3 ms·

I don't believe this story, unless this child has some sort of medical frailty. Your post complains that helicopter parenting causes broken bones, meanwhile ot

I don't believe this story, unless this child has some sort of medical frailty. Your post complains that helicopter parenting causes broken bones, meanwhile other anti-helicoptering activists argue that breaking bones is a necessary part of healthy development, that helicoptering prevents.

alien_at_work 9y ago
I'm having trouble seeing your argument for all the straw people. I don't care what you believe, I watched her walk down my steps one step at a time, both feet stable on that step before taking the next one. Why? Because her whole life she's hearing "NO! BE CAREFUL! STEPS ARE DANGEROUS!" so of course she's terrified and has no confidence that she can do it. >meanwhile other anti-helicoptering activists argue that breaking bones is a necessary part of healthy development Who says that? The fact is, the broken bones came, in her case, from the fact that she has no experience or confidence in things kids her age are able to do but ends up playing with other children (often younger!) who can. My kids already had their falls and scrapes when they were younger and closer to the ground. Now they know how to swing on a swing, roller blade, etc., without getting terrified and falling over. They also know better how to fall to minimize damage because they have experience with it. Look, over-protection is simply bad [1]. That's why it's called over-protection. If you're doing it, you're harming your children and you need to stop. [1] http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/negative-consequences-helicopter-parenting.shtml http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/negative-consequences-h...
- Pigo 9y ago
  In my experience some parents pick certain things to be over-protective about, or catering too much to their kids. A good friend of mine introduced me to this family with a couple kids that were still not able to tie their own shoes, the youngest was 12 years old. Another friend of mine (well his wife) won't let their daughter do basically anything outside without a helmet and other pads, even jump roping. People probably think she's special needs. I still force him to hold my hand when we're anywhere near cars, and I worry when I can't hear him. But I also look the other way when I know his step-brother is playing a little too rough with him. And I let him bang hammers in the garage when I'm working in there. I guess I'm trying to find a balance, but I'm sure I make some mistakes.
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  I'm guessing that their argument is "it is likely that child has underlying medical problems that caused the movement issues and made it easier to break her bones".
  - alien_at_work 9y ago
    No the child is perfectly healthy. Their argument is "see! I look away for a second and look what happens!"
dragonwriter 9y ago
The normal anti-helicopter line is that a certain degree of early childhood risk, which naturally involves some degree of minor harm and rare things like broken bones, results in children better able to manage routine hazards and less harm over the long run. Some age over 12 is well into the age where anti-helicoptering advocated would be likely to expect the harms of early helicoptering to have manifested, so the description in GP does not, to me, seem at all inconsistent with the common anti-helicoptering argument.

alien_at_work 9y ago

I'm having trouble seeing your argument for all the straw people. I don't care what you believe, I watched her walk down my steps one step at a time, both feet stable on that step before taking the next one. Why? Because her whole life she's hearing "NO! BE CAREFUL! STEPS ARE DANGEROUS!" so of course she's terrified and has no confidence that she can do it. >meanwhile other anti-helicoptering activists argue that breaking bones is a necessary part of healthy development Who says that? The fact is, the broken bones came, in her case, from the fact that she has no experience or confidence in things kids her age are able to do but ends up playing with other children (often younger!) who can. My kids already had their falls and scrapes when they were younger and closer to the ground. Now they know how to swing on a swing, roller blade, etc., without getting terrified and falling over. They also know better how to fall to minimize damage because they have experience with it. Look, over-protection is simply bad [1]. That's why it's called over-protection. If you're doing it, you're harming your children and you need to stop. [1] http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/negative-consequences-helicopter-parenting.shtml http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/negative-consequences-h...

Pigo 9y ago
In my experience some parents pick certain things to be over-protective about, or catering too much to their kids. A good friend of mine introduced me to this family with a couple kids that were still not able to tie their own shoes, the youngest was 12 years old. Another friend of mine (well his wife) won't let their daughter do basically anything outside without a helmet and other pads, even jump roping. People probably think she's special needs. I still force him to hold my hand when we're anywhere near cars, and I worry when I can't hear him. But I also look the other way when I know his step-brother is playing a little too rough with him. And I let him bang hammers in the garage when I'm working in there. I guess I'm trying to find a balance, but I'm sure I make some mistakes.
newfoundglory 9y ago
I'm guessing that their argument is "it is likely that child has underlying medical problems that caused the movement issues and made it easier to break her bones".
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  No the child is perfectly healthy. Their argument is "see! I look away for a second and look what happens!"

dragonwriter 9y ago

The normal anti-helicopter line is that a certain degree of early childhood risk, which naturally involves some degree of minor harm and rare things like broken bones, results in children better able to manage routine hazards and less harm over the long run. Some age over 12 is well into the age where anti-helicoptering advocated would be likely to expect the harms of early helicoptering to have manifested, so the description in GP does not, to me, seem at all inconsistent with the common anti-helicoptering argument.