This is one of those easy little books whose whole idea could be summarized in one paragraph or even a single sentence: Get your kids outside!
Thoughts:
How much does the Scandinavian cultural obsession with "getting outside" have to do with survival at latitudes with such a severe lack of sun that if the culture doesn't strongly enforce getting its people outside, they would all die of vitamin D deficiencies? Didn't I read somewhere that people who live in LA get more than enough vitamin D just driving to work? When I am in Nicaragua I can stay inside the entire time and still come home tan. It interests me how cultural values are often tied to a certain geography--where they make perfect sense, and where, if they are not followed, you will die, if not suddenly, but slowly over several generations.
Also, I get it that there is "no such thing as bad weather" and babies are totally fine napping outside at negative ten degrees. But what about one hundred and twenty and humid? It is interesting to me how ideas that sound so good may actually be really bad ideas in other places. Perhaps the world mono-culture that we think we are headed towards is impossible because values MUST be different in different geographic locations.
This reminds me of how tribal people living in the jungle could not put their babies down because the forest floor was so deadly, and so they carried them for the first year or two, never letting their feet touch the ground. This was a very practical parenting strategy for them, but it would sound insane to Swedes who want their kids down on the grownd getting dirty as that is good for their immune system. I would be curious to know about different microbes in different places too. For example, Swedish parents think bare feet are a must. But would bare feet be a good idea in the tropics where hook worm isn't just a fear-mongering story on the news but a reality? I love that idea that there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing, but at the same time, that just cannot be true in Nicaragua. There is no clothing that can fix hot, humid temperatures.
Another thought: In this book there is plenty of lamenting about how kids a generation ago came home from school and played outside in their neighborhoods until dinner and about how kids today, instead, have activities to go to. To what extent is this because a generation ago most moms were at home and now they are at work? A generation ago the kids could come home at 3. Now, most parents want to pick their kids up at 5 or 6, hence, they must be kept busy in activities until then. To what extent has this modern tragedy for children been caused by the feminist movement insisting that women work outside the home?
Another thing that was interesting in this book was how ideal cultural homagenaity sounds. The title of this book could have been "One Scandinavian mom struggles to get her midwestern kids outside, then goes back home to Sweden and realizes that she is raising Americans, not Swedes." It's fascinating to me how we idealize multiculturalism but how it doesn't seem to actually make people happy. A Swedish mother heads back to Sweden with her kids and realizes that if she were raising them there, the values she is trying to teach them at home would be reinforced by the entire society everywhere they went. Imagine!
To what extent is the fact that kids don't play with other kids in their neighborhoods anymore related to the fact that ... people have different values/cultures from their neighbors and don't actually want their children at their houses acquiring their values? What if we are giving lip service to multiculturalism but it actually makes us miserable? It's not legal to control who lives in our neighborhoods so ... private schools and private activities were invented.
The thing I liked least about this book was that the author came off as the brainwashed Swede automaton stereotype. Sweden is the best country in the world and everything they do is right. Women should work outside the home. Children should be raised by the state in forest schools. And everyone should be an environmentalist and a vegetarian.
Free education - especially when preschool is included - is an incredibly powerful tool for controlling a population. If this book is true, Sweden is a country of environmentalist, outdoorsy vegetarians because of their schooling. They did away with teaching math and reading in preschool and just teach environmentalism! But they are vegetarians because they believe it is better for the environment, not because they enjoy it or believe it is better for their own personal health. And they bike because it is better for the environment, not because they enjoy it or want the exercise. I support environmentalism to the extent that environmentalism supports healthy humans, but the idea that anyone ought to sacrifice their own health or happiness because someone told them that X is "good for the environment" is insane.
I'd love to read a book by a Scandinavian who questions the propaganda of his country.
So, this is a shallow book. No interesting line of thought is followed and no truly interesting questions are asked. But I still like its messages. I like getting kids outside and playing in the dirt. I like kids having freedom and being trusted with hammers, nails, and saws. I like getting kids away from the TV and getting to go around their city on their own. I love that when Gothenburg schools noticed parents driving their kids to school they sent notices home telling parents how important it is for kids to walk to school on their own and be free to explore the city on their own (and how safe it is). I love that there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing (in Scandinavia).
RoslynRoss.Blogspot.com