Exactly, just like when we had all those Japanese people in internment camps. There wasn’t any sabotage with them locked up, so why would we let them out? It’s perfectly logical.
How is something that was the norm until recently now a “fad”?
The trend is obviously TOWARD greater restriction and supervision, so there is nothing faddish about resisting it.
It has become increasingly less the norm for decades now, and there is most definitely a trend lately to backlash against it. I think most of us acknowledge that, even if we disagree about the trend’s merits. (I also think that, like many trends, there is still a “silent majority” who are not going with the trend, thank goodness.)
I don’t agree with your supposition, but I’m glad you are at least willing to wonder if there is any evidence behind it. The evidence I see points in the opposite direction. Some traits of Millennials look very positive to progressives like me, but would of course not look that way too conservatives. Similarly, if your value system is such that you think most highly of people who utterly dedicate their lives to their jobs and “go the extra mile”, staying late, working on weekends, etc., you will see this generation as lazy and entitled. But if like me you believe in more of a European ethos toward work-life balance, you will see them as a breath of fresh air.
Another really good question. I think part of it is that the board seems to skew toward GenX and earlier, but also it’s just not hip right now to stick up for “helicopter parenting” (note that the terms of the discussion are controlled, quite unfairly, by those who are on the “free range” side and sneer at more supervisory parenting). I am tempted to say it’s like the abortion debate in terms of the silent majority in the middle, but in this case there aren’t really two extremes represented, just one.
Indeed. Not sure why that would be strange. We have significantly cleaned up the Great Lakes and other watersheds since that era as well; does that mean IYO that we should repeal environmental regulations?
You first have to correctly attribute the observed results to the previously taken actions.
For instance, it sometimes happens to me that when an old lady sees me walking towards her, she crosses the street. Then I see her think “that guy didn’t steal my purse, so crossing the street worked!” Of course I was never going to steal their purse (and if I were crossing the street wouldn’t have stopped me) so their thinking was flawed. But in their mind it worked so they’ll continue the behavior.
I remember hearing about a kid drowning in the pond close to our house when I was 3 or 4. Bad things can and do happen, and precautions have to be taken. (Actually a few days ago a 6-year-old girl on a bike dropped from a 5 meter height on concrete near the harbor where there are no fences… which is no place for little kids on bikes.) But kids also need some room to make their own mistakes and learn from them.
I think by your logic the government should provide every household with an XBOX so that the children will be inside and occupied instead of outside where all the pedophiles, rapists, and kidnappers reside. There’s a lot of evidence that video games reduce youth crime.
Oh the OP is back. Maybe we’ll finally get to see data that support the conclusion.
Wait – they don’t have those any more?
Fine traits like showing “an increasing trend of valuing money, image, and fame more than inherent principles like self-acceptance, affiliation, and community.” Or being the most highly narcissist generation, at a rate of having that personality disorder three times as often as people age 65 do. Even articles that try to put a positive spin on them in the workforce suggest ways for managers to make them less entitled, needy and self-centered rather than flatly state that they’ve just got an undeserved rep. :rolleyes:
Straw man. I specifically stated the “stranger danger” was overhyped and not the true source of danger. I also wonder why everyone assumes a false binary choice of “inside” or “outside, unsupervised”. Why can’t parents go outside with their kids, like I do?
Bullshit. I have provided several cites from reputable sources. Where’s your data?
The sources are reputable. But they do not support the conclusion that parental supervision is a significant contributor to the decrease in deaths from accidental injury, nor do they support the notion that “free range kids” are at a significantly increased risk of death. Multiple posters have pointed out problems with this conclusion. You are welcome to address those posts.
Multiple posters (the more reasonable ones) have acknowledged “okay, it probably was riskier in my childhood, but it was worth it”. I disagree, but at least they are not pretending we can have our cake and eat it too.
Why **SlackerInc **did you chose the term free range parents, when the more applicable term for the point you wish to make would seem to be free range children?
Well, in our case, we lock our kid up at home while my husband and I go running unsupervised around the neighborhood almost every evening. 
Their anecdotes, my anecdotes, and yours, are all irrelevant. You are linking two variables without sufficient evidence, particularly in light of discussion about modern safety measures, better vehicle construction, etc. And we don’t have a time series for parental supervision.
And I’ll be first to agree that “that’s how I did it in the #0s and I was fine” is a bogus argument. Survivorship bias runs strong.
There is a very sad case of a 6 year old girl being raped and murdered by a 17 year old neighbor just in the news where the parents believed in free range parenting:
“Jenise was last seen when she went to bed on the night of Aug. 2. Her parents waited a day before calling for help because they say the girl had wandered around the Steele Creek Mobile Home Park on her own in the past.”
They didn’t see her Sunday morning assuming she was visiting neighbors in the trailer park, nor Sunday noon or afternoon–assuming she was eating meals with neighbors and only started looking in the evening when she didn’t come home.
We are all so old.
I wasn’t a free range parent. I was a free range kid. When I was ten, three friends and I would ride our bikes about 10 miles to an unmonitered beach. It was a private lake with a pay beach that was owned by family friends. We did this almost every day of summer vacation.
If we weren’t doing that, we, well, mostly I, would sneek into the horse lot next door and ride. No saddles.
And yes, there were perverts then. Walking home from the school bus stop, maybe 8th grade, one day a driver stopped next to me and told me he had something I should see… Yeah, that’s what it was. I knew enough to run away.
Helicopter parents don’t stop at 18.
I am constantly blown away when I have to tell a 20 something that no this isn’t covered under the warranty you physically damaged it and 20 minutes later mommy calls.
Your child is 26 freakin years old lady don’t you think it’s time to cut the umbilical cord?
And in the 80s, we did, too. Even if my parents had wanted to be “helicopters,” they really couldn’t, what with their jobs. And it wasn’t like we were just blindly walking into risky situations all the time. We had a sense of what could be dangerous. When there was a kid falling down a well on TV, or something, we just thought, “What an idiot.”
Let’s keep in mind that the population here is smarter than your average group of bears. But our societal expectations of parents’ oversight of children need to be aimed at the lowest common denominator. Unless you want childhood to be a Darwinian gauntlet, a position I find morally repugnant.
I’d add too that even very intellectually gifted children can have lapses of judgement that would be unlikely when they get a bit older. I’ve detailed previously how when I was ten or so, I took that guy up on his offer of a ride home from the arcade–immediately regretting it, and being very fortunate to get away from him on a pretext.
“Survivorship bias”, good term. And that’s definitely what I think it is.
I’m not sure though why you don’t think the data I’ve linked to are at the very least strongly suggestive that the “unintentional injuries” mortality rate was so much higher then because kids were not supervised as closely. I would think it’s enough to require some contradicting evidence, rather than just shrugging it off as insufficient.
Ugh, how awful. I can’t even imagine being so blase. Even if the age was a few years older and the time period shorter, I’d still blanch at it; as it is, it’s just way beyond the pale.
I think part of the change in societal norms is that two-paycheck parents increasingly can’t get by with just not providing childcare for kids after school before a certain age. A lot of them would like to, and there’s always going to be friction over what that age should be, which is what we are seeing play out.