to feel sorry for kids who are always playing out

[vodkanchocolate]

Probilly sounding very judgmental here. On our bit of street we have 2 families who never seem to do anything with their kids they are just playing out constantly I often wonder when they manage to go in for tea/dinner let alone baths, homework etc.

So yesterday dinner was time for us to go out go find my eldest dd who said why cant she play out with the others explained we are going to see an elderly relative whos about celebrate her 80th then we can call to the near by park this girl was listneing in and said thats laim fair enough not the most entertaining day for a 9 year old but the younger ones enjoyed themselves. Got back tea time and the bunch of same kids were still all i the street aged ranges from 4-12 and apparently one of the kids have said to my 2 eldest that Im stuck up and trying to stop them playing with the other kids. Why the hell would an 8 year old come out with that comment.

My kids do play out particully my 9 year old and never stopped her playing with anyone theres the odd incident where ill say think you best come away for a bit to avoid something.

Its same after school eve on a school night during summer months out until 9pm some nights wonder where the hell they find time to do stuff.

Sorry on phone today typing not very good.

I don't think so Usual. My mum, who gave us all that freedom, is much more careful with her grandchildren. She just reckons it's totally different now, and you have to be more careful.
Not keeping them inside and never letting them play out, but just being a bit more cautious.

I'm sorry but what on earth is wrong with a child doing some out of school activities? My dd goes to brownies, youth club, and has swimming and tennis lessons plus she tends to do an in school sports club every term one day a week until 4.30, so does this mean I'm somehow a bad parent? I let my children play out in our street but I also invest time in taking them on days out, for instance this last month alone we've been to Blackpool pleasure beach, museums, cinema and the local zoo, so they get plenty of time with me and aren't just "dumped" outside to play!

I have grandkids and guess what, they play out.

I think using the words 'dumped to play out' is bloody insulting.

Liz well aren't you a hero! Some of us can't afford any of that I'm afraid.

WonderingWillow at what age will your child be allowed leave the house by themselves?

I think using the words 'dumped to play out' is bloody insulting.

I agree.

So do my mother's usual. That's not what I said.

" My dd goes to brownies, youth club, and has swimming and tennis lessons plus she tends to do an in school sports club every term one day a week until 4.30 "

so how much does that cost per week then?

What l do remember about growing up in the 70's, was that most families were doing the same thing.
Most of us came home, had a drink... Played 'out' or in the garden... Went to brownies maybe?
There wasn't all this pressure to provide 24/7 entertainment for us.

"run along" ;)

I grew up playing out and all my memories of my childhood are amazing. It is more than memories though - because my parents were relaxed I think it made me the independent and strong woman I am.

Personally, I feel children nowadays suffer a bit for not having the opportunity to play out, away from the eyes of adults where they have to rely on each other and themselves a bit. Obviously, there is a balancing act but really if people are going to be judgemental about the decisions I make as a parent it is my prerogative to judge in return.

I also disagree that the environment we live in is very different nowadays because it isn't that different. There is more traffic on the roads - that is it. The number of kids getting taken by paedophiles has not changed.

Yanbu for the completely free range kids with no road sense etc.

crystal it depends to do what. And as he is only 4.5 at the moment, it's impossible to tell how sensible or not he's going to be later on.

The primary school is on the same road as us, about 300m away. Some kids are allowed to walk in about year 5 (school policy I believe and after that it's obviously parent choice) and I suppose if he was the sensible sort and he had a friend to walk with, then yes probably.

However, secondary school would be either a bus ride or a train ride away, and then over 2 main roads once he got there (think A roads). So again, that really depends on him and how he is.

The shops (small row of shops) are not far away, the road again can get quite busy but again, it would really depend on him as he gets older. I'd like to think I'd be able to send him out to grab something as an errand in year 5 if he was walking to school.

But as I've stressed; it's impossible to tell right now.

That sounds sensible wondering. He's only tiny yet, I'd be very reluctant to let a 4.5 year old out by themselves too. It's when they turn into hulking 7 and 8 year olds that a little bit of freedom is more necessary I think.

In the 70s and 80s, it was acceptable to smoke anywhere and everywhere, to drive along without car seats and seat belts (happy memories of being chucked in the boot ) to smack children at school and then be smacked for it at home as well and to molest schoolgirls.

I really find it difficult to understand the cries back to the days before 'helicopter parenting'. The days before helicopter parenting, if you want to call it that, might have been great for some. My parents smoked: not heavily and they did give up but nonetheless in the home. We wouldn't do that now. I thought being put in the boot when I was about six, sometime circa 1988, was hilarious. I bet if I posted an 'AIBU to put DS in the boot' now, I'd be flamed out of the place. Smacking children is frowned upon and illegal in schools. The 70s and 80s allowed Jimmy Savile and I wonder how many others to abuse young children. It was only the most serious of these cases - where murder was involved - that provoked any sort of outrage in the public.

Some people feel a downside to things moving forwards is a loss of freedom and I see that. We are no longer free to be racist or homophobic or sexist. We are not free to slap children who aggravate us, unless they are our own. We are not free to grab young people who we may find attractive and appealing.

Most of us would agree that the loss of freedom in those contexts is a good thing. I remember public safety adverts from the 80s, filled with dire warnings about not going near electricity pylons, train tracks, saying no to strangers and avoiding farms. They are no more. I largely suspect because - rightly - the onus is no longer on young, young children to be 'sensible'. It is up to parents to be sensible for their children.

If you, as a parent, have taken the informed decision that your child is safe outside then I do not have an issue. I would not permit my children to play on the road or to be somewhere without my knowledge but we are all different. However, the determined locking of heads at only one particular view of the past - that it was wonderful and wild and free - is largely what I am saying is wrong.

I had educated and professional parents who felt, as many on here do, that the ideal childhood was spent roaming outside. One of my first memories is of a friend of my brothers falling from an apple tree in our garden, and breaking his arm. It isn't helicopter parenting to say 'actually, I don't think that is safe, get down now.'

I also spent much time with my grandmother, and nearly died several times over for running ahead as she could not keep up and going out into traffic. I was two. It isn't helicopter parenting to keep your toddler close to you.

I was lured into an elderly mans house (or so he seemed to me) where he forced his tongue into my mouth and his fingers into my private parts shall we say. It isn't helicopter parenting to be aware there are dangerous amd sad individuals who will take the opportunity to harm your children.

I had my arms locked behind my back and my trousers and underwear pulled down by some other children. It isn't helicopter parenting to be aware that groups of children can be brutal to one another when left unsupervised.

The discomfort I have with this is that the insistence that the way to a happy and healthy childhood is to roam free and unsupervised insists that the sort of experiences I outline above 'didn't happen' - not that I am suggesting anyone is accusing me of lying but that my experiences and that of others are somehow an anomaly, and I don't think that they are. It's a bit like when smoking stats are trotted out and people insist that 'well MY grandad smokes 20 a day and is 101!' - yes, but it doesn't diminish the facts that smoking is dangerous. Children shut out from dawn until dusk isn't a blyton ideal - it's neglect, pure and simple.

So you think that children should be supervised at all times? until what age?

Why do you think playing outside our houses is the same thing as wandering off in fields, climbing in orchards etc....? And why do you think we don't know where they are? They are OUTSIDE. Our houses have these amazing things called windows and doors through which we can see and hear the space outside our houses.
You might want to get some for your houses?

When I return to neighbourhoods I lived in as a child, it seems to me that very little has changed. One area has become rather upscale and gentrified, which amuses me greatly as it was very much looked down upon when we lived there. But otherwise I wouldn't say that much has altered. Even the amount of traffic seems roughly the same in those places. Obviously, these are particular areas and I suppose that other places have indeed changed out of all recognition. But what has really changed in the intervening decades is perception.

I have all sorts of thoughts about why that has happened. But it has been quite a massive cultural shift for people to believe that their children must be closely supervised at all times.

I think the phrase I would use is reasonable supervision, usual and that varies according to where you live, the age and the sensibility of your child.

My son turned 8 at the end of February and is in Year 3. That's not a 'hulking' child as someone above said - it's still young! I walk him to and from school. I'll probably let him walk with a friend in year 6.

He is permitted to go to the park (it's very close) as long as he tells me beforehand and I tell him when to be back. I generally give him an hour. If we go out for the day I am happy to sit with his younger sister while he has a wander.

I don't think children should be supervised at all times but personally, I feel out of the two extremes, extreme supervision is better - certainly safer - than otherwise. Generally, it's common sense.

My parents were kind and meant well, but one thing I have become increasingly aware of since becoming a parent myself is the huge distance between 'my world' (as a child) and their world as adults. I didn't tell them things, confide in them, ask them about playground politics or the like much. In contrast, I do feel 'part' of DS's world if you like (I want to start singing as per Disney now! )

I think it is possible to have strong children, independent children and happy, confident children, but also to have safe children.

And it's clearly also possible to have 'safe children' who play outside unsupervised from time to time.

And that is a judgement call for every parent to make.

Indeed

So if I make that a different judgement call to you please don't call me neglectful or a lazy parent.

Difficult one, as I do feel children out from dawn till dusk is neglectful and lazy, but that is worlds apart from children playing out on the street for an hour or so, which I don't personally like but we are all different

Unless they're being neglected, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's how I used to play as a child (1980s). Recent research shows that unstructured play is really beneficial to children's development

www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/for-better-school-results-clear-the-schedule-and-let-kids-play/373144/