I think all this helicopter hovering is a result of moms of today not being around their kids enough. Such parents don't have a confident grasp of the competency of their kids in different situations. I know very few stay at home moms who have to hover. They know their kids so well, and how they interact under different situations, and feel like they have put in so much parenting time, that more hovering is simply a waste of time, and not done. If a parent feels like they have done an adequate job parenting, then unless the circumstances are unusual (kids with severe disabilities that need special attention from knowledgeable adults) there is no motivation to hover. It is the stressed out parents that never quite had the time to spend with their kids that continue to hover. If parents spend their lives planning out their kids lives: playdates, camps, activities,etc... rather than allow their kids to develop their own lives, then those parents will continue to plan out their kids lives...forever. If parents raise their kids to be independent, with an internal sense control rather than controled by their parents, with an external sense of control, then parents will have no reason to hover. Such parents will be confident in the competency of their kids.

Really, A1Mama? It's all the fault of working mothers? Of course, it is. They're responsible for all of society's ills, right? 

My experience has been quite the opposite. It's the Stay-At-Home moms around me who are insane with preoccupation over their children, especially the ones with college educations who decided to quit their careers and rechannel all of their energy into raising the perfect child. And for them that includes being involved in every banal moment of their children's lives. 

Have you read on this very site all the hand-wringing that goes on about little Johnny's potty training woes or Suzie's refusal to share her toy at a recent playdate?

The most sane parents I've met are the ones who, at the very least, work part-time or nurture some kind of life outside of their children, such as a consistent commitment to charity work. They are the least likely to micromanage, the most likely to allow their children to experience natural consequences, and most of all, they appreciate and relish their time with their kids when they're not working.

Whoa, eripley! Let's not get the tar and feathers out just yet. This is not A1Mama writing though, this is her teenage daughter who occasionally uses her account (but with her permission and I always say that it's me and not my mom in my comments.) I'm sure that their are moms that hover who come from all backgrounds, be it stay at home or working. However, in my experience, it is the moms who have the worst relationship with their kids who have the most problems with hovering. In my opinion, this stems from the fact that these parents do not know their kids well enough to trust them with the independence that they need for proper development. This can come from either a stay at home or a working parent. The hovering is merely a manifestation of far deeper problems of miscommunication (though not always verbal) between the parent and the child. This is more commonly the case for older children though. In younger children, the helicopter parent is merely an inexperienced parent who has not got it all figured out yet. I think that as the kids grow up, so do the parents and it is only when there are other relationship problems that the hovering continues. Another intersting viewpoint on the 'helicopter parent' phenominon can be found at http://www.onteenstoday.com/2008/06/19/10-qualities-of-teacup-parenting-... This website gives opinions on teen parenting from the viewpoint of teenagers and has a lot of interesting points on many aspects of parenting.

A1Mama's teen daughter,

You are wise beyond your years. And, of course, I agree with you that overparenting culprits are both stay-at-home moms/dads, as well as working parents.

I just get sooooo tired of folks blaming everything on working moms. Many of us are just as competent at parenting as people who prefer being home all day with their kids. We know our kids just as well. We love our kids just as much. Stop being working-mom haters.

That said, I do apologize to your mom for being sarcastic in my previous post.

Whether you feel you're a better parent because you work or because you stay home fulltime, the key is to know thyself and do what's best for your family.

All stay-at-home mothering comments are not from working mom haters, or even stay-at-home moms. Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to both situations, and people who will prefer, shine, or crash and burn in either. Another hovering article from usa today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/06/parents-quit-th.html

not unique, since the media is full of them, but yet another take.

wow, I like my daughter's comment! Sorry, had to say that. A little positive reinforcement, ya know. But being the mom that I am, I note the spelling needs a bit of work. (you know the ol' bait and switch routine: boost the kid's confidence with compliments, then slip in the critique.) When I taught sixth graders, they fell for the routine everytime, but my spouse has gotten too wise. Whenever I give him a compliment, he immediately says, "yes, and what is the "but.." I digress, sorry. Back to hovering. One parent calls himself a "hang gliding parent" to cut off the negative connotations. Is it possible to be extremely successful without being obsessive? At child rearing or anything ?--- sports, fitness, career, life? I hope so.

But really, this is not about staying at home versus working outside the home. The reason the media keeps coming back to the issue of helicopter parents is because we're in the midst of a social epidemic of obsessive, micromanaging, self-righteous, judgmental parents. And that epidemic is expressed not just on the playground and at school, but also through the medium of mommy blogs.

Parents today approach parenting with the intensity and dedication of athletes who train for the olympics. And this way of parenting is something completely new in society. People have never paid this much attention to children or to parenting before, as if parenting were a social science and mommies possess the power to engineer the perfect offspring by expertly coaching a generation of self-confident over-achievers.

I personally feel that one has to offer a child lot of time & guidance while they are young. Then one can withdraw as the child matures - the foundation has been laid. (At least, that's the plan...) To hover over them when one should offer space (to grow, make mistakes, explore one's identity) would be a dis-service. I'm not sure that micro-management (in place of offering space in certain situations), would result in a confident person.

For instance, the article refers to summer camps. The premise of overnight summer camp is to provide the opportunity for growth and independence. Isn't that the whole point? Hovering in that situation doesn't seem appropriate. It seems like this would interfere with the child's opportunity for growth, not to mention undermine the camps framework of support and nuturing that (you hope) they have thoughtfully put in place to support the camper while allowing for growth.

I guess that it is situational, but the general trend should be towards thoughfully withdrawing as a child matures. I think mistakes are made when a parent over-rides this with a personal agenda (therefore places their own needs ahead of the childs).

I wonder... is the 'social epidemic of obsessive, micromanaging, self-righteous, judgmental' culture confined to parenting in our modern educated, mass communication based society? It seems what we eat is dissected ad infinitum to the same degree, as well as our health care, our fitness, our economy, our politics, our religion, our socio-economic status. Pick your interest. parenting or wine-tasting. It's a more highly developed science now. There is so much more information known today about all aspects of our daily living than in the past, that it seems we would all incorporate all the knowledge that is available into our lives. I suppose we could go live on a deserted island and have the kids grow up on a beach and swim with the dolphins and we could relax and have them grow up on their own in a peaceful healthy happy way without micromanaging. We dont live in that world. If we did, we could act accordingly appropriately. If we were raising kids in the 1950s , you can bet the level of obsession over child rearing would not be necessary. It is a different world today. Parenting is adapting to it, perhaps unhealthily, but I think it is too soon to tell. I think there is a lot to be admired about the intensity and dedication of athletes training for the olympics. That is not to say that I don't personally agree with you,that todays parents are acting really nutty to the extent they are screwing up their lives and the lives of their kids. But people in the past had to spend most of their energy on mere survival. Most people did not have the luxury to engineer their lives however they chose. Given freedom of time and money, most people waste it on silly things. I think concern over the future of our children is probably the least silly thing they can waste it on. If parents are caring about their kids, perhaps more than ever before, this may be a good thing. The parents may be misguided as to what is important about raising their kids, but seeing the tragic results of kids raising themselves these days as opposed to in the past is sobering. As a kid, I used to wander out my back door and find neighbors to play with as I roamed the streets, appearing back home only at the end of the day to eat dinner. My parents didn't ask where I had been. THey knew. And I grew up in a very large city. Kids cant grow up on their own these days. Our society is larger, faster, smarter, and more competitive than ever before. Parenting has to adjust somehow. So do the athletes that expect to be competitive these days. Society is different. I'm not condoning the parents that meet me for the first time, shake my hand and tell me their kid's SAT scores. yes, it has happened. But you have to wonder what are these parents thinking, and how did culture get this way.

What changes seemingly normal parents into obsessive, hovering parents? They are afraid their children will make mistakes, and that in this competitive society, those mistakes will not be tolerated.

We used to say "live and learn," but I think many parents fear there isn't enough time to truly learn, but instead your children must be perfect the first time around. Since, naturally that's impossible, the answer these parents see is to share their own wisdom--- at all times.

I admit that I am guilty of micromanaging some of my middle schoolers' homework activities. Should I have just said "It's his responsibility, and what happens happens?"

But does a 13 year old REALLY understand that not doing homework can have long-term effects? Does he really know that he's setting himself up to struggle throughout high school and college because he doesn't have good time management skills?

Does he get that if he fails 8th grade, he'll be living with that failure for the rest of his life? Or is he too young, too immature to see that? And if so, isn't it my responsibility to help him stay on the straight and narrow?

Take that idea a few years later, when you've got a college freshman who's enjoying the parties more than the studying. How different is that situation? The stakes are even higher.

With that said, I agree that kids need to have the chance to learn responsibility, to learn from mistakes and to climb back from failure. I'm not always sure they have those chances.

Final thought: "involved parent" is nothing but a euphemism for clingy, over-protective, perfectionist and neurotic. These super mommies are terrified that her children will get along perfectly fine without them. And if that happens, then mommy won't be the most important person in the world. So they share the same bed with them until the kids play little league, and breast feed until the kids can do geometry. They boast that they have never spent more than several hours apart from their child. They sob when the child goes off to school or camp.

We tell ourselves the reason this happens is because the world is a much more dangerous place than it used to be, and we need to be more protective. It's an immensely comforting thought: American suburbs are the most dangerous places in the world. yet most people are contending with violent civil wars, massacres, genocides, holocausts, plagues, tsunamis and ebola outbreaks.

What's really happening is that women have allowed themselves to be defined by parenting more than ever before, and parenting has become a hyper-competitive sport, and women transformed into suburan gladiators. In the 1950s, the American housewife defined herself by her husband and subordinated her identify to the man in the house. Thus she was known as Mrs. Fred Jones, forced to wear a cultural burka to conceal her true identity. Today, the American housewife has turned into the stay-at-home mom, or the "involved parent," which are one and the same. She subordinates her identity to her children, is defined by her children, and lives vicariously through her children's experiences, achievements and failures.

Wow. I didn't realize that the stay-at-home mom was the same as the " 'involved parent' which are one and the same. Let's see, clingy...overprotective... I thought you originally said that either the working mom or the stay-at-home mom could be a neurotic competitive parent? Now it defines the current stay-at-home mom. Seems to me (again only my observations) that the working mom is a bit more likely to be the defensive, aggressive parent. Just because a woman was married in the fifties, did not mean she was a subordinate slave, and just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom does not mean her identity is defined by her kids. Madeline Albright was both a wife in the fifties, and a very active stay-at-home parent, and she did more for the world than most women. Same could be said of many stay-at-home parents. I know many women who are able to breast feed a long time and sleep with their kids who are very non-competitive, nurturing parents, who are not defined by their kids. THey merely are parenting. Not obsessively. Not neurotically. Merely parenting. Some people don't parent at all, and their kids are fine. But involved parenting does not mean clingly, overprotective, perfectionist. Have you ever been around the kids that grow up on their own? Many cultures around the world define their lives by the successes of their children, and always have. I don't think this is a new concept to the world. Perhaps to the selfish current generation, it may be.

if as eripley says, we are in the midst of a neurotic overly protective micromanaging era of parenting like never before in our history, and if there are more moms working outside the home than ever before in our history, maybe the two major social trends are related. Seems statistically significant. If not related, I wonder what the evidence is that they are unrelated? Is this only an American phenomena or cross-cultural phenomena of competitive parenting. I know with many fast economically growing cultures, the increase in world competiveness of their countries has also coincided with a competitiveness in that country with regard to parenting. Look at Korea, China, Japan, India, for example. ANy parents from these ethnic backgrounds want to comment on current parenting trends? Do you find American parenting competitive or overly obsessive? How so? Does it make you feel insecure or critical of parenting in America today?

Another final thought: Our self-centered society has spawned a generation of mothers who are clearly convinced they are more enlightened and effective parents than the preceding millennia of parenting generations. They're like proselytes or converts who are compelled to condemn other parents as sinners and heretics. Ultimately it comes down to what they themselves term as me-time: they crave to be the center of attention. The kids are mere props to highlight mommy's supremacy — the professional career mother, the one with "the most important job in the world," or the "hardest job in the world" — a calculating and controlling (and yes: resentful) figure one who tellingly defines her relationship with her children as a "job." The subtext: Kids are the bane of my existence.

A1Mama: "if as eripley says, we are in the midst of a neurotic overly protective micromanaging era of parenting like never before in our history, and if there are more moms working outside the home than ever before in our history, maybe the two major social trends are related. Seems statistically significant."

You've got the trends reversed, like jumbo mumbo. The emerging trend is the stay-at-home-mommy, which is a statement of socio-economic privilege made possible by a booming economy. Women have always worked outside the home -- until they could afford to stay at home. Now that the economy is tanking, women will increasingly have to give up their privileged status positions and re-enter the workforce. In so doing, many will have to eat their words, or eat their blogs.

Interesting that you of all people describe stay-at-home parents as priveleged. Sorry you have such built up resentment.  Perhaps the tanked economy will help you feel better.

Washington post.com April 29, 2007
The ballyhooed Mommy Wars exist mainly in the minds -- and the marketing machines -- of the media and publishing industry, which have been churning out mom vs. mom news flashes since, believe it or not, the 1950s. All while the number of working mothers has been rising.
Here are the facts: Since 2000, the percentage of working mothers with infants has held steady ...

from 1950's when 10% of mothers did not work outside the home, until 1995 when only 12% of kids had parents who did not both work outside the home.

As we're exchanging salvos in this mommy skirmish, it occurs to me that one of the flawed assumptions of the A1 parenting philosophy is that biological parents are unquestionably the best caretakers for their children. Yet, people of means have long relegated day-to-day childcare duties to servants, sisters, au pairs, aunts, grandmas, boarding schools and most recently, daycare centers. And the time-tested result: a social caste of financial and business elites.

Still, one can't deny that at least in some cases, biological moms or dads have a natural predisposition for the task and are best suited for the thankless undertaking. I tip my hat in honor of their sacrifice. However, I can think of many examples (often incriminatingly documented on mommy blogs) where it would be in the best interest of the super mommy and her unfortunate child if super mommy got a job and got a life and got out of the business of full-time parenting. In too many cases, the constant exposure and friction harms the parent-child relationship.

I realize it's never an easy choice and some of us don't have a choice. So in the spirit of tolerance, I merely caution against being judgemental and mandating how other women should lead their lives.

ALL OF YOU (new member) - we are MOTHERS - it is our instinct to protect them. it is not as easy these days. Child preditors, camps, daycare, step familiess.... no matter what... WE ARE ANIMALS at our core. We are more self aware than other mammals and rely and support  society values and rules. I wont weigh in on above comments, but we cant deny - NATURE MADE US THE PROTECTORS OF THE YOUNG. To deny this,  either for religious reasons or agnostic ,  is sticking your head in the sand. Could you imagine a mother bear wondering about her cubs sleeping in another cave or sleeping with her?

Definition of "mother" we can be proud of: (websters - before "pc") 1 a: a generative force : cause b (1): a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2): one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3): one that supplies information.

So hover when you feel you need to, let them leave the nest - but we will never take our eyes off of them.

- full time worker, overtime mom

Glad you read the post and all 18 preceding comments. Yours is certainly one of the more impassioned defenses of anxious parenting. If you consider child predators to be in the same category as camps and daycare, then millions of outwardly normal children in this country are victims of abuse and neglect. Would you say that it's pretty much impossible to be an over-protective parent? That the "helicoper" mom or micro-managing mom are misnomers for excellent parenting techniques?

I've been fascinated by all these posts! Excellent posts on all sides. I agree that parenting has become ridiculously obsessive, but I personally haven't seen any corelation to SAHM or working moms. It's across the board in my mind.

Thanks for writing, and I appreciate your comments. My larger point is simply that obsessive parents don't really have their children's best interest in mind. Rather, they are more committed to obsessive parenting than they are to effective parenting.
I'm sure you know, I'm not the only one who rants against obsessive parenting. 

There's a backlash against the excesses and misinformation bred by the proponents of obsessive parenting.
One critic I recommend is parenting columnist John Rosemond. Another is Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker, author of "The Blank Slate." Pinker challenges the assumption that parenting of any sort plays a significant influence in a child's development. Pinker falls strictly on the nature side of the nature-nurture argument and claims the research shows that the main determinant of a child's success is innate IQ. The largest environmental influences in success, as pinker defines it, are culture and peers. (Granted, Pinker defines "success" narrowly as a northeastern elite concept: money and status) The influence of the parents is limited to choosing a child's environment (primarily choosing peers by choice of private schools, exclusive neighborhoods and religious institutions). But in a broad sense, Pinker's is definitely an anti-parenting manifesto. 

The best seller "Freakonomics" devotes two chapters to refuting false assumptions of obsessive parents. The book asks, what is more important: reading story books to children 15 minutes a day versus the parents having lots of books at home. "Freakonomics" says obsessive parents wrongly believe that reading storybooks contributes to a child's development, whereas the truth is (according to the book) that high achieving children correlates to parents owning many books. Why would that be? The answer is that parents who read to their kids but don't read themselves send the not-so-subtle message that adults are too busy and too important to waste their time in idle reading -- i.e., books are like finger painting and tricycles and diapers: an infantile phase to be grown out of. If parents are really committed to raising their kids' intelligence quotients, they should also betake themselves to reading "The Rise and Fall of Roman Civilization" and "Ulysses." 

The bigger point is that many thinkers, commentators and writers are challenging the obsessive parenting movement as wrongheaded, misguided and ill informed.

Update: More evidence of the backlash:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/fashion/09drink.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Here are some excerpts of this 2006 article "Cosmopolitan Moms" about cocktail play dates in an affluent Philadelphia suburb: 

These women are not out to get drunk, they say. And they insist they are not drinking out of need. Rather, they are looking for a small break from the conventions of mommy-hood — a way to hold on to a part of their lives that existed before they had children and to bond over a shared disdain for the almost sadistically stressful world of modern parenting. 

Some say the mother get-togethers are a throwback to the 1950s, when adults had more time to themselves and children were not always the center of attention. Martinis were in vogue; today’s obsessive, hard-driving, Harvard-or-bust parenting scene was not. 

Teresa Klauber of Greenwood, S.C., wrote that she much prefers the cocktail play groups she has attended to other play groups, “where it seems like everyone is trying to compare their child to everyone else’s.” 

But Ms. Mellor said her book, which spawned a bulletin board of the same name on iVillage, the women’s Web site, has a larger message, advocating practical, non-obsessive parenting. The drinking part, Ms. Mellor said, “was meant to be a metaphor for having more fun in your life, and having a grown-up life.” 

That is what many defenders of wine-cooler get-togethers say they are seeking. They love their children, they’re happy to be mothers, but they would like their world to be larger than a Little Tikes mini-kitchen. 

“Giving up a career (and a piece of my identity) and boredom were the core reasons I drank,” said Jennifer Ramsey of Sacramento, Calif., in an e-mail message, explaining how being a stay-at-home mother contributed to her alcoholism. “I know that this isolation and need to appear like the perfect mom are stressful for many women.”

Here's another one from babble.com:
http://www.babble.com/content/articles/features/dispatches/granju/overpa...

In this article ("Attachment parenting vs. overparenting — How much is too much?") a leading attachment parenting writer says: enough already.

Here is an excerpt:

Those of us with pre-women's lib mothers and grandmothers remember women like this. They were the obsessive, vaguely dissatisfied homemakers Betty Friedan wrote about in The Feminine Mystique. They were the women whose worlds had become so narrowly focused on one facet of their lives — homemaking — that all the joy had been sucked right out of them.

Thank God we aren't those women. Right? Right?

Or are we? In recent years, I've encountered a disturbing trend among my current mothering peers. While we no longer pore endlessly over the grout-cleaning tips and curtain-sewing patterns in Ladies Home Journal, we've replaced this pre-feminist housewifery-porn with postmodern parenting-porn in the form of Fit Pregnancy and PARENTS magazines.

We may not stay up nights worrying about how to keep our whites whiter, but you can bet we're losing sleep over why little Jasper isn't yet out of diapers. 

In other words, we may no longer be "professional homemakers," but whether we stay home with our kids, or work outside the home, we've turned parenting into its own, highly stressful, endlessly demanding, often joyless undertaking. In fact, a recent study by research group Public Agenda found that seventy-six percent of American parents describe raising kids today as "much harder" than it was during their own childhoods.

But are we making it a lot harder than it has to be? I think so.

Yes, I'm very familiar with John Rosemond-I know him personally, and he's awesome. I have all of his books and all that stuff, and I raise my four kids very similar to his mindset. He comes across so much better in person than in writing. He's hilarious, charming and humble in real life. Plus he plays in a rock and roll band. But it's always funny when I read his stuff, because it's just stating the obvious to me, so common sensical, so sometimes I'll find myself making a comment to an aquaintance, and forget that to modern ears he seems controversial.And I really have no interest in debating, so I'm cursing myself for opening my mouth,and try to remember to be more careful:-)

Sorry, I got carried away with the Rosemond part, because I've seen him referenced in several posts. But all of your other info is interesting too. Food for thought for sure.

Rosemond is controversial among obsessive parents because he challenges the entire super mommy mindset as well as the parenting advice industry that perpetuates it. I've also met parents who abhor his very name, like he's some kind of untouchable or contagion. Generally, his critics consider him unenlightened, a throwback to a 19th-century method of parenting, an era when Father Knew Best and children were meant to be seen but not heard.

Admittedly, part of Rosemond's schtick is overstating his case. He does have to shout above the din to get attention. But next time you meet one of Rosemond's detractors you should conduct a little social experiment: Ask why his critics dislike him so much. I bet you won't get a clear answer. No one will come out and say: I am committed to being an obsessive parent and Rosemond opposes the program that will allow me to engineer the perfect progeny.

Lilybug, 

Where have you met him? Although I don't always agree with his methods, I really appreciate Rosemond's approach and take on the current overparenting trend. 

I'm not advocating a complete return to 1950s parenting methods either. But there is something to be said for the belief that children grow up more well-adjusted when they are not the center of the universe. The old-fashioned way of thinking was that when mother and father are content and their marriage solid, all good things flow from there, which Rosemond also propagates. 

I'm just trying to offer a counterbalance to the insanity of the obsessive parenting movement. 

But it sounds like you and I, at least, are of like minds in many ways ;-)

Rosemond and I have some mutual aquaintances, and I've seen him speak several times...we had dinner together a few months ago, and he's delightful company. He would be the first to tell you that none of his ideas are really "his ideas". He's simply explaining the way things have always been done until very recently, and he says that's he's never had an orignal thought in his life. I think the dislike people feel, is that sometimes in his writing he comes across as too stern and unbending. Truthfully, my understanding of his philosophy (I put it this way as I don't think I should pretend to speak for him) is a very relaxed approach, where if the child misbehaves, the parent does not rant, rave or get overly excited in any way. They simply impart some consequences that are memorable and thus persuasive, (i.e. an entire day in your room) and whistle and go on their way. Less talk, less handwringing, etc. All i can tell you is that I have four kids, and both from his material, and personal advice, I have had VERY few probelms, and I really credit it to this slightly more old fashioned approach. We have a lot of fun and laughs in our family, and unlike so many modern moms, I do not find childrearing exhausting and confusing. People seemed shocked that this would be the case with four kids, but it really is. Let me not mislead and imply that my kids are angels, but they are reasonably well behaved, and exceptionally emotionally healthy. It works for our family.

I understand eripley’s rants about obsessive parents. I agree that too many parents micromanage their children and complete over normal milestones like Olympic events.

But some of your comments imply (or state outright) that this is exclusive to stay-at-home parents. A woman (or man) can stay at home without being over-involved. Yes, I am a SAHM. Yes, I get down on the floor and play with my children most days. But I also encourage them to play by themselves, or with each other. They regularly see me reading and pursuing other interests. I am always here if they need me, but that doesn’t mean I cater to their every whim. Even my two-year-old helps out around the house and not because it’s cute, but because I want her to grow up to be self-sufficient. That’s the goal of every good parent, whether he or she earns a paycheck or not. Plenty of families choose to have two working parents simply to have more money to spend on things they believe will give their children some sort of “edge.” The obsessive parent exists on both sides. Happily, the opposite is also true. Even though I have come across an occasional example that makes me cringe, the vast majority of parents I have met seem to be doing just fine.

There was an article recently in Oprah's magazine about "Helicoptor Parents" that referred to those of us raised in the 70's as "the most neglected generation" and that we over-parent today in response to that. I don't think I was neglected, but I do know that I went off happily to camp without my parents calling the camp every day. But here is what I DO think is happening: we base too many parenting decisions today on fear, fears that are often not supported by any data, any statistics. We are scared that "something" might happen-forgetting that most of us grew up just fine with parents that did not base their decisions on fear. Too much information, too much sensational media coverage of sad-but rare-events. It is hard to consider that for most children, they are going to be just fine, regardless of how much control we exert over them, their lives, and their choices. This is what it is all about: control. We want to control everything about them: their friends, their camp experience, in the belief that this will make them into good people. It might, but it might not. I think most parents have these feelings, and always have. But for some reason, we feel jsutified in ACTING on these feelings today, whereas in the past parents would have simply controlled their desire to hover, to get involved, to check up on their offspring. So feel the emotions...but don't always act on them. And how disappointing that this topic had to devolve into yet another SAHM vs. WAHM debate.

annefarleigh-I couldn't agree more! I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure that dangers have mutiplied, so much as our awareness of them. And I also agree that this is not a SAHM/working mom issue, and I hate those debates! We all love our children and we're all doing our best.

My problem with Rosemond is that he is all about control. He is not concerned with teaching one's kids the rationale of any behavior, but simply enforcing parental authority. His authoritarian approach to child rearing is certainly one method. But it has not been generally respected in the field as the best approach to raising bright, well-adjusted, self-reliant, self-assured children.  (Unless you think it is overly obsessive to attempt to raise such children? Perhaps better to totally ignore their development as long as they behave as they are told?)  I believe parenting has advanced from the "do as I say, period." approach to raising MORE obedient kids by communicating with them and teaching them rather than ordering them around like trained seals. Kids' locus of control should developed to be internal, not external. His approach is too authoritarian for me. It is a parenting approach I do not agree with. I don't think disagreeing with him has anything to do with a parent's obsessiveness or micromanaging behavior. Rosemond is against this, but so are lots of people who don't follow the dinosaur approach to child rearing Rosemond uses. Let's agree that neurotic mommy obsessiveness is not productive, for anyone-- parents or child. This doesn't mean that authoritarian parenting is preferable to attachment parenting, or any other of your other less favorite brands of parenting.    L-bug, I'm sure Rosemond may be a delightful person, but I disagree with his "politics", his platform of childrearing.  

a1mama-I do understand why you have that impression of him, as I'm sure many other people do too. I can understand if you've only read snipets from him, like his columns, it's easy to have that impression. But after reading all of his books, hearing him speak on several occassions, and being a member on his website, which has his writings in more unedited detail, I totally disagree that he's about control. Respect to legitimate authority maybe, but not control. In fact, he's said many times that control is an illusion, as the strength of freewill, and the human will are very powerful forces. In fact, he frequently cautions parents that you can never really control another person, child or not, you can only make choosing the wrong thing unpleasant.

Oy vey.....this was exhausting reading.

:)