Child Proof your house, or House proof your child?

[Weird Harold]

I just watched another five minute spot on how to childproof your home.

Since I have grandchildren, I have some minimal childproofing in my apartment; mostly sharp corners that are padded against kids who aren't watching where they're going.

I don't have outlet covers, or latches on my cabinet doors, because I am a believer in house proofing a child instead of inconveniencing adults.

So which is the better approach? Should you pad and latch your house, and put everything interesting out of reach, or should you deal with a child's natural curiosity by letting them know that looking is OK, but touching is "NO"?

I'm of the opinion that by the time a child is capable of getting into trouble, they are also capable of understanding "no" and "hot". Even if they can't say them, they can understand them.

Extend the question a bit. Is it better to "childproof" the web, or teach children where they are allowed to surf, and what to do when they wander into a site they're not supposed to be in?

 

[Lasher]

Hmmmmm...

Along the same lines.... There's a middle school not too far from my house, and they actually have crossing guards in the neighborhood to help these "children" make it home safely from school. Odd, dontcha think?

My view is...

If a "child" cannot learn to cross a street safely by a certain age - wouldn't we all be better off if it didn't survive???

Just a thought.....

 

[CreamyLady]

I did both. When my daughter was very small and fearless, and I couldn't be everywhere at once, I had cupboard latches and outlet covers. At the same time, I would explain, over and over, that these things were dangerous.

As she grew, I decreased the childproofing. There are sound reasons for putting things up, but one must remember kids can climb. I did spend one Friday night in the emergency room after she drank a whole bottle of medicine one night -- that was on the upper shelf in a high cupboard. She didn't do it again.

Lasher, the crossing guards are there, even for middle school kids, because there are people who do not stop when they see kids in the intersection, of whatever age. They plow on through, thinking the kids will stop, or not seeing them at all, or assuming the rules apply to someone else.

I've seen kids hit in a crosswalk; it was a ghastly morning all the way around. The woman who hit them had been on her phone and had seen the kids at the curb; she thought they would stay there.

Hell, I'm rambling. Education, certainly, but also prudence. Prudence dictates protection.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Hmmmmm...

and they actually have crossing guards in the neighborhood to help these "children" make it home safely from school. Odd, dontcha think?

Not odd at all. I was a crossing guard in sixth grade. The only difference between me in the sixth grade, and the crossing guards here in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area, is that They are paid adults, and I was only three to six years older than the kids I was a crossing guard for, and doing it for the prestige.

Creamy Lady said:
Hell, I'm rambling. Education, certainly, but also prudence. Prudence dictates protection.

My point, is that protection seems to be the standard today, whereas in my youth, I had to pop the 15 amp circuit breaker about three times before I learned that outlets were dangerous. (luckily I have a high tolerance for electrical current. <G>) If children are protected and coddled too much, then they aren't prepared for the real world which isn't childproof. It isn't even really adult proofed.

 

[CreamyLady]

Yes, Harold, but not everyone does have the tolerance for electricity that you did, and I don't think of a baby in convulsions, or screaming after ingesting cleanser, as a happy learning experience for the baby.

Sorry. I think protection and constant education is the way to go.

 

[Weird Harold]

or screaming after ingesting cleanser, ...

No, that wasn't me. That was my little brother when he mistook Drano Cryatals for sugar. No lasting damage, because his older brother knew where to find the antidote information on the can. He did learn to recognise the poison symbol on bottles and cans though.

Sorry. I think protection and constant education is the way to go.

I'm not saying that by brother wouldn't have been better off if there was a lock on the cleaning supplies. There are some things that need to be kept out of reach, and some sensible protective devices that should be in place. (The garden hose over the projecting ends of the lower three shelf supports on my bookcase are a good example.)

Both incidents from my childhood date from the 1950's, when even the idea of childproofing a house was still thirty years or so in the future. My sister and all four of my brothers suffered through some painful learning experiences, but we grew up with the idea that the world is a dangerous place.

I'm concerned that the level of protection suggested in the five minute segment that prompted this amounts to giving the child the impression that the world is a safe place to grow up.

I have a gate for my patio to keep the grandkids from wandering. The fact that both of them know how to open it and have known almost since they first saw it, is irrelevant. They know it's a line they're not supposed to cross when it's closed. The gate my daughter had at the top of her stairs was a more substantial problem for the littlest, but necessary until she learned to navigate the stairs. As soon as she demonstrated that she knew about stairs, the gate went away.

"Education, certainly, but also prudence. Prudence dictates protection"

This is certainly a wise statement. What I'm trying to determine, is just "how much" protection does prudence dictate? I got the feeling from the segment on childproofing, that the answer is supposed to be "pad the entire world so nobody ever gets hurt, and then sue if they should manage to circumvent the padding."

How do you handle child protection on the web? Do you have all of the filters and blocking software installed, or do you let your child know that you're going to be checking up on their usage and let them know what kind of sites you want them to avoid?

In the case of My six year old grandaughter, If mom hasn't been there first, she can't go there. She knows how to tell if she's been redirected to somewhere she's not supposed to be, and reports such "problems" to her mom or dad. Her little sister is still at the 'sit on Mom's lap to go online' stage of computer literacy.


[Edited by Weird Harold on 07-27-2000 at 09:48 PM]

 

[CreamyLady]

Okay. I see now.

I don't have a very germ free home, myself, and never did. I was as diligent as I could be, but always knew, at some point, the kid would learn the hard way why I was diligent.

She did. Syrup of ipecac, administered in her favorite juice rather like a Mickey Finn, pretty much cured her of drinking anything out of strange bottles.

It also cured her of drinking her favorite juice, but that's another story.

I don't know at what point being prudent passes over into being overprotective. We teach kids to ride bicycles and skates, knowing there will be blood and tears. We watch them play football, knowing there is a real possibility of broken bones and pain.

I don't see, really, vast numbers of overprotective parents. Prudent, yes, but not overprotective.

As for those news features, sheesh. They are like articles in magazines; whatever you are, whoever you are, whatever you are doing, it's all wrong. They are experts, and will tell you so.

 

[April]

When I was a kid, I stuck my finger in the electrical outlet. Needless to say, I never did that again! Experience is a great deterrent!

 

[Shylady]

Children are smarter than they are given credit for. I believe there are certain saftey measures to be taken but after that a child needs to learn the word no. Alot of people say not to teach your children with negatives but my goodness if something is bad for them teach them! Life is not always going to be nice to them! If you raise them knowing some things are bad and somethings are good then as they grow up they will know how to deal with it!

 

[Whispersecret]

I agree with both WH and CreamyLady.

In my opinion, a lot of the childproofing junk is mainly a money-making business, if you ask me. They prey on parents who think that they're being remiss if they don't protect their children. Who wants to be labeled as a bad parent or have that guilt on your conscience?

I never bought the padded guard for my coffee table or the edge of my brick fireplace. Yeah, a couple of times they hit their heads, but kids can hit their heads on kitchen counters, bathroom counters, bedroom dressers and nightstands, desks, chairs, etc.! I just didn't see those types of precautions to be necessary. With all things, you have to weigh the risks against the benefit.

However I did put a safety lock on my knife drawer and the cleaning supply cabinet. We don't have stairs, so I never had to deal with that.

I FIRMLY believe in the value of telling children no. They're able to understand that word at a far earlier age than most people think. I NEVER put my collectible teapots up high and most people thought I was nuts. I wasn't. I just taught my children that they were not to touch those without my supervision. If you take the time to talk to your children and explain to them why such and such is not allowed, they can understand it. Even toddlers can understand.

Also, from the time they were old enough to understand, which was about age two, when we went to other people's homes, if they happened to show some interest in something breakable, I'd have a little talk with them. I would tell them clearly that they were not to touch those things at all. If they did touch, and sometimes they did just to test me, I'd punish them with time out, stern words, etc. The key to effective parenting is to consistently back up your rules with consequences. But that's a whole other lecture.


By the way, how is it possible to stick a finger in an electrical socket? The little slats are way too small!

[Edited by whispersecret on 07-28-2000 at 10:49 AM]

 

[April]

LOL in an embarrassed way! I was about 10 or so. I used to have a night light, and one night I couldn't sleep, and was bored, so I took it out, and tried to put it back in using my fingers as a guide, got shocked, and said to hell with that and went back to bed. LOL Dumb ass kid!

 

[Cyra_3]

Oh, I thought you meant houseproof your child as in locking you front door whilst it is still outside.

 

[Weird Harold]

Another old discussion

that could stand another look.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

It really would be nice if adult websites could come up with a solution on "childproofing." It could be something as simple as including some particular word that wouldn't come up in a search engine in any other way. Then using a boolean statement, that particular word could be locked out using child-protection software. So then the children could surf the net, and pretty much avoid the stuff they shouldn't be accessing.

 

[lisalove]

Our home is extremely well child-proofed (ie, gates to the stairs, locks on the pantry, cupboards etc...) but the best protection is constant supervision.

Children have a natural curiosity and their attention should be diverted to something else if they're doing something risky. I'm more for prevention than 'learning from consequences'.

 

[Pyper]

Back in Spain, several friend's of my roommates came to stay with us for the weekend, and one couple brought their eighteen-month little boy. One day after lunch, the parents were tired and I watched the kid while they took a siesta.

When he toddled into the kitchen, I realized just how much trouble a child that age can get into in a normal home. We had harsh cleaners under the sink, a lighter and knives laying out on the counter, a bucket of mop water with bleach in the corner, and the oven was exactly at his level. He could have turned in on and crawled in easily. This kid was tiny, but boy was he mobile and curious.

I don't think you can explain to a toddler that age all the things that shouldn't be touched or played with because they are dangerous. He had a ten-word vocabulary at the most. Somethings in a home just need to be child-proofed. It doesn't have to be extensive, it can be something as simple as keeping certain things above a child's reach and other things latched.

My solution? Close the door to the kitchen...he was to short to reach the handle.

 

[u2slow13]

Harold, child proofing inside the home really is not difficult. It's outside the home that gets spooky, even when you think they are there and you think you have them under control, damn you blink and poof...

 

[rosario]

if your spend your time child-proofing your childs world you miss a golden opportunity to engage their wonderfully open minds.........that rare moment when you should be paying close attention is gone for good and the lessons are put off till a later time in your relationship..........I know it's a romantic notion.

 

[Weird Harold]

Back in Spain, several friend's of my roommates came to stay with us for the weekend, and one couple brought their eighteen-month little boy. ...

When he toddled into the kitchen, I realized just how much trouble a child that age can get into in a normal home. ...

I don't think you can explain to a toddler that age all the things that shouldn't be touched or played with because they are dangerous. ...

My solution? Close the door to the kitchen...he was to short to reach the handle.

Your experience is exactly why I think house-proofing the child is a better idea than hiding everything breakable or dangerous.

U2slow13 and rosario make some good points too.

A child who can speak ten words can probably understand about thousand -- prime among them being NO. You don't need to explain to a child that age WHY something is dangerous (either to him or from him) only that it's forbidden. If he's house-proofed, that should be enough -- although I wouldn't turn my back and trust in a lack of curiosity.

Your solution was appropriate inthe circumstances.

 

[bknight2602]

It seems to me that child proofing your house allows you freedom to not watch them constantly, a real big inconvience. When you tired of following the enormous energy levels and hyper activity. Then you can relax in the hope that you haven't forgotten anything. I agree that it is ok to say no, just not ALL the time.

 

[Weird Harold]

It seems to me that child proofing your house allows you freedom to not watch them constantly, ... Then you can relax in the hope that you haven't forgotten anything. I agree that it is ok to say no, just not ALL the time.

I don't have any problem with making sure your child has temptation removed when at home, but does making your home child-proof protect them when they're not at home?

Take outlet protectors as one example -- if your child has never seen an unprotected outlet, what is he going to do when he finds one at the doctor's office?

(Hint: My granddaughter thought it was a keyhole and tried to insert a key.)

Isn't your child safer overall if taught from the beginning what an unprotected outlet looks like and that it's a "no-no?"

 

[enjoyingitall]

I just watched another five minute spot on how to childproof your home.

Since I have grandchildren, I have some minimal childproofing in my apartment; mostly sharp corners that are padded against kids who aren't watching where they're going.

I don't have outlet covers, or latches on my cabinet doors, because I am a believer in house proofing a child instead of inconveniencing adults.

So which is the better approach? Should you pad and latch your house, and put everything interesting out of reach, or should you deal with a child's natural curiosity by letting them know that looking is OK, but touching is "NO"?

I'm of the opinion that by the time a child is capable of getting into trouble, they are also capable of understanding "no" and "hot". Even if they can't say them, they can understand them.

Extend the question a bit. Is it better to "childproof" the web, or teach children where they are allowed to surf, and what to do when they wander into a site they're not supposed to be in?

I agree that children will understand "No" at a fairly young age, until that time, precautions are needed.

Since my children are older now, I'm interested in the second part of WH's question: Childproofing the web...I don't have parental blocks on my computer. I've had discussions with my children about appropriate usage and they know there are ways for me to find where they've been if I so desired. Just wondering what thoughts you all have on this one.

 

[bknight2602]

I don't have any problem with making sure your child has temptation removed when at home, but does making your home child-proof protect them when they're not at home?

Take outlet protectors as one example -- if your child has never seen an unprotected outlet, what is he going to do when he finds one at the doctor's office?

(Hint: My granddaughter thought it was a keyhole and tried to insert a key.)

Isn't your child safer overall if taught from the beginning what an unprotected outlet looks like and that it's a "no-no?"

Yes that is good, but I don't think I could imagine ALL the situations that children might get into to educate them. Mind you I'm not disagreeing with you, just offering an alternative to your good suggestions.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes that is good, but I don't think I could imagine ALL the situations that children might get into to educate them.

Sex vampyre posted a versionof Bill Cosby's take on "where the brain damage came from" (not attributed to him, BTW) that illustrates that even God had trouble predicting what kind of trouble children get into. I don't think it's entirely possible to cover every danger before your child encounters it, whether you choose to child-proof the hazard or hazard-proof the child.

I think the "correct" approach varies from child to child and both protection and education have a part to play.

Enjoyingitall asked:
Since my children are older now, I'm interested in the second part of WH's question: Childproofing the web...I don't have parental blocks on my computer.

My grandchildren don't use my computer often enough to make installing parental controls worthwhile for me. I do have separate user names for each of them on my system that don't include Net access. If they want to surf the web on my system, I have to log into my username for them and that gives me the opportunity to watch what they're doing on the web.

At home, they share a computer with Dad and it does have internet access under their usernames. The youngest (age 4) doesn't use it, and the older (age 8) uses it to check her e-mail. Both know that they need permission to do more on the web and the computer is in the living room where any unauthorized surfing will be spotted easily.

I think "web-proofing" your children is part and parcel of teaching them responsibility and self-discipline. "Parental controls" just give kids the feeling that there is something "good" out there that they're being kept from and give them an incentive to get around the controls to find out what it is.

By the time kids are old enough to surf the web alone, they should also be old enoughto understand why you don't want them following your favorites link to Literotica (or worse).