6 ms·

When I was a kid, we ran around our neighborhood as a pack every day after school, and all summer. We would explore the woods, explore new construction houses

by ttcbj 10y ago

When I was a kid, we ran around our neighborhood as a pack every day after school, and all summer. We would explore the woods, explore new construction houses near us after the workers left, play sports, and thousands of other activities. Unfortunately, the environment has changed for my kids in ways that makes this difficult to duplicate: 1. Other kids aren't home anymore, they are all at structured activities. There is no neighborhood pack to play with. 2. Parents aren't home either, they are working. When I was a kid, if you got a splinter or scrape, you just went to the nearest house and someone's mom patched you up. All those houses are empty now. 3. If you keep your kid home to play freely, they miss out on all the social stuff going on in the structured activities. Much as I dislike all the structure, it is where the other kids are. I agree it sounds great to let your kids roam free as we did, but I think in practice the environment has changed in ways that make it difficult.

modoc 10y ago
Well I grew up in the mountains of Vermont, and that environment hasn't changed really. But I see your point, although I feel that the only way to combat that shift, is to actively push against it (like the dad in the article did).
branchless 10y ago
2 is a big one. Yet another consequence of high land prices as now both partners are forced to work. Another is the break up of wider family. Before people could live locally and they would have their grandparents local too, and aunts etc. Now that land rents are so high and work is god, together with low job security, people are forced to move to other parts of urban areas or even to different cities in order to find work. Still everyone seems pretty happy with capital gains on their home that can never be realised because all other homes also went up in price, so perhaps it's worth the utter destruction of life as we know it!
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Well you can always just move to a small town where the rent is cheap. Oh wait, there's no decent-paying jobs there...
  - branchless 10y ago
    Rent is a function of wages. Land prices are a function of credit * wages. That's the point, the system scales up credit to absorb all productivity.
kohanz 10y ago
> I agree it sounds great to let your kids roam free as we did, but I think in practice the environment has changed in ways that make it difficult I agree, both with this and the premise that overprotective parenting is a real phenomenon. You can't place all of the blame on the parents for their increased vigilance because the environment of growing up has literally changed. Like many of you, when I was young, I played all over my neighbourhood with other kids my age, completely unsupervised. Free to wander quite far from my home with the understanding that I would be home for supper. However, I grew up in a small town (pop. ~20k). Today, most people live in cities, and many in large ones (us included). When my kids are older, I will do my best to give them freedom to play, but there are just some realities today that are different from when I was younger. I remember reading somewhere that there are roughly 3x the amount of vehicles on the road as there were in the 80s (when I was growing up). My biggest safety fear for my kids is traffic. We live in a city. There are a lot of parks around, but getting to and from places involves navigating traffic and a lot of it. I'll do my best to educate them and give them trust to do so, but you can't help but be a bit concerned. We all know you can be involved in a traffic accident these days through no fault of your own. To clarify: I'm not saying that the world is actually more dangerous for kids today than it was a generation ago, but I think for many parents it's not difficult to see how they could have that perception (true or not) and thus parent in a more protective way. Not only has the world changed, but so has the beholder (from carefree child to responsible parent).
- sotojuan 10y ago
  I live in Brooklyn and there's kids roaming around after school all over. Unless they're toddlers they know how to not get hit by a car.
  - kohanz 10y ago
    I'm not saying kids can't handle it. My point was not that it's not entirely reasonable to expect parents of today to act in the same ways as their parents did when when they were growing up, because the world now looks a lot different from what they experienced as children. The danger could be real or perceived, but the end result is the same. I wouldn't be surprised if our parents' generation were also considered over-protective by previous standards. This just feels like a "when I was your age" type of thing.
Grishnakh 10y ago
>2. Parents aren't home either, they are working. Even worse, at least half of them are working in "bullshit jobs", doing nothing productive except wasting time there justifying their paycheck.
- kylemaxwell 10y ago
  I strongly believe that that's not true for most folks. And even if it were - the paycheck is why they're there so they can make ends meet for their family.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean the work they're doing is meaningful or useful. There's been a bunch of articles about this. Most office workers are just doing "bullshit jobs": their work isn't really needed, or their productivity is horrifically low. I firmly believe we could switch to 20-hour work weeks and see almost no drop in productivity. Most workers spend much of their time surfing the web, sitting around chatting, etc. http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ https://www.rt.com/uk/312365-people-think-jobs-useless https://www.rt.com/uk/312365-people-think-jobs-useless
honkhonkpants 10y ago
#1 is the #1 problem. My kids still go around the neighborhood knocking on doors but the other kids are _never_ home.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
It seems like (2) is a good cause of (1), quite separate from helicopter parenting: working parents need a supervised place to store their kids. When I was a kid, I could roam the neighbourhood in a pack exploring woods and feeding horses, because I was sent to an (illegal) child-minder. This was just the house of an auntie who had finished raising five kids and was still not sick of it. Being illegal was the best part: had it been an official daycare centre, we would have been trapped inside a palisade and hovered over by nice 20-somethings with proffesional training and no kids. No Hulk-Hogan reinactments would not have been possible then.

by ttcbj 10y ago

modoc 10y ago

Well I grew up in the mountains of Vermont, and that environment hasn't changed really. But I see your point, although I feel that the only way to combat that shift, is to actively push against it (like the dad in the article did).

branchless 10y ago

2 is a big one. Yet another consequence of high land prices as now both partners are forced to work. Another is the break up of wider family. Before people could live locally and they would have their grandparents local too, and aunts etc. Now that land rents are so high and work is god, together with low job security, people are forced to move to other parts of urban areas or even to different cities in order to find work. Still everyone seems pretty happy with capital gains on their home that can never be realised because all other homes also went up in price, so perhaps it's worth the utter destruction of life as we know it!

Grishnakh 10y ago
Well you can always just move to a small town where the rent is cheap. Oh wait, there's no decent-paying jobs there...
- branchless 10y ago
  Rent is a function of wages. Land prices are a function of credit * wages. That's the point, the system scales up credit to absorb all productivity.

kohanz 10y ago

> I agree it sounds great to let your kids roam free as we did, but I think in practice the environment has changed in ways that make it difficult I agree, both with this and the premise that overprotective parenting is a real phenomenon. You can't place all of the blame on the parents for their increased vigilance because the environment of growing up has literally changed. Like many of you, when I was young, I played all over my neighbourhood with other kids my age, completely unsupervised. Free to wander quite far from my home with the understanding that I would be home for supper. However, I grew up in a small town (pop. ~20k). Today, most people live in cities, and many in large ones (us included). When my kids are older, I will do my best to give them freedom to play, but there are just some realities today that are different from when I was younger. I remember reading somewhere that there are roughly 3x the amount of vehicles on the road as there were in the 80s (when I was growing up). My biggest safety fear for my kids is traffic. We live in a city. There are a lot of parks around, but getting to and from places involves navigating traffic and a lot of it. I'll do my best to educate them and give them trust to do so, but you can't help but be a bit concerned. We all know you can be involved in a traffic accident these days through no fault of your own. To clarify: I'm not saying that the world is actually more dangerous for kids today than it was a generation ago, but I think for many parents it's not difficult to see how they could have that perception (true or not) and thus parent in a more protective way. Not only has the world changed, but so has the beholder (from carefree child to responsible parent).

sotojuan 10y ago
I live in Brooklyn and there's kids roaming around after school all over. Unless they're toddlers they know how to not get hit by a car.
- kohanz 10y ago
  I'm not saying kids can't handle it. My point was not that it's not entirely reasonable to expect parents of today to act in the same ways as their parents did when when they were growing up, because the world now looks a lot different from what they experienced as children. The danger could be real or perceived, but the end result is the same. I wouldn't be surprised if our parents' generation were also considered over-protective by previous standards. This just feels like a "when I was your age" type of thing.

Grishnakh 10y ago

>2. Parents aren't home either, they are working. Even worse, at least half of them are working in "bullshit jobs", doing nothing productive except wasting time there justifying their paycheck.

kylemaxwell 10y ago
I strongly believe that that's not true for most folks. And even if it were - the paycheck is why they're there so they can make ends meet for their family.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean the work they're doing is meaningful or useful. There's been a bunch of articles about this. Most office workers are just doing "bullshit jobs": their work isn't really needed, or their productivity is horrifically low. I firmly believe we could switch to 20-hour work weeks and see almost no drop in productivity. Most workers spend much of their time surfing the web, sitting around chatting, etc. http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ https://www.rt.com/uk/312365-people-think-jobs-useless https://www.rt.com/uk/312365-people-think-jobs-useless

honkhonkpants 10y ago

#1 is the #1 problem. My kids still go around the neighborhood knocking on doors but the other kids are _never_ home.

adrianratnapala 10y ago

It seems like (2) is a good cause of (1), quite separate from helicopter parenting: working parents need a supervised place to store their kids. When I was a kid, I could roam the neighbourhood in a pack exploring woods and feeding horses, because I was sent to an (illegal) child-minder. This was just the house of an auntie who had finished raising five kids and was still not sick of it. Being illegal was the best part: had it been an official daycare centre, we would have been trapped inside a palisade and hovered over by nice 20-somethings with proffesional training and no kids. No Hulk-Hogan reinactments would not have been possible then.