PDA

View Full Version : Child safety



BarIII
06-20-2018, 03:52 PM
Pool ladder design flaw.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbpk4Xy3f4

BarIII
06-20-2018, 04:02 PM
There was a warning a few years ago that baby carriers that hold the baby against your back could overheat the baby. I actually thought of that when I'd see them. Ever get too hot in bed? Or anywhere? I'd be thinking about that if I carried a baby like that. The adult is walking and producing body heat and the resting baby's front side is squished against the adult. That can't be good.

Robcore
06-20-2018, 04:07 PM
There's no such thing as child-proof.

When I worked at a daycare as a support for kids with behaviour issues there was such an emphasis on safety that it was actually negative for the kids, imo. The policy for the kids on the playground was "Up the stairs, down the slide"...but the boy I was supporting wanted to go up the slide, and jump over the stairs. I did that all the time as a kid...ended up strong, agile, and with good spatial awareness. Risk is important for development. The key is to mitigate the harms associated with failure. Pea gravel is sufficient on the playground.

Sloth
06-20-2018, 05:20 PM
I considered making a thread similar to this a couple months ago when I came across this article:

Woman speaks out after her toddler was injured on a trampoline (https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/nightmare-mom-speaks-toddler-injured-trampoline/story?id=48579323)

It's terrible what happened to that kid, but I was amazed that it happened. We've known for DECADES that trampolines are extremely dangerous for kids under the age of 6 or so (and isn't a good idea in general until your late teens because you're still growing). When I was a little kid my neighbors had a trampoline, and a lot of the neighbor kids would jump on it but my mom would never let me. She said "they're too dangerous, if you want to jump on them when you're an adult that'll be your decision" I still haven't ever jumped on one (I dislocated my right knee at 22 so that has dashed all desires to get on a trampoline). I was allowed to go into bounce houses though.

Also those neighbors got rid of the trampoline after a few years because a kid fell off it and they were worried about other kids hurting themselves. I digress.

Around age 12 when the internet was starting to get its sea legs, I looked up some information about trampolines and there are a lot of physics involved that if you ignore you're in for a quick and harsh injury.

In regard to the article I linked I was extra surprised that there was a trampoline park that allowed kids that small on to a trampoline in the first place. I have some sympathy for the mom because she probably thought she was doing the right thing by having it supervised by a "professional", but at the same time this happened last year and some internet research would have prevented this.

BarIII
06-20-2018, 05:27 PM
Yeah. In high school we had a trampoline. The kids waiting their turn would have to surround it to spot the jumper. One jumper started getting too close to the edge and all the spotters in that section started running away.

oxyjen
06-20-2018, 06:42 PM
There's no such thing as child-proof.

When I worked at a daycare as a support for kids with behaviour issues there was such an emphasis on safety that it was actually negative for the kids, imo. The policy for the kids on the playground was "Up the stairs, down the slide"...but the boy I was supporting wanted to go up the slide, and jump over the stairs. I did that all the time as a kid...ended up strong, agile, and with good spatial awareness. Risk is important for development. The key is to mitigate the harms associated with failure. Pea gravel is sufficient on the playground.

The thing is that kids display different levels of readiness, even at the same age, to take on certain levels of risk. In a group environment, especially in terms of liability and perceived fairness, you have to set the rules to the least amount of risk. Like maybe you wouldn't have walked up the slide and barreled over a kid who was waiting to come down, but someone else might. Granted, with close enough supervision some of this may be mitigated but with kids it only takes a second (and if a parent of a hurt child was told there are no 'rules' about how to 'properly' use the slide, they perceive it as negligence or poor caretaking).

Robcore
06-20-2018, 08:28 PM
I considered making a thread similar to this a couple months ago when I came across this article:

Woman speaks out after her toddler was injured on a trampoline (https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/nightmare-mom-speaks-toddler-injured-trampoline/story?id=48579323)

It's terrible what happened to that kid, but I was amazed that it happened. We've known for DECADES that trampolines are extremely dangerous for kids under the age of 6 or so (and isn't a good idea in general until your late teens because you're still growing). When I was a little kid my neighbors had a trampoline, and a lot of the neighbor kids would jump on it but my mom would never let me. She said "they're too dangerous, if you want to jump on them when you're an adult that'll be your decision" I still haven't ever jumped on one (I dislocated my right knee at 22 so that has dashed all desires to get on a trampoline). I was allowed to go into bounce houses though.

Also those neighbors got rid of the trampoline after a few years because a kid fell off it and they were worried about other kids hurting themselves. I digress.

Around age 12 when the internet was starting to get its sea legs, I looked up some information about trampolines and there are a lot of physics involved that if you ignore you're in for a quick and harsh injury.

In regard to the article I linked I was extra surprised that there was a trampoline park that allowed kids that small on to a trampoline in the first place. I have some sympathy for the mom because she probably thought she was doing the right thing by having it supervised by a "professional", but at the same time this happened last year and some internet research would have prevented this.

My boy started trampolining at age 2, and my daughters each started at 8-9 months, shortly after they started walking.
The doctor told us that they shouldn't start using the Jolly Jumper until about 7 months...but they were all bored with it by then(they all went in it as soon as they had the strength to keep their heads relatively steady).
We have a net around our trampoline, though. They were way more dangerous before they started selling them with the netting.

Robcore
06-20-2018, 08:31 PM
The thing is that kids display different levels of readiness, even at the same age, to take on certain levels of risk. In a group environment, especially in terms of liability and perceived fairness, you have to set the rules to the least amount of risk. Like maybe you wouldn't have walked up the slide and barreled over a kid who was waiting to come down, but someone else might. Granted, with close enough supervision some of this may be mitigated but with kids it only takes a second (and if a parent of a hurt child was told there are no 'rules' about how to 'properly' use the slide, they perceive it as negligence or poor caretaking).

Liability is an unfortunate excuse to inhibit the speedy development of kids who advance more quickly. It also keeps other kids from seeing advanced behaviour, which helps them learn.
...and rules + toddlers is just funny. Might as well make a rule that all kids should obey the rules. It will be adhered to the same as other rules...which is like...50% of the time.

Sloth
06-20-2018, 08:40 PM
They were way more dangerous before they started selling them with the netting.

They're still very dangerous for small children no matter what though. The kid in the article I linked was injured even when being monitored by a trained professional.

Sappho
06-20-2018, 10:01 PM
Is this the perfect playground, full of junk?

An experiment in north Wales lets children – and adults – experience the boundaries of truly free play. Is it madness or a model for the future? (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/10/perfect-childrens-playground-the-land-plas-madoc-wales)

Tlalocone
06-20-2018, 10:48 PM
There was a famous guy, who really knew much about child safety, as the following videos confirm:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ElddgJCgyg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pndEYhBSsY

Robcore
06-20-2018, 11:17 PM
They're still very dangerous for small children no matter what though. The kid in the article I linked was injured even when being monitored by a trained professional.

Stairs are probably worse than trampolines. Gotta keep it all in perspective.

Sloth
06-20-2018, 11:22 PM
Stairs are probably worse than trampolines. Gotta keep it all in perspective.

Right, perspective is important. It isn't necessary to adult life to learn how to use a trampoline.

oxyjen
06-20-2018, 11:24 PM
Liability is an unfortunate excuse to inhibit the speedy development of kids who advance more quickly. It also keeps other kids from seeing advanced behaviour, which helps them learn.
...and rules + toddlers is just funny. Might as well make a rule that all kids should obey the rules. It will be adhered to the same as other rules...which is like...50% of the time.

I'm not arguing that having those restrictive rules are necessarily the best thing, but I understand why administrators think it will make their jobs easier, from a legal, staff training, and parent coddling perspective.

pensive_pilgrim
06-21-2018, 12:07 AM
I think it's good for kids to get hurt in ways that they can survive and heal from. It was good for me. Being sheltered from that keeps people afraid of the world, and conditions them to let fear stop them from doing things. Kids should have plenty of opportunities to get scraped and bruised and maybe even break a bone or two, so they can get comfortable with the limitations of living in a body.

PureViolence
06-21-2018, 12:11 AM
maybe even break a bone or two

this
and it wouldn't be bad if parents beat them up once in a while, if needed

BarIII
06-21-2018, 12:14 AM
Break the right things and you may live your last decades in constant pain. Or even your entire life. Or you could die. Kids don't need that.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 12:26 AM
Break the right things and you may live your last decades in constant pain. Or even your entire life. Or you could die. Kids don't need that.

I agree, there's a balance to be had. Age appropriate risks should be allowed. I have lots of fond memories climbing trees, exploring new places, playing with small sharp objects, ect. but I wasn't allowed to do that at age 2.

In the article I linked that toddler broke his femur, and breaking that bone at that age there's a good possibility he may never walk correctly.

It's important for kids to be allowed to take risks, but it's also important for parents to have an awareness what risks are age appropriate.

BarIII
06-21-2018, 12:39 AM
I used to climb a tree at my friend's house when I was 11 with no adults watching. I wouldn't want my kids doing that. I don't see how it helped me. There's a modern jungle gym (I think that's what it's called... it has pull up handles and a slide and stuff) in the park near me that meets current safety standards, and swings, and that's enough. Only birds and squirrels need the trees. Public safety issues like this are a big reason I'm a democrat.

PureViolence
06-21-2018, 12:46 AM
I used to climb a tree at my friend's house when I was 11 with no adults watching. I wouldn't want my kids doing that. I don't see how it helped me. There's a modern jungle gym in the park near me that meets current safety standards, and swings, and that's enough. Only birds and squirrels need the trees. Public safety issues like this are a big reason I'm a democrat.

Life finds a way.
I broke my head two times when I was like 5 or so, once hit metal pilar and second got hit by a swing in a park. Left me two scars in my forehead, actually lots of blood and when I touch I feel a super subtle depression in the bone in one of them. Now it is debatable if they affected my IQ positively or negatively. But you know, I think I'm still as risk taker as I was back then.

pensive_pilgrim
06-21-2018, 01:00 AM
Break the right things and you may live your last decades in constant pain. Or even your entire life. Or you could die. Kids don't need that.

Pain is better than fear.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 01:05 AM
Right, perspective is important. It isn't necessary to adult life to learn how to use a trampoline.

It isn't necessary to adult life to be a carpenter, or to be a welder, or to do anything physical, really. You could just trade stocks. It isn't about the necessity of risk, it is about a degree of risk being acceptable without having to induce anxiety.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 01:07 AM
Pain is better than fear.

That's pretty broad. I don't think that's true for every case. I think it really depends on the degrees of pain and fear, and the general risk/benefit ratio of the situation.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 01:09 AM
It isn't necessary to adult life to be a carpenter, or to be a welder, or to do anything physical, really. You could just trade stocks. It isn't about the necessity of risk, it is about a degree of risk being acceptable without having to induce anxiety.

Would you care to elaborate on how jumping up and down repetitively in a tiny confined place is deeply developmentally enriching enough to risk your child's ability to walk?

Robcore
06-21-2018, 01:16 AM
I'm not arguing that having those restrictive rules are necessarily the best thing, but I understand why administrators think it will make their jobs easier, from a legal, staff training, and parent coddling perspective.

Yeah, it's necessary in a litigious climate. It really kills freedom, though. I mean, the same thing happens in construction these days...excessive rules so that companies can cover their butts in the case of an accident. Previously, workers had to fight for safety, and now it is being shoved down their throats.
Eventually we'll strike a balance...but it's a while down the road, yet, I think.

Hard to issue intelligent circumstantial rules without requiring everyone subject to said rules to be a lawyer, basically.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 01:24 AM
Would you care to elaborate on how jumping up and down repetitively in a tiny confined place is deeply developmentally enriching enough to risk your child's ability to walk?

Our trampoline is 14 feet wide.
Jumping on a trampoline is a blast...just like riding a bike...or swimming...or rowing a kayak....a few more things that are definitely not necessary...and can result in severe injury and/or death. My kids all have fantastic agility and balance...surely due in part to having experienced things like trampolining, scootering, skate boarding, cycling, kayaking, swimming, etc.
The thing is, that doing nothing risky is definitely key to having a non-enriched life, while doing some risky things is enjoyable even though dangerous. I don't have the magic answer re: what the right amount of risk is...but I'm sure that the right amount is greater than zero.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 01:33 AM
The thing is, that doing nothing risky is definitely key to having a non-enriched life, while doing some risky things is enjoyable even though dangerous.

I agree with this principle, as I've already said:


It's important for kids to be allowed to take risks

Some risks are particularly extreme though. It's also a risk to run out into traffic but that's something we engrain into little kids to not do ever.

There aren't thousands upon thousands of medical professionals telling people to not teach their kid to ride a bike, or to skateboard, or do those other things you listed. There are an overwhelming amount of them stating that children under 6 shouldn't be on trampolines.

This isn't about the principle of allowing risk, it's about children under the age of 6 not being on trampolines.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 02:09 AM
I agree with this principle, as I've already said:



Some risks are particularly extreme though. It's also a risk to run out into traffic but that's something we engrain into little kids to not do ever.

There aren't thousands upon thousands of medical professionals telling people to not teach their kid to ride a bike, or to skateboard, or do those other things you listed. There are an overwhelming amount of them stating that children under 6 shouldn't be on trampolines.

This isn't about the principle of allowing risk, it's about children under the age of 6 not being on trampolines.

Not all children under the age of six are created equally. Like I said earlier, our GP recommended waiting until around 8 months or older to start using the Jolly Jumper...but my kids, like myself, were bored of it by 7 months. Blanket rules are not what is best for everyone...even if they are what's best for some people.
When I was a kid we sat in the front seat, without airbags or booster seats...sat in our parents' laps...now thousands of advocates want kids in car seats rear-facing for a really long time, then front facing for another long time, and then in booster seats up to an age where at one time, kids were having their own kids.
I acknowledge the risk...but reject the blanket application of it. It varies on a case by case basis.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 02:23 AM
It varies on a case by case basis.

The thing about some risks is that you don't always know what rules make sense to apply until it's too late. Most of the neighborhood kids that used the trampoline my neighbors had didn't get hurt, but one kid got very hurt and was hospitalized for a few days (I forget his exact injuries).

Life is about risks and managing them, undoubtedly, but part of managing them is being honest about the risk benefit ratio of a particular action. I think the same level of enjoyment and "risk experience" can be achieved by doing a variety of other things (like the other stuff you listed) that doesn't disproportionately risk a kid's ability to walk. Again, I just don't see how being able to jump up and down repetitively in a confined space is more enriching than the other activities you listed, particularly with the greater amount of risk involved.

Anyway, you have the internet and the ability to google "are trampolines safe" and read about its disproportionate risk.

BarIII
06-21-2018, 02:26 AM
Not all children under the age of six are created equally. Like I said earlier, our GP recommended waiting until around 8 months or older to start using the Jolly Jumper...but my kids, like myself, were bored of it by 7 months. Blanket rules are not what is best for everyone...even if they are what's best for some people.
When I was a kid we sat in the front seat, without airbags or booster seats...sat in our parents' laps...now thousands of advocates want kids in car seats rear-facing for a really long time, then front facing for another long time, and then in booster seats up to an age where at one time, kids were having their own kids.
I acknowledge the risk...but reject the blanket application of it. It varies on a case by case basis.

It sounds like if you listened to the doctor the Jolly Jumper would be new to your kids at 8 months and they wouldn't be bored. I don't see what made you think your kids were different at the time you started the Jolly Jumper early. They became different later because you put them at risk against the doctor's advice.

pensive_pilgrim
06-21-2018, 02:44 AM
Keep in mind that doctors give all of their advice thinking "is there any way this could possibly get me sued".


The thing about some risks is that you don't always know what rules make sense to apply until it's too late.

That's life. Always erring on the safe side encourages a fearful, risk-averse personality. Potentially getting hurt is part of the benefit of jumping on a trampoline. It makes it more fun, and getting hurt builds character.

oxyjen
06-21-2018, 02:57 AM
The trampoline park is awesome, I take my kids there. It is padded to the nines and it's not a raised jumping area so no risk of falling off. Only kids of a certain age are allowed to jump and there are rules. Risks are mitigated.

Unlike my trampoline growing up, which was unsecured, no netting, and we put a sprinkler underneath to shoot up and made it extra slippery. My parents were pretty lassez faire with a lot of stuff. I was generally a nervous, cautious kid so I don't think it was unwise. The same rules for a kid with different temperament may be a disaster.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 03:10 AM
That's life. Always erring on the safe side encourages a fearful, risk-averse personality. Potentially getting hurt is part of the benefit of jumping on a trampoline. It makes it more fun, and getting hurt builds character.

Sometimes it seems like on this forum it doesn't matter how many qualifiers you use when you post, people just read what they want and ignore your overall point:


Life is about risks and managing them, undoubtedly, but part of managing them is being honest about the risk benefit ratio of a particular action.

I really don't think Rob's 7 month old was able to conceptualize how much danger he was actually in to be able to appreciate the existential benefits you're describing. You could probably make the case for a 7 or 8 year old though.

I don't get why I'm getting blow back about suggesting there should be some limit somewhere about not allowing your kid to do something that poses real disproportionate risks. I mean seriously. If your 5 year old walked up to you and said they wanted to try heroin would you let them because "that's life"?

BarIII
06-21-2018, 03:15 AM
This reminds me the people in Burger King who want "customers only" to mean "if you've ever been a customer." They could all cite an employee who isn't currently there who would recognize them as a loyal customer. The last guy asked me "do I look homeless?" They want a judgment call to be made in each case. Strict enforcement of the rules makes more sense sometimes, especially when there's no harm done, and there's a Toys R Us/Amazon full of reasons why no harm is done by following trampoline best practices.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 07:07 AM
It sounds like if you listened to the doctor the Jolly Jumper would be new to your kids at 8 months and they wouldn't be bored. I don't see what made you think your kids were different at the time you started the Jolly Jumper early. They became different later because you put them at risk against the doctor's advice.

All of my kids started walking at 7-8 months old. The whole point of the Jolly Jumper is exercise, muscle development, and mobility when you pretty well have none...otherwise there'd be a market for adult Jolly Jumpers.
Meanwhile, many of the kids I've seen lately don't start walking until they're almost 14 months old.


Unlike my trampoline growing up, which was unsecured, no netting, and we put a sprinkler underneath to shoot up and made it extra slippery. My parents were pretty lassez faire with a lot of stuff. I was generally a nervous, cautious kid so I don't think it was unwise. The same rules for a kid with different temperament may be a disaster.
We run the sprinkler under the trampoline for our kids...and other times we fill up the whole thing with water balloons.
From what I've heard about days of old, though, is that they'd run the sprinkler *and* cover the thing with dish detergent. We don't do that.

PureViolence
06-21-2018, 09:53 AM
Woah, so many stories.
I remember vividly how in kindergarten I grabbed a 2 liters glass bottle of cola (mind this is Venezuela 1995 or so) and smashed it to the ground in our backyard. Kids were freaking out "ohhh teacher PV is doing bullshit" and one of the teachers grabbed me by the ear and pulled me like cavemen did to cavewomen all the way into our class. Everyone was screaming, sacrifice! Sacrifice! Hahah. OK maybe the screams didn't happened. But there was a feeling in the air that I was going to be severely punished, obviously ESFJ woman.

But the point is that it's cool to try new things. 2 years ago my Italian friends invited me to a bulgarian resort for skying, never did it in my whole life yet I was there breaking my bones and looking like an idiot.
You gotta live dude.

rokki balbotox
06-21-2018, 12:06 PM
All of my kids started walking at 7-8 months old..

damn my daughter didn't even start crawling til then

Robcore
06-21-2018, 03:09 PM
damn my daughter didn't even start crawling til then

None of my kids really crawled at all. My first skipped crawling entirely, the second did a mix of walking/crawling that was more just a continued effort to walk whenever she fell over, chasing after her big brother, and the third crawled for maybe 2-3 weeks.

I learned to walk at about 8 months old, too...so not sure whether it is genetics, or the approach to encouraging mobility that my parents used, too. I was certainly done in the Jolly Jumper by 7 months.

oxyjen
06-21-2018, 03:30 PM
None of my kids really crawled at all. My first skipped crawling entirely, the second did a mix of walking/crawling that was more just a continued effort to walk whenever she fell over, chasing after her big brother, and the third crawled for maybe 2-3 weeks.

I learned to walk at about 8 months old, too...so not sure whether it is genetics, or the approach to encouraging mobility that my parents used, too. I was certainly done in the Jolly Jumper by 7 months.

Temperament plays the largest role of when a child is going to walk, barring the outliers like if a child has physical impairments of some kind. Genetics like inborn sense of balance may play a part.

By and large, unless someone is actively doing something to inhibit their motor learning and progression, kids will unfold in their own pre-set timeline. But you can credit you putting them in the Jolly Jumper if it makes you feel good, lol

pensive_pilgrim
06-21-2018, 04:23 PM
Temperament plays the largest role of when a child is going to walk, barring the outliers like if a child has physical impairments of some kind. Genetics like inborn sense of balance may play a part.

By and large, unless someone is actively doing something to inhibit their motor learning and progression, kids will unfold in their own pre-set timeline. But you can credit you putting them in the Jolly Jumper if it makes you feel good, lol

What evidence do you have for this "pre-set timeline"


Sometimes it seems like on this forum it doesn't matter how many qualifiers you use when you post, people just read what they want and ignore your overall point:



I really don't think Rob's 7 month old was able to conceptualize how much danger he was actually in to be able to appreciate the existential benefits you're describing. You could probably make the case for a 7 or 8 year old though.

I don't get why I'm getting blow back about suggesting there should be some limit somewhere about not allowing your kid to do something that poses real disproportionate risks. I mean seriously. If your 5 year old walked up to you and said they wanted to try heroin would you let them because "that's life"?
The blowback is probably a little bit in response to what seems like a generalized culture of overprotective parenting that our society seems to be moving towards.

oxyjen
06-21-2018, 05:00 PM
What evidence do you have for this "pre-set timeline"
.

By "pre-set timeline" I mean there is a window of development which is typical, and that a parent cannot do much to enable their child to hit those milestones earlier than that window. I realize that it could be taken to mean that environmental factor has zero influence, and I don't want to portray that. It was more to convey that 11 month walking is normal, 14 month walking is normal, and it's inaccurate to assume that the 14month old is "delayed." As long as you are not inhibiting the child and exposing them to a range of motor experiences, the child will learn on his/her own timeline and it's all gravy.

This info I've come by from trainings at work and conversations with pediatrician--there are a lot of websites like this (https://www.parenting.com/article/ask-dr-sears-late-walker) but google is coming up short for academic/medical journals on the topic.

pensive_pilgrim
06-21-2018, 05:31 PM
By "pre-set timeline" I mean there is a window of development which is typical, and that a parent cannot do much to enable their child to hit those milestones earlier than that window. I realize that it could be taken to mean that environmental factor has zero influence, and I don't want to portray that. It was more to convey that 11 month walking is normal, 14 month walking is normal, and it's inaccurate to assume that the 14month old is "delayed." As long as you are not inhibiting the child and exposing them to a range of motor experiences, the child will learn on his/her own timeline and it's all gravy.

This info I've come by from trainings at work and conversations with pediatrician--there are a lot of websites like this (https://www.parenting.com/article/ask-dr-sears-late-walker) but google is coming up short for academic/medical journals on the topic.

Oh, so exposing the child to a range of motor experiences can help facilitate learning to walk? That sounds a lot different than you giving robcore shit about suggesting that letting his kids use the jolly jumper early helped them learn to walk.

oxyjen
06-21-2018, 06:00 PM
Oh, so exposing the child to a range of motor experiences can help facilitate learning to walk? That sounds a lot different than you giving robcore shit about suggesting that letting his kids use the jolly jumper early helped them learn to walk.

Those jolly jumpers, johnny jump ups, exercise jumpers, etc are a dime a dozen. It is a common baby item, and it's common for parents not to follow age guidelines. We are not in a boom of having a shift earlier in motor developmental milestones because of these gadgets. If anything doctors are recommending that parents limit their use because of physical problems of overuse.

Can watching older siblings do stuff that a baby wants to do, but can't, an environmental influence in their motivation and acquisition of walking skills? Sure.

Myself, my sister, and my two sons both spent time in them growing up. We all began walking within normal developmental time period, but still at varying times.

Hephaestus
06-21-2018, 07:02 PM
Is this the perfect playground, full of junk?

An experiment in north Wales lets children and adults experience the boundaries of truly free play. Is it madness or a model for the future? (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/10/perfect-childrens-playground-the-land-plas-madoc-wales)

This reminds me of my favorite part of childhood: wandering the local "wild". We made spears from shitty bamboo and failed to catch fish with them. We raced each other up steep hills, clambered over rocks, fought for possession of the high ground while waiting for the bus, and discovered different kinds of bugs. Etc, etc, etc. I have a hard time imagining a complete human who lacks such experience and the attendant risks.

Sloth
06-21-2018, 07:29 PM
The blowback is probably a little bit in response to what seems like a generalized culture of overprotective parenting that our society seems to be moving towards.

Yeah I could tell you were projecting an argument that I wasn't actually making. I had a feeling you were going to do that which is why I stated on 4 separate occasions that I think it's important for kids to take risks and that I myself benefitted greatly from being able to take them.

Didn't seem to matter though, and you construed my general point of "kids should be given limits at some point" into some controversial statement.

At least this wasn't as bad as the time a member lost their shit on me for a post that someone else made in a thread that I never participated in. When I quoted the post they were reacting so strongly to, instead of apologizing or addressing the person who actually made the post they didn't like, he just said "well it sounded like something I think you would say".


...........

Robcore
06-21-2018, 07:52 PM
Those jolly jumpers, johnny jump ups, exercise jumpers, etc are a dime a dozen. It is a common baby item, and it's common for parents not to follow age guidelines. We are not in a boom of having a shift earlier in motor developmental milestones because of these gadgets. If anything doctors are recommending that parents limit their use because of physical problems of overuse.

Can watching older siblings do stuff that a baby wants to do, but can't, an environmental influence in their motivation and acquisition of walking skills? Sure.

Myself, my sister, and my two sons both spent time in them growing up. We all began walking within normal developmental time period, but still at varying times.

My son was interested in walking, but took a seemingly analytical approach...when he started to walk, it seemed as though he'd given it enough thought, and he was just ready to do it.

My first daughter was different...largely motivated by a desire to keep up with her brother. Her style of walking was far less deliberate...she basically just willed herself forward and let her motor skills catch up with the intention.

My second daughter was not really concerned with her siblings at all. Even after she learned to walk, she'd get up, take a few steps, and sit down again...or wander off to explore things by herself...for her, it seemed like a tool that she acquired, but not a sort of goal or achievement or something 'special' like it was for the other two.

Temperament definitely influences that approach to learning to walk...but the timeline can still be influenced quite a bit, even if 12 months or 14 months is still 'normal' and not delayed.

Anyhow, the Jolly Jumper isn't the only thing we used. We'd also hold them up, before they could support their own weight, and let them experiment with moving their legs, and we'd lay them in our laps and do 'exercises' with their legs, and lots of tummy time when they were smaller, too. We'd also have a good mix of inward and outward facing time in baby carriers...maximizing their exposure to interacting with the world around them, while also ensuring plenty of snuggles and attachment time.

Kids can learn a lot of stuff at incredibly young ages...sooner than most of us think. I think the critical factor is not timing, but sequence. There seem to be prerequisites to every development, so for example, the concept of sharing is too advanced for kids that have not yet developed an ego that can empathize with the notion that others have feelings, too. It all comes in time, because life is such that we keep encountering the things that prompt development, for the most part. Yeah, kids can learn to walk later, or jump on trampolines later, and generally achieve all the same things, just later.
I mean, they can even learn to read later.
There are plenty of professional athletes that started their sports later, too.

I dunno...I was an early achiever, and haven't had issues with my joints...and my childhood was full of joy and exploration and adventure and freedom. I see no reason to be extra cautious, because, well, so far, so good...
I'm with Sappho and Heph.
My kids will play with fire and use knives, and play in the river...and I sure hope none of them dies or gets seriously injured...but I will not deprive them out of fear...I will just be extra diligent at striking a balance between high quality coaching, and letting them figure stuff out for themselves.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 07:54 PM
At least I'm not doing this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7ihdsjIqhI

oxyjen
06-21-2018, 08:32 PM
My son was interested in walking, but took a seemingly analytical approach...when he started to walk, it seemed as though he'd given it enough thought, and he was just ready to do it.

My first daughter was different...largely motivated by a desire to keep up with her brother. Her style of walking was far less deliberate...she basically just willed herself forward and let her motor skills catch up with the intention.

My second daughter was not really concerned with her siblings at all. Even after she learned to walk, she'd get up, take a few steps, and sit down again...or wander off to explore things by herself...for her, it seemed like a tool that she acquired, but not a sort of goal or achievement or something 'special' like it was for the other two.

Temperament definitely influences that approach to learning to walk...but the timeline can still be influenced quite a bit, even if 12 months or 14 months is still 'normal' and not delayed.

Anyhow, the Jolly Jumper isn't the only thing we used. We'd also hold them up, before they could support their own weight, and let them experiment with moving their legs, and we'd lay them in our laps and do 'exercises' with their legs, and lots of tummy time when they were smaller, too. We'd also have a good mix of inward and outward facing time in baby carriers...maximizing their exposure to interacting with the world around them, while also ensuring plenty of snuggles and attachment time.

Kids can learn a lot of stuff at incredibly young ages...sooner than most of us think. I think the critical factor is not timing, but sequence. There seem to be prerequisites to every development, so for example, the concept of sharing is too advanced for kids that have not yet developed an ego that can empathize with the notion that others have feelings, too. It all comes in time, because life is such that we keep encountering the things that prompt development, for the most part. Yeah, kids can learn to walk later, or jump on trampolines later, and generally achieve all the same things, just later.
I mean, they can even learn to read later.
There are plenty of professional athletes that started their sports later, too.

I dunno...I was an early achiever, and haven't had issues with my joints...and my childhood was full of joy and exploration and adventure and freedom. I see no reason to be extra cautious, because, well, so far, so good...
I'm with Sappho and Heph.
My kids will play with fire and use knives, and play in the river...and I sure hope none of them dies or gets seriously injured...but I will not deprive them out of fear...I will just be extra diligent at striking a balance between high quality coaching, and letting them figure stuff out for themselves.

I don't know if we're necessarily in disagreement of much.

I understand being proud of your kids, especially if they hit milestones early. There is a toxic competitive element in some mommy circles, a competition of who has the superior baby or parenting skills judging by which baby rolled over first. Or the ones who agonize because their babies are developing normally, but wondering if they did something "wrong" because their babies aren't walking yet. I'm all for active participation in your own child's development and skill acquisition, but there's only a certain level of importance and ownership one should take about kids doing what they are hardwired to do.

Robcore
06-21-2018, 09:14 PM
I don't know if we're necessarily in disagreement of much.

I understand being proud of your kids, especially if they hit milestones early. There is a toxic competitive element in some mommy circles, a competition of who has the superior baby or parenting skills judging by which baby rolled over first. Or the ones who agonize because their babies are developing normally, but wondering if they did something "wrong" because their babies aren't walking yet. I'm all for active participation in your own child's development and skill acquisition, but there's only a certain level of importance and ownership one should take about kids doing what they are hardwired to do.

The toxic competitive stuff is absolutely real...and not limited just to moms in its influence. That being said, having kids who are early at just about everything, it even makes you sensitive about sharing your kids' accomplishments...because people take it as shaming, or gloating, or whatever, even when it is not intended that way. Like, you can't even speak openly about the benefits of breastmilk without some mom who couldn't breastfeed going into a whole shame episode.
I'm not sure what the cure for the toxicity is, but I don't think that sharing your kids' achievements and analyzing what you may have done to influence them should be suppressed...I mean, that's like suppressing science for fear that a discovery could make someone feel bad. It's probably the manner in which it is shared that's most critical...
...and people really do take things in ways they don't need to. Acceptance is harder when you're not winning...but shame is really only going to inhibit you further, right?

I think we need more of a culture where parents connect and Mommy #1 can say, "gee, Billy is walking already? Sally seems to be taking her sweet time. What did you guys do to help him along?"
With people having fewer kids, and with families being less connected with older generations, we really need a better way to transmit parenting wisdom than with babycenter.com. We need to synthesize old grandma wisdom for the masses.