Archive for 2012
On school shootings, gun culture and the media
I would like to take some time to discuss the debate circulating in regards to the recent Connecticut school shootings. I have (as everyone does) lots of personal opinions about the cause and effect between school shootings and gun control, but I also did some research on the history of mass shootings and gun violence, so I would like to incorporate some of those ideas as well.
For the record, I don't think anyone is trying to take away our "right to bear arms" by imposing stricter laws on background checks and assault weapons that are solely used for mass killing. That being said, I think that the effects of a pro-gun culture on our thought patterns as a nation should be thoroughly evaluated. The sensationalist media has led us to believe that there is a murderer or rapist lurking around every corner, despite the fact that statistically, violent crime has steadily declined over the last decade and beyond.
The same cannot be said for school shootings, as they have increased at an alarming rate in the past 20 years, but I would like to remind you that Seung-Hui Cho, who was diagnosed with multiple mental illnesses prior to the Virginia Tech shootings, was legally allowed to obtain a handgun despite his documented cases of severe mental instability. These "bad guys" aren't all obtaining guns illegally. Are we so consumed with our right to bear arms being taken away, that we oppose more stringent background checks before selling them to people who are considered mentally unsound? Seung-Hui Cho had been accused in two cases of stalking at his school prior to this incident. This should not have come as a surprise to the people who were close to him.
That is just a small point I want to make about stricter gun control laws and how they relate to school shootings. If even a small number of people can be saved by simply doing a little extra work before selling them to people, is that not a worthwhile investment? Are there people out there who seriously oppose tougher restrictions meant only to save lives? I'm talking about the people who are insistent that the psychopaths are "ruining it for everyone." If you are so sure that most of you are mentally sound, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to carry a handgun or utilize a rifle for hunting, target practice, or what have you, why is it such a problem if we take steps to ensure that only THESE types of people are able to obtain and carry them? Because it's inconvenient? Honestly, I am asking and hope I get an answer because there are a lot of people in my feeds who are complaining about the idea of stricter gun control laws.
Now, this is not the case with Adam Lanza of the Connecticut shootings, who seems to have obtained his weapons from his mother, (he shot her in the face before leaving that morning) who purchased them legally, but there is another factor at play here: When we look at the history of young people obtaining guns and the injuries and murders that have resulted from these, most of them got them by taking them from a family member who had legally obtained them, which brings me back to gun culture.
A simple truth: A lot of parents have guns and are making them accessible to their children, friends and family. My question is why? If they simply want a gun for protection and keeping their family safe and nothing else, why do their children know where it is located in their home, and what's more, why do their children have an easy way of getting it in their possessions and out of the house without them knowing? Here are some of the reasons I could come up with:
1.They often aren't properly stored and secured.
2. If they ARE properly stored: They have made it clear and obvious to their children not only where the gun is located in their home, but how to access. (What is the point of this? Why would a child or teenager need to know not only where your weapons are, but how to unlock or obtain them? If you argue it's for their own protection, there is a reason that we have laws restricting the availability of guns to those who are over 18)
3. They have bragged about, shown off or opened their mouth to multiple people that they own a gun and where it can be found in their home.
The fact is that more and more people are opting to own guns as situations like these make us afraid for ourselves and the lives of our families. We want to be able to protect ourselves and we are convinced that the only way to do that is to own a firearm; that the only way to meet deadly force is with deadly force, obviously. If these "crazy people" run around with guns killing innocent people, why shouldn't I have one to protect my family in case they come after me? Well I think that ideas about our own personal safety being in jeopardy that have been planted in our brains are perpetuating this. Not entirely accurate ideas, either.
This is why I feel like our pro-gun culture is a big part of tragedies like these. The media would have us believe it a cold, cold world out there filled with bad people we need to protect ourselves from. Television shows, movies, video games and more have taught us that having weapons is desirable. It makes us tough, it makes us cool, it makes us invincible. If we truly want to bear arms simply for the protection of ourselves, or simply for our hunting and shooting hobbies that we enjoy so much, then we need to also be responsible and understand that not everyone is so inclined to feel that way, AND we need to understand that these are dangerous, deadly weapons, and should be treated as such. Do we leave a butcher knife on the table in full reach of our two year-old's? No, of course not, because we understand that two year-old's don't have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from things that are dangerous, so we put it out of their reach to keep them safe. Why are we not doing the same thing with our guns? Why are we not keeping them out of reach and inaccessible to the young people in our home who don't have the knowledge, skill or intention to use them the way they were intended?
As a side point, how many of the people who have legally purchased handguns for their own protection have ever had to use them at any point in their lives? How many times have these "normal" folks been mugged, attacked, robbed or their homes broken into where the availability of their weapon has meant the difference between safety and injury, or in extreme cases, life and death? Can we compare this number to the amount of children who have accidentally shot themselves or someone else when they somehow were able to get a hold of it? Is it really worth it? I feel like we should be taking a look at the statistics of violent crime in our country, and understand that regardless of what the media would have us believe, we aren't likely to be attacked or put in a situation where we would need a firearm to save our lives. These stories are on the news because they aren't the norm; people don't get brutally murdered by psychopaths and criminals nearly as much as we have built up in our minds.
As I said in the beginning of this post, I agree that the government should in no way ever be able to remove our right to bear arms. (Interesting thought: a friend recently pointed out that if you actually read the original Bill of Rights, it states that our right to bear arms extends only to organized militia in our country. The Supreme Court has since extended that right to individuals in the case of self defense, but that was very recent.) However, if you can't be responsible with that right, and people are being injured or killed because you were careless, why should you still have that right? Now this is in no way speaking in general terms, and I don't expect an answer, because I'm not sure there is one. There simply isn't a way to legally ensure that gun owners are taking the proper precautions when it comes to stowing their weapons and keeping them out of the hands of others. But it does raise a serious question about the availability of guns to the "average Joe" who is irresponsible or simply doesn't understand proper gun safety. Hmmm. What if each person were required to take longer and more time-intensive gun safety courses before being able to obtain one?
And how about mental health evaluations? I wonder how helpful it would be to perform these evaluations before selling firearms to people, to ensure they don't have any history of severe mental illness that could impair their judgment. Note: This is also a huge issue when it comes to the culture of our country and it's lacking support and funding for public mental health programs. Up until recently, many large health insurance companies were not required to offer coverage for mental health care; which posed many problems for people who were looking for help but had no information or means to obtain it, (as was the case with Seung-Hui Cho, whose mother had reportedly sought out several different organizations to help with her son's mental illness, including her church). The nation-wide availability and access to mental health care services is severely inadequate, and that is a huge problem that I think should also be looked at (before we hastily start an emotionally-charged fight over the amount of ammunition we are able to purchase for our assault rifles).
People argue that a national tragedy is not the time to talk political reform. To that I say this: What better time is there? In the wake of a serious tragedy, what is wrong with starting to talk about and look for inconsistencies and inadequacies in our legal system and political culture, if not when we understand the serious consequences that they have incurred? I think that instead of saying "this is not the time to argue politics," I would amend the statement to be, "this is not the time to make hasty political decisions based on raw emotion and fear." But this is definitely the time to start having the conversation: What happened here? Why did it happen? What events in our history have led to this, and more importantly, how was it handled in the past and what were the results?
There are many more important things at play here than simply gun control. We need to evaluate the root of our issues here, and one of the most important I have found is that many of the people who are responsible for these tragedies needed help at some point and didn't get it. I don't agree with society placing blame on one source for these tragedies, such as the parents, gun control or violent video games. There are many things at play here and we can't point the finger at just one of them. We really have to look at the culture that these young people have grown up in and find out where we failed them to figure out why this keeps happening. Nobody is born bad or evil, nobody comes into this world with hatred and anger in their heart, somewhere along the line something went wrong, and I think it's important to look at patterns and find out what that was.
I am so very heartbroken about what happened in Connecticut. Having children close to that age myself has made it more real than I could ever imagine, and it makes me want to talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. I am open to anyone and everyone's thoughts and opinions, no matter how different they are than mine. Thanks for reading.
Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-1215-guns-20121215,0,5800421.story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UMzjQW_Ad8E
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Deadliest-U-S-school-shootings-3454376.php
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/school_shootings_and_where_stu.html
And an opinion piece that really hit home for me:
http://blog.richmond.edu/media-culture-identity/2012/09/05/does-the-medias-coverage-of-violent-events-perpetuate-violence/
My tantrum stopper revelation
All right, maybe it's not necessarily a "revelation," but to me it was pretty monumental. I've been reading a lot of books and articles lately about choosing the right discipline method for the boys. I've adopted a new "attachment theory" persona, and it has started making me move away from the idea of punishment, and more toward the idea of feelings, character and acceptance. I know it sounds so YUPPIE of me (go figure), but I have been trying it for a few days now and so far I've been really happy with the results. Here's what's different:
In the past, when I ask my kids to do something and they flat out refuse, run away, make it a game, etc. I would usually get sterner and sterner with my voice, eventually threatening (and even using) a time out for not listening to me. The thing was, time outs didn't seem to be doing what I wanted. They got them to listen temporarily (sometimes), but it didn't make them think about changing the behavior for next time, even after we talked it out and hugged. (This is mostly for my four year old, as the younger one usually has no idea what's going on) So after reading stuff from A-Ha Parenting (http://www.positiveparentingsolutions.com/time-out/transform-your-time-outs-to-time-ins-guest-post-from-dr-laura-markham) and a blog about discipline methods school teachers use on Parenting.com, I decided to try something different. Instead of using a reward/punishment system, I have decided to focus on building character, and allowing the boys to make their own choices about what's right. For example:
Me: Danny, will you please pick up your coat off of the floor and bring it to your room?
Danny: Uh, I don't want to.
Me: Please? It is so easy to step on or trip over your coat when it's right in the middle of the staircase. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would we?
Danny: I don't want to right now.
Me: Okay, I understand you don't want to. But let me ask, how would you feel if Daddy came down these stairs and slipped and fell because your coat was sitting here?
Danny: I would feel sad.
Me: Sad...hmm so you don't want Daddy to get hurt because of your coat?
Danny: Yeah.
Me: So don't you think it might be better to make a different choice about where you leave your coat?
Danny: Um, okay. [Brings coat into his room]
Me: [Gasp...Choke...Cry] That actually WORKED?!
WTF. Normally I would start to get really irritated with that much push back over something simple like putting your coat away. I might even say something rude like "I TOLD YOU TO MOVE IT SO JUST DO IT, OKAY?!" And make him feel like I am angry or frustrated with him over something so silly. Instead, we just talked about the consequences of his actions, how they affect other people, and how both he and the other person would feel if something bad happened.
I honestly still can't believe that it worked so well, and so easily. To test it, I tried it again at another time when he was doing a lot of talking back about stopping his video game to spend some quality time with Ashton and I.
Basically he said he wanted to keep playing, but I told him it had been long enough and it was time to do something fun together. He started getting really upset and arguing. I made the conscious decision to keep my cool. I acknowledged his feelings (evidently this is key in this type of "discipline") and told him I understood that he was having so much fun playing and didn't want to stop. But I told him that playing too long wasn't good for his eyes and I missed him and wanted to spend some fun time with him and Ashton. He still wasn't convinced, and he started getting even more upset. Pretty soon he was lying on the floor in tears, and I knew we may have an issue with being overtired, so I told him it was probably time to take our quiet time for the day and lay in our bed for awhile. He hated this even worse and when I asked him to close his door, he gripped it for dear life so it wouldn't close, still crying.
Again, this is where I would usually get really irritated and initiate a power struggle that usually got us both in tears. I recognized this as a cry for help instead of a power struggle, and decided that maybe he just needed a hug. I sat down and held him on his bedroom floor - lo and behold the tears came in earnest and he cried it out in my arms. After that we talked about his behavior and how it made both of us feel. I asked him if he felt better after crying and he said yes, and I asked him if he was ready to come play with Ashton and I, and he said yes, and that he wanted to be nice. (Oh my God...really?!) He suggested that we play Lego's, so he brought them upstairs and we all sat down on the floor and started playing.
Yes. That worked. No anger, no time outs, no yelling and no feelings of guilt for losing my temper. I successfully showed him that it's okay to have big feelings and that I would be there anyway. Holy crap. I still can't believe what a success it was in just the first few attempts.
I'm sure some of you are shaking your heads (if anyone reads this...um...hello? Is this thing on?) and rolling your eyes at what a yuppie load of crap this is. You're probably saying that I'm letting my kid walk all over me and take control of the situation. First let me just say this: Chill out. Second, you could be right, but I have decided that I feel better than I've ever felt about creating a strong attachment with my kids and encouraging them to acknowledge their own and others feelings while striving to be the best citizen they can be.
Who needs spanking and time outs when you can get the behavior you want by simply showing them LOVE? Riddle me that.
In the past, when I ask my kids to do something and they flat out refuse, run away, make it a game, etc. I would usually get sterner and sterner with my voice, eventually threatening (and even using) a time out for not listening to me. The thing was, time outs didn't seem to be doing what I wanted. They got them to listen temporarily (sometimes), but it didn't make them think about changing the behavior for next time, even after we talked it out and hugged. (This is mostly for my four year old, as the younger one usually has no idea what's going on) So after reading stuff from A-Ha Parenting (http://www.positiveparentingsolutions.com/time-out/transform-your-time-outs-to-time-ins-guest-post-from-dr-laura-markham) and a blog about discipline methods school teachers use on Parenting.com, I decided to try something different. Instead of using a reward/punishment system, I have decided to focus on building character, and allowing the boys to make their own choices about what's right. For example:
Me: Danny, will you please pick up your coat off of the floor and bring it to your room?
Danny: Uh, I don't want to.
Me: Please? It is so easy to step on or trip over your coat when it's right in the middle of the staircase. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would we?
Danny: I don't want to right now.
Me: Okay, I understand you don't want to. But let me ask, how would you feel if Daddy came down these stairs and slipped and fell because your coat was sitting here?
Danny: I would feel sad.
Me: Sad...hmm so you don't want Daddy to get hurt because of your coat?
Danny: Yeah.
Me: So don't you think it might be better to make a different choice about where you leave your coat?
Danny: Um, okay. [Brings coat into his room]
Me: [Gasp...Choke...Cry] That actually WORKED?!
WTF. Normally I would start to get really irritated with that much push back over something simple like putting your coat away. I might even say something rude like "I TOLD YOU TO MOVE IT SO JUST DO IT, OKAY?!" And make him feel like I am angry or frustrated with him over something so silly. Instead, we just talked about the consequences of his actions, how they affect other people, and how both he and the other person would feel if something bad happened.
I honestly still can't believe that it worked so well, and so easily. To test it, I tried it again at another time when he was doing a lot of talking back about stopping his video game to spend some quality time with Ashton and I.
Basically he said he wanted to keep playing, but I told him it had been long enough and it was time to do something fun together. He started getting really upset and arguing. I made the conscious decision to keep my cool. I acknowledged his feelings (evidently this is key in this type of "discipline") and told him I understood that he was having so much fun playing and didn't want to stop. But I told him that playing too long wasn't good for his eyes and I missed him and wanted to spend some fun time with him and Ashton. He still wasn't convinced, and he started getting even more upset. Pretty soon he was lying on the floor in tears, and I knew we may have an issue with being overtired, so I told him it was probably time to take our quiet time for the day and lay in our bed for awhile. He hated this even worse and when I asked him to close his door, he gripped it for dear life so it wouldn't close, still crying.
Again, this is where I would usually get really irritated and initiate a power struggle that usually got us both in tears. I recognized this as a cry for help instead of a power struggle, and decided that maybe he just needed a hug. I sat down and held him on his bedroom floor - lo and behold the tears came in earnest and he cried it out in my arms. After that we talked about his behavior and how it made both of us feel. I asked him if he felt better after crying and he said yes, and I asked him if he was ready to come play with Ashton and I, and he said yes, and that he wanted to be nice. (Oh my God...really?!) He suggested that we play Lego's, so he brought them upstairs and we all sat down on the floor and started playing.
Yes. That worked. No anger, no time outs, no yelling and no feelings of guilt for losing my temper. I successfully showed him that it's okay to have big feelings and that I would be there anyway. Holy crap. I still can't believe what a success it was in just the first few attempts.
I'm sure some of you are shaking your heads (if anyone reads this...um...hello? Is this thing on?) and rolling your eyes at what a yuppie load of crap this is. You're probably saying that I'm letting my kid walk all over me and take control of the situation. First let me just say this: Chill out. Second, you could be right, but I have decided that I feel better than I've ever felt about creating a strong attachment with my kids and encouraging them to acknowledge their own and others feelings while striving to be the best citizen they can be.
Who needs spanking and time outs when you can get the behavior you want by simply showing them LOVE? Riddle me that.
Keeping Your Cool In Rough Times
I recently subscribed to a parenting site and email list called Aha Parenting. They send out a "daily parenting inspiration" that gives parents advice for everyday problems and situations that arise. What I really like about this site is that it focuses on love, and how to ensure that you are being loving and compassionate while you're disciplining and teaching. It sounds really cheesy at first, but once you get past that initial eye roll, it can be really..well...eye-opening! Awhile ago I started to notice that I was letting my temper flare a lot more than was necessary over things that weren't a big deal. There were simple things that turned out to be a power struggle when they shouldn't have been. I decided to take on a mantra of letting more things go. Some things I am currently working on (and am really proud of):
- Potty accidents: There is something in him that is just not clicking. At least with number 2. He's had some poop "issues" in the past we are still recovering from. Until we get to the bottom of why it's still happening, I just don't feel right getting angry or shaming him into submission. Although I will admit, this is one of the hardest things not to get upset about, because I'm SO tired of cleaning up his messes and throwing away underwear. It's a process.
- Not eating dinner: (or any meals) We have a notoriously finicky eater. He's always been this way. I blame myself for formula feeding him, but that's another story. Either way, dinner time was a struggle. Every. Single. Night. I consulted his pediatrician who said simply: "Healthy meals - no alternatives." I've been doing pretty well on sticking to that, though it is hard sometimes when he's crying five minutes before bed and wants chicken nuggets. I've decided to let the power trip go. If he doesn't want to eat when we eat, fine. But that's all he is being offered. I'm not going to force him to eat if he doesn't want to. Dinner has been a lot less stressful since I stopped pushing him to eat.
- Doing what I say, when I say: It used to be, "Danny, clean up your toys, NOW." And he would refuse, and we would get into a big argument and eventually end up in a time out, or one of us in tears. I've learned to get more attuned to his feelings. For example, if I ask him to clean up when he's in the middle of building something, that can be very frustrating for him. I've started asking him if he wants to take a potty break now, or wait five minutes. He gets to feel like he's making his own decisions, and there's no fight when the five minutes are up! Hooray!
- Bedtime: I used to have a strict bedtime schedule for him, never relenting, even on weekends typically. But these days, meh. It's summertime, he's got cousins and family coming in an out all day, and is enjoying himself. I used to think that Steve and I needed the few hours between his bedtime and ours to wind down, but I have since relinquished that to a more important need, and that was his need to have alone time without his little brother, and alone time with mom and dad. Plus, we have taken to having him fall asleep in our bed so we can have "pillow talk," and he can tell us about his day.
- Feelings: Typically, feelings in our oldest were almost always mirrored, or intensified, by myself mainly. If he was angry and yelling, so was I. I didn't like his attitude! He shouldn't be talking to me this way! The same goes for uncontrollable sobbing over something silly. I used to insist that he immediately stop crying. Now, I have come to realize that it's OKAY to have emotions, even strong ones like anger! What is important is that we don't act on them and become physical or violent. So now, if he wants to cry, I let him cry as long as he wants. If he wants to be angry and throw a tantrum, I let him throw his tantrum and stand aside until he's done. I make sure to acknowledge that he is sad/mad/frustrated, and that it's okay to feel that way. I don't think it's something I see immediate results from, but I do know I am setting the foundation for him to express his feelings as he grows up, instead of stifling them or bottling them up.
.........
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YEAH RIGHT! I am fully aware that teenage years will be complete and utter hell, torment and emotional chaos for the both of us. Being a teenager is just too damn hard. But I like to tell myself that the effort I am putting in will, in fact, benefit all of us in the end. I will leave you with the classic music video "Parents Just Don't Understand," by Will Smith and DJ Jazzy Jeff. Thanks for listening!
Helicopter Parenting: Do You Do It?
Today I had the very fortunate opportunity of speaking to a psychologist about performing time-outs on my four year-old. I was asking her about hugging him after putting him in time out, because she was talking about mixing punishment with reward when a child misbehaves, and how it's confusing. I, being the neurotic always-wondering-how-im-screwing-up-my-kids mom that I am, asked her if this was the same concept. I explained to her that we put him in a time out for misbehaving, then when we are finished we ask him to tell us why we put him in time-out, then how he would change the behavior next time (not in so many words, mind you), and that afterwards we give him a hug and send him on his merry way. After I had described that to her, she asked "Do you want my honest opinion?" Duh.
Interestingly enough, what she told me was not what I was looking for. In fact, she didn't even answer my question. But I came away with a wealth of knowledge all the same. She said that we shouldn't be asking him to tell us what he did wrong or how he was going to fix it, because four year-old's lack the cognitive ability - not to make those sort of connections (she said they know exactly why they were put in time-out) but that they lack the cognitive ability to express that to us. She explained that this could also be the reason that when we ask him why he's done something ("Why did you push your cousin?") His responses are typically parroted from a conversation we had previously, whether it makes sense or not. Sometimes it's "Cause I didn't listen," or, and I love this one, "Because I didn't go sit on the potty." LOL.
After she told me that, I realized that she was probably right. It makes sense. Why are we expecting a four year old to not only rationalize what he did and what he would do better in the future, but to ask him to articulate it in a way we can understand? Looking at it that way, I am shaking my head at myself. Of course, he is a very bright kid and if anyone could do it, I'm sure he could, but isn't the idea of expecting this from a four year-old a little unrealistic?
But that's not the point of this post. When I was thinking about this thought, it led me to another thought: What other ways am I expecting him to behave like a reasonable, rational adult that could be troublesome? I will be the first to admit, that I typically step in if he gets in a spat with a friend or family member, I am often "right there" correcting any unwanted behavior no matter where we are, and if he starts to get frustrated (though this part I am actually working on) I typically just take over and do it for him to avoid the tears. After doing a little more research on the matter, I discovered that I have become the dreaded "Helicopter parent." This is that annoying parent who is at their children's side and involved personally in every single one of their child's experiences, whether it's warranted or not. Here is what Wikipedia told me:
"Helicopter parents are so named because, like helicopters, they hover closely overhead, rarely out of reach, whether their children need them or not. In Scandinavia, this phenomenon is known as curling parenthood and describes parents who attempt to sweep all obstacles out of the paths of their children. It is also called "overparenting". Parents try to resolve their child's problems, and try to stop them coming to harm by keeping them out of dangerous situations.[2][3]"
So there it is. I am a helicopter parent. The sad part is that I know all of consequences that result in my constant barging into my kids' business. They will end up completely dependent on others, never being able to fully experience things on their own. This will lead to social anxiety, insecurity, and all kinds of other bad stuff that I, as a parent, work my butt off to avoid.
This is a rather new phenomenon, I guess, where it goes as far as parents intruding on a child's decisions of where to go to college, what career to choose, where to work, and even as far as complaining to teachers and managers about their children's problems.
Luckily I was recommended a book to help me take a more relaxed approach to dealing with my obsession. It's called You Are Your Child's First Teacher by Rahima Baldwin. Going to order it as soon as possible and see what it has to say. Now that I know it's a problem, I can take the steps necessary to correct it. Yay!
Note: I feel like no matter what you do, somehow it will screw up your kid in the future. No matter what, some decision that you make with the best intentions always ends up being harmful in some way or another. Oh, he's a mama's boy? He will grow up too reliant on women. We can't do anything right! Ahhhhhh the joys of parenthood.
What about you? Are you a helicopter parent?
Interestingly enough, what she told me was not what I was looking for. In fact, she didn't even answer my question. But I came away with a wealth of knowledge all the same. She said that we shouldn't be asking him to tell us what he did wrong or how he was going to fix it, because four year-old's lack the cognitive ability - not to make those sort of connections (she said they know exactly why they were put in time-out) but that they lack the cognitive ability to express that to us. She explained that this could also be the reason that when we ask him why he's done something ("Why did you push your cousin?") His responses are typically parroted from a conversation we had previously, whether it makes sense or not. Sometimes it's "Cause I didn't listen," or, and I love this one, "Because I didn't go sit on the potty." LOL.
After she told me that, I realized that she was probably right. It makes sense. Why are we expecting a four year old to not only rationalize what he did and what he would do better in the future, but to ask him to articulate it in a way we can understand? Looking at it that way, I am shaking my head at myself. Of course, he is a very bright kid and if anyone could do it, I'm sure he could, but isn't the idea of expecting this from a four year-old a little unrealistic?
But that's not the point of this post. When I was thinking about this thought, it led me to another thought: What other ways am I expecting him to behave like a reasonable, rational adult that could be troublesome? I will be the first to admit, that I typically step in if he gets in a spat with a friend or family member, I am often "right there" correcting any unwanted behavior no matter where we are, and if he starts to get frustrated (though this part I am actually working on) I typically just take over and do it for him to avoid the tears. After doing a little more research on the matter, I discovered that I have become the dreaded "Helicopter parent." This is that annoying parent who is at their children's side and involved personally in every single one of their child's experiences, whether it's warranted or not. Here is what Wikipedia told me:
"Helicopter parents are so named because, like helicopters, they hover closely overhead, rarely out of reach, whether their children need them or not. In Scandinavia, this phenomenon is known as curling parenthood and describes parents who attempt to sweep all obstacles out of the paths of their children. It is also called "overparenting". Parents try to resolve their child's problems, and try to stop them coming to harm by keeping them out of dangerous situations.[2][3]"
So there it is. I am a helicopter parent. The sad part is that I know all of consequences that result in my constant barging into my kids' business. They will end up completely dependent on others, never being able to fully experience things on their own. This will lead to social anxiety, insecurity, and all kinds of other bad stuff that I, as a parent, work my butt off to avoid.
This is a rather new phenomenon, I guess, where it goes as far as parents intruding on a child's decisions of where to go to college, what career to choose, where to work, and even as far as complaining to teachers and managers about their children's problems.
Luckily I was recommended a book to help me take a more relaxed approach to dealing with my obsession. It's called You Are Your Child's First Teacher by Rahima Baldwin. Going to order it as soon as possible and see what it has to say. Now that I know it's a problem, I can take the steps necessary to correct it. Yay!
Note: I feel like no matter what you do, somehow it will screw up your kid in the future. No matter what, some decision that you make with the best intentions always ends up being harmful in some way or another. Oh, he's a mama's boy? He will grow up too reliant on women. We can't do anything right! Ahhhhhh the joys of parenthood.
What about you? Are you a helicopter parent?
Response: Do Kids Need Moms and Dads?
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
The first thing I would like to point out about this piece is the complete lack of any factual evidence or support of his "theories" on traditional mother and father households being superior. It is riddled with personal anecdotes and gross generalities that are based solely on personal opinion and no scientific research or evidence to back it up. So to rebut this argument with studies and facts indicating the contrary is almost laughable when you consider what he is presenting as "evidence." But let's say for the sake of argument that I will entertain these ridiculous notions, and respond to each one in turn.
First of all, using the Declaration of Independence for support on things that we, as a people "know to be true" is a huge misrepresentation. The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing along the lines "drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad," so yes, I would say that he has completely misunderstood what truths we hold to be "self-evident" when our founding fathers drafted this document. I don't think that they intended it to be open to interpretation, and I find no ambiguity in the verbiage. I also find it rather offensive that he coins the term "most of us," as if his opinion is the general consensus among...who? Adults? Americans? Parents? Again, where are the facts to back this up? Who is supporting him besides this vile organization?
Second, the backlash on his forum isn't coming from people who disagree that having a mother and father present is a positive force in a child's well-being, of course it's beneficial, what they are arguing is his claim that homosexual parents aren't capable of providing a home and childhood that is just as safe and stable as a heterosexual couple's would be is grossly inaccurate. Again, I see another phrase used without any thought or agreement as to who considers it "absurd."
These people disagree that having a traditional mother-father family is superior to that of a gay or lesbian couple. As he mentioned earlier in the article, millions and millions of dollars has been spent studying the effects of having homosexual parents on children, and time and time again have come up with no significant evidence that it is any worse than having straight parents. In fact, a Huffington Post article even cites that some studies found that homosexual parents were in fact better than many heterosexual ones, because they have typically made the conscious decision to start a family - it is very rare for a lesbian couple to have an unplanned pregnancy, whereas 50% of pregnancies in heterosexual relationships in the United States are unplanned.
I noticed that he indicated his opponents' only rebuttal to his argument were that some parents aren't "good parents," and this is why it is not always preferable to have a mother-father relationship. I can't imagine this being their only argument in opposition to his notions. Yes, admittedly there are some "bad" parents out there (whatever that means) that probably should not have had children. Yes, this is disconcerting and the children have probably suffered psychologically. But I agree that the percentage of "bad parents" out there doesn't serve as support that children are better off with only a traditional mother and father in their life.
So what can we gather as evidence against this? Well, let's look at the statistics. The fact is, there are very few studies that have indicated a negative relationship with a child's well being and their having homosexual parents. Studies have found that they fare the same in school, have the same amount of friends and are just as emotionally stable as a child of straight parents. In addition, having homosexual parents did not make them more likely to become homosexual themselves.
Some highlights:
"In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors).
A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers' sexual orientation."
What's more, many of these studies have indicated not that gay parents are what make children suffer, they have indicated that having only ONE parent makes children suffer; meaning that having two stable, loving adults in their home caring for them is just as good as having one man and one woman doing the same. That means it can be any two people, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's difficult for one person to raise a child completely on their own; that's not to say it's impossible, but it can be taxing for such a large responsibility on one person and damaging for the child. Having another person there is extremely beneficial to expand the child's learning and viewpoints, as well as to share the responsibility of being a parent. Nowhere does it say that these two people have to be a male and female in a heterosexual relationship.
While we are on the subject of single parents, perhaps he is overlooking one of the biggest issues that 50% of children of married, heterosexual parents will face, and that is divorce. For the past thirty years, studies have followed children of divorced parents throughout their lives, and compared them to "control" groups of children in similar situations with parents who did not divorce. The kids whose parents had divorced were much more likely to have ongoing psychological problems; some even up to 25 years after the divorce or longer. In addition, children of divorced parents are at higher risk for doing poorly in school, engaging in dangerous and/or promiscuous behavior, as well as having severe self esteem issues.
So what's the real issue here? That it doesn't matter if the child has to face divorce, poor parenting from people who weren't ready or didn't want children at all, as long as their parents aren't gay? Unfortunately the statistics are not on his side in that respect.
Maybe these statistics mean nothing compared to this gentleman's "gut" feeling about how a family is "supposed" to be, and maybe he was brainwashed by someone like Rick Santorum telling him that it would be better for a child to have no father at all, or a father who is in prison rather than having one who is gay, but somewhere along the lines he clearly lost his way. To claim that children are better off in families with a traditional mother and father role is what's "absurd," especially when he has absolutely no facts to back up his claims.
Sources:
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html
Do Kids Need Moms and Dads?
by Joseph Backholm | March 29, 2012
According to the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers held certain truths to be self-evident. By my understanding, that means that there were some things we could agree were true even if millions of dollars had not been spent studying the subject.
For many of us, that list would include the idea that drugs are bad, nice people have more friends, and that it's a good thing for kids to have a mom and dad.
Curiously, what used to be self-evident is apparently quite controversial. A couple days ago I was in a forum (which will air in the Seattle TV market on KCTS Channel 9 on April 17th) during which, I was accused of bearing false witness for saying it is preferable for kids to have a mom and a dad.
While on one hand it concerns me that otherwise intelligent adults would argue that it isn't at least desirable for kids to be connected to their mother and father, as someone interested in winning a public debate on the marriage issue it encourages me when our opponents are forced to defend the absurd.
The rebuttal to the idea that kids should have both a mom and dad is to point out that some moms and dads are bad parents. While unfortunately true, this response misses the point. The point is not that every man and woman are great parents, but that it is ideal if the great parents we hope every child has is that child's mom and dad. If that is impossible, a mom and dad are the preferred alternative. Historically this has not been an outrageous thing to say.
Many people in Washington State don't feel passionately about the same-sex "marriage" issue. They may be sympathetic to the so-called gay rights movement because they think everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Of course that is true. And in Washington State, that is the status quo by any reasonable measure. Domestic partnerships have all the rights and benefits of marriage. Fairness cannot be defined as the right to marry whomever you want because not even those pushing to redefine marriage believe there should be no restrictions on who can get married.
In their pursuit of fairness I don't think the average voter is willing to abandon the idea that it is preferable for kids to have a mom and a dad. So, every time our opponents make that argument, we win.
Unfortunately for them, they must make that argument. In order to argue that marriage should be redefined, they argue that homosexual relationships are in every way the equivalent of heterosexual relationships. In order to believe that, you must conclude that it is unimportant for children to have a mother and father, otherwise the presence or absence of both a mom and a dad would represent a relevant difference between the relationships.
But because their position requires them to deny any meaningful difference, they are forced into arguing that moms and dads, men and women, are interchangeable and independently insignificant.
Logic suggests that when one conclusion requires you to believe something else that is obviously untrue that you should reconsider your conclusion. But for those who disagree with us on the marriage issue, they don't have that option. Their view of the rest of the universe is built upon their belief that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But for the casual observer of the debate, I still believe logic can prevail.
So stick with what works. Moms and dads are preferable. Most people recognize that. And once people come to terms with the fact that the redefinition of marriage requires people to also conclude that moms and dads are simply one of many acceptable options, I think we win. After all, most people still understand that some truths really are self-evident.
What do you think of this article? Agree? Disagree?
USDA allows schools an alternative to “Pink Slime” after public outcry
The USDA has made the decision to offer public schools an alternative to buying beef that’s made with “pink slime,” the chemically-treated beef additive that has been in national headlines recently. Fast food giants like McDonalds, Taco Bell and Burger King stopped using it in their beef after it received national attention a year ago, and many people were outraged to find out that it was still being served in schools.
If you haven’t seen any of the news stories about it, “Pink slime” is a ground beef additive made from the muscle and connective tissue of the cow. According to The Washington Post, the process involves taking USDA-approved beef trimmings, separating the fat and meat with centrifuges, then squeezing the lean beef through a tube the size of a pencil, during which time it is exposed to ammonia gas. The combination of the gas with water in the meat results in a reaction that increases the pH (lowering acidity) and killing any pathogens such as E. coli. The industry calls this “lean finely textured beef.” It is used to salvage more animal protein from the carcass, resulting in larger weights and volumes added to the ground beef; and thus more money for the meat packing companies. However, the use of pink slime has recently come under fire for safety concerns with ammonium hydroxide; the public is also concerned that they are getting up to 15 percent of processed “filler” in the meat they’re buying.
The initial public outcry stemmed from the discovery of the trimmings containing pathogens; namely E Coli and Salmonella. To combat this, meat producers use ammonium hydroxide, a gas that kills the pathogens and additional bacteria that are likely present in the meat. But experts are claiming that eliminating the pathogen problem with chemicals only creates another; the new safety concerns with the use of ammonium hydroxide in meat processing. However the American Meat Institute insists that the gas used in pink slime is not your average, household cleaning ammonia. They claim it is a different compound that has been tested extensively for safety and has a long history of success.
The Huffington Post stated that “advocates for wholesome food have denounced the process as a potentially unsafe and unappetizing example of industrialized food production.” Parents across the country are concerned that a product that was forgone by even McDonalds and Burger King are still being served in school lunchrooms. The way it has been portrayed in the media has caused many to deem it simply “disgusting.” The images shown online and the nickname “pink slime” aren’t helping the matter either.
Studies have found that as much as 70 percent of the ground beef we are buying in the supermarkets includes pink slime, and that no more than 15 percent of the meat can be comprised of it. What’s more, because the USDA does not require companies to list it on the ingredients label, it is impossible to know if the meat you’re buying contains it.
Although the USDA has given schools the choice on whether or not to offer it, they are standing by the safety of the product. On March 15, they released a statement, saying that the product is "safe, nutritious and affordable" but that they would offer an alternative for schools if they chose not to use it. In 2009, The New York Times wrote an expose on the use of the product, revealing that federal testing between 2005 and 2009 found that ground beef containing “boneless lean beef trimmings” was four times more likely to contain salmonella than regular ground meat.
The validity of these concerns is still up in the air, as meat producing companies insist that the public is focusing on the aesthetics of the product and not looking at the facts. Beef Product Inc., for example, insists that its product is 100 percent lean beef, and is approved by a series of industry experts, while the National Meat Association refuted the claims that the product is made from scraps meant for pet food. They also said that ammonium hydroxide is used in baked goods, puddings and other processed foods, and has been for several years with no public attention or concern over its safety. With so much national attention, it’s easy to see how people can take an image that they see online, or a claim made in a network television show and believe it without first looking into the facts and details of this product.
As a nation that is ever encouraging its citizens to forgo processed foods for more natural alternatives, it’s understandable that parents would not want this “pink slime” in the lunches at their children’s school. Unfortunately, the schools that have banned the product may not have a choice anyway; many schools are having a difficult time finding processors that offer certified ammonium-free meat, so it could continue to be used until more meat processing plants offer beef without it. As a consumer, the only way to guarantee that your meat doesn’t have “lean finely textured beef” is to grind your beef yourself, or ask your local butcher to grind it for you.
A petition stated on Change.org urging the USDA to ban the use of pink slime in public schools has already received 239,000 signatures. As the safety and health of this product is debated nationally, it is important to remember to get the facts about these claims before making a decision that could affect your family.
Well, what do you think parents? How do you feel about the pink slime debate? OMG or NBD?
WELCOME to Humanist Mom - a blog for the modern day parenting enthusiast
I am really excited to start this blog! Hoping it helps me figure out more about parenting, (effective and ineffective methods) as well as communicate my own personal experiences, with a lot of articles from Google to back up my theories.
Parenting was brought upon me unexpectedly at a young age, and while pregnant I really worried about how well I would do raising a child. Long story short, somehow some sort of "instincts" kicked in (who knew?) and I actually did a pretty damn good job, if I do say so myself. I realized that there was a hole in my life, something I was missing, and having children filled that void entirely. I have never been more committed or enamored with anything in my entire life, and I love every second of it.
After starting to try for my second, I realized that I spent a lot of time reading, researching, scouring articles and message boards and asking questions of other moms about different parenting styles and techniques. It became sort of an obsession. I have to say, I am really glad I did, because being knowledgeable about this stuff has really helped me grow, not just as a parent, but as a human. I have learned so much about patience, understanding, empathy and forgiveness. Things I knew nothing about before becoming a mother.
One day my husband and I were going on about one thing or another, and he made a point about me being the parenting "expert." I was confused, what did he mean, expert? Can anyone be an expert parent? Not really. I just enjoyed all the learning and the results I saw in my son. I asked him to explain, and he said, "You spend all your time learning how to be a better parent and interacting, teaching, playing with and celebrating our children. It is your life, your passion. If I ever have a parenting question, I look to you, because you've done the research and put in the work."
Wow. I was really blown away by that. I had never thought of it that way before. And it made me feel really good. Yes, I do spend most of my time trying to be the best parent with the happiest kids. But that's not the goal. To use an old cliche, its about the journey, not the destination. It's impossible to be perfect. We just learn from mistakes and take it day by day. Yes, I am hip to a lot of the yuppie things that we do for our children nowadays, but in 20 or 30 years, when my children have kids of their own, it will probably all be useless and dated. But isn't that the beauty of parenting, that there is no prize at the end we are all striving for? The idea and theory of parenting is constantly evolving, and there will always be things we don't know, things we should or shouldn't be doing, that we learn about later?? That's what makes it so interesting, I think.
Anyway, this is the start to my blog. I'm going to talk about many common parenting subjects....vaccines, "mom guilt" , discipline, communication, learning, play time and whatever else you could possibly think of. I welcome comments and responses from any and everyone!
Parenting was brought upon me unexpectedly at a young age, and while pregnant I really worried about how well I would do raising a child. Long story short, somehow some sort of "instincts" kicked in (who knew?) and I actually did a pretty damn good job, if I do say so myself. I realized that there was a hole in my life, something I was missing, and having children filled that void entirely. I have never been more committed or enamored with anything in my entire life, and I love every second of it.
After starting to try for my second, I realized that I spent a lot of time reading, researching, scouring articles and message boards and asking questions of other moms about different parenting styles and techniques. It became sort of an obsession. I have to say, I am really glad I did, because being knowledgeable about this stuff has really helped me grow, not just as a parent, but as a human. I have learned so much about patience, understanding, empathy and forgiveness. Things I knew nothing about before becoming a mother.
One day my husband and I were going on about one thing or another, and he made a point about me being the parenting "expert." I was confused, what did he mean, expert? Can anyone be an expert parent? Not really. I just enjoyed all the learning and the results I saw in my son. I asked him to explain, and he said, "You spend all your time learning how to be a better parent and interacting, teaching, playing with and celebrating our children. It is your life, your passion. If I ever have a parenting question, I look to you, because you've done the research and put in the work."
Wow. I was really blown away by that. I had never thought of it that way before. And it made me feel really good. Yes, I do spend most of my time trying to be the best parent with the happiest kids. But that's not the goal. To use an old cliche, its about the journey, not the destination. It's impossible to be perfect. We just learn from mistakes and take it day by day. Yes, I am hip to a lot of the yuppie things that we do for our children nowadays, but in 20 or 30 years, when my children have kids of their own, it will probably all be useless and dated. But isn't that the beauty of parenting, that there is no prize at the end we are all striving for? The idea and theory of parenting is constantly evolving, and there will always be things we don't know, things we should or shouldn't be doing, that we learn about later?? That's what makes it so interesting, I think.
Anyway, this is the start to my blog. I'm going to talk about many common parenting subjects....vaccines, "mom guilt" , discipline, communication, learning, play time and whatever else you could possibly think of. I welcome comments and responses from any and everyone!
