Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

>>Parents are encouraged to be hands-off these days... It has morphed into something people juggle on the periphery of their job.<<

Not so very long ago, the ruling class that managed a global empire conducted themselves in exactly the same manner.

The youngsters were in the nursery under the care of Nanny during the day, and allowed to meet their parents for a formal "goodnight" in the drawing room before bedtime. They were then sent away to boarding school, progressed through Oxford or Cambridge into the Foreign Office, at which point they chose a wife and continued the pattern.

Hands-off parenting, writ large.

But I don't believe this approach was confined to the upper crust.

Reading the literature of those times, it would seem that our society's changed attitude towards children - as illustrated here by Bronwyn, pelican, suzeonline and Foxy, is relatively recently acquired.

Is it a luxury of evolution, perhaps, that because survival is these days largely taken for granted, we are now able to expend some emotion on our offspring?

Interesting question. Thank you examinator.

You give a very good example of hands off parenting in citing the ruling class. They also had a very well defined idea of their route in life, encapsulated as they were within a certain strata of society.
When the whole of society adopts a practice that has throughout history been confined to the chosen few - things begin to go awry.
If we look to times before industrial society we find that most of life's business was conducted within the local community, which was in effect an extended family - and that is what we have lost.
Every thing was conducted on a smaller scale - so that even those who were not kin were included as family because lives and values were entwined.
You're right that we in the west take survival mostly for granted these days. However, as far as the upbringing of our children is concerned we have traded the support of neighbours and brethren for that of institutions and the marketplace.

I cant believe I've been put up as an example as a 'hands off' parent, bringing up 'sproglets'

pontificator:

Calls children 'sproglets', and judges parents for 'ad hoc raising', and endorses an attitude to life that the world is such a terrible place you should think twice about having children. That'll rub off nicely on your kids.

Houellebecq:

Says he loves his children, maintains a low maintenance career to spend more time with them because he thinks it's important, and encourages a positive outlook for the future for his children.

I know what kind of parent I'd rather more kids had. My kids have a great sense of family and responsibility.

'The key is knowing when to do so.'
What, so you decide when I must be 'serious'. You can f8ck right off.

All,

The best and first piece of advice I had on parenting came from an aunt who, in an environment when parents get all these scaremongering judgemental advice from the likes of pontificator was; Do what comes naturally.

And I do. My kids aren't going to be pushed into and shipped off to half a dozen activities ranging from languages, ballet, piano, Karate, and do 4 hours homework every night. They're gonna have fun and be kids, and if they show an interest in something then I'll encourage them.

They're not a 'project' to be taken 'seriously' and smothered like pontificator wants, they're little people to be loved and enjoyed.

There's nothing wrong with relying on your intuition when faced with decisions. It's sometimes a lot more useful than the latest trend the 'experts' are pushing, who don't know you and don't know your child.

Poirot,

'Parents are encouraged to be hands-off these days'
B*llshit! They're encouraged to be fretful little ninnies controlling every second of their kids spare time and following them around with cotton wool and making sure they're giving them the exact recommended daily amount of everything.

Poirot you make some good points. I see the little grey cells are working. (Sorry couldn't resist) :)

It is a puzzle while on one hand we have outsourced the care of our children to strangers and yet we are more fearful of pedophiles, stranger danger and physical activities that may cause injury.

I remember walking to school and back from Grade One - an unusual sight these days. My brother and I would be constantly climbing up trees and swinging from ropes, playing cowboys and Indians, running around in the rain (we didn't have TV).

Houlley

There is an element of luck in raising kids but love provides a strong base or foundation for kids which may hopefully assist them to deal with any adverse peer pressures later on.

But overall I agree, luck plays a part - in the friends they make, where you live, what school you go to, the influence of a good or bad teacher/mentor, and the same plain good luck that might make you a casualty of a run-away car.

There is also the fact of genetic disposition - your kids will be who they are - anyone with kids knows how different they all can be despite springing from the same genetic pool.

Parents will always make mistakes, sometimes erring on the overprotective side or letting go too soon. I have done both, but now when I talk to my oldest daughter, she tells me she is glad she made some mistakes as she learnt much from them and it has helped her become a well balanced young adult.

None of us are perfect, and I look back now with the wisdom of hindsight and wish I did some things differently but generally my husband and I didn't do too bad a job.

Our kids will make mistakes and they will take risks. This is all part of lifes cliche'd rich tapestry.

Yabby

Yes it must be biological. Parental love certainly isn't something you can manufacture no matter how many times one watched The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie. :)

Houellebecq

<< Go get some Prozac man. >>

Stop trying to paint me as some cranky old sad sack. I've just told everyone here how happy I am with my life and my children. Yes, I might have a higher degree of pessimism than you do when it comes to the long-term future of the world, but I'm not in an eternal state of depression over it. And even if I was, the last thing I'd do is take Prozac.

<< I'm so sick of Earth-Worshippers that hate people and would only be truly happy if Human Kind became extinct. >>

Once again, you're completely off beam with this comment. If I hated people, as you claim, why would most of my posts here relate to defending the rights of women, children, asylum-seekers, the poor and any other number of repressed people? Caring for the environment and caring for people are not mutually exclusive. In fact quite the contrary.

<< The feminists would hate you with that attitude. They're always sayin' the gender wage gap is because of discrimination, not because women choose not to be a wage-slave. >>

Again, more nonsense. Feminism is a broad church. Many feminists argue for the right of women to have a real choice. Not all feminists believe that women's main goal in life should be to break through glass ceilings and fight on men's terms for top-dog positions in company boardrooms.

<< I fear for the kids of parents who do things 'for the children', or make a fuss about what they have 'sacrificed'. >>

I wasn't making a 'fuss' when I used the term 'sacrificed', and I would never, as you imply here, attempt to make my kids feel guilty over anything I might've given up to be a hands-on mum. With respect, it's only a woman who's been faced with this choice herself, who would truly understand it. And then I'd suggest, it's more likely to be a woman who's lived a bit, and learnt through cold hard experience that the dream of doing it all is, for most, completely unattainable.

Not quite what I had in mind, Poirot.

>>You give a very good example of hands off parenting in citing the ruling class. They also had a very well defined idea of their route in life, encapsulated as they were within a certain strata of society<<

The general point I was trying to make was that the tendency to fuss over our children, and at the same time to become, in Houellebecq's piquant phrase, "fretful little ninnies controlling every second of their kids spare time", is a very recent phenomenon.

Regardless of class.

I used the upper classes as my first example, but the same applied to the working class.

Dad goes down t'pit every morning, taking with him a wedge of black pudding for his dinner, coming back at six for his tea before going down the pub for a couple of pints. T'missus, having been up at the crack of dawn making black pudding, spends the rest of the day washing (in a copper tub), hanging it out to dry, cleaning all the residue of black pudding out of the oven, banking up the fire so as to heat up the iron to do the ironing, making more black pudding for the old man's tea etc. etc.

Time to take an interest in the kids? Nope.

Anyway, they're out in the street climbing trees and playing tin-can soccer with their mates. Better there than getting under Mam's feet...

Add to that an amount of time for the sheer physical work associated with bringing up the littl'uns, without the modern conveniences of disposable nappies, hi-tech prams, infant formula and Heinz baby food.

Assuming of course they had survived childbirth, and smallpox, and whooping cough, and diptheria, and rickets and... well, you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong. I love my kids. I'm just pointing out that this is, generally speaking, a recently acquired luxury.

Before that, having kids at all was 98% down to the basic urge to procreate.