Many thirties today remember their childhood with hot summers wandering the streets with their friends because their parents let them spend the day outside and there was no need to return until dinner time. At the most it was time to take care of the little brothers and the best days were those in which they moved away more than they were left, got into trouble and, at the end of the summer, they had accumulated a whole collection of feats, scars and memories to lifetime.
It is probably nothing other than nostalgia, because the thing that the sun always shone is a lie. But there is one thing that is true: The level of parental involvement in the 70s is not even a tenth of what is expected of parents today: In 2014 a woman was arrested for allowing her 9-year-old son to play in the park while she was working.
Let's see what the data tells us to understand how much parental involvement influences children.
A recent survey among children aged 8 to 12 years highlighted that playing at home has become normal, that one in three children has never splashed in a puddle and that parents increasingly place more limits on the distance at which they can get away from their homes when they leave.
It's not just about the safety of the little ones. Parents now care more about the impact of their way of educating them, feeling pressured to give them a full range of stimulating activities that years ago would have seemed absurd. With these changes, two types of fathers have emerged that have things in common: the "helicopter" and the "lawnmower".
Helicopter parents, as the name implies, spend a lot of time hovering near the children, ready to plummet and give orders, help or protect (usually before it is necessary). The lawnmower parents go ahead of their children, paving the way for them and making sure nothing gets in their way. Both types of parents have similar tactics, such as significantly interfering in the lives of their grown children if they claim directly to a company the fact that their child has not obtained the job.
Is preventing children from having a trouble-free childhood good in the long term? What about children who have never had to fix themselves in a complicated situation?Doesn't have much science
As in everything, there is a middle ground. You don't have to be a genius to realize that giving them opportunities and support helps them gain experience, trust and relationships that they wouldn't get in other cases. But nevertheless, there is an important line that separates helping children and raising them between cottons.
Allowing children the freedom to take certain risks while playing outdoors is essential for their development. Playing in a risky way does not mean putting children in danger, but allowing them to do children's things: climbing, jumping from heights and turning upside down are good examples. Games with some risk allow them to test their limits and solve problems, something that also includes learning what happens when you go over ambitious and give yourself a good crush.
What if they kidnap them? Isn't there a possibility that they will be kidnapped if we allow them to leave without being watched? It is very unlikely and, despite what is in the news, the risk of kidnapping your child has not increased (in the United Kingdom) and there is still a probability of 0.0005% since they began to collect data in the 1970s. Actually, children are much more likely to be kidnapped by someone they know (even by one of their parents) than by a stranger lurking in the shadows.
Regardless of the possible risks, intervening and giving children opportunities constantly is not good for their development. We may have forgotten how things were in our childhood, but it is normal (and beneficial) for children to get bored because boredom improves creativity and problem solving, while receiving stimuli constantly prevents it from developing Imagination, no matter how children sign up for creativity classes.
Being aware at all times and helping them whenever possible can also be counterproductive.. It has been found that children with parents who intervene frequently are more likely to have anxiety. Although the relationship does not have to be casual, if they are helped with everything, they will probably not be able to develop self-confidence and, conversely, when children play alone they face new challenges and learn to solve problems, while increasing Your imagination capacity.
These types of interactions during the first years can have long-term consequences. Research with university students has found that the higher the degree of "helicopter" of the parents, the greater the risk of depression and anxiety in the student. On the other hand, those students who are accustomed to very permissive parents are more likely to show traits of narcissism and delusions of greatness. Anxiety is not good, but neither is an overconfidence and an expectation that life is rosy.
Having said all that, that parents get involved, particularly in a close relationship with caring but firm parents, is always beneficial. It is true that trusting their own abilities can increase the child's safety in himself, but it will also help him to have the support of the parents. We must not forget that, despite the fact that kidnappings have not increased, there is increasing traffic and freedom and risks have to be appropriate.
Finding the right balance may seem more complicated than it is.. More than 50 years ago, pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Woods Winnicott introduced the concept of “being good enough parents”, demonstrating that parents who gave love and provided a stimulating environment (and were also able to set certain limits and did not quarrel at their children did not do enough) they had children with better results.
This pediatrician may also be affected by nostalgia thinking of returning to the long and hot summers. However, many experts today still believe that it is a sensible strategy to raise self-confident and independent children.
Author: Amy Brown, Associate Professor of Child Public Health, University of Swansea.
This article has originally been published in The Conversation. You can read the original article here..
Translated by Silvestre Urbón.
