Many years ago I knew a psychiatrist who made the statement that it was less damaging to a child to be neglected than to be overprotected. She never elaborated as to why this was so, so I don’t know what her reasoning was. Perhaps that neglected children were less needy and more self-reliant? I don’t know. So, Dopers, what say you? Absent a perfect set of parents, is it better to be neglected or overprotected?
Well, obviously it would depend on the amount of neglect or overprotection.
There’s a huge difference between being a “latch-key kid” who has to take care of themselves after school because their parent(s) are still at work, and neglect bordering on abuse (e.g. leaving a kid in filthy conditions, not providing adequate nutrition, etc…)
And I have known plenty of teenagers who say that their parents are “overprotective” because they want to know who they’re going out with and what time they’ll be home. Gasp! The horror! :rolleyes:
On the other hand, I have known one woman who was so overprotective it was absolutely ridiculous - when her child was 20 (university student living at home) she had rules that I would find acceptable for a seven year old (and I’m not exaggerating).
However, in general I would say that neglect is worse than overprotection in nearly every instance I can imagine. The adverse consequences of neglect can be so much more severe that it would take pretty severe over-protectiveness to be worse than that.
I err on the side of neglect, but my daughter is almost seventeen. When she was small I worked hard to overcome my instinct to overprotect. I believe (fervently hope) that what she was taught as a small child stand her in good stead now. I don’t ask where she is going and who she is with, but I know all her friends, and she has a tendency to tell me everything anyway (and, quite frankly, this is often WAY TMI. If she’s leaving anything out, I don’t think I want to know). If she comes home after meal times, she fends for herself (she considers this to be extremely neglectful). She is pretty sensible, well aware of lurking danger, and too strong minded to be easily influenced. That doesn’t mean that she is automatically protected from anything out of her control, any more than I am. But I see plenty of kids her age, and older, who are so overprotected that they either have no defenses against the world, or are so apprehensive of it that they have difficulty dealing with everyday life. And then there are the kids whose parents have no idea what they get up to, and who consider me to be dangerously liberal.
I might lean toward the neglectful side in some people’s eyes. My husband and I work different shifts, and during the summer, my house full of teenagers (17,15,13) has radically different sleep schedules. This time of year, things can get a bit unstructured around here. My husband or I will normally make a large dinner meal, but other that that, the kids are mostly expected to fend for themselves in the meal department. I’ll check to make sure they have eaten something other than, say, cold cereal all day, and instruct them to make themselves something substantial if they haven’t, but in general the rule is “if you’re hungry, the kitchen is that way” .
It seems to work out well, they know how to feed themselves, the difference between a healthy and unhealthy meal, and no one has starved yet!
From a practical standpoint, neglect would be better; the kid(s) would be more likely to be independent and self-reliant, which are helpful traits in the real world.
From an emotional standpoint, overprotected seems better. I would think that the kid(s) would grow up with a feeling of being cared for and loved, and hence feel entitled to love and caring in their adult lives (rather than feeling unworthy and getting into a series of horrible relationships looking for love).
Of course, it also depends on the age of the kids. Given these two options on the ends of the continuum, I’d lean toward overprotective in the younger years, and more neglectful in the teen years. That way, little ones have the security of knowing they’re cared for and protected, and older ones can learn to fend for themselves.
I was just about to post almost the exact opposite. Neglect would, I think, tend to minimize psychological damage vis a vis overprotection, since it would force self-reliance, which would in turn tend to create self-esteem. On the other hand from a practical standpoint I would think it would be worse, since children and even teens would be more likely to get into major trouble, and potential physical or legal damage is worse than psychological damage.
OTOH, overprotection would be safer, but may tend to lessen self-esteem, since the parent considers them to not be able to fend for themselves.
That’s the way it works in our house. I never even considered that someone may consider that neglect. BTW the non adult people in the house are [~18, ~17, ~11]
I’m no fan of overprotection, but I’m not seeing realistic examples of neglect in this thread. It’s not neglect when you point the kid toward the kitchen you maintain stocked with healthy food. It’s neglect when the kitchen is empty and you expect the kid to scrounge up change from the sofa cushions and get to the store on their own. I once knew an 8 year old girl who singed off her eyelashes lighting the gas stove to make dinner. Those kids (she and her 2 siblings) were neglected.
It’s not necessarily neglect if you don’t always know exactly where your teenager is. It’s neglect when your kids don’t know where you are.
Neglect is when you fail to meet a kid’s needs. When you meet a kid’s needs, but not all his wants, that’s healthy parenting.
In my experience, raising a well adjusted kid through neglect is not impossible, but it’s sort of like a lottery. Every once in a while there is a kid who grabs onto the responsibility and really becomes a strong person. But a lot of neglected kids, failing to see their safety and success as a priority in their upbringing, do not make those things a priority as they grow up, either.