The weekly “little of this, little of that” feature from Like Mother, Like Daughter!
Any other avid diarists out there? I have been keeping up a written account of musings and daily life (although not on a daily basis – ha! – far from it) for the past 10+ years.
The top journal, a gift Bridget brought me from Hong Kong, is one that I began early in my pregnancy with Finnabee and have been continuing for her. It's a combination of an ongoing letter to her and a record of her milestones. Someday, I hope, she'll enjoy looking through it!
Keepin' it old school on paper.
This week's links!
- David Clayton, Auntie Leila's co-author on the soon-to-be-released book (yay!!) The Little Oratory: A Beginner's Guide to Praying in the Home
, recently re-posted his original post about the prayer corner and how it can change the world.
- This article actually made me a little emotional! How awesome: a harness that can help disabled children to walk.
- Also in the very-endearing department: From Bump to Buzz. A sweet, original song composed in honor of a firstborn baby, set to a charming video!
- Count me shocked. A 14-year-old's science project shows that the government could save $400 million dollars per year by switching fonts. (Did you know ink is more expensive than Chanel no5?)
- A short piece on George MacDonald's The Light Princess — and the Church. The reader should also ponder her tears…
- I know that I am frequently posting items along these lines, but if you are up for a long read and willing to go there again with me, I recommend The Overprotected Kid.
A certain pet peeve of mine is hearing about safety as the first priority. I don't just mean the general issue of a “safety first” culture; I mean in particular the statement that “safety is our first priority.”
For example (to draw from my recent travel experience, as these words are still lingering in my head), when the gate agent at the airport is prepping the crowd for boarding the plane and runs through the guidelines, and then assures everyone that “safety is our first priority,” does this not make you cringe, or at least chuckle a little? Because if safety were indeed the airline's first priority, they wouldn't be preparing to load 150 people into a compact, pressurized vehicle to go blasting around the skies at terrific speeds. If safety were the first priority, we wouldn't leave the ground. When it comes to an airline, getting you there is the first priority; getting you there safely is a secondary concern, frankly. A very important secondary concern, yes, but secondary.
I think about this frequently, whenever someone makes the claim that safety is their first priority. Toys for kids? Nope. Kids would, technically, be safer in an empty room. Cars? Well, lots of deaths and injuries happen in and around cars. They're extremely useful in getting us from point A to point B, but they are fairly dangerous things, really.
Yes, safety is important and it makes sense to design goods and services with safety in mind. But as a first priority, it's quite lame.
This article explores similar ideas, and many more. I find it fascinating and challenging – challenging as a parent who wants her kid(s) to grow up to be brave, imaginative, resilient, hardy citizens, but who of course has to combat all the conditioning the safety-first culture gives me as well as inherent maternal fears. At the same time, the article, which examines some major generational differences in childhood and parenting, doesn't come down simply on one side, as “pro-danger.” For example, the author notes that children who had the freedom to roam and have free play were often latch-key kids, and of course that's not an ideal. I just think there's a lot of food for thought here.
From the archives:
- I think What We Do “In Here” (kind of a cornerstone post on this blog), is very relevant in light of The Overprotected Kid: so much of what we want for our children (the freedom to roam and explore and be brave and imaginative) depends on good neighborhoods, and good neighborhoods only happen through the humble work of good families.
Like us on Facebook, where you will be advised of posts, including some from the archives that you might have missed.
Auntie Leila’s Pinterest.
Rosie’s Pinterest.
Sukie’s Pinterest.
Deirdre’s Pinterest.
Habou’s Pinterest.
Time to up your game, Deridre. I’ve already read all these! Just kidding.
I enjoyed the Overprotected Kid article and have been thinking about it all week. I live in a dense urban neighborhood where it is not typical to let kids walk around–even on their own block–without parents until the teen years. It’s a very safe neighborhood but it’s hard to be the mom bucking that trend and getting dirty looks or, even once, a mom ringing my bell with my child in tow to bring him back home. This problem is compounded by the fact that most of my neighbors aren’t comfortable speaking English. One step at a time, though, right?
I love your diary for Finnabee. I started one for my first and just couldn’t keep up with it after five kids which kind of makes me sad.
And as a mom of a paraplegic, I SO WISH I’d had that harness when he was little enough to use it.
Some of our friends have five kids and they are certainly not overprotective. I remember one day, as the eldest son was preparing to do something dangerous, his dad said, “Remember, son, safety first!” Then he stopped himself and said, “No, scratch that. Truth is first. But safety is definitely in the top ten.”
Oops! Small correction: Chanel #5 is cheaper than HP printing ink.
Whoops! That was my fault. Fixed it!
Yes, Yes, yes. I read that article. I enjoyed it immensely. I have to admit that my choice often is to worry instead of equip. Instead of telling my kids, Look at all of the people we know on our block, I sometimes fixate on the ones that walk by that are not (ahem) quite choice individuals. This article made me shape up a bit, and let them play and play and build.
Thank you for this blog. Have I told you I love it?
I have another issue with the “safety first” philosophy. My problem is that it’s always PHYSICAL safety, never spiritual safety, first. The same parents who freak out about letting their kids run down a hill (yes, I know people like this — who also tried to make my kids stop running down the hill, which didn’t go over with me or with my kids) let their kids watch movies that I think are FAR too old for them or let them speak with rudeness and nastiness to their elders or…well, you know, the list goes on. Jesus’ comment in the Gospel about not fearing the one who can kill the body, but fearing the one who can cast the soul into Gehenna comes to mind…
I saw the photo of the moms and kids in harnesses on FB the other day. I was moved to tears, esp. by the looks on the faces of the mother and child on the far left. I have two able-bodied, healthy kids. But for a moment I felt as if all the tears and hopes of that mother in the blue sweater were my own. Very moving photo. Thanks for sharing!
I’m with you on trying not to be a helicopter parent, though I confess we are often BLACK helicopter parents. I try to give my kids lots of freedom to take risks within the parameters that I am comfortable with (like in my own backyard). I have to admit that when I read about the park in Wales I was less concerned with fire and more so with the line about the kids “cursing out” the kid who put the cardboard on the fire. As much as I can be guilty of romanticizing the whole free range kids thing, I have to admit I am not always keen on my kids doing their thing with lots of other kids I don’t know well–not all free range kids are like Betsy, Tacy and Tib or the Melendys! Like someone else said…it is spiritual safety I am most concerned with (and containing the dirt…I struggle with losing it when mud, dirt and bugs are involved.
People are very concerned about 2 things: that their kid might be kidnapped or about a “well meaning” bystander calling CPS. I’m sure you read freerangekids.org and have seen example after example of this. Protecting the Gift by Gavin deBeckar really helped me to differentiate between reasonable fears and irrational fears. And the importance of using instinct,.
It’s true that it’s an uphill battle letting your kids roam free, even in a very safe neighborhood in a very safe town. I’ve had the police called by neighbors to report my children playing (near) the street, and I have friends who have had similar charges. It’s hard to fight threats of that nature. My convictions stand that it’s what is best for my children.
About overprotecting…I agree with those who feel that the morality/soul-lessness is what causes a great deal of fear for me as a parent. But it isn’t the only thing. Being able to protect children from themselves and others who would do them harm is one of our job as parents. The world is many times darker and more dangerous than when I was a child over 40 years ago…I looked at “The Land” and it looks like a gross and disgusting junkyard — not the open dirt lot where one could play a game or go exploring!
I understand about letting kids learn and try things–we have a zip line and make campfires in the backyard. We often hike and run down by the saltwater shore. But, kids unsupervised near water terrifies me…and with good reason: I lost my cousin {18 years old} as well as my Uncle {his father} who drowned trying to save him…they were tangled below the water’s surface with old fishing line. So, when my kids are old enough, we take swimming lessons, and always wear life-jackets. Helicopter Mom? So what! At least I won’t be spending hours in the ER or wringing my hands wishing I’d been MORE careful! I want to get my kids to the ripe-old-age of 18 in one piece.
I’m sure there are those whose ideal childhood was along the lines of “Leave it to Beaver” because all the neighbors watched out for, and helped protect/discipline all of the kids. But I lived in a scary neighborhood where you couldn’t even trust your girl friends’ stepdad {sexual abuse} and there was a rapist and murderer somewhere in the city…
I find myself upset about this article and it irritates me!
“The world is many times darker and more dangerous than when I was a child over 40 years ago”
But the thing is is that it’s not. We only hear about it more now. The rates of kidnapping are flat or down. The most likely person to harm a child is a close relative not some stranger. Absolutely agree that children don’t need to be unsupervised by water and swimming lessons and life jackets for all!
I should amend my statement to say that most children are harmed by someone they know not strangers. The person does not necessarily have to be a relative. It is my belief that the most dangerous person in a child’s life is Momma’s boyfriend.
Donna, I know what you mean — I actually sometimes get upset with the Free Range Kids attitude. So often I’m thinking, “Well, no, that’s actually dangerous,” or “wait, you’ve just gone over to stating that a parent can never express concern over their child’s well being!” Yes, I’m impatient with curtailing a child’s freedom, but no, I’m not willing to relinquish my responsibility.
I guess it comes down to this: The world has always (since the fall) been dangerous. The reality is that we can’t protect our children from every danger. I think it’s important to use common sense. Since virtually every instance of abuse happens by a person not related to the child, yes, I am more wary of a live-in boyfriend situation than of a married couple situation when it comes to visiting. Who in this day and age of rampant porn would let their child go to spend the night at just anyone’s home? (But I wouldn’t have even before the internet age… ) Swimming in waters you’re not familiar with has always been stupid. Who doesn’t take stock of the factors involved before giving children their freedom? It would be irresponsible.
I can’t imagine, though, never letting a child swim without a life jacket. I’m thinking you didn’t mean that? At some point, we have to trust God, understand that there are risks, and accept that if common sense and a reasonable arming with facts (never dive into unknown waters, go in pairs, etc) fail, that we have only encountered reality. We can’t escape reality…
Thank you, Leila for putting many of my concerns into more succinct form! That bothersome reality! I am so relieved that I can take these life-jackets off of my children from time to time….it was getting annoying having to wash around them..{kidding!}
I am strengthening my trust in God, and I know I cannot keep bad things from happening to my children always–but I am determined to keep on trying.
But please help me understand this idea that kids must be alone and in trouble to learn how to hold their own or solve problems? Why don’t we just leave them to fend for themselves from day 1? Ridiculous? Perhaps…But in truth, I have found many of the “Free-range kids” proponents content to sit and sip coffee or mess with their hand-held media and IGNORE their children at the park or after Mass or by the street or along the shoreline…. or yes, in the neighborhood. I guess they missed the memo about enjoying life *with* their kids
If you think your city safe, that is great, and RARE–. So, you want to let your children run wild and free? That’s fine, too, as long as you have the decency to be around when something happens when they need help. Maybe talk to your neighbors and warn them–explain to them–that you like to let your children explore on their own. I think it’s simply rude and thoughtless for some parents to expect others to teach and watch over their children for them. I may not call someone a “slacker” to their face, but the words “neglectful parenting” have crossed my mind. It causes extra work and concern on the part of those who ARE there and ARE vigilant {with their own kids} to help guard/protect/catch/run after someone else’s children. That to me seems like laziness and selfishness under the guise of kid freedom and is simply shirking one’s parental duty.
I have found that I do not switch off my safety radar very easily–I care about the well-being of all children. I am shocked and mystified when some parent is indignant when I return their children to them unharmed…I would be thankful if it were my child!
Yes, Donna, I find that people tend to careen from one extreme to the other, never really settling in that common-sense middle, balanced ground. In one way, we have to be vigilant and caring. In another, we have to let them take some risks and test themselves. We have to give them, as a friend once told me, roots and wings — in more ways than one.
I’ve encountered both extremes so many times. A mother who doesn’t want her 14-month-old to fall down, so won’t let him take ANY steps alone! Yes! I have seen this! I had to just walk away, because I couldn’t take the craziness of it. But then, the mother who won’t acknowledge that her child is turning blue in the single-digit weather… also had to walk away.
If only they would listen to me 🙂
We live in a rural area on the outskirts of the second safest town in my state (Seriously. A study just came out last week.) We have a large yard of around an acre and live on a cul-de-sac with four houses. We know all our immediate neighbors and many in the intermediate zone. There are lots of kids here. This place is safe on top of safe. And yet… My kids and one neighbor girl are the only ones outside with any type of regularity. I let my kids play in the yard and around the neighbors’ yards while I stay in the house and I feel a bit like a slacker parent for doing it. I keep an ear out for them, but I do not constantly have my eye on them. We have rules and discuss guidelines, but I want them to practice independent decision making within the safer parameters of our neighborhood. There are kids on my street who are never outside unless Mommy or Daddy are out staring at them. I just don’t do that. I’m pretty sure certain other parents think we are neglectful for it, but I don’t think it’s good for the children to be constantly watched. How are they ever going to learn to function on their own?