Complete isolation of small children is abusive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under normal circumstances, yes. But this is a national crisis. At least they will live long enough (or better have parents who live long enough) to pay for therapy for their childhood issues.

Except the lockdown is bankrupting the parents, too.

The current situation is absolutely sacrificing the lives and education of children to give a handful of boomers a chance to live a few more years.

What lockdown? Everything is open but schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the fear mongering, OP's post also overlooks the kids who LIKE being at home. Some kids don't need constant social interaction. Some kids have been so over scheduled that this down time might actually be good for them. It's important to understand the kid(s) you have and find a balance that works for everyone during this pandemic.

3-5 year olds? No. There’s a difference between letting your kid have down time, and not being able to attend to them for hours at a time while working.

No one said anything about leaving young kids home for hours unattended. And plenty of young kids are over scheduled. When my DS was in PK4 and K, there were kids in his class who had after school activities every single day: piano, soccer, swim, dance, karate, etc. They were constantly being shuttled around here and there. My DS has always been content to play at home or outside by himself, even as a young kid. He's pretty introverted and was never the type to play with kids he didn't know at the park. Every kid is different and making sweeping generalizations like OP did isn't helpful.

um yes we are talking about leaving kids unattended for hours. because we have JOBS. Not dangerously unattended (hopefully) but basically no attention other than the minimum. it’s not good for anyone, especially only children.

This was me this spring. DH was working, I was home on "maternity leave" and our daycare was closed. So our 3 and 4 year old basically ran wild around the neighborhood while I tried to hole up with the baby. There were legitimately hours I didn't know where my 3 year old was. I was trying to do the best given the situation. DH had to work. He took off the first 6 weeks but when COVID hit he was out of paternity leave.

Hordes of SAHM did the same thing, having older kids at home with a baby and DH away at work, and they managed. Maybe ask them what they did but this seems super weird.

But my 3 year old often plays by himself and his legos so I would only cast shade on roaming the neighborhood alone??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the fear mongering, OP's post also overlooks the kids who LIKE being at home. Some kids don't need constant social interaction. Some kids have been so over scheduled that this down time might actually be good for them. It's important to understand the kid(s) you have and find a balance that works for everyone during this pandemic.

3-5 year olds? No. There’s a difference between letting your kid have down time, and not being able to attend to them for hours at a time while working.

No one said anything about leaving young kids home for hours unattended. And plenty of young kids are over scheduled. When my DS was in PK4 and K, there were kids in his class who had after school activities every single day: piano, soccer, swim, dance, karate, etc. They were constantly being shuttled around here and there. My DS has always been content to play at home or outside by himself, even as a young kid. He's pretty introverted and was never the type to play with kids he didn't know at the park. Every kid is different and making sweeping generalizations like OP did isn't helpful.

um yes we are talking about leaving kids unattended for hours. because we have JOBS. Not dangerously unattended (hopefully) but basically no attention other than the minimum. it’s not good for anyone, especially only children.

If you’re working, and leaving your ages 3-5 year old kids to fend for themselves (the age range this thread is about), then yes that is abusive. They are too young to be without superviskon for hours at a time. Daycares are open so not sure why you aren’t using them. What did you do pre covid when you worked? Continue doing that same thing.

Uh, before Covid, my 5 year old went school. Duh.

Also, a 3-5 year old can absolutely entertain themself for a couple hours. Maybe not ever single one, but most. My kid stopped napping when she was 2, so she's been doing "quiet time", which is basically just solo play for years in the afternoon. She selects a couple activities and then stays in her room doing them for about two hours a day. It's good for her to get a break from other people and have time to process her day. I often hear her playacting things that happened earlier in the day with her stuffed animals -- she's using that alone time to work through some stuff on her own, making connections and figuring out she's feeling without a parent or nanny hovering over her. The idea that a 3-5 year old needs intense supervision 100% of the time is absurd.

“A couple hours” is not a full work day. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

So put on a mask and go to the playground. JFC OP - get a real problem.

[Anonymous]

OP I wouldn't call it abuse. But the lack of peer socialization is certainly an important issue and not without its own risks to emotional and mental health, depending on the child. There are certainly ways to still get that peer socialization while still minimizing risk, but I think it's very challenging for households with two working parents and no childcare options.

Families are making their own decisions based on their own risk tolerance and balance. But I agree with you that some families are putting way more weight on the risks for getting covid and minimizing other risks.

[Anonymous]

OP I hope you never see real child abuse in your life because you would then actually understand just how completely ignorant your statement is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under normal circumstances, yes. But this is a national crisis. At least they will live long enough (or better have parents who live long enough) to pay for therapy for their childhood issues.

Except the lockdown is bankrupting the parents, too.

The current situation is absolutely sacrificing the lives and education of children to give a handful of boomers a chance to live a few more years.

What lockdown? Everything is open but schools.

That extends to other kids.activities too.

But yes, all adult-oriented businesses and activities are operating. Which again, is throwing kids under the bus to protect boomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just my opinion. So many little kids i know with parents who tend to be the anxious type are listless, cranky, acting out.

Little kids don't have the skills to say, I'm lonely I miss my friends. They cant control anything. They don't even get online connection. For them in person is the only real thing.

I think we're seeing mass child abuse especially of age 3-5.

Yes, if you know a child who is not seeing anyone during the pandemic, that is abuse. On the other hand, if they are seeing their parents they obviously aren’t isolated. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the fear mongering, OP's post also overlooks the kids who LIKE being at home. Some kids don't need constant social interaction. Some kids have been so over scheduled that this down time might actually be good for them. It's important to understand the kid(s) you have and find a balance that works for everyone during this pandemic.

3-5 year olds? No. There’s a difference between letting your kid have down time, and not being able to attend to them for hours at a time while working.

No one said anything about leaving young kids home for hours unattended. And plenty of young kids are over scheduled. When my DS was in PK4 and K, there were kids in his class who had after school activities every single day: piano, soccer, swim, dance, karate, etc. They were constantly being shuttled around here and there. My DS has always been content to play at home or outside by himself, even as a young kid. He's pretty introverted and was never the type to play with kids he didn't know at the park. Every kid is different and making sweeping generalizations like OP did isn't helpful.

um yes we are talking about leaving kids unattended for hours. because we have JOBS. Not dangerously unattended (hopefully) but basically no attention other than the minimum. it’s not good for anyone, especially only children.

If you’re working, and leaving your ages 3-5 year old kids to fend for themselves (the age range this thread is about), then yes that is abusive. They are too young to be without superviskon for hours at a time. Daycares are open so not sure why you aren’t using them. What did you do pre covid when you worked? Continue doing that same thing.

Uh, before Covid, my 5 year old went school. Duh.

Also, a 3-5 year old can absolutely entertain themself for a couple hours. Maybe not ever single one, but most. My kid stopped napping when she was 2, so she's been doing "quiet time", which is basically just solo play for years in the afternoon. She selects a couple activities and then stays in her room doing them for about two hours a day. It's good for her to get a break from other people and have time to process her day. I often hear her playacting things that happened earlier in the day with her stuffed animals -- she's using that alone time to work through some stuff on her own, making connections and figuring out she's feeling without a parent or nanny hovering over her. The idea that a 3-5 year old needs intense supervision 100% of the time is absurd.

“A couple hours” is not a full work day. Not even close.

and a 3 year old playing alone in their room for 2 hours is a real outlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that for much of history before the industrial revolution families were often isolated on farms far away from other families? Those kids survived.

My kid was at home with just me until he was 4 when he went to preschool twice mornings a week. He "survived."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just my opinion. So many little kids i know with parents who tend to be the anxious type are listless, cranky, acting out.

Little kids don't have the skills to say, I'm lonely I miss my friends. They cant control anything. They don't even get online connection. For them in person is the only real thing.

I think we're seeing mass child abuse especially of age 3-5.

Yes, if you know a child who is not seeing anyone during the pandemic, that is abuse. On the other hand, if they are seeing their parents they obviously aren’t isolated. Which is it?

Parents are not enough at ages 3-5.

[Anonymous]

Could you be any more dramatic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that for much of history before the industrial revolution families were often isolated on farms far away from other families? Those kids survived.

My kid was at home with just me until he was 4 when he went to preschool twice mornings a week. He "survived."

2 mornings a week is still regular socialization. There are 3-5 year olds who haven't seen anyone except their parents for mroe than half a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just my opinion. So many little kids i know with parents who tend to be the anxious type are listless, cranky, acting out.

Little kids don't have the skills to say, I'm lonely I miss my friends. They cant control anything. They don't even get online connection. For them in person is the only real thing.

I think we're seeing mass child abuse especially of age 3-5.

Yes, if you know a child who is not seeing anyone during the pandemic, that is abuse. On the other hand, if they are seeing their parents they obviously aren’t isolated. Which is it?

Parents are not enough at ages 3-5.

With involved engaged parents, its more than plenty. The issue is most parents don't want to sit down and play and engage and teach their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: um yes we are talking about leaving kids unattended for hours. because we have JOBS. Not dangerously unattended (hopefully) but basically no attention other than the minimum. it’s not good for anyone, especially only children.

If you’re working, and leaving your ages 3-5 year old kids to fend for themselves (the age range this thread is about), then yes that is abusive. They are too young to be without superviskon for hours at a time. Daycares are open so not sure why you aren’t using them. What did you do pre covid when you worked? Continue doing that same thing.

Uh, before Covid, my 5 year old went school. Duh.

Also, a 3-5 year old can absolutely entertain themself for a couple hours. Maybe not ever single one, but most. My kid stopped napping when she was 2, so she's been doing "quiet time", which is basically just solo play for years in the afternoon. She selects a couple activities and then stays in her room doing them for about two hours a day. It's good for her to get a break from other people and have time to process her day. I often hear her playacting things that happened earlier in the day with her stuffed animals -- she's using that alone time to work through some stuff on her own, making connections and figuring out she's feeling without a parent or nanny hovering over her. The idea that a 3-5 year old needs intense supervision 100% of the time is absurd.

“A couple hours” is not a full work day. Not even close.

I think it's hilarious that you think parents are getting a full work day in during daylight hours. Most days, I work from 5-7am, then maybe squeeze an hour in before noon, then two hours while my kid naps in the afternoon, and then I work from 8pm-midnight doing catch up. And this is the schedule of most of the working moms I know right now.