Avoiding producing boring, dull consumer children

[87tweetybirds]

Gever Tulley "5 dangerous things you should let your kids do" on ted talks or on NPR Ted Radio Hour http://www.npr.org/2014/08/01/335303653/what-can-kids-learn-by-doing-dangerous-things talking about letting kids explore and learn. He says not allowing children to do such things not only produces a "boring and dull child who is a consumer, rather than a creator in their lives."
I found it very interesting and it made me think (I always learn better when the topic inspires inflection) about all the dangerous things I did as a child, and how that has made me the person I am.
What thoughts do you fellow mustachians have about this?

[FIRE_HELP!]

answering a question like this incorporates a huge survivorship bias, as kids who did the dangerous stuff but didn't make it cannot respond

[FIRE_HELP!]

answering a question like this incorporates a huge survivorship bias, as kids who did the dangerous stuff but didn't make it cannot respond

I would also note that, in this day and age, where couples often only have one or two children, the 'unfortunate' outcome is often a disastrous one.  Back in the day if you had 3, 5 or 7 children if one of them didn't make it you were obviously very grieved, but life went on with the other progeny.  Today, if you have one child and something bad happens (and it could have been avoided) it is catastrophic from a life event perspective....

[Trudie]

I'm not proselytizing here (and I'm not even Catholic), but Pope Francis came out with steps on living a happy life today, and I found it noteworthy that he raised the issue of consumerism and how it has caused us anxiety:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/latest-interview-pope-francis-reveals-top-10-secrets-happiness

Furthermore, I think he talked about a lot of virtues that are touted here -- simplicity, focusing on others, generosity of spirit.

It's a worthwhile read, and I am promoting it specifically because I don't think it's heavy-handed religious dogma.

[Gerard]

he raised the issue of consumerism and how it has caused us anxiety
[...] I am promoting it specifically because I don't think it's heavy-handed religious dogma.

I'm atheist and my sweetie's Catholic, and she has pointed out to me that the church's message on wealth and obligations to the poor always seems to get less play than its pronouncements that don't challenge consumer society and inequality. This seems to be true for many religions. Gee, I wonder why, he said sarcastically.

[Beric01]

he raised the issue of consumerism and how it has caused us anxiety
[...] I am promoting it specifically because I don't think it's heavy-handed religious dogma.

I'm atheist and my sweetie's Catholic, and she has pointed out to me that the church's message on wealth and obligations to the poor always seems to get less play than its pronouncements that don't challenge consumer society and inequality. This seems to be true for many religions. Gee, I wonder why, he said sarcastically.

Maybe because simply giving poor people money won't fix their problems? I don't think allowing the poor to simply live as consumers with more "stuff" than they would otherwise have will really better their lives.

[Gerard]

Maybe because simply giving poor people money won't fix their problems? I don't think allowing the poor to simply live as consumers with more "stuff" than they would otherwise have will really better their lives.

Uh-oh, I think we're derailing the thread. But (a) I don't know of religions that recommend that the poor become consumers with more stuff and (b) there have been other discussions on this site of pilot projects in which giving poor people more money apparently DOES fix their problems.

[FIRE_HELP!]

he raised the issue of consumerism and how it has caused us anxiety
[...] I am promoting it specifically because I don't think it's heavy-handed religious dogma.

I'm atheist and my sweetie's Catholic, and she has pointed out to me that the church's message on wealth and obligations to the poor always seems to get less play than its pronouncements that don't challenge consumer society and inequality. This seems to be true for many religions. Gee, I wonder why, he said sarcastically.

the church's helping the poor is primarily to serve as a vehicle to share the good news of Christ - it's not meant to be synonymous with charitable institutions with a secular humanist philosophy

[Beric01]

Maybe because simply giving poor people money won't fix their problems? I don't think allowing the poor to simply live as consumers with more "stuff" than they would otherwise have will really better their lives.

Uh-oh, I think we're derailing the thread. But (a) I don't know of religions that recommend that the poor become consumers with more stuff and (b) there have been other discussions on this site of pilot projects in which giving poor people more money apparently DOES fix their problems.

You can check the thread about missions trips I posted in - I have definitely worked directly with poor people. What poor people need is someone coming alongside and showing them the way out of their situation, and caring for them as people. What they do NOT need is simply more cash through which they can continue living their lives as poor people.

But I'll stop now, we're derailing the thread.

[gimp]

Oh hell yeah. My brother and I were required in childhood to help stack wood, do lots of different chores (from creosoting a fence to doing the dishes), make cards (holiday, birthday, thank you) from scratch, and we were urged to get the hell out of the house and disappear into the surrounding fields and woods. The pathetic, inert, sanitary lives of many children today makes me very sad. Having tried one's hand at many things enables you to believe you can do new things. Using your muscles and senses and brain is what childhood should be.

The people who talk loudest about going out and playing alone in the woods all day, every day, are also the last generation who ever will. Their kids won't. "Kids these days are such pussies." Yeah. But do you let your children do the same thing? "Well, it's a dangerous world out there." Exactly. How can you blame 10-year-olds for the experiences they have or don't have, when they largely only do what they're allowed to by their parents? "Well, I used to sneak out at night." Well, your parents didn't really mind all that much; today's parents do. Let's just hope they learn to sneak out at 16 when they can go get laid, right?

[MayDay]

I am very much pro-free range kids, but the potential consequences can be catastrophic.

Calls to the police and cos are a very real thing.  Parents regularly get in big trouble for the kinds of things that used to be common- leaving my almost 7 year old in the car while I ran into a store for an errand could easily result in a call to cps/police.  In my opinion, my 7 year old is fine in a car (not worried about abduction or wandering off so I can easily leave windows down for temperature concerns) and frankly he is probably old enough to go into the store himself and do the errand, but god knows if I did that, someone would freak the f out.

Same with playing in the neighborhood.  None of the other kids are allowed to wander far, and when they go out their parents are typically out with them.  The concept doesn't really work unless the other kids are out playing too. 

So yes, there are plenty of parents who do value these things, and are trying to achieve them, but it's an uphill battle, and all it takes is one over zealous safety crazed person to make a call to cps/police, and I might have my kids taken away.  Suddenly it doesn't seem like free-ranging my kids is the top priority. 

[PloddingInsight]

I am very much pro-free range kids, but the potential consequences can be catastrophic.

Calls to the police and cos are a very real thing.  Parents regularly get in big trouble for the kinds of things that used to be common- leaving my almost 7 year old in the car while I ran into a store for an errand could easily result in a call to cps/police.  In my opinion, my 7 year old is fine in a car (not worried about abduction or wandering off so I can easily leave windows down for temperature concerns) and frankly he is probably old enough to go into the store himself and do the errand, but god knows if I did that, someone would freak the f out.

Same with playing in the neighborhood.  None of the other kids are allowed to wander far, and when they go out their parents are typically out with them.  The concept doesn't really work unless the other kids are out playing too. 

So yes, there are plenty of parents who do value these things, and are trying to achieve them, but it's an uphill battle, and all it takes is one over zealous safety crazed person to make a call to cps/police, and I might have my kids taken away.  Suddenly it doesn't seem like free-ranging my kids is the top priority.

This.

No matter how much you believe in free-range kids, it's not worth it because other people's paranoia can get your kids taken away or put you behind bars.

It's a sad commentary on our society that the biggest threat to kid enjoying himself outside is the police. 

[cpa cat]

Everytime I see this thread, my brain automatically edits it to "Avoiding boring, dull consumer children."

Ah... the childless life.

[Constance Noring]

I am very much pro-free range kids, but the potential consequences can be catastrophic.

Calls to the police and cos are a very real thing.  Parents regularly get in big trouble for the kinds of things that used to be common- leaving my almost 7 year old in the car while I ran into a store for an errand could easily result in a call to cps/police.  In my opinion, my 7 year old is fine in a car (not worried about abduction or wandering off so I can easily leave windows down for temperature concerns) and frankly he is probably old enough to go into the store himself and do the errand, but god knows if I did that, someone would freak the f out.

Same with playing in the neighborhood.  None of the other kids are allowed to wander far, and when they go out their parents are typically out with them.  The concept doesn't really work unless the other kids are out playing too. 

So yes, there are plenty of parents who do value these things, and are trying to achieve them, but it's an uphill battle, and all it takes is one over zealous safety crazed person to make a call to cps/police, and I might have my kids taken away.  Suddenly it doesn't seem like free-ranging my kids is the top priority.

I am Not A Parent, so anything I have to say on the subject is entirely academic. But it strikes me that I've seen a lot of similar statements from parents like this one, all of them roughly paraphrasing to "I'd love to let my kids have more freedom, because I think it would be fine, but other people would never let me."

This observation is not made in judgment, parents, and I certainly don't have a solution for the current atmosphere of child-rearing in America. But there does seem to be a pervasive desire for/understanding of the value of freedom for children, but we're all too afraid of each other to be the outlier.

[mxt0133]

But it strikes me that I've seen a lot of similar statements from parents like this one, all of them roughly paraphrasing to "I'd love to let my kids have more freedom, because I think it would be fine, but other people would never let me."

Like it or not social preferences change, it was once acceptable to let kids play in the streets or the park by themselves at a very young age now child services are arresting moms that let their kids play in the park while they work. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/

Unless you are still in a rural area where your kids can go play in the field, in urban or suburban settings it is considered child endangerment by the state, which in essence is the same as "other people would never let me."

This observation is not made in judgment, parents, and I certainly don't have a solution for the current atmosphere of child-rearing in America. But there does seem to be a pervasive desire for/understanding of the value of freedom for children, but we're all too afraid of each other to be the outlier.

That is a pretty broad generalization.  There are people out there that are not afraid to be outliers, like those that choose to homeschool/unschool their kids, not to isolate, but to give them the freedom to play and pursue their interests. 

[PloddingInsight]

No fear of being a social outlier here.

But having the police take my kids away?  Yeah I'm afraid of that.

[gimp]

And there you have it. Point showcased perfectly. "They're such pussies, but I won't let mine because [ ... ]."

Either accept that that's the world we're in and move on, or fight to make it different.

[going2ER]

I am fortunate in my neighborhood that their are lots of kids and generally they do roam the neighborhood with one another. I live in a residential area in a small city. We play street hockey, parents and kids, the kids walk to school with one another, go to the corner store and even to the local park by themselves.

Kids need the ability to roam and try out things without their parents being constantly there. And I agree that there are some overzealous people out there who will report you, but on the whole, most people see it for what it is, kids being kids.

[Bobberth]

I am Not A Parent

I appreciate that you capitalized there and that it spells NAP!  Gave me quite the chuckle as I'm barely keeping my eyes open right now.

[PloddingInsight]

And there you have it. Point showcased perfectly. "They're such pussies, but I won't let mine because [ ... ]."

Either accept that that's the world we're in and move on, or fight to make it different.

I honestly don't know what you're complaining about.  Is there something inconsistent in saying "I would get in serious trouble if I did X, so I don't do X." ???

[TrMama]

Yeah, I let my kids do all sorts of things their peers aren't allowed to do. Luckily, we don't live in the US and I'm nearly certain no one would call the police or take my kids away, but I do get some pretty funny reactions from other parents.

A few weeks ago, my 7yo decided to climb the "hill" behind our house. This hill is about 70 degrees but can be carefully negotiated. Well, she got "stuck" (aka scared) about 10 feet up and started crying. She was in absolutely no danger. The next door neighbour immediately rang our doorbell to let me know. My poor kid didn't even get 2 minutes of time to herself to figure out how to get out of the situation. Ironically, I didn't here her myself because I was inside with my 5yo who had somehow managed to cut her foot and was panicking at the sight of her own blood.

I also feel bad for my kids that they're the only ones out playing in the neighbourhood. Even when they go to the other kids' houses to invite them outside the parents always have some lame excuse as to why their kid can't leave the house. It's pathetic.

I've also had to write a letter to the school board so they will allow my kids to walk home from the bus stop by themselves. We live 1 block from the stop.

[MicroRN]

TrMama, a friend of mine owns a farm in rural KY.  Her 6 year old is dropped off by the bus at the end of her own long driveway - and she still has to meet them, or the bus driver will take kiddo back to school and she has to go pick her up.

When I was 6 I walked to my elementary school with a friend.  Granted, it was all of 1/3 mile through a very safe suburb, but everyone walked or biked to school without parents.   

[MrsPete]

I'm not proselytizing here (and I'm not even Catholic), but Pope Francis came out with steps on living a happy life today, and I found it noteworthy that he raised the issue of consumerism and how it has caused us anxiety:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/latest-interview-pope-francis-reveals-top-10-secrets-happiness

Furthermore, I think he talked about a lot of virtues that are touted here -- simplicity, focusing on others, generosity of spirit.

It's a worthwhile read, and I am promoting it specifically because I don't think it's heavy-handed religious dogma.

I'm not Catholic either, but I really like Pope Francis. 

You can check the thread about missions trips I posted in - I have definitely worked directly with poor people. What poor people need is someone coming alongside and showing them the way out of their situation, and caring for them as people. What they do NOT need is simply more cash through which they can continue living their lives as poor people.

But I'll stop now, we're derailing the thread.

Puts me in mind of that old saying:  Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

No fear of being a social outlier here.

But having the police take my kids away?  Yeah I'm afraid of that.

If you're a reasonable parent, that's not going to happen.  Seriously, do you personally know anyone who's had their kids taken away?  The school once asked how my youngest got a huge bruise on her face, but when my story matched hers, that was the end of it.  None of my personal friends have had it happen, but I've seen it a couple times with students.  The circumstances have to be horrifying, atrocious, and ongoing.  Unless someone's been seriously injured or murdered, parents get chance after chance after chance to "fix the problems" before something happens. 

Why do normal parents fear this type of thing?  The news sometimes sensationalizes such stories and makes it sound as if a child was removed from the home after one minor incident.  The key word here is sensationalized. 

[Jellyfish]

Why do normal parents fear this type of thing?  The news sometimes sensationalizes such stories and makes it sound as if a child was removed from the home after one minor incident.  The key word here is sensationalized.
[/quote]

Exactly.  My son has freedom to roam our neighborhood within established boundaries, when he tells me when he is leaving and where he is headed (generally) and when he knows when he has to come home.  We've never had a problem.  When the media publicizes a very rare event we just perceive it to be more common than it is. 

[Bristlingblackmustache]

My boy is ten and rides his bike two miles to school and I've been letting him walk to the local CVS four blocks away since he was six....pussies.

[MayDay]

This popped up on my fb feed today. Pay especial attention to the chart about appropriate age to let a child play outside alone.

http://mashable.com/2014/09/24/helicopter-parenting/#:eyJzIjoiZiIsImkiOiJfZHhoczVwZW15cnFvNHphaiJ9

Link fixed now.

[gimp]

Your link is fucked.

Also, TLDR: Don't be poor. Not because you can't afford to hire a babysitter, but because you can't afford to hire a lawyer to put the pond scum back into the pond.

[MayDay]

Your link is fucked.

Also, TLDR: Don't be poor. Not because you can't afford to hire a babysitter, but because you can't afford to hire a lawyer to put the pond scum back into the pond.

Fixed.

[Foggier]

Don't have kids and don't intend to, but definitely agree with this. When I was a kid I was speed shooting 30lb draw weight bows with the local boys, walking to the next apartment complex over to swim in their pool, riding my bike fast everywhere, building huge forts from forest debris with Spanish moss 'waterproofing', climbing trees, working up to faster and higher jumps off the swings into sand, and sledding down construction pits on cardboard. I also remember my dad teaching me how to take falls without breaking my legs and then making me practice steadily up to at least 12 feet.

I can't help thinking it would be sad, deprived childhood these days if actually following all these child endangerment things.

[sarah8001]

If you're a reasonable parent, that's not going to happen.  Seriously, do you personally know anyone who's had their kids taken away?  The school once asked how my youngest got a huge bruise on her face, but when my story matched hers, that was the end of it.  None of my personal friends have had it happen, but I've seen it a couple times with students.  The circumstances have to be horrifying, atrocious, and ongoing.  Unless someone's been seriously injured or murdered, parents get chance after chance after chance to "fix the problems" before something happens. 

Why do normal parents fear this type of thing?  The news sometimes sensationalizes such stories and makes it sound as if a child was removed from the home after one minor incident.  The key word here is sensationalized.

Actually, both my mom and my next door neighbor almost lost their kids to false accusations of abuse or neglect. It actually does happen.

[VirginiaBob]

If you're a reasonable parent, that's not going to happen.  Seriously, do you personally know anyone who's had their kids taken away?  The school once asked how my youngest got a huge bruise on her face, but when my story matched hers, that was the end of it.  None of my personal friends have had it happen, but I've seen it a couple times with students.  The circumstances have to be horrifying, atrocious, and ongoing.  Unless someone's been seriously injured or murdered, parents get chance after chance after chance to "fix the problems" before something happens. 

Why do normal parents fear this type of thing?  The news sometimes sensationalizes such stories and makes it sound as if a child was removed from the home after one minor incident.  The key word here is sensationalized.

Actually, both my mom and my next door neighbor almost lost their kids to false accusations of abuse or neglect. It actually does happen.

When we left the hospital with the twins (after months in the NICU), the doctors made all these follow-on appointments for them (eyes, ears, height and weight, throat, head, etc.), and gave us paperwork with the appointment schedules.  At the bottom of this paperwork, it said in bold italicized capital letters (paraphrased), "FAILURE TO ATTEND ANY OF THESE APPOINTMENTS WILL RESULT IN US REPORTING YOU TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES.