The Bad News About Helicopter Parenting: It Works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the article kind of misrepresents the author's thesis. Read this instead:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/20...an-different/582103/

The author of 'love, money and parenting' wanted to know why parenting was fun in Scandinavia where he used to live, and not so fun in America, where he now lives. he concludes that in Scandinavia there's much less payoff for being the best student, etc. since all of the schools are pretty good (don't have to have a fortune to live in a good school district); and since all the universities are pretty good too (You're not going to die if you don't get into princeton).

In other words, there's not a sense in Scandinavia that if you fall behind, your kid is going to be downwardly mobile and doomed to a life of poverty.

Parenting is less fun in America because it's perceived as incredibly high stakes, and it's considered possible to screw it up and suffer the consequences.

So we're starting to parent more like people do in places like India where education is your ticket out of poverty.

Personally, this just makes me sad. The message I took away wasn't "helicopter parenting works" but rather "how sad that in America childhood is no longer fun."

What's interesting to me is how frequently this assumption goes unquestioned. Maybe if you don't get into Princeton you won't have the high-flying, high-stress BigLaw career and lavish UMC life your parents dreamed of, but the idea that everyone who doesn't attend an elite university is doomed to poverty is totally absurd. It's very possible to go to state school and go on to have a normal, middle-class life and family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending kids to private school and paying for lots of activities isn’t helicopter parenting.

I agree and that's my main issue with the (original) article. Helicoptering is when a parent is overly involved in a child's life, refusing to let the child experience natural, negative consequences for his actions (i.e. complaining to a teacher to change a bad grade), inappropriately advocating on his behalf when he should be speaking up for himself, directing everything from his play time to his social interactions.

Isn't sending a kid to private school kind of the definition of directing a child's social interactions? You are limiting his peer group to a carefully curated group.

.

No.

All parents are involved in children's social interactions to an extent. They choose extracurriculars and play dates and whether or not to join the Girl Scouts. That doesn't make all parents helicopter parents. It's about extremes.

People have all kinds of reasons for selecting to private school, from the quality of the instruction to the existence of a religious component, and just the selection of the school doesn't equate to helicopter parenting (although you can certainly find helicopter parents at a private, just as you would at a public).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sending kids to private school and paying for lots of activities isn’t helicopter parenting.

Yes it is.

No, someone who pays a lot may be open to letting their kids scrape knees, break bones and otherwise have kid-type injuries while playing. A helicopter parent intervened at the first sign of tears, frustration or confusion. Huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the article kind of misrepresents the author's thesis. Read this instead:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/20...an-different/582103/

The author of 'love, money and parenting' wanted to know why parenting was fun in Scandinavia where he used to live, and not so fun in America, where he now lives. he concludes that in Scandinavia there's much less payoff for being the best student, etc. since all of the schools are pretty good (don't have to have a fortune to live in a good school district); and since all the universities are pretty good too (You're not going to die if you don't get into princeton).

In other words, there's not a sense in Scandinavia that if you fall behind, your kid is going to be downwardly mobile and doomed to a life of poverty.

Parenting is less fun in America because it's perceived as incredibly high stakes, and it's considered possible to screw it up and suffer the consequences.

So we're starting to parent more like people do in places like India where education is your ticket out of poverty.

Personally, this just makes me sad. The message I took away wasn't "helicopter parenting works" but rather "how sad that in America childhood is no longer fun."

This.

PS - I can tell which young employees were helicoptered...it's obvious, and the results aren't positive.

[Anonymous]

Thanks all. I couldn’t figure out what I thought of the article but I think the author probably considers me a helicopter parent but I don’t think I’m a helicopter parent

My kids go to FCPS but I’m on PTA, help at class parties, etc and they do participate in extra curricular activities - but I value free play, let them take the bus, read whatever books they want, etc.

The “read whatever books they want” sounds lame but seriously I see people get angry about books in their kids’ school library (that they don’t think are age appropriate)

[Anonymous]

Helicoptering doesn't work, it creates nothing but young people who can't do anything on their own. It seems that the author is confusing high expectations with helicopter parenting. Two completely different things. Author seems young in her photo, I guess she is one of the clueless younger people. My parents had high expectations and let us learn and do everything on our own. Very different than helicopter parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks all. I couldn’t figure out what I thought of the article but I think the author probably considers me a helicopter parent but I don’t think I’m a helicopter parent

My kids go to FCPS but I’m on PTA, help at class parties, etc and they do participate in extra curricular activities - but I value free play, let them take the bus, read whatever books they want, etc.

The “read whatever books they want” sounds lame but seriously I see people get angry about books in their kids’ school library (that they don’t think are age appropriate)

You sound like a helicopter parent. How old are your kids? But, this author has no idea what she is writing about.

[Anonymous]

please transfer this complaining energy to getting things that America needs, such as : federally protected maternity and paternity leave, federally subsidized daycares, universal health care coverage and medications that don't cost the earth... wealthy nations around the world all do better on this than the US.

Thumbs down. We're broke. No more putting "free" shit on the credit card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

please transfer this complaining energy to getting things that America needs, such as : federally protected maternity and paternity leave, federally subsidized daycares, universal health care coverage and medications that don't cost the earth... wealthy nations around the world all do better on this than the US.

Thumbs down. We're broke. No more putting "free" shit on the credit card.

"we" are not broke. Stop watching Fox News for a second (Go ahead, deny that FN's is your primary new source.) and actually go get some facts. "We" spend mind boggling and STUPID amounts of money on all kinds of things. Anybody up for $5B for a "wall"??

[Anonymous]

LOL how is the richest country in the world broke?

Which is it, Fox News viewers? Are the best or the worst? Pick a side!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In other words, there's not a sense in Scandinavia that if you fall behind, your kid is going to be downwardly mobile and doomed to a life of poverty.

In Scandanavia there is far less competition.

True, because most households have a loving husband and wife who behave like adults.

Not the case here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the article kind of misrepresents the author's thesis. Read this instead:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/20...an-different/582103/

The author of 'love, money and parenting' wanted to know why parenting was fun in Scandinavia where he used to live, and not so fun in America, where he now lives. he concludes that in Scandinavia there's much less payoff for being the best student, etc. since all of the schools are pretty good (don't have to have a fortune to live in a good school district); and since all the universities are pretty good too (You're not going to die if you don't get into princeton).

In other words, there's not a sense in Scandinavia that if you fall behind, your kid is going to be downwardly mobile and doomed to a life of poverty.

Parenting is less fun in America because it's perceived as incredibly high stakes, and it's considered possible to screw it up and suffer the consequences.

So we're starting to parent more like people do in places like India where education is your ticket out of poverty.

Personally, this just makes me sad. The message I took away wasn't "helicopter parenting works" but rather "how sad that in America childhood is no longer fun."

What's interesting to me is how frequently this assumption goes unquestioned. Maybe if you don't get into Princeton you won't have the high-flying, high-stress BigLaw career and lavish UMC life your parents dreamed of, but the idea that everyone who doesn't attend an elite university is doomed to poverty is totally absurd. It's very possible to go to state school and go on to have a normal, middle-class life and family.

+1.

I suspect few of those Scandinavians ever go to Princeton or to BigLaw

(More likely they would think both are essentially mental institutions)