When did parenting become a thing?

[Ausmumof3]

Regarding what someone said about parenting advice being in the bible, I thought of that.

 

Seems like it was much more "big picture" though,no? Seems like there was a shift in the 1960's ish where it's gotten increasingly neurotic and obsessive about every small detail.

 

It does make sense that once parenthood became optional that it also became much less simple.

Well Paul talks about older women teaching the younger women how to love their children. I think the teaching still existed but it was handed down verbally from family to family not written and studied by experts.

[SKL]

Our libraries don't allow 9 year olds to be dropped off without an adult/guardian. The driver is being smart. The printed library policy says if a parent or guardian can't be located in the building, the library will call police. Too many kids were being dumped for the librarians and staff to babysit, which isn't their jobs. 

 

But where did allowing a 9yo to use the library become "babysitting"?  When I was a kid we used the library much like we used business establishments - shop around, do what you came to do, leave when your purpose is served.  If your purpose is to sit quietly in the library and read, then stay as long as you like until they lock up.  If you feel the need to be noisy or active, leave and go find a playground or public pool.  By 8yo if not younger, kids were independent consumers, not babies to be "babysat" every second.

 

But somewhere along the way, parents stopped trusting their kids or the world or both, and the thought of their kid coming and going at will - to the library, pool, zoo, or whatever became scary.  And I supposed someone probably complained or sued a librarian for kicking a kid out.  And now, in many places, everyone's a baby until they're in high school.  It's crazy.

 

I'm not picking on the librarians for what the world has become.  If things have gotten so bad that calling the cops (vs. calling a parent or kicking a kid out) is the best answer for them, then whatever.  Where I live, the policy against school kids "alone" in the library has been dialed back.  And I haven't seen school-aged kids act foolish in the library.  Then again, our library branches have been designed to be great places for curious young people to be - again.

[Ausmumof3]

Our libraries don't allow 9 year olds to be dropped off without an adult/guardian. The driver is being smart. The printed library policy says if a parent or guardian can't be located in the building, the library will call police. Too many kids were being dumped for the librarians and staff to babysit, which isn't their jobs.

But this kind of reflects another change. One where parents are expected to do all the parenting. From older books I read there seems to have been more of a communal approach where the parents are responsible but kids go about doing their thing and other adults keep half an eye on what goes on and pull up kids where needed or report back to parents. However this probably only worked where communities had stronger shared values so that there was more agreement on what was ok and what wasn't for kids.

[hornblower]

In those idyllic 'free to roam 'childhoods there was also bullying, sexual assault, molestation, hazing. There was social & physical abuse. I know someone who had 2nd degree burns on their leg due to lack of adult supervision, who treated those burns at home due to fear of reprisals if it was disclosed to adults & other kids. I'm just not convinced it was all that great at all. 

[SKL]

I agree that it used to be about the home, and now it's about the kids.  Though, when I was a kid, part of the home was how nicely the kids cleaned up.  :P  I am a lot less picky than my mom about letting my kids out of the house with a small stain or rip on their clothes, or highwaters toward the end of a season.  I don't think my kids know what an iron is for, as they've only seen me use one to attach scout badges.  :P  To think that 10-20 years ago, I used to iron my cotton shirts and slacks religiously before going to work.  :P

 

I'm somewhat perplexed about the school thing.  My parents had nothing to do with my school work, other than making me go to school and looking at my report card each quarter.  I managed to learn a lot.  My kids probably don't know more than I did, despite having a lot more involvement on my part.  I often ask myself whether I am actually doing them any good.

[TranquilMind]

But this kind of reflects another change. One where parents are expected to do all the parenting. From older books I read there seems to have been more of a communal approach where the parents are responsible but kids go about doing their thing and other adults keep half an eye on what goes on and pull up kids where needed or report back to parents. However this probably only worked where communities had stronger shared values so that there was more agreement on what was ok and what wasn't for kids.

I kind of restated what you said and then reread your post and noticed that I had only skimmed the last part.  Never mind! 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

In those idyllic 'free to roam 'childhoods there was also bullying, sexual assault, molestation, hazing. There was social & physical abuse. I know someone who had 2nd degree burns on their leg due to lack of adult supervision, who treated those burns at home due to fear of reprisals if it was disclosed to adults & other kids. I'm just not convinced it was all that great at all. 

 

All of those things are happening today even with often overprotected kids.   

[SKL]

In those idyllic 'free to roam 'childhoods there was also bullying, sexual assault, molestation, hazing. There was social & physical abuse. I know someone who had 2nd degree burns on their leg due to lack of adult supervision, who treated those burns at home due to fear of reprisals if it was disclosed to adults & other kids. I'm just not convinced it was all that great at all. 

 

These things still happen, even to highly supervised kids with cops in the school halls etc.

 

At least if you acted stupid while out in the community at age 8, someone would have gotten back in your face at age 8 (and 10 and 12) and maybe you would think twice before doing it at high school or college age.

[hornblower]

These things still happen, even to highly supervised kids with cops in the school halls etc.

 

At least if you acted stupid while out in the community at age 8, someone would have gotten back in your face at age 8 (and 10 and 12) and maybe you would think twice before doing it at high school or college age.

"According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent.

In fact, incidence of sexual abuse of children began to drop two decades ago, according to Dr. David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire."

 

http://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers.html

 

And http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html

[Farrar]

All of those things are happening today even with often overprotected kids.   

 

I have a theory that some of the rise of really extreme bullying is due to the way in which kids are overprotected too much. They don't get a chance to mess up in the small ways when they're little and have parents help them figure it out because parents are too close. There's not as much of the "I'm alone on the block but daddy's right there if I need him" time of life or even just the "I'm at the playground with friends and mommy's right over there" time. Instead, mommy and daddy are always where they can hear and see (and stop) everything.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Back when I was a free-range kid, I was not unsupervised.  Instead, I was supervised by the entire "village".  I was able to let my kids be pretty free-range because I have built up a lot of relationships with adults in our community who were happy to fill that role.  My kids were never alone with these adults where they could be molested (ie. they were always in the "public square") but I got constant feedback on their manners and behavior even if I wasn't right there. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Same, and from my child's perspective it was hunky dory, but my mum didn't enjoy having the neighborhood 'reporting back' ie gossip disguised as concern half as much.

 

I just shrugged that stuff off.  Most of the people know kids pretty well, having had some of their own.  Those who don't, or have forgotten, just get the "smile and wave" treatment. 

[rwilk]

I have a theory that some of the rise of really extreme bullying is due to the way in which kids are overprotected too much. They don't get a chance to mess up in the small ways when they're little and have parents help them figure it out because parents are too close. There's not as much of the "I'm alone on the block but daddy's right there if I need him" time of life or even just the "I'm at the playground with friends and mommy's right over there" time. Instead, mommy and daddy are always where they can hear and see (and stop) everything.

 

My parents are currently in town, and went with us to a play area.  DD is 4, the area is enclosed, so I always just let her go hang out with her friends, and get me if she needs anything (there are some older kids that are there too that will come get an adult if needed as well). My parents were horrified I was leaving her alone and would frequently find reasons to go closer to observe exactly what was happening. They also felt the need to come back and report that a little boy was not using the nicest words, and they didn't know what to do.  Let them all be kids, and they'll figure it out.  If she doesn't get practice dealing with "not nice" words on her own at 4, how will she handle harsh words as a teen/tween?  If the little boy doesn't get the feedback from other kids that they won't want to play if he's a jerk, he also won't have the opportunity to change his behavior.  

 

My mom were always strangely overprotective (not of me, but of my sisters who are 10 years younger).  Where I was free to walk to neighbors' homes and manage my own friendships, my sister was in 8th grade and not allowed to walk to a friend's house two doors down.  She still needed picked up from the bus in 11th grade, when it would be normal to drive. I can't imagine the overprotection was  healthy.  

[SKL]

"According to the nation's top experts, children are actually safer from physical and sexual abuse than they have been for decades. A National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect issued by the Department of Health and Human Services found that both physical and sexual abuse of children have dropped significantly over the past 20 years: From 2005 to 2006, an estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993. And between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent.

In fact, incidence of sexual abuse of children began to drop two decades ago, according to Dr. David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire."

 

http://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers.html

 

And http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html

 

Historically and now, it's people who are trusted with kids behind closed doors who harm them.  Very rarely random strangers that they meet while going about their business in the community.  Keeping kids behind closed doors with adults does nothing to protect them from the main abusers.  For many kids it puts them at greater risk.

[SereneHome]

Wait, so if all the parents before now were so great, how come we have so many messed up adults?

 

I am so tired of hearing how the only right way to raise your children is to let them go outside, unsupervised, to play in dirt for hours every day and let them walk 10 miles to school by themselves and allow them to cook their dinners once they turn 5 and basically make sure they are self sufficient by the time they enter 1st grade.

 

There has to be a balance.  And a lot less judgement. 

 

Things change.  Some for the better, some for worse.  But every single generation is looked down by the previous one. 

[SKL]

Wait, so if all the parents before now were so great, how come we have so many messed up adults?

 

I am so tired of hearing how the only right way to raise your children is to let them go outside, unsupervised, to play in dirt for hours every day and let them walk 10 miles to school by themselves and allow them to cook their dinners once they turn 5 and basically make sure they are self sufficient by the time they enter 1st grade.

 

There has to be a balance.  And a lot less judgement. 

 

Things change.  Some for the better, some for worse.  But every single generation is looked down by the previous one. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying the old ways prevented all social and mental problems.  I think the point is that today's methods don't either, even though today's parenting is a lot more intense.  If we're spending 10x as much time / energy / money and getting basically the same results, maybe we have been sold a load of bull.  Maybe we should trade in the fuss for some quality of life.

 

I'm the worst offender, so ....

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by SKL

[Jean in Newcastle]

Not everybody can just shrug it off. It was not a good time for everyone's moms.

 

My mother much prefers how her daughters parent, and regrets that she did not have the resources and info we do.

 

The 70's were not a golden age of caring neighbourhoods everywhere, and I'd go so far as to say there were a lot of very bored women unconsciously taking out their frustrations of their children, their fellow moms, and the neighbourhood kids. 

 

My mother did not parent in the West.  There were longstanding cultural "it takes a village" forms of parenting that I don't think mirrored anything here.  My own family is a culturally blended family with culturally blending parenting styles, even though we are in the West.  Of course not everyone here shares the exact same culture of origin or family culture.  I'm pretty comfortable with that and don't feel like I need anyone's approval to parent my kids.  I think that results in a lot less stress, personally. 

[Crimson Wife]

 

The 70's were not a golden age of caring neighbourhoods everywhere, and I'd go so far as to say there were a lot of very bored women unconsciously taking out their frustrations of their children, their fellow moms, and the neighbourhood kids. 

 

From my perspective there used to be a LOT more alcoholism and heavy drinking than is done openly today. Maybe some of this is regional or cultural since I grew up in a heavily Irish-American area in New England whereas now I live out in California. But the kind of daytime boozing that was socially acceptable back then would definitely raise people's eyebrows today.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Historically and now, it's people who are trusted with kids behind closed doors who harm them.  Very rarely random strangers that they meet while going about their business in the community.  Keeping kids behind closed doors with adults does nothing to protect them from the main abusers.  For many kids it puts them at greater risk.

 

Yet the statistics cited don't seem to fit what you just said.

[SereneHome]

I don't think anyone is saying the old ways prevented all social and mental problems.  I think the point is that today's methods don't either, even though today's parenting is a lot more intense.  If we're spending 10x as much time / energy / money and getting basically the same results, maybe we have been sold a load of bull.  Maybe we should trade in the fuss for some quality of life.

 

I'm the worst offender, so ....

 

 

But who made it more intense?

 

I didn't grow up in US, so might not know all the details, but here are what I know / my observations about a few things.

 

Colleges look for a million things on a "resume" of a student so parents put their kids in a million different activities and clubs.  Was that the same 50-60 yrs ago?

 

Adults are not allowed to leave their children alone in the car, store, library or allow them to walk around the block?  Who originated that?  How did that become a law?  Who were the people who decided it was too dangerous?  The same people who allowed their own children to roam free or the "children" themselves?

 

Those are just a few examples that came to mind

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

Yet the statistics cited don't seem to fit what you just said.

 

There are plenty of statistics out there that prove that kids are by far most likely to be victimized by people knowingly entrusted with their care, and obviously mostly in private.  I am sure you know this.

 

If the numbers are decreasing (and I know they are), it's because people and institutions are choosing less violent forms of discipline, there is less of an attitude of entitlement in some communities when it comes to men and their desire for young flesh, kids are being taught (in school etc.) that they deserve better, and there is a lot more awareness and reporting e.g. mandatory reporters and anonymous 911 calls etc.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are plenty of statistics out there that prove that kids are by far most likely to be victimized by people knowingly entrusted with their care, and obviously mostly in private.  I am sure you know this.

 

If the numbers are decreasing (and I know they are), it's because people and institutions are choosing less violent forms of discipline, there is less of an attitude of entitlement in some communities when it comes to men and their desire for young flesh, kids are being taught (in school etc.) that they deserve better, and there is a lot more awareness and reporting e.g. mandatory reporters and anonymous 911 calls etc.

 

Or it could be also kids are overall better supervised and parents are becoming more vigilant regarding warning signs.

 

Arguing that kids being more free range keeps them away for predators is silly, considering sooner or later kids will be alone with their caregivers.  Come on.

[SKL]

Or it could be also kids are overall better supervised and parents are becoming more vigilant regarding warning signs.

 

Arguing that kids being more free range keeps them away for predators is silly, considering sooner or later kids will be alone with their caregivers.  Come on.

 

I didn't "argue" what you are calling silly.  I'm saying that preventing kids from being out in the community without an adult doesn't prevent the adults close to them from abusing them.  For someone who happens to have a pervert in the close family / friend circle, a policy requiring the kid to always be with a "trusted adult" can backfire.  Meanwhile such a policy does not make school-aged kids safer, because predators almost never attack kids out in the community where there are people to see and hear.

 

[hornblower]

You're veering from the point which was:

The stats indicate children were abused at higher rates when there was more laissez faire parenting & less supervision.  

I suspect part of the reason is that it was peers & just slightly older children who were responsible for the abuse but I also suspect it's complicated. That data though is not. You can't say children are being abused at the same rate because they're not. The fact that many abusers are trusted inner circle people doesn't change the fact that abuse rates are down at a time when supervision and parental involvement are up. 

 

[SKL]

You're veering from the point which was:

 

The stats indicate children were abused at higher rates when there was more laissez faire parenting & less supervision.  

 

I suspect part of the reason is that it was peers & just slightly older children who were responsible for the abuse but I also suspect it's complicated. That data though is not. You can't say children are being abused at the same rate because they're not. The fact that many abusers are trusted inner circle people doesn't change the fact that abuse rates are down at a time when supervision and parental involvement are up. 

 

 

 

I gave several logical reasons why child abuse rates may be decreasing, none having anything to do with protection from the community outside their homes.  If anything it's the community that is protecting kids via social pressure, mandatory reporting, and 911 calls.

 

When peers & slightly older kids are doing the hitting, it isn't categorized as child abuse.  You are lumping several very different things into one pot.  I don't even know how you'd quantify trends in kids hitting peers, since the vast majority of those are never reported.

 

And just because abuse rates are down and parental involvement is up does not mean the latter caused the former.

 

As for me veering from the point, my point was that parental supervision doesn't prevent bad parents from doing bad things (child abuse).

 

The first stats I found show that child abuse and neglect are generally on the rise (though not sharply), and also that about 80% of abusers are the parents; another 10% are other relatives or the parent's partner.  http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html

 

Your links only talked about sexual abuse.  Again, child sexual abuse by random people out in the community is extremely rare and always has been, so there is no logical argument that more supervision will make or has made a difference.

Edited August 9, 2016 by SKL

[Ausmumof3]

There are plenty of statistics out there that prove that kids are by far most likely to be victimized by people knowingly entrusted with their care, and obviously mostly in private. I am sure you know this.

 

If the numbers are decreasing (and I know they are), it's because people and institutions are choosing less violent forms of discipline, there is less of an attitude of entitlement in some communities when it comes to men and their desire for young flesh, kids are being taught (in school etc.) that they deserve better, and there is a lot more awareness and reporting e.g. mandatory reporters and anonymous 911 calls etc.

I also wonder if the stats will change over time as often these offences aren't reported till years afterward. Although hopefully the cultural attitude change will have actually had an impact. One thing that really worries me is that maybe we've just outsourced offences of this nature overseas in the same way our clothes and every other undesirable thing is outsourced. That as we make our own kids safer and less accessible offenders are travelling more. I really hope I'm wrong though.

[Ausmumof3]

I think it's kind of hard to define parenting now versus parenting then because there's so much variation. We most often compare to our parents generation and yet the way they parented wasn't exactly typical of the whole of human history either. And even in their generation there is massive variation. I mean arguably they could have been a totally dysfunctional generation messed up by being brought up by those who survived World War II or whatever. Even from the same era you can have widely differing opinions.

 

It is possible to talk about the challenges of circumstances like the two income family or the lower birth rate but even that is so subjective. One persons experience in a two income family could be two incomes just making it and another persons is the two incomes providing a huge range of resources to the kids and the best care and schooling. One persons free range childhood might feel kind of idyllic while someone else's resulted in abuse and bullying.

[LucyStoner]

The philosophy has changed but the whole idea of parenting as a vocation predates the post war period that many tie it to. It goes back into the industrial revolution, which came to different places at different times.

 

Farming and trades families worked together as economic units. As men and poor women left the farm and home for industrial work, the women who were able to stay home did. These women became identified as homemakers and mothers, rather than as the farmer's wife or the silversmith's wife or the grocer's wife. There are mothering and parenting manuals from the 19th century. While expectations have changed and grown tremendously, it didn't just all pop up circa 1960.

 

I think the emphasis on quality time as more and more mothers (rather than primarily just poor mothers) entered the workforce drove up the expectations for outside activities. Also the desire to make sure our kids do better than us in a man increasingly competitive world has led to escalating amounts of academic supplements in some demographics.

 

Let's not forget there are still demographics that don't buy into the hype parenting and who regard the tiger moms with as much bemusement as anyone's great granny would.

[kiwik]

I view it as institutional erosion. I don't want it to be my job to personally provide three nutritious meals, arrange adequate exercise and definitely not personally educate my children. But in the current situation I either have to pay vasts amount of money or do it myself, in order to ensure it is done somewhat adequately.

It is not like this in other countries I am familiar with (France and Japan come to mind). When I asked one mom whose child I was hosting (I host every summer) what he was doing in math (so that he could continue doing it as per family wishes), she asked and forwarded me the teacher's message. I mean, it is not her job to be up on the math. I don't want it to be my job either.

Same with say, learning to swim, and adequate exercise. Schools do that. Do kids here have to pass swimming tests in school? No. If schools were better, I would love to not parent quite so intensely because there's no medals for this nonsense.

My parent's did this in the seventies along with everyone else in NZ. It worked for kids who fit in the box but not so well with kids like me who were miserable at school and felt our parents didn't care. We played outside until dark without much supervision or though there was always someone around if we needed them. Sometimes I wish I could do the same but I have little outside space and the only kids round to play with are not ones I want them to play with.

[SKL]

I agree that the invention of "quality time" changed some things.  I remember when that became a buzzword, to counter the working moms' guilt / judgment.  Before kids, I was always of the opinion that "quality time" included unstructured, unsupervised time.  I still do believe that, but I don't act on it enough.  The world is now full of so many "opportunities" that are hard to pass up.  Now it's time to learn how to prioritize the space between those great activities.

 

This reminds me of the Buddhist concept that the empty spaces, the quiet times, are just as important if not more important than the busy business.  The gaps serve to define the experiences and the big picture.  Well, it all made sense when I was peacefully reading it before kids.  :P

 

But now, the quality of kids' unstructured time is not the same as it used to be, because kids aren't allowed to do the things they used to do.  They aren't allowed to go out and disappear and create problems and fix them and come home scraped and dirty at dinner time.  People are calling the cops about school kids playing in the park "too long."  (Another concept that didn't exist until recently.)  So we give our kids something to do because it seems better than screen time.

[Mimm]

My grandfather claims that "back in his day" no one used parenting as a verb. People simply were parents, they raised their kids, but no one put tons of thought into "parenting." :)

[Guest]

Meanwhile such a policy does not make school-aged kids safer, because predators almost never attack kids out in the community where there are people to see and hear.

 

 

While they dont attack, they do stalk and groom. And they find pockets of privacy in the park to do their business. I have a real life s.o. who has illustrated it all in my neighborhood. I hadnt realized how far from target they veer to get their desires satisfied until I saw him stalking a mother instead of his usual pre-pubescent prey. No way would I allow a child unsupervised with so many predators and so much trafficking going on.

[Bluegoat]

I think the invention of parenting came about with the invention of childhood. So I'm going to say a slow movement from the Enlightenment onward and definitely something ensconced by the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the advent of child wage labor.

 

I find it a little silly to think that parenting philosophies came about in the 1960's. I feel like some of these responses are mistaking a difference in parenting philosophy for a lack thereof. Seeing as childhood, as an institution, was well defined as a separate period of life by more than a century beforehand, I can promise you that people had philosophies of how to educate and deal with them.

 

I think in the 60's though people became much more concious about it, in a few ways.  One might just be that more people were reading books on it - while there are earlier parenting books, there were also large parts of the population that were simply not reading that sort of thing. 

 

And perhaps related to that, before the 60's there seems to have been much more culturally homogeneous ideas about child-rearing.  People were largely doing what the people around them did, and often what their parents did.  That started to change in the 60's, though it seems to have really come to fruition more recently, so that commonly people living in a given community have widely different views on childcare, education, and so on.

[Bluegoat]

I haven't read the whole thread, but my opinion is that today we are obsessed with identity.  There has to be some sense of pride that you can share (everywhere and to everyone) about the choices you've made with your life, including how you educate, feed, discipline--or not--your children.  It can seem sort of self-absorbed, but honestly I think it reflects an anxiety and uncertainty about doing things well/right/important more than anything else.  I look at younger parents today and cheer them on because they seem so much more intentional than other generations, but at the same time, they ascribe a sort of morality to their choices that is sort of over the top and in the end creates stress.  When I say that it's about identity, I'm thinking of how we introduce ourselves to others, how we present ourselves.  We talk about our mothering, our parenting a LOT...  Oh, and you WILL appreciate my life choices!!  LOL For goodness' sake, people are getting a sense of pride and identity from being vegan today and call themselves vegan whenever they get a chance.  It's vegetables.   :tongue_smilie:

 

I've read some interesting things related to this idea of the need to create identity, and particularly its relation to consumerism.  That is, a lot of the time we are building our identity through consumer choices, brand identification, and so on - and these things are being tied to some kind of lifestyle choice.  Advertisers are explicitly aware of this and try and infuse brands with lifestyle identity.

 

Parenting is chock full of it - just think of all the different types of advertisements in parenting magazines of varying philosophies, or the way buying something like the latest greatest baby wrap, or getting rid of plastic toys, becomes tied up to such a great degree with identity as a certain kind of parent.

[Bluegoat]

As an aside I think many people my age actually struggle with homemaking in part because we spent a whole school life being trained for an academic career. In my mil generation there was still a significant amount of practical skills training in school (sewing etc). My generation didn't get much of that and school hours and homework grew to fill most of the day so there was little time for learning it from parents.

 

I've always felt a bit jealous of my mother and grandmother who actually were taught real homemaking skills in school.  My mom's decription of her home ec classes were so much different than my own experience - they actually talked about things like the most efficient way to vaccume a house or keep up with tasks in a regular way.  It sounds mundane, but it took me ages to figure out a lot of the same things for myself. 

 

I suspect this is part of the reason books on houshold tasks have become so popular in the last few years.  The cultural knowledge of these things has gone to the extent that people are looking for the information elsewhere.

 

My Nana was a great knitter, which she learned when she went to school, at age 4, which seems a lot more useful than anything I was doing at 4.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I gave several logical reasons why child abuse rates may be decreasing, none having anything to do with protection from the community outside their homes.  If anything it's the community that is protecting kids via social pressure, mandatory reporting, and 911 calls.

 

When peers & slightly older kids are doing the hitting, it isn't categorized as child abuse.  You are lumping several very different things into one pot.  I don't even know how you'd quantify trends in kids hitting peers, since the vast majority of those are never reported.

 

And just because abuse rates are down and parental involvement is up does not mean the latter caused the former.

 

As for me veering from the point, my point was that parental supervision doesn't prevent bad parents from doing bad things (child abuse).

 

The first stats I found show that child abuse and neglect are generally on the rise (though not sharply), and also that about 80% of abusers are the parents; another 10% are other relatives or the parent's partner.  http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html

 

Your links only talked about sexual abuse.  Again, child sexual abuse by random people out in the community is extremely rare and always has been, so there is no logical argument that more supervision will make or has made a difference.

 

I think a major reason for a decrease may simply be that we've changed our attitudes about sexual abuse in a way that makes it less likely to remain under the radar - kids are more likely to tell about it, and parents to notice problems, and that makes the stakes much higher for a would-be predator.  It may also be that for those abusers who are more opportunistic, or weak, increased awareness and widespread social condemnation serves to make it easier to resist temptation.

 

I think that, along with awareness of the way institutions can enable abusers, has a lot more to do with the decrease than other kinds of parenting changes.

[Serenade]

And perhaps related to that, before the 60's there seems to have been much more culturally homogeneous ideas about child-rearing.  People were largely doing what the people around them did, and often what their parents did.

I think this made parenting so much easier for bygone generations. I really wish it had been the same way when I was raising my young kids.

 

Ironically, I think there was more of the so-called village approach back then than there is now. If a kid did something wrong, a neighbor would call him out. If a kid was in trouble, a neighbor would help her. Today there is no way in heck that I would call out a neighbor kid, even if he were doing something dangerous. And I would really hesitate to let a neighbor kid that I didn't know very well in my house, even if the child were in need. Why put myself in the path of another parent's wrath? Or put myself in the position of being questioned and examined by authorities? Quite honestly, I fear the estremes that our social system sometimes take, and I am not willing to put myself out there.

[Critterfixer]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think that the concept of "parenting" is anything new--by which I mean taking the advice of experts, society and the experience of others into consideration when raising your own children. That's philosophy in my book, and children are always raised with a certain philosophy about life, what is expected of them, and what one hopes that they will be able to reason out and pass on to their children. And books to tell you how to do it, why, and how bad you are if you don't do it the right way have been around for a very long time.  :laugh:

 

 

 

[lllll]

nm 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by cathey

[Jean in Newcastle]

No one in my neighborhood is calling the police on the kids 8 and up who go down to the park or walk around the neighborhood or who are riding bikes.  But we know people up and down the street.  Any one of them would help a child in need.  We have a general "no kids go in houses" neighborhood rule that everyone follows.  I did call the police just a couple of months ago when we saw a toddler walking down the middle of a very busy four lane street.  I still wonder if they were able to locate the parents. 

 

My kids were doing minor grocery shopping for me at 8.  The storekeepers knew that they were my kids and that I had sent them on an errand.  In fact, I used to tear my list in half and would give half to my then 8 year old and I would do the other half.  We would meet at the  end and transfer it all into one cart.  The only place where I had to intervene was at the deli where I told them to stop ignoring him and to treat him like a customer.  At the mall, we knew all the storekeepers who kept an eye out on our kids who walked a bit ahead of us (but always within sight). Just yesterday I stopped and chatted with one of the mall security guards who has known us for over 10 years and wanted to know all the details of what my kids are up to.  Again - my kids were specifically warned never to go anywhere with these people but no one ever tried to lure them away from us either.  We have created community by getting to know people in the areas we frequent. 

 

Kids are dying even this year from being left in hot cars.  Did you see the news article about the twin babies who just died?  (Not in this area.)  I don't think that most people are worried about kids older than 8 in hot cars because they can get out if needed - at least in my area.

 

I did have one busy-body neighbor who tried to make a big deal about me leaving my 8 and 4 year old home "alone" - dh was there, but he was asleep and the neighbor didn't think that was good enough.  I told her to knock it off but I was a bit scared that she would call someone.  I was confident that it wouldn't go anywhere but it would be difficult and traumatic nonetheless.  After that, I ignored that particular neighbor and did not tell her any details about my family. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

No one in my neighborhood is calling the police on the kids 8 and up who go down to the park or walk around the neighborhood or who are riding bikes.  But we know people up and down the street.  Any one of them would help a child in need.  We have a general "no kids go in houses" neighborhood rule that everyone follows.  I did call the police just a couple of months ago when we saw a toddler walking down the middle of a very busy four lane street.  I still wonder if they were able to locate the parents. 

 

My kids were doing minor grocery shopping for me at 8.  The storekeepers knew that they were my kids and that I had sent them on an errand.  In fact, I used to tear my list in half and would give half to my then 8 year old and I would do the other half.  We would meet at the  end and transfer it all into one cart.  The only place where I had to intervene was at the deli where I told them to stop ignoring him and to treat him like a customer.  At the mall, we knew all the storekeepers who kept an eye out on our kids who walked a bit ahead of us (but always within sight). Just yesterday I stopped and chatted with one of the mall security guards who has known us for over 10 years and wanted to know all the details of what my kids are up to.  Again - my kids were specifically warned never to go anywhere with these people but no one ever tried to lure them away from us either.  We have created community by getting to know people in the areas we frequent. 

 

Kids are dying even this year from being left in hot cars.  Did you see the news article about the twin babies who just died?  (Not in this area.)  I don't think that most people are worried about kids older than 8 in hot cars because they can get out if needed - at least in my area.

 

I did have one busy-body neighbor who tried to make a big deal about me leaving my 8 and 4 year old home "alone" - dh was there, but he was asleep and the neighbor didn't think that was good enough.  I told her to knock it off but I was a bit scared that she would call someone.  I was confident that it wouldn't go anywhere but it would be difficult and traumatic nonetheless.  After that, I ignored that particular neighbor and did not tell her any details about my family. 

 

My neighbourhood is pretty good about this stuff - there are a fair number of kids around playing.

 

I have friends in the same city in areas where that would not fly at all - not because they are in bad areas either, in fact the opposite is true if anything, they are in more well-off areas.

 

I do worry about the car thing, I've known quite a lot of stories about parents being called out over kids in cars locally that are just totally irrational - the parent is close by, the weather is cool, the kids are old enough to open a window or come find the parent. 

 

ETA - that is weird about being home alone.  Does she expect a parent to be awake all night?

Edited August 9, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

The part that you bolded....

 

I wonder how much of a factor this plays in all this too.  Meaning....people move quite a bit now.  We have been in our current home for 2 yrs, and only plan to be here one more before we move again.  At our previous home, we owned the house, and were there for 12 yrs.  That was literally the longest I had ever been in one place ever.  In my entire life.  And in that neighborhood, surrounding our house....the neighbor on the right of us changed a total of 4 times in those 12 yrs.  The ones across the street from that house, 3 times in that time.  Across the street from us, they moved in about when we did, but the other side of them, that house changed ownership a few times, including a couple of years of being vacant and bank owned.  And then to the left of us, those folks moved in a couple of years after us.  Of the 3 houses behind us, all changed occupants at least 3 times, one went through 2 families in one year.  So of 9 homes just on our block, only 3 had the same occupants for more than 10 yrs.  And now that we have left, only 2.

 

 In our current neighborhood...my neighbors on either side bought their homes when the neighborhood was built, so they have been here for 40+ yrs...but that's simply not common anymore.    And, given how uncommon it is, even when someone does stay in an area for a long time, most folks around them don't stay.  It's very difficult to get to know people when the people of the community change practically yearly.

 

Kids dying in hot cars-yes, it happens.  It happens, on average, to around 40 kids a year.  Most however, are accidents where the child was forgotten.  Some are accidents where the child climbed into the car in the driveway, and some even more terribly, are intentional.  However, while I am sure it's happened, I can't remember a news story where a mom intentionally left a kid in the car with all the windows up to go shopping for 2 hrs.  Now, by contrast, 9,000 children ages 12 and under die in car crashes each year.  Statistically speaking, leaving a child in a car for 5 or 10 minutes in the parking lot of a Shell or a CVS is going to be safer than getting in the car and driving away with the kids.  Yet, it's the 5 minute shopping trip that is illegal, not the driving.  And people think nothing of packing the kids up in the car and driving to the gas station, but then when they get there, they unbuckle 3 kids from 5 point harnesses, and drag them all inside just to buy that gallon of milk on the way home. 

 

Yes, this seems to be what people miss.  Leaving a kid in a hot car for a long time, intentionally, is rare, like other similarly serious and foolish parenting decisions, like letting your child play with poison.  Most of the time it the parent has for some reason totally missed that the child is in the car at all - so those signs telling people not to leave their kids are not going to help, because they don't think there is a child in their car anyway.

 

Why parents who have that happen very possibly end up in prison, while one who has lost a child in a highway accident generally does not, is a mystery to me.

 

Of course if I see a small child left in a hot car, it's always possible that he or she was left accidentally, so I might decide to look for the parent or wait or if necessary, call someone to open the car.  But I've known friends that were replacing the cart in the corral and were called out for leaving a kid in a car - in what world does that make sense?

 

 

ETA - I totally agree about the neighbourhood turn-over aspect.  It's one of the prices of the flexible workforce.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Bluegoat

[J-rap]

If I had to give a wild guess, I'd say parenting started to become a thing sometime in the 1970's.  When I watch the old Dick Van Dyke and I Love Lucy shows   :lol: , it was not a thing.  It was just something they did, by instinct or whatever.

 

Even during my own early childhood, in the 60's and into the 70's, it was not really a thing.  I mean, parents had their Dr. Spock and all, but that was different.  Parenting generally wasn't something they analyzed, thinking through all the possible outcomes, etc.  They just did it, based on instinct and values.

 

So, I think it was sometime after that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

Kids dying in hot cars-yes, it happens.  It happens, on average, to around 40 kids a year.  Most however, are accidents where the child was forgotten.  Some are accidents where the child climbed into the car in the driveway, and some even more terribly, are intentional.  However, while I am sure it's happened, I can't remember a news story where a mom intentionally left a kid in the car with all the windows up to go shopping for 2 hrs.  Now, by contrast, 9,000 children ages 12 and under die in car crashes each year.  Statistically speaking, leaving a child in a car for 5 or 10 minutes in the parking lot of a Shell or a CVS is going to be safer than getting in the car and driving away with the kids.  Yet, it's the 5 minute shopping trip that is illegal, not the driving.  And people think nothing of packing the kids up in the car and driving to the gas station, but then when they get there, they unbuckle 3 kids from 5 point harnesses, and drag them all inside just to buy that gallon of milk on the way home. 

 

I would just add that young kids being run over in parking areas is also more common than dying in a parked car.  Sometimes taking the child out for a brief errand is the more dangerous choice.  Parents need to be able to decide what is best in the circumstances.  And the hype about parked cars become hotter than a steel melting furnace in 15 seconds needs to stop.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The part that you bolded....

 

I wonder how much of a factor this plays in all this too.  Meaning....people move quite a bit now.  We have been in our current home for 2 yrs, and only plan to be here one more before we move again.  At our previous home, we owned the house, and were there for 12 yrs.  That was literally the longest I had ever been in one place ever.  In my entire life.  And in that neighborhood, surrounding our house....the neighbor on the right of us changed a total of 4 times in those 12 yrs.  The ones across the street from that house, 3 times in that time.  Across the street from us, they moved in about when we did, but the other side of them, that house changed ownership a few times, including a couple of years of being vacant and bank owned.  And then to the left of us, those folks moved in a couple of years after us.  Of the 3 houses behind us, all changed occupants at least 3 times, one went through 2 families in one year.  So of 9 homes just on our block, only 3 had the same occupants for more than 10 yrs.  And now that we have left, only 2.

 

 In our current neighborhood...my neighbors on either side bought their homes when the neighborhood was built, so they have been here for 40+ yrs...but that's simply not common anymore.    And, given how uncommon it is, even when someone does stay in an area for a long time, most folks around them don't stay.  It's very difficult to get to know people when the people of the community change practically yearly.

 

Kids dying in hot cars-yes, it happens.  It happens, on average, to around 40 kids a year.  Most however, are accidents where the child was forgotten.  Some are accidents where the child climbed into the car in the driveway, and some even more terribly, are intentional.  However, while I am sure it's happened, I can't remember a news story where a mom intentionally left a kid in the car with all the windows up to go shopping for 2 hrs.  Now, by contrast, 9,000 children ages 12 and under die in car crashes each year.  Statistically speaking, leaving a child in a car for 5 or 10 minutes in the parking lot of a Shell or a CVS is going to be safer than getting in the car and driving away with the kids.  Yet, it's the 5 minute shopping trip that is illegal, not the driving.  And people think nothing of packing the kids up in the car and driving to the gas station, but then when they get there, they unbuckle 3 kids from 5 point harnesses, and drag them all inside just to buy that gallon of milk on the way home. 

Maybe I live in a more stable neighborhood?  In the 17 years we've lived here, at least half of my neighbors have lived here even longer than I have.  We do try to make an effort to meet new neighbors as they move in, though I've noticed that some of the newer neighbors are more standoffish.  But not all - many new neighbors have folded seamlessly into the community.  It does take two to tango - we make overtures but we won't push ourselves on others either.

 

We just participated in the annual National Night Out at our local park where neighbors, local leaders and the police all get together for a bbq.  Ds is wanting to host a block party on Labor Day as well, though I'm not sure if we will pull that one off or not. 

 

Re. the car.  I've seen news reports of carjackings with babies/toddlers that were left in the car.  So it isn't just heat that is an issue.  I do agree that the odds of having something like that happen is much less than a car crash. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

The thing is, seeing news reports gives no information about what the risk of that happening actually is.  Is it as likely as getting hit by lightening on a seemingly clear day, or as likely as catching a cold?

 

I think this is actually a reason people get so worked up - they see a news report and even if it is actually rare enough to be considered a freak event, people think of it as a real risk.

[SKL]

Right, every time a heinous killer or molester is in court, the focus is on all the trials the accused went through as a child.  Either he was beaten and raped by his parents, or he was allowed to run wild with no discipline.  I mean, sometimes a life full of trauma is a factor - I've noticed a correlation between serial killers and serial unsuccessful foster homes.  (Though even then, you have to wonder, did the foster home fail because the kid was already so rotten that the family's kids / pets weren't safe?)

 

And some tendencies run in families genetically.  There's not much you can do about that.  We have some things in my family that are related to genes, not parenting.  But looking in from the outside, who can tell the difference?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

While I don't have statistics, I think moving around more often IS more common.  In my current neighborhood, as I said, the two houses to either side of me have lived here since the neighborhood was built.  But most of the people I met like through the school, haven't lived here that long, most only 2 or 3 years.  In my parents neighborhood, they have been there for 20 yrs now...but no one else around them has.  Every house on their street has changed ownership multiple times, most have had at least 4 owners just since I moved out, which was almost 15 yrs ago.  On the street behind them, all of the homes have changed owners at least 2 or 3 times in 20 years, and there are 2 that have been completely vacant for over a decade (though, someone's maintaining them, dunno who, there's no HOA)  Even if my sister's neighborhood, she's had her home for about 12 yrs now and on her street most homes have changed owners at least twice.  Shoot, even in my brother's neighborhood, he's had his house for 5 yrs, his neighbor behind him moved out after just 2, and across the street moved out after just 3 yrs. 

 

Again, not statistics, but I think that generally, moving is more common, especially because employers and employees are less loyal.  You likely do have a more stable neighborhood, and I suspect that type of stability is less and less common.

 

Regarding car theft with kids in the car....sure that happens, but it's also very rare.  There are certainly other things that *could* happen, like child getting out of her car seat and accidently putting the car in gear, child choking on the snack mom gave her, etc etc.  But the reality is that the risk to a child buckled in a car seat alone for 5 minutes while mom buys milk or pays for gas with the quarters dug out of the change jar, or whatever, are very minimal.  Yet, those risks are legislated against to extreme ends because 'some kids got hurt, so there 'aughta be a law!'

 

ETA: and bringing it back around, that's part of how I think "parenting" became a thing.  A thief steals a car, and a child happens to be inside while mom pays for gas, and somehow...the parent is at fault?  That's because we have come to a point where the parent is responsible for EVERYTHING regarding that child.  Child fails a test?  It's because mom didn't help her study.  Child grows up to be a serial killer?  Must be because daddy was never home.  Child has a baby at 16?  Where were mom and dad?  And it works the other way too....child passes a test with an A, it's because mom helped him study, child goes to a great college, must be because mom and dad raised them right, etc etc. 

 

Risk reduction is a valid societal goal where feasible.  As a society, we know that people will need to transport their children and themselves, so we have rules (and enforcement of those rules) that help provide some level of protection for all (rules for driving, car seats, seat belts, etc).

 

We also know that children being left unattended in cars is a risk factor, and one that can have significant impacts on the victims.  It is also an issue that is fairly easy to address (i.e. don't leave children to young to attend to themselves in a car alone).  One thing to keep in mind is that trying to determine which child has been left for 5 minutes versus one who is being left for two hours is a bit difficult to determine on the fly, in which case it makes sense to have a blanket rule for all (i.e. don't do it). 

 

Placing reasonable expectations on parents to prevent completely avoidable accidents seems like a reasonable goal to me.  YMMV and if so I wish you luck in getting your legislators to change the law.

 

[SKL]

 

We also know that children being left unattended in cars is a risk factor, and one that can have significant impacts on the victims.  It is also an issue that is fairly easy to address (i.e. don't leave children to young to attend to themselves in a car alone).  One thing to keep in mind is that trying to determine which child has been left for 5 minutes versus one who is being left for two hours is a bit difficult to determine on the fly, in which case it makes sense to have a blanket rule for all (i.e. don't do it).

 

 

Well we can't tell by looking how long it's been since a child ate or drank.  It could have been 3 days for all we know.  Most likely the child's parent cares enough to not starve the child, but there have been kids who have been starved, so let's make a rule that you must be feeding your children at all times.  That way passersby will know they don't need to worry and call 911 just in case.

 

I don't agree that a blanket law to not leave kids in the car will prevent accidents, since usually in fatal cases nobody realized the kid was in the car until it was too late.  Those incidents will continue to happen until we come up with a reliable reminder system so parents don't forget their baby is in the backseat when they exit the car.  And also a remote alarm that tells car owners a child has snuck into their parked car.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, why is it reasonable to place a blanket law for something that happens so very rarely?  To me, that actually isn't reasonable and doesn't make sense.  At what point do we as a society begin to accept that accidents happen, we cannot prevent them all, our kids WILL get hurt, and that sometimes, the attempts to prevent kids getting hurt in the short term may actually be hurting them in the long run?  That's not to say there is some great lesson or anything to leaving a kid in the car to run in to buy milk specifically.  But, at some point, our constant fear of kids getting hurt, fear of risks that are so minimal, IS going to spread to our kids and IS going to create fear in them that is detrimental. 

 

Not every child who isn't in a car seat will get killed in every car crash, but it makes sense to put all kids in car seats as we don't who will/won't be.  We also don't know which drivers can drive at 90mph on the interstate and which ones can't, so it makes sense to make it illegal for all.

 

We don't know which babies will be harmed because parents leave them unattended in cars, so it makes sense to protect all of them.  And I personally don't see us losing much as a society because we are requiring parents to take reasonable precautions with small children.