@Headhunter,
@Steve,
@JowGaWolf and other folks posting,
I am not sure if I am interpreting the points people are making correctly or not.. would it be fair to say we are all agreed that children, ours and others who they interact with or that we are responsible for, are protected from harm, yes?
That being the case, maybe it is what define overprotection that is the knub of the matter? by that I mean zealously keeping a child from any kind of hurt whatsoever, be that physical or emotional. Overprotection is not a good thing for a child, true?? Because this hamper their ability so self-soothe, to cope with difficulty, to develop naturally etc.
Maybe the differences in thinking here arise because people naturally have different outlook, views and experiences about where the delineation lie between protection and overprotection? Could that be?
I do not know if this is a fair assessment or not. What do you think? In this case, what count as a balanced level of protection for these kids while still "letting kids be kids"? And what would be a counterproductive overprotection or unnecessarily wrapping them in blankets? Whereabouts do all of your experiences suggest the lines ought to be put?
Completely agree. I've said from the beginning that this isn't all that safe, and I think we all agree that training in a school is the "right" way to do this. I just don't happen to think this is any more dangerous than many other things. And so far, some of the responses to my posts have not been anything more than emotional and hyperbolic.
The "intent" argument is irrelevant, in my opinion. I understand the rationale, and disagree. I think it's a way to rationalize an emotional reaction. In these fights, the intent isn't to cause permanent damage any more than it is in football, rugby or any other activity. Accidents happen in life, and it's sad when it does, and tragic when it results in loss of life. While that is true, it is also true that you can't protect kids from all harm. I don't believe intent has anything to do with this. It's more about ACTUAL risk, which is higher than if they were playing video games, sure. But this isn't any riskier than swimming in a lake or playing tackle football in a park.
So, to sum up, there are some points of agreement and points of disagreement.
I agree that the sparring wasn't all that safe. I also agree that there are safer ways for the kids to do this kind of stuff. I agree that this kind of thing shouldn't be endorsed.
I disagree that it's "too" dangerous. I disagree that a parent can truly keep kids from doing stupid things like this. More importantly, I don't agree that kids should be kept from doing anything stupid. I happen to believe that this is normal and healthy.
Another rambling comment I'll say comes from the comment about raising "successful" kids. Every generation is a little different, and it's amazing how when one is born affects attitudes, personalities and core traits. Of course, this isn't the only thing that defines a person, but it's one thing. And with each generation, there are strengths and weaknesses, and different definitions of "success." A real concern is that millennials, as a group, want to be lead. They can be excellent employees who work hard and do excellent work. But very few (as a group) aspire to management. Work for them is a means to an end and nothing more. They are less loyal to a company, and content to earn less money if it means limited responsibility and a convenient work day. To tie this back to the comment about being successful, I believe that when their parents (mostly Baby Boomers) were overprotective (physically or emotionally), we ended up with kids who are risk averse, and this has translated in a very real way into business now in the form of a leadership vacuum. While this works very well for those few Millennials who are ambitious and capable, as there is a lot of opportunity and little competition, it's not all that good for the country. We have a bunch of followers out there. As Gen Xers retire in the next 10 years or so, I predict that the next generation to move America forward will be our kids who were born after 1995 or 1996. The children of the Gen Xers, in other words. In 15 years, these young people will effectively leap frog the Millennials.
Last thing, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I can see where you guys are coming from. While I have my opinions about this activity, I do truly believe that parenting is pass/fail. If your kids end up happy, healthy and successful (however they define it) good on ya. Congratulations. You pass.
