You're watching your kids too much
That's the thesis of an op-ed article in The Sun today. (It's by a Los Angeles Times columnist.) Rosa Brooks' argument, one we've heard on Charm City Moms in various forms before, is that kids these days don't get enough free time to play and explore independently because we're always hovering over them.
She makes the argument that statistically speaking, a child is much more likely to be killed in a car accident than seriously hurt while wandering around his neighborhood.
I know what she's talking about, but I'm wondering whether there's a middle ground. After all, when we used to walk to school by ourselves, we were much more likely than kids are now to know trusted parents along the route. And those parents were much more likely to actually be home.
Can't we give our kids more free play time, but supervise them from a distance if we feel it's necessary?
How do you draw these lines?
Comments
A car accident is exactly what would happen if I let my kid outside by himself. Those city buses? Do not stop at stop signs. I've had a few close calls myself.
Something like this soooooo depends on the child and where you live. I've just started to let my son out in our yard by himself while I supervise from the kitchen (it's a great time to start dinner). The yard is fenced, we have neighbors on 3 sides and the only way in is by a breezeway door with a padlock on it. I still have to watch to make sure he doesn't destroy my garden though.
Posted by: Kayris | May 19, 2008 3:36 PM