those of you with sons, did you see this in The Times last week?

[clumsymum]

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article2889307.ece?Submitted=true an article entitled "Boys Must Be Boys" , basically suggesting we are trying to fit our little boys into an enclosed society, so tightly, and too early.

I found it fascinating, even tho' I might not agree with every word.

TBH, it appears to be a very convoluted way of saying that children (particularly boys in this case) like to play outside and it is good for them...

Really??!!

It is interesting but is just the same old argument packaged up differently. We KNOW that children should be active, have a degree of independence and freedom and experiment within their environment.

Do we really need another article telling us how badly we are damaging our children, when really most of us are doing the best job we can?

Absolutely agree with you, clumsymum, we do tend to shield our dc too much. I know things are different now but they have to learn from their actions, good or bad. We have a small wood near our house and my ds, aged 11, and his friends love playing in there on their bikes, swarming all over the trees, making swings etc. I admit, I make him take his mobile with him and they know the golden rule that they must stay together at all times, even if they fall out, and they stick to it. They come home totally covered in mud, sweaty and exhausted and I think, great!! That's what we did as kids, and I wish all kids could do this. I work as a TA and I listen to the kids telling me about their weekends and it's really sad the amount of them that just play on their computer stuff and never go out the door. My ds has a nintendo, a ps and a wii (lucky boy!!!) so I'm in no way against this stuff, I just think there should be a bit of everything.
phew... I got on a roll there!!!

Yes, but schools are doing it too, compounding the problem.

And actually teuch, yes I think we do need more articles, because there are still too many people doing the "sit down and shut-up" or "no it's dangerous/cold and wet/you'll get muddy" type of up-bringing, instead of taking them out and letting them experience life.

X-posted ladymariner.

Thing is, I'm disabled, and dh isn't an outdoorsy type of bloke, but I'm trying to encourage ds to as much outdoors adventure as possible, which he loves.

Beavers, and now Cubs have been a godsend for us, cos ds gets lots of outside adventure

I think it's sadly true that allowing kids any freedom can lead to allegations of parents being irresponsible. The expectation "Boys will be boys" is gone now, it's all the parents' fault and negligence, instead.

There's a wooded common near our house, surrounded by small bungalows populated by pensioners. If I let my children run around there (completely open public space), I get very dirty looks from the residents. Once DC ran into a back garden by accident because the back fence was completely missing. The children were only there for about 30 seconds but the property owners went beserk telling me off.

I wondered how they meant to keep burglars out?!

But some of this piece bothers me... the sensationalist start by referring to a suicidal 8yo boy (such an extreme example proves nothing). I'm not sure it's true that formal education starts earlier in Britain than anywhere else in the world; I'm sure urban Chinese kids have much more pressure to achieve and conform from early on, and I know Spanish kids are legally required to attend "school" from age 3.

So where is the dividing line between negligence and allowing some freedom, then? I'm tired of the repeated moaning -- "We should allow more freedoms", without discussing and clarifying what actually is or isn't negligence/unacceptable nuisance.

I think it's a good thing to point this out. Because we do have choice. The fears that many of us have are not rational - paedophiles do not lurk around every corner, you can teach your children to take care with traffic. If there was no downside to stifling children then it wouldn't be a problem to overestimate the risks of a certain amount of freedom. But as there clearly is a downside, it becomes more important that we change our outlook and take some tiny little risks.

I agree with the general gist of the article. Boys aren't allowed to be boisterous anymore.

lljkk - I agree that you can get some fairly negative reactions from other adults when you allow children freedom. But the way to tackle that is to continue to do it, and change expectations. IME children behave well and most of the cause no problems. Adults see a group of boys with skateboards and assume they are trouble when they are not.

I agree with both your posts OrmIrian. I know that one of our neighbours is now horrified because I now let my ds (8) go to our paper shop alone (crossing one road).

boisterous and "i cant cope with it" = my son has adhd in some children i know personally.

Kids don't have to be outside all the time, I just think a bit of everything is a good thing. My ds likes his bike and stuff, clumsymum's ds loves cubs, and I bet they all love chilling out in their rooms doing whatever they fancy aswell, I was just trying to say that it's a shame not all dc get the chance to do that.
If I came across as a bit condescending then I'm really sorry

Easier said than done, Omirian. Especially if people are threatening to get the police or social services involved (such threats do get issued). And nobody wants to fall out with their neighbours.

I take your point clumsymum but these articles are 'preaching to the converted'...

It is not really getting through to those people who need to understand it most. It does, however, let those of us who feel we understand feel good about our efforts.

However, reading some of the other posts on here today, and the pressure and issues that other mumsnet users are dealing with, my first instinct is 'get off our collective back!'

For the record, we live in an environment where my DS can be outside all day every day. He plays outside in rain and wind unless it is so windy that he blows over (this happens quite a lot as we live on a Scottish island). But I know we are the lucky ones...

lljkk - but how can they get the authorities involved unless the children are doing something wrong. Simply being in a place making a noise isn't wrong. I do appreciate what you are saying though. I was brought up in the countryside and whateve DB and I did wouldn't bother anyone. And now we live in an area where it's normal to give DC's some freedom. It's much easier for us.

girls need this too. they just show their problems in different ways (anorexia, teenage pregnancies etc)

Yesterday DS#1 went out on his bike with a friend. He was out for about 2.5 hours. He told us roughly where he was going. When we needed him back we called him on his mobile - it is well understood that if he fails to take his mobile, doesn't switch it on or doesn't answer, he will not be allowed that freedom again.

How do I know what he's getting up to? I don't, exactly. I have to have a certain amt of trust...in him, and in the way we've brought him up.

That's what I meant aswell, Ormirian.

Ah, but my children did trespass in that back garden, didn't they? Even though the oldies were negligent by having no fence.
The authorities will get involved if they get a referral which sounds potentially serious, which is very upsetting and anybody would want to avoid it, even if it turns out allegations are completely unfounded or deal with arguably borderline situations.

Ah I see lljkk. Sorry. I didn't read your first post properly. In that case I suspect that the police would have told the oldies that they couldn't proceed as it was such a minor trespass. And that they should repair the fence! But I agree it's difficult.

...Also I'm hacked off because DS did something potentially dangerous a while back (threw nails into a garden). He apologised in multiple ways, I apologised, we explained to DS why it was so dangerous, nobody was actually hurt, but the other parents involved have bad-mouthed DS around the school and told me to my face since that they will never forgive DS.

They have a boy of their own, close in age, and even more impulsive than DS, and I can't WAIT until their lad gets into trouble for some daft reckless stupidity characteristic of 7-9yos.

Hmmm... that is more difficult. We are very lucky in the friends DS has.

In a society where woman threatened to call the police because my son was climbing a tree (without damaging it, sigh) I'd say I agree with the article.

My personal bugbear is all playgrounds/play equipment seem to be aimed ta toddlers where as most boys I know aged 10 or so still want to climb, swimg etc and be challenged. When there is nowhere to do this, boys get frustrated.

I have to agree that boys do need to be boys and that my two you are only 2.7 and 17 months are on the go morning till night, pretty non stop apart from nap times.

I try to keep then busy, we do toddler groups, music and dance groups and swimming and go to the park and for walks (adventures as we call them) and on the beach, but often when we are at dance group the boys run round, dance fast etc and the mums of girls look at me as if to say can you not control them or this is how I feel.

we moved so that they could be more access to the countryside so that as they get bigger they can go out on their bikes, go to the copse or the walk to the beech, this is what DH did and this is what we want for our boys.

But society does look down on groups of children, elderly are often scared (unessisarily) of them and people do not want them where they live.

I think it is about finding a happy medium and sometimes not caring what other people think, although that is easier said than done

I agree Vixen, this is a problem. 'Bigger boys' still need these challenges, and if they climb on fences/trees etc, then they get accused of vandalism.

It is a problem of society, not just individual parents, altho we must accept that we need to make effort too, to take them out/find them activities to help with this, if there is nothing local.