Parents, how do you feel about risk?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

We've been exploring the idea of a Mumsnet podcast for a while here at MNHQ, and we thought we'd have a bash at a pilot to see whether the idea's a goer. It's going to be based very loosely on the theme of 'Risk', and we'd love to hear from you if you'd potentially be up for contributing.

We're going to come at the subject from as many interesting angles as possible, so do let us know if you've got strong feelings on any of the following topics that have come up over the years on MN - or indeed if you've thoughts on other subjects/experiences which are risk-related...

• How do we protect children from risk while allowing them to grow up (and without life grinding to a halt)? For eg, is it okay to leave a sleeping baby with a baby monitor while you pop next door for dinner, or to let the kids walk back from school aged 6, as they do in some other countries? How about letting 13 year-olds go off camping alone?
• How does society view mothers who take physical risks in the careers or sports they pursue? Are there - and should there be - different 'rules' for mothers and fathers?
• Alternatively, have you ever had to weigh up big, life-changing gains against similarly life-changing losses? Or taken a big risk on someone or something which paid off - or went disastrously wrong?

Do add your thoughts here, and let us know whether you'd be happy for us to get in touch for a research chat?

Thanks

MNHQ

All the biters are fairly 'robust' headcases energetic children.

Maybe it's because I ate all the stuff I usually ate during pregnancy and fed the children without the modern worries surrounding honey, peanuts, raw eggs in cake mix and whatever else is the nightmare du jour

I admit that as a new Mum I sterilised for longer than 'normal' with DS1 but relaxed after I caught him eating bugs in the garden. We didn't 'do' stairgates beyond toddling age..I taught them to come down the stairs (much to the abject horror of other parents). We also neglected to put locks on the cupboards, choosing to teach them that those cupboards were not for them (as a result biters aged 10,9 & 6 still ask to go in the cupboard under the sink).

All the biters climb trees, leap into paddling & swimming pools, swing on zip lines and generally attack the unknown and interesting both physically and academically with gusto (and I include food).

I took the approach that you can't stop them doing things, you just have to try and teach them to think even momentarily about the possible consequences. Road safety, reins as toddlers, swimming lessons etc were all absolute musts for example. Baby monitors, on the other hand, were never baby sitters and you can't parent from the sofa.

We never encopuraged whining or excessive tears and tiaras. If you come screaming down the garden like a leg has fallen off it had better have fallen off non of the molly-coddling I witnessed with so many other Mums (especially with girls). Not being judgemental or neglectful there-what I mean is that falling down didn't immediately illicit a huge intake of breath and scaring sprinting towards the child on my part. Not unless they were doing that mouth open no sound thing, then I was hot-footing it!

I am always amazed at the unnecessary risks some parents take with teens, tbh. I have seen numerous, ordinarily very sensible parents allow mass mixed sex, unsupervised camping trips or trips miles and miles away to 'parties' and then be thoroughly confused when it all goes pear shaped-either with booze or social issues or worse. Social media is the brand new scurge of the teen years in my opinion and whilst my eldest has the dreaded facebook I am the 'emergency default' e-mail and have the general day to day password.

I try to educate instead of saying a blanket no to things, for example DS1, 15, watched the paedophile hunter on C4 a while back in connection to safety online and we use Jeremy Kyle and similar as a jumping off points for discussions surrounding sex, contraception, responsibility etc etc. Not exactly PC but it gives rise to some open, genuine conversation that a more 'staged' approach might not illicit.

I try not to take undue risks with my life, (although we moved halfway round the World this year), especially as DH has a fairly high risk profession but I'm not cotton-wool-ish as regards having fun.

Feel free to contact me but be aware there's a time difference.

If you come screaming down the garden like a leg has fallen off it had better have fallen off

Haha, that's what I'm like. I expect the level of drama to match the severity of the injury. Two of my DDs have often screamed like they're having their teeth pulled out when they've got a slight graze (not even that usually). It makes me lose all sympathy that I might have had

Egosumquism oh how a hyphen changes things

I am not terribly risk averse. I am letting my 11 year old commute about 50 minutes door to door on her own. I will let my 8 year old stay in the house alone, if I pop to a neighbour for 5 to 10 minutes (we do live on a quiet street and know all the neighbours, though.)

I would not let 13 year olds go camping alone. I live in London, so it seems like a mad idea to me. If I lived in the Western Isles, I might view it differently. It probably depends where you live and who the other children are.

I have been horrified by some of the things I have seen teenaged girls on my street being allowed/encouraged to do. It may be sexist, and it's not fair, but tarting young girls up, giving them alcohol and then sending them out alone together seems insane to me. Why not just drug them and write "rape me" on their foreheads!

I have to take exception to your rape comments Heigh.

I had a feeling some people would. I wasn't speaking politically. I was speaking personally, as a parent. I wouldn't let my child walk into a dangerous situation to prove a political point.

I doubt anyone would take issue with taking sensible precautions around alcohol and safe behaviour whilst out and about, male or female.

That has nothing to do with preventing rape though.

I try hard to have a sensible attitude to risk and weigh up risk, likelihood, benefit etc.

Ds1 now walks part of the way to school alone aged nearly 9 (after we've crossed the busy roads), goes to the local shop alone (one quiet road to cross), stays in the flat by himself if I'm out for up to 20 minutes or so.

I want my dcs to have the sort of free ranging childhood that I had, but I can't because that wasn't a childhood where I free ranged on my own - I was with friends which modifies the risk, eg someone to get help when you fall and break your ankle scrumping apples. I would be happy for him to go to the park and roaming about a bit alone with friends, but as his friends' parents aren't happy with this he can't.

bit ambiguous! Depends what the risk is!

I have never bothered with stair gates, child locks, baby monitors, baby reins. I think car seat is only safety item we had.

Eldest is autistic so highly overreacts injuries. I expect even if she broke her leg I would tell her it was fine as else she makes a big drama out of it! As my dad used to say it is only pain.

I'd find a discussion interesting on the specifically British perception of risk when parenting, because it sometimes comes across as particularly bonkers to people raising children in other countries. I often think parenting in the UK has more to do with not wanting to be criticised by others than any concrete risk or worry, so it's about mechanisms of social approbation and disapprobation.

And people often seem to justify stopping their kids from doing something by saying 'I have anxiety' - but that's a rubbish excuse. I have great sympathy with anyone with any sort of mental health issues, but if you have excessive anxiety and a distorted perception of risk it's your responsibility to try to deal with it so that your family don't suffer. (Can you tell I had an over-anxious mother who never dealt with it?).

The most ridiculous example is the people who insist on dragging their small DC across a garage forecourt because leaving them safely in a car for two minutes is somehow more risky than taking them across a loud, fume-filled space with cars moving unpredictably.

We have a weird situation here in Germany, where traditionally children are 'supposed' to go to school by themselves from year 1 at the age of 6 or 7. But the age of starting school has dropped, we live in busy cities not in villages, and the school isn't necessarily round the corner any more, so many parents go with their kids for at least the first year or two until they develop a better sense of traffic. And lots of people are absolutely outraged at this development and see it as bad parenting, because it's apparently molly-coddling children. So they're just as incapable of perceiving real risk (more dangerous traffic levels than when they were at school) as the over-careful people.

I generally see Germans as far more willing to give their children responsibility and independence while they're growing up, and far less mindless drunkenness of teenagers (although it's not non-existent by any means). At 15 my DD spent 3 months abroad on a language exchange, which appears to be unheard of in the UK. She coped fine though.

"I am always amazed at the unnecessary risks some parents take with teens, tbh. I have seen numerous, ordinarily very sensible parents allow mass mixed sex, unsupervised camping trips" What's that an unnecessary risk of? Surely if you've educated your teenager well about making good choices about sex/alcohol/drugs in the years beforehand there's nothing much to be worried about. DD1 went on a mixed biking trip recently (nearly 17 at the time) and it was fine.

What I have done with my teenagers is always taken them on adventure-style holidays and activities, so they can get that adrenaline rush in a controlled environment: white-water rafting, canyoning, high-ropes course, climbing, via ferrata, canoeing, skiing, etc. Teenagers NEED a feeling of risk, and if you don't give it to them in a safe form they're more likely to go out and find something a lot more dangerous.

'BETTER DROWNED THAN DUFFERS IF NOT DUFFERS WON'T DROWN '.

.... but that's pretty extreme as a RL philosophy!

Wasn't the implication in Swallow and Amazon that their dad was also saying he knew they weren't duffers and so that's why he was giving permission.

I don't think it ever meant "if you can't have it and drown, oh well".

Have been watching Swallow and Amazons recently btw, we have the DVD and 6 year old DS loves it.

Stupid phone "correcting" me.

Thay should say Swallows and Amazons!

And "if you can't hack it and drown, oh well".

That reminds me ....

Perception of risk is a funny thing.

When DS watched Swallows and Amazons for the first time he didn't bat an eyelid at the freedom the DC had, going off in boats by themselves and camping out on
islands.

But when they took the boat to town (an emvironment he is more familiar with I guesd) and got off the boat he was shocked and said "are they going by themselves?!"

Arch I agree that it's more about social disapproval here. So I have seen people tutting at other parents for letting their dcs doing X (such as walking back home on their own from school) saying how dangerous it is. And be absolutely fine to let the same dc on their own outside 'playing with friends' for 2hours.
Apparently, being out with friends for 2 hours is oK but walking home on your own for 10mins isn't .
You just have to see how much disapproval you get on MN for wanting to let your dcs go to school or stay at home on their own for a short time until they are at least in Y6.

Then there is another phenomenum. The people who let their dcs walking back home on their own are the ones from 'that estate' (read working class, benefit people compare to us middle class, naice people) so there is no way anyone will do 'that' as it's clearly bad parenting to do so. Again .

And then yes, as soon as you reach 14yo, then it seems that everything is possible and you 'really can't stop them from doing xxx'. How on earth said children are supposed to move in 2~3 years from a situation where they are completely dependent and mollycoted to a teenager that will fully look after himself (incl being on his own for a week because he can't possiblly go with mum and dad as it's soooo uncool to do so), I have no idea.

The other thing, I think, is that the more you stop your dcs to do things and the longer you do it, the more they will do anything to spread their wings and shout their want to be left alone. So you end up with teenagers that will go over board, have no idea of what is dangerous or not nor will they know how to react but will be so intoxicated by the idea of doing things on their own that they are very likely to do stupid/dangerous things.

"I'd love to see the reaction on MN if someone said they were going to let their DCs go sailing by themselves and camp on an island for several days grin Especially at the age of the Swallows."

I'm tempted to name change and do it. I was marmelized for thinking about letting my 14 year old go on a night hike with 2 friends......

Ego your question about parent A liking dangerous activities and parent B wanting the dcs to be safe...

I have that in my house.
I am not British and my attitude to going to school on your own etc... is much more relaxed than anyone else here. DH on the other side has taken his clues from what other people are doing so would be less inclined to let them do that.
What happens is that the dcs have been left to do a lot of things on their own much earlier than any of their peers (or at least earlier than their peers where I live!).

But then DH is also very keen on a lot of 'dangerous' activities (the high rope courses, caving, climbing etc etc) and I am much more likely to say 'No it's too much/too dangerous' for the dcs. He has another sense of what is dangerous from doing these activities himself than I do.
What we ended up doing is leaving the dcs do what DH though was suitable. Arguably, there has been times when DH realised it was actually too much/unsuitable and he stepped back a bit. But mostly, we now have two dcs who have done a hell of a lot more than any other child and have gained both in self confidence and in resilience.

As an example, my just turned 10year old has done an orienteering course on his own a few weeks ago. He was in the middle of the countryside, on his own with a map and a compass. Somewhere he had never been to. He got lost. Several times. He also found his way back on the course each time. It took him twice as long as his brother (who is 12yo).
He wasn't upset, actually he was proud to have found all the check points. He was proud to have done it on his own. If anything, he was grumpy not to have done it quicker lol.
Now compare that to a child who isn't able to go to school, on the same route each day, because 'he can't be relied on' as he is 'clearly too young/will mess up/do stupid things'. Or one that will get upset and panic because her mum took 10 mins more to go back home (she was having a chat with someone else) and there was no one at home and was so panicked that she didn't even think about walking back towards to school to see what mum was doing...

Learning to evaluate risk is one of the most important life skills i.e. does the potential harm outweigh the potential benefit? Complete avoidance of risk (DC never being allowed to go on bus journeys alone or use kitchen appliances or discouraged from physical activity in case they hurt themselves) can result in helplessness and over-reliance on parents. Some parents want DC to remain dependent and close by.

It is possible, though, to teach children age-appropriate/ individual child-appropriate behaviour. For example, how to cross a road, travel safety strategies, how to use appliances correctly and physical activity (with someone standing nearby or underneath just in case perhaps) until regard for safety is learned. There will always be accidents and sometimes there will be dangerous behaviour but these are learning opportunities.

Not trying to minimise the awful events that can happen, just emphasise how important it is that children learn by degrees to become responsible for themselves.

Most people confuse probability with risk. An outcome with very low probability can be high-risk.

Risk = Probability x Consequence

... where Consequence is how terrible an outcome would be if it actually happened - e.g. a bruise could be a 2, a broken arm 10, broken neck 70, death 100.

So, bruise is maybe a high-probability outcome for an activity at 70% but its rather inconsequential so risk is 2 70% = 1.4, whereas another might have a low-probability for death at 3% but risk would be 100 3% = 3.

All this to say that it can be entirely rational for people to consider activities where probability of negative outcome is very low.

Obviously, everyone decides on the values of Consequence for themselves. That is why what one person considers a risky activity might not be so for another, even when the probability is fixed and known to all such as rolling dice - one person might not care so much about the money he will lose, for example.

The point was that low-probability does not mean low-risk.

Probability of my child getting kidnapped is very low, but because Consequence is so horrible (a fate worse than death, imho) that the risk comes out high.