What an odd, incorrect assumption. Kids need to be able to socialize. This isn’t the 1980s anymore, you can’t just go to a mall, there are very few physical third spaces anymore, literally none in some locations.
For a lot of kids, those third spaces are via phone/online. I can absolutely understand wanting to limit exposure to bad influences of phones, that IS good parenting, but you need to offer alternatives, or managed use, or something, or you’re socially isolating your kid. Worst case scenario, you’re getting them bullied- kids can be cruel (though from what I’ve seen, not as much as they used to be, thankfully).
The person literally said in another comment:
Yes, it’s part of set them up to succeed not fail. And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.
Now, I’m assuming this is partially a situation of english not being the first language, from some of the grammar, but wanting to have their kids be ‘cleanly’ broken away from friendships, school stuff, and the very outside world sounds… look, I’m going to be frank here, their literal goal seems to be socially stunting their kid via helicoptering.
Kids need to learn who they are. You’re not trying to raise someone to be a child, you’re trying to raise someone to be a healthy, functioning adult, and part of that means going through friendships, even friendship drama, exploring the outside world, etc etc.
A good point, but I’ll note that most socialization for kids these days doesn’t necessarily happen at a singular friend’s house- it’s typically in a private chat/channel/group/etc online.
I am, admittedly, basing some of this off other posts the guy has made in this… err, thread? Post? Not sure what the lemmy vocab is here, but I can quote it:
And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.
I dunno about you man, but kids probably don’t need protected from friendships, even if they might have the occasional drama… and ‘the outside world’ comment just concerns me.
I admit, the wording here is a bit… Weird. But my guess is, the OP just doesn’t want their kids subjected to drama 24/7. Evolution really had nothing in store to deal with the sheer amount of information that Smartphones provide. It’s unnatural and very unhealthy for the mind. Drama face to face? Sure! That’s part of life. Internet drama? Fuck that noise. Humans need rest from certain areas of life, which they don’t get with the 24/7 online aspect of phones.
I do agree with the dumbphone bit. A dumphone makes a lot of sense, e.g. in the case of an emergency. Plus, they can call their friends, which has way more social merit than texting does.
What an odd, incorrect assumption. Kids need to be able to socialize. This isn’t the 1980s anymore, you can’t just go to a mall, there are very few physical third spaces anymore, literally none in some locations.
For a lot of kids, those third spaces are via phone/online. I can absolutely understand wanting to limit exposure to bad influences of phones, that IS good parenting, but you need to offer alternatives, or managed use, or something, or you’re socially isolating your kid. Worst case scenario, you’re getting them bullied- kids can be cruel (though from what I’ve seen, not as much as they used to be, thankfully).
The person literally said in another comment:
Now, I’m assuming this is partially a situation of english not being the first language, from some of the grammar, but wanting to have their kids be ‘cleanly’ broken away from friendships, school stuff, and the very outside world sounds… look, I’m going to be frank here, their literal goal seems to be socially stunting their kid via helicoptering.
Kids need to learn who they are. You’re not trying to raise someone to be a child, you’re trying to raise someone to be a healthy, functioning adult, and part of that means going through friendships, even friendship drama, exploring the outside world, etc etc.
deleted by creator
A good point, but I’ll note that most socialization for kids these days doesn’t necessarily happen at a singular friend’s house- it’s typically in a private chat/channel/group/etc online.
Under 12?
For better or worse, yes. (Probably worse, but this is the world we have to deal with…)
I feel bad for your children then
For getting to experience life instead of being locked in a house, only able to interact with family?
I think you’re interpreting way too much into that person’s post. And wrongly too.
I am, admittedly, basing some of this off other posts the guy has made in this… err, thread? Post? Not sure what the lemmy vocab is here, but I can quote it:
I dunno about you man, but kids probably don’t need protected from friendships, even if they might have the occasional drama… and ‘the outside world’ comment just concerns me.
I admit, the wording here is a bit… Weird. But my guess is, the OP just doesn’t want their kids subjected to drama 24/7. Evolution really had nothing in store to deal with the sheer amount of information that Smartphones provide. It’s unnatural and very unhealthy for the mind. Drama face to face? Sure! That’s part of life. Internet drama? Fuck that noise. Humans need rest from certain areas of life, which they don’t get with the 24/7 online aspect of phones.
I do agree with the dumbphone bit. A dumphone makes a lot of sense, e.g. in the case of an emergency. Plus, they can call their friends, which has way more social merit than texting does.