A generation of "Cotton Wool Kids"

MonaPizza

Love2love wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is that you are putting your child at risk and I can understand why certain parents aren't willing to make that choice.

Everyone's bleating on about abduction. Well what are the chances or odds or statistics regarding abduction? I'd hazard a guess that your kid is more likely to be struck by lightning than abducted. Also statistically you have a better chance of being killed by a meteroite than killed by a terrorist but you don't see people moving out of their homes and into some reinforced concrete bunker deep underground. Yet they will think that taking their belt off at he airport is "keeping them safe". It's just plain fear-mongering with no basis in common sense.

Downlinz

With the internet, cheaper/free games there's just a lot more to do, its more attractive than to go outside. The stat probably isn't just protective parents but a change in attitudes to the most fun way to spend your time.

Love2love

MonaPizza wrote: »

Are you effing kidding me??? I grew up in this area. You've got Whitehall Park right on your doorstep with swings, playing fields, and a cool hill to roll down. He can surely get across Swords Road. There are pedestrian crossings everywhere on that road. And there are loads of places for a kid to play around there. All those estates have green areas.
I'm sorry but I was walking to school by myself in junior infants (OK my sister accompanied me as she was in 1st class, age 7...but then I had to do the walk by myself when she went into 2nd class). That walk was a mile.....from Collins Avenue, down Grace Park road, and all along Griffith Avenue to school at the end near Malahide Road. Most other 6 year olds did the same.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Everyone's bleating on about abduction. Well what are the chances or odds or statistics regarding abduction? I'd hazard a guess that your kid is more likely to be struck by lightning than abducted. Also statistically you have a better chance of being killed by a meteroite than killed by a terrorist but you don't see people moving out of their homes and into some reinforced concrete bunker deep underground. Yet they will think that taking their belt off at he airport is "keeping them safe". It's just plain fear-mongering with no basis in common sense.

Ok I certainly don't think a 6 year old capable of crossing the Swords Road. Or walk to school with a 7 year old. :eek: I take him to the park on his bike, skates or scooter myself everyday and not just Whitehall Park. As I said, were not local and he doesn't attend school in the area so he knows nobody there. As another posts suggested, I am going to look into the scouts in the area for him but I don't know how long I plan to stay in that particular area as I like it more than I thought I would. Even then, I wouldn't allow him out of the garden alone, he's only 6 for Christ sakes!
I am not a cotton wool mother either, all I said was I can understand why parents wouldn't feel comfortable allowing their child into certain situations when everytime you turn on the news, it's another abduction, accident involving a child. And it's not all fear mongering, it's the actually news.
And fears, be them irrational is something everyone experiences. It's acting on them that's the problem. But it's not only parents who act on these fears. Some people don't fly anymore because of terrorist even though they know the statistics as statistics don't make the fear go away!!
As someone already said, it's not only cotton wool parents that are to blame. Now a days, children are from 2 working parent family who come home at 6, feed, clean and spend time with their kids before putting them to bed. So the child spends the day in school and clubs passing the day rather than outside gaining a street sense and missing out on certain parts of childhood that the parent had.

MonaPizza

Love2love wrote: »

Actually, my point has been that other people assessing the danger to my child or anyone else when they don't see the risks involved directly is pointless. I actually agree that kids need a certain amount of freedom. And I don't believe in Molly coddling either. Have you actually read my posts?
I try my best to provide my child with enough social interactions with his peers, enough education and enough challenges that he doesn't go wild when he does eventually get a bit more freedom. How can you know how much my child at 6 is able to comprehend? For instance, walking home from school and he runs across a small lane way road, now I told him countless times that he can't cross the road alone but he's so caught up in playing with his friends that he's just doesn't think about it! My cousin died at 6 when a car ran over him outside his house so I have drilled it into my son about this all the time. And I'm not using what happened to my cousin as an excuse to control my son either. As I said, I live at the beginning of the M1 in Dublin! Are you saying I'm suppose to allow him out alone when I know his attention can be distracted so easily?

I thought you said your kid doesn't go to school or have any friends. Which is it?

Love2love

MonaPizza wrote: »

I thought you said your kid doesn't go to school or have any friends. Which is it?

Getting petty now aren't we. Read my post, he doesn't go to school in the AREA. He goes to school in Dublin 4 near where I'm originally from. I walk him down to my Mother's house everyday so he can play with his school friends are I realise how important it his for him to spend time with his peers. I don't want to move him until I'm certain I want to stay there.

Kiwi in IE

MonaPizza wrote: »

I thought you said your kid doesn't go to school or have any friends. Which is it?

I think she said she had just moved into the area. And as it is currently July, he probably hasn't started at his new school yet.

I am not sure why you are nitpicking about it. From her posts she sounds like a sensible, responsible mother who has the normal fears all parents do, but is aware of them and the impact of over reacting to them. However suggesting that a 6 year old be allowed to cross a busy road alone to play in a park unsupervised, and that a junior infant be let walk a mile accompanied only by a seven year old is just plain daft, unsafe and irresponsible in my opinion. And probably the opinion of any other responsible parent of a six year old child.

OldNotWIse

listermint wrote: »

Your china analogy is completely useless comparison to parenthood.


Are you honestly telling me that because i dont actually 'own' a child of my own i cant look after, nurture empathise and care for my nieces and nephews. What would happen for instance if something god forbid happened to their parents. Do i suddenly get a green card for your parent passport hood and over night im drowned in a new sense of responsibility ???



Get the hell out of here, Utter condescending crap.

but but....how would you know how to look after a child...if you've never been to China?

My parents adopted my older brother when he was ten weeks old, but because they didnt actually give birth to him, the poor wee guy was completely neglected until I was born five years later. Once I popped out, they knew instantly what they were doing, and started to love and nurture both

Kiwi in IE

It does make me wonder whether people who suggest very young children be left unsupervised in parks, crossing roads, walking to school etc, are the same types who were quick to condemn the McCann family for leaving their children unsupervised in an apartment while they ate dinner elsewhere on the complex?

Femme_Fatale

OldNotWIse wrote: »

My parents adopted my older brother when he was ten weeks old, but because they didnt actually give birth to him, the poor wee guy was completely neglected until I was born five years later. Once I popped out, they knew instantly what they were doing, and started to love and nurture both

But they are his parents. So they have a bond with him that a non parent won't have.
Nowhere did I say this is only experienced by biological parents.

OldNotWIse

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But they are his parents. So they have a bond with him that a non parent won't have.
Nowhere did I say this is only experienced by biological parents.

Except the original point, was a poster claiming that a "non parent" as you so eloquently put it, wouldn't understand how to look after a child. There was no mention of a "bond". It's not as if us "non parents" are rushing around trying to bond with other people's kids...but really, telling us we dont know how to look after a child? We wouldnt understand what it is like to be "responsible fo someone we love"? Ridiculous (and totally pointless too might I add).

In fact in 195, I think you referred to us lacking expertise, as opposed to lacking a bond, and said "while opinions are reasonable, telling parents effectively that they know better isn't", ie; if we say something that parents dont like, we must be wrong, because we are not parents.

kylith

On the 'what do non-parents know' issue let me tell you an anecdote involving my older brother. I once witnessed him teaching his then 2 year old son to say 'you can't have any, it's mine'. I suggested that this may not be a good plan for the future, and was told that I know nothing because I have no children, and that he was teaching the kid to 'stand up for himself'. This child is now 12 and he has no friends. No-one in his estate will play with him, and they are open about the fact that this is because my nephew is 'mean' and will not share, whether it be toys or taking turns in a video game. His father's lesson taught him how to isolate himself from other kids.

Sure, I don't have the day-in-day-out experience of childrearing, but being able to have a baby doesn't automatically mean that you have the first idea about raising them either.

Nem_e

I've only read as far as page 7, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

I wonder if thiers any correlation between familiy size and partents becoming over protective.
if you have a gaggle of kids, you can't mind/surpervise them all, if you loose one well you've got a few more around.
if you only have 1 or 2 children is the fear of loosing one of them greater than say if you had 5 kids? (not saying the pain is less or more just easier to live with)

ronjo

kylith wrote: »

On the 'what do non-parents know' issue let me tell you an anecdote involving my older brother. I once witnessed him teaching his then 2 year old son to say 'you can't have any, it's mine'. I suggested that this may not be a good plan for the future, and was told that I know nothing because I have no children, and that he was teaching the kid to 'stand up for himself'. This child is now 12 and he has no friends. No-one in his estate will play with him, and they are open about the fact that this is because my nephew is 'mean' and will not share, whether it be toys or taking turns in a video game. His father's lesson taught him how to isolate himself from other kids.

Sure, I don't have the day-in-day-out experience of childrearing, but being able to have a baby doesn't automatically mean that you have the first idea about raising them either.

Does his dad feel responsible for how his son turned out?

kylith

ronjo wrote: »

Does his dad feel responsible for how his son turned out?

I don't know, I no longer talk to him about parenting after getting a bollocking for suggesting that our mother might actually have some good advice on bringing up children.

What really gets me is that my brother is one of the nicest, kindest, most giving people you could meet, but he knew nothing about raising children and, as I said before, the birth of your first child doesn't mean that you suddenly receive any wisdom or insight that you wouldn't have had as a childless person. He got bad leadership from his wife, he wouldn't listen to his family, and now his son is paying the price for it.

Nem_e

Nem_e wrote: »

I've only read as far as page 7, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

I wonder if thiers any correlation between familiy size and partents becoming over protective.
if you have a gaggle of kids, you can't mind/surpervise them all, if you loose one well you've got a few more around.
if you only have 1 or 2 children is the fear of loosing one of them greater than say if you had 5 kids? (not saying the pain is less or more just easier to live with)

I've no kids but I'm astonished at this.

I don't think any parents consider any of their children to be replaceable. Losing a child must surely be the worst agony for anyone, and I don't think having a few 'spares' does anything to dilute the pain.

Fox_In_Socks

Candie wrote: »

I've no kids but I'm astonished at this.

I don't think any parents consider any of their children to be replaceable. Loosing a child must surely be the worst agony for anyone, and I don't think having a few 'spares' does anything to dilute the pain.

Well, for example in The Waltons, if John Boy ever got dragged into the sawmill and was killed, at least you still had Jason, Ben or even Jim Bob to fill in and go on to Unee Verse City.

Aineoil

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It does make me wonder whether people who suggest very young children be left unsupervised in parks, crossing roads, walking to school etc, are the same types who were quick to condemn the McCann family for leaving their children unsupervised in an apartment while they ate dinner elsewhere on the complex?

,

I have not posted on this thread before, but I did think the same thing as Kiwi. Great minds and all that......
You are dammed if you do and vilified if you don't

Times past weren't great either.....

This thread has the feeling that we all ran through green fields in the sunshine, with no shoes, with not a care in the world?

clairefontaine

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Well, for example in The Waltons, if John Boy ever got dragged into the sawmill and was killed, at least you still had Jason, Ben or even Jim Bob to fill in and go on to Unee Verse City.

I think this is historically why only sons were exempted from the draft.

iguana

There is a massive difference between allowing a 6 year old out to play with his/her friends and leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment at night. One is done in order to allow your child fun with their peers, it's of huge benefit to the child in terms of socialisation and learning to enjoy a little independence and the responsibilities that come with it. The other has no benefit to the toddlers at all and is only done for the benefit of the parents. Totally incomparable.

0ph0rce0

Have a 12 and 4 year old.

They play in the estate, on the road, they have fun, kids will be kids and do what kids do.

Couldn't bare to watch them stuck in all day on the couch bored out of their minds 365 days a year.

I know it sounds bad but if something bad is going to happen then its going to happen and there's not much you can do really, just like i could be knocked down or killed tomorrow.



As shít as it is, that's life.

Kiwi in IE

iguana wrote: »

There is a massive difference between allowing a 6 year old out to play with his/her friends and leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment at night. One is done in order to allow your child fun with their peers, it's of huge benefit to the child in terms of socialisation and learning to enjoy a little independence and the responsibilities that come with it. The other has no benefit to the toddlers at all and is only done for the benefit of the parents. Totally incomparable.

I agree with the above. However we were not talking about simply letting a child outside to play with friends. Someone suggested earlier to the parent of a six year old that they should allow their child to cross a busy Dublin road alone to play in a park unaccompanied. The same person also thought it acceptable that a junior infant should walk a mile to school accompanied only by a 7 year old. I think that is comparable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree with the above. However we were not talking about simply letting a child outside to play with friends. Someone suggested earlier to the parent of a six year old that they should allow their child to cross a busy Dublin road alone to play in a park unaccompanied. The same person also thought it acceptable that a junior infant should walk a mile to school accompanied only by a 7 year old. I think that is comparable.

... then why compare it to the case of a 3 year old left alone in an apartment?

Kiwi in IE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... then why compare it to the case of a 3 year old left alone in an apartment?

Because it is comparable!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Because it is comparable!

No, it isn't, and you know it. Iguana said it wasn't and then you replied to the post saying you gareed with it.

bur

Dartz wrote: »

Blame the plethora of pedophiles and kiddy-fiddlers hiding behind every bush. And Sky News, the Star, The Sun, for telling us all about them

PAEDOGEDDON!!

sweetsugar

I agree withthe OP,

I got this poem about 10 years ago and it is so true and sad.
The kids of today don't have the same freedom as we did when we were young:(

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets,
not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because........................................WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Our houses did not have a zillion locks on them and there were no bars on the windows, bedroom were for sleeping in or studying or reading there was no TV in the room.
There was only one TV in the house and that was in the living room.
We ate dinner together as a family every night in the dinning area or room and if you were late for dinner you did not eat.
Friends were not allowed to call pass 9:00 p.m. and you had BETTER be home at your curfew or you got grounded which meant that you could not go play, or watch TV, or listen to music it WAS a punishment.
Parents did spank their kids and parents expected to be respected.
Your chores and homework had to be done BEFORE you could play, watch TV, listen to music or call your friends.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

Ahhhh! The Good Ole' Days!!!
__________________

clairefontaine

He has a point. The kids today will be the most helicoptered kids in history, being raised by generation X, the most neglected kids i history, and arguably the most independent. (Latch key kids, kids of baby boomers.)

hatrickpatrick

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

This is the one that really pisses me off. I blame this for the disappearance of so many public facilities for kids and the intantalising of the few that are left.

Cookie_Monster

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It does make me wonder whether people who suggest very young children be left unsupervised in parks, crossing roads, walking to school etc, are the same types who were quick to condemn the McCann family for leaving their children unsupervised in an apartment while they ate dinner elsewhere on the complex?

well most parents would tend not kill their own kids, cover it up and spend years making lots of money on it either....

Chem Lord

I bet 9 put of 10 people calling younger generations 'pansey' are parents themselves who's kids don't leave the house as much as they did when they were younger! If you don't like this 'cotton wool' generation then it's up to you as the PARENT to change that. Kids need to be steered in the right direction.... Stop expecting 6/7 year olds to make the right decisions.

Kiwi in IE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, it isn't, and you know it. Iguana said it wasn't and then you replied to the post saying you gareed with it.

Go back and read Iguana's post and then my reply again. You seem confused.

Iguana said that allowing kids outside to play with their friends is not comparable to leaving a child alone in an apartment. I agree, it is not. When I bought up the McCann case however, I was not talking about children being allowed outside to play, I was reponding to another poster who had told the mother of a six year old that the child should be able to cross the Swords Road by himself to play unaccompanied in a park, and also that it is acceptable to allow a junior infant to walk a mile to school, accompanied only by a seven year old.

My point is that the above is comparable to leaving a child alone in an apartment, and if a parent did allow a six year old to cross a busy road to play unaccompanied in a park and something happened to the child, the very same people who accuse parents who wouldn't allow it of 'wrapping them in cotton wool', would be likely the very first to say 'where were the parents'.

gurramok

Love2love wrote: »

Ok I certainly don't think a 6 year old capable of crossing the Swords Road.

There is your problem right there and i'm very surprised no-one said it yet, you chose to live in a house beside a national primary route. Bad decision.

Move to one of the estates away from such a busy road and your child along with other kids can play in peace with a huge drop in risk from traffic.

iguana

When I was 7 and my brothers 4 and 8mo, we moved from an estate made up of culs de sac to a house on a main road. And it was fine, if anything we learned to be more respectful of roads. In a lot of ways I think quieter roads can be more dangerous as there was no way in hell that we would ever play on the road we lived on, therefore were not in danger of being knocked down. On the road we used to live on before that, or on the roads in estates many of our friends lived on, we played on the road all the time, or if we played on the green we barely thought twice about dashing onto the road for a ball or as part of a chasing game. But even though these roads were quiet they were still open roads and all it takes is one car while a child is being heedless due to a false sense of security to cause an accident. Or for a driver to drive too fast on a street where kids play on the road, which happens way too often.

Gambas

sweetsugar wrote: »

I agree withthe OP,

I got this poem about 10 years ago and it is so true and sad.
The kids of today don't have the same freedom as we did when we were young:(

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. ...

A bit like saying that you were in a plane crash and everyone else you've talked to who was ever in a plane crash also survived, therefore plane crashes are harmless.

I gave up after that first 'gem'.

OldNotWIse

gurramok wrote: »

There is your problem right there and i'm very surprised no-one said it yet, you chose to live in a house beside a national primary route. Bad decision.

Move to one of the estates away from such a busy road and your child along with other kids can play in peace with a huge drop in risk from traffic.

I think it a little unreasonable to suggest someone moves house so that their child can play on the street.

OldNotWIse

sweetsugar wrote: »

I agree withthe OP,

I got this poem about 10 years ago and it is so true and sad.
The kids of today don't have the same freedom as we did when we were young:(

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets,
not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because........................................WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Our houses did not have a zillion locks on them and there were no bars on the windows, bedroom were for sleeping in or studying or reading there was no TV in the room.
There was only one TV in the house and that was in the living room.
We ate dinner together as a family every night in the dinning area or room and if you were late for dinner you did not eat.
Friends were not allowed to call pass 9:00 p.m. and you had BETTER be home at your curfew or you got grounded which meant that you could not go play, or watch TV, or listen to music it WAS a punishment.
Parents did spank their kids and parents expected to be respected.
Your chores and homework had to be done BEFORE you could play, watch TV, listen to music or call your friends.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

Ahhhh! The Good Ole' Days!!!
__________________

These are the only two that I think are worth mentioning tbh

gurramok

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think it a little unreasonable to suggest someone moves house so that their child can play on the street.

Not really. A child cannot play on the M1.

OldNotWIse

gurramok wrote: »

Not really. A child cannot play on the M1.

I'm not advocating that the child plays on the M1

For all you know, poster could be in negative equity/behind on mortgage repayments. I just think its ridiculous to suggest a house move so that a child can play on the road. The upheaval, fees etc. It's like suggesting you cut off a leg because you have a broken toe.

Of course if one plans to have children, it's a bad idea to move somewhere like that but guess what. We're not all perfect, not everything is planned with military precision and there are families living in these places because they want a roof over their heads, and maybe couldnt afford somewhere in a leafy suburb with quiet roads.

gurramok

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not advocating that the child plays on the M1
.

Its rather simple. If one has kids, they need a place to play. That place should not be on the M1, this should have been factored into the buy\rent decision by the parents.

OldNotWIse

gurramok wrote: »

Its rather simple. If one has kids, they need a place to play. That place should not be on the M1, this should have been factored into the buy\rent decision by the parents.

It may be simple but obviously not to you. I think I already addressed the points in your post.

If one has kids they need a place to play - yes, but not everyone plans their life out with military precision and shock horror sometimes people have unplanned pregnancies. Life doesn't always work out the way we planned. There may also have been people who bought in this area during the boom, with the intention to upgrade to a more "child friendly" area once the kiddies came along but then the recession hit.

That place shoudl not be on the M1 - again, nobody is advocating letting children play on the M1 (cant believe I even had to clarify that once never mind twice), unless of course you think people living near the M1 shouldn't be allowed to have children.

This should have been factored into the buy/rent decision - see my first point. People aren't perfect.Life is not a piece of flat pack with an instruction manual.

WildWater

sweetsugar wrote: »

I agree withthe OP,

I got this poem about 10 years ago and it is so true and sad.
The kids of today don't have the same freedom as we did when we were young:(
...

Ahhhh! The Good Ole' Days!!!
__________________

The good ole' days ... my arse! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post this type of rose tinted bull. The only thing 'sad' about it is the 1000's of our compatriots that did not make it to adulthood!

"First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. "
But consider the infant mortality rates of the 40' 50' 60' and 70' compared to today:

In Ireland an average of 66 per 1000 births throughout the 40's.
Today that is 4 per 1000 births. Source


"Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints."
See infant mortality rates above plus "Classic epidemiological studies by Herbert Needleman and coworkers in the 1970’s demonstrated that children with blood lead levels even in this moderate range are more likely to have lower IQ scores and shortened attention spans than children with “baseline” blood lead levels." Source

"As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags."
Yes and in the 70's and 80's were were slaughtering ourselves on the roads:

Road fatalities (source)
1971: 640
2012: 162


So congratulations, you survived but many of our brothers, sisters, cousins and would be friends did not. Now that is sad! If you still think this era merits the title the 'Good old days' then I think you spent a little too long licking the lead paint on your crib.

OldNotWIse

WildWater wrote: »

The good ole' days ... my arse! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post this type of rose tinted bull. The only thing 'sad' about it is the 1000's of our compatriots that did not make it to adulthood!

"First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. "
But consider the infant mortality rates of the 40' 50' 60' and 70' compared to today:

In Ireland an average of 66 per 1000 births throughout the 40's.
Today that is 4 per 1000 births. Source


"Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints."
See infant mortality rates above plus "Classic epidemiological studies by Herbert Needleman and coworkers in the 1970’s demonstrated that children with blood lead levels even in this moderate range are more likely to have lower IQ scores and shortened attention spans than children with “baseline” blood lead levels." Source

"As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags."
Yes and in the 70's and 80's were were slaughtering ourselves on the roads:

Road fatalities (source)
1971: 640
2012: 162


So congratulations, you survived but many of our brothers, sisters, cousins and would be friends did not. Now that is sad! If you still think this era merits the title the 'Good old days' then I think you spent a little too long licking the lead paint on your crib.

MonaPizza

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think she said she had just moved into the area. And as it is currently July, he probably hasn't started at his new school yet.

I am not sure why you are nitpicking about it. From her posts she sounds like a sensible, responsible mother who has the normal fears all parents do, but is aware of them and the impact of over reacting to them. However suggesting that a 6 year old be allowed to cross a busy road alone to play in a park unsupervised, and that a junior infant be let walk a mile accompanied only by a seven year old is just plain daft, unsafe and irresponsible in my opinion. And probably the opinion of any other responsible parent of a six year old child.

Ah would you relax, I'm not nitpicking. I genuinely thought she hadn't put her kid into school yet. Most kids start in school in september of the year that they turn 5. Some start at 4 and turn 5 a few months later. Others are held back a year if it's felt they are not ready or if circumstances call for it. She could have moved into the area 6 months ago like in February or March and the kid wasn't enrolled in a school. That being the case I wouldn't expect him to have too many local friends either. So he's got mates where he is originally from and she has to drive him out to Dublin 4 to go to school. That's clear enough now.

But regarding a 6 year old walking to school unaccompanied by an adult....you're nuts if you think that it's daft. Take a walk along Griffith Avenue between 830 and 900 am or between 2:00 and 2:30pm .... you'll see scores of 6 year olds marching to or home from school in Marino by themselves. Sh1t, you'll even see many of them getting the bus.

MonaPizza

As a child of the 70's, everyone walked to school. The only ones who were accompanied by an adult were the really young ones (kindergartners, and some of the 5 year olds). After age 6 you wouldn't dare be taken to school by a parent for fear of being called a puff.

The only time it was ok to be accompanied home from school was if it was your tough-guy teenage cousin who was staying with you or your teenage sister and a few of her hot mates. Then you were cool.
This article in the UK Independent makes for good reading. The Germans still let their kids walk to school unaccompanied, but the Brits and the Irish have become poncy, flabby, mamma's boys and girls:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/only-25-per-cent-of-children-walk-to-school-alone-compared-to-86-per-cent-in-1971-what-went-wrong-8452266.html

MonaPizza

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think it a little unreasonable to suggest someone moves house so that their child can play on the street.

Well it is kinda relevant. It's like someone moving into a 6th floor apartment and then complaining that there's no garden for the kid to play in or the dog to take a piss in.

niallo27

Do kids still roll down hills these days, i used to love a good roll down a hill when i was younger.

MonaPizza

I really don't get it. People are talking about accompanying their kids to school past the age of 6. Christ me and 2 classmates went to the Gaeltacht by ourselves when we were 9 and 10. Took the train down from Hueston to Galway, granted with one teacher. Then we were offloaded to various families and left there for 3 weeks. We went to the beaches unaccompanied, tramped around the bogs when we weren't having Irish and Ceili dancing rammed down our throats....and guess what, at the end of it we took the train back to Dublin by ourselves. We didn't fall off the train or lose our suitcases or get off at Athlone never to be seen or heard of again.
Added bonus, the older girls (12, 13) used us as target practice for kissing as they were coming of age.

OldNotWIse

MonaPizza wrote: »

Well it is kinda relevant. It's like someone moving into a 6th floor apartment and then complaining that there's no garden for the kid to play in or the dog to take a piss in.

Telling someone to move house because they have nowhere for their children to play is nothing like moving into an apartment and then complaining...albeit it may be a response to the complaints. Did love2love move into a 6th floor apt and complain about nowhere for her kids to play? I thought (and I dont have the heart to trawl through all the posts) that she simply made the point that a child cannot safely cross the M1 or something (in, I assume, a response to a "let your child walk home/to the shop alone/1 minute ahead" or something?

Cantona's Collars

niallo27 wrote: »

Do kids still roll down hills these days, i used to love a good roll down a hill when i was younger.

No,they all have allergies and hayfever and aren't allowed to partake in such dangerous activities.
We used to climb into tractor tyres and roll down hills,this was in a town so nobody can whine about "nothing like that for us urban folk".

My local "cotton wool kid" made his 10 minute outdoor supervised appearance the other day covered in factor 50 and unable to move outside a 10 foot perimiter near his dad.If I heard "don't touch that,don't go there,come over here" once,I heard it 20 times,the poor fukker has no chance in later life if this is how he's starting out.My young lad and all the other neighbours kids were having a ball yet "cotton wool kid" hadn't a clue how to interact,let alone go and have fun.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Go back and read Iguana's post and then my reply again. You seem confused.

iguana wrote: »

There is a massive difference between allowing a 6 year old out to play with his/her friends and leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment at night. One is done in order to allow your child fun with their peers, it's of huge benefit to the child in terms of socialisation and learning to enjoy a little independence and the responsibilities that come with it. The other has no benefit to the toddlers at all and is only done for the benefit of the parents. Totally incomparable.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree with the above. However we were not talking about simply letting a child outside to play with friends. Someone suggested earlier to the parent of a six year old that they should allow their child to cross a busy Dublin road alone to play in a park unaccompanied. The same person also thought it acceptable that a junior infant should walk a mile to school accompanied only by a 7 year old. I think that is comparable.

Why are the McCanns even beign mentioned? If you want to berate someoen for letting their kids across a busy street unspervised, fine. But if you wnt to compare it to a news story, pick an accurate one.