If you’ve read my blog for some time, it likely comes as no surprise to you that I take a bit more of a Laissez Faire approach when it comes to political topics like how involved our government should be in our lives. No, rest assured, this is not another post about government. I am quite happy with how I’ve covered my thoughts in these posts.
Instead, I’m writing tonight about the Laissez Faire approach I have chosen to take with my parenting and how counter cultural that mindset seems to be these days.
The political climate today. The parenting climate today. It’s the old chicken or the egg thing as to which of the two came first. I really won’t even wager a guess, because I have no idea. Yet there seem to me to be striking correlations between the government that the majority in our nation seem to want these days, what some would deem a nanny state, and the style of parenting I see plenty of in the public square.
Have any of you noticed a trend towards more and more protection of our children? I have. So much, if not all, of what I see in today’s parenting climate is well meaning. Under the very wonderful umbrella of wanting to protect our children from predators, physical injury, hurt feelings and sunburn, protective beliefs abound. With a heartfelt desire to protect our little ones, parents have bought into so many ideas. And many of them rightly so. Children should be protected from the sun or wear sunblock. They must be in five-point harnesses in the car. Children under age 1 should never be given honey. Breastfed babies don’t usually get enough Vitamin D, so supplements are recommended. Helmets should be worn whenever a child is on a bicycle. Trampolines are safer when surrounded by a net.
There are numerous safety conscious rules and suggestions that weren’t around when we were little, let alone when our parents were growing up. And I’m far from saying that such ideas should be shunned across the board. In fact, I follow almost (ahem) all of the recommended practices above. As I said, these well meaning parenting ideals are there for our children’s protection. And who doesn’t want our children to be protected? I know I certainly do.
It’s just that I think, and here I am finally getting to my main point, this trend towards helicopter parenting, with moms and dads hovering about their children watching their every move and checklisting them for safety, is getting slightly out of hand.
And, as things in the parenting sector move more dramatically towards protecting our children, the irony I find is that we are sometimes actually hurting our children more.
When I first began to parent the way I do, I did it just because that was what seemed natural to me. And the more children my husband and I have had, the more deliberate I have become about those same parenting ideals. Letting kids be kids since 2004. That’s our mantra. It’s just that, until the recent past, I didn’t realize how rather counter cultural my beliefs are in the parenting climate’s increasing nanny state status. The more I am around other parents, the more I read, the more I blog and get feedback from readers, the more I realize that while there are plenty of people who feel the same way as I do, there are many who don’t.
And, as I’ve blogged about before, good parenting is not about keeping up with the Jones’, or mothering your children the way your neighbor does. If you know me, you’ll know I don’t buy into the whole let’s all parent the same way and make mothers who do things differently from us feel bad thing. Blech. Good parenting is about knowing your children, being close enough to them to feel the pulse of what they have going on, so you can make the best choices for them.
There is a fine line I draw between thinking everyone should parent the way I do (I don’t…except that I think you should parent the way you know is best for your children regardless of what others think) and between wanting you guys to know that I think the way parenting today is trending is not the best for any of our children.
A commenter on my last post, with a Ph.D. in Child Development, made some amazing points. These are things I’ve always innately felt, but had no real proof of. Until I read her comment and did a little research myself. Turns out that, even according to child development studies, what she shares is spot on. “If you take away the child’s ability to naturally explore jumping, climbing, space, their body’s response to impact and how to adjust the way their body needs to land on impact, then you are not promoting their natural development. In fact, you are hindering their innate physical development. The emotional component of development also needs the opportunity to explore how to take risks and gain confidence. Kids are made (and for natural development, required) to spin, jump, and most importantly fall…The more you restrict a child’s natural need to take risks, the more they will seek out even more risky behavior. For example, if all they hear is “no jumping off the couch”, “no jumping off the playground structure,” “no jumping off the table” etc., etc., they are only going to be forced to search out something they can jump off of when you aren’t looking and there to make sure they are safe.”
And, I have no tangible evidence to support my next statement, but I simply have this feeling that by holding our children back from experiencing life because we as parents have become germophobic, we are also doing them no favors. “Don’t eat that, it fell on the floor!” “Don’t touch that lizard, it’s filthy!” ” By overly protecting our children from germs, I have to wonder if we are actually helping to make them less resistant to illness, thus making them more likely to get sick instead of less. In fact, this is exactly part of the issue I take with some recommended childhood vaccines. But that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
Of course, there are children who have contracted salmonella after handling a toad and forgetting to wash their hands…men who smoked a pack a day their whole lives and live longer than all their friends. But I don’t think that living our lives based on the statistical outliers on either end is the way to go. What if, just for the fun of it, parents looked at actual statistics about the safety of their children? I did just that today, and what I found was fascinating, affirming and inspiring.
Journalist Carol Midgley posed the following question, with stats to back up the answer. “All you anxious parents out there who are busy wrapping your children in cotton wool this summer the better to protect them from the predatory pedophiles inevitably lurking behind every…hedge: Let’s just suppose, in some sick parallel universe, that you wanted your children to be abducted. Let’s imagine that you’d had enough of them and decided that your cunning plan was to chuck them out of the house then sit back and wait for some passing kid-snatcher to run off with them. How long do you think you’d have to wait?” The answer? It would take 200,000 years. In any given year, an average child has a 0.0005% chance of being abducted by a stranger.
Warwick Cairns is an author who wrote the book How to Live Dangerously: Why We Should All Stop Worrying and Start Living. The book speaks to my heart. And to my fascination with statistics and numbers. The book “also concludes that if you really want to be safe, you ought to put yourself in more danger.”
Turns out, my husband and I have been doing that with our children all along!
You see, friends, photographs of our children on wet trampolines or jumping from hay bale to hay bale aren’t meant to cause blog controversy. Sometimes they do, but I post them because this is our life. And, in words and pictures, I long to show others how freeing and empowering it can be both for parents and children alike to not hover so closely. To protect our children from natural consequences that can serve to teach them valuable lessons is to do them a disservice, I believe.
In his book Paranoid Parenting, sociologist Professor Frank Furedi points out the irony in overprotective parenting as well. “Three children a day, for instance, are injured in the home from burns or smoke inhalation, and one dies every ten days.” Yet more children than ever are being kept indoors to protect them from being abducted. The irony? There is a .0005% chance a child will be abducted by a stranger, yet one child is burnt to death every ten days after an accident in the home.
And these statistics back up the way I’ve long felt. I’m not going to fall prey to fears when they are not logical or even likely to happen. I am going to live my life to the fullest and teach our children to do the same thing.
I’ve even, gasp, left my children buckled in the car while I run in to return a movie or whatnot. I think that, although the unthinkable could happen, they’re probably safer there than all crossing the parking lot with me twice.
It’s not that I don’t fear awful things like kidnapping happening to our children. I do. I watch them like a hawk when they bathe, especially since we have more children now because drowning freaks me out. But I also know that some of my fears are irrational, like my fear of flying, proved more irrational than even I knew by Cairns’ book in which he shares that I’d have to fly in an airplane every single day for 26,000 years before I would statistically die in a crash, while “in the same period [I'd] have been killed 20 times driving to the airport.” I do still fear these things, sometimes often. But herein lies the difference between me and some other parents: I refuse, absolutely refuse, to let those fears rule me or my children’s lives.
There are risks that my husband and I do worry about and take very seriously. It’s just that not touching snakes and never jumping out of trees aren’t going to make the cut of risk lowering restrictions we are going to impose on our children.
Besides, we happen to think that by living dangerously, our children are actually safer.
Well, we think that and that this world is not the ultimate end, anyway. While I don’t want one of my children to leave my arms and meet Jesus just yet if I had my choice, I’m thankful that I know a God with Whom any of us can spend eternity whenever we do leave this earth, no matter how we die.
Oh, that was, literarily speaking, the poorest conclusion to a post I’ve ever written. But I had to say it!
And now I’m done.
Oh, man, I just can’t find a way to end this post!!
Somebody help me! It’s after midnight and I should not be writing this late because I just get slap happy and that’s what’s happening to me!!
Sigh.
























