[tempsy]

No it's more just an American thing. Greater focus on individualism plus nuclear families being the norm as opposed to multigenerational households.

It's made worse by the fact most households cannot afford expenses without both parents working, so children are naturally being left alone more than previous generations.

[watwut]

Children arw definitely not more alone then before. They are way more supervised then before.

It used to be normal for 6 years old or younger to go to school, Shor or play outside unsupervised. And in poor families both parents frequently needed to work while kids were without adult supervision. Middle and upper class women were stay at home, but their kids could roam around without parents. The helicopter parenting as expectation came in only lately.

[mxkopy]

"Supervised" does not mean "interacting with someone else", it usually means they're locked in a room with an adult. That adult does not have to be engaging them.

> And in poor families both parents frequently needed to work while kids were without adult supervision.

There may be less strictly "poor" families now than there were before, but there are way less families that can afford hiring a nanny or similar.

[watwut]

That holds for past too. If anything, expectations on parent actively playing with kids, actively teaching them or doing enriching activities are higher. The do spend less time with friends , but it is not because parents are less engaged with them.

The concept of play date is new. Parents were not organizing kids social lives. The need to drive somewhere to even have a chance on meeting someone is new. They used to bike to meet friends or do what they want. There and many changes like that. I am not saying everything is bad. Kids commit less crimes, gets into serious trouble less often. They get pregnant less, they drink less, they smoke and take drugs less. They are safer and are involved in less accidents. They finish the school more often.

All that is good. But it is simply not true that parents would actively engage with kids less all in all.

-------

My point here is that kids and teenagers are not lonely because parents don't engage with them. They are lonely because peers don't engage with them. Fairly often they just don't live nearby. Or it is not accepted for kids to go visit them without adult having to tag along. Then they become teenagers and people act shocked they ... continue existing the way they have been raised.

[mxkopy]

There's this saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." I'd say

> The concept of play date

and

> expectations on parent actively playing with kids, actively teaching them or doing enriching activities are higher

are the result of the erosion of such 'villages'. As you imply the way kids hung out in the past was way more ad-hoc and unrestricted by things like travel time. I think ultimately that was because there was a mindset that people didn't have back then, namely one of perfect planning of all outcomes in regards to raising a kid. I think that too is a symptom of not having villages - how do you plan around 20 different near/family members interacting with your kid? You just kind of accepted that "grandma knows best", "auntie knows words", "Jack will be a good influence", etc.

Basically I'd agree that parents might interact more with their kids, with the caveat that it's due to a decrease in engagement overall.

[goodpoint]

> That holds for past too.

Absolutely not.

[tempsy]

Lol k I'm not going to debate you on this. It wasn't always the case that both parents worked full time outside the house but you can believe whatever you want.