UKC

Something thought provoking on raising children...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Timmd 27 May 2017

It can read in a way that's a little bit 'hyperbolic' or 'alarmist', perhaps, but it might be interesting to some.

https://yourot.com/parenting-club/2017/5/24/what-are-we-doing-to-our-childr...

Or the total opposite...
1
 Neil Williams 27 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

It is *very* hyperbolic and alarmist, but in principle I agree with the points it raises.

As a Scout Leader this is no great surprise - we are about giving young people responsibility - and we find that when they do they very much live up to it.
OP Timmd 27 May 2017
In reply to Neil Williams:
I can probably understate in an English kind of way re how it's hyperbolic, it seems to have been absorbed as I've grown up. I'm sure they do live up to it. I was struck by how we as adults (if the press and child specialists are right) have sought to eliminate boredom, and 'wasted' time too, in making life for children full of things to keep boredom at bay, and full of useful/developmental things to do. It's hard not to think that the development of the capacity for self direction and developing a richer imagination, wouldn't be affected by less free time for children to follow their own whimsies if you like and less situations where they'll have to create something to do, which is also useful and developmentally beneficial. I was often bored as a child, and never seem to be like that in adulthood. A friend commented that I don't get bored.
Post edited at 13:45
In reply to Timmd:

Sounds about right to me. I think many children/young people are existing in a world never before experienced by human young and it is not a healthy one. That might sound like me being an old bloke not understanding the new technological world but I don't think it is. An 11 year old boy I teach told me he loved Call of Duty (an 18 game I think) because it was so realistic. I asked him if he involuntarily wet himself when the enemy started firing at him or if he could smell the blood of his fallen comrades or if his ears rang from the blast shock-waves. I believe children need real life and the ability to think for themselves in actual situations (and I'm not suggesting we shoot at them).
OP Timmd 27 May 2017
In reply to blackmountainbiker:
There's definitely academic literature to back up what you say, about children living a world never before experienced - and it not being a good thing. Children naturally play in a way which helps them to develop, in rough and tumble play, and group games, and in taking measured risks and playing outside generally, these are all helpful things to do. Spinning round and the head going upside down (for example) help to develop something in the inner ear which aids the sense of balance. Things like having none endangering accidents and bouncing back again emotionally, and figuring out how to try something again, is meant to be helpful towards emotional resilience, it's something continues into adult life. From how it can feel like the world is going to end when you get hurt and injured as a kid, I can believe that to be true!
Post edited at 21:15
 summo 27 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:
You can almost imagine us unevolving (made up word). We do less exercise or activities than ever. We have devices that think for us, like the thread on people navigating with satnavs .. wonder how the species will function in a 1000 years time.
Post edited at 21:52
XXXX 27 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

This all sounds like 'back in my day' nonsense to me. Parenting, something else today's generations aren't good enough at.

I spent the day in the woods and it was heaving with families building shelters, balancing on logs and climbing trees. Kids getting filthy, taking risks and grazing their knees.

The only technology I saw was phones being used to take photos.
9
 Rampikino 27 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

It is certainly very dramatic but raises fair points.

We make a real effort to do many of the suggested things including;

Eating home-prepared food together at the table.
No TV except Friday treat and other rare occasions.
Phones away until kids in bed.
Using our garden to play in.
Sitting and reading with the kids every day.
Giving lots of emotional support and positive reinforcement.
Getting the kids involved in household chores.

We don't always get it right but we try!

However...

When you look at parenting of the past we have also made huge strides forward, for example:

Having the time and finances to be able to spend more time taking our kids away on holidays.
Better access to childcare, parental leave etc.
Changes in what is socially acceptable such as smoking, especially around kids.
The attitudes of men towards their children - taking a more active role. Dads actually telling their sons that they love them!
A greater understanding of the dynamics of the household and the emotional impact of relationships on wellbeing.
A move away from physical punishment of children.
A strong focus on broader education rather than just the 3 Rs.
Blurring of age-old class lines so that kids don't necessarily feel that they are doomed to be one thing forever.

But similarly we allow our busy lives to become an excuse rather than dealing with it. We also tend to regress to finding someone else to blame instead of dealing with it.

Has any generation ever nailed it? I doubt it.
1
 DancingOnRock 27 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

A lot of my friends pay a lot of money to run around in the woods in the dark.

It appears that they find it quite dangerous, paying money to someone to organise it elimates the risk. I wonder what kind of upbringing they had.

I run around the woods and the hills in the dark. I consider it normal behaviour.

My guess is that some kids play outside and get into all sorts of scrapes and others don't.

Putting it into perspective my daughter scraped her leg on the end of a chair leg at school. She said she should have been more careful. I'm going to email the school as the leg should have a rubber end on it and it was missing. Some parents (according to the media) would have been straight down the no win no fee and photos in the local press route.

We are not all the same.

Fortunately.
1
 Big Ger 28 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Rather makes the assumption that "we" are doing these things.

However as the proud parent of a beautiful, intelligent, emotionally stable, fit, healthy, loving and loved, young woman, I can state that not all of us are doing these things.

Victoria Prooday is projecting ...
3
 Big Ger 28 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

> There's definitely academic literature to back up what you say, about children living a world never before experienced - and it not being a good thing.

Every child grows up in a world not yet experienced, and it's neither a good nor bad thing.
3
OP Timmd 28 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Every child grows up in a world not yet experienced, and it's neither a good nor bad thing.

Surely, that would depend on the world they're experiencing, how good or bad it is? Working in cotton mills was pretty shit for Victorian children.

I'm not saying ' all children are doomed', but there are trends which can be seen developing among modern children, to do with mental health and physical capabilities/motor skills, which have their roots in what children do as children. Humans aren't any different to other animals, in learning and developing through play. I had to learn about it as part of my Forest Schools course, roughly grouped, physical play, rough and tumble play, group play and (measured) risky play all have particular benefits.
Post edited at 00:14
1
OP Timmd 28 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Rather makes the assumption that "we" are doing these things.However as the proud parent of a beautiful, intelligent, emotionally stable, fit, healthy, loving and loved, young woman, I can state that not all of us are doing these things.

That's good to hear.

> Victoria Prooday is projecting ...

She could seem to be.
OP Timmd 28 May 2017
In reply to Rampikino:
> Has any generation ever nailed it? I doubt it.

I doubt it as well. A family friend said something which seemed wise, which was that no matter what parents do, their children will somehow find a way for part of their parenting to be wrong, in an unintentional way.
Post edited at 00:24
1
 Big Ger 28 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:
> Surely, that would depend on the world they're experiencing, how good or bad it is?

Exactly, but your comment was;

> There's definitely academic literature to back up what you say, about children living a world never before experienced - and it not being a good thing.

You didn't mention "good".

Today's kids will grow up in a world with unprecedented opportunity, healthcare, social care, education, and opportunity.

By the time I was 16 I'd been out of Wales, twice, on day trips. By the time she was 16, my daughter had been to the UK 3 times, Japan twice, Hong Kong, NZ, Dubai, Moscow, and other places.

The life expectancy for a baby born today is approaching 100

> Working in cotton mills was pretty shit for Victorian children.

Leaving school and entering an iron foundry at 15 was bad, but it set me up for the rest of my life.

> I'm not saying ' all children are doomed', but there are trends which can be seen developing among modern children, to do with mental health and physical capabilities/motor skills, which have their roots in what children do as children.

You should sprinkle the word "some" though that statement mate.


> Humans aren't any different to other animals, in learning and developing through play. I had to learn about it as part of my Forest Schools course, roughly grouped, physical play, rough and tumble play, group play and (measured) risky play all have particular benefits.

So did my daughter and her peers. In fact they had FAR more opportunity to do so than my generation did. Again, my daughter experienced wild camping, caving, canyoning, rock climbing (she's far better than I ever was,) orienteering, skiing, sailing, wild water canoeing, and wild swimming before she left school.

I did none of those things until I hit my 20s, (and I still cannot swim.)
Post edited at 00:27
2
 DancingOnRock 28 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Some people see what they want to see.
1
In reply to Big Ger:

But, the current younger generation are experiencing things so far removed from those my generation or my parents generation experienced. It's not all bad but I do think there are issues directly linked to technology and mental health.
 Ridge 28 May 2017
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> A lot of my friends pay a lot of money to run around in the woods in the dark. It appears that they find it quite dangerous, paying money to someone to organise it elimates the risk. I wonder what kind of upbringing they had. I run around the woods and the hills in the dark. I consider it normal behaviour.

I must admit I shake my head at a lot of these events, plus things like the Keswick Mountain Festival where people pay a fortune to do a short fell run.

Probably more to so with slick marketing and commercialism than anything else. However people do seem frightened to do anything unless they've been on a training course with a certificate at the end.
Post edited at 13:32
 Toerag 28 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

The 'allow boredom' thing is massively important I think. Many of the kids I deal with simply cannot think for themselves and have no 'drive' to do anything for themselves - if it's not put on a plate for them they simply don't bother. Many parents seem to have this need for Little Johnny to do every activity under the sun - every night of the week is a different club - swimming, drama, football, athletics, chess, computer, climbing. Subsequently all they want to do when nothing is on is do nothing but veg in front of the telly.
ceri 28 May 2017
In reply to Toerag:

When I was a kid (born 1980) I did a different activity every night (piano, swimming, various dance classes, gym, brownies/guides/young leader). When I went home I made things, read books, climbed trees, built forts, sneaked into my brother's room when he was out to play with his sega game gear. I don't see the association between attending managed activities and not thinking for yourself or doing nothing outside them?
 DancingOnRock 28 May 2017
In reply to ceri:

Quite. But this is the internet. You can only do one or the other.

When I was in the scouts and as a leader we had/gave the kids free time at camp. You cannot possibly organise 100% of their time.

Most of us/them found something to do pretty quickly.

There's a balance though, and you have to manage when and how often these periods of boredom occur otherwise kids will find something to do and it's not always particularly constructive. Look at areas where kids are allowed to run riot and they literally do.

life is all about balancing highs and lows. You can't live life on a hundred mile an hour high all the time as without the lows there are no highs and then you're always looking to make the highs higher. And that is destructive in itself.
 Neil Williams 28 May 2017
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Notably, other than games at the Scout hut, free time does give rise to the highest number of Scout insurance claims.

Still has a value though.
 DancingOnRock 28 May 2017
In reply to Neil Williams:

In 20+ years of scouting I never heard of one insurance claim, outside of a van scrape. That's thousands of boys with hundreds of thousands of hours of scouting.
 Neil Williams 28 May 2017
In reply to DancingOnRock:

There are plenty, though I have not myself been party to one.
Lusk 28 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> ... and I still cannot swim.

When I come down to Cornwall, do you fancy doing some hardcore DWS?
 Big Ger 28 May 2017
In reply to blackmountainbiker:

> But, the current younger generation are experiencing things so far removed from those my generation or my parents generation experienced. It's not all bad but I do think there are issues directly linked to technology and mental health.

They said the same about TV.

Then telephones.

 Big Ger 28 May 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> When I come down to Cornwall, do you fancy doing some hardcore DWS?

Hardcore DWD in my case.
In reply to Big Ger:

I don't think those are comparable. When my parents got a telephone in the 1970s, the technology had been around for almost 100 years and it really played a very small part in my life right up until the early 21st century until the internet became mobile. The impact mobile internet has had goes way beyond the telephone, which was really a refinement of the telegraph and didn't advance instant communication that far.
 Big Ger 29 May 2017
In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I don't disagree mate. What i was pointing out is the scaremongering which went with these inventions.

> Television has also been credited with changing the norms of social propriety, although the direction and value of this change are disputed. Milton Shulman, writing about television in the 1960s, wrote that "TV cartoons showed cows without udders and not even a pause was pregnant," and noted that on-air vulgarity was highly frowned upon. Shulman suggested that, even by the 1970s, television was shaping the ideas of propriety and appropriateness in the countries the medium blanketed. He asserted that, as a particularly "pervasive and ubiquitous" medium, television could create a comfortable familiarity with and acceptance of language and behavior once deemed socially unacceptable. Television, as well as influencing its viewers, evoked an imitative response from other competing media as they struggle to keep pace and retain viewer- or readership.
 SenzuBean 29 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> They said the same about TV.
> Then telephones.

What is your point with this? That it's just scaremongering? That we've always had something new fandangled that will ruin children? That it's only getting more potent?
2
 Big Ger 29 May 2017
In reply to SenzuBean:
> What is your point with this? That it's just scaremongering? That we've always had something new fandangled that will ruin children? That it's only getting more potent?

Pretty much.

> A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment. It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565. His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch...
Post edited at 03:34
 LeeWood 29 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

the BIG difference now is that the smartphone goes with you EVERYWHERE; adults and kids spend significant time together sharing whats on the screen
 LeeWood 29 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> You can almost imagine us unevolving (made up word).

Quite apart from these sociological changes we have quit evolving - there is no biological natural selection any more - no survival of the fittest; fit and unfit all survive thanks to medical wizardry
 Greenbanks 29 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
"Today's kids will grow up in a world with unprecedented opportunity, healthcare, social care, education, and opportunity"

As with the blog, your use of the phrase "Today's kids' reveals a big assumption. Try the same sentence in the context of a child from a marginalised or oppressed community, or from those places/regions of the world where these things are scarcely present; it'd then be rather more contentious. The Guardian meets Daily Mail theorising: save us from it, please.
Post edited at 07:14
2
 Big Ger 29 May 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:

> As with the blog, your use of the phrase "Today's kids' reveals a big assumption.

Fair comment, how about; "the kids of the sort of people who will read this guff"?
 summo 29 May 2017
In reply to LeeWood:
> Quite apart from these sociological changes we have quit evolving - there is no biological natural selection any more - no survival of the fittest; fit and unfit all survive thanks to medical wizardry

Perhaps in the future if we lose the race with antibiotics, but then you have gene editing.

Or one global pandemic or natural disaster.

Edit. I'll add in IVF etc.. parents who aren't able to naturally conceive are passing those genes down the line. Will the need for IVF in the future increase, or dilute itself out. There are of course several sides to this argument but we are pushing against all the natural processes which got us to this point.
Post edited at 07:43
 Dr.S at work 29 May 2017
In reply to LeeWood:

> Quite apart from these sociological changes we have quit evolving - there is no biological natural selection any more - no survival of the fittest; fit and unfit all survive thanks to medical wizardry

Which means our gene pool is expanding. This puts the species in a better position next time the definition of 'fittest' gets changed.
 French Erick 29 May 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Which means our gene pool is expanding. This puts the species in a better position next time the definition of 'fittest' gets changed.

That's such an interesting comment! I've always thought it in an old system way in which it was "obviously" negative. Food for thoughts!
 French Erick 29 May 2017
In reply to Timmd:

My parenting is probably average or may be just above average due to where we live (nicer environment with more opportunities for unsupervised play than most urban settings).

As a parent that always wanted to be a parent, I am endlessly surprised by how difficult it really is to be a decent parent!

As a teacher, I am faced with some kids that I know I could not deal with at home. As a consequence, I am way harder on my kids that I am at school. Their loss or their gain? We will have to discuss it when they finally reach adulthood. I don't just do it for their sake, but also for mine.

When I get annoyed I often find myself saying this to them: "remember, this is MY house not yours, so you'll be playing by my rules". It comes out so incredibly strongly at times that it surprises me.

My parents were divorced so I had 2 sets of parents. They were not perfect but by and large I think they did the best they could with what they had. I am still incredibly grateful. I am not certain they ever asked themselves the questions many parents ask themselves nowadays. Parents seem to forever be on a guilt trip of some sort. Even I am at times, and I am fairly impervious to most of these articles/fads.

I guess the results of my parenting will always be judged by someone with their own agenda: some will be impressed, others not.

An interesting post anyway with differing arguments that are all making me think. Ta.
cb294 29 May 2017
In reply to XXXX:

> This all sounds like 'back in my day' nonsense to me. Parenting, something else today's generations aren't good enough at.I spent the day in the woods and it was heaving with families building shelters, balancing on logs and climbing trees. Kids getting filthy, taking risks and grazing their knees.The only technology I saw was phones being used to take photos.


This is what we and our friends did with our children, and our two girls have grown up into responsible (where it counts), outdoor loving, adventurous, cultured, politically and socially engaged young adults (the youngest one is still in the brain closed for maintenance stage of puberty...). However, looking at their class mates they are not representative. Instead, there are quite a few digital retards, but what do you expect when the average exposure to computers and TV exceeds several ours per day by the time children are in primary school?
My son has difficulties finding boys of his age for a pickup match of football, even though we have a nice, open public pitch a couple of hundred meters away. However, it is mostly used by families with smaller children, the initiative to do something active coming from the parents. The other 14 year old boys are all at home in front of their screens.


CB

In reply to summo:

Which we have been doing for over 100k years.
 krikoman 31 May 2017
In reply to LeeWood:

> Quite apart from these sociological changes we have quit evolving - there is no biological natural selection any more - no survival of the fittest; fit and unfit all survive thanks to medical wizardry

Don't you think we'll just evolve in different ways. I think it's pretty hard to stop evolution.
 LeeWood 31 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Don't you think we'll just evolve in different ways. I think it's pretty hard to stop evolution.

I suppose we will evolve - to use the term loosely, but not in the way of survival of the fittest
 Big Ger 31 May 2017
In reply to LeeWood:

> I suppose we will evolve - to use the term loosely, but not in the way of survival of the fittest

Survival of the quickest thumbs?
 DancingOnRock 31 May 2017
In reply to LeeWood:

> I suppose we will evolve - to use the term loosely, but not in the way of survival of the fittest

It's survival of the best fit. Not survival of the fittest. Darwins theory is about ability to adapt not ability to survive by being strong.
 krikoman 01 Jun 2017
In reply to LeeWood:

> I suppose we will evolve - to use the term loosely, but not in the way of survival of the fittest

There's no loosely about it, whether it's sitting in a centrally heat house or eating avocados, they all have an effect on where we end up as DoR said, it's not survival of the fittest.

If you think about living with parasites, it's only recently we've grown up without having some form of parasite living inside us, tape worms, thread worms, have been a part of our lives for centuries. Who knows what the absence of these creatures will do for our evolution.

There is some suggestion the rise in asthma is due to the absence of these little lovies.
In reply to krikoman:

Absolutely, and survival of the fittest should really be 'survival of the most fit for the prevailing conditions' or 'survival of the most successful mutation '. So it is quite feasible that the human race could be attacked by a super strain of malaria and the only survivors would be people with sickle cell anemia who have a natural immunity to the disease. The result would be a global population with a serious genetic disease which would be a regression in our evolution. As a race we adapt and develop treatments for diseases but nature can outrun us from time to time.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...