Parenting: Cameron's childhood adviser says we're all getting it wrong. Is she right?

Filling kids days with structured activities? What, like kicking them (age 3 and 22 mths) out into the garden, where they have decided to fill an empty plant pot with gravel, while I watch through the window?

And Yes, when they get big enough to go digital, I'll be guiding them at first, letting them explore, but also teaching them how to be safe - like I show them how to be safe in a carpark.

Don't generalise. We're not all tiger mothers.

?We fetishise cupcakes,? she said. ?I like baking but I don?t want to make that my life?s purpose. We worship this feminine motherhood thing and I don?t think our children have benefited actually. They?re babied a lot.?

I really don't know what on earth to say or how to respond.

So my 10 yo does football matches and training and Sea Scounts. My 6 yo does Tennis and football training, just started attending science club at school after school, youngest learning to swim (eldest can swim) - each a hour or two a week. Is that too much or too little? I thought adults and children are too fat and inactive, hence the recent G'ovt campaign. So shall I quit the clubs and get fat and unfit or keep at the clubs that are damaging my children's lives? These are things they want to do, I don't force them to do any of them.

Tell me oh wise G'ovt what shall I do?

They are both online, eldest on X Box Live, we have set up all parental controls, monitor it and use an app which shows us all activity. Had 18 yo friends son round to give us the low down on X Box workings, safety and how it all works etc etc. Attended 2 police evenings at school all about online safety and was grateful for info and put some relevant things into practice. The have to use the laptop for homeowrk, research and mathletics. They laugh at funny things on You Tube and show me and we laugh together (safety controls on). Is this wrong too?

Tell me oh wise G'ovt what shall I do?

When the G'ovt wishes to make a point, why is it so damming and presumptive that we are idiots getting it wrong? EG: "damamging lives & living in digital oblivion" Why presume, the voters that may or may not be voting for them now and in the future are stupid in every aspect?

The G'ovt are clearly stupid, but so are my Local Education Authority, in my case anyway, I have a letter from each in the post today, who both clearly blame the other for a situation with my son's education. Each says the decision was made by the other and that they have nothing to do with it. Someone is obvioulsy telling BIG FIBS. When faced with this sort of buck passing and blame game is beggars belief.

In a way I agree with her on point 1; I know a few parents like this and there are plenty on here. But that is hardly a big problem IMO - so some toddlers do a few too many activities. It is not going to cause enormous damage. She should be focussing on bigger problems as listed by pp.

Point 2 I agree.

parenting, like everything else, does not happen in a vacuum but is informed by the current socio-economic climate. These dickheads should think about how their policies influence this climate.

They seem to want a childhood that takes place outside of and independent of economic activity, unsullied by paid care (which is what organised activities are) and gadgets (the desire for which is driven by consumer capitalism). Yet their policies work to leave less and less untouched by economic activity. Everyone has to work and consume all the time, even children. This is the logical conclusion of what they are doing.

All the people who run these activities are working with other people's kids instead of staying at home with their own - which is what the govt want, people working
Driving around is in itself an economic activity (the upkeep and fuel for the car, the work required to afford to own and run one)
Gadgets = economic activity

Free range, off-line children are outside of economic activity and being gently, subtly supervised by a network of off-the-economic-grid adults (once the world was full of SAHMs and kindly eyes - I would prefer it to be a network of gender neutral SAHPs). We are not allowed to have too many of such adults any more and the kindly eyes are gone - so this is why children are corralled indoors. And on their phones because they have to be doing something.

as individuals you can, if you work very hard, buck the system, sometimes. As a society we get the policies we are given and they will have the lifestyle results contained within them as logical conclusions

Well on point 1, no I don't because I can't bloody well afford too! I can't even afford to take them swimming! My kids go to the park, play with their toys and watch a bit of TV (NOT SKY - before the Tory toff gets her knickers in a twist). On point 2, well mine aren't old enough to use the internet unsupervised yet, but when they are I will judge each situation as I see fit.

All I can see is a millionaire Tory MP who can't see past the end of her own nose and doesn't have a clue about the realities of bringing up children when you earn less than £100k a year. They could come up here to Liverpool and ask the advice of all the parents of the children at my dds' school, may give DC an insight into how the rest of the country lives.

Point 1: I agree that children do more organised activity than they used to - mostly as a result of lack of not playing in the street, not disappearing for hours to goodness knows where, and not being told from a young age to 'come back when it gets dark'. But life has changed. However, my DCs have plenty of free time to do their own thing, and I don't think the few activities they do each week are anything less than beneficial.

Point 2: Although my DCs are primary aged, I was once a Uni student and I can tell you that the students who fell apart/filed exams/went crazy drinking doing drugs etc, were the very students who had been wrapped up in cotton wool, not encouraged to make their own decision, and generally incapable of acting like an adult. We need to teach our children to MAKE the right decisions, as opposed to making them for them.

She needs to provide good evidence, across the full socioeconomic spectrum, for whichever point she is, in fact, trying to demonstrate. Then I might, perhaps, listen to her.

LOL.
I couldn't agree more, especially in our times where everything HAS to be about providing evidence, standards etc...

So Mrs Perry, what's the evidence? Could you point us towards some studies (done with most care of course!) so we could decide if you do have a point or not?

Wonders about what sort of standards we should all aim for?
No more than 1 or 2 activities a week or is it no more than 2 or 3 activities in the day (I have seen that happening where I live, especially on a saturday)?

And then on often should we snoop on our children? Once a day, once a week or once a month? How much will be enough? How much should we show our children that we don't trust them in the few years just before Uni where... oh yes... they will be left to their own devices and should be able to be fully independant ....

Yawn. We're all getting it wrong, yada yada.

No.

i am clearly not part of the 'we' she is talking about as ds doesn't go to loads of activities, walks everywhere, plays out with his pals and has already started being allowed to walk to the shop around the corner and buy something with a set amount of money twice. he'll be 6 next week.

i dare say she'd think i was doing it wrong too and endangering my child. you can't win with these know it alls

i do think a lot of parents are very naive about internet safety. i find it baffling that people give children mobile phones with internet access, cameras and no supervision and then are shocked and horrified when it turns out a photo of their daughter in her underwear is doing the rounds at school (and at church in one relatives case). also laptops in bedrooms stuns me and letting children have facebook accounts with no privacy settings and being totally oblivious to what they're doing.

that isn't as simple as 'shit parenting' imo though but genuine ignorance in many cases. my sister for example lived quite a sheltered adolescence and can be stunningly naive. her children weren't allowed to walk anywhere or go out alone or go over to the park and play but already had mobile phones and laptops with internet access and no supervision - i find that so bizarre! people's concepts of risk and safety are very skewed. overprotective in some areas and completely not supervising in others when to me the tables need turning - let them out to play if you live in a safe, quiet area and have several parents looking out for them and clear rules DON'T let themselves lock themselves in their rooms with a laptop through which the whole world can access them.

but seriously i don't need parenting advice from the government i need them to develop some frigging ethics and stop plunging more and more kids into poverty and deprivation for their own ends.

I read it initially as "She herself had been guilty of hoovering over them."

I am staggered by how overprotective some parents are - it worries me that the children won't be able to cope in adulthood, so maybe my paranoia is similar to Tory Bird's concern.

But neglect - the opposite - is a far, far worse problem, and that's proven to damage people pretty badly. Neglect and crap schooling are a lot more serious than the odd slightly hopeless middle class kid who underachieves. And as for young adults lacking boundaries, everyone knows how to avoid the entitled.

Oh and for the record no, I haven't subjugated my ambitions into my children. Hence my professional insistence on good, evidence-based social analysis.

She needs to decide whether her argument is (a) children are being overly coddled (b) children are being shamefully neglected. She needs to provide good evidence, across the full socioeconomic spectrum, for whichever point she is, in fact, trying to demonstrate. Then I might, perhaps, listen to her.

"I agree with her, as much as it pains me to agree with anything this shambles of a government say or do."

Me too, and I hate to!

I disagree it is parents getting it wrong, though. I think it is society dictating a certain sort of "goal-orientated" child-rearing, where what you do is always more important than just being.

In terms of the second point, again, I want to disagree, I really do... but the digital world contains so many dangers I wouldn't want my children exposed to in reality.. I wouldn't knowingly let my children hang out with fundamentalists, extremists, pornographers or any other such people in "real life" so I don't really want them to do it online. I don't think I would snoop though, I just would hope I would be able to limit their time on there.. but I doubt I will in all honesty, given that they are 3 and 8months and if things continue as they are going they will practically live online...

I hate even saying that, it makes me feel like an old fogey.. but I do see her point.

As far as I can see, this is all based on anecdote. Where is the data?

Considering her job is advising on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, it strikes me as peculiar that this is what she's focused on.

And if we 'mothers' - presumably SAHDs don't have this problem - follow our "ambition" and seek employment rather than "bake cookies", what does she suggest we do with our children while we work that isn't the "organised activities" she criticises?

And yes, our local paper headline this week said 1 in 5 children are living in poverty here - and our area is in the top 10 'desirable' places to live in the country. I don't see these children going to organised activities, or even owning a computer let alone having access to the internet at home. And do take into account how much of an educational disadvantage it is to not have internet access at home, when so much homework requires research etc. And so the social divide widens.

According to the telegraph it is only sahm that ruin their children's lives with too many activities whereas it is busy working parents that put their children in dangers with regards to esafety.

I wouldn't suppose this mp is an Aibu regular?

But it is very nice for a privileged and fortunate woman to come along and tell us how we're all doing it wrong. Makes a hearty change from the kind support we are all used to from this benign, helpful government.

I just think that she can sod off and do some real work.

Certain groups of people are doing both things and can cause problems BUT there is much bigger parenting problems out there.

I would like to see more awareness of cyber safety for young people & parents, even on here some Internet savvy people are naive to risks so promotion of this wouldn't be a bad thing.

Biggest issue I see is child poverty through both poor budgeting and benefits trapped/lack of work opportunities for single parents. This would be something the Gov could work on but not by cutting benefits.

I don't think those issues should be top of her list of priorities for helping families.

Most families can't afford "too many" activities - it really is a minority problem.
Adults do need to be more tech savvy, how does she suggest educating parents who can't be bothered to educate themselves on the basics of parental controls and social networking?

In a climate where charities, who have been supporting parents for many years to parent more effectively, are losing their funding - I think she is fiddling while Rome burns.

Our local newspapers headline this week is "One in three children [in my neighbourhood] live in poverty".

This is not a sink estate with high unemployment, most parents here work.

How much is this woman beng paid and when will she confront the real problems that are affecting families?

She's from a financial background and from what I can tell has no qualifications relevant to child development etc. She is a parent, that seems to be her only qualification for being given this position.

I'm not a fan of parenting experts in general, there is more than one way to bring up a happy child, but I am happy to listen to other opinions if they are not too prescriptive.

I don't like the use of the word 'snoop' (it implies lack of trust) but I will certainly supervise my DDs when they are old enough to use the internet.

Not sure I see the connection between organised activities and not being able to cope at university. Basic life skills can be taught at home whether or not your child goes to swimming/football/horse riding etc. Organised activities can teach skills like working as a team, conflict resolution etc that may not be learnt at home.

I definitely agree with her about sodding cupcakes though

What about the children who have never been to an activities in their short miserable lives, what about those who've never had a decent healthy meal, who's parents drink, take drugs, have sex in front of them, are cold because there is no heating - the list is bloody endless. What are you doing about those parents Mrs bloody no idea Perry?

Couldnt have put it better.

Poor darlings, far too many activities and mummy and daddy snooping on their texts - whatever next! Typical Tory makes my blood boil.

What about the children who have never been to an activities in their short miserable lives, what about those who've never had a decent healthy meal, who's parents drink, take drugs, have sex in front of them, are cold because there is no heating - the list is bloody endless. What are you doing about those parents Mrs bloody no idea Perry?