> "GTFO and come back at dinner" Right, this is what I am wondering, is the reason people were comfortable doing this the fact that there was a weekly touchpoint with the community? The church visits might be stifled but if they establish a relationship with that large group of people then that might enable more free roaming at other times.
No. They did it because they were alcoholics and didn't really give a shit what we got in to as long as we didn't bring the cops home with us.
Ha! Probably more than fair for a lot of folks. It also was not uncommon for this to be when parents were cleaning the house. Doing that with a kid around is unreasonably difficult.
Same, it’s really disappointing how few parents have reached out to play compared to how often I am trying to find one of my kids’ friends who is around to play.
Why are you doing this? Your kids should be able to find their own playmates. If you live on a farm I can see that kids can't get to anyone else's place without your help. The neighbor girl comes over to our house often to play with my daughter often. My son is annoyed that there are so few boys his age in walking distance (but we keep telling him to go visit the ones we know are in the neighborhood). We are lucky th…
My children are 3 and 7.
3 is certainly not old enough to do so.
7 is marginal. I seem to recall playing in my neighborhood at 7, but very few of my child's friends are out on their own at this age.
The local public school district allows children to self dismiss starting in 3rd grade, which is typically the year they have turned 8 and will turn 9 during the school year. That seems like a potentially reasonable time to allow them to go out unsupervised.
In my younger days I threw 100 person parties in a San Francisco apartment - it's standing room only for sure, but so is going to a crowded bar. And I've cooked for 15 without a dining table - you eat on the floor wherever you can find space. Now I don't disagree with your point; I'm not 22 anymore and live in the burbs and have a less full social calendar, largely due to the logistical overhead of finding my way int…
Instead of "don't disagree" please say: "I agree" it is proper English and not some stylized, holier-than-thou sounding, completely logically twisted up act.
I disagree with being downvoted for making such a simple request.
Once again, they’re severely discounting socialization over the internet. Twitch, discord, et al account for massive amounts of socialization. For many kids it’s easier to chat or stream than it is to find the other 2-3 weird kids into their particular hobby. Watch the TV documentary “Social Studies” if you think Gen Z isn’t partying. “Euphoria” is definitely an exaggeration but it’s relatable to Gen Z for a reason. Anecdotally, I see Genz all the time at raves and concerts. These aren’t “animal house” style events but still.
When its snacks and BS while everyone gets hooked up and gets files off the local share to install SC2 for the nth time. It would take hours to get set up. Then more hours of play. We'd go for 10 to 12 hours sometimes, just to get things working.
If by SC2 you mean Star Craft 2, that's a bit too recent for me. We used to play Quake 2, Red Alert, Diablo 2.
Red Alert was a favorite. Unreal Tournament: GOTYE was another. Also AOE2. I still play AOE2 with friends occasionally.
I like that this delves into the relationship between "helicopter parenting" and this trend, and maybe I missed it, but I find that it conspicuously lacks economic precarity and the decline of real wages over this time period as an explanation. Hosting social events does cost free time and money and most people have way less of both in real terms than the period it's comparing to
Free time and mental energy is the limiting factor I think. Personally I observe that social events seem to be most common among students who also are quite poor. However mental energy and free time is surely correlated with wealth.
The effects of wealth on outcomes meaningful to most humans look mostly like a step functions, with some continuous-lookin' bits here and there. Anecdotally my assumption is that partying x wealth is bimodal, with peaks near the top and the middle-bottom of the wealth distributions. But homeless people and people scraping by on two minimum-wage jobs, both of which comprise a larger portion of america than when I was a child, are unlikely to be able to host or even often attend parties, like I think there's a sharp step to basically zero after a certain poverty line unless you're in a really integrated community (also less common over that time period, to be fair)