Let’s talk about this label that keeps getting thrown around: “safetyism.” It sounds smart. It sounds like someone’s trying to raise a critical iss
Let’s talk about this label that keeps getting thrown around: “safetyism.”
It sounds smart. It sounds like someone’s trying to raise a critical issue. But in reality, the way it’s being used is dismissive, harmful, and—let’s be real—lazy.
Lately, some folks have started accusing other parents of “safetyism” simply because they make different parenting choices. Choices rooted in care, in trauma-informed wisdom, in real-life experiences, and in the sacred right to protect their children.
Sleepovers Are Not a Human Right
One of the flashpoints for this “safetyism” accusation? Parents who say no to sleepovers.
And that’s their right.
Sleepovers are not a childhood requirement. They’re not a rite of passage. They’re not essential for development. They are optional social events.
What is essential?
Safety. Boundaries. Consent.
Let’s not confuse discomfort with danger.
Some children are not ready—emotionally, physically, or even medically—to spend the night away from home.
Some have trauma.
Some have neurodivergence.
Some have medical conditions like severe food allergies that make unsupervised environments risky.
Some have other disabilities no one knows about. And guess what? That’s okay. That’s real. That’s valid.
(Remember: “I don’t want to is always a valid response too.” )
What “Safetyism” Really Does
Labeling protective behavior as “safetyism” is a way to silence parents who are being careful, intentional, and attuned. It’s also a deflection tactic—used to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about the risks children sometimes face in homes that aren’t their own.
And if your instinct is to jump straight to “not all people are predators”—pause.
That’s not the point.
The point is: you do not know other people’s children.
You do not know what they’ve been through.
You do not get to override their needs with your nostalgia or opinions.
Concern ≠ Control
You’re allowed to be irritated that a parent doesn’t want their child to sleep over. You’re allowed to feel how you feel.
What you’re not allowed to do is:
Shame them.
Dismiss them.
Or worse, call them irrational or “overprotective” to the point of mockery.
Because here’s the truth:
A child who never sleeps over will be fine.
A child who gets harmed (medically or otherwise) or traumatized during one sleepover might never be the same.
Let’s Stop the Name-Calling and Start the Listening
When we label thoughtful decisions as “safetyism,” we turn a serious issue into a name-calling match. It helps no one. It protects no one.
Let’s do better.
Let’s honor the reality that childhood is not one-size-fits-all. Let’s leave room for diverse parenting choices that prioritize safety without shame. Let’s stop pretending that wanting children to be safe is some kind of weakness.
Because it’s not.
It’s strength.
It’s wisdom.
It’s love in action.
8 Tips That Explain What “No” Means (Infographic and audio from podcast)
How Coercive Control Escapes Detection—and What Safe Adults Can Do About It
These Skilled Silencers Are Good At Keeping People Quiet (infographic)
COMMENTS