People over 35 should be DEAD...

When I was a kid I was always outside. Even if it was raining, my friends and I would find shelter under something or other. I also remember the frozen pants in the winter. We built snow men, snow women and made countless snow angels in the snow. I'd spend hours shoveling neighbors driveways for a dollar.
And of course in the summer we always had something to do. As long as we were in the yard by the time it got dark, we were good to go until we were called inside when it was time to get ready for bed.
Times sure have changed. My son rarely goes outside because he says it's too cold, too hot, or there isn't anything to do. We have 5 acres of land and I would have been in my glory with all this room to play when I was a kid.
I do get my son outside sometimes to mow the lawn. He likes mowing the lawn, but then all he has to do is sit on the lawn tractor and drive, lol.

The memories are countless. And seemingly universal.

I use to love roller skating. The four wheeled kind. Skating became hip again back in the 70's and it was cool to hang out at the rink. There was a Midnight Ramble skate party every Friday and Saturday night and my girlfriends and I went often. I loved to skate.

Not far from here there's a rink and I hear the ads on the radio for an adult 'old-school' skate party. I'm tempted to go but I haven't been on skates in twenty-five years!!

I could never stand on roller skates with 4 wheels for some reason, but I was always ice skating. I wish they had roller blades back then. I would have loved those.

The percentage of households with children is shrinking. There's only one boy close to my son's age on our block. If I want him to play with other kids during the summer, I have to enroll him in activities. He's not scheduled every single week (but most), and many of the weeks he only has an activity for 2-3 hours, with the rest of his day free.

I try to vary the activities. This summer he has Scout camp, an outdoor day camp, theater day camp, swimming lessons, art classes and a VBS. During the evenings, he's keeping up with twice-weekly karate lessons & piano lessons. When he has free weeks, we go to the library, museums, and he plays around the house. The problem is, left on his own he would play video games, computer games & his GameBoy non-stop. I can't imagine letting him do that for 3 straight months. And he's an only kid, so when he's here, I have to be the playmate. Only so much of that I can take, and I have work to do, too!

That is SO wierd! I tried ice skating exactly once and spent the majority of the time flat out on the ice. I could not stand up on those damn things and finally gave up.

LOL! It's funny how different we all are. A lot of my friends went roller skating, so I did feel a bit left out, but both my brother and I liked ice skating, so that was our weekend thing all winter long.

I dont ever see kids playing outside anymore, except for on enclosed playgrounds with vigilant parents nearby ... well, here, downtown, I guess thats logical, but it was true in the (leafier) neighbourhood I lived in before too.

I was a nerdy kid, half the time reading books by the heater or playing with toy racing cyclists or enacting entire soccer games on the floor with pictures of Ajax and Feyenoord players that I'd cut out of the newspaper ... but even I was often outside, too, looking around for other kids to play ball with. Where'd all these kids go? Is being out on the street really that much more dangerous now, or is it also that we have become more fearful?

Generation before mine, parents had 4, 5 kids, couldnt possibly keep an eye on all of them all the time, so as often as not - "go out and play!". Now, when families often just have the one kid, he's got to be perfect, and nothing can ever be allowed to go wrong ... so, perhaps Suzy's right, less accidents occur, but you gotta wonder what kind of adults we're raising here?

When i was a child, one was automatically assumed to be responsible for the welfare of any nearby children who were younger or smaller than i. That seemed to be pretty much the rule in town, and little notice was taken of bruises and bloody noses and afternoon tears . . . serious events were treated seriously, and adults would interrogate all the children present about what had occurred.

Perhaps what we've lost is community . . .

Yep on the community thing. Very much so. I first posited this a few years ago on Abuzz, I think, I swear it's gonna happen sometime -- planned kid-centric communities. Where all those families who want to be able to shoo their kids out the door and say "PLAY!" will know that there are like-minded people and actual kids out there.

I'm the same generation as nimh, I spent my childhood with a bunch of kids in the neighborhood -- I have much more vivid memories of them than of my parents, actually. Building treehouses, building forts of every stripe, bike riding, doing tricks on bikes, etc., etc. The group usually ranged in age from very young to early teens, and, again, there was always an expectation of moms being around, lots of them -- if someone did get hurt, we just knocked on the nearest mom's-home door.

Again to the vicious cycle thing, though, it's much, much different to send your kid out to play with a bunch of other kids, that sort of support system and safety net, than to send your kid out to play ALL ALONE. We know someone whose child was playing in her own yard (the girl was 3 or so), went to check on her, couldn't find her, started running around frantically, asked a neighbor if she'd seen her, and was told, yes, the girl had been walking down the street holding the hand of a man. Police were called immediately, stuff happened fast, and she was found at the man's house before anything had happened -- a sex offender.

So, that's one degree of separation. I know these people. I just had a huge debate with my husband about letting sozlet play outside when I don't have my eye on her. He said he didn't want me to let her out of my sight. I said that's not realistic, and not the way I want to live. That said, I checked all of the registered sex offenders in the city before we even bought this house. (None nearby.)

I would love to turn sozlet loose, and part of why I like this neighborhood is there are lots of kids out playing on their own. Older kids, not in our immediate area, but they're there and seem comfortable.

Anyway -- this is rambling a bit -- I think there is a positive feedback loop, vicious cycle, whatever you want to call it. I do agree with nimh to a point that people could trade some accroutements for more time, but there are so many complications. For example, as Eva alluded to before, it's just psychologically difficult to be a stay-at-home parent. It is in many ways easier and more rewarding emotionally to be working. It can't be simplified to materialism.

I think we're still adjusting to the big shift in women entering the workforce 30 years ago or whenever it is, and a lot of things haven't reached equilibrium yet.

Actually, i surmise that the "women entering the work force" thing is a ruse of a kind, although i don't contend that its deliberate effort on anyone's part (conspiracy theory disclaimer). I'd think rather in terms of "re-entering" the work force. I think stay-at-home mom's like Betty Friedan were a product of the "they'll have it better than i did" attitude that children of the 50's are so familiar with from their Dubya-Dubya Two fathers. Before the relative affluence of first the 1920's, and then the 1950's, most families could not have afforded for the woman not to work. That might be taking in laundry, or doing piece work at home, but as often as not, it might have involved factory work or entering domestic service. I'd say that it's possible that latch-key children and the lonely child in a deserted vacant lot are as old as cities are themselves.

Well . . . do-oh ! ! !

Of course, we live in the era when children no longer routinely work in most families . . . sorry, brain's not so well engaged right now.

I'm wondering ... OK, couple of things, I'm going to give up on trying to put them together coherently:

- when I said, why dont we trade in some material wealth for time, I didnt necessarily mean that you need to have one full-time stay-at-home parent. One of the parents working part-time already makes a difference ... both working part-time might be even better ... But I meant it more generally still, namely, about all this stuff ...

One works to be able to afford those, what, professionally organised birthday parties ( ), a thousand and one extra-curricular activities for one's children and oneself (classes, lessons and what not), two holidays abroad a year (aborad here is close, but still) - and, well, all kinds of organised spending of time. Skip some of 'em, forget about the Joneses (or live somewhere where the Joneses aren't so very Jones) - and one (and one's kids) already have lots more time to just while away - alone or together - no?

- of course, when a parent stays at home, it doesnt need to be the woman ... my sister and her man both work part-time. She works three days a week, he works something like four afternoons and two evenings ...

but then, he's a musician/music teacher. Easier to do when you're a musician, earning some extra teaching classes, then when you're an accountant.

- Though again, in holland many more people work part-time than in the US. Its one of those things strict economists always complain about: productivity is so low! Fine, productivity is perhaps lower, but we have a lot fewer parents both running around 50 hours a week ... its perhaps worth it. You still dont have many men working part-time, its true (tho I know a couple), and all these women working part-time are correlated to a still very much intact glass celing and all that - but legally, for example, the "post-pregnancy parental leave" or whatever its called is now gender-neutral, so a man has the right to take it too (and some do).

- Then again, its probably another vicious cycle ... more people here work part-time, but then its probably easier to find part-time jobs here than in the States, I would guess - perhaps there's simply few being offered over there. But then again, the only reason they are being offered more here is cause there's so many people only willing to work part-time.

- yes about the other examples of feedback/cycle, too ... if all the parents in the neighbourhood have to both work full-time (either because thats the only way they can afford to live the way they need (or want) to live, or because they want to work some, in any case, and there's only full-time jobs available) -- then by necessity the kids are all driven around to pre-arranged organised activities (in daycare or whereever) -- thus, even if you are at home with your kid, there's noone outside for him to go play with ...

<sighs> the more you think about it, the more complicated / hopeless it seems to become ... its like we're all on a train somewhere we dont necessarily want to be going, but there doesnt seem to be another place to go to if we insist on a few things we do insist on having/doing ...

But then, we have that a lot, when it comes to the socio-economic stuff, dont we? In surveys, everyone laments the demise of the welfare state - to what **** health care, education, old age people's care etc is degrading - but we seem to be trapped in a system where "economic necessity" and "the health of our economy" and "not falling behind [in our case, America]" perpetually necessitates breaking such stuff down even further ... who is driving this train? Why do we believe him?

I come from a "part-time working" family: my mom and my sister work part-time. Very convenient. Two, three, four days a week. Thumbs up for part-time working!

Great discussion! What do you guys think of this?

My husband's childhood friend has two children, ages 2 and "new." Her mother watches both kids 24/7 (not 40 hours a week, Lori has to have her "downtime" on the weekends so the kids seldom are at her house, they're at Grandma's so Lori and her husband can have dinner parties on the weekend and entertain their pre-parenthood friends.) Mom gets paid nothing and just does it "so she can spend time with the kids." Occasionally her daughter brings over a plant or something to say "thanks for raising my kids" I guess. Mind you, this is Mom's choice, no one is making her do this against her will and she never complains.

Meanwhile Lori and her husband live in a $500,000+ home, each have a Mercedes Benz, travel extensively (without the children,) yadda yadda yadda.

Hey, to each his own, but from my perspective - WHAT'S THE POINT? If you don't want to be a parent that's fine but, DON'T HAVE KIDS. I keep thinking that some day these kids are going to wonder why their parents were so disinterested in them growing up and why they technically "lived" with Grandma. Just not good for the self-esteem IMO.

What do you think?

Are you saying that the grandmother keeps these kids everyday?

I wish I could work part time! But I don't have any kids at home now and I still have to pay the rent.
Around here, you don't get health insurance coverage or any kind of pension for part-time work, though. A single mother has little choice. She cannot choose to work part time and assume the government won't mind subsidizing everything else, because the government does mind. We've cut welfare benefits down to like 2 years. After that, any mother not working is considered lazy, shiftless, etc. I personally don't mind paying taxes for a welfare-state situation which allows mothers to be at home with their children. This had been debated in America for a time but of course will never happen, because it's not really one of our values, despite what is said!
On the other hand, as I said, I didn't work when my kids were growing up, but went to college when my youngest was 12, then got a job upon my graduation 5 years later. But my kids never had a pool, never had a vacation (all of their cousins have been to Disney umpteen times) never had the $80 sneakers all the other kids had, never had a home computer, etc. I felt bad about that, but now I see that they never complained about things like that, never seem to have felt left out (except regarding the sneakers) and they are all fine and self-sufficient young men. I feel that I actually had an advantage entering the workforce more than 15 years later than others of my "status", except in regards to pension accruement and vacation time.

SueZCue, I think that's too bad. I agree, why have kids if you never want them around? They are fortunate to have a loving grandmother, at least, and I'm sure their parents are putting money away so they can go to college, anyway, so at least they'll get something of substance from those parents.

I was posting this right after Set's post when A2K went down last night (I didn't do it!!)

____

Interesting point, though. I agree that "entering the workforce" is a bit of a misnomer, and has to do with general shifts away from agrarian society, too -- the farm wife certainly worked just as hard as the farm husband (and, as you say, the farm children as soon as they were able), but it was not a situation that required daycare. Everyone was home.

So it is two different components -- working away from home, and women working. Women working at home -- not an issue, especially when the work could take place in and around where the children were. (Rather than for example sitting in front of a computer and "concentrating.") Women working out of the home, more of an issue.

Let me hasten to say that while there is a bit of live by the sword die by the sword to all of this, I am not at all against women entering the away-from-home workforce -- not sure what would be required for equilibrium. Would probably include more stay-at-home dads, or more families with two parents that each have part-time jobs.

____

Will just post that, then get to responses since I composed that...

Oh, A2K went down last night?
Whew! I thought my computer was acting up!

SuZCue, yikes! I definitely have pangs of that too when I see less extreme situations -- if the kids are such a "bother", why have them at all?



Yes and no. I find the number of hours worked to be more of an issue than the amount of money earned per hour. I totally agree with what you're saying about keeping up with the Joneses, but the point I'm trying to make (that I think you actually get, we're just placing different emphases) is that the cog I have been talking about is having a parent home and available. That when parents are home, kids are home. When kids are home, the kids are out playing. When some kids are out playing, more kids can be out playing. Etc.

And of course the converse.

So that's the main point I was making. How that one cog -- not having kids be at home -- impacts the rest of what we are talking about. That is true whether parents are just scrounging together the minimum to survive -- and that is part of the women entering the workforce thing, that it is the rare family that can make do on one salary now -- or whether they are making enough for their two BMWs et al. (And yes, I can't stand the professionally organized parties yadda yadda.)

Aw, you already addressed this stuff in the rest of your post. I don't feel like erasing what I just wrote, though.



There seem to be a lot of mini-movements that will hopefully sometime coalesce into something substantial. There is the increase (slight) of stay-at-home dads, which I wholly approve of. The dot-com businesses were often great about offering benefits to parents -- a lot of them didn't last, but the idea was planted -- hey, this can be done, I loved it, why don't more businesses do it?

I dunno, as I start to go towards my next career phase -- sozlet's gonna start preschool in the fall, just 7.5 hrs a week but that's something -- some sort of activism in this arena might be one of the things I pursue, as it's something I've thought about a lot.

Soz, you mentioned the psychological difficulty of being a stay-at-home parent. You're right, but there is more to it. You will find yourself spending less hours with sozlet as she grows. Kids become more and more independent, and more and more focused on their peers as opposed to their parents. This is all good and natural, but can make for an uncomfortable transition for parents who enjoy spending time with their kids.

At the age of 10, my son doesn't WANT to play with me all day. First of all, I'm a "girl." 'Nuf said! Second, I'm not fascinated by videogames and Yu-Gi-Oh cards like all the boys his age are. He talks about them 24/7.

Don't get me wrong...we are very close, and there are lots of hugs & kisses. It's just that 10 yr. old boys and (almost!) 50 yr. old women don't always have a lot in common.

Make the most of your years with sozlet while she still wants so much of your company. The day is coming when she will develop more outside interests, and you will have to return to more interests of your own. There is nothing sadder than a parent who clings to their child's interests and lives life through them.