<p>Calmom - You made many of the points that were running through my head but which I felt I could not communicate coherently. Thanks.
I especially agree about the cell phone comments - my daughter went to Spain alone to attend an immersion program last summer at age 16, and my son has not spent the summer at home since he started college three years ago. I am much more comfortable with them doing these things in faraway places knowing that they can easily reach me through the cell phone. As you say, the cell phone leads to more independence and freedom, not less.</p>
<p>If only kids actually used cellphones ONLY to speak with their parents. I bet the usage is .1% parents 99.9% endless jabber with friends. For me they have replaced video games as the most obnoxious development of the modern age--at least for those over 12.. And NO, I don't have one.
If they allow them on airplanes I will riot.</p>
<p>I thought I was the only adult that didn't have one. Actually my wife just bought me one over my objections and I use it less than one minute a day.</p>
<p>Not a fan of the article. Very little concrete proof, and it seems to overstate any rational conclusions which could be drawn from the observations.</p>
<p>I tend to see a problem which was not mentioned (and, as a recent college grad, I can safely say that I don't know <strong>anyone</strong> who talked to their parents more than once a week - and a few times a week if they needed to organize a trip home) - the kids who grow up and are unable to maintain their standard of living. I think that a lot of parents here were responsible for a lot in college - like spending money, buying clothes, getting a pizza, paying for car repairs, phone bills, etc - but that is changing. I do wonder how a kid will manage when he graduates and the parents cut off the allowance - do they then realize that clothes, car insurance, maintenance, oil changes, and cell phone alone cost thousands of dollars per year? I do wonder about giving cells to kids when they are young - they will see it as a necessity, not a luxury. Landlines, esp. split with a roommate, are cheap. Most cell plans will run about $40-$50/month (or $500-$600/year), plus tax and overtime charges. </p>
<p>I guess I grew up differently... my parents treated me like their parents treated them.</p>
<p>I didn't try and shock to evoke sympathy- but to remind that those idyllic days were a fantasy for some.
I do see several places where we now have safety measures.
Many schools have drug/alcohol counselors- advisors who take a more active role than just rubber stamping a course schedule.
I didn't know of my daughter cutting herself- until her friends went to the drug/alcohol counselor ( who was very accessible & paid for by a grant- the reg counselor was worthless) and staged an intervention in middle school.
I do have my kids involved in activites.
My oldest volunteered since she was 12 ( her choice) and I always had her in at least a couple overnight/day camps summers.
My youngest has been on two soccer teams at a time- and had tutoring, currently she is on track- which is everyday after school and some Saturdays- as well as volunteering on Sunday.
These activites are their choice- with my encouragment- and I prefer to have them supervised in a somewhat structured activity with their friends, than at loose ends on their own- watching tv or ....Iming for hours possibly.
For my own self- I see that the things that happened to me had a culmulative effect. TO be raised in a household where children were "seen but not heard" and often told that "you don't mean that" gave me the idea that what I thought and felt wasnt important.
When things happened and adults didn't pay attention or listen, it gave me the feeling that I deserved it & that no one was going to do anything.</p>
<p>My parents often didn't know what we were doing or who if anyone was supervising us. While for some kids that might have worked out- for me- who fell in with a group of kids whose parents didn't supervise either- it left us too much on our own, with no guidance how to spend our free time ( which we had plenty of since we rarely had much homework)</p>
<p>I believe in lots of planned activities especially for teens. I love that they have more team sports for girls now- burns off energy and they have a great time-I really like the adults we have coaching too- I don't think kids can have too many adults involved in their lives...</p>
<p>Oh - P.S. to Calmom - I am not completely anti-cell phone (and do really recommend them for this reason) - my parents and friends have finally memorized the number after about 4 years. I've had five different land lines during those years (work, home, apts), and it's nice that people still know where to find me. You are completely right about being able to track down your son!</p>
<p>I personally love cell phones
We just got them for the whole family- even my H who doesn't answer the phone but he will his cell.
Since my kids are often out and about all over- they can easily reach me by cell or I can reach them- & it doesn't count against our minutes
For example- my daughter had trackpractice today and it was supposed to be at a track 40 min away- but she was able to call and tell me it was changed to her school which is only 20 min away.
Since she didn't know that till after school- there wouldn't ahve been anyway to get ahold of me.
I also think that if I had, had a cell phone when those incidents I mentioned above happened, they perhaps wouldnt have happened as I would have been able to call for a ride or for help.
I don't think little kids should need them- but when you have two kids 14 & 22, they are pretty helpful :)</p>
<p>Barrons, you are right about the endless jabbering, at least for girls with cell phone... but the saving grace is that my daughter is no longer tying up the home phone lline for hours on end.</p>
<p>Aries -- cell phones HAVE become a necessity, and they are replacing land lines -- I don't think my son even had a land line at the apartment he lived in for the past 8 months. But I had to travel out of town with him this past weekend (family emergency) - and his phone was ringing constantly with calls related to work. He was able to get away on short notice precisely because he had the cell phone, and others would be able to get in contact with him easily. It was kind of amusing to see the my-son, the-busy-executive routine -- he was conducting job interviews by phone as well as instructing & directing other employees. If there's an umbilical cord, then its now tied to his employer..... which of course is also now also the supplier of money.</p>
<p>The cellphone thing was a fairly minor point to illustrate a larger issue...but hey, I like cellphones too:).</p>
<p>Bought cell phones for everyone last fall (except for the six year old). I hope I haven't doomed them all . . .</p>
<p>Well, I don't know if cell phones are a necessity, though they are useful. My D didn't have one in college ever (graduated in May). She also traveled to Europe for two summers w/o one (had a phone card from Costco, cost almost nothing.)</p>
<p>I finally decided to add phones for both kids this Christmas, only because when their favorite aunt (more like big sister) was killed in a car accident last November, I had trouble tracking them down to tell them (S at school, D visiting friends at her alma mater). Neither had ever thought they needed one. Now that they have them, they've become a "necessity", which says more about people than it does about phones!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I really liked my childhood - I call it the Charlie Brown upbringing - no parents in the picture anywhere in our neighborhood. It was great. For better or worse, kids ruled.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't regret the 1950s. The enrichment programs my kids have enjoyed (enjoyed, not dragooned into taking) did not exist then.
There are kids in my neighborhoods, but none the age of mine. Even if there were more kids in our neighborhood, they could not play outside. There 's too much traffic. My kids went to a school to which students were bused from all over town; so their friends came from all over the city (and came from different backgrounds as well). It's only this year that they have been able to go to one another's houses without parents having to drive them there and back.</p>
<p>Alumother, I agree it was a minor point to argue a bigger issue -- the problem is that if the example fails, then it's a good indication of the weakness of the entire premise.</p>
<p>This really isn't new stuff -- it's the same old hue & cry about how they younger generation is falling apart, and then blaming whatever "trend" the author doesn't like. Someone else could come along and write the same article putting the blame on overly permissive parents rather than overly involved ones -- there is no evidence of causation in either case, and even the correlation is very weak and not supported by any real evidence or statistics.</p>
<p>Sure there are some kids who have overly involved parents, and kids who have emotional issues at college....but what evidence do we even have that these are the same kids? For that matter, my kids didn't grow up without "play"...and I don't know how a parent can manage siblings who don't have daily opportunity to be exposed to all sorts of bumps and bruises. I mean sure, there's rubber matting on the playground, and a helmet on the bike ... but hey, every time I turned my back, my two were beating up on each other. </p>
<p>Bottom line, its one more article blaming the parents for whatever problems the kids have.</p>
<p>Does the author know anything about Boy Scouting or Girl Scouting? Kids go camping in wild for camping and adults are there if the kids need it. This article may be true for some but does not paint the picture for all the kids. </p>
<p>The author did not provide a balance picture about kids facing even bare minimum supervision. What about the teenagers who do not have both parents involve in their life. Either one or both parents are there to provide money but not moral support to the kids. Sometime parents are not there even to provide the basic amenities and expect society to take acre of the kids while they are busy with drugs. Has the author failed to neglect that this kids without proper supervision ends up in the line of crime. I am sure in tat event she will blame society for neglecting the needs of the kids.</p>
<p>Couldn't make it through the article--to paraphrase Mark Twain, it's the kind of thing that, once you put it down, it's hard to pick up. Generally believe that the more things change, the more they stay the same. My own childhood was closer to "Lord of the Flies" than it was to "Peanuts."</p>
<p>Well, honestly, I think there is a BIG difference between kids that learn a little independence and have some street smarts and those who are down right neglected. I was by no means a neglected child, nor were the kids in my neighborhood. But whether you were a star athlete or king clutz you got to play in the games (and very few kids were fat!) and when there were disagreements kids figured out how to solve them. Leaders arose, as did the negotiators. Not only that, but when kids got mad they also had to learn how to forgive and forget. The added bonus - many of learned to love nature because we were able to be out in it all the time. It really wasn't bad at all. My parents had their own lives too - unlike too many parents today who seem to have no focus other than their kids (which, obviously should be every parent's main focus - but life is long and can be wonderfully complex). Now, clearly, I know things have changed in the world for our kids today. I too live in the 'burbs where there is nobody home. But I do not think our kids have it better than we did. I just don't. I think there are WAY too many adults involved in (upper and upper-middle income) kids lives these days. Kids have too little time or the opportunities to make any mistakes (I'm not talking about the life-threatening variety here). They seem to have trouble learning that with decisions can come not only real responsibilities but true joy and fulfillment. Too many kids (my own included!) are socially retarded (to say nothing of just plain spoiled) as a result of so much doting. And too many marriages are in trouble because the focus in strictly on the kids. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I do believe empty time to fill inculcates creativity better than any number of enrichment experiences. It also encourages reading.</p>
<p>When my kids are bored, I give 'em a chore. Amazing how fast they find something fascinating to do!</p>
<p>Cell phones seem to have created a generation of kids who consider themselves reachable 24/7. I have had to insist that cell phones be turned OFF in the car & at home, after a given hour.</p>
<p>Weenie, maybe the problem with the author's premise is that it simply does not apply to ALL kids. I have no clue as to what kind of parent you were or why you feel that your kids are "socially retarded" because of too much doting.... but for awhile, around age 11 and 12, my son was a latchkey kid. I wasn't happy about that & actually changed careers so that I would have more flexibilty - but the point is, rather than being pampered or doted upon, I had a youngster who came home from school on his own to an empty house. That certainly isn't uncommon for the current generation - it's simply what you get with two working parents, or a single working parent, and a dearth of good after-school programs for middle school age kids. My daughter was very much involved in organized out-of-school activities, but she also spent a lot of unstructured time hanging out with friends. So honestly, for me the premise doesn't ring true. </p>
<p>Both my kids have always seemed to me to be far more socially mature and adept than I was at the same age. Some of it comes from the same factors the author of the article bemoans -- both kids have always dealt with far more adults in their lives than I ever did, and they ended up very comfortable talking to and working with adults. I have seen many parents who are very involved in their kid's lives, but really don't see all that many parents who are overprotective. A few -- but then their kids seem to grow up to be rebels more often than wimps. </p>
<p>And to me, the greater involvement of parents seems to be positive --- I mean, I was part of the "Leave it to Beaver" generation, raised in the burbs by stay-at-home moms whose concept of recreation supervision was to send us outside for unsupervised play - and we grew up to form
Woodstock nation. I don't think there's a cause-and-effect there, either - you might as well blame the Beatles as the parents. But the point is that we were products of our times, as are our own kids.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>And to me, the greater involvement of parents seems to be positive --- I mean, I was part of the "Leave it to Beaver" generation, raised in the burbs by stay-at-home moms whose concept of recreation supervision was to send us outside for unsupervised play - and we grew up to form Woodstock nation. I don't think there's a cause-and-effect there, either - you might as well blame the Beatles as the parents. But the point is that we were products of our times, as are our own kids.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes, indeed, and Woodstock nation was such a credit to the child-rearing practices of the 1950s. Yeah, right. </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>When my kids are bored, I give 'em a chore. Amazing how fast they find something fascinating to do!>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>You have to be around to give them chores. Otherwise, they just slump in front of the TV or play videogames or roam in malls in packs. I do agree that many kids today suffer from insufficient supervision rather than too much parental attention or structured activities.</p>