Fascinating follow-up to the also-fascinating Slate piece, and seems to corroborate my hunch that a lot of what we consider helicopter parenting is really performative parenting-- giving a performance of what a good parent is supposed to do, even when it circumvents our own instincts or beliefs. It's a weird inversion of alloparenting or cooperative breeding; the community still shapes our parenting, but through judgement rather than support.
I see this a lot with young parents or parents with one or two young children. They’re obviously mimicking what they’ve seen other parents do—in shows, in reels, maybe in real life but in short and obviously limited interactions. I find it sort of quaint, a kind of “aw, they’re unsure but trying” look. I never see this with parents of three or more kids; the facade or performative impetus is long gone. But there’s a murky spectrum from that into “I’m doing this because I need to show I’m ‘parenting’” that’s probably directly linked to people growing up with screens. I’ve been uneasy about a few parents who only seem to act out of a sense of performative duty. Their interactions with their own children seem staged, even robotic. And maybe they’re that insecure when they’re around other people and act totally differently in private. There’s a relationship between these people and the online strident accusers, I think, a view of parenting that’s absolute: “on paper it should always look like THIS.” Interesting topic.
There has been some (somewhat limited) research and some moderately robust (but anecdotal) evidence that the generation currently parenting feels more surveilled than prior generations did, with the hypothesis being that social media has driven a broader and more constant sense of being watched & judged and needing to perform, especially within the “parent” role. In my own observation of parent-child dyads over the past ten to fifteen years, the biggest harm seems to be the stress experienced by the parents themselves, both because of the pervasive sense of being scrutinized in a personal and intimate act (parenting), and because of how that observation makes our behavior toward our kids less authentic. Maybe a little bit tangential to your main point here, apologies—but this is what came up for me reading this post.
Love this topic and find it fascinating as a parent to young children. The peer pressure of parenting is so real. We have 2 children’s play places we visit regularly. One costs money and is totally designed for the millennial parent (from the decor to the lattes available for purchase). The other is free and is aimed at lower income families in my neighborhood (but sadly only open limited weekday hours, which is why we don’t go very often). I immediately noticed a big contrast between parenting in these environments. At the first place, parents are frequently hovering over children and intervening in everything. At the second, parents sit and chat at tables in the corner and let the kids have free range of the place, only really intervening if someone is crying. I felt so relaxed the first time I went to the second place because it was like I was being given permission to chill and for my kid to just play freely. At the other place, even though I try to adhere to a more free range parenting approach personally, I felt I would be judged if I didn’t intervene every time my child hesitated to share a toy or struggled momentarily. Just interesting how much other people’s parenting can put pressure or judgment on one’s own parenting.
Totally feel you on the pay-to-play coffee shops. On the one hand, I love the idea of a coffee shop with a play area (and an indoor one for the hot summer days...) On the other hand, I rarely see parents utilizing as a space to sit and have coffee while the kids play. Instead a lot of the groups I've seen congregate inside the play area (you can't even take your coffee in there!) with the kids while they play. And it does make anyone else who would rather stay outside the little plastic fence (read: me) feel judged if we're not there to prevent any accident or immediately intervene in any conflict
I started with active twin boys, which I've realized is a totally different start to parenting than most people have - for good (Dad is super involved) and not so good (running in opposite directions in parking lots). I've found that parents with one child have radically different expectations for life than parents of multiple children (esp multiple children close in age). I had a catchphrase I'd use when friends would talk about never saying no (!) and never letting the child cry (!!) - "That's a service I cannot provide!" We immediately saw that kids could rally with most difficulties but I think if you have one kid (and didn't have a lot of experience with kids before that one kid), your child's distress is almost intolerable. I also worked in child development and one of my colleagues would complain about moms being on their phones at the playground and I would say, "They're at the playground! That might be the only time they get to talk with their friends. Isn't the playground the time the kids actually play *without* you?" Yes, ideally you're interesting with the other adults there, but sometimes you really just want to talk to your best friend or your mom :-) But the different levels of vigilance could get awkward. It's good practice for life, though, since kids and parents differ so much and those differences continue throughout childhood and adolescence.
When my twins were under 2, we walked to the playground daily and it was my unofficial role at the park to make all the other parents nervous by my inability to closely follow and supervise each child. The result: they learned really quickly to master all the climbing elements of the playground; never once got (seriously) hurt! I am grateful I was not able to be too close of a helicopter for them at a young age.
Excellent point about expectations varying with multiple kids (as Jessica pointed out elsewhere here). I can only imagine boy twins!! But we DID have three boys within three years and that was it's own kind of trial by fire, so I can empathize. Relating to the parenting of moms with a single toddler girl is often hard. lol (We now have a girl, and therefore four kids under six.)
We also started with active twin boys and very soon picked up on the difference between a risk that would injure or worse (stairs above a stone floor) and just hurt (a small slide).
One you have to absolutely keep them supervised, the other they’ll figure out after a few bumps.
It is interesting that at our closest play area (posh coffee shop type thing) they have no fence which makes it harder to leave them because there’s a temptation for them to escape. However corralling two boys for whom this very quickly becomes a great game is no fun for me. I’ve found letting them crawl up to the nearest tables and say hello is usually extremely well received and if not or it gets too much then they can be captured.
I’ve had great mornings keeping half an eye on them whilst a table of pensioners and the boys all have a great time playing with each other.
Our friends with one baby hardly go out unless both of them are available to help look after them. We each think the other is mad.
I remember reading your Slate piece and seeing a few comments, either on that piece or on a piece linked about the Matt and Abby situation, to the effect of "SIDs/choking/abduction/insert baby emergency can happen silently and quickly, that's why it's not safe to leave your baby even with a monitor" and of course they were referring to that specific situation - leaving the babies to go eat somewhere else on the ship (or hotel). But by that same logic, even leaving your baby sleeping in a different room of the house is dangerous because all of those things (minus abduction, which is so unlikely an occurrence even in public areas) could still happen without a parent knowing or responding immediately. It just highlighted for me how alarmist all these people on the Internet were willing to be, in the name of "what if???" And of course no one wants to see a child hurt or abducted or killed due to a preventable situation, but it's also completely unsustainable as a mother (not to mention extremely unhealthy for mom and kids) to live in constant fear of the worst possible outcomes
I am not a parent so what do I know haha but in my mind there is a very slim chance of catastrophe in a situation like this, however, there are numerous different kinds of catastrophes that could happen. Mitigating every one of those is exhausting for the parents and often creates a helicopter environment in which the child does not learn how to be autonomous but does learn that if they cry they will always get what they want. So you are trading a very slim chance of catastrophe for very necessary lifetime skills.
There is always a chance you could die when you get in a car but we don’t let that fear bring our lives to a grinding halt.
The car is a good analogy, we put the kids in a car seat to acknowledge and minimise the risk but you know you can’t eliminate it by never going anywhere.
Would see the monitor as analogous to the care seat imo
I would bet that a lot of those judgmental parents drive aggressively or carelessly with their kids in the car, which is far more dangerous than leaving your kids alone while you eat in a separate room.
This is a good example, but today ... there are parents who don't go anywhere with their kids because the car is dangerous. I read a comment just this morning to the effect of "I certainly wouldn't let the nanny drive with the children. My husband and I don't even drive on freeways with the children."
This was from a trendy & wealthy neighborhood's Facebook moms' group, and I read comments like this all the time. (I joined for information after a natural disaster; I've stayed because I'm fascinated, though horrified ...)
The privilege it takes to be able to make such a decision for your family is evident. But it also makes me sad. The moms in this group are SO STRESSED OUT all the time. Since they have the time, technology, and money to worry about every little thing, and since they are very online, with lots of performative parenting examples, they do worry about every little thing. Sadly, it's really to their detriment, to the detriment of their children, and to the detriment of the whole community.
Also the parents downstairs at a restaurant usually aren't any farther away from their children than we are, when we carry the monitor out to the fire pit at my parents' property.
Yes, It's the equivalent of literally leaving them in a different room of one's house that gets me. lol These people must not have experience with how STAParenthood of more than one or two kids works!
I definitely think that smaller family size contributes to this in some way. I've been pretty hands-off since my first (perk of having the crazy child first - you get too tired to intervene very quickly 😅) but now with three I'm coming to terms even more with what I can and cannot control. And nowadays parents, but especially moms I think, have such high expectations for supervision and safety and whatnot, AND they are capable of maintaining those standards with just one or two kids. Sometimes you can't relinquish control until you're forced to 😅
Applies even inside your own home. How mature do your kids need to be before you tell them “get in the bath” and leave them to wash / play unsupervised while you cook dinner?
Ah -- this is so good. All the parents feel surveilled, and this leads to (at least the pretense) of more surveillance for children.
This probably (definitely) means I've spent too much time in academia, but it's like the Panopticon -- and no wonder parents and kids alike are so anxious.
I think the comparison to the washing machine is apt, but obviously this is much higher stakes. It's a combination of technology making a new standard possible and social media meaning that all most neurotic people broadcast their habits and anyone who's more lax feeling pressure to not say anything in case they get judged.
I semi- regularly see people online say that you should wash your towels after every use and have a shower in the morning AND evening and if you don't, you're disgusting. It's like... Do you realize how extraordinarily clean we all are, compared to all of human history? And do you also realize that most people are not washing 14 towels per person per week, they're just not telling you that because you'll yell at them?
Yeah it's pretty crazy. Other common ones are "you should never wash tea towels with normal towels" and "you have to scrub - SCRUB - your legs every day in the shower, not just let soap wash down them".
Both of these are fine preferences to have and make sense in some situations (e.g. if you're working in a dirty environment). But modern day washing machines are very effective. People who work in an air conditioned environment, do little physical activity and wear clean clothes (i.e. most people in developed countries) are extremely clean, especially on areas of their body where they don't really sweat (e.g. your legs). Let's not act like not following these directives is disgusting.
I don't know how they would unless you're sweating a lot or working in dust or something? I get that some of these things are cultural habits and I don't have a problem with that, but let's just be honest that that's what it is.
yes 1000% there's a combination of technological forces at work--one making "a new standard possible," as you say, and then another normalizing or diffusing that heightened standard. This is actually pretty much what Margaret Nelson found in her study of online reviews of baby monitors in 2008, which I mention briefly in the Slate piece. The reviews seemed to indicate that, for example, video capable baby monitors were raising the standards of supervision such that only being able to hear one's baby no longer seemed sufficient to parents. But then the reviews themselves, being publicly available online, effectively helped to normalize that idea.
"In writing about some monitors—those that show pictures; those that send out an alarm if the baby stops breathing—reviewers suggest that hearing alone may be insufficient: An attentive parent observes a baby’s every activity and ensures that it is alive... In short, as the reviewers describe the virtues of their monitors, they make parental anxiety the expected state of parenthood."
I think of this in relation to things like "safe sleep" as well. So many people might co-sleep all the time or even here and there, but totally lie to their pediatricians about it because of the fear mongering and leading questions ("and she's sleeping on her back in her own crib, right?") which sometimes feels like bullying.
My mom has even made comments about how when we Millennials were babies the recommendation was to have us sleep ON the belly. lol
"My mom has even made comments about how when we Millennials were babies the recommendation was to have us sleep ON the belly. lol"
I think modern safe sleep often goes too far by (as is often the case with parenting stuff) ignoring tradeoffs and assuming there are only benefits and no costs. But...come on, the "back to sleep" campaigns are unabashed global successes, not some "diet of the week" fad. Doctors during your mom's era were flat wrong and gave advice that killed tens of thousands of children.
From one paper:
"Many countries around the world saw substantial reductions in their sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rates around the time of introduction of the campaigns (Figure 12.1), with falls of between 42% and 92% (Figure 12.2). The rate of SIDS was halved in the United Kingdom (UK) in just one year, and in New Zealand in two years (1, 3). Instituting a “Back to Sleep” campaign has been estimated to have saved 3,000 lives in New Zealand, 17,000 lives in the UK, and 40,000 lives in the United States (3)."
So I will grant you that the back to sleep campaign IS a good thing and has reduced SIDS rates, but I also would argue against the point that the recommendation to put babies to sleep on their bellies "killed tens of thousands of children." Putting a baby to sleep on his or her belly does not cause SIDS. Most modern day research around SIDS (actual SIDS, not suffocation deaths or entrapment) indicates that SIDS is likely caused by a genetic factor that predisposes a baby to the condition. The back to sleep campaign, along with the campaign to reduce or avoid a lot of other SIDS risks factors (the reduction in smoking rates is also a huge thing here) helps by reducing the number of situations in which that genetic predisposition will lead to the baby dying. And this is a good thing, 100%. But there's more nuance there than the idea that putting a baby to sleep on his or her tummy is what leads to the death of that baby.
Also, it is worth mentioning that Haley's comment about doctor advice was in the context of parents discussing how they felt unable to be truthful about their children's sleeping situations, because (as you acknowledge) modern safe sleep guidelines go the the furthest extreme of risk mitigation and don't allow for trade offs or risk analysis. It IS somewhat comical to think of how rigid modern doctors are when telling a sleep-deprived mom that baby should absolutely never sleep anywhere other than on her back, in an empty crib, with a fan on in the room, at least a foot away from any other furniture, when a generation ago they were telling moms to do the very thing they now vilify. The point isn't that those doctors of ye olden days were right and "back to sleep" is a fad. The point is that doctors make these recommendations and sometimes they change, but whether or not they are good or bad or evidence-based, parents are expected to follow the letter of the guideline without accounting for the uniqueness of their situations or any mitigating factors. And at least when it comes to something like sleep safety (of which I am a big fan!) it's very easy to make the recommendations and a lot more tricky to get a baby to sleep in such circumstances (which are, in effect designed to prevent a baby from entering too deep of a sleep - good for SIDS-inclined babies with a genetic inability to rouse themselves from too deep a slumber, but not great for general good sleep for mom or baby, which leads to its own unsafe situations).
I wish we didn't have to have firm moral judgments on all of these decisions. I think even framing this as "hypervigilance" is judgy, because there are so many variables that go into what level of supervision or vigilance go into any of these decisions. I had twin active twin boys (with no diagnosis at the time, but in elementary school one would get an ADHD diagnosis and one would get an autism diagnosis). I wouldn't have left them as active toddlers alone in a hotel room with a monitor for lots of reasons based on our experiences with them as parents of these particular kids. Labelling this as "hypervigilance" seems a bit hyper itself. Our daughter, who was born later, who slept deeply throughout the night, would have been okay with a system like this. One way that being an experienced parent has changed me (even beyond the doctorate in human development that I had before having kids) is how pretty much any parenting situation is context dependent (beyond extremes of abuse and neglect, of course). I've toned way down on trying to figure out if another parent is hypervigilant or lax. I'm sure sometimes they are - but I'm so busy figuring out how to parent the kids in front of me that I find these questions much less interesting than in the past. (The same with other people's judgements - they are likely basing their experiences on their own kids and their own tolerance levels, and unless they are super extreme or trying to interfere in my own family's life, so be it.) Personally and professionally, I think that the "order and wonder" approach, is in general a great and flexible approach. But know tons of situations in which even that needs some modification. We're all trying to figure things out and except in cases of extreme abuse and neglect we should have a lot of grace for each other (neglect here could have been leaving toddlers with a known history of pulling down TVs, turning on tubs, etc. alone or not monitoring the video/listening device sufficiently, etc.)
Certainly didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with not being comfortable with the baby monitor thing. I tried to convey this in my summary here (maybe unsuccessfully) that basically everyone I spoke to said that whether or not they would actually do it depends on their particular circumstaces/kids. It is extremely easy for me to envision a scenario in which, given the unique qualities of my kids, I would not consider it prudent. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't feel comfortable with the set-up given their circumstances hypervigilant. I *would* call someone pushing the view that kids should never be left unattended/profusely supporting a blanket outlaw on the monitor trick hypervigilant, yes.
Yeah, one of the downsides of social media/overly online conversations is that everyone can seem more absolute than they might be in "real life." I wouldn't really feel too bad about a parent who can't imagine leaving her kiddos in a hotel room, just as I wouldn't feel too bad about a parent who went to the lobby while her children slept soundly upstairs, monitoring them on their device. I think things get tricky when you get to things like hotel policies, where they can't really know what is reasonable given particular kids and parents, so they may be more cautious than necessary. I think in general, making these decisions less fraught and meaningful, seeing them as simply a few of the dozens of ordinary parenting decisions we make in a day, the better. I 100% agree with your perspective that we need people to be around kids more and to know more about kids, and I think if our society can pull that off, all of these decisions will feel so much less weighty and we'll all roll with the flow a bit better.
I’ve had experiences along this line with extended family - horrified that I’m letting small kids play independently while also implying that wouldn’t it be terrible if I was one of those helicopter who didn’t enroll my child in daycare or used a stroller for an older preschooler. It seems like often what people want is for you to hit their exact level of supervision/independence/time away and not one bit more or less
ok so this isn't about helicopter parenting or anything but literally today I was chatting with a couple of moms, one of whom sort of launched into this whole thing about how she always parents with her gut and just ignores any guidelines that run against her intuitions because every family is different and what might work for one family won't work for another etc... Great, we're all nodding along. Then the other mom, who is really really struggling with her 5 month old not sleeping at night mentioned that she was considering some sort of sleep training but conflicted etc etc and IMMEDIATELY the other mom GOES OFF about how she thinks it's cruel and damaging to kids and can't believe anyone would subject their kids to it. Like I'm not trying to get into a debate about the merits/pitfalls of sleep training but the "everyone should listen to their gut (unless their gut disagrees with my gut)" messaging was kind of funny.
Yes! So often go with my gut or follow every guidance scrupulously turns into follow my gut or follow these guidances (which may or may not include actual guidelines lol). I’ve known people who swear up and down that you can’t question AAP on safe sleep because they’re the AAP and turn around and say their encouragement to breastfeeding is bunk
There is no way I'd leave my daughter alone in a hotel room and it is 100% because I'm worried about getting in trouble and not because I think she would get hurt. There have been times when I've been traveling alone with her and she's been asleep and I've thought about how much easier it would be to load my car up then and leave her in the room. But the possibility of having CPS called terrifies me. It's a terrible system. I care about my daughter's safety and she is the most important part of my life. But I don't think this hypervigilance is good for children or parents
For what it's worth, what people don't know can't hurt them (or you). I'm not saying I've done it, but if I had, I wouldn't talk about it online, or even with any friends, if you know what I mean.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s. The standards today are completely ridiculous in light of my own upbringing, but rather than fight people about it and end up with CPS knocking at my door, we just do our own thing and don't talk about it.
Is there any data on CPS opening investigations for this kind of thing? Bc it feels like it’s thrown around a lot and there are a couple of high profile cases in the news every year but from what I’ve heard CPS is more likely to be overloaded with legitimate cases than to be opening long investigations into nothing burgers.
So first of all, the data on this is extremely murky, *especially* when it comes to cases that fall into the lack of supervision category. That said, I did speak to several CPS experts and my sense is that while very few cases would involve people on cruises, there are literally tons of cases involving unsupervised kids who come to no harm and they do clog up the system.
When I lived in the Los Angeles area, there were a few high profile stories of children flagged and followed by CPS who still had awful, awful outcomes. It’s kind of crazy to think how much the system is clogged by, i dunno, people doing the same things good parents did 100 years ago, but now in much ‘safer’ environments? I think there might be some other people who could genuinely use the attention.
This topic fascinates me. I'm more of the "rub some dirt in it" as well. I'm really glad we have never had a video monitor, just a cheap radio one. We actually didn't even buy one at all with our first since we lived in a small apartment. No need for oversurveillance and better for my mental health. I've gone to hang out with my neighbor friends in the summer in our yards and taken the monitor with me, they have done the same with theirs. Babies can be babies and can be left alone in a safe place like their crib or on the porch in the stroller sleeping. Also, I would be more worried about inviting a random adult into our hotel room (as you said some hotels offer this) than leaving my sleeping kids alone. They could look through your stuff, bother your kids, that would be weird for me. We know our kids habits like the back of our hands.
My oldest and youngest have a sixteen year age gap, we have six kids. My oldest born in 2003, we didn’t have any monitor. Youngest born 2020, we had a radio monitor. No visual. I went to pick up my babies when I heard them cry. But I’m seeing moms rushing to the nursery to pick up an awake baby. I’m not a scientist or researcher of any sort… but I just wonder what our babies are missing out on when mom swoops in to get them as soon as they wake up from a nap. My babies would often lay there and “talk” or explore their crib. I think that alone time might be a good thing to help foster independence. All six of my kids are very independent and have been able to entertain themselves at all ages. ***Just thinking out loud here.
The author talks about this in the book Bringing Up Bebe. She calls it “The Pause.” Basically, don’t rush to the rescue at every little stirring. Personally, I’m not sure how some parents are selfless enough to do that anyway; if Baby’s not screaming, I’m sleeping. 😂
The problem, I think, lies in the idea that if there are stories being told of "un-helicopter" behavior, such as leaving sleeping children in a hotel room with a baby monitor and nothing bad happens (vast majority of the time), then parents can't look at the actions of the parents when something bad does happen and think "I won't let that happen, I'm a better parent than them."
In other words the illusion of being able to control EVERYTHING in their child's life is shattered. And people will do anything to maintain control over every situation, even if that control is an illusion - at best, or a delusion - at worst.
totally agree. I think judging other parents is often a means of desperately clinging to the idea that bad things won't ever happen to your kids. And I think the internet really really tempts people into that coping mechanism because it does expose us to horror stories about bad things happening to kids all over the world--stories that likely never would have reached us 100 years ago. The impulse to find a reason to blame the parents in those circumstances rather than accept the much scarier reality that parents aren't in total control of their kids' fate is very very strong.
I really enjoyed your article in Slate as well as this follow-up. It sheds an important light on the tenor of the greater online parenting forum that feels emboldened to criticize and attack other parents they’ve never met and will never meet. That’s why I ditched all Facebook parenting groups within the first two years of having kids. Hands down the judgiest Jans on the Internet (and folks who clearly spent more time criticizing parents than hanging with their own kids).
Ultimately, I know my children’s needs and dispositions, and choose to raise them from that knowledge, without seeking validation/counsel from strangers.
I’m so so thankful for you writing about this! I’ve watched our parenting become less controlling over the years as our family has grown. The larger the family, the more ridiculously impossible, and utterly undesirable, constant supervision becomes. I think people who aren’t used to larger families are going to naturally judge those parents as being more negligent simply because they’ve never experienced that kind of life? But it would be really nice if we felt some more freedom and support in making reasonably safe and considerate choices that allow for life to continue, even when you have more than two children. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have been a constant-baby/toddler-observer for, now, eight years straight. I would have lost my mind!
Along with family size, affluence does make an observable difference. I appreciate you drawing that out.
I really enjoyed this and the accompanying Atlantic article! (I also got it from Let Grow.) Keep writing, for the rest of us.
I think people focus on the choking and dying and extreme situations in the discourse because they are trying to make a point about how uncomfortable they'd be leaving kids alone for an hour even if they are sleeping.
The thing I'd be most worried about is my kid waking up crying, not finding anyone and going crazy. I realized we are bad at monitoring for alarms, just like self driving car drivers are bad at intervening when their intervention is needed. I was in the next room with a baby monitor and yet didn't realize a few times when my baby woke up and was crying because I was too absorbed in my work.
The goal here isn't just keeping my kid alive. It's scary to wake up with no one around you in a new place, especially if you're a child. Maybe it's traumatizing, leads to a fear of the dark, whatever, doesn't matter.... it's just not a situation I'd leave someone I cared about in.
If I'm going to be staring at a baby monitor the whole time, why not just get room service and turn on a good movie. That would be my thinking.
I don't think my line of thinking is uncommon. Pre-kids, I'd have thought it's NBD to leave a kid sleeping, but seeing the unmitigated fear on waking up alone on a child's face has changed my thinking. I'm sure it's that way for a lot of people, and since that's hard to communicate, it comes out as safetyism.
Fascinating follow-up to the also-fascinating Slate piece, and seems to corroborate my hunch that a lot of what we consider helicopter parenting is really performative parenting-- giving a performance of what a good parent is supposed to do, even when it circumvents our own instincts or beliefs. It's a weird inversion of alloparenting or cooperative breeding; the community still shapes our parenting, but through judgement rather than support.
Wow dang what a sharp insight....I think you are dead on.
This but for gentle parenting!!
I see this a lot with young parents or parents with one or two young children. They’re obviously mimicking what they’ve seen other parents do—in shows, in reels, maybe in real life but in short and obviously limited interactions. I find it sort of quaint, a kind of “aw, they’re unsure but trying” look. I never see this with parents of three or more kids; the facade or performative impetus is long gone. But there’s a murky spectrum from that into “I’m doing this because I need to show I’m ‘parenting’” that’s probably directly linked to people growing up with screens. I’ve been uneasy about a few parents who only seem to act out of a sense of performative duty. Their interactions with their own children seem staged, even robotic. And maybe they’re that insecure when they’re around other people and act totally differently in private. There’s a relationship between these people and the online strident accusers, I think, a view of parenting that’s absolute: “on paper it should always look like THIS.” Interesting topic.
There has been some (somewhat limited) research and some moderately robust (but anecdotal) evidence that the generation currently parenting feels more surveilled than prior generations did, with the hypothesis being that social media has driven a broader and more constant sense of being watched & judged and needing to perform, especially within the “parent” role. In my own observation of parent-child dyads over the past ten to fifteen years, the biggest harm seems to be the stress experienced by the parents themselves, both because of the pervasive sense of being scrutinized in a personal and intimate act (parenting), and because of how that observation makes our behavior toward our kids less authentic. Maybe a little bit tangential to your main point here, apologies—but this is what came up for me reading this post.
Love this topic and find it fascinating as a parent to young children. The peer pressure of parenting is so real. We have 2 children’s play places we visit regularly. One costs money and is totally designed for the millennial parent (from the decor to the lattes available for purchase). The other is free and is aimed at lower income families in my neighborhood (but sadly only open limited weekday hours, which is why we don’t go very often). I immediately noticed a big contrast between parenting in these environments. At the first place, parents are frequently hovering over children and intervening in everything. At the second, parents sit and chat at tables in the corner and let the kids have free range of the place, only really intervening if someone is crying. I felt so relaxed the first time I went to the second place because it was like I was being given permission to chill and for my kid to just play freely. At the other place, even though I try to adhere to a more free range parenting approach personally, I felt I would be judged if I didn’t intervene every time my child hesitated to share a toy or struggled momentarily. Just interesting how much other people’s parenting can put pressure or judgment on one’s own parenting.
Totally feel you on the pay-to-play coffee shops. On the one hand, I love the idea of a coffee shop with a play area (and an indoor one for the hot summer days...) On the other hand, I rarely see parents utilizing as a space to sit and have coffee while the kids play. Instead a lot of the groups I've seen congregate inside the play area (you can't even take your coffee in there!) with the kids while they play. And it does make anyone else who would rather stay outside the little plastic fence (read: me) feel judged if we're not there to prevent any accident or immediately intervene in any conflict
I started with active twin boys, which I've realized is a totally different start to parenting than most people have - for good (Dad is super involved) and not so good (running in opposite directions in parking lots). I've found that parents with one child have radically different expectations for life than parents of multiple children (esp multiple children close in age). I had a catchphrase I'd use when friends would talk about never saying no (!) and never letting the child cry (!!) - "That's a service I cannot provide!" We immediately saw that kids could rally with most difficulties but I think if you have one kid (and didn't have a lot of experience with kids before that one kid), your child's distress is almost intolerable. I also worked in child development and one of my colleagues would complain about moms being on their phones at the playground and I would say, "They're at the playground! That might be the only time they get to talk with their friends. Isn't the playground the time the kids actually play *without* you?" Yes, ideally you're interesting with the other adults there, but sometimes you really just want to talk to your best friend or your mom :-) But the different levels of vigilance could get awkward. It's good practice for life, though, since kids and parents differ so much and those differences continue throughout childhood and adolescence.
When my twins were under 2, we walked to the playground daily and it was my unofficial role at the park to make all the other parents nervous by my inability to closely follow and supervise each child. The result: they learned really quickly to master all the climbing elements of the playground; never once got (seriously) hurt! I am grateful I was not able to be too close of a helicopter for them at a young age.
Excellent point about expectations varying with multiple kids (as Jessica pointed out elsewhere here). I can only imagine boy twins!! But we DID have three boys within three years and that was it's own kind of trial by fire, so I can empathize. Relating to the parenting of moms with a single toddler girl is often hard. lol (We now have a girl, and therefore four kids under six.)
Big brothers are the best! The dynamics in my household expanded and shifted when we had our daughter and it's been such a blessing for everyone.
We also started with active twin boys and very soon picked up on the difference between a risk that would injure or worse (stairs above a stone floor) and just hurt (a small slide).
One you have to absolutely keep them supervised, the other they’ll figure out after a few bumps.
It is interesting that at our closest play area (posh coffee shop type thing) they have no fence which makes it harder to leave them because there’s a temptation for them to escape. However corralling two boys for whom this very quickly becomes a great game is no fun for me. I’ve found letting them crawl up to the nearest tables and say hello is usually extremely well received and if not or it gets too much then they can be captured.
I’ve had great mornings keeping half an eye on them whilst a table of pensioners and the boys all have a great time playing with each other.
Our friends with one baby hardly go out unless both of them are available to help look after them. We each think the other is mad.
There is definitely a class component to all of this -- we've noticed the exact same things at various places we've gone with our young kids.
I remember reading your Slate piece and seeing a few comments, either on that piece or on a piece linked about the Matt and Abby situation, to the effect of "SIDs/choking/abduction/insert baby emergency can happen silently and quickly, that's why it's not safe to leave your baby even with a monitor" and of course they were referring to that specific situation - leaving the babies to go eat somewhere else on the ship (or hotel). But by that same logic, even leaving your baby sleeping in a different room of the house is dangerous because all of those things (minus abduction, which is so unlikely an occurrence even in public areas) could still happen without a parent knowing or responding immediately. It just highlighted for me how alarmist all these people on the Internet were willing to be, in the name of "what if???" And of course no one wants to see a child hurt or abducted or killed due to a preventable situation, but it's also completely unsustainable as a mother (not to mention extremely unhealthy for mom and kids) to live in constant fear of the worst possible outcomes
I am not a parent so what do I know haha but in my mind there is a very slim chance of catastrophe in a situation like this, however, there are numerous different kinds of catastrophes that could happen. Mitigating every one of those is exhausting for the parents and often creates a helicopter environment in which the child does not learn how to be autonomous but does learn that if they cry they will always get what they want. So you are trading a very slim chance of catastrophe for very necessary lifetime skills.
There is always a chance you could die when you get in a car but we don’t let that fear bring our lives to a grinding halt.
The car is a good analogy, we put the kids in a car seat to acknowledge and minimise the risk but you know you can’t eliminate it by never going anywhere.
Would see the monitor as analogous to the care seat imo
I would bet that a lot of those judgmental parents drive aggressively or carelessly with their kids in the car, which is far more dangerous than leaving your kids alone while you eat in a separate room.
This is a good example, but today ... there are parents who don't go anywhere with their kids because the car is dangerous. I read a comment just this morning to the effect of "I certainly wouldn't let the nanny drive with the children. My husband and I don't even drive on freeways with the children."
This was from a trendy & wealthy neighborhood's Facebook moms' group, and I read comments like this all the time. (I joined for information after a natural disaster; I've stayed because I'm fascinated, though horrified ...)
The privilege it takes to be able to make such a decision for your family is evident. But it also makes me sad. The moms in this group are SO STRESSED OUT all the time. Since they have the time, technology, and money to worry about every little thing, and since they are very online, with lots of performative parenting examples, they do worry about every little thing. Sadly, it's really to their detriment, to the detriment of their children, and to the detriment of the whole community.
Also the parents downstairs at a restaurant usually aren't any farther away from their children than we are, when we carry the monitor out to the fire pit at my parents' property.
Yes, It's the equivalent of literally leaving them in a different room of one's house that gets me. lol These people must not have experience with how STAParenthood of more than one or two kids works!
I definitely think that smaller family size contributes to this in some way. I've been pretty hands-off since my first (perk of having the crazy child first - you get too tired to intervene very quickly 😅) but now with three I'm coming to terms even more with what I can and cannot control. And nowadays parents, but especially moms I think, have such high expectations for supervision and safety and whatnot, AND they are capable of maintaining those standards with just one or two kids. Sometimes you can't relinquish control until you're forced to 😅
EXACTLY.
Applies even inside your own home. How mature do your kids need to be before you tell them “get in the bath” and leave them to wash / play unsupervised while you cook dinner?
Ah -- this is so good. All the parents feel surveilled, and this leads to (at least the pretense) of more surveillance for children.
This probably (definitely) means I've spent too much time in academia, but it's like the Panopticon -- and no wonder parents and kids alike are so anxious.
I think the comparison to the washing machine is apt, but obviously this is much higher stakes. It's a combination of technology making a new standard possible and social media meaning that all most neurotic people broadcast their habits and anyone who's more lax feeling pressure to not say anything in case they get judged.
I semi- regularly see people online say that you should wash your towels after every use and have a shower in the morning AND evening and if you don't, you're disgusting. It's like... Do you realize how extraordinarily clean we all are, compared to all of human history? And do you also realize that most people are not washing 14 towels per person per week, they're just not telling you that because you'll yell at them?
Wait what, how could anyone wash their towels that much. You're clean when you come out of the shower, that's the point of the shower!
Yeah it's pretty crazy. Other common ones are "you should never wash tea towels with normal towels" and "you have to scrub - SCRUB - your legs every day in the shower, not just let soap wash down them".
Both of these are fine preferences to have and make sense in some situations (e.g. if you're working in a dirty environment). But modern day washing machines are very effective. People who work in an air conditioned environment, do little physical activity and wear clean clothes (i.e. most people in developed countries) are extremely clean, especially on areas of their body where they don't really sweat (e.g. your legs). Let's not act like not following these directives is disgusting.
The leg washing police are so annoying. My legs don’t get that dirty!
I don't know how they would unless you're sweating a lot or working in dust or something? I get that some of these things are cultural habits and I don't have a problem with that, but let's just be honest that that's what it is.
yes 1000% there's a combination of technological forces at work--one making "a new standard possible," as you say, and then another normalizing or diffusing that heightened standard. This is actually pretty much what Margaret Nelson found in her study of online reviews of baby monitors in 2008, which I mention briefly in the Slate piece. The reviews seemed to indicate that, for example, video capable baby monitors were raising the standards of supervision such that only being able to hear one's baby no longer seemed sufficient to parents. But then the reviews themselves, being publicly available online, effectively helped to normalize that idea.
"In writing about some monitors—those that show pictures; those that send out an alarm if the baby stops breathing—reviewers suggest that hearing alone may be insufficient: An attentive parent observes a baby’s every activity and ensures that it is alive... In short, as the reviewers describe the virtues of their monitors, they make parental anxiety the expected state of parenthood."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X07310319
I think of this in relation to things like "safe sleep" as well. So many people might co-sleep all the time or even here and there, but totally lie to their pediatricians about it because of the fear mongering and leading questions ("and she's sleeping on her back in her own crib, right?") which sometimes feels like bullying.
My mom has even made comments about how when we Millennials were babies the recommendation was to have us sleep ON the belly. lol
I feel like when we take our kids to the doctor I'm mostly trying to guess the answers she wants to hear instead of actually telling her what we do.
hahahaha it’s the leading questions though, like what do they expect??
TOTALLY. I never feel more judged and pressured to answer in certain ways than when in the presence of our doctors lol
"My mom has even made comments about how when we Millennials were babies the recommendation was to have us sleep ON the belly. lol"
I think modern safe sleep often goes too far by (as is often the case with parenting stuff) ignoring tradeoffs and assuming there are only benefits and no costs. But...come on, the "back to sleep" campaigns are unabashed global successes, not some "diet of the week" fad. Doctors during your mom's era were flat wrong and gave advice that killed tens of thousands of children.
From one paper:
"Many countries around the world saw substantial reductions in their sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rates around the time of introduction of the campaigns (Figure 12.1), with falls of between 42% and 92% (Figure 12.2). The rate of SIDS was halved in the United Kingdom (UK) in just one year, and in New Zealand in two years (1, 3). Instituting a “Back to Sleep” campaign has been estimated to have saved 3,000 lives in New Zealand, 17,000 lives in the UK, and 40,000 lives in the United States (3)."
So I will grant you that the back to sleep campaign IS a good thing and has reduced SIDS rates, but I also would argue against the point that the recommendation to put babies to sleep on their bellies "killed tens of thousands of children." Putting a baby to sleep on his or her belly does not cause SIDS. Most modern day research around SIDS (actual SIDS, not suffocation deaths or entrapment) indicates that SIDS is likely caused by a genetic factor that predisposes a baby to the condition. The back to sleep campaign, along with the campaign to reduce or avoid a lot of other SIDS risks factors (the reduction in smoking rates is also a huge thing here) helps by reducing the number of situations in which that genetic predisposition will lead to the baby dying. And this is a good thing, 100%. But there's more nuance there than the idea that putting a baby to sleep on his or her tummy is what leads to the death of that baby.
Also, it is worth mentioning that Haley's comment about doctor advice was in the context of parents discussing how they felt unable to be truthful about their children's sleeping situations, because (as you acknowledge) modern safe sleep guidelines go the the furthest extreme of risk mitigation and don't allow for trade offs or risk analysis. It IS somewhat comical to think of how rigid modern doctors are when telling a sleep-deprived mom that baby should absolutely never sleep anywhere other than on her back, in an empty crib, with a fan on in the room, at least a foot away from any other furniture, when a generation ago they were telling moms to do the very thing they now vilify. The point isn't that those doctors of ye olden days were right and "back to sleep" is a fad. The point is that doctors make these recommendations and sometimes they change, but whether or not they are good or bad or evidence-based, parents are expected to follow the letter of the guideline without accounting for the uniqueness of their situations or any mitigating factors. And at least when it comes to something like sleep safety (of which I am a big fan!) it's very easy to make the recommendations and a lot more tricky to get a baby to sleep in such circumstances (which are, in effect designed to prevent a baby from entering too deep of a sleep - good for SIDS-inclined babies with a genetic inability to rouse themselves from too deep a slumber, but not great for general good sleep for mom or baby, which leads to its own unsafe situations).
I’ve lied to the doc about where/how my kids sleep about a dozen times by now!
I wish we didn't have to have firm moral judgments on all of these decisions. I think even framing this as "hypervigilance" is judgy, because there are so many variables that go into what level of supervision or vigilance go into any of these decisions. I had twin active twin boys (with no diagnosis at the time, but in elementary school one would get an ADHD diagnosis and one would get an autism diagnosis). I wouldn't have left them as active toddlers alone in a hotel room with a monitor for lots of reasons based on our experiences with them as parents of these particular kids. Labelling this as "hypervigilance" seems a bit hyper itself. Our daughter, who was born later, who slept deeply throughout the night, would have been okay with a system like this. One way that being an experienced parent has changed me (even beyond the doctorate in human development that I had before having kids) is how pretty much any parenting situation is context dependent (beyond extremes of abuse and neglect, of course). I've toned way down on trying to figure out if another parent is hypervigilant or lax. I'm sure sometimes they are - but I'm so busy figuring out how to parent the kids in front of me that I find these questions much less interesting than in the past. (The same with other people's judgements - they are likely basing their experiences on their own kids and their own tolerance levels, and unless they are super extreme or trying to interfere in my own family's life, so be it.) Personally and professionally, I think that the "order and wonder" approach, is in general a great and flexible approach. But know tons of situations in which even that needs some modification. We're all trying to figure things out and except in cases of extreme abuse and neglect we should have a lot of grace for each other (neglect here could have been leaving toddlers with a known history of pulling down TVs, turning on tubs, etc. alone or not monitoring the video/listening device sufficiently, etc.)
Certainly didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with not being comfortable with the baby monitor thing. I tried to convey this in my summary here (maybe unsuccessfully) that basically everyone I spoke to said that whether or not they would actually do it depends on their particular circumstaces/kids. It is extremely easy for me to envision a scenario in which, given the unique qualities of my kids, I would not consider it prudent. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't feel comfortable with the set-up given their circumstances hypervigilant. I *would* call someone pushing the view that kids should never be left unattended/profusely supporting a blanket outlaw on the monitor trick hypervigilant, yes.
Yeah, one of the downsides of social media/overly online conversations is that everyone can seem more absolute than they might be in "real life." I wouldn't really feel too bad about a parent who can't imagine leaving her kiddos in a hotel room, just as I wouldn't feel too bad about a parent who went to the lobby while her children slept soundly upstairs, monitoring them on their device. I think things get tricky when you get to things like hotel policies, where they can't really know what is reasonable given particular kids and parents, so they may be more cautious than necessary. I think in general, making these decisions less fraught and meaningful, seeing them as simply a few of the dozens of ordinary parenting decisions we make in a day, the better. I 100% agree with your perspective that we need people to be around kids more and to know more about kids, and I think if our society can pull that off, all of these decisions will feel so much less weighty and we'll all roll with the flow a bit better.
I’ve had experiences along this line with extended family - horrified that I’m letting small kids play independently while also implying that wouldn’t it be terrible if I was one of those helicopter who didn’t enroll my child in daycare or used a stroller for an older preschooler. It seems like often what people want is for you to hit their exact level of supervision/independence/time away and not one bit more or less
ok so this isn't about helicopter parenting or anything but literally today I was chatting with a couple of moms, one of whom sort of launched into this whole thing about how she always parents with her gut and just ignores any guidelines that run against her intuitions because every family is different and what might work for one family won't work for another etc... Great, we're all nodding along. Then the other mom, who is really really struggling with her 5 month old not sleeping at night mentioned that she was considering some sort of sleep training but conflicted etc etc and IMMEDIATELY the other mom GOES OFF about how she thinks it's cruel and damaging to kids and can't believe anyone would subject their kids to it. Like I'm not trying to get into a debate about the merits/pitfalls of sleep training but the "everyone should listen to their gut (unless their gut disagrees with my gut)" messaging was kind of funny.
Yes! So often go with my gut or follow every guidance scrupulously turns into follow my gut or follow these guidances (which may or may not include actual guidelines lol). I’ve known people who swear up and down that you can’t question AAP on safe sleep because they’re the AAP and turn around and say their encouragement to breastfeeding is bunk
There is no way I'd leave my daughter alone in a hotel room and it is 100% because I'm worried about getting in trouble and not because I think she would get hurt. There have been times when I've been traveling alone with her and she's been asleep and I've thought about how much easier it would be to load my car up then and leave her in the room. But the possibility of having CPS called terrifies me. It's a terrible system. I care about my daughter's safety and she is the most important part of my life. But I don't think this hypervigilance is good for children or parents
For what it's worth, what people don't know can't hurt them (or you). I'm not saying I've done it, but if I had, I wouldn't talk about it online, or even with any friends, if you know what I mean.
I grew up in the 80s and 90s. The standards today are completely ridiculous in light of my own upbringing, but rather than fight people about it and end up with CPS knocking at my door, we just do our own thing and don't talk about it.
Is there any data on CPS opening investigations for this kind of thing? Bc it feels like it’s thrown around a lot and there are a couple of high profile cases in the news every year but from what I’ve heard CPS is more likely to be overloaded with legitimate cases than to be opening long investigations into nothing burgers.
So first of all, the data on this is extremely murky, *especially* when it comes to cases that fall into the lack of supervision category. That said, I did speak to several CPS experts and my sense is that while very few cases would involve people on cruises, there are literally tons of cases involving unsupervised kids who come to no harm and they do clog up the system.
Clogging the system!
When I lived in the Los Angeles area, there were a few high profile stories of children flagged and followed by CPS who still had awful, awful outcomes. It’s kind of crazy to think how much the system is clogged by, i dunno, people doing the same things good parents did 100 years ago, but now in much ‘safer’ environments? I think there might be some other people who could genuinely use the attention.
This topic fascinates me. I'm more of the "rub some dirt in it" as well. I'm really glad we have never had a video monitor, just a cheap radio one. We actually didn't even buy one at all with our first since we lived in a small apartment. No need for oversurveillance and better for my mental health. I've gone to hang out with my neighbor friends in the summer in our yards and taken the monitor with me, they have done the same with theirs. Babies can be babies and can be left alone in a safe place like their crib or on the porch in the stroller sleeping. Also, I would be more worried about inviting a random adult into our hotel room (as you said some hotels offer this) than leaving my sleeping kids alone. They could look through your stuff, bother your kids, that would be weird for me. We know our kids habits like the back of our hands.
My oldest and youngest have a sixteen year age gap, we have six kids. My oldest born in 2003, we didn’t have any monitor. Youngest born 2020, we had a radio monitor. No visual. I went to pick up my babies when I heard them cry. But I’m seeing moms rushing to the nursery to pick up an awake baby. I’m not a scientist or researcher of any sort… but I just wonder what our babies are missing out on when mom swoops in to get them as soon as they wake up from a nap. My babies would often lay there and “talk” or explore their crib. I think that alone time might be a good thing to help foster independence. All six of my kids are very independent and have been able to entertain themselves at all ages. ***Just thinking out loud here.
The author talks about this in the book Bringing Up Bebe. She calls it “The Pause.” Basically, don’t rush to the rescue at every little stirring. Personally, I’m not sure how some parents are selfless enough to do that anyway; if Baby’s not screaming, I’m sleeping. 😂
The problem, I think, lies in the idea that if there are stories being told of "un-helicopter" behavior, such as leaving sleeping children in a hotel room with a baby monitor and nothing bad happens (vast majority of the time), then parents can't look at the actions of the parents when something bad does happen and think "I won't let that happen, I'm a better parent than them."
In other words the illusion of being able to control EVERYTHING in their child's life is shattered. And people will do anything to maintain control over every situation, even if that control is an illusion - at best, or a delusion - at worst.
totally agree. I think judging other parents is often a means of desperately clinging to the idea that bad things won't ever happen to your kids. And I think the internet really really tempts people into that coping mechanism because it does expose us to horror stories about bad things happening to kids all over the world--stories that likely never would have reached us 100 years ago. The impulse to find a reason to blame the parents in those circumstances rather than accept the much scarier reality that parents aren't in total control of their kids' fate is very very strong.
I really enjoyed your article in Slate as well as this follow-up. It sheds an important light on the tenor of the greater online parenting forum that feels emboldened to criticize and attack other parents they’ve never met and will never meet. That’s why I ditched all Facebook parenting groups within the first two years of having kids. Hands down the judgiest Jans on the Internet (and folks who clearly spent more time criticizing parents than hanging with their own kids).
Ultimately, I know my children’s needs and dispositions, and choose to raise them from that knowledge, without seeking validation/counsel from strangers.
Thank you! I'm really glad the pieces resonated :)
I’m so so thankful for you writing about this! I’ve watched our parenting become less controlling over the years as our family has grown. The larger the family, the more ridiculously impossible, and utterly undesirable, constant supervision becomes. I think people who aren’t used to larger families are going to naturally judge those parents as being more negligent simply because they’ve never experienced that kind of life? But it would be really nice if we felt some more freedom and support in making reasonably safe and considerate choices that allow for life to continue, even when you have more than two children. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have been a constant-baby/toddler-observer for, now, eight years straight. I would have lost my mind!
Along with family size, affluence does make an observable difference. I appreciate you drawing that out.
I really enjoyed this and the accompanying Atlantic article! (I also got it from Let Grow.) Keep writing, for the rest of us.
I think people focus on the choking and dying and extreme situations in the discourse because they are trying to make a point about how uncomfortable they'd be leaving kids alone for an hour even if they are sleeping.
The thing I'd be most worried about is my kid waking up crying, not finding anyone and going crazy. I realized we are bad at monitoring for alarms, just like self driving car drivers are bad at intervening when their intervention is needed. I was in the next room with a baby monitor and yet didn't realize a few times when my baby woke up and was crying because I was too absorbed in my work.
The goal here isn't just keeping my kid alive. It's scary to wake up with no one around you in a new place, especially if you're a child. Maybe it's traumatizing, leads to a fear of the dark, whatever, doesn't matter.... it's just not a situation I'd leave someone I cared about in.
If I'm going to be staring at a baby monitor the whole time, why not just get room service and turn on a good movie. That would be my thinking.
I don't think my line of thinking is uncommon. Pre-kids, I'd have thought it's NBD to leave a kid sleeping, but seeing the unmitigated fear on waking up alone on a child's face has changed my thinking. I'm sure it's that way for a lot of people, and since that's hard to communicate, it comes out as safetyism.
Maybe! I don't think your line of thinking is uncommon, either. Was mostly surprised to discover just how common mine is haha