4 ms·

It is an issue no doubt because parents just honestly don't have the confidence to let their kids go. They are paranoid not just about kidnappers or child mole

by socrates1998 8y ago

It is an issue no doubt because parents just honestly don't have the confidence to let their kids go. They are paranoid not just about kidnappers or child molesters, but they are worried about not preparing their kids for school and "getting ahead", thus the over planned childhoods. I really wish parents would just let go a little. 1) Read to your kids at night. Do it as old as they want you to do it. 2) Give them unstructured play time with friends consistently. After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around. 3) Younger kids should experience a variety of things well through middle school. The more things they do, the better. Sure, they should get good grades (A's and B's), but obsessing over all A's in middle school isn't worth it. 4) High school is when structure starts to be more important IF they want to get into a competitive school. And forcing a high school kid to get a perfect score on his SAT is a recipe for disaster. It should be the kids choice. Way too many parents are obsessed about making sure their son or daughter get into THE college they want. It's more about the parent than the student. I wish I could tell more parents to let fucking go. Teenagers go to war, they start businesses, they do all sorts of grown up things. Keep them away from drugs and help them find a passion. That's about it.

dzdt 8y ago
I am not paranoid about kidnappers and child molesters, but I am paranoid about other grownups who are paranoid about kidnappers and child molesters. I fully expect if I let my kids have the freedom previous generations had I would soon be visited by police and CPS because other paranoid do-gooders would report my kids as being in danger.
- yaur 8y ago
  The trick seems to be to put them on bikes. At least where I'm at kids that are riding bikes are assumed to be "free range" while kids on foot are assumed to be lost.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    The implication of there being free-range kids is that the rest are factory-farmed.
    - mjevans 8y ago
      Since around becoming a teen it was obvious to me that schools were less factories and more prisons that happened to have a stated goal and intended side-effect of forcing 'educational work'. I didn't mind the work, I did mind having it assigned as homework.
shioyama 8y ago
Completely agree. > After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around. I'd say more like age six, depending on the kid. Kids are much more independent and aware than adults give them credit for. > I wish I could tell more parents to let fucking go. It's ironic that just doing this -- letting go -- would probably do more good than any "educational" activity they schedule into their kids' lives.
- socrates1998 8y ago
  Yup. Parents think that they are helping their kid by doing everything for them, but really ,they are hurting them. It should be a gradual process of teaching a kid how to be independent and have independent skills from the time they are toddlers. Kids really appreciate being taught patiently how to do a life skill. And if they don't want to learn how to do laundry, you make them learn.
  - Mr_RobRoy 8y ago
    Amen! My favorite thing I've learned as a Boy Scout leader is the EDGE method of learning (Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Enable). If we as parents spent more time teaching our kids skills in a methodical way (which doesn't necessarily mean doing so in a lengthy way), then our kids would feel so much more empowered to be truly independent. I've also found that taking the the approach of "inviting" them to learn a new skill (and using the EDGE method to teach it) can be so much more powerful than attempting to force them to learn. When we do that, we often default to teaching them using only one method rather than the multi-method approach of EDGE.
rcheu 8y ago
I don’t think that’s a viable strategy in today’s world. The kids I knew growing up that were pushed hard by their parents are doing much better (and happier) than those that were not. Kids don’t reliably make good long term decisions for themselves. It’s more fun to play fortnite than to practice for a math/piano competition. They can’t see the long term impact of not working out and eating poorly. I got pushed pretty hard as a kid. It wasn’t fun at the time, but now I appreciate it. There’s a widening gap between the rich and poor in America, and it’s a lot nicer to be on the rich side.
- war1025 8y ago
  There is a difference between kids whose parents kept an eye on them and made sure they didn't go too far off the beaten path and kids whose parents structured their lives so heavily that they never had a chance to breathe for themselves. If you are from a stable family situation, it's easy to gloss over how shitty some kids have it at home.
- watwut 8y ago
  > The kids I knew growing up that were pushed hard by their parents are doing much better (and happier) than those that were not. For all the nostalgia, parents often make decisions based on their own observations about their own generation and themselves. It is interesting that none of these articles ever consider that some parent may go to the other extreme, because not everything was sunny and awesome all the time in the past.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- socrates1998 8y ago
  I specifically said to give them a variety of activities. Letting them play fortnite everyday doesn't qualify as a variety of activities. And I never said to not push a kid. If that's what you think will help him, then do it. If a kid has a bad habit of quitting things when they get tough, then you may need to "force" them to do something. And part of having them try a variety of activities will mean forcing them to do it. You can make them do a variety of things while also letting them have unstructured free time. I think too, when I say unstructured free time, I mean outside play time with no screens. I guess you could say that a parent is "forcing" them to not use a screen, so it's not really "free play time", but I think making kids go outside and play without giving them any directions on what to do, is a very good thing.
sulam 8y ago
If I “let my kids go”, they go to the TV, iPad, or Kindle. My kids, like most of their friends, get structured time so they don’t always fall back on what they do during unstructured time — technology stuff. I can take away those options (and we do that during the week), but if I want them to have fun the way they define it, often that means an iPad. And I offer to go climbing, hiking, etc with them, but so far it’s the older one that will embrace that while the younger sees it as a chore that takes her away from Roblox or some other game. That’s the irony of “free range” parenting — the “free” part explicitly excludes an option that didn’t exist when I was a kid because of what looks an awful lot like nostalgia.
- socrates1998 8y ago
  I should have clarified that when I say unstructured, I meant without any screens. Basically, you tell the kid they can do whatever they want without screens. Be creative, play a sport, walk around, read a book, go explore.... whatever, as long as it isn't tech related.
- saint_fiasco 8y ago
  What's so bad about that? I have lots of good nostalgic memories of climbing trees and stuff on my early childhood, and of LAN parties and couch gaming on my late childhood. Both were "unproductive" and seen by adults as "pointless". Both were very fun.
LitFan 8y ago
> 2) Give them unstructured play time with friends consistently. After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around. http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/144e.pdf http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/144e.pdf In Manitoba I can be fined up to $50,000 and given 24 months in prison if I allow my kids to play alone under the age of 12. The PDF refers to child 'home' or 'in a vehicle' alone, but the details of the law are that the guardian of any child under the age without adequate supervision is liable. I'm not even that old and I used to play in a park with my friends, in one of the rougher neighborhoods in my city, 2 kilometers from my parents house when I was 8. Those were great experiences my kids can't legally have.
thirdsun 8y ago
> I really wish parents would just let go a little. And so should schools. While we preach healthy work/life balance for adults, we bury children in huge amounts of homework that can stretch into or fill whole evenings. I'm all for a demanding, highly structured and efficient time spent at school, but please give them a chance to explore own interests and hobbies after school.

dzdt 8y ago

I am not paranoid about kidnappers and child molesters, but I am paranoid about other grownups who are paranoid about kidnappers and child molesters. I fully expect if I let my kids have the freedom previous generations had I would soon be visited by police and CPS because other paranoid do-gooders would report my kids as being in danger.

yaur 8y ago
The trick seems to be to put them on bikes. At least where I'm at kids that are riding bikes are assumed to be "free range" while kids on foot are assumed to be lost.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The implication of there being free-range kids is that the rest are factory-farmed.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    Since around becoming a teen it was obvious to me that schools were less factories and more prisons that happened to have a stated goal and intended side-effect of forcing 'educational work'. I didn't mind the work, I did mind having it assigned as homework.

shioyama 8y ago

Completely agree. > After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around. I'd say more like age six, depending on the kid. Kids are much more independent and aware than adults give them credit for. > I wish I could tell more parents to let fucking go. It's ironic that just doing this -- letting go -- would probably do more good than any "educational" activity they schedule into their kids' lives.

socrates1998 8y ago
Yup. Parents think that they are helping their kid by doing everything for them, but really ,they are hurting them. It should be a gradual process of teaching a kid how to be independent and have independent skills from the time they are toddlers. Kids really appreciate being taught patiently how to do a life skill. And if they don't want to learn how to do laundry, you make them learn.
- Mr_RobRoy 8y ago
  Amen! My favorite thing I've learned as a Boy Scout leader is the EDGE method of learning (Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Enable). If we as parents spent more time teaching our kids skills in a methodical way (which doesn't necessarily mean doing so in a lengthy way), then our kids would feel so much more empowered to be truly independent. I've also found that taking the the approach of "inviting" them to learn a new skill (and using the EDGE method to teach it) can be so much more powerful than attempting to force them to learn. When we do that, we often default to teaching them using only one method rather than the multi-method approach of EDGE.

rcheu 8y ago

I don’t think that’s a viable strategy in today’s world. The kids I knew growing up that were pushed hard by their parents are doing much better (and happier) than those that were not. Kids don’t reliably make good long term decisions for themselves. It’s more fun to play fortnite than to practice for a math/piano competition. They can’t see the long term impact of not working out and eating poorly. I got pushed pretty hard as a kid. It wasn’t fun at the time, but now I appreciate it. There’s a widening gap between the rich and poor in America, and it’s a lot nicer to be on the rich side.

war1025 8y ago
There is a difference between kids whose parents kept an eye on them and made sure they didn't go too far off the beaten path and kids whose parents structured their lives so heavily that they never had a chance to breathe for themselves. If you are from a stable family situation, it's easy to gloss over how shitty some kids have it at home.
watwut 8y ago
> The kids I knew growing up that were pushed hard by their parents are doing much better (and happier) than those that were not. For all the nostalgia, parents often make decisions based on their own observations about their own generation and themselves. It is interesting that none of these articles ever consider that some parent may go to the other extreme, because not everything was sunny and awesome all the time in the past.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
socrates1998 8y ago
I specifically said to give them a variety of activities. Letting them play fortnite everyday doesn't qualify as a variety of activities. And I never said to not push a kid. If that's what you think will help him, then do it. If a kid has a bad habit of quitting things when they get tough, then you may need to "force" them to do something. And part of having them try a variety of activities will mean forcing them to do it. You can make them do a variety of things while also letting them have unstructured free time. I think too, when I say unstructured free time, I mean outside play time with no screens. I guess you could say that a parent is "forcing" them to not use a screen, so it's not really "free play time", but I think making kids go outside and play without giving them any directions on what to do, is a very good thing.

sulam 8y ago

If I “let my kids go”, they go to the TV, iPad, or Kindle. My kids, like most of their friends, get structured time so they don’t always fall back on what they do during unstructured time — technology stuff. I can take away those options (and we do that during the week), but if I want them to have fun the way they define it, often that means an iPad. And I offer to go climbing, hiking, etc with them, but so far it’s the older one that will embrace that while the younger sees it as a chore that takes her away from Roblox or some other game. That’s the irony of “free range” parenting — the “free” part explicitly excludes an option that didn’t exist when I was a kid because of what looks an awful lot like nostalgia.

socrates1998 8y ago
I should have clarified that when I say unstructured, I meant without any screens. Basically, you tell the kid they can do whatever they want without screens. Be creative, play a sport, walk around, read a book, go explore.... whatever, as long as it isn't tech related.
saint_fiasco 8y ago
What's so bad about that? I have lots of good nostalgic memories of climbing trees and stuff on my early childhood, and of LAN parties and couch gaming on my late childhood. Both were "unproductive" and seen by adults as "pointless". Both were very fun.

LitFan 8y ago

> 2) Give them unstructured play time with friends consistently. After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around. http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/144e.pdf http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/144e.pdf In Manitoba I can be fined up to $50,000 and given 24 months in prison if I allow my kids to play alone under the age of 12. The PDF refers to child 'home' or 'in a vehicle' alone, but the details of the law are that the guardian of any child under the age without adequate supervision is liable. I'm not even that old and I used to play in a park with my friends, in one of the rougher neighborhoods in my city, 2 kilometers from my parents house when I was 8. Those were great experiences my kids can't legally have.

thirdsun 8y ago

> I really wish parents would just let go a little. And so should schools. While we preach healthy work/life balance for adults, we bury children in huge amounts of homework that can stretch into or fill whole evenings. I'm all for a demanding, highly structured and efficient time spent at school, but please give them a chance to explore own interests and hobbies after school.