for statistical purposes.