I'd like data showing that the most politically progressive do more helicopter parenting than those of other political perspectives with comparable education and income.
We have a 7, 4, and 1 year old. We are thankfully parenting in an age in which there is much research on the benefits of letting kids resolve conflicts and play on their own, so we've tried to do that. But man, the pressure from other parents to intervene, to hyper-schedule, to make sure everyone else knows that you are trying to parent—the pressure is incredible. I tend to think most parents would gladly let their children have more independence and room; it's the shame they're implicitly threatened with that prevents it.
When my wife and I were entering the child-raising years, we were really uncomfortable watching this tendency unfold among our friends. All these "Baby Einstein" and sign-language learning videos were the rage, and they were part of a larger project of trying to engineer an advanced kid. Even then I shuddered at what would become of these poor children. Even now, I have friends who have kids in grad school and they are always looking at their offspring's location on their phones. Horrifying. And as an aside, I always thought that much of the sign-language learning products allure was pure self-interest. It did not come from a place of trying to serve the Deaf community, primarily anyway. It was about social distinction and this idea that it would make their kid linguistically smarter.
In my experience, the most intense helicopter parents appear to be over-educated stay at home parents (where I live, that is usually a mom). To give up career ambitions after all the investment in grad school etc naturally creates a drive toward overactive parenting and a hyper focus on kids. Plus, that competitive, striving mindset doesn't just get turned off. This is ratcheted up to a whole other level when competitive pre-school, grade school, high school is part of the equation.
And I get it. When one of my kids fail, or are treated unfairly, it is really hard to not step in and try to fix the problem.
Stepping back, the word "parenting" shows the problem. I'm never "husbanding" or "brothering" as those relationships are understood to be part of being in a family. I strive to be a good parent while avoiding parenting.
Honestly, as a manager, it’s depressing to see people who were raised in the helicopter milieu coming into the workforce. I value independent, critical thinking candidates and it’s getting tougher to find them.
Helicopter parenting has knock-off effects that last far beyond K-12 and I wish parents could see that.
I'm 61 and my parents were laissez faire about my grades. In fact, my father once asked my headmaster why I was getting good grades without seeming to do much homework.
There are two different thought streams in your essay and I want to distinguish them as the differences can be subtle.
1) There's over-parenting that deprives children of resilience and agency.
2) Then there's providing children with the benefits of your social capital (your network) and financial capital.
Done the wrong way at the wrong age, 2) can have the same effect as 1). But done the right way and at the right age, 2) can be helpful rather than harmful to your children.
Both 1) and 2) are selfish, but it is the rare privileged parent who wouldn't provide 2) in some form.
I'm interested in the implicit difference in what Freddie talks about between "helicopter parenting" and other forms of extremely overbearing parenting. When I grew up I associated it with conservative and especially fundamentalist parents, motivated by (1) worrying constantly about their kid's moral status and (2) worrying about how they looked to other churchgoers. I remember a fifteen-year-old girl on my block whose parents yanked her out of public school and put her in a Baptist private school mid-year because she'd been caught dating. Other kids I knew weren't allowed to have bedroom doors because their parents' version of Christianity taught that kids would use privacy only for sin. Pastors' kids had it the worst.
I recognize how this is different from what Freddie's describing - it's authoritarian rather than killing with kindness. But I am interested in how very progressive parents ended up similarly overbearing. (I also do not think this is limited to very progressive parents - I know plenty of normies who have those GPS trackers on their phones and follow their kids' movements from work all day.)
I wonder if it's because, like fundamentalists whose life is their church, people who have strong ideological alignment with their social circles also worry about their standing with the other parents in that community.
The school parent portals send out emails and text messages with every missed assignment. The schools are sending out the negative report, nudging parents to correct their kids behavior.
That triggers some helicoptering.
Growth comes through opposition and failure. It is very difficult to let one's child get hurt but it is necessary.
Haidt claims that the reduction in family size plays a role. With 10 kids, you might have a few screw ups, but some will do good.
God it's so sad. I also had the "go out in the morning and come back at night" early childhood, I have friends who are well aware of the pitfalls of helicopter parenting, but they're scared to leave their kids alone, in part because people drive giant tanks and drivers don't expect little people to be roaming around by themselves. It's all just sad! You never see bands of kids running around playing by themselves unless they're late-age teens. You almost never see kids climbing trees and if they are there's an adult below them literally holding their hands out if they fall. It's also this fucked up culture where strangers NEVER interact with other people's kids. Part of what made "go out all day by yourself" possible is that other adults like neighbors etc. were watching you for outrageous misbehavior or dangerous situations. And I wonder how class plays into it. Because it's not just ridiculous bougie parents, you don't see kids in poorer neighborhoods out playing alone...
As someone who's been a dad for a couple years now, I don't disagree with any of this, and I certainly don't plan to hit this level of helicopter parenting at any point. But the one thing I think is missing is how difficult it is to let your child be upset and uncomfortable in the moment. It's absolutely true that kids need to sit with discomfort sometimes and deal with it, but the benefits of resilience are always going to be an abstraction on some level; it's always going to be something you understand but don't feel, whereas the feeling of your child being upset is so, so visceral. I'm a vaguely-robotic autist and I still struggle with it all the time.
I have so much to say about this. Prefatory throat-clearing: I am decidedly not a helicopter parent; I try to parent much as I was parented, with some patches. My girls are 19 and 17, and both have commented positively on the amount of freedom I allow/ed.
First, this "helicopter parenting" is, by and large, a rich urban/suburban problem. We brought up the girls for most of their lives in a middle-income rural Minnesota community, and intense helicoptering just is not seen there. This is, almost exclusively, a professional-managerial class (and above) problem. In fact, it's infuriating to see commentators say that the problem with this generation is the lack of play or the lack of freedom without realizing that this is only a problem in their bubble, and can't really be held responsible for broader issues.
Second, the fact that this is a PMC issue points us to the real problem. It's really an escalation spiral arising from a competition for finite resources. We moved to a nice rich suburban school district in the last couple of years, in part to help prepare my youngest for college. (Well, that was the excuse. Long story.) The amount of helicoptering here, of course, is bewildering. But the problem is that, in the short term, it gets results. More helicoptering helps get that GPA just a little higher than the other person's. It helps their college resume just a little bit more. And so they have a chance of scoring that big Ivy education or whatever that the other guy lacks. Never mind that it can cripple kids socially or in their employment--in the short term, it makes a difference. We can always fix problems on the back end.
And as a parent, watching these others get ahead feels TERRIBLE. It's not that you are worried how you look in the eyes of other parents; it's that you're terrified in your own eyes that you haven't done enough for your own child. I can tell myself to "trust the process" as much as I want, but it's really hard to look in the mirror and worry that you haven't done enough to put your kid in the best position to succeed relative to all these other overachievers.
All that said: I've withstood the temptation and haven't changed my behavior that much. (The somewhat spendy ACT tutor aside, but even that was only a couple sessions.) And when my eldest reports back from college on how well-adjusted she is compared to a lot of her peers, I feel like I'm doing the right thing. But it's not easy to remember.
You nailed it: the perception that to parent *best* is to parent the *most*.
I think there’s also a micro/macro issue. Any individual act of helicopter parenting seems entirely reasonable on its own. It’s only the larger pattern that is problematic.
And there is enormous social pressure focused on the micro, but not the macro. Witness the brutal criticism of John Roderick, a.k.a. Bean Dad.
Social pressure against macro helicopter parenting skews abstract, with every individual denying they have an overall problem.
i've always thought genx was a social pox. their inability to affect the over glamorized 60s counter culture led to overcompensation in many areas, not the least of which their children. academics, sports, politics. they live vicariously through their kids to their kid detriment.
Having a 14 year old, I am in the midst of this whole thing. It frustrates me that we are guilty of some helicopter parenting, especially since when I was a kid, my parents had no idea what I was doing in school.
They'd see my report card at the end of the quarter, and say "good job". If I got in trouble with a teacher, my father would take the teacher's side. Appealing to him was useless; I had to work it out with the teacher.
So, I know that approach worked for me and my brothers and sisters. And it worked for all of my friends and other parents I know. But we still do it.
Fortunately, the schools he's been in actively push back against the worst behavior (he's been in Catholic schools since the 3rd grade), so he's gained a lot of independence because of that.
My son is going to be fine - he likes school, he has friends, he plays sports, and he wants to move out when he's 18 (but he still has to learn to make a sandwich - this is the part of the helicopter parenting that we haven't shaken yet).
I'd like data showing that the most politically progressive do more helicopter parenting than those of other political perspectives with comparable education and income.
We have a 7, 4, and 1 year old. We are thankfully parenting in an age in which there is much research on the benefits of letting kids resolve conflicts and play on their own, so we've tried to do that. But man, the pressure from other parents to intervene, to hyper-schedule, to make sure everyone else knows that you are trying to parent—the pressure is incredible. I tend to think most parents would gladly let their children have more independence and room; it's the shame they're implicitly threatened with that prevents it.
When my wife and I were entering the child-raising years, we were really uncomfortable watching this tendency unfold among our friends. All these "Baby Einstein" and sign-language learning videos were the rage, and they were part of a larger project of trying to engineer an advanced kid. Even then I shuddered at what would become of these poor children. Even now, I have friends who have kids in grad school and they are always looking at their offspring's location on their phones. Horrifying. And as an aside, I always thought that much of the sign-language learning products allure was pure self-interest. It did not come from a place of trying to serve the Deaf community, primarily anyway. It was about social distinction and this idea that it would make their kid linguistically smarter.
In my experience, the most intense helicopter parents appear to be over-educated stay at home parents (where I live, that is usually a mom). To give up career ambitions after all the investment in grad school etc naturally creates a drive toward overactive parenting and a hyper focus on kids. Plus, that competitive, striving mindset doesn't just get turned off. This is ratcheted up to a whole other level when competitive pre-school, grade school, high school is part of the equation.
And I get it. When one of my kids fail, or are treated unfairly, it is really hard to not step in and try to fix the problem.
Stepping back, the word "parenting" shows the problem. I'm never "husbanding" or "brothering" as those relationships are understood to be part of being in a family. I strive to be a good parent while avoiding parenting.
Honestly, as a manager, it’s depressing to see people who were raised in the helicopter milieu coming into the workforce. I value independent, critical thinking candidates and it’s getting tougher to find them.
Helicopter parenting has knock-off effects that last far beyond K-12 and I wish parents could see that.
Great post.
I'm 61 and my parents were laissez faire about my grades. In fact, my father once asked my headmaster why I was getting good grades without seeming to do much homework.
There are two different thought streams in your essay and I want to distinguish them as the differences can be subtle.
1) There's over-parenting that deprives children of resilience and agency.
2) Then there's providing children with the benefits of your social capital (your network) and financial capital.
Done the wrong way at the wrong age, 2) can have the same effect as 1). But done the right way and at the right age, 2) can be helpful rather than harmful to your children.
Both 1) and 2) are selfish, but it is the rare privileged parent who wouldn't provide 2) in some form.
please tell your agent I would pre-order your book
I'm interested in the implicit difference in what Freddie talks about between "helicopter parenting" and other forms of extremely overbearing parenting. When I grew up I associated it with conservative and especially fundamentalist parents, motivated by (1) worrying constantly about their kid's moral status and (2) worrying about how they looked to other churchgoers. I remember a fifteen-year-old girl on my block whose parents yanked her out of public school and put her in a Baptist private school mid-year because she'd been caught dating. Other kids I knew weren't allowed to have bedroom doors because their parents' version of Christianity taught that kids would use privacy only for sin. Pastors' kids had it the worst.
I recognize how this is different from what Freddie's describing - it's authoritarian rather than killing with kindness. But I am interested in how very progressive parents ended up similarly overbearing. (I also do not think this is limited to very progressive parents - I know plenty of normies who have those GPS trackers on their phones and follow their kids' movements from work all day.)
I wonder if it's because, like fundamentalists whose life is their church, people who have strong ideological alignment with their social circles also worry about their standing with the other parents in that community.
The school parent portals send out emails and text messages with every missed assignment. The schools are sending out the negative report, nudging parents to correct their kids behavior.
That triggers some helicoptering.
Growth comes through opposition and failure. It is very difficult to let one's child get hurt but it is necessary.
Haidt claims that the reduction in family size plays a role. With 10 kids, you might have a few screw ups, but some will do good.
God it's so sad. I also had the "go out in the morning and come back at night" early childhood, I have friends who are well aware of the pitfalls of helicopter parenting, but they're scared to leave their kids alone, in part because people drive giant tanks and drivers don't expect little people to be roaming around by themselves. It's all just sad! You never see bands of kids running around playing by themselves unless they're late-age teens. You almost never see kids climbing trees and if they are there's an adult below them literally holding their hands out if they fall. It's also this fucked up culture where strangers NEVER interact with other people's kids. Part of what made "go out all day by yourself" possible is that other adults like neighbors etc. were watching you for outrageous misbehavior or dangerous situations. And I wonder how class plays into it. Because it's not just ridiculous bougie parents, you don't see kids in poorer neighborhoods out playing alone...
As someone who's been a dad for a couple years now, I don't disagree with any of this, and I certainly don't plan to hit this level of helicopter parenting at any point. But the one thing I think is missing is how difficult it is to let your child be upset and uncomfortable in the moment. It's absolutely true that kids need to sit with discomfort sometimes and deal with it, but the benefits of resilience are always going to be an abstraction on some level; it's always going to be something you understand but don't feel, whereas the feeling of your child being upset is so, so visceral. I'm a vaguely-robotic autist and I still struggle with it all the time.
I have so much to say about this. Prefatory throat-clearing: I am decidedly not a helicopter parent; I try to parent much as I was parented, with some patches. My girls are 19 and 17, and both have commented positively on the amount of freedom I allow/ed.
First, this "helicopter parenting" is, by and large, a rich urban/suburban problem. We brought up the girls for most of their lives in a middle-income rural Minnesota community, and intense helicoptering just is not seen there. This is, almost exclusively, a professional-managerial class (and above) problem. In fact, it's infuriating to see commentators say that the problem with this generation is the lack of play or the lack of freedom without realizing that this is only a problem in their bubble, and can't really be held responsible for broader issues.
Second, the fact that this is a PMC issue points us to the real problem. It's really an escalation spiral arising from a competition for finite resources. We moved to a nice rich suburban school district in the last couple of years, in part to help prepare my youngest for college. (Well, that was the excuse. Long story.) The amount of helicoptering here, of course, is bewildering. But the problem is that, in the short term, it gets results. More helicoptering helps get that GPA just a little higher than the other person's. It helps their college resume just a little bit more. And so they have a chance of scoring that big Ivy education or whatever that the other guy lacks. Never mind that it can cripple kids socially or in their employment--in the short term, it makes a difference. We can always fix problems on the back end.
And as a parent, watching these others get ahead feels TERRIBLE. It's not that you are worried how you look in the eyes of other parents; it's that you're terrified in your own eyes that you haven't done enough for your own child. I can tell myself to "trust the process" as much as I want, but it's really hard to look in the mirror and worry that you haven't done enough to put your kid in the best position to succeed relative to all these other overachievers.
All that said: I've withstood the temptation and haven't changed my behavior that much. (The somewhat spendy ACT tutor aside, but even that was only a couple sessions.) And when my eldest reports back from college on how well-adjusted she is compared to a lot of her peers, I feel like I'm doing the right thing. But it's not easy to remember.
You nailed it: the perception that to parent *best* is to parent the *most*.
I think there’s also a micro/macro issue. Any individual act of helicopter parenting seems entirely reasonable on its own. It’s only the larger pattern that is problematic.
And there is enormous social pressure focused on the micro, but not the macro. Witness the brutal criticism of John Roderick, a.k.a. Bean Dad.
Social pressure against macro helicopter parenting skews abstract, with every individual denying they have an overall problem.
i've always thought genx was a social pox. their inability to affect the over glamorized 60s counter culture led to overcompensation in many areas, not the least of which their children. academics, sports, politics. they live vicariously through their kids to their kid detriment.
Having a 14 year old, I am in the midst of this whole thing. It frustrates me that we are guilty of some helicopter parenting, especially since when I was a kid, my parents had no idea what I was doing in school.
They'd see my report card at the end of the quarter, and say "good job". If I got in trouble with a teacher, my father would take the teacher's side. Appealing to him was useless; I had to work it out with the teacher.
So, I know that approach worked for me and my brothers and sisters. And it worked for all of my friends and other parents I know. But we still do it.
Fortunately, the schools he's been in actively push back against the worst behavior (he's been in Catholic schools since the 3rd grade), so he's gained a lot of independence because of that.
My son is going to be fine - he likes school, he has friends, he plays sports, and he wants to move out when he's 18 (but he still has to learn to make a sandwich - this is the part of the helicopter parenting that we haven't shaken yet).