The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Wrapping our children in cotton wool > Comments

Wrapping our children in cotton wool : Comments

By Daniel Donahoo, published 5/1/2007

The over-regulation of childhood will impact on childhood development.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Children are over valued in many respects - I know that sounds harsh but it is a fact - in as much as many have commodified them, use them as a form of trophy or live vicariously through them -

for some they are symbols of our own success - and because we have so few of the bugggers those we do have must be "good" hence we sue every bastard we can if we get a dodgy one - whether its bad luck or negligence it is of utmost importance these days to get compensation.

Accidents no longer happen - merely copmensable events.

We mollicoddle them against the dangers that were ever present - no more now than in the past - its just that we hear of every little disaster that befalls us frail humans these days and think there's one around every corner - The only thing some kids inherit is communal paranoia and a perverse innapropriate sense of granduer

All my kids have had as much if not more freedom and opportunities to take risks and experience life than I ever did and they're not dead yet - or whacked out on dope - or victims of pedophiles - or terrorists for that matter - the greatest threat they face is instituionalised dept from spiralling HECS fees and house prices 4 times the average annual income of most Australians.

The world is going slowly mad and this is just a symptom
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 5 January 2007 9:23:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One only needs to look at the ridiculous punishment of little boys, accused of sexual harassment or assault. This is not to say that there is sometimes inappropriate behaviour, which in the past may have resulted in a whack across the backside.

Kids who are lazy
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21007150-5006029,00.html

It really sounds like in order to protect children we are not allowing them to grow up and as a subsequence will more than likely produce a generation of neurotic adults incapable of taking responsibility for their own behaviour and are forever dependent and reliant on their parents.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 5 January 2007 10:12:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no doubt that kids need to make their own mistakes from a very early age. Various people I know were horrified when my (then) 14 month old got a blood nose because she did a face-plant off a kids lounge. I could of (and should of according to this lot) simply stopped her from standing up on it in the first place. My preferred approach was to constantly tell her in a "warning" voice that it was dangerous, she would get hurt, to sit down please. But of course being a toddler, she continued on and inevitably took a dive off. Result: LOTS of tears and the first bleeding nose. It would have really hurt - I'd hate to have it happen to me! But the point is, that at some stage she will get hurt doing something, and so much the better that she learns early that when Mum or Dad warn that something is dangerous, or to sit down, that they are saying it for a reason. Result - now 18 months old, she rarely hesitates to follow a sit-down instruction. She learnt the hard way (but not in a situation that would seriously endanger her), that parents warn about things for a reason.

In the same way, kids need to be allowed to make mistakes about all aspects of life. Preferably they should make those mistakes early, and in the supervision of a caring adult, who can help pick up the pieces (hopefully unbroken) and put the situation in context.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 5 January 2007 10:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Scout Jamboree is on in Victoria at present. Anyone who has ever been to a jamboree and seen what the youth members (11 to 15 year olds) are capable of would never sit in judgement of children as being lazy, less resilient or less caring than previous generations. Of course children want to contribute and they also want outdoors excitement and adventure. There is a visiting day, go and look.

What many peoople forget is that to become resilient children have to be allowed to take risks (within reason) and have some decision-making capacity to encourage their growing independence. They also need to have ongoing contact and support from mum and dad. That is more than an hour or so a day when they and their parents are tired.

However the TV and videos are used to baby sit from a young age, not because the parents are always busy doing necessary things but often because they do not know how to include children in the mundane, but enjoyable and bonding, things of life. It is not all about 'chores', children love to help with the cooking and shopping.

Once the grandparents, aunts, uncles and older cousins had more of a role and 'parenting' was shared by many relatives. So a child could spend time helping uncle while he cleaned out the garage or tilled the vege garden. Boys and girls observed and took part in caring for infants - how many people over (say) 50 can remember the fun of learning child care through helping out in the extended family?

What is going wrong has nothing to do with the children, rather it is a consequence of a society that is obsessed with material things and values individuality above community.

The 'wrapping of children in cotton wool' is only illusory, what is really happening is that some parents expect carers and teachers to perform their parenting role for them and they will take out their guilt on these professionals where it (the parenting) is not being done 'satisfactorily'. Teaching and care professionals reluctantly react with more 'rules'.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 5 January 2007 11:48:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sneekeepete,
An old meatloaf song "you took the words right out of my mouth" we have become a lunatic litigious society, again following the yanks in everything they say or do. I lament this because we once had an "Australian" identity, which had it's own language and a preety fair standard of living for all, how times have changed, I feel sorry for our children.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 5 January 2007 12:24:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If generating a risk-free environment in the community (child care, preschool, school, public spaces etc etc) is regarded as necessary and achievable then the concept of an accident becomes virtually redundant i.e. there must be a foreseeable cause for an adverse event and the failure to recognise and act on it, in advance, is proof of negligence.
Such a philosophy negates the need for taking personal responsibility for what happens to you while you are outside your home. Even then it might be the fault of the builder, the land lord or the supplier of services or appliances.
We really have gone totally mad. The cost of the pursuit of avoiding risks has not been evaluated against the benefits that might accrue from equal effort in other quarters. Teaching self reliance and respect for others could be a good starting exercise.
The promulgation of me and my rights to a hazard-free environment does not promote responsible behaviour.Why do we persist in referring to outrageous driving behavior that culminates in serious injury or death as a road accident? Maintaining your vehicle and driving to prevailing conditions is hardly onerous.
I am not advocating abandoning "reasonable" precautions . It all hinges on what is reasonable. The community seems to have lost control of the definition of reasonable to those who seek a living from litigation, those who are fearful of litigation and those who sell "safety" products. Safety is now used to sell product by generating fear of events that have an extremely low probability of occuring and would be of little consequence if they did.
I recommend Sally Gare's latest book "The Triumph of the Airheads" to anyone interested in shifting our community back toward reality.
Posted by Logical?, Friday, 5 January 2007 1:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I visited my doctor recently with the flu, and commented that he must get sick a lot himself, his reply astounded me, he said, with all the patients I see my immune system can handle anything. My point is if kids don't have accidents how are they supposed to learn.

My generation [I'm51] seems to be the last generation who had freedom to have accidents. To me the 21st century is more dictatorial than free in many respects, tragic really, between computing and McDonalds we have become just another external state of the U.S.A.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 5 January 2007 2:27:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The open toilet issue at pre-school was a major issue for my children who saw it as an invasion of privacy and disgusting. They developed the strongest bladder, and could go all day without having to use the loo.

The problem with the administrative overprotection of children is that children are not being taught how to deal with issues and they are not experiencing situations, given responsibility or taught to think and make good choices.

The system doesn't want them to question things as is grooming robots who dont question or challenge and who take no responsibility at all for thier own actions. This variety is easier to control.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 5 January 2007 6:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regulation is the price of government involvement. Many parents can't afford or won't afford the true price of care. That means governments (read taxpayers) pick up substantial tabs. Child Care costs federal taxpayers $10 billion over four years. Similarly State Governments (most) pay for pre-schools and regulate child protection provisions.

Unfortunately many parents don't accept "accidents" nor accept that they retain some resposoibility for the child when they have dropped them off. Similarly we are an increasingly litigant society so child care centres have to respond to both regulation and their insurance risks (all of which further add to cost). Care of children is a big responsibility and I think I am more forgiving of relevent regulation in this than the author - who knows he has an alternative.

I note the baby boomer suggesting they were the last to be allowed to have accidents. A worthy observation - but I also note that generation (perhaps not the contributor) were the parents and litigants of the past 30 years...cheers
Posted by gobsmacked, Saturday, 6 January 2007 9:34:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Childcare centre staff never take children out into the community, our litigious society has made it too great a risk."

Hmmmm ... doesn't sound like my kids' childcare centre. They've been out on a number of occasions, so it's not too great a risk, then - just gotta give permission as parents. And are my kids the only ones who don't give a monkey's if the pre-school toilet has no door?

Daniel, I think you're forgetting some of the dreadful things that happened to children before much of the present legislation was introduced (not that all of it is perfect). And yet horrible things still happen to kids everyday - wasn't it just this week that a child was shut in a locked car? And wasn't it around this time two years ago that a two-year old died in the neighbour's spa bath - how can you be so foolish to let your child wander off like that?!?!?! If you're going to talk about "taking risks", just remember that ONCE is all it takes - too many stupid parents don't realise this until it's too late. And, for that matter, once is too often.
Posted by petal, Saturday, 6 January 2007 2:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article raises some good questions.

I don't have my own children. However, it seems to me that so many seem to be missing out on simply being able to walk or ride to and from school. Nowadays, it seems that most are dropped off and picked by adults in cars, considerably adding to the volume of traffic and, thereby increasing the hazard of vehicle accidents.

An alternative to driving, that is the 'walking bus', in which a group of school children, accompanied by at least one adult, proceed along a predetermined route to a predetimined schedule, 'picking up' other school children along the way has been tried in recent years, but appears not to have widely caught on.

That we have to take such extraordinary steps to look after our children instead of just allowing them to make their own ways to and from school, at their own pace, on their own, or with friends of their choosing, as we did in the 60's and early 70's, indicates to me that our society has gone backwards, rather than forwards, since then.

So, I think Daniel's article provides yet onother good reason to question the direction our politcal leaders are taking us.

---

In regard to the lack of privacy, Daniel's point in general is valid. However, in regard to toilet privacy, I remember that at our kindergarten, the toilets were in one open room and I think both girls and boys used the same toilets if memory serves me correctly. This has also often been the case with military insititutions.

Personally I did not feel any need for toilet privacy until I was five.

Of course, I am sure that, today, I would object just as much as Jason's son did to having his toilet privacy denied to him, however, we need to acknowledge that this is not considered necessary in many societies around the world today and in the past, most notably in ancient Rome, and we might need to question why.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 6 January 2007 2:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And for that matter, Daniel, where are the seesaw-less parks you speak of? My local has a couple that my youngest loves to walk up and leap from - just as we used to as kids. Better research would help your credibility ....
Posted by petal, Saturday, 6 January 2007 2:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an OHS person I couldn't agree more that we are wrapping our children up in too much cotton wool. Without learning at an early age how to assess risk for ourselves we have no chance of doing so when presented with real risky situations later on. Children need to learn the consequences of actions within a reasonably safe and supervised environment - however taking away every possible danger just removes the vital experience. Also children, boys in particular, crave the sense of danger and freedom to explore and need to learn limits through their mistakes.

I have noticed in the workplace too, the tendency to assume that someone else is always responsible for health and safety and that no-one seems capable of taking any initiative themselves. Probably as a result of being molly-coddled as children. Keeps me in a job though.
Posted by sajo, Saturday, 6 January 2007 4:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was the big slippery dips that they removed and the sea-saws that used to actually go up and down. If there are still parks with them then take a photo because they wont last long.

Sometimes I wonder the logic that is used as when you go to the new parks they have these climbing apparatus that is like so high up, double or more of what any slippery slide could have ever been. It doesn't make sense to me. How can climbing higher be less dangerous?

My children's perspective is that too many adults are so busy socialising and gossiping that they dont care about the kids.

If kids are not shown how to deal with confrontation, bullying, and issues by the adults and are left to fend for themselves then the strongest and more ruthless will invariably win.

My kids biggest complaint in pre-school was that teachers were so busy talking that they didn't have time to properly do their job and would get annoyed if any of the kids came seeking protection or help.
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 6 January 2007 4:12:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the author failed to mention,is that in today's world it is impossible be a clumsy child or break your bones without being fully investigated by ideological soldiers of madness(social workers).

Only recently I was talking to a nurse while in hospital about the injuries I got as a child due to my activities and a problem with my legs. As she told me, if I was a child today, my parents would have been charged for it. Such is the sadness of today where children can't even fall over for somehow, it's unnatural and must be the actions of an abusive parent.
Posted by Spider, Saturday, 6 January 2007 4:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been fortunate in that I've been able to make a few mistakes and haven't always been given what I wanted right away. Of course, it's only hindsight which makes that realisation a positive one.

Growing up I knew a few overprotected kids. They were all socially awkward, and never played much by way of sport. They also seemed a little unhealthier than their more rambunctious peers.

I wouldn't have traded my childhood of mucking through swamps, frequently digging among sharp rocks at the beach, climbing the highest trees (and sometimes falling off them), running recklessly on grass, stones and concrete, and playing in the cold wet rain (yet miraculously avoiding pneumonia).

These are important lessons. I pity the child (and their parent) that shuns a world of risks for one of safety.

Parents. Boot your child out the door into the sunlight. It's the best thing you can do for them.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 8 January 2007 1:25:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, since Daniel's article was published, a 5 year old boy was sexually abused in the toilets at the Australian Open (while Mum was "waiting outside" - what the hell is wrong with taking him into the female toilets with you, woman?), a 7 year old was sexually abused in her bed at a caravan park, and two brothers, aged only 3 and 4, were found dead in the boot of the family car (why weren't the parents watching them?). And I'm sure there were countless other, similar, examples. Sexual abuse by strangers when the parents are comparatively close by happens a lot more often than we'd like to admit (well, more often than Daniel and his followers would like to admit).

Sounds like Daniel's message is reaching these people - these kids certainly weren't wrapped in cotton wool.

Open your eyes, people - our children are certainly not wrapped in cotton wool, but our minds are. Violence against children in all its forms and quantities is still happening, and we must continue to do as much as we can (which includes the legislation introduced over the past 25 years or so) to ensure that it stops.

Hands up those here who would like to risk their children getting stuck in the boot of their car?

...

Didn't think so.
Posted by petal, Sunday, 28 January 2007 9:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Petal, "And I'm sure there were countless other, similar, examples" - I doubt that very much. Most of the kids harmed during the period since the article was written were harmed by someone close to them, a parent, a step-parent, a carer, a sibling and a small number were harmed by a stranger. Kids are by far most at risk of harm from people known to them.

I'll keep some sensible boundaries around my son which try to maintain a balance between risk and his developmental needs. I'll not let the small chance of external harm completely overwhelm the certain harm from not being allowed to develop and neither should any parent.

Mostly I'll continue to teach him to make good choices himself, I'll talk to him about boundaries for other people, I'll try and ensure that if something odd does happen that he knows he can talk to me about it.

Parenting is rarely a sure thing other than the certainty of harm done by not letting our kids develop.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 28 January 2007 9:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, the examples of sexual abuse I gave were committed by people unknown to them. And I have certainly heard of other cases which were unreported to the media - do you think that every parent of a child who has been sexually abused wants their story plastered across the papers?

Furthermore, if you are arguing that most cases of abuse are committed by persons known to the child, then don't you have a problem with Daniel's opening comment?:

"The buzz in the childcare industry in 2006 has been introducing “cutting-edge technology” to keep children safe and secure. This includes finger-print activated doors, closed circuit television in all rooms and personal records and files of all adults authorised to pick children up."

Shouldn't this be the RIGHT move, according to what you are saying?

I think that Daniel's article(s) and his upcoming book will undo far too much of the good work that has been done. Discussion of these issues is obviously welcome, but to write an entire book based on the idea that the "good old days" of child-rearing are now behind us is potentially dangerous. Words need to be chosen carefully when discussing child protection and its corresponding legislation.
Posted by petal, Monday, 29 January 2007 6:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Petal: the examples you give may well have been strangers. The overall statistics indicate that the vast majority of instances where sexual abuse has occurred, has come from people known to the victim.

As far as insulating yourself from these risks - there has to be a point where you stop.

Logically, anyone you meet can be a paedophile, so you shouldn't allow your kids to meet anyone - or out of your sight, ever.

The child's friends could be bad influences. Best they play alone.

It's quite dangerous riding bicycles and skateboards. Best they stay inside.

Skin cancer is on the rise in Australia. Best just stay indoors.

Life is about risks - yes, I agree, some need to be minimised. By the same token, if you go too far, then the paranoia runs the risk of creating cossetted children, incapable of looking after themselves when they grow up.

It's about finding the right balance, and I fear we are headed too far in the 'paranoia' direction.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 1:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I fear we are headed too far in the 'paranoia' direction."

I think this is an exaggerated concept that is given far too much credence by the media - an urban myth, if you like. Your mentioning of skin cancer and bikes is interesting - how do you feel about the "SunSmart" program in primary schools, for example? Is this another example of "paranoia"? My youngest has a wide-brimmed hat that he is perfectly happy to wear in any outdoor situation when he generally goes tearing around (not wrapped in "cotton wool"). Am I being paranoid? Am I being paranoid when I insist that my kids wear their helmets when on their bikes? You are resorting to hyperbole just as much as Daniel Donahoo is.

And on that note, it is interesting to read the letters section in the latest edition of "Melbourne's Child" (and most likely in "Sydney's Child" and other sister mags) - the only two letters responding to Daniel Donahoo's other article about "idolising children" are extremely critical and successfully take his arguments apart bit by bit. I have no doubt that a similar reaction will occur upon the release of his new book. I hope he's ready to take on these arguments - and willing to adjust his own world-view, if it comes to that ...
Posted by petal, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 4:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose it comes down to the perception of risk, and what is justified in averting it.

Of course, when it comes down to sunsmart programs and the like, there is no good reason not to do these programs.

It is instances where coddled children (and more importantly, over protective parents) are afraid to take risks - sometimes risk is necessary for normal development, and that's something all parents have to come to grips with.

I would argue that indeed, society is headed in that direction, and the media certainly does play a huge role in that - though I perceive it as a role which tends to exaggerate risk causing paranoia.
This is not an agenda, it's simply the fact that conflict generates interest.

Overall, Donahoo's article is pretty tame. It doesn't say anything particularly controversial, and I'm a little surprised that it generates such vehement responses.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 1 February 2007 3:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is more the general tone of the article - focusing on the "negatives" and not enough on the positives. For example:

"There are no longer see-saws in parks and swings will be the next to go."

The first part is actually incorrect and the second part is supposition and extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the equipment you find in children's playgrounds these days is infinitely superior to the crap we had to put up with as kids (of course I'm speaking with hindsight - no doubt we didn't realise it at the time). And the adventure playgrounds that are springing up all over the place are outstanding - kids can easily spend hours there.

The article itself is highly emotive and with almost no critical insight. If it were to be submitted as part of a uni course he would be asked to rewrite it. And I hate to be ad hominem, but I think the writer has a little more living to do before he embarks on writing as a full-time career.
Posted by petal, Friday, 2 February 2007 12:04:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy