Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Parenting Thread II - Advice, Tips, Etc


PleaseBlitz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, twa said:

The notion of arguing with a child just never made sense to me....reason with them and if that fails impose your will......ya gonna lose a argument every time.

Also good advice for dealing with twa :)

 

Anyway, back on topic... I don't have kids of my own but the greatest lesson I can take away from some of the mistakes my own father made is that you should wait until your boys are older than 9 to teach them how to put on a condom. Also, for God's sake, demonstrate on a banana or something. Definitely NOT on yourself.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

I'm trying to help raise a pairing between my daughter and a true redhead....I might need your prayers :ols:

i saw you in religion thread, lol.  I seen a shirt that said "I love Jesus, but I cuss a little", and I said "I want one", I figured that's what you came over there for : )

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Definitely NOT on yourself.

Oh man, were you part of the same cult as ThinDuke growing up, too?  I'm sorry

Edited by Renegade7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tshile said:

By the way, currently looking for advice on:

- dealing with the first child and the fact that he’s about to find out he’s going to be a brother (and the yearish after birth.) 

 

- being a dad to a daughter. I didn’t so much as even grow up with a sister. So super clueless here. I’m expecting it to be a blast

 

Pm, in thread, advise of just a good books to read is greatly appreciated 

 

Try and make time for the 1st child after the baby comes.  Make a point to emphasize the four of you are a family.

 

I have two girls.  As with any large population, there are big differences between them.  There is no specific advice to raising "a girl".  I have two girls, and they are very different people and other than the very general stuff that would almost certainly apply to boys there are no of rules.

 

(Though I suspect if you go into raising a girl with the mind set that you are raising a "a girl", you are either much more likely to get "a girl" or have a bad relationship with your daughter.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat each child as special.

 

I am 3.5 years older than my brother. My parents valued boys more than girls and I really noticed it. We were raised very differently, and in those days it was really noticeable. 

 

I hope now that children are raised to respect them as individuals and to appreciate their talents and personalities that are not extensions of ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of free range parenting, to me it is a a lot like the anti-vaxers.  Given current society, it might be better to allow your kids to be free range, but part of current society includes a lot of effort to protect kids, not just at the individual parent level, but also at the larger societal level (Amber alerts, FBI being automatically involved in kidnappings even if there is no evidence a state line has been crossed, etc.).  This behavior minimizes issues with child safety and things like abductions by strangers.  Abducting a kid today is very hard because of how carefully people watch their kids and how much effort law enforcement puts in when there is credible evidence of an abduction.

 

I have a 9 and 12 year old and live pretty close to a park (less than a mile).  Individually or alone, they are not allowed to go to the park (my 12 year old can go if she goes with other friends that we know and trust, but even that's something that has happened in the last year and partly because she has a cell phone she can use if there is an issue).  We could almost certainly let them go to the park by themselves without any issues BECAUSE there will most likely be other grow ups there watching their kids that will step in if there seems to be a major issue because of the priority we as a society have placed on kids lives and safety.

 

I'd get the benefit of allowing my kids free range by piggy backing on the security larger society is providing.  However, if everybody takes that same attitude and you have young kids going to a park where there is no supervision, you lose that societal protection.

 

Like the anti-vaxer.  There is some (very small) risk that an individual kid will have a negative response to a vaccine.  There is some (very small) risk that vaccines long term (over the course of a life time) contribute to some diseases where the contribution has not been detected yet.

 

In a society where everybody is highly vaccinated, your chances of getting a disease that vaccines are protecting you against are very low.  It is likely that the chances that the vaccines are causing some negative health out come likely is greater than the chances of you getting the disease that are being vaccinated against.  Somebody not getting the vaccine is benefiting from the larger societal effort.

 

The problem becomes is it doesn't take too many people to take the attitude that not getting the vaccine is the safer thing to do to lose that societal pressure and the chances of getting the disease go way up (as we've seen with out breaks an areas where there are more anti-vaxer attitudes).

 

The other point that I think is important is I don't think there was ever a lot of individual young kids doing things alone. Simply the sizes of many families excluded that sort of behavior.  The one woman got a lot of attention for letting her 9 year old ride the subway alone.  I don't think that happened much ever because most families were larger resulting in there just being more kids (per a family unit) and more kids are choosing to do more indoor activities so traveling less.  And as part of larger families, at the top end, you had more closely spaced kids.  I'm one of 6.  My parents had 3 kids in 3 just over years and then a kid essentially every 3 years.

 

At 9, I was a free range kid.  Even at places like the mall, we'd leave my parents with a plan to meet at a certain place at a certain time, but I had 3 older siblings that I free ranged with so I wasn't really free ranging.  I had essentially had sibling baby sitters.  At 9, I have a sister that would have been 15.  She was mostly going to stores that I wasn't interested in, but I'd go with my brothers and other places (the pool) my sister would come with us boys.  At 9, I spent a lot of time "free ranging" with a 15, 14, and 12 year old (and realistically, their friends).  There was safety in the group and the maturity of the group where I benefited at 9 form their experience (and even when my sister was 13, she would have been "free ranging" with a 12 year old and a 10 year old plus any friends).  Then by the time I was 12, I would go a lot of places with my younger siblings (who would have been 9 and 6).  But I had experience at 12 from being "free" (of my parents, but not my siblings) that my 12 year old does not have because she does not have years of experience of traveling with a group of older or even similarly aged kids.

 

My 12 year old and 9 year old cant' go to the park alone, but there is a big difference between 9 and 11.  Like I said, my 12 year old can go to the park with friends.  If I had an 11 and a 12 year old, they'd be a lot more free range, especially if they were going with even one of their friends.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a parent of three (boy (17), girl (13), boy (11)) one thing I can tell you is spend one on one face time (not the app! ) with them. Don't just give them an electronic baby sitter (PS4, smartphone etc.). Limit their online exposure and encourage their direct interaction with other kids and adults. There is a great book called "Tough Guys and Drama Queens" I read recently. It is written by a Christian author, but if thats not your thing, you can easily parse it out or ignore that aspect, its minimal. Its mostly practical experience. Good info for when they are in their tweens in prep.

Edited by Zguy28
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Try and make time for the 1st child after the baby comes.  Make a point to emphasize the four of you are a family.

 

I have two girls.  As with any large population, there are big differences between them.  There is no specific advice to raising "a girl".  I have two girls, and they are very different people and other than the very general stuff that would almost certainly apply to boys there are no of rules.

 

(Though I suspect if you go into raising a girl with the mind set that you are raising a "a girl", you are either much more likely to get "a girl" or have a bad relationship with your daughter.)

 

Yeah I mean I have general ideas, #1 being don't go about it as if i'm "raising a girl"

 

But life has taught me there's value in seeking out advice, not just assuming I can figure it out as I go. Life has also taught me there's difference between men and women, boys and girls, and so while I don't want to "raise a girl" I do think there's probably some good advice out there for someone who, other than my mom, hasn't lived with a girl/woman until my (now) wife and I moved in together.

 

the extent of what i know about a girl growing up into a woman is that I chased after/courted/etc them from ages 12-24. not exactly the perspective i'm expecting will benefit me here.

 

It's one thing to say I want to raise my girl so that she's a strong independent person and not societies view of "a girl". It's another to be capable of doing it and recognizing what is and isn't a good idea.

 

The good news is my wife is essentially what I want my girl to be - did what she wanted, didn't play by "societies rules" about being a girl/woman, and can throw a wicked punch if needed (but seems to have mostly avoided needing to), didn't take **** from anyone, etc etc etc. So, hopefully she'll be a good role model.

 

(also smart, friendly, kind, empathetic, hell of a leader, etc - I don't imagine there's anything special there...)

 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

In terms of free range parenting, to me it is a a lot like the anti-vaxers.  Given current society, it might be better to allow your kids to be free range, but part of current society includes a lot of effort to protect kids, not just at the individual parent level, but also at the larger societal level (Amber alerts, FBI being automatically involved in kidnappings even if there is no evidence a state line has been crossed, etc.).  This behavior minimizes issues with child safety and things like abductions by strangers.  Abducting a kid today is very hard because of how carefully people watch their kids and how much effort law enforcement puts in when there is credible evidence of an abduction.

 

 

 

 

Whoa, I totally disagree.  Free range parenting came from people looking at the evidence and realizing that child abduction by a stranger is extraordinarily rare, and the benefits of raising children who can function independently far outweighs that risk.  The instance of child abduction today is roughly the same as 20 years ago.  

 

Anti vaxxers came from people who totally ignore a huge pile evidence that doesn't line up with their preconceived beliefs that they got from noted non-epidemiologist Jenny McCarthy and one study that has since been disproved and revoked.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Whoa, I totally disagree.  Free range parenting came from people looking at the evidence and realizing that child abduction by a stranger is extraordinarily rare, and the benefits of raising children who can function independently far outweighs that risk.  The instance of child abduction today is roughly the same as 20 years ago.  

 

Anti vaxxers came from people who totally ignore a huge pile evidence that doesn't line up with their preconceived beliefs that they got from noted non-epidemiologist Jenny McCarthy and one study that has since been disproved and revoked.   

The bolded should be the goal of every parent. Unfortunately too many think they can outsource it to youth groups, electronic devices, or public/private schools to raise them for us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Whoa, I totally disagree.  Free range parenting came from people looking at the evidence and realizing that child abduction by a stranger is extraordinarily rare, and the benefits of raising children who can function independently far outweighs that risk.  The instance of child abduction today is roughly the same as 20 years ago.  

 

Anti vaxxers came from people who totally ignore a huge pile evidence that doesn't line up with their preconceived beliefs that they got from noted non-epidemiologist Jenny McCarthy and one study that has since been disproved and revoked.   

 

20 years ago there was very little free ranging either.  I have nieces and nephews in their 20s.  None of them were "free ranged' in the same manner as their parents (they are also all from 2 kid families where there are years between them).

 

As I stated, child abductions by strangers are way down at least partly because of the work that society (and parents) do to keep kids from being abducted.

 

The other fundamental part of your argument is that the only way or even best way to raise kids that that learn to function independently is through "free ranging" (i.e. a  preconceived belief).  (You are also ignoring there are plenty of bad things that can happen to a kid traveling alone beyond being abducted.)

 

And let me be clear, there is a difference between "free play" and "free range".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

20 years ago there was very little free ranging either.  I have nieces and nephews in their 20s.  None of them were "free ranged' in the same manner as their parents (they are also all from 2 kid families where there are years between them).

 

As I stated, child abductions by strangers are way down at least partly because of the work that society (and parents) do to keep kids from being abducted.

 

The other fundamental part of your argument is that the only way or even best way to raise kids that that learn to function independently is through "free ranging" (i.e. a  preconceived belief).  (You are also ignoring there are plenty of bad things that can happen to a kid traveling alone beyond being abducted.)

 

And let me be clear, there is a difference between "free play" and "free range".

 

#1, yes, you stated that child abductions by strangers are way down at least partly because of the work that society (and parents) do to keep kids from being abducted, but you provided no evidence that what you stated is true.  Child abductions by strangers, according to the  evidence, are not way down.  They were never high to begin with, at least going back 30 years.  

 

#2, my argument is not, and never was, that free range parenting is any better than any other method.  My point is that parents should get to choose what they want to do for themselves without the authorities getting involved.  And I'm not ignoring other bad things that can happen to a kid traveling alone, those are PART of learning how to function independently.  Learning how to deal with adversity is, in my opinion, a hugely important skill.  Social psychologist have recently begun referring to this trait as "grit."  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-youve-heard-the-term-grit-lately-its-probably-because-of-angela-duckworth/2016/04/27/b5b14f4e-0711-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?utm_term=.2e089bf4066e

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me... we have a red wolf lodge around here... if you've never been it's a giant indoor kid play ground with a hotel inside of it. attached is a giant indoor water park. anyways, one of the games is you get this wand and you run around doing things and it increases the level of your wand, which allows you to do more things.

 

it works off rfid so you point it at things and stuff happens - lights go on/off, things change colors, chests open, whatever.

 

so when he got home from his trip with this two young kids he decided to buy a bunch of rfid controllers and hook them up to **** in his house. and he took the wand one day and convinced his kids he's got magical powers because he could make it work at home.

 

young kids are so easy to screw with. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

As a parent of three (boy (17), girl (13), boy (11)) one thing I can tell you is spend one on one face time (not the app! ) with them. Don't just give them an electronic baby sitter (PS4, smartphone etc.). Limit their online exposure and encourage their direct interaction with other kids and adults. There is a great book called "Tough Guys and Drama Queens" I read recently. It is written by a Christian author, but if thats not your thing, you can easily parse it out or ignore that aspect, its minimal. Its mostly practical experience. Good info for when they are in their tweens in prep.

My wife is a practicing family therapist with a master's degree. She works for Children's Hospital in our city. What you say is probably the most underrated and most effective ways to raise disciplined children: play with them. As little as 5 minutes daily. Play with each of them individually, with NO distractions. Let them guide the play. 

 

Her therapy is research based and a lot of misbehavior and acting out in children is, actually, attention seeking behavior. Playing with them is giving them attention proactively. Families that come to her report a huge, immediate improvement just from investing this time with their kids. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

My wife is a practicing family therapist with a master's degree. She works for Children's Hospital in our city. What you say is probably the most underrated and most effective ways to raise disciplined children: play with them. As little as 5 minutes daily. Play with each of them individually, with NO distractions. Let them guide the play. 

 

Her therapy is research based and a lot of misbehavior and acting out in children is, actually, attention seeking behavior. Playing with them is giving them attention proactively. Families that come to her report a huge, immediate improvement just from investing this time with their kids. 

I see lots of parents at places who bring their little kids and use electronics to get them to be quiet or occupy them in public. Meanwhile Mom or Dad is addicted to their own smartphone and ignoring them. And they wonder why when its time to go, their kids acts up.

Edited by Zguy28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

#1, yes, you stated that child abductions by strangers are way down at least partly because of the work that society (and parents) do to keep kids from being abducted, but you provided no evidence that what you stated is true.  Child abductions by strangers, according to the  evidence, are not way down.  They were never high to begin with, at least going back 30 years.  

 

#2, my argument is not, and never was, that free range parenting is any better than any other method.  My point is that parents should get to choose what they want to do for themselves without the authorities getting involved.  And I'm not ignoring other bad things that can happen to a kid traveling alone, those are PART of learning how to function independently.  Learning how to deal with adversity is, in my opinion, a hugely important skill.  Social psychologist have recently begun referring to this trait as "grit."  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-youve-heard-the-term-grit-lately-its-probably-because-of-angela-duckworth/2016/04/27/b5b14f4e-0711-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html?utm_term=.2e089bf4066e

 

1.  Are you seriously claiming that kids aren't safer now because of what we've done to protect them?  Do you really believe there aren't few kidnappings for ransom than in the 1930s and 40s?  Kidnapping for ransom is essentially unheard of in the US today.

 

The stats clearly show declines in missing children in general.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-missing-children/2013/05/10/efee398c-b8b4-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?utm_term=.c1742a713af6

 

"Many state missing-children agencies show declining numbers of cases. That trend is supported by FBI statistics showing fewer missing persons of all ages — down 31 percent between 1997 and 2011. The numbers of homicides, sexual assaults and almost all other crimes against children have been dropping, too.

 

Why fewer missing kids? Cellphones are almost certainly part of the explanation. When a friend of my son’s skiied off a trail and into the Maine wilderness near nightfall last winter, a cellphone call got the ski patrol to the right spot and short-circuited what could have been a lengthy search and a possible fatality. Cellphones allow children to summon help and get out of threatening situations. They enable parents to figure out where their kids are when they don’t come home. They afford teens a somewhat longer leash than in the past and thus help counteract one important motive — a quest for autonomy — for children who disappear on their own.

 

Other factors are probably involved in the decline, too. Over the past three decades, we have become more aggressive about finding, prosecuting, incarcerating, supervising, treating and deterring sex offenders. And we have implemented prevention programs and response systems, such as Amber Alert, that both discourage crime and resolve disappearances quickly."

 

(I added the bold for emphasis.)

 

In addition, for what is the realistic age range that we are talking about that we have statistics for (3-17) (and realistically, I'd like to see that broken out even further so you could say something about 3-15 because things obviously change when kids get to that 16 age range and can drive, etc.), the numbers of stereotypical kidnappings is also down from 2011 to 1997.

 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249249.pdf

 

The only reason kidnappings are even from 1997 to 2011 is that kidnappings of 0-2 year old are up.  And even in 1997 kidnapping for ransom was essentially unheard of. 

 

I'm not arguing that kids don't have to learn to work hard and do things by themselves, but that doesn't mean they have to be allowed to or encouraged to walk to a park by themselves (especially in pre-teen years) to do learn those things.

 

If you aren't claiming that free ranging kids isn't a better way to raise kids, then your argument makes no sense.  Clearly, a kid being allowed to walk to a park alone is at greater risk (admittedly the risk is very small, but that doesn't mean it isn't > 0) than a kid that isn't.  If there isn't some upside, then why do it?

 

And why come to an internet message board and support it?

 

(Whether parents should be legally allowed to free range kids gets a little trickier in my opinion because the parents have to know they are putting their kid at a higher risk, and I doubt if something does happen to their kid when they are free ranging, they are going to refuse the support efforts of society (e.g. AMBER alert, involvement of the FBI and specialized units to find missing kids, disability pay for injured children).  Today, IMO, we have a whole lot of, I don't want the government telling me what to do, but as if something goes wrong, the government better be there to help me.  At some level, my attitude is free range your kid if you want, but if your something goes wrong don't come looking for me (or my tax dollars) for help.  You take the risk, you reap the results if something goes wrong.)

 

I'll also point out that the idea of kids having freedom over the larger course of history isn't really accurate.  I'm 45 and by even by the time I was young the trend to smaller families had already started, and I knew plenty of 1 and 2 kid families where there significant restrictions on the travel of kids.

 

But if you go back further, kids were valued as laborers and so had significant restrictions on them.  The idea of a free range kid is essentially a post-WW1 middle and upper middle class idea that spread to the lower class as the (extended) family system got fractured in the mid-20th century (drugs, people moving more, etc.).  I'm 45 and my parents and in-laws are all the baby boomers (so post-WWII), but even among them the only on that had a free range childhood was my mom.

 

My dad's family owned a grocery store in Cleveland.  He wasn't allowed out because it wasn't safe (at that time it actually probably was pretty safe), but because he was required to help work in the grocery store.  His memories of "free time" as a kid were spent helping stock shelves.

 

My father in law laments about how little kids work today.  He grew up on a farm and when he was old enough that he was able to get his chores done on his family's farm in a reasonable amount of time, he had to go help his uncle on his farm.

 

My mother-in-law's father owned a garage, but never got past 8th grade.  Her mother worked in the garage doing the books, etc.  My mother-in-law was "left at home" (the house was behind the garage) to clean and do laundry (no washing machine or dryer) and when she got old enough that she could do the math to do the books, she did the books and her mother did the house work.

 

Of that generation, only my mother who had two working parents (a nurse and a union printer press operator) and lived in a respectable middle class neighborhood in Cleveland tells stories about being left to run around as a kid.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Are you seriously claiming that kids aren't safer now because of what we've done to protect them?  Do you really believe there aren't few kidnappings for ransom than in the 1930s and 40s?  Kidnapping for ransom is essentially unheard of in the US today.

 

I specifically referenced the last 30 years, and in that time frame, yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. 

 

Quote

 

The stats clearly show declines in missing children in general.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-missing-children/2013/05/10/efee398c-b8b4-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?utm_term=.c1742a713af6

 

"Many state missing-children agencies show declining numbers of cases. That trend is supported by FBI statistics showing fewer missing persons of all ages — down 31 percent between 1997 and 2011. The numbers of homicides, sexual assaults and almost all other crimes against children have been dropping, too.

 

Why fewer missing kids? Cellphones are almost certainly part of the explanation. When a friend of my son’s skiied off a trail and into the Maine wilderness near nightfall last winter, a cellphone call got the ski patrol to the right spot and short-circuited what could have been a lengthy search and a possible fatality. Cellphones allow children to summon help and get out of threatening situations. They enable parents to figure out where their kids are when they don’t come home. They afford teens a somewhat longer leash than in the past and thus help counteract one important motive — a quest for autonomy — for children who disappear on their own.

 

Other factors are probably involved in the decline, too. Over the past three decades, we have become more aggressive about finding, prosecuting, incarcerating, supervising, treating and deterring sex offenders. And we have implemented prevention programs and response systems, such as Amber Alert, that both discourage crime and resolve disappearances quickly."

 

(I added the bold for emphasis.)

 

In addition, for what is the realistic age range that we are talking about that we have statistics for (3-17) (and realistically, I'd like to see that broken out even further so you could say something about 3-15 because things obviously change when kids get to that 16 age range and can drive, etc.), the numbers of stereotypical kidnappings is also down from 2011 to 1997.

 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249249.pdf

 

The only reason kidnappings are even from 1997 to 2011 is that kidnappings of 0-2 year old are up.  And even in 1997 kidnapping for ransom was essentially unheard of. 

 

I'll note that the part you bolded uses the word "probably" because it has no empirical evidence to support that statement.  Here is the key point from the Post article:

 

Quote

Stranger abductions, such as the case of the three young women in Cleveland, are fearsome because they appear random and so often involve rape or homicide. But children taken by strangers or slight acquaintances represent only one-hundredth of 1 percent of all missing children. The last comprehensive study estimated that the number was 115 in a year.

 

One one-hundredth of 1 percent. The vast majority of child abductions are done by family members and other acquaintances.  The rest of the "missing" children are like, if they wander away at the mall.  So, they aren't in any real danger.  Here are some more statistics:

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/31/kidnapping-stats

 

Quote

According to an estimate from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there were just 105 "stereotypical kidnappings" in America between late 2010 and late 2011, the last period for which we have data. (For reference, there were about 73.9 million children in America that year.) Just 65 of these kidnappings were committed by strangers. Less than half involved the abduction of a child under age 12. Only 14 percent of cases were still open after one week, and 92 percent of victims were recovered or returned alive.

 

Quote

Are stereotypical kidnappings up or down? Down, maybe—there were 115 incidents defined as stereotypical kidnappings in the '90s NISMART survey, compared to 105 in more recent research. But because these estimates are based in part on weighted data, the DOJ considers the two numbers "statistically equivalent." However, 2010-2011 victims were much more likely to make it home safely than their 1990s counterparts. In the 90s survey, only 60 percent of stereotypical kidnapping cases ended with the child being recovered alive. In the 2010-2011 survey, it was 92 percent.

Quote

 

I'm not arguing that kids don't have to learn to work hard and do things by themselves, but that doesn't mean they have to be allowed to or encouraged to walk to a park by themselves (especially in pre-teen years) to do learn those things.

 

If you aren't claiming that free ranging kids isn't a better way to raise kids, then your argument makes no sense.  Clearly, a kid being allowed to walk to a park alone is at greater risk (admittedly the risk is very small, but that doesn't mean it isn't > 0) than a kid that isn't.  If there isn't some upside, then why do it?

 

And why come to an internet message board and support it?

 

As I've noted, raising kids to function independently is the upside, and that far outweighs, in my opinion, the extraordinarily small risk that they'll be abducted. If you don't agree, then that's your choice.  Both are valid choices, my point is that the parents should get to make that choice.

 

The rest of your post is anecdotal, so I'm sure it's all true but not really relevant.  

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I specifically referenced the last 30 years, and in that time frame, yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. 

 

 

I'll note that the part you bolded uses the word "probably" because it has no empirical evidence to support that statement.  Here is the key point from the Post article:

 

 

One one-hundredth of 1 percent. The vast majority of child abductions are done by family members and other acquaintances.  The rest of the "missing" children are like, if they wander away at the mall.  So, they aren't in any real danger.  Here are some more statistics:

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/31/kidnapping-stats

 

 

 

As I've noted, raising kids to function independently is the upside, and that far outweighs, in my opinion, the extraordinarily small risk that they'll be abducted. If you don't agree, then that's your choice.  Both are valid choices, my point is that the parents should get to make that choice.

 

The rest of your post is anecdotal, so I'm sure it's all true but not really relevant.  

 

 

1.  And I'm saying that free range child raising started to die well before 30 years ago so what has happened in the last 30 years is almost irrelevant, and we had a much broader participation by government in finding children going back more than 30 years ago.

 

2.  In addition, even from 1997 to 2011, the number of stereotypical kidnappings of kids in the age range of 2-17 is actually down and nobody is talking about.  The only reason stereotypical kidnappings are even between 1997 to 2011 is an increase of kids from 0-2, which is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

3.  Yes the odds are low.

 

4.  Are you really arguing the fact that before the raise of child labor laws, kids didn't free range because they had to work is anecdotal?  Before widespread mechanization of farming that on farms that kids were an important part of the labor pool?  Those are known historical facts.

 

5.  Lastly, your "upside" is your pre-conception.  There is no evidence that kids that are free ranged better learn to function more independently.

 

(And again, I'll make the point that you can have free play and not free range.)

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I kept tighter tabs on my daughter born in 1978 than I had born in 1951. I roamed the woods in my neighborhood, rode my bike everywhere. But my mother was at home while I worked. And my daughter is raising her daughter with tighter tabs than she had, and my daughter works too. One difference is my granddaughter has a cell phone to check in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respect goes a long way.  Kids are small but they still want respect.  Talk to them in the way you want your manager to talk to you.  Also remember that you are much bigger and stronger, you are basically a GIANT.  Upset/screaming giant is a very scary thing.

 

Not saying to be a softie, being firm is good, just respectfully firm.

 

Acknowledge and validate their feelings.  I understand this is really important to you.

 

When in conflict, tell them what you will do before doing it.  Make sure it does NOT sound like a threat.

 

Offer them choices (valid choices!)

 

Find a way to say “no” without saying it.  Can we have desert now?  Of course we can, right after dinner. (“no” without actually saying it) Yes sweetie it can be so hard to wait for desert!  (validation)

 

Find a way to tell them what to do without saying it.  I see some dirty dishes on the table!  We usually put those in the sink after dinner (hint hint).

 

Praise the effort instead of the result.

 

When presented with a piece of work (art, school, project, etc.).  Find some details about it and ask about those.  The kid did those for a reason and will light up and tell you all about them.

 

 

These are some tips I found very helpful, mostly from these two awesome books:

Positive Discipline by Jane Nelsen

How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk

 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We usually used a form of positive discipline, then malicious.

of course I've thrown my teenage kid across the room when they ignored "get out of my chair".(in a controlled manner :))

 

Parents can't be too predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...