The proportion of households with children would be interesting to know: the married couples with children could have diminished in proportion because boomers had aged out of living with their parents and had set up their own households without children (yet).
Only by the people who fondly describe their childhood that way. The term itself is very indicative of how the person feels about it.
We were largely unsupervised in Baltimore. Was it a good thing that we were autonomous and had the freedom to make mistakes without a guarding there to ensure they were responsible for our mistake..? Maybe. But I don't think any bad came from being a latchkey kid. IMO, SHTF in a kid's teenage years. I think it's way more important to be supervised in the pre-teen/teen years than a youner years. Simply because teenagers get into way more mischief that young kids.
I think it's mostly seen as an unfortunately economic necessity, but some of those kids grew up and now look back upon that time favorably because the parental neglect let them develop a sense of independence.
Parental neglect is an incredibly strong (and I'd argue biased) word to use here if we're using the articles definition of a latch key kid.
The article says "3.5 million latchkey kids in the U.S., or seven per cent of those between the ages of 5 and 13".
There's a massive difference between a 5 year old being home alone for a few hours each day and a teenager being home alone for a few hours. Even more so if, like it says in the article, there's support systems in place (like a neighbor that can be contacted in case of an emergency) and an established pattern (the kid isn't just unexpectedly home alone).
An 8 year old unexpectedly left home alone for an unknown amount of time without any support system could absolutely be called neglect (although it makes a great Christmas movie), but a 16 year old in an empty house from 2:30-5 every day with a full fridge and friendly neighbors next door is completely reasonable and (IMO) a healthy way to let them develop independence.
> This is a by-now standard Gen X coping mechanism: treating childhood neglect – in this case, taking care of ourselves after school – as a matter of significant pride, part of our generational identity.
I still stand by my point, but now it should be more directed at the author of the article and not the comment I replied to
It was a pejorative against kids not growing up in a traditional family, with a breadwinner father, and a stay-at-home homemaker mother, as that was the only family arrangement that was allowed at that time, and any deviation was seen as deviant.
Yes.
When I was 9 or 10 my neighbors and I would grab the $5 our parents left behind for us. We'd walk down to the local hockey/skating rink. Usually pretty early around 8-9am before the warming house opened. We'd skate until noon when the warming house guy closed it and went home for lunch. Three or four of us would then walk to the local BK, eat lunch and hang out until 1pm. We'd then go back and skate until dusk. We'd go home around 6-7 and when we got home our parents would be home, and dinner would be ready where we'd go through each family member and talk about their day.
All through primary school this was the norm. My dad worked at a high tech company was gone usually from 7am sometimes until 7 or 8pm. My mom was taking college courses during the day and sometimes at night to become an attorney. My sister and brother were fine being on our own. The one constant was my mom or dad would get home, change their clothes and start dinner. If both parents were home, I'd go play catch with Dad while Mom made dinner.
We never felt neglected since many of the neighbors were in the same situation so we more often than not would hang out at their house, or get together in the street and play many kinds of sports or if the girls were there, we would play games like red light green light, tag, hide and go seek, kick the can, etc until we all got called home for dinner.
It was more or less just being independent for a while until your parents got home and you had dinner and then you'd do your homework before going to practice or your games. My mom and dad made it a point to be at every game they could. They made sure we were carpooling other kids who's parents were gone or couldn't drive them for whatever reason.
I think there is a huge difference saying parents in this era were neglectful. They weren't, they just had kids who were brought up well enough to stay out of trouble, take of ourselves and our neighbors until our parents would be available again. There were plenty of times where parents of one household would essentially be watching over three or four different families kids while they were out. So it was never neglectful, I like to think it just a community watching out for each other and working together to allow families the time and energy to do what they needed to do to keep their kids feed, clothed and a roof over their head. Nowadays you just hear too many excuses. Back then? There were none, you just did what you had to in order to get by and everybody in my neighborhood chipped in any way they could.
My parents were self-employed, but during the fall, often busy at the other place (a fishing camp -- this one: http://matt.wandel.ca/amogla/amogla.html ) at the time we came home from school. Dinner was ready, warmed up in the oven (no microwaves then, at least in our household, but that's why ovens had/have timers!) and we ate and played and did all the usual stuff (homework, sigh) without parental supervision.
That's not neglect and we grew up fine, and yes, with additional sense of responsibility. For example, one day, the newly acquired stick-shift 1985 Toyota Van sat there, the parents having gone to the camp in the truck. We all piled in there, and I, the only one at the time old enough to have a driver's licence but no stick-shift experience worth mentioning, kind of figured it out as I went, and drove everyone to the camp. We survived, the van did too, parents were fine with it. We were trusted to do this kind of thing on our own judgement, rather than parental micromanagement. That's the difference.
Then the article veers into a rant about divorce that from what I can tell isn't as supported by studies.
A good balance is needed when raising children, give them the safety to confide in you, the trust that they can rely on your support and the encouragement to take on the world. Half the time parents and their child spend together over the child's lifetime is in the first 12 years. That's not a lot of time to raise a child and having my daughter for nine years now I can only recommend to spend much more time with them when they are little.
PS: I love you brother's YT channel
I grew up better than fine relative to many of my peers, and any issues I have left over were definitely more from other children.
Much like the article suspects, I believe it comes down to other issues like divorce and general neglect even after the parents are home not a few hours of alone time every day.
Me being a middle class kid of a divorced mother who finishes work an hour or so after I finish school in the UK fits.
Plenty of other people with family in worse economic positions fit the definition too. Not turning up till late evening, later shifts.
Makes no sense to lump them all together.
latchkey kid is a child who is left home alone or unsupervised for a significant portion of the day, typically after school, because their parents are away at work.But oh god can I relate about boomer divorces.
Overall I was a well-cared for latchkey kid. My brothers and I were fed and my Mom was usually home around 6 or 7.