What caused the shift in “quality parenting”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 1975 and while I played outside with friends a lot, my parents absolutely played with me (and my siblings). Board games, dolls (mom), sports (dad). My dad helped me with math homework. I don’t think my friends parents were appreciably different.

Same here. They might not have played with Barbies with me, but we definitely played board games and card games together, watched a movie together, taught me to cook and bake and work with power tools, played catch in the backyard, etc. We were also expected to entertain ourselves a fair amount, which honestly, I think was a good thing. It felt like a nice balance -- it was clear they enjoyed doing stuff with us, and there was a lot of affection, but we also had a reasonable amount of independence. I was allowed to ride my bike a couple of miles to my grandmother's house or to the nearest convenience store by myself, for example, which seems like a thing that would get me referred to CPS today if I let my kid do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a lot of families, there is no shift. For some parents, we want better for our kids and put in the effort.

I don’t necessarily equate putting more effort into parenting as having a better outcome. In many cases it produces anxiety-ridden kids who have no confidence in their own abilities or entitled kids who think they’re better because their parents have spent so much money on them.

You are not causing anxiety by being involved. You are justifying your neglectful parenting. Kids can get anxiety and a lot more from parents who are not involved. Nothing wrong with getting your kids in activities and supporting their interests. But, good way to justify that.

Kids can ALSO get anxiety from over-involved parents. Getting kids in activities and supporting their interests is one thing. But it can definitely go to far, and then you have kids who don't know what to do with themselves unless an adult is telling them what to do, or who have internalize the message that their parents hover because they don't think the kid is capable, or because the world is a scary place. As in most things, balance is what matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 1975 and while I played outside with friends a lot, my parents absolutely played with me (and my siblings). Board games, dolls (mom), sports (dad). My dad helped me with math homework. I don’t think my friends parents were appreciably different.

You had good parents. I was one of five and mine never played with me or had conversations with me. My dad was physically abusive to us. It blows my mind that people on here are somehow pathologizing involved parents. Obviously there are healthy and unhealthy ways to be involved. That said, spending time enjoying your kids, playing with them, conversing with them are positive things.

Involved parents can be abusive, too. There are bad parents today. There is more than one way to be a bad parent. Playing with your kids is one thing, and I doubt there is anyone who thinks that it's good parenting to ignore your kid all the time. But there has been a hard swing in the other direction, with kids in multiple activities and little unstructured time, and people are (rightly, IMO) saying that's not great, either. My parents took me to softball and basketball practice, but they didn't stay and watch, and no one else's parents did, either. They came to most, but not all, of the games, which was true of most other people's parents. Now, I see parents at every practice and every game, and they are hyper-involved rather than just a cheering section. That's one example of how things have changed, and it's not clear to me that it's always better.

Kids need a balance of structure and free time -- just one or the other is not great. They need the opportunity to develop independence, which they can't get if a parent is always there or the activity is always organized. And a parent can be affectionate and loving without being constantly directly engaged with their kids.

I think that the problem with this thread is that people come in with their own preconceptions, so people are often talking past each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freud happened, Anna and Sigfried. Then WW2 happened, and saw what happens when kids grow up in orphanages without a primary caregiver. At around the same time, women who had worked during the war started wanting to work, and their daughters went to work in droves.

Now we have research saying that kids NEED that bond, at the same time, women are going to work, and on top of it, no one is around to show them how to mother because their own mothers/sisters/friends are at work. So, women become very anxious and start seriously overcompensating for their anxiety. Clever entrepreneurs see a market, and that’s it. Parenting books, baby gym, etc etc manipulate, exploit, and feed on that anxiety.

You mean Sigmund?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Gen X with teens, and what I see is too many Millennial parents not adjusting to being parents. As in, they want someone else to do the heavy lifting on this whole parenting thing.

I've been outside gardening and overheard Millennial parents tell their kids to "shut up" as they stared at their phones on the walk home from the bus stop, as if they're somehow angry they have to parent their own kids. It is just so strange. It is at if many Millennial couples are constantly at war as to who is "stuck" with the kids today.

It's time for some parents to grow up.

I see this in some of my family. I was explaining to my niece that if part of having kids is spending all your spare time and money on them. Kids are expensive and inconvenient. I’m trying to arrange for someone to drop off and pickup mine tomorrow and Friday. My nanny is flying to her hometown to be with her brother who is not well. DH is out of town and so are my parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The shift was caused by the number of children. When families typically had 3-4 or 6 or 8 kids, they were valuable collectively but less individually. Now families have 1 or 2 kids and each is very valuable, and therefore receives a larger parental investment of time, money, and other resources.

Investment of parental time? Not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Gen X with teens, and what I see is too many Millennial parents not adjusting to being parents. As in, they want someone else to do the heavy lifting on this whole parenting thing.

I've been outside gardening and overheard Millennial parents tell their kids to "shut up" as they stared at their phones on the walk home from the bus stop, as if they're somehow angry they have to parent their own kids. It is just so strange. It is at if many Millennial couples are constantly at war as to who is "stuck" with the kids today.

It's time for some parents to grow up.

I see this in some of my family. I was explaining to my niece that if part of having kids is spending all your spare time and money on them. Kids are expensive and inconvenient. I’m trying to arrange for someone to drop off and pickup mine tomorrow and Friday. My nanny is flying to her hometown to be with her brother who is not well. DH is out of town and so are my parents.

Exactly!!

So how about skipping the hair and nail appointments as well as happy hour with the girls at Bar Louie and pick up YO OWN DAMN KEEEDS!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shift was caused by the number of children. When families typically had 3-4 or 6 or 8 kids, they were valuable collectively but less individually. Now families have 1 or 2 kids and each is very valuable, and therefore receives a larger parental investment of time, money, and other resources.

This makes me sick to my stomach. I’ve never heard such nonsense

My mother almost lost their mind when one of her 5 children, my brother, died. Our family was never the same. Likewise my Grandmother who has 7 children. You need to apologise to those of previous generations who lost kids.

Actually I think it is a common theory. My boyfriend came from a large family of 6 kids. He said in his circles it was expected that if you had 6 kids one would have
mental health issues or something like that. He said it came down to the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel really bad about it for my kids. I want them to go out and play freely in our neighborhood (where there is no crime at all!) but most other parents do not allow their children out unsupervised even at 10 years old. Very sad!

Is this a regional thing?

Is there some other city in this country where kids playing freely is still the norm? I dream of being able to provide the “Goonies” style “pack of kids having fun” that I experienced in MoCo in the 80s but not sure if that exists anywhere anymore.

Hmmm yes. When I go to Montana in the summers kids play outside in groups. Kids ride bikes. I even had 10 year old girls coming to the door wanting to sell me
jewelry that they had made and no I did not know them. It feels like the 1960's 1970's era that I grew up in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I forgot to mention the town that I visit in
in Montana has a fire siren go off every night at 9:00 pm
to call the children home from being outside.

Newcomers to the area (think Californians) are trying
to change the fire station whistle blow but locals
keep voting it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was born in 1975 and while I played outside with friends a lot, my parents absolutely played with me (and my siblings). Board games, dolls (mom), sports (dad). My dad helped me with math homework. I don’t think my friends parents were appreciably different.

Same here. They might not have played with Barbies with me, but we definitely played board games and card games together, watched a movie together, taught me to cook and bake and work with power tools, played catch in the backyard, etc. We were also expected to entertain ourselves a fair amount, which honestly, I think was a good thing. It felt like a nice balance -- it was clear they enjoyed doing stuff with us, and there was a lot of affection, but we also had a reasonable amount of independence. I was allowed to ride my bike a couple of miles to my grandmother's house or to the nearest convenience store by myself, for example, which seems like a thing that would get me referred to CPS today if I let my kid do it.

1960's 1970's kid here. We roamed on are bikes for miles. We had to be home for lunch and dinner time but then we went outside again. It would have been rare
for parents to play with us. We did play Monopoly on rainy days with Dad and Mom took us to the library once a week.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s because a lot of us had uninvolved parents so we’ve done the opposite. Tried to be the parents we wish we had. Also, most of us are aware how lucky we are that our outcomes weren’t worse considering all the free roaming we did. I knew plenty of kids growing up that were in accidents, molested etc. No way I would let my kids take the risks my parents did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shift was caused by the number of children. When families typically had 3-4 or 6 or 8 kids, they were valuable collectively but less individually. Now families have 1 or 2 kids and each is very valuable, and therefore receives a larger parental investment of time, money, and other resources.

Kids were less valuable individually? That’s incredibly stupid thinking.

Parents may have had less time for each kid individually, but they didn’t value them less.

I know a few families with a large # of kids (Catholics) and the youngest kids were definitely NOT valued.


BIRTH CONTROL gave families the means to have fewer kids and value them more.

I actually think this is true. Every single person I've ever met from very large families (like 6 or more) said that older siblings were expected to raise the younger ones and everyone involved hated it.

Exactly.

The older kids raised the younger kids. Older kids resented it and the younger kids resented not knowing their parents well at all.

Parents only had that many kids because they didn’t use birth control. They didn’t plan that many kids. Or even want the last few (one kid was given away). This is true in for the 3 very large Catholic families I know (8+ kids).

[Anonymous]

Huh. My Asian parents helped me with my homework and made sure I did extracurriculars (piano, gymnastics, and in high school, I did debate).

It basically just sounds like Americans are catching up to Asian parents. Our cultures have been acting this way for years - even families with stay at home moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh. My Asian parents helped me with my homework and made sure I did extracurriculars (piano, gymnastics, and in high school, I did debate).

It basically just sounds like Americans are catching up to Asian parents. Our cultures have been acting this way for years - even families with stay at home moms.

I don't think this explains it.