Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on July 09, 2015, 11:55:00 AM
-
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-07/helicopter-parents-and-the-kids-who-just-can-t
Megan McArdle (whose opinion I respect, even if I don't always agree) is talking about the consequences of helicopter parenting and that adult children are increasingly tied to their parents.1 Do read the article.
She doesn't go into the causes of the current regime of (legally required!2) helicopter parenting.
I will attempt to do so. One of the major reasons is the delaying of the formation of the family. As you age, you are generally more risk averse and that will include your parenting style. Thus, a 38 year old with their first child will be far more cautious about any risk to the child than a 20 year old would be.
This is also related to family size. It is clearly not a conscious decision3, but if you have only one child, you are likely to accept less risk to that one and only child than if he were one of five or six.
Continuing on the role of family size, parents are only able to "helicopter" if they have minimal children. With 2, especially when they are spaced many years apart, you can control their lives far more easily than a family with 4 or more children.
I should note that "risk" here is not just to life and limb, but also the "risk" that they will not have the right education or the right mate et cetera.
Connected to this is the propaganda of the past 40+ years that the only way to succeed in life is to have a college degree. Thus, getting into the "right" college is the assurance (under this propaganda) that the child will be successful. So parenting becomes all about ensuring your child gets to that point and then you've succeeded in making them successful.
Lastly (though I am sure there are far more causes), this is a result degradation of marriage that began even before "no-fault divorce." (Yes, I'm tying it back into the culture war.)
The gay marriage insanity is but a continuation of the view that marriage is about and for adults. Thus, childbearing and rearing has become about and for adults as well. If you are having the child for your own benefit you tie your self worth into the success or failure of that child. Parents with this view, therefore, take a more active role in the success of that child. This leads to the "helicopter" parenting which, ironically, decreases the ability of the child to care for himself.
We've assured that parenting and family are about the wants and needs of the parents and have created children who are unable to function without the will of the parents directing them.1 (yes, 1 again)
1: Note, this is a trend, not an indication that there are no longer any independent young people. I happen to know one who has a job and her own house and is fiercely independent, even if it means she makes some mistakes. Further note, she's not my daughter, so this is a relatively unbiased assessment.
2. Even if the law is not, per se, requiring it, fear of the respective Child Protection Agencies forces many who would prefer to be more hands off to "hover."
3. No one will suggest that people with multiple children view one as expendable. However, if we're going to argue for biological imperatives, having multiple progeny decreases the urge to assure that your sole progeny survives.
-
One of the major reasons is the delaying of the formation of the family. As you age, you are generally more risk averse and that will include your parenting style. Thus, a 38 year old with their first child will be far more cautious about any risk to the child than a 20 year old would be.
I disagree; at 39, my oldest is 6. I'm quite happy to turn her loose with a bubble machine in mom's yard and just stay close enough to hear if she yells. I won't do that in town because she has the standard 6 year old tendency to not notice traffic and such, but rather than literally hold her hand every time we're near a street, I made sure she understands command voice, and expand every use of it to a teaching opportunity as to why I used it, with the hope that she will be able to have some semblance of the freedom I had by 9 or 10.
This is also related to family size. It is clearly not a conscious decision3, but if you have only one child, you are likely to accept less risk to that one and only child than if he were one of five or six.
Nope; only child here, and I was riding my old Murray BMX bike all over town when I was 10. My limit was pretty much determined by how far I could pedal, and I didn't have to be home until a few minutes before bedtime. In the summer, that was 11PM.
Continuing on the role of family size, parents are only able to "helicopter" if they have minimal children. With 2, especially when they are spaced many years apart, you can control their lives far more easily than a family with 4 or more children.
My favorite moments are when the 6 year old discovers (happily) that she can now help the 4 year old with something that previously needed a parent. The first time, I hover to make sure it's being done right, and afterward I make a point of being just in earshot in case they need help.
I should note that "risk" here is not just to life and limb, but also the "risk" that they will not have the right education or the right mate et cetera.
Don't get me wrong; Mr Shotgun will be very clean when they start dating. OTOH, my mom drove on my first date, (at 14) and later cleaned out my car (at 16) including restocking the condoms in the glove box. (Not sure if it's weirder that she never said a word about it, or that she thought the three pack in there wouldn't be enough and added *two* 12 packs. Then again, I think it was fairly obvious that at that time I was dating a slut and those lasted less than a month.)
Connected to this is the propaganda of the past 40+ years that the only way to succeed in life is to have a college degree. Thus, getting into the "right" college is the assurance (under this propaganda) that the child will be successful. So parenting becomes all about ensuring your child gets to that point and then you've succeeded in making them successful.
I'm betting on the Marines for the younger. Older may go Navy, but either way, once they're out, they can pick their own damn course from there. I'll advise if asked, (and very much hope they will value my opinion enough to ask) but I expect them to be mature enough to decide for themselves.
The gay marriage insanity is but a continuation of the view that marriage is about and for adults. Thus, childbearing and rearing has become about and for adults as well. If you are having the child for your own benefit you tie your self worth into the success or failure of that child. Parents with this view, therefore, take a more active role in the success of that child.
See, I think the definition of a successful child is where the difference lies; I was raised, and I raise my girls - to the extent my ex lets me - to make correct decisions for themselves. I was taught, and now teach, sound principles on which they can base those decisions, but as they become able to comprehend the decisions and the consequences thereof, they are encouraged to make them themselves.
-
I disagree; at 39, my oldest is 6. I'm quite happy to turn her loose with a bubble machine in mom's yard and just stay close enough to hear if she yells. I won't do that in town because she has the standard 6 year old tendency to not notice traffic and such, but rather than literally hold her hand every time we're near a street, I made sure she understands command voice, and expand every use of it to a teaching opportunity as to why I used it, with the hope that she will be able to have some semblance of the freedom I had by 9 or 10.
That's an absolute measure. What would your attitude have been at 20? You need to compare to what you, yourself, would have done, not compare to what others are doing.
My favorite moments are when the 6 year old discovers (happily) that she can now help the 4 year old with something that previously needed a parent. The first time, I hover to make sure it's being done right, and afterward I make a point of being just in earshot in case they need help.
Don't get me wrong; Mr Shotgun will be very clean when they start dating. OTOH, my mom drove on my first date, (at 14) and later cleaned out my car (at 16) including restocking the condoms in the glove box. (Not sure if it's weirder that she never said a word about it, or that she thought the three pack in there wouldn't be enough and added *two* 12 packs. Then again, I think it was fairly obvious that at that time I was dating a slut and those lasted less than a month.)
I'm betting on the Marines for the younger. Older may go Navy, but either way, once they're out, they can pick their own damn course from there. I'll advise if asked, (and very much hope they will value my opinion enough to ask) but I expect them to be mature enough to decide for themselves.
See, I think the definition of a successful child is where the difference lies; I was raised, and I raise my girls - to the extent my ex lets me - to make correct decisions for themselves. I was taught, and now teach, sound principles on which they can base those decisions, but as they become able to comprehend the decisions and the consequences thereof, they are encouraged to make them themselves.
That's great, but one person by no means counters my points. (Incidentally, I'm trying to raise my children as independently as possible.)
See:
1: Note, this is a trend, not an indication that there are no longer any independent young people. I happen to know one who has a job and her own house and is fiercely independent, even if it means she makes some mistakes. Further note, she's not my daughter, so this is a relatively unbiased assessment.
-
That's an absolute measure. What would your attitude have been at 20?
Most likely panicked to the point of never letting them out of my sight unless they were in the care of a very trusted person. IOW, just the opposite pattern.
-
Most likely panicked to the point of never letting them out of my sight unless they were in the care of a very trusted person. IOW, just the opposite pattern.
That would be less likley relative to the population as a whole. Which is why insurance companies charge those 16-25YO more. Also why 18-25YO are targeted by the military for recruitment. Younger adults have, on average, a greater tolerance for risk.
-
Younger adults have, on average, a greater tolerance for risk.
Personal risk; OTOH, I was extremely protective of others. Still am, but in different ways now.