"Free-Range Kids" Long post...

[Mari]

You know, I think you and Barb have judged me without knowing fully the capabilities and maturity levels of my children.

 

:iagree:

 

I would only get involved if it were a dangerous situation.

 

Well you haven't seen the specific situations we've been dealing with. You might consider them dangerous, too, if it were your children on the field. Up to now, I have only offered advice at home and behind the scenes, allowing my child to listen to the coach and deal with this on his own.

 

I occasionally have left children on their own at practices, Scout meetings, etc.

 

I have also with my older son. Occasionally. Not always, though, which appeared to be the case I responded to, and definitely not when I felt they lacked the maturity to handle certain situations.

 

I have let my dc go to day camps where I am not present.

 

I might also when I believe my child can handle the challenge.

 

I let my 2yo play outside with her 6yo brother (and older.)

 

I hope you are close enough should you be needed. I'm sure you feel more comfortable with the older children watching her and know which ones would be more responsible.

 

I let my 4yo play outside alone on the porch.

 

That would be okay in my house, too.

 

I let my 16yo walk over to the lake with the 5 oldest siblings to go fishing.

 

I'm sure a 16 year old could handle this situation perfectly fine. You've raised him so I hope you have confidence in his abilities to watch his siblings.

 

I let him drive at 12 on private property.

 

I probably might do the same if we lived out in the country and we had an old beater of a car. Heck, it's how I learned to drive!

 

Now, I have been told that my dc are more mature than most, but I don't really have a lot of other children to compare to. I expect that they will follow our rules and use common sense. How much freedom they get is totally dependent upon their personalities, my experience with their level of responsibility, and the situation.

 

From what I hage read here, my dc would be considered "free-range" to a certain extent, but would be more so in a better neighborhood.

 

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get across. My point all along has been that PARAMETERS must first be established to know whether a child can handle the freedom of their given responsibilities. I've used examples in my previous posts of how many parents themselves are irresponsible in giving their children "free-range" without knowing the full capabilities of their children. They falsely assume their children are ready when indeed they might not always be.

 

Interestingly, the author of the book was on The View today. She had much to say about how parents can't just throw their kids "out there" but instead need to help their children reach a point of handling themselves in challenging situations. I'm sure you can find the episode at their website.

[Peri]

I need to say up front that I have not read all the posts on this thread nor have I read the book brought up by the OP. I have heard about it and am very interested in reading it. I have to respond to this particular post, though, for a few reasons:

 

 

 

What ticks me off are parents in my neighborhood who give their children "free-range" to "go, explore and have fun" while their BRATS are actually wrecking havock over at MY house and yard and picking fights with every kid they encounter. I have no idea who these kids are, where they live or who their parents are for that matter. I guess they're at home "relaxing and living" their lives without caring about how well their kids can behave themselves when they're not around. I think the key is to give your kids parameters to work with. I think a lot of parents are lost on this one.

 

 

Also, the world is not supposed to be a scary place but it often is in many situations. We can't just brush that fact under the rug of our hope that bad things won't happen. I'm just saying we need to be smart and not overly relaxed about how we teach our children to LIVE confidently in this world.

 

LOL! This is why I don't just let mine go and do what they want all day long. I'm too worried about the trouble they'll cause or the people they will bother.

[Peri]

Things have been really friendly up to this point (hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;) ;) )

 

The point of the book is that things ARE safe today, at least as safe as they were when we were kids.

 

Also, with the local bullies... have you shooed them away? I'm wondering, because they're on YOUR property and I know I wouldn't put up with that.

 

Times now are probably safer for children because abuse and rape are not tolerated. Back in the days, if these things happened, how likely would it be for the child to speak up? If a woman or young girl was raped, she was probably too ashamed to even mention it. Since things were so hush hush, people were given the assumption of the environment being safe. The only difference is that we now no longer tolerate it and we speak up about it. This has actually caused our environment to become safer. But safer doesn't mean you can just let your kids go where ever either. Things have become safer because we now take more precautions.

 

I live in what I think is a pretty safe place. i have a lot of land for the kids to roam and play on. I still would not feel safe letting them just go out and do whatever they want (like they'll go outside without me anyway :glare:). I'm ok with my 11 year old going outside on our property with her friends and I still will look outside and check on them. But there is no way i would let the 5 year old or the 2 year old outside without my supervision.

 

I also wanted to add that checking on your kids is not just about keeping them safe. It is also about making sure they don't start any trouble. I come from a culture where children are free range. They eat breakfast, go out to play, and don't come back until it is time for dinner. No one knows where they went or what they were doing. My Dh has told me of gambling, stealing, and causing all kinds of other trouble. Children who are not supervised become trouble makers IMHO. We are parents so that we may guide them and not let their environment guide them. This is called responsible parenting IMHO. If our children are going to be harmed, then they are going to be harmed and there is nothing that we can do about it. This is a fact of life. there is no way you can avoid being singled out and attacked. if its going to happen then it is going to happen ... god forbid it happen to any of us.

[Liz CA]

Moving to a small town has helped. I'm still way more cautious than my parents were, but I'm less cautious than the other parents in California were. My older kids walk and ride their bikes all over town.

 

 

 

Yes, I think how free-range kids can be is dependent on where they live. I agree that even in a large town, kids have to be able to learn independence. I would be a few steps behind them when they ask a stranger for directions or converse with a neighbor, mailman, etc. These are all things they need to learn IMHO but when the environment is such that a parent is afraid, it makes good sense to be close by.

Also, it depends on what they have been taught and how well they remember what they have been taught.

[BikeBookBread]

I have actually thought about this topic quite a lot. I saw the Free Range Kids website about a year ago, and was intrigued. This is the way that we WANT to raise our children. We do to an extent. I'm not a "hover mom", we let them try activities that other parents would be hesitant to let their kids do (5 yo Ingrid really wants a bow and arrow, just like Susan in LWW)however.........

 

when it comes to the wandering part, my paranoia kicks in. I think it really does have a lot to do with:

 

1. Where you live geographically: urban vs. suburban vs. rural
   
2. What type of neighborhood arrangements you have -- do you know your neighbors? Trust them? etc...
   
3. What type of children you have: timid, shy (do they need to be prodded to be more independent) vs. brave, ready to explore, but don't have enough years under their belt to have wisdom and good sense to back up their explorations.
   

When we lived in Almost Canada, ND, I would have been all for almost full-range free ranging our kids. It is a very safe, wonderful corner of the world.

 

Here in Almost Mexico, AZ, NO WAY. We live within a mile from an interstate, right next to the desert, with border patrol trucks and helicopters regularly circling looking for illegals. PLEASE don't call me racist or insensitive about immigration issues (I think it is horrible that it is illegal to leave water out in the desert for illegals, I'm speaking to a different issue). If you have been watching the news AT ALL lately, you will know that the Mexican border town criminals are spilling over into Arizona and wreaking havoc on innocents. It simply is not safe to just let kids wander around in the desert (our version of the woods that I wandered around in as a child). Also, in my dh's line of work (legal), he sees a lot of really bad, REALLY BAD stuff happening to children. You don't want to know, and I won't tell you...

 

To sum up, I WANT to be a free range parent, but don't feel that it is prudent or wise right now...

[Renee in NC]

Mari, I wasn't judging you, just responding to the specific scenario you put forth. We deal with obnoxious kids in activities all the time and generally we ignore them. Last summer 2 of my boys went to a daycare summer camp. One little girl was TERRIBLE to them - calling them names, getting the other kids to gang up against them, etc. I spoke to the teacher and I spoke to the director. They had tried talking to the mother, but she was the type that thought their child was perfect. I never went directly to the parent, even though I saw her regularly. Eventually, I pulled them out. It wasn't my place to go to the parent - if they wouldn't listen to the director or teacher, why would they listen to me?

 

In our case, my dc have less freedom than they used to because we moved to a less safe area. There are drug dealers here and we hear lots of domestic situations. They cannot leave sight of the house here and the 4yo cannot leave the porch if no one else is outside. At our old house, though, they were "free-range" (as were my chickens - LOL at the tag.) It was safer and we knew all the neighbors.

 

Who knows what the rules will be at the new place. The yard is fenced in there and the neighborhood is better. I don't think there are many kids there, though, so it may not even be an issue. I won't live my life in fear. There is a certain amount of trust in God at play. I want them to grow up to be independent - we also practice early maturity so at 12 or so we no longer consider them children. It requires a certain amount of freedom to get there, though.

 

When I read your first post, it gave me a very different impression of what you practiced than your subsequent posts.

[cathmom]

Maybe I am alone in this, but I do actually think the world is not as safe as when I was a child (although I was not "free-range" as so many of you say you were). For one thing, the population of the US has increased by 100 million since I was born. That means that statistically, there are a larger number of people with "issues." And then when you take into account the way things like sexual abuse spread, I would think the number of potential child predators has increased. One child who was abused in the 1970s may have hundreds of victims as an adult.

 

There are also many more cars on the roads today, so the chance of being hit by an automobile has most likely increased. Wikipedia said that the number of registered vehicles in the US has been rising by 3.69 million per year since 1960.

 

Because we live in the country, our choices are very limited. I'm not going to describe what we allow or don't allow because this is a public forum. Thanks for the great discussion!

[camibami]

As to kids activities, maybe soccer is different (we've never played). But if I interfered in way, shape or form in my DD's gymnastics practice, that would be their last practice, LOL. The coach is the coach. She has complete control of the class and students, and I really can't imagine ever, ever, ever going onto the floor to intervene if my child is being disruptive or another kid is or anything. Gives me heart palpitations just to imagine- it would go over like a "fart in church" if you get what I mean!!

 

If a coach doesn't have control of their team/practice/students, its time to find another coach.

[Merry]

I'm fifty one years old now and have homeschooled since 1987. I wish I had been more of a hovering mom then as I am now. I've learned since that while the children may do just fine in the great outdoors by themselves, they might get in trouble with other children playing there too. With drugs especially. I've learned that we do have to be quite aware of where they are and who they are with all the way through the teenage years. I used to let our children stay overnight with people we might not know that well but might have good reputations. No more. I'm more careful to screen them beforehand. I think the mothers like Heather and Katia are right to watch their kids that carefully but then again I've known mothers who overreact too. I think it's a matter of always knowing where they are and what they are doing and still letting them take some risks on their own like climbing trees or going mountain climbing with adults and even playing by the creek by themselves as long as they come home on time and I do check on them once in a while. It just all depends but the mom radar must be on at all times. I don't rely too much on statistics; they're sort of meaningless in that the level of safety can vary so much from place to place.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Merry

[dirty ethel rackham]

Around here, kids are dropped off at sports practices by age 6. They have a parent meeting at the first practice to explain expectations, get cell numbers, help parents arrange car pools, etc. Parents are welcome to stay (and coaches sometimes ask certain parents to stay if their child needs them.) Coaches here do have the prerogative to tell parents that if their kid does not behave, don't bring them back. On my kids teams, it has only happened once or twice.

 

At most practice fields around here, there are no bleachers, so parents would have to bring their own chairs and dodge stray balls. Many parents have several children with practices and other extracurriculars at the same time, so staying is not always an option. When my daughter was 6, her soccer practice started before the end of my son's religion class, that I taught in my home. Her older brother (then 13) would get her ready and walk her to the park (about 4-5 blocks away) for practice. I already knew the coach from the previous season and knew several of the parents. They knew how to get in touch with me.

 

I am usually a nervous nelly parent and have been accused of overprotectiveness. However, I have followed my children's cues as to how much they needed me and followed my gut on how safe a situation was. My olders have needed much more prodding on being independent than my youngest, but that is due to their natures. DD is much more outgoing and makes friends easily.

[Mari]

As to kids activities, maybe soccer is different (we've never played). But if I interfered in way, shape or form in my DD's gymnastics practice, that would be their last practice, LOL. The coach is the coach. She has complete control of the class and students, and I really can't imagine ever, ever, ever going onto the floor to intervene if my child is being disruptive or another kid is or anything. Gives me heart palpitations just to imagine- it would go over like a "fart in church" if you get what I mean!!

 

If a coach doesn't have control of their team/practice/students, its time to find another coach.

 

 

Good grief! I never said I would ever "go onto the floor to intervene if my child is being disruptive or another kid is or anything." And I was very clear that I have always let my son deal with the issues himself up to this point. What I did imply is perhaps discussing the issue with the parent directly and privately. I think there is a way of doing that calmly, civily, and with good intentions. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

 

Finding another coach is impossible at this stage of the game (STS) although I don't understand the assumption that it is entirely his fault. Trust me when I say he does have amazing talents out on the field with kids willing to listen and follow directions.

[Mari]

Mari, I wasn't judging you, just responding to the specific scenario you put forth.

 

Well you did use the "I agree" sign.;)

 

We deal with obnoxious kids in activities all the time and generally we ignore them.

 

So do we. It's part of life and we all need to know how to deal with it.

 

Last summer 2 of my boys went to a daycare summer camp. One little girl was TERRIBLE to them - calling them names, getting the other kids to gang up against them, etc. I spoke to the teacher and I spoke to the director. They had tried talking to the mother, but she was the type that thought their child was perfect. I never went directly to the parent, even though I saw her regularly. Eventually, I pulled them out.

 

Okay, so again, another example of how bad apples spoil the bunch. Your daughter had to suffer the consequences of someone else's bad behavior.

 

It wasn't my place to go to the parent - if they wouldn't listen to the director or teacher, why would they listen to me?

 

Why wouldn't they listen to you? Well, it doesn't matter because you never gave them the chance. I think this really intimidates people. There's a way to do it...privately, calmly, and well intentioned. If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you want to know?

 

In our case, my dc have less freedom than they used to because we moved to a less safe area. There are drug dealers here and we hear lots of domestic situations. They cannot leave sight of the house here and the 4yo cannot leave the porch if no one else is outside. At our old house, though, they were "free-range" (as were my chickens - LOL at the tag.) It was safer and we knew all the neighbors.

 

Who knows what the rules will be at the new place. The yard is fenced in there and the neighborhood is better. I don't think there are many kids there, though, so it may not even be an issue. I won't live my life in fear. There is a certain amount of trust in God at play. I want them to grow up to be independent - we also practice early maturity so at 12 or so we no longer consider them children. It requires a certain amount of freedom to get there, though.

 

When I read your first post, it gave me a very different impression of what you practiced than your subsequent posts.

 

Yet I was very clear, even in my first point, that is was more an issue of parameters set forth by a parent to determine if their child was ready to face the challenges associated with being free-range. It seems most of us agree on this point at least.

[Renee in NC]

I apologize. I was agreeing with how she would handle the situation.

 

If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you want to know?

 

 

I would have dealt with my child when it was brought to my attention by the teacher, so another parent would have no need to come to me. Would I appreciate it? Probably not.

[TravelingChris]

I have already posted that I am relatively free with my kids but less free than I was or my husband. There are two main reasons for that- we have the resources our parents didn't have to be more at hand (drive more, be more involved) and the other reason for how free we are is our two older children's fear problems. OUr two oldest have genetically based fear issues and we are trying and have been trying to help them cope with this. For them, that certainly means get realistic about fears. Abduction is an unrealistic fear but being careful with medicines is a very realistic fear. I know some of you are approaching this issue from an emotional basis of what if your kid was the one? Well, I have this to say, many more children are diagnosed with cancer than are abducted by strangers. So should we subject our children to invasive and probably completely useless tests just so we can find that 1 in 100,000 or whatever the cancer rate in children is? We don't do that. We do sensible things like check where the predators live, keep children home if we live in dangerous areas with drugs and crime, etc. But there was nothing particularly dangerous about my daughter riding her bike for twenty minutes in a very low crime neighborhood where the community was full of actively involved people. As the author of the freerange book pointed out, online activity isn't very dangerous either as long as your child is behaving.

 

Each of us has a responsibility to evaluate the risks of actions and inactions on our children. We all have our own opinions but our children are different and our circumstances are different. So if you keep your 12 year old at home and not allow them to go out in the neighborhood, I have to at least be willing to accept that maybe your neighborhood isn't safe or your child is not as mature as mine. On the other hand, you should accept that I am not endangering my child by letting her walk our mini poodle in our close neighborhood which has very, very low crime rates and no registered predators.

[Katrina]

Oh, pick me, pick me!

 

Before kids, I was one of those serious true crime addicts. I not only heard of him but read the big book about him!

 

Joanne, did you read "Stranger Besides Me"? I've had to do some serious detoxing after that book, but I'm now pretty much free to allow my kids to free range quite a bit. I've even let my kids ride their bikes half a mile to the grocery store for snacks when they were bored, and they were 9 and 11 years old.

 

Oh, I read the Green River Killer book as well. :001_huh:

[Mari]

I apologize. I was agreeing with how she would handle the situation.

 

Thanks.

 

I would have dealt with my child when it was brought to my attention by the teacher, so another parent would have no need to come to me. Would I appreciate it? Probably not.

 

Actually, I probably wouldn't appreciate it either BUT I would still want to know. Those are two separate things in my mind. I'm not necessarily interested in appreciation but instead resolution, KWIM? Also, it would help me understand the situation better if I heard another opinion. All that would be unnecessary, though, if the parent were involved enough to witness the poor behavior themselves.

 

My apologies for hi-jacking this thread. I did try real hard to keep my posts related to the book. Will you please forgive me if I told you it's on my amazon wishlist?

[lionfamily1999]

I don't agree with you here. The overemphasis on children's organized activities and the assumption that family life is to revolve around them has contributed greatly to our child-centered culture.

This is one area that I need to work on. Not.being.child.centered. I go to every.single.thing. my kids are involved in. I go, I pay attention, I cheer, sometimes I even video tape. Now, I've been super careful to switch to 'you should be proud of yourself' rather than 'I am proud of you.' The implications, supposedly, being that the dcs need to learn how to do things for their own edification, rather than to make me proud. I think I'm going to step way back on attendance now. It's occured to me that by making my world revolve around theirs I'm doing them a disservice. Why? Well, because, eventually, I want my world to go back to revolving around dh, and when that happens, when I'm not hanging on their every grade and every raise, will they be able to be happy doing these things? IOW, I don't want my kids shacking up or hooking up because they need outside approval. Did I do good? How will I know unless someone else tells me? I do this. I don't want THEM to do this too.

Well, I re-read my post and don't think my tone was unfriendly toward the poster...

I've just seen lots of these threads devolve into, "I'm a better mother than you" "What kind of mother ARE you?" And I hated to see this one jettison down that track.

 

As for your concerns. I'm not saying that all kids should be tossed outside right now. I'm worried that I'm stiffling my kids, because of fears that are not grounded in reality. I am worried that my kids are missing out on all that thinking and learning and growing that happens when they're AWAY from me, off on their own. I wanted to know if other moms felt this way, if anyone else LET their kids live the carefree life I did as a kid.

 

I want my kids to learn to be happy with nothing. IOW, I want them to see the woods and be able to imagine all the things we've learned in history, to imagine all the books they read and to LIVE them, like I did as a kid. I want them to have a quiet secret place, that isn't really secret, but maybe you know what I mean, where they can go ALONE out in the world and be by themselves. I want them to gather their friends and go on "adventures"...

 

and yeah, I want their laughter to be loud and their shrieks to tick of various elderly neighbors and I want them to be enjoying life while they do it.

[Tracey in TX]

I'm a relaxed parent, and am aware that something 'could' happen...but statistically speaking, probably won't. DDd is more likely to break her arm (again) biking than doing high level gymnastics. DS is more likely to be hit by a car in our alley than abducted by a stranger. I teach them to be cognizant of their surroundings and practice safety, but can't encourage paranoid behavior. Too many children are sheltered from the wonderful things in life because of the fear of something bad happening. If we don't allow our children to grow and make small mistakes while living with us, what will the ramifications be when out on their own and making big decisions for the first time?

[Mari]

This is one area that I need to work on. Not.being.child.centered. I go to every.single.thing. my kids are involved in. I go, I pay attention, I cheer, sometimes I even video tape.

 

Wonderful! I think one day you may hear how much that meant to your children and you'll be thankful you took the time to do those things.

 

Now, I've been super careful to switch to 'you should be proud of yourself' rather than 'I am proud of you.' The implications, supposedly, being that the dcs need to learn how to do things for their own edification, rather than to make me proud.

 

I think it's okay to say both. I think it's sad if a child grows up to not know if their parents are proud of them. They should also know when we are disappointed as well. It helps build their character when they have positive and constructive criticism. I like to say, "Good for you!" when they do well or "I am so proud of how you _______" (not emphasizing the "you" but rather what they did).

 

I think I'm going to step way back on attendance now.

 

Okay, that's fine. As I wrote earlier, I see nothing wrong with doing this for teens and tweens. Just, before you do with your younger child though, please make sure he/she can handle that challenge and not be burdensome or disruptive on whoever is left watching him/her. Some kids are ready for this while others aren't and it's not fair to leave a problem for anyone else. Realize also that your younger 7 yo is still at the age of needing and seeking parental approval.

 

It's occured to me that by making my world revolve around theirs I'm doing them a disservice. Why? Well, because, eventually, I want my world to go back to revolving around dh, and when that happens, when I'm not hanging on their every grade and every raise, will they be able to be happy doing these things?

 

Huh? Maybe I'm not understanding but why should your world revolve around your dh? Where do you fit in your worldview?

 

And I think Barb implied this to my post, but I never advocated a child-centered approach to raising children. Actually, I'm quite the opposite, having read and re-read the Babywise series. I'm defintiely more in line with the family-centered (which will later evolve into society-centered) approach to parenting. I'm very careful, though, to take into consideration the ages and stages of child development, which is where I think a lot of parents go wrong in this "free-range" concept.

 

IOW, I don't want my kids shacking up or hooking up because they need outside approval. Did I do good? How will I know unless someone else tells me?

 

No, you don't want this, but you also want to help lead them to an awareness of what pride in self should look and feel like. It doesn't just turn on like a "lightbulb" moment...you have to help them get there.

 

I've just seen lots of these threads devolve into, "I'm a better mother than you" "What kind of mother ARE you?" And I hated to see this one jettison down that track.

 

And yet, here you are assuming that was my intent??? Come on already! I never, EVER, said that or even implied that. I think you misinterpreted an emotion that was not there, which is easy to do in the setting of these forums and e-mail in general.

[littlebug42]

This has been a very interesting post. I would consider my childhood to be considered free range. Looking back, I don't really think it did me any favors. Because we lived in a "good neighborhood", my Mom pretty much just let me be if she knew who I was with. Unfortunately, she usually loved and trusted the friends that were the worst influences on me. I now have two beautiful girls and if I err, it is definitely on the side of over protective. My girls are bright and very self assured because Mommy is always there and they have the knowledge that I will catch them if they fall. I did begin this year sending them to a homeschool girl scout troop and I purposely did not volunteer for leader/chaperone duty to give them a chance to spread their wings. My oldest, age 7, went to an overnight campout this weekend and it hurt me, but I let her go because I do know and trust the adults that were with her. I will continue to "hover" if need be because I feel that is part of my job as their parent and I do not want them to travel down the same roads I did as a "free-range" kid.

[lionfamily1999]

This is one area that I need to work on. Not.being.child.centered. I go to every.single.thing. my kids are involved in. I go, I pay attention, I cheer, sometimes I even video tape.

 

Wonderful! I think one day you may hear how much that meant to your children and you'll be thankful you took the time to do those things.

I won't hold my breath for that, lol. My parents attended lots of things when we (my sibs and I) were little and I mostly remember wishing Mom would've stayed home... Lol, now that I think about it, she drove me nuts being there "cheering."

Now, I've been super careful to switch to 'you should be proud of yourself' rather than 'I am proud of you.' The implications, supposedly, being that the dcs need to learn how to do things for their own edification, rather than to make me proud.

 

I think it's okay to say both. I think it's sad if a child grows up to not know if their parents are proud of them. They should also know when we are disappointed as well. It helps build their character when they have positive and constructive criticism. I like to say, "Good for you!" when they do well or "I am so proud of how you _______" (not emphasizing the "you" but rather what they did).

 

 

Of course, I tell them I'm proud of them, but I try to let them know they should take pride in themselves. Who knows, it could be some parenting expert mumbo jumbo, but I know I need outside affirmation and I do not want my kids to be like me in this regard.

I think I'm going to step way back on attendance now.

 

Okay, that's fine. As I wrote earlier, I see nothing wrong with doing this for teens and tweens. Just, before you do with your younger child though, please make sure he/she can handle that challenge and not be burdensome or disruptive on whoever is left watching him/her. Some kids are ready for this while others aren't and it's not fair to leave a problem for anyone else. Realize also that your younger 7 yo is still at the age of needing and seeking parental approval.

 

 

not so much. Andrew is trying very hard for independance now. I am his Den Leader and his behavior at Scouts leaves something to be desired. Swimming, however, is done with me at the other end of the pool with the baby (yes, I know he's 2, but he's still my baby) and he behaves beautifuly there... until I'm visible, lol. Then it's 'hey Mom look!' and ignoring the coach.

 

It's occured to me that by making my world revolve around theirs I'm doing them a disservice. Why? Well, because, eventually, I want my world to go back to revolving around dh, and when that happens, when I'm not hanging on their every grade and every raise, will they be able to be happy doing these things?

 

Huh? Maybe I'm not understanding but why should your world revolve around your dh? Where do you fit in your worldview?

 

And I think Barb implied this to my post, but I never advocated a child-centered approach to raising children. Actually, I'm quite the opposite, having read and re-read the Babywise series. I'm defintiely more in line with the family-centered (which will later evolve into society-centered) approach to parenting. I'm very careful, though, to take into consideration the ages and stages of child development, which is where I think a lot of parents go wrong in this "free-range" concept.

 

 

I've already said, I require outside affirmation. Left to my own devices, I would disappear into the library, never to see the light of day again.

 

Could you explain 'family centered?' I've never heard of it (I don't normally read parenting manuals).

IOW, I don't want my kids shacking up or hooking up because they need outside approval. Did I do good? How will I know unless someone else tells me?

 

No, you don't want this, but you also want to help lead them to an awareness of what pride in self should look and feel like. It doesn't just turn on like a "lightbulb" moment...you have to help them get there.

 

 

 

Again, I've never said to just chuck your kids out into the world. The idea is that at some point they are ready for more responsibility and independance, and we, as parents, need to give them that. My 2yo is not walking to the mail box any year soon.

I've just seen lots of these threads devolve into, "I'm a better mother than you" "What kind of mother ARE you?" And I hated to see this one jettison down that track.

 

And yet, here you are assuming that was my intent??? Come on already! I never, EVER, said that or even implied that. I think you misinterpreted an emotion that was not there, which is easy to do in the setting of these forums and e-mail in general.

That's why I tried to stay light, what with the hint-hint.. etc.

[astrid]

She's almost 12 years old and independent, self-assured, confident, and has a very healthy sense of right and wrong. She sleeps well at night after lots of fresh air and exercise, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Plus, I love the added benefit of giving her a five dollar bill and sending her to the local store on her bike for some ingredient I"ve forgotten to get when grocery shopping! She loves that she can stop at the health food store next door and buy some honey sticks or fruit leather with the change. ;-)

 

Astrid

[Peek a Boo]

i have not read the book, but i think i can comment on the thread ;)

 

1. everyone has their own idea of where parenting and over-protective are. I already know I'm "over-protective" based on many comments here, but I'm not looking for your approval, so I will continue to parent effectively as it has served me [and others] well so far.

 

2. I like the concept of free range MOMS. That's probably closer to our style. We do stuff together. They learn from seeing it modeled.

 

3. i also like the "illusion" of free range -- limited choices. we do that too.

 

4. Statistics. Yes, i tend to side w/ Heather on this. As Peri mentioned:

Things have become safer because we now take more precautions.

Kids tend to be safer playing outside because they often ARE supervised in some way -- by neighbors quietly watching out or mama bears just around the corner like Jill described. It's harder to control statistics like planes and cars. But just because "the statistics" say kids are safer walking down the street than riding in a car doesn't mean a lack of supervision has anything to do w/ that.

 

5. If you really want to avoid the whole "I'm better than you" debate, you might want to dump "over protective based on fear" and try something like "parenting effectively based on caution of actual events." But again, call it what you want, I'm pretty content w/ what we're doing. ;)

[Mari]

Could you explain 'family centered?' I've never heard of it (I don't normally read parenting manuals).

 

Basically the idea is that parents should raise their children with an understanding that the needs of the family (society) outweigh the needs of any one individual in that family. I think I first heard of this when I read On Becoming Babywise, by Gary and Ann Marie Ezzo. There's an entire series based on ages from infants to teens. It's rather controversial and probably not welcomed by fans of Attached Parenting as you could read in book reviews on Amazon.com. I don't agree with everything they recommend but I think they are right on with this "family-centered" approach to parenting. Too often, we parents put our children at the center of our universe and ultimately wind up with self-centered teens who expect nothing more than instant gratification. Sadly, we've created a "me, Me, ME" culture.

 

I seem to remember the Babywise series was secular in content but the Ezzos also have a lecture series called Growing Kids God's Way, which many churches use. You can learn more about them at http://www.gfi.org/ .

[Peek a Boo]

Too often, we parents put our children at the center of our universe and ultimately wind up with self-centered teens who expect nothing more than instant gratification...... .

 

.......and parents who end up divorced when the kids are grown because they have nothing in common once the kids are gone.

 

and yeah, the Ezzos have been accused of being baby-abusing horrible people. Their scheduling concepts saved my sanity w/ #5 tho. I shoulda read those guys a dozen years ago.

[lionfamily1999]

5. If you really want to avoid the whole "I'm better than you" debate, you might want to dump "over protective based on fear" and try something like "parenting effectively based on caution of actual events." But again, call it what you want, I'm pretty content w/ what we're doing. ;)

I'm worried that I'm parenting based on fear. That's why it keeps coming up, that's why I posted this, because I wanted to know a. if I was the only one and b. if there were parents that let their kids play without fear.

 

It's a label I've slapped on myself and am now trying to remove.

Basically the idea is that parents should raise their children with an understanding that the needs of the family (society) outweigh the needs of any one individual in that family. I think I first heard of this when I read On Becoming Babywise, by Gary and Ann Marie Ezzo. There's an entire series based on ages from infants to teens. It's rather controversial and probably not welcomed by fans of Attached Parenting as you could read in book reviews on Amazon.com. I don't agree with everything they recommend but I think they are right on with this "family-centered" approach to parenting. Too often, we parents put our children at the center of our universe and ultimately wind up with self-centered teens who expect nothing more than instant gratification. Sadly, we've created a "me, Me, ME" culture.

 

I seem to remember the Babywise series was secular in content but the Ezzos also have a lecture series called Growing Kids God's Way, which many churches use. You can learn more about them at http://www.gfi.org/ .

How does this work? I have no idea what attachment parenting is, lol, so I don't really have a comparison for this. Is it that "the family" is considered in everything? IOW, 'you want a wii, but how does this effect our family?' Or are the kids included in more aspects of the family business (see income, bills, etc).

[skaterbabs]

W/regard to the Ezzos, I find their "parenting" advice to be less than valuable and potentially damaging. Their credentials are nonexistant and their beliefs have no basis in established medical or psychological fact. Before anyone gives them too much credit I would suggest investigating them thoroughly.

 

There are also many more cars on the roads today, so the chance of being hit by an automobile has most likely increased.

 

 

This is actually not true. Pedestrians are actually MUCH safer these days for a variety of reasons both educational and technological

[Mari]

How does this work? Is it that "the family" is considered in everything? IOW, 'you want a wii, but how does this effect our family?' Or are the kids included in more aspects of the family business (see income, bills, etc).

 

Maybe others who are fans of the Ezzos can chime in here since I don't have the books in my home anymore. If I'm remembering correctly, it's the NEEDS of the family that outweigh the one individual. So in your example, oldest child #1 wants a Wii but he will probably be the only one playing it because children #2 and #3 are too young to play it. Do you waste the money on that one child's enjoyment or spend the money on entertainment that the entire family can and would enjoy? The idea is to lead the child to understand he is one of many rather than the one and only.

[Mari]

W/regard to the Ezzos, I find their "parenting" advice to be less than valuable and potentially damaging. Their credentials are nonexistant and their beliefs have no basis in established medical or psychological fact. Before anyone gives them too much credit I would suggest investigating them thoroughly.

 

Well, like I earlier wrote, they are controversial but many parents do find a few nuggets in their books. As far as their credentials go, this is what the Ezzos say about themselves:

 

http://www.gfi.org/java/jsp/cust_ezzo.jsp

 

I couldn't follow their methods to a "T" but I did appreciate much of what they had to say. I know there is negative publicity out there but, hey, there's negative publicity out there on the Free-Range Kids book, too. Come to think of it, there's negative publicity out there against us homeschoolers, too. ;) I tend to take what I like from each parenting book I read and discard the rest, IYKWIM.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm worried that I'm parenting based on fear. That's why it keeps coming up, that's why I posted this, because I wanted to know a. if I was the only one and b. if there were parents that let their kids play without fear.

 

It's a label I've slapped on myself and am now trying to remove..

 

I have no problem w/ a parent self-identifying themselves as parenting based on fear. It's the blanket statements from others that i was addressing. :)

[Peek a Boo]

W/regard to the Ezzos, I find their "parenting" advice to be less than valuable and potentially damaging. Their credentials are nonexistant and their beliefs have no basis in established medical or psychological fact. Before anyone gives them too much credit I would suggest investigating them thoroughly.

 

 

yeah... and plenty of people who have investigated them thoroughly still find lots of good advice from them. Different strokes for different folks.

[lionfamily1999]

I have no problem w/ a parent self-identifying themselves as parenting based on fear. It's the blanket statements from others that i was addressing. :)

Ah, okay... I was worried that I was coming across completely opposite to what I'm trying to express.........

[JennC]

As to kids activities, maybe soccer is different (we've never played). But if I interfered in way, shape or form in my DD's gymnastics practice, that would be their last practice, LOL. The coach is the coach. She has complete control of the class and students, and I really can't imagine ever, ever, ever going onto the floor to intervene if my child is being disruptive or another kid is or anything. Gives me heart palpitations just to imagine- it would go over like a "fart in church" if you get what I mean!!

 

If a coach doesn't have control of their team/practice/students, its time to find another coach.

 

 

Jumping in here. What a stimulating thread. I have been waiting to get to the end of the thread to post on the OT, but must immediately respond to this. I agree 100%.

My husband has coached baseball for 9 years. Many parents are clueless, ignorant, selfish, undisciplined- pick any combination-, but will respond immediately when little Billy comes home and says "coach told me I have to sit the bench next game because of XYZ" Even though XYZ was addressed preseason in written handouts, cluelesss parents think "he's not really serious" or "it doesn't apply to me". But just wait til it comes true. All of a sudden, he IS serious and BTW the other parents just became coaches biggest fans.

If a particular league doesn't have - or enforce - rules, I would opt out. Who has time?

[JennC]

Does anyone else feel like the paranoia police? I am a relaxed mom, some of the things my kids are allowed to do give other parents the willies, but I'm starting to feel like the most overprotective parent known to mankind. I also feel pretty rediculous for the majority of my fears. Would you let your 8yo go for a walk to the mailbox (2 blocks away and I can't see it from the house)? Or let your 12yo babysit? Would you let your 12yo sit for someone else?

 

Anyway, I'm trying to reevaluate. Anyone interested can respond, you don't have to have read the book (I strongly reccomend it, though). How "free-range" are your kids?

 

I read about the lady in RD who let her 10yo ride the subway. I was cheering her on. I, however, have a somewhat unique living situation. We live 10 miles from the closest town, in a "village" without even a post office. There is a country grocery store a mile down the road, a bank and a tractor shop. I let my boys 10, 8, 5 go to the school playground anytime they want (not when it's dark) and figure they will come home when someone has to go to the bathroom (hopefully), is "starving" or really needs a drink (in the summer they just get a drink out of the (safe) well. They are also encouraged to "go for a bike ride" often.

However, there is a new sub-division next door with a downhill road that would be great for going fast, but I do not let the younger 2 ride on it, because it is also an auto speedway. Traffic is very sporadic out here, so the kids are not attuned to it. I would let the older boy ride to the grocery store, but not the younger because it's technically a highway and has no shoulder. I do believe most people are careful, but also know that most teen drivers are not, and the only real thing creating traffic out here is a school.

A few weeks ago a family with 3 girls was over for a barbq. I said to all 6 kids when they arrived. "youall can get on the bikes and scooters and go to the school, if it's ok" The girls just looked at me funny. I had never even considered that all moms didn't send their kids to the playground. That's why we moved here. The mom said to me later, "my girls aren't used to that. we don't usually do that." of course my boys don't have any busy roads on their way and I grew up that way. But, now I have a girl 1yo. This conversation made me think "how will it be different for her"

 

Since my 15yo was talking, I have backed off and observed him at various places - mall, park, library etc. I taught him that if he can't find me to find another mom or a lady to ask for help. Sometimes he would back off (to observe me, probably) and go to the customer service and have me paged. That was not planned, but it showed me that even a 3 yr old can learn safe behavior.

We lived in Kansas City for one year when he was 4. That gave me a new perspective. There are more people in a mall than in the town I grew up in. I was a hawk. Probably if he were older, I wouldn't have been so worried. But I got plenty of evil eye looks telling him in the food court "sit here and save us a seat" (keeping him in sight at all times, mind you)

I have a blessed opportunity to have a safe place to teach my children safety. It must be much more of a challenge without that, like teaching a child to swim in a tempest - or maybe teaching them to swim in a dessert, because you choose not the tempest.

There are so many considerations.

One thing my husband and I have learned is that there is almost never (in parenting choices) only one right way.

[Mari]

Jumping in here. What a stimulating thread. I have been waiting to get to the end of the thread to post on the OT, but must immediately respond to this. I agree 100%.

My husband has coached baseball for 9 years. Many parents are clueless, ignorant, selfish, undisciplined- pick any combination-, but will respond immediately when little Billy comes home and says "coach told me I have to sit the bench next game because of XYZ..."

 

And yet, if the parents were present themselves, they would witness their little heathen's behavior firsthand and not have to even question the coach!!!!

 

If a particular league doesn't have - or enforce - rules, I would opt out. Who has time?

 

As already mentioned, the league is not enforcing the rules. That's the real problem but it's neither here nor there at this point. However, since you posed the question, what about the time AND money which has already been spent? Money, BTW, that is non-refundable. Opting out is giving in and again, it's never okay to let bad apples spoil the bunch especially when we do have a good coach (you have to trust me on that one).

[JennC]

And yet, if the parents were present themselves, they would witness their little heathen's behavior firsthand and not have to even question the coach!!!!

 

In my experience the parents ARE there, DO see and CONDONE their children's actions. For instance, and just as an example: Rule - no food in the dugout. Action - Little Billy's mom brings him a cheeseburger from concessions.

Many times otherwise intelligent, discerning adults are too willing to ignore bad behavior because the "mom" started it, is standing there, has no problem with it, etc.

I think you were alluding to this by suggesting that the responsible other parent goes directly to "mom". Good idea. However, again, in MY experience (from VBS to baseball) "mom" becomes very defensive and dismissive, insinuating that she's not the one with the problem - it's obvious to me already that she doesn't think she has a problem. We expect better manners from our kids. And that's where I think the problem lies - lack of consideration for others.

As a matter of fact, that's one factor in my decision to begin home schooling my boys - they are surrounded by children all day who are not taught to be considerate. It's not even just the occasional bad behavior, but the lack of good behavior that is thought of nowadays as "normal."

And teachers are leary to do anything because they can't "offend" anyone, i.e. the "offenders".

Same as baseball practice, scout meetings, day camp, summer rec, etc.

[JennC]

If a particular league doesn't have - or enforce - rules, I would opt out. Who has time?

 

As already mentioned, the league is not enforcing the rules. That's the real problem but it's neither here nor there at this point. However, since you posed the question, what about the time AND money which has already been spent? Money, BTW, that is non-refundable. Opting out is giving in and again, it's never okay to let bad apples spoil the bunch especially when we do have a good coach (you have to trust me on that one).

 

Well, in theory, I guess I agree with you - it's not fair for a few to ruin it for the rest. However, they are.

How many of us homeschool for the same reason?

[Amy loves Bud]

I'm pretty content w/ what we're doing. ;)

 

 

 

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

[Novafan]

I've been a Lenore Skenazy blog reader for quite a while now and I can't wait to get my hands on her new book. My cousin is going to a book signing in Brooklyn, NY next week and invited me to go. It's a bit of a trek for me to get into NYC, but I would love to go and meet her. I asked my cousin to pick up a signed copy of the book if I don't get a chance to go myself.

[lionfamily1999]

Wow, that's great!

 

I loved the book.