Anonymous wrote:I don’t associate helicopter parenting with the boomers at all. My boomer parents, and those of every childhood friend I can think
of, were quite the opposite.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DH was born in 62 and raised in “children should be seen and not heard” mode.
I feel like it wasn’t particularly nurturing. Him and his siblings have issues with relationships, communication, expressing feelings . So I can’t exactly say it turned out alright.
I want to add that his mom was a SAH and her parenting involvement was to say “go outside and play” and his dad looked at kids from behind a newspaper.
I think this generation overcompensating for neglect.
Benign neglect for the most part. “Go outside and play” is one of the best things you can say to a kid.
About 25 years ago, when the era of irrational exuberance allowed enough disposable income for irrational anxiety, the concept of “helicopter parenting” arose. A “helicopter parent” micromanages every aspect of his child’s routine and behavior. From educational products for infants to concerned calls to professors in adulthood, helicopter parents ensure their child is on a path to success by paving it for them.
The rise of the helicopter was the product of two social shifts. The first was the comparatively booming economy of the 1990s, with low unemployment and higher disposable income. The second was the public perception of increased child endangerment—a perception, as “Free Range Kids” guru Lenore Skenazy documented, rooted in paranoia. Despite media campaigns that began in the 1980s and continue today, children are safer from crime than in prior decades. What they are not safe from are the diminishing prospects of their parents.
In America, today’s parents have inherited expectations they can no longer afford.The vigilant standards of the helicopter parents from the baby boomer generation have become defined as mainstream practice, but they require money that the average household earning $53,891 per year— and struggling to survive in an economy in its seventh year of illusory “recovery”— does not have. The result is a fearful society in which poorer parents are cast as threats to their own children. As more families struggle to stay afloat, the number of helicopter parents dwindles—but their shadow looms large.
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.
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.
The PP is making a larger, sociological point and you are personalizing it. It's not personal. Of course everyone loved all of their kids even if they had 5 or 7 kids. Fact is, people now have fewer kids and they put more intensive time and resources into the fewer kids they have. Some would probably argue this is not a good thing for the kids. But people are trying to explain larger parenting trends and family size is definitely a factor.