Babies For Love

This is what the world is coming to:

There's a stunning twist to the sudden rise in teen pregnancies at Gloucester High School. Seventeen students there are expecting and many of them became that way on purpose.

Time Magazine first reported that nearly half of the girls confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. None of them is older than 16.

Schools Superintendent Christopher Farmer told WBZ's Bill Shields Thursday the girls had "an agreement to get pregnant."

No parents of the 17 girls were interviewed. What causes a peer group to come up with such a self-defeating scheme? The Superintendent says the girls "lacked love". Teenagers can be mind-numbingly stupid, though. It seems to me that at least a few of these girls had loving families. It's possible that they all had uncaring parents but I doubt it.

I'm putting this one to a vote. It just seems too crazy.

The PRIMARY reason the pregnancy pact happened is because:
	The girls lacked love
	Peer pressure
	Little supervision
	Oversexed culture
	Teenagers are stupid
	The girls lacked a moral foundation
	Media's glorification of sex
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

What Parents of Special Needs Kids Worry About

We all hear the stories of sexual abuse, and unfortunately, it happens too often. Parents of autistic children in particular worry about this because the child, if he or she is non-verbal, can't express what happened. So this story (via John Hawkins) is particularly egregious:

Leduc's weird tale began on May 30, when she dropped young Victoria off for class at Terry Fox Elementary and headed in to work, only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away.

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the CAS had been notified.

How did they come by such startling knowledge? Leduc was incredulous as they poured out their story.

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

Victoria, who is non-verbal, had also been exhibiting sexualized behaviour in class, actions which are known to be typical of autistic behavior. (See other typical actions here) That lead authorities to suspect she had a bladder infection that may have somehow been related to the 'attack.'

Leduc was shaken by the idea. "It's actually your worst nightmare your child being violated," she admits. "So for them to even suggest that, and that be my worst nightmare, it was horrific."

So, then, the mother is investigated by CPS, but thankfully she had proof to back herself up. She bought a GPS system that records, non-stop, all sounds around the child because the school had "lost" her child a couple times.

A psychic? You'd be surprised, right, but you've dealt with the public school system or heard the stories, so nothing is shocking. The teacher won't be fired. The assistant teacher won't be fired. The principal won't be fired. The school district won't pay for the education the child needs.

The school district will dedicate its resources to defend against this woman's lawsuit when the same amount of money, or less, could help her child. You see, the policy is to deny, deny, deny, because if they help one child, they'd have to help them all. So no children will get adequately helped, or will get the bare minimum of assistance and it will be couched in ARDs as the "least restrictive environment" which is code for--we don't want to pay. And parents have no choice. They're stuck. Private schools are under no obligation to take on a special needs child. And the private schools that specialize in helping these kids are expensive.

John says, "If we had a voucher system, Colleen Leduc could simply send her kid to a private school that isn't run by complete morons." Well, the money would be a start. Public schools are woefully deficient at dealing with these children. It's a problem nationally. There simply just isn't the training or desire to be trained to deal with children outside the mean.

I've been to continuing ed seminars for teachers dealing with autism. The level of apathy among the teachers was appalling. The parents in attendance, took it all in. In fact, while the teachers ignored the speaker (who happened to be one of the brightest thinkers and a leader in autism education), I was learning and went home and taught my son how to speak that week. The information was good, but you can't teach someone who thinks she knows everything or who just doesn't care.

And out there, there are amazing teachers, wonderful teachers who are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated. That's the problem with public education. A teacher can phone it in or can work and care, she gets paid the same. She can be dull-witted and show zero judgment and still get paid. It's almost impossible for her to get fired.

What a mess. On the word of a stupid assistant teacher's psychic, a woman and her child can be completely traumatized, meanwhile, there's the little problem of the child not being educated.

Cell Phone Addiction In Children

So, this conversation happened at the dinner table a few days ago:

Daughter 8: Mom, I want a cell phone.

Me: No

Daughter: Everyone has a cell phone! [Head collapses into arms, dramatic weeping.]

Me: [Laughing] No, you are not crying about not having a cell phone. Who? Who has a cellphone?

Daughter: Lots of people.

Me: Who? And how old are they?

Daughter: [Face squirreled up, more tears] You're mean!

Me: You have no idea how mean. Just wait!

I might have peeved tween but at least I don't have an addicted adolescent. What. In. The. Hell?

They were brought in after spending an average of six hours a day on their phones, talking, texting or playing games.

Their parents became concerned that the children, aged 12 and 13, were unable to carry out normal activities without their handsets. They were failing at school and deceiving relatives in an attempt to obtain more money for phone cards.

This makes me think of that Star Trek episode where everyone got addicted to that alternative reality game. Yes, I'm that big of a nerd.



Really, I think parents should just give up and give in....it's all over. Why even try to fight it?


Cross-posted at Right Wing News

More Vegan Stupidity

Children need protein. Children need minerals. Children need fat. Children need the nutrition in fat and protein. Parents who feed their babies vegan diets are worse than ignorant, they're abusive.

Van Helsing at Moonbattery notes the latest example, of, well, moonbattery:

The youngster, fed on a strict meat- and dairy-free diet from birth, is being treated at the city’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children. She is said to have a severe form of rickets and to have suffered a number of fractured bones. The condition is caused by a lack of vitamin D, which is needed to absorb calcium and is found in liver, oily fish and dairy produce.

Dr Faisal Ahmed, the consultant treating the child, said he believed the dangers of forcing children to follow a strict vegan diet needed to be highlighted. “Something like this needs publicity,” he said. However, he refused to blame the parents, who are understood to be well-known figures in Glasgow’s vegan community: “We shouldn’t name and shame \. Mum feels guilty about the whole thing and feels bad about it.”

Aw, mum feels guilty. Does she? Guilty enough to give up her religion? A lifetime of proper nutrition for her daughter will not compensate for her daughter's health today. Because of her long-term Vitamin D deficiency, her daughter is at risk for:

• Colon cancer
• Impaired neurological and cognitive development
• Osteoporosis (duh)
• Anemia
• Breast cancer
• Heart disease (?), new research
• Inflammatory bowel disease
• Crohns disease
• Hypertension

The list goes on and on. And no amount of health building now will make it right for this girl as she grows into womanhood. Her mom feels guilty? Her daughter may never be able to have children. She wasn't just being stupid about her own health, but the health of her daughter's. I think she should feel guilty from behind bars.

Caesareans Cause Insurance Problems

The vast majority of Caesarean sections are unnecessary, invasive surgeries. To add insult to injury, many women are finding themselves un-insurable after a Caesarean. Insurance companies don't want to cover women of child-bearing age. Period. It's expensive and the insurance company's goal is to make money. The insurance company's goal is not to make sure you get well. That is your job. The doctor's job is to help you.

It is helpful to remember these roles when you're making health care decisions.

Child Pornography As Art

In America, it's "spiritual marriages" or slut baby clothing. In Australia, it's "art". Either way, exploiting children seems to becoming more normed throughout Western civilization. Make sure to watch the news clip at the link. Even Australia's leftist Prime Minister is appalled.

My question, upon watching all this, is where are the parents? There are laws against child pornography, but there's no law that can stop parents from being complete morons. Why would a parent allow this? The child has no consent. The child will grow up some day and see these images and try to rationalize his parent's failure to protect him and worse, his parents cooperated.

Of course, the art community feels persecuted because police are investigating. Enter the obligatory Nazi references:

Commenting on the decision to shut down the Henson exhibition, he said it was "a sad day that an artist or a gallerist has to edit an exhibition on the basis of public fear".

"It's like Australia's way back in the 1950s again," he added. "It's a reminder that we still live very much in basically a philistine country."

Judy Annear, senior curator of photography at the Art Gallery of NSW, says artists like Henson need to continue to push the boundaries, despite public opinion.

"The day art museums and artists decide that the only thing they can do is react to public opinion is the day that we are in the same scenario as people were in the 1930s in Germany," she said.

So, the Nazi's were preventing children from being exploited? Why, if my cursory understanding of history serves, it was the Nazis who were doing the exploiting. Lampshades were art, no doubt. Hitler hated modernism and artists in general because of his own failings as an artist. What deep chasm in the modern public psyche accounts for the outrage at seeing children exploited?

It is never possible that the artist has crossed a inviolable moral line. Nope. The Australian populace are a bunch of Philistines. How open minded! Only if you agree with the art communities are you a free thinking genius, but if you disagree--you're a Philistine. To the true artist, there are no boundaries. To the average person, artists have no sense.

H/T Reader Dana Hanley

Mother's Day Rocks....and Rolls!

My mom birthed me, therefore I am. Thanks mom!

Wait is it 10:41 CST? Why, yes it is. I rolled my old bones out of bed an hour ago, secure in the knowledge that I got to sleep in today. Sleeping is just better when you know someone else is responsible for the urchins. A breakfast spread (not in bed--that mode of eating is overrated--crumbs, spilled stuff, it's better in theory) sat on the table. My little cherubs were there. The youngest one sans clothes. He's happier that way these days.

I got a present. Try to not be jealous. It's going to be hard because they're so freakin' cool!



The earphones, made by Etymotic Research specially for my iPhone, cancel noise, so I'm not blasting my eardrums now turning the music up so dang loud to cancel external noise. They fit into my wee ear canal comfortably. My Apple earphones hurt my ear and were falling apart after daily use since December. I endured the pain because 1) I'm cheap and 2) my options sucked for so long. The benefits of the old Apple earphones still outweighed the other two choices. With the Apple earphones, you could use the phone and I really, really like the feature of uninterrupted music. That is, I could receive a phone call or make one, and the song I was listening to would fade out and then back in right where it was. The other headphones were either headphones or wireless blue tooth phone, but not both phone and headphones.

Not now. The Etymotic HF2's do everything the old Apple earphones do, they just do it oh so much better. The sound is astonishingly good. Rich and full, nice bass, mid-tones good, treble decent. Sounds a bit tinny right now but I'm listening to an old Roy Orbison recording of You Got It so it might be that. Now, I'm listening to Prince's I Would Die For You. Sounds the same. It's the earphones. But I'm quibbling. They are fantastic.

I accepted one phone call and experimented with going outside. A complaint about the Apple headphones was that the microphone picked up every little sound. Thus, a breezy day negated talking on the phone outdoors with the headphones on a walk say, requiring me to pull them out, hold the headphones in one hand (no clip--the new ones have a clip) and gab on the phone. I know. I suffer. We'll see if it's the same deal with the new ones. I don't know. During my one test run, the caller could hear the birds chirping in the background, so we'll see.

If I was a good mother, I'd be waxing elephant about the inherent joys of motherhood first before telling you yahoos about the rocking headphones. But I never claimed to be a good mother. No award winning, heroic deeds of self-sacrifice (this morning yet, anyway) to distinguish me from any other mother who does her loving duty day in and day out. I just love my kids.

My Little Toot ran up to me, naked of course, jumped into my arms and exclaimed, "I love you Mama!!" Well take my heart out and crush it in your little palm, son. Oof, I just can't even describe the feeling that comes from hearing those words, that way, from that sweet little face. The headphones are choice, but there is no comparison to those pink cheeks, blue marble eyes, and squeaky voice. We moms are complete suckers. It's that skin, the sweetness, the purity that helps us when, five minutes later, he is head butting me because I won't give him his third bowl of Honey Nut Cheerios.

Motherhood is complex, mundane, routine, surprising, demanding, relentless, and really not for the faint of heart. Until a woman is a mother herself, she can't really comprehend her own mother's dedication and love. There aren't words for it really. It begins with the sacrifice of the body. I remember being astonished how consumed I was by being pregnant even when I was too busy to think about it. This little dot of a kid completely changed my biochemistry. My body responded to this alien invasion on autopilot, but my life was no longer just mine. It became this other being's too. And the pregnancy was just the beginning of life giving.

As time goes on, that commitment and choice becomes even more apparent. You don't know what kind of kid you'll get. I expected that I'd have no problems. Of course, when I got pregnant, the notion of a deformed child or some birth defect subtly terrorized me--hung out there as a looming possibility, but I didn't really believe that would happen. And I thought the pregnancy would be fine. But I couldn't know.

Motherhood disabused me of the notion that I had control of my destiny. It was an illusion anyway. I thought I could make life conform to my whims. And to a certain extent, I could, but mostly I possessed the hubris that all young people have. That life will go on forever and that all mistakes can be corrected with work and time. I was wrong.

My body betrayed me. It birthed the babies early and wanted to do the same with each successive pregnancy. We only know a little about why. There is always a why, but there's not always a way to find the why. And then one of my sons died. And the other lived and suffered. And I was helpless to stop it or change anything.

Motherhood revealed the truth: I am limited and am a conduit for life force but do not possess the power of life. That knowledge is self-evident and of course, I knew it intellectually before, but I didn't know it in the way I knew it after the birth of my sons.

I don't want to get all maudlin here, that's not really my point. But I do think that a certain humility and self-awareness comes with parenthood. Suddenly, life gets re-prioritized. And all my fancy ideas and selfishness and self-will and ideas about life got shot through the blender of reality and what's really important. And imagine my surprise! What was really important wasn't me, well not every single second anyway.

Motherhood doesn't automatically make a person a selfless, loving paragon of virtue. It didn't me, that's for sure. It did expand my world beyond my own confined constraints. My heart expanded and I was made vulnerable. A hug from a naked gnome reveals my weakness and newfound strength too. My life is more focused and more full. I am chained and freed at the same time.

The world needs more mothers and fathers. People making choices for the benefit of others over themselves. Japan and Europe die today because their citizens live like today is the last day. And they create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why care about society lasting beyond this generation? What is worth saving about it?

If you're a mother (or a father), the answer to that question is self-evident.

Oh, and one more thing! I had the earphones in the wrong ears. I switched them. The sound is even better!

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Mommy Moment

This is what greeted me this morning: My naked son dancing around the crib and it was.....DRY! Oh, yes it was. And then, and then! He sat on the potty and did his business.

I have to tell you, curing the scourge of athletes foot might feel better than this, but I rather doubt it.

Seven Parenting Principles

Continuing this week's unintentional theme, I'm going to delve where most people fear to tread because they're a lot wiser than I am. Unfortunately, or fortunately for your sport and entertainment, I've been hit with a stupid stick and have decided to share my philosophies on everything from getting a woman to what it means to be a friend. Why not go one further and piss everyone off and talk about how to raise decent kids?

This is an especially dicey topic since my kids are not even teenagers yet. I haven't run the parenting gauntlet, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Oh no! I'm a blogger and bloggers have opinions. It's what we do. So here goes my leap into words that will be eaten. These words will come back to haunt me. Hell, they're haunting me now.

The question before us, is how to raise a decent kid. And by decent, I mean a kid who doesn't end up in jail, or on drugs, or is a smorgesboard of STDS or what have you. Before this rather low bar is hurdled in the late teen years and adulthood, the kid is parented, or not, a lot. I happen to believe that what happens in the formative years is, well, formative. Some people don't. I think those people are stupid. It's like saying that you plant a sapling, don't water it, don't feed it, don't stake it, and then wonder why it either dies or if it somehow manages to live, ends up bent in the trunk. Parenting matters.

So here's some thoughts on parenting:

1. Mean what you say and say what you mean. A child needs to believe his parents. A parent who consistently threatens is viewed for what he or she is: an impotent buffoon. The child will push and push, the parents will get frustrated, the child will feel emboldened and in charge, and ultimately, the child will feel insecure. Disrespect for parents translates into disrespect for all authority which translates into pissing off the boss and getting fired. Really, it's not that big of a leap.

2. Make few rules. So many parents have weird and arbitrary whims, really. A child can be defiant and mouthy, but must not, under any circumstances eat a piece of candy at grandma's house. Or, the child must say please and thank you like a robot but he is allowed to have a rotten attitude while doing it. Make your rules make sense. Explain them. Explain why they're important. And explain what will happen should the be broken. This shouldn't have to be a long conversation.

3. Have some standards. Good grief! It isn't cute when your miscreant speaks truth to power at age six. He's six. Yes, children can have their own wisdom. Yes, they can be very interesting. Mostly, they're interesting to you, the parent. Other people think your little Johnny is annoying. They're just too polite to say anything. What standards are a minimum? Respectful communication and behavior is a minimum. A child should not allowed to be surly and miserable. A child's demeanor means a lot. A happy, open attitude can be trained.

4. Reinforce good behavior. It's easy to spot the under performance. It takes more work to find the good work and praise it. When your child does something right, note it. And how you note it is important. Saying, "You're the best kid ever" is vague and actually puts pressure on the kid. Say instead, "I noticed how hard you're working to share with your younger brother" or "Your effort at math paid off! Keep it up!" This praises effort and not end results. The kid will be more inclined to keep trying to be better.

5. Model good behavior. Are your kids screamers? Do they hit? Do they have mean mouths? They learned it somewhere. Oh yes, kids are little parrots or monkeys or whatever screeching animal you prefer. They are paying attention to what you say to dad/mom. Model mature conflict resolution. Model kindness. Model taking turns. Model graceful losing. All those things where you want to stomp your feet and throw a fit like a toddler? Don't do it--unless you want the same thing modeled back at ya.

6. Judiciously use corporal punishment. Back in the day, the whipping was used for everything. Most of our parents would be in jail for child abuse and rightfully so. Excessive seemed to be the modus operandi. I know lots of parents in my generation have gone to the other extreme. They won't touch their child's tushie no matter how deserving it is of some instant messaging. I told a friend of mine that the quickest way to get a message to a boy's brain is through his butt. She didn't like that much. There are rules, though, about all this. And here are mine:

1. Never spank in anger.
2. Always use a hand. (You need a feedback loop.)
3. Never, ever, ever hit, slap, or meanly touch a child's face or head. EVER!
4. Only spank the butt or thigh.
5. Children under two should not be spanked.
   
6. Rarely, rarely spank.

Spanking is a last resort. Spanking is to send the kind of message that absolutely must be driven into the child's mind or else. For example, a child who has been told to not go into the street and then looks at you defiantly and runs into it deserves a spanking. The consequences for this disobedience can be death. A spanking is a small price to pay for the child to get the long-term, potentially life-saving message.

I want to note here that each of my children have been spanked less than five times in their entire lives. I have a 10 and an 8 year old. I believe the children are too old now to be spanked. Age 8 seems to be a cut-off, for me. The child can reason. He knows right and wrong and other consequences are needed to make a point. To me, the majority of spankings should be given between 2 1/2 and 5. And remember, this is a last resort.

Why spank at all? Well, it's effective. Used sparingly and with purpose, a spanking can give the child the hard boundary he needs to have. Some children need this structure more than others. Some children need few boundaries at all and will be somehow internally guided toward the right way of doing things.

Also, a note on special needs children: I have an autistic son. He has never responded well to spanking. He had a difficult time connecting the punishment with the behavior. The spanking seemed like a random act and would elicit a complete melt-down unrelated to the physical discomfort of a spank. So, he didn't get spanked except for the one time he was four or so and once or twice when he was older and understood. Parents should be very cautious about using spanking with special needs children.

7. Love them. Love means action. It means participating in their lives. It means reading to them. It means exploring their interests and building upon them. Love means being tough and saying "no", but it also means showing kindness and mercy and saying "yes" as often as possible. On the back drop of love, everything else falls into place. A child does not want to disappoint loving parents. A child wants to please mom and dad. A child will forgive all sorts of mistakes if he is loved.

This is not a definitive list. If you have more, add them to the comments. Parenting is absolutely a challenge. In fact, after marriage, I think it's the most challenging task I've undertaken. It is so long-term and the outcomes aren't guaranteed. But the results of good parenting are worth it. Many long-term miseries, much of the suffering adults endure goes back to the formative years. A good parent makes a big difference.

Push Presents

Does a woman deserve a present for giving birth? There was a time when child-birth was viewed as a rite of passage, much as the first hunt was for a man. A woman was lavished with gifts of different sorts. And, women were supported by other women.

Society has changed. And then again, it hasn't. What was old is new again. Women are getting "push presents"--presents for pushing out a baby. Since most women don't push and barely feel the kid coming at all since they're drugged up, I find this a funny description, but whatever. In this narcissistic age, women gain weight, lose control of bodily functions and I guess that merits a gift, right?

In a more innocent age, new mothers generally considered their babies to be the greatest gift imaginable. Today, they are likely to want some sort of tangible bonus as well.

This bonus goes by various names. Some call it the “baby mama gift.” Others refer to it as the “baby bauble.” But it’s most popularly known as the “push present.”

That’s “push” as in, “I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward.” Or “push” as in, “I’ve delivered something special and now I’m pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit.”

These gifts might just have to do with society now. Women are used to be rewarded for their work--they have careers, get paid, etc. They figure that giving birth shouldn't be thankless either.

Well, newsflash ladies, motherhood doesn't pay well. I guess that would be an argument for angling for the biggest gift the hubby will cough up.

Books & Test Scores

Why would this be true?

In seeking to detail the consequences of a decline in reading, the study showed that reading appeared to correlate with other academic achievement. In examining the average 2005 math scores of 12th graders who lived in homes with fewer than 10 books, an analysis of federal Education Department statistics found that those students scored much lower than those who lived in homes with more than 100 books. Although some of those results could be attributed to income gaps, Mr. Iyengar noted that students who lived in homes with more than 100 books but whose parents only completed high school scored higher on math tests than those students whose parents held college degrees (and were therefore likely to earn higher incomes) but who lived in homes with fewer than 10 books.

Maybe those with lots of books value learning and it's as simple as that.

Mixing Politics (And Other Impolite Topics) With Family and Holidays

Holidays and politics and/or religion and/or lifestyle choices (that's not being politically correct, one of our patients was pilloried by her family of medical doctors because she had the temerity to visit a chiropractor for back pain even when they had no helpful solutions) can be a toxic brew. People are drinking. They are financially stressed. They feel reduced to childhood roles. They feel trapped by the manipulation of mom and dad. In short, it's hell.

Dr. Helen gives some very good and sensible advice about negotiating family and politics in particular, and holidays:

First, remember there is no need to discuss anything political. If you find the topic worse than a trip to the dentist to get your teeth pulled, just smile and say that at the holidays, you prefer to relax and talk about family and change the subject.

Her follow-up advice is equally sensible. Don't try to change someone else's mind. Be prepared with facts. Good advice, all. But what about avoiding the melee altogether?

Don't go.

By the time a person reaches the age he or she can decide what to do for Thanksgiving or Christmas, he can decide whether or not to do it all. This might mean uncomfortable conversations like this:

"I'm sorry. We won't be able to join you this year."

"Why not?'

"We've decided to keep Thanksgiving as a family."

Likely, your family is intuitive and knows the real reason. Mom will kvetch about
how great it will be this year and Johnny is getting better and we're hiding the liquor or whatever.

You're an adult. Just. Say. No.

One of the great things about adulthood is doing what we want to do. Well, they can tell us, but we can do what we want anyway. So embrace your adulthood freedom and do what you want!

Another idea: set limitations. Go for dinner, but don't stay for the sing-a-long. Or, skip dinner and stop by for dessert. Or go the next day to visit the beloved cousins, when the atmosphere is less charged. If all the women end in the kitchen while the lard-butt men melt into the couch for football and it galls you as a woman of the new millinium, rebel. Sit on the couch. It won't bother the guys, but the ladies might have a beef. Politely suggest that they nag their husbands.

If you must go and desire to not feel like the perpetual holiday whipping boy, use humor. Sometimes the vibe gets so heavy and serious. No one has changed the world by discussions at the Thanksgiving table.... OK scratch that, they probably have at the Bush or Kennedy or Tudor table, but you know what I mean. Here's a potential script to demonstrate the absurdity of the conversation that has replaying for years:

"You know what, Joe? You're right. I finally saw the error of my ways after all these years. I'm now a registered Democrat. I've donated to Obama and Clinton and Edwards, just to cover my bases. The Democrats have done such a stellar job in Congress that it was time to make a change to be on the side of the winners."

At first, Cousin It will think you're serious. Finally, he's come to his senses! Then, he'll get that you're being sarcastic and get mad. With any luck though, he'll regard you as hopeless and ignore you for the rest of the night.

If Thanksgiving and Christmas aren't days of joy for you and your family, why are you doing it? Really, life is way too short.

Pint-Sized Fashion Police

Are you kidding me? Little girls are bullying each other because they're in the wrong brand and color? Wait, am I kidding myself? It was a big deal when I was a pre-teen and teen and I remember precisely when it started.

Brooke Shields.

That's right. Baby Brooke in her provocative picture with tight Calvin Kleins that nothing came between. Everyone had to have them. Before Calvin, it was gauche to put a label front and center. After Calvin, everyone started doing it.

And Middle School suddenly got a lot more fierce. As if a hormonally challenged kid needs to worry about anything more. Now it's Dolcé and Gabbana or whatever.

The kids who grew up with Calvin are now parents. And they refuse to let their child suffer their own humiliation. No Gucci? Horrors! So parents will bend over backwards to keep their growing child's derriére covered in something fancy. Crazy:

School guidance counselor Angie Dooley sees the love of labels at Lawrence Junior High School in Fairfield, Maine, where some girls wear the same few brand-name items they own again and again. "They don't want anyone to know that's all they have," Ms. Dooley says.

In one study, more than one-third of middle-school students responded "yes" when asked whether they are bullied because of the clothes they wear. Susan M. Swearer, associate professor of school psychology at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, surveyed a total of more than 1,000 students at five Midwestern middle schools from 1999 to 2004, with about 56% of the sample female. While the prevalence of fashion bullies was greater in wealthy cities and towns, where more designer clothing is available, she found the problem is significant in poorer communities, too.

Teens and adolescents are expected to wear not just any designer brands but the "right" ones. "The better brands you wear, the more popular you are," says Becky Gilker, a 13-year-old eighth-grader from Sherwood Park in the Canadian province of Alberta. "If you don't wear those things you get criticized." In many schools, the most expensive designer goods, such as those by Chanel or Louis Vuitton, have the highest social ranking among girls. But popular teen brands such as American Eagle, Abercrombie & Fitch and Aeropostale are also important. Miss Gilker says Hollister and Roxy are big logos at her school.

The solution isn't kid bullying classes. It's parenting classes. Do parents even listen to themselves? Are they conscious of what they're teaching their kids? It just seems like one more narcissistic pursuit. It isn't about the kid's moral development, it's about the kids making up for what the parent lacked.

And ultimately, the kids better like the clothes because what's filling them is empty.

Parenting At 20 Or 40 Makes A Difference

I have a daughter who arranges her Webkins at bedtime. So does James Lileks and his post mentioning Gnat put a lump in my throat:

Gnat lost a tooth today. It was the second upper front tooth. Gives her a nice cheerful ogre look. It went right under the pillow, of course. Later I checked my wallet to see if I had a dollar to slide in the place of the tooth; only a fiver. That seemed excessive. I asked her what she expected from the Dental Familiar, and she said “well, a dime? Maybe even a quarter.” There’s something about the quarter. It has inherent heft. It’s one corner of a dollar, the cornerstone currency. Unfortunately for her, I hoard quarters for the parking meter. I let no quarter go uncorralled. Once upon a time I saved quarters for pinball; now they serve the slakeless mouth of the armless sentinel who lines the streets of the city, he said, overwriting as fast as possible. I had a JFK half-dollar on hand, though, so that’ll do. It should surprise her, since I’m not sure she’s seen one. It’s BIG, and that counts.

She arranged her Pokemons and Webkins to greet the Tooth Fairy. You reach for your Fixative Spray to ensure that they’ll always be this age, but of course if you had such a thing you would have used it long ago. And aren’t you glad you didn’t.

My daughter arranges her Webkins before bed. She lines up the doll babies. She's putting the full-court-press on for a puppy--that's been going on for a year now, two years really, since our dog died. My daughter now sports a pair of big, front, Gary Bussey teeth that are way out of proportion to her remaining baby teeth. I want that Fixative Spray because it seems like every parent of teenagers wishes they had used it at just this age.

Did our parents have this awareness of time marching on, ebbing away (to mix my metaphors and similes and parts of speech) like we seem to? One result of elderly parenthood is that a good chunk of life has been lived; the elderly parent has a sense of time. Time awareness is lost on a 22 year old and my mom was 20 when she had me.

I try to imagine what being 20 and a mother must have felt like. Less thought would go into every developmental stage, that much I know. It had to be more action-oriented and functional. It was more action-oriented and functional. At 20, the world still seems safe and no wrong can happen. That optimism is good. Maybe that's why kids ran amok in neighborhoods. A young parent could be out rolling in the mud at Woodstock or playing the best tennis of her life as easily as having babies so maybe youth contributed to kid freedom. Well, youth and the fact that most moms were actually in the neighborhood--not supervising necessarily, but being there.

It's not that elderly parenting is a bad thing. Wisdom comes with age, temperance, the full knowledge that children are far more important than that business meeting, even if the meeting can't be missed. Perhaps that elevation, too, has contributed to the narcissism that has been written about so much. Little kids today are placed on fluffy pillows in the center of a hermetically sealed universe surrounded by Webkins. Kinda. Certainly, children today don't have the freedom the Gen Xers or Boomers had when they were kids.

I worry about these things. And then, I worry that I worry too much. That's just the point! It never seemed like parents of a generation or two ago worried much, though I'm sure they did. But you know what I mean. "Eh, see you at dinner!" It was noon. "Be back before dark!" It was breakfast. No worries. How could anyone send their kids on ten hour adventures such as those and have worries?

The only solution I've found is to have a bunch of kids. The younger ones get progressively wilder, braver, calmer and more confident. Mom is tired, relaxed, distracted, and more confident. There is no micromanaging a slew of kids. Once they out-number you, you're in trouble, but they're in luck. What a forty-year-old parent can't give a kid, maybe a big sister or brother can.

There were many benefits to have kids young. Maybe the Western world will come back around to that parenting model again, but I doubt it.

Ah, The Mammaries

Dr. Helen posts today about a woman with a four month old who wants special breaks during her Med Boards to pump or nurse her daughter. During the nine hour test, she gets 45 minutes in breaks. Dr. Helen, herself, leaked all over her Psych Boards, leaving behind a three week old at home. LaShawn Barber says:

*Sigh* Silly girls wearing stethoscopes.

If she were an on-call surgeon required to drop everything and get to the hospital ASAP to perform emergency surgery, is she going to whine about pumping then? Who will she sue — the patient?

If we women want to be equal to men, we’ve got to roll with it, know what I mean? No extra time to get the job done. No dumbed-down standards. Equal means equal, gals.

Ah, the good old days. Their stories recall to mind being heavily pregnant with twins and taking my final board examinations. I was huge and had to do all sorts of orthopedic tests, sham adjustments, etc. That is, that Board exam had a couple practical sections--I wasn't sitting behind a desk thinking deep thoughts the whole time. At that point in my pregnancy, I wasn't thinking much of anything. I was so fried, in fact, that I didn't prepare. I played the odds. I counted on my long term memory. Boards are graded on a curve. I did a simple calculation before the exam: I think I'm smarter than at least half of these people. My friends were terrified for me.

I did pass the exam, thankfully. I can't imagine taking an exam suffering through let downs and and leaving a three week old. But I did notice this, each time I had a kid: My mental faculties seemed to miraculously bounce back after pregnancy (there is a window before exhaustion fugue sets in and the high right after birth wears off).

Back to the lady wanting special circumstances. Isn't there a compromise? Couldn't she be allowed to go pump after sections she finishes early--as long as she's supervised? That doesn't seem like a huge accommodation to me. It seems to be a humane response so the woman doesn't have to suffer the indignities of being a wet mess.

As for LaShawn's point about women waiting on their career. It has been a circuitous path for me. I had a special needs child come out of that birth that required my full-time care. But there was really no better time for my schooling. And lots of women time the birth of their children with their graduations so they are no longer in school. And certain specialties in the medical profession are especially suitable to parenting, too. I have a MD friend who works part-time for 10 hours a week and makes more money than she could doing anything else and parents the rest of the time.

Just sayin'.

H/T Glenn Reynolds who says "GIVING A NEW MEANING to the term "breast exam."

The Worst Parents Who Suffer The Little Children A Little Too Much

Parenting must be on everyone's minds with school starting up again. I just finished reading the article The Worst Parents Ever by Tom McGrath in the most recent Philadelphia Magazine. Basically, it's covering some of the same turf that's been tilled recently about "hyper parenting". Parents are raising narcissistic, entitled little pigs (do I sound too much like Alec Baldwin?) who end up crushed under the weight of ridiculous expectations at college time. Kids these days are long on indulgence and extreme achievement expectations and short on character:

No less important, though, is that a generation of kids who’ve been overindulged, overprotected and generally over-parented seems to be overwhelmingly underprepared to live in the real world. “They’ve been exposed to so much more, and on one level, they’re so much more sophisticated than we were,” says Janet Walkow, a business consultant in Wayne and the mother of three college-age girls. “But they’re less sophisticated when it comes to street smarts. They’re not as mature.”

Not that you can tell them. A study released earlier this year found that the current generation of college students is the most narcissistic ever. In the study, psychologists asked students to respond to statements like, “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,” “I think I am a special person” and “I can live my life any way I want to.” Two-thirds of the kids showed elevated levels of narcissism — 30 percent more than when the study was first done in 1982.

And it's all the parents fault. The parents raising this generation, says McGrath, are the "worst parents ever."

Father of four boys, Tony Woodlief explains in a Wall Street Journal editorial Don't Suffer the Little Children that there has long been tension between two parenting styles: the Rousseauians and Hobbesians. That is between Utopians and Realists. In one camp, those who believe children are sweet, perfect tableaus written on by a black, diseased society. In the other camp, people like Thomas Sowell realistically believe this:

"Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

As a mother presiding over a house filled with pint-sized barbarians who have lots of barbarian friends, the tension between the two camps is all but lost. The Rousseauians have won, hands down. Between aggressive parents who defend their cretins misbehavior and the over-indulgent teachers working on self-esteem and imparting all the moral relativism that can be mashed into one lesson possible, the war is over.

The losers in the war, rather than surrendering have retreated. They've gone home. My kids are home, for the first time this year. And many friends kids are at home being taught by determined parents. I recently met a family with eight children ages 19 to 3 who were lucid, well-spoken, disciplined, helpful, obedient to their parents, dressed smartly and home schooled. Their father is an electrician, self-employed. Their mother is their teacher. They have done an impressive job. These kids will be successes not because they go to Harvard, though some might, but because they have character. Whether installing electrical systems, doing computer programming, becoming a nurse, or whatever their goals, they'll have the character to stick with it.

But what of the barbarians bred for superstar status? A friend is VP of human resources for a Fortune 500 company. I asked how the inter-generational workplace is fairing. How are those Gen Y 20-somethings working with their parent's generation the Boomers? She said that it's interesting how the younger people need excessive hand-holding, they embrace technology, but are almost incapable of seeing a project through on their own. The only model of work is team work. Individual contribution is too much pressure. The Boomers, who raised this generation, dislike the traits they imparted in their own children and complain bitterly to HR. Ironic, isn't it. She said, "They don't see it in their own kids, but they hate it in a co-worker."

I'm wondering, too, if the consequences won't come home to roost. Mr. Woodlief notes the eventual outcome:

Perhaps the fundamental purpose of schooling should be to liberate parents from the necessity of supporting our kids well past our retirement years. But regardless, this notion that humans are inherently angelic, and that it is society that corrupts them, is at the heart of much bad parenting, as well as inept schooling.

The parents who over-indulge may end up paying, and paying, and paying. Our society is so wealthy, a whole generation of rich children (and even the poor are rich) will live deluded and disappointed lives. Everyone will be like a trust-fund baby: soft, entitled, ignorant, arrogant, overindulged and hopeless. Imagine, a whole generation of Paris Hiltons and Lindsey Lohans.

And the proportion of disciplined, hard-working, patient, cooperative, intelligent children who grow up to be adults of good character will further diminish. At least, that's the pessimistic view.

No matter what, it seems to me that the parents who over-indulge ultimately end up ensuring that their child learns in the school of hard knocks and that's a tougher school than a tough, but loving parent.

On "Hyper-Parenting"--UPDATED

The vicious circle of competitive parenting coupled with aggressive teaching makes for ridiculous circumstances. And what is schooling for, anyway? Oh, I remember! The children.

Many problems exist in schools these days and, according to PJM writer Aaron Hanscom, two of them are: 1) single parenthood and 2) hyper-parenting. This post is about the second, but I think the underlying problem with both issues is the same. Neither will be solved any time soon without a distinct cultural change or economic cleansing.

Hanscom offers many anecdotes for the hyper-parenting: piggish kids, bad field-trip behavior, father-son jackasses treating the ice-cream lady like dirt, etc. These stories demonstrate not so much hyper-parenting but selfish parenting. It takes effort to manage a child's behavior. It can be embarrassing and humiliating (I write as a mother whose 3 year old child staged a lay-in at Target) to engage with a out-of-control toddler. Many people ignore their child's dreadful behavior, some encourage it, because they wrongly believe the child will "grow out of it" or, and I hear and see this more, they believe throwing fits and acting like an untamed beast demonstrates "good spirit". No one will take advantage of him (unspoken--like I was taken advantage of by the ex, the boss, the tax man), no sir! He'll be assertive and that's good!

And don't forget, the rich kids likely have divorced parents, too. The kid is so much chattel to be divied up and argued over. Neither mom nor dad want to be the bad guy and so let pumpkin get away with murder. In addition, while 2/3 of low-income kids have one parent, 2/3 of middle and high-income kids have both parents working. The parents, harried and tired, feel guilty and overcompensate with activities (which have the double benefit of keeping the kid busy), material things, and awe-inspiring experiences. Except the kid isn't awed. With his limited life view, he shows no appreciation because he thinks everyone does what he is doing (a friend of a friend was taking her precious only child on a Safari and to Paris this summer).

What all the children want is time with mom and dad.

The schools, seeing the trend in absent parenting, give children copious amounts of at-home projects. It is state-sponsored behavior modification. As an involved parent, I resent it. If I worked outside the home full time or was a single parent, I'd be angry as hell. The projects are always above the child's ability to do by himself and, anyway the teacher will grade your kids projects based on what other kids parents do, so everyone is stuck. The working parents probably assume "all those stay-at-home moms" (said with a sneer) make glorious projects and work extra hard to compete. I can assure you, that the stay-at-home moms are as miffed at the situation as anyone. They're stuck, too.

A generation ago, homework wasn't given until sixth grade. What kids did at school was it. I cannot think of one instance where my parents had to expend any effort whatsoever for my schooling outside of showing up for a conference. Not these days. No, teachers want to spread the responsibility (read blame) around. If they give at-home projects that don't get done, they have an out. "If you had been more involved Ms. Smith, your kid wouldn't be illiterate. We can't help it that little Sally didn't have an enriching home-reading program."

But it isn't the home reading program that will make a difference. It's the home discipline program. If a child is raised contemptuous of authority (and let's be real here, many parents are living out their own temper-tantrum fantasies when they allow their children to behave so disrespectfully), with no boundaries and no social skills, learning will be a problem. Conversely, if the teachers forever foist the blame on the parents excusing the outcomes in their classrooms, learning will be a problem.

Like I said, only a huge cultural change could make a difference. That won't happen. People are selfish. More and more, there are the "marrying kind" and the "nobody's gonna tell me what to do types". This cuts across income, race and all other barriers. Divorce is here to stay. Single parenthood is here to stay.

The only other possibility is economic devastation. Colleges would have to cut back their fat tuition and get more competitive as people couldn't afford it, parents would be more involved because someone wouldn't be working, and hopefully, except for the Paris Hilton's of the world the entitlement mentality would deflate. Maybe a little adversity would bring humility and gratitude. Maybe it'd even keep marginally miserable people together for economic reasons which would have good implications for their child's development. No, they wouldn't be focusing on internal transcendence, but that's not what marriage is for anyway.

Parents these days make sure their child has the material things. Hanscom says that even the poor kids have their Air Jordans. That's been my experience, too. There are very few truly economically deprived children these days. But plenty of them are neglected.

As for NPR's article on "competitive birthing" and Hanscom's point:

NPR reported this month on “competitive birthing,” an example of wealthy families choosing to have many kids because they view it as a status symbol. While higher incomes have historically led to smaller families, in the past 10 years the number of rich parents having three or more kids has increased by 30 percent. Some people believe the change is due to over-achieving career women who have quit work and now focus their competitive energies on reproduction.

There may be people having bigger families, but I can assure you, the people I know aren't doing it for competitive parenting reasons. In all four cases of my friends with five kids, they all love babies. Quite an old-fashioned reason to have big families, no? And generally, these families have the most well-behaved, balanced and sweet children. Their mothers are dedicated to mothering. No nannies (maybe a house cleaner in one case). No competition. No Ivy Leagues. These are economically comfortable people not filthy-rich people. In fact, the extra kids naturally impedes some of the kid's dreams, no doubt. But as one boy I met at Best Buy said of his three brothers and roommates, "Oh, they're much better than things. We didn't have much growing up, but brothers are better than money."

I'm more inclined to believe that NPR is looking for a way to justify, yet again, why big families are a blight on mankind. And "three or more" counts as big. That is just stupid. But, of course, the interviewees are New Yorkers. Three is positively outrageous, dahling.

Rich or poor, nothing can substitute for a loving parent who instills discipline and values in their children. More and more, that's the luxury that kids are having to live without.

H/T Glenn Reynolds

Update: Thanks for the link Instapundit. More thoughts on parenting: the strong-willed child, the Empty Nest Syndrome, sexualizing young girls and fleeing public schools.

The Strong Willed Child

Here's the emailed joke going around:

Tough Love vs. Spanking ~
(a psychological conundrum)

It seems that these days most Americans think it is improper to spank
children, so over the years I tried other methods to control my kids
when they had one of "those moments."

One that I found effective is for me to just take the child for a car
ride and talk.

They usually calm down and stop misbehaving after our car ride together.

This worked so well for my children that I now use the method on my
grandchildren.

I've included a photo below of one of my sessions with my grandson, in
case you would like to use the technique.

Sincerely,
A Friend

Glenn Reynolds linked to this post about good books for parenting strong-willed, "spirited", the difficult or otherwise frustrating child. I have a couple kids who have yet to reach their teen years. So take what I'm about to write with that in mind.

I don't buy the notion of a "bad seed". Nor do I buy the notion that some children are inherently flawed. This idea is popular among the Stephen King and his creepy eyes, and the Hollywood types. Multiple movies have focused on this theme including The Omen, The Exorcist, Village of the Damned, Children of the Corn, The Bad Seed, and The Ring. Most of these movies could be placed under the heading Poor Parenting Excused. As in, it's not the parents who are idiots, it's the demon children. The parents are victims of fate or chemical hazards or whatever.

For every law there is an exception. Plenty of horrible parents end up with perfectly functional children. Do the character traits instilled by abuse, molestation, neglect and what-have-you that create decent, if traumatized, adults? For more on this:A Child Called "It": One Child's Courage to Survive.

So are parents to blame only if the kid turns out bad? Well, it is my experience that many parents with "difficult children" label difficult the behavior in themselves that they don't want to see or dislike. Or, it's the behavior in their spouse, mother, father or other relative that "makes them crazy". One person's bad kid is another person's easy kid.

Little Women

While far too many young Americans go to the Peter Pan school of adulthood, another, equally disturbing phenomena occurs: parents encouraging their children to be mini-adults. A friend relayed a story about her daughter's friend whose mother believes that her average little gnome is destined for Britney Spears greatness. And she does believe Britney is a worthy role model.

How old do you think the girl in the picture is? And where is her mother? Here's her mother's point-of-view when taken to task by the article's author:

Surely, she and Bethany's mother Catherine could stop pandering to their daughters' unhealthy obsession with their looks and refuse to pay for it?

Catherine says: "If her nails need doing or the tan needs topping up, Bethany complains she doesn't feel right - a feeling lots of women can associate with."

At a recent family party, Catherine recalls how a 14-year-old boy pursued her nine-year-old daughter.

"He wouldn't leave her alone all night, which made me feel very uncomfortable," says Catherine, who runs a furniture business with husband David, 42, in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire.

"But thankfully she told him she was **** and not interested in him.

"I felt a little guilty because of the part I play in Bethany looking older than she is, but all her friends are the same, and when she works hard at school I'm loath to deny her the beauty treats she loves."

The cause of twenty-something adult babies and over-adult children is the same: indulgent parents with no sense. The adults rankle at having ever been told "no" themselves and will indulge in their licentiousness as parents--allowing their children to do all the things they weren't allowed to do as a kid.

As usual, how these parents raise their children is about them, not the child. The parent doesn't want to be the bad guy, or the grown up. The parent mourns all their missed opportunities to be Britney Spears and will go to any lengths and do anything to make sure their child has fame. Some goal, that. The parents focus on the superficial and transitory and their lives are devoid of spiritual or even natural meaning.

How will these children cope with the disappointment when they grow up and find out they get old and ugly just like everyone else yet their mind and spirit, which can still flower and develop through the years, has shriveled from disuse?

These adult children will be the ones still living with mommy and daddy in their twenties. No one else will feed their monster-sized egos. Look at how Britney Spears has reacted to tough love from her friends and family. It's not pretty.

Oh, and the girl in the picture is nine.

Overprotective or Just Protective?

There's a lot of talk these days about overprotective parents (Helicopter parents) robbing their children of opportunities to be children. While I grant that I'm more stringent in my childcare guidelines than my parents ("be home for dinner") rules rule, it is not without reason. In the last year:

• Car-jacking attempt at church preschool with baby on board
• Two discreet attempts by same man to pick up children playing in front yard
• Weird guy watching children through school fence
• Woman robbed at gun-point at my local grocer (very nice area)
• Unsolved disappearance of ten year old girl
• Weird guy prowling the local park
• Flashers (two or three) every summer on the hiking paths (The Woodlands has over 100 miles of them)
• Sting operation to pick up middle-aged men attempting trists with underage girls via internet chat rooms
  

There is always some email coming in about something. And I've had enough experience observing freaky guys at public pools to know that it's wise to use caution. And then there's the news that (surprise!) 85% of child porn readers molest children.

So I'm protective and so are other parents:

The first year I was certain I would lose her in the daily riot, but every parent feels the same way. You see the school as a giant whale’s mouth, the children as teeming plankton, and you wonder how you’ll find your own before Scary McRaincoat pops out of an empty room and takes them off to the Land Below the Stairs.

But this is nonsense, right? The fears of roaming predators are overstated. Not exactly. We’ve had two cases in towns of evil men trying to lure children into their cars, and I’m tempted to suggest that ought to draw mandatory life. Because they’ll do it again. And if they don’t do that they’ll do something similar. Not because they can’t help themselves, as Peter Lorre’s character blurted pathetically in “M,” but because they want to do it and they like to do it, and that’s all that matters. They know it’s against the law, which ought to tell them they’re wrong, and consequences will follow. But they try it anyway.

There was a creepy old man at the park the other day, my wife told me. Dressed in a ragged suit, carrying his possessions in a plastic shopping bag from a store that has no local outlets anywhere in the neighborhood. Disheveled. He wandered over to the swimming pool and watched the kids. Then he left and wandered away and came back and watched the kids some more. Then he went into the community center, where the kids play unattended sometimes; one of the neighborhood dads followed him, then followed him outside and took him aside for a chat. The fellow said he was homeless, heard about a new shelter in the area, and wanted to live in the neighborhood.

Now. You could say that there’s nothing wrong with a fifty-something guy with a grey beard and a raincoat and no fixed address wandering around a playground looking at the kids in their bathing suits, and that it’s unfair to deny a fellow the simple human pleasure of watching kids enjoy themselves just because he happens to be homeless.

I don’t care.

First of all, there aren’t any shelters in this area. Second, I don’t care. Third, it’s possible he’s homeless because he spent a lot of time in prison for kiddie-diddling. Fourth, you don’t get to look like the fellow who shows up to collect the Hellraiser cube and hang around the kiddie pool. Good bye.

There are those who dismiss the statistics as so much hand-wringing over the unlikely event that a kid will be snatched by a freak. I suspect they don't have children or chain them in the front yard just out of reach of the water bowl. When you see the freaks with your own eyes, it makes the theoretical rather real.

I'll stay protective thank you.