POLL: Paranoid Parenting?

Remove all ads!

Inspired by my english interp today, i pose the question as to whether people think that parents are over protective these days, to the point of paranoia, or are they just being careful?

The two articles (which i have attempted to find in the newspaper archives of the relevant sites, to no success) they are both semi-reviews of the book "Paranoid Parenting" by Frank Furedi.

The two articles are contrasting, in that one supports Furedi's view, and the other disagree's, seeing as there are a few parents here on SP, i would like to know your view on the situation.

In the article about parents being overly protective, the author mentions the story about a young boy who just got new wellies, and the mother not wanting him to lose these welly's wrote his name on the inside of the welly, the child (as children do) then managed to get his welly's fully of wated, the ink washed off and stained his calfs blue, so that they looked like bruises, the kids teacher sees this and phones social services saying "quickly this child is being abused" the social services then call on the boy's mother and the bruises have disappeared with some soap and wated, and that the boy has a very healthy relationship with his mother. This is just one example of adults being overly protective.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 21 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Paranoid Parenting? (21 votes.)

Are parents overly protective these days or are they just being careful? (Choose 1)
* Overly Protective - 52% (11)
* Just being careful enough - 43% (9)
* They are not careful enough and children need more protection - 5% (1)

 

My mother was overly protective while I was younger, hell, she still is. When I was 15 and lived at her place I had to go home at 21:00 on weekends, and she is paranoid. I am not saying that as a member of the 'angst teenz', no I am saying that as one of my former physical counsellors have told me that she is according from what she learned from talking to her.

BTW, I live with my father now, just FYI. RooK on the forums live with her still.(Sucker. )

 

Without a doubt Mrs. Snook is overly paranoid when it comes to the little Snook

 

I also did said English exam today. I agreed with the view that some parents can be overprotective and it has the effect of creating spoilt naive teenagers

 

nice to see a 3rd Scot, thought it was just me and Morningstar here from Scotland

 

I don't believe it has anything to do with the times. There have always been parents who care too much and parents who don't care enough, and will always be.

 

I think too many parents drive their kids to school these days. Every school I see has a huge traffic jam outside with all the parents dropping off or picking up their kids. When I was at school nobody ever got picked up by their parents - you either walked, cycled, or caught the bus. You can't tell me that the roads are any more dangerous now than they were then. Or that the schools are any further away. Kids can walk!!

 

Yeah, kids can't be sissies. They don't have legs only for kicking their schoolmates. When I was 8, I had to walk quite a long distance. It's sick when parents start to think they need to drive their kids a fraction of that distance. Or when they think kids aged 13 (like my sister) shouldn't go by bus alone two or three bus stops distance. It sounds like hypocrisy since everyone knows kids cover even greater areas in their aimless footborne roaming with friends practically every day.

 

In the example given, I don't think it was being overprotective. I'd rather have a dozen false alarms due to overdiligence then miss a single actual abuse case that could have been reported. I think if I had to choose one, I'd rather be overprotective then negligent towards my children (although keep in mind I don't HAVE children, and can't fully appreciate the astronomical responsibility it must take to raise them).

This kind of brings up the question of the double standard too; I'll bet if you asked, more people would be overprotective of their daughters then their sons, so that's another factor that would influence the decision making process.

 

Your son won't come and tell you "daddy, I'm pregnant".

 

Yes. Whether it is the right thing to do or not, I would be likely to be more protective of my daughter than my son. But I hope I would treat each case on its merits.

 

Some are, some aren't. But from I have seen, some of the officials (of a certain country) are too intruding and thus people have come quite careful what they say and do in public (especially with kids).

IMO, around here the parents aren't "too" protective. Besides, taking kids to school by car is nice to do during winter.

 

My parents were overly protective, almost constricting.
They seem to have loosened up quite some recently; I get to go out later and they've gotten over my smoking too

EDIT: my age has a certian relevance here; turned 15 two months back

 

However he might come home and say "daddy I got a girl pregnant" or "hey daddy, I found some bullets for you, they're in my spleen".

Protectiveness is across the board, there seems to be an equal balance between those who are over protective and those who are not protective enough with the rest getting it just right. I can't say any group makes up the majority since they all seem to be the same.

My parents weren't very protective at all yet I don't: do drugs; smoke; drink excessivly; get into fights; get girls pregnant (I use protection) and I've never broken the law. I don't have a religious upbringing at all I've just been taught what's right and wrong (or possibly what's smart and what's stupid) at an early age. I think provided parents teach their children common-sense they can be as leniant as they like. When your child starts displaying lack of common sense is when you have to stomp down on them.

It's not the world that's the problem that you have to protect your kids from, you have to protect your kids from themselves.

 

The probability of earning a bullet in your spleen is weak. It may be stronger in the US or other countries where you don't need a permit to own a gun, but this is not a given.

The probability to get raped is much higher than to get shot, even if it's still not that big. The probability to get pregnant after some drinking party is quite a real one. Of course, if you bring your daughter up well she won't get roaring drunk with random guys, nor will she give to strangers, go for one night stands etc etc. However, everyone makes stupid mistakes and if your son gets a girl pregnant, you "only" have a hefty sum off your salary each month until he gets a job or something. You don't have a pregnant daughter to deal with. It's more difficult for an unmarried woman with child(ren) to find a husband that for a childless one. And you don't really want her to marry the irresponsible arsehole that got her pregnant, do you? Plus, giving birth in the course of highschool or university studying isn't really helping. The male kid doesn't give birth and can study. Unless you disown him and have him work for his new family's living, of course, which is not so bad an idea after all.

Still, I am fully positive that the female chev junior will be a good Catholic girl, reasonable and responsible like her father

 

Personally, the idea of coming back here in 10 years and seeing how parent-Chev's perception of reality and childrearing is different from that of "Mr. I don't have children yet but mine will be perfect" is tempting.

The very definition of parenting is protecting children from themselves - by teaching them right from wrong, what's safe v. what's not, how to handle strange situations, etc. I think this topic was meant to take another tack - how protective of children do parents have to be, given society at large?

There's a lot more for parents to worry about, even if the media blows such things out of proportion. Megan's Laws vary from state to state, and not all the sex offenders register. Allegations of child abuse are handled as "guilty until proven innocent." Pushers lace sticker-adhesive with drugs to get little kids addicted (thank goodness for self-adhesive stickers ). Dealing with peer pressure to try cigarettes or alcohol is the easy stuff anymore, sadly enough.

Any parent can do only so much before it's time to send Junior out into the world and see if you done enough. However, there are some risks that it's better to avoid until you can't wait any longer - and if that means I drive my child to school because another child was molested by the bus driver because someone blew off a background check and hired a sex offender, so be it.

 

Are you sure? What if in preventing these risks the child is disadvantaged?

Taking a child to school every day doesn't expose them to a different type of socialising that they would encounter if they went to school via their own devices. Besides, most if not all people catching the bus in the morning have only one idea on their mind: getting to work, going about their daily business. The majority of these people are your average human-beings. If something 'difficult' happened between your child and someone else on the bus these average human-beings would get involved. There are enough people out there who will defend someone elses child if they are attacked. Keeping to public places protects children. Nobody in their right mind would attack someone in front of witnesses, especially when those witnesses would most probably prevent them from attacking the person.

 

Errmm, Rally was right, the topic has taken a very large tangent from what it was mean to be, this topic was originally abount parents being so paranoid that they wouldnt let there son/daughter climb a tree as theres the very slim chance they branch will break (admitedly, from past experience, ive found that the branches do break sometimes...), also the whole walking to school thing is not about whether the child will be rapped etc.. but its more, incase they dont have enough common sense to use a designated crossing point but instead just run across the road and be ran over.

I should of made this clearer in the original post, but i was lazy, also it would of helped if the two articles that were in the interp were readable on the newspapers website, but i would have to pay for them. Ill try sometime to scan the question paper if anyone wants me to.