Edukey

Archive for Attachment & Bonding

Here you can read the news selection on Attachment & Bonding in the Child Discipline category.

Sons ‘Get Vital Life Skills from Dads’

A new Father’s Day poll shows nearly 75 per cent of Australian dads learned their most valuable and important life skills from their own fathers.

Top among those skills was how to drive a car, how to ride a bike, changing a tyre, changing a light bulb, building a fire and knotting a tie.

According to parenting expert and author Michael Grose, the findings of the Braun Series 7 Father’s Day Poll reinforced the importance of the father and son relationship in a child’s development.

We know from previous scientific research that boys who have active and involved fathers are more likely to do better academically, socially and emotionally,” he said in a statement.

Given that many dads of today credit their father as being their most important teacher of life skills underscores just how important male role models can be for young boys.

The survey was conducted online by Galaxy Research this month among 410 fathers, ahead of Father’s Day next Sunday.

Mr Grose said the reason why dads were number one when it came to teaching their sons life skills was because activities were at the centre the father-son relationship.

“The language of fathering is all about doing things - sometimes it’s kicking a football around, other times it might be helping to tinker around with the car,” he said.

The survey also found the quality most admired by sons in their fathers was their hard working approach, followed by honesty, supportiveness, loyalty, strength and kindness.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
http://news.smh.com.au/national/sons-get-vital-life-skills-from-dads-20080831-46b0.html

31 August, 2008. 11:53 AM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Breastfeeding for Smarter Babies

For years, new parents have been hearing that “breast is best,” and each decade, more and more women choose lactation as the primary food source for their newborns. It appears that breastfeeding may now produce a generation of smarter, happier babies. Studies have shown that babies need touching and nurturing to develop and survive and breastfeeding supplies both needs on a regular basis.

Breastfed babies followed from birth to 6 years had higher IQ scores than formula-fed babies. This is not a new finding. Past research has shown that mothers from more affluent backgrounds were more likely to breastfeed. Consideration was given to the fact that improved mental abilities may have been related to family circumstance as much as breastfeeding.

Researchers from Canada’s McGill University attempted to overcome the possible influence of family economics by evaluating children born in hospitals in Belarus. The group studied over 13,000 breastfed babies born in 31 maternity hospitals. Some of these hospitals ran breastfeeding promotions to boost rates across all groups. Some provided nursing training and provided support for breastfeeding mothers. The mothers who received the training and continuing support were more likely to nurse for a longer period of time.

The children were divided into groups for evaluation depending on whether their mothers were given nursing training or not. Babies who were exclusively breastfed for the first three months scored 5.9% higher on IQ tests in childhood. Tests indicated that the longer the babies were breastfed the more significant the intelligence difference.

When these children began school teachers also gave them significantly higher academic ratings in both reading and writing than children in control groups. The Archives of General Psychiatry lead researcher Professor Michael Kramer said, “Long-term, exclusive breastfeeding appears to improve children’s cognitive development.” Professor Kramer also said that it was not known if the increased intellectual development was due to some nutritive value of breast milk, or related to the physical and social interactions of breastfeeding.

There are several reasons that breastfeeding may improve the mental development of babies:

* Breast milk contains fatty acids and other nutrients that are necessary for the development of babies.
* Physical and emotional aspects of breastfeeding may lead to permanent improvements in brain development.
* Breastfeeding may increase verbal interaction between mother and child which could aid development.

Though the exact mechanism of improved intelligence as a result of breast feeding is not known there are also other reasons for breastfeeding; children who are breastfed generally have fewer gastrointestinal problems and they have better protection against obesity, diabetes and cancer. Women who breastfeed have a quicker recovery from childbirth and breastfeeding reduces a women’s risk of developing breast cancer.

Breastfeeding is natural and good for the baby and the mother. A pregnant woman who wants to breastfeed but isn’t sure how to began can ask her physician or midwife for a referral to a professional, or any of the many groups who advocate breastfeeding.

Source: HealthNews, CA
http://tinyurl.com/6lvajn

28 August, 2008. 11:44 AM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Nurture Students by Setting a Good Example, Valuing Learning

Reporters can be a tad obnoxious at dinner parties. We’re experts on everything for about five minutes. But parenting good students? I won’t even begin to pretend. So I turn to those in the know: teachers.

Helena Van Rooyen recently retired from academe after 40 years, most spent at the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. But she isn’t done helping students, as she is working on a project for the district, helping at-risk second- through fifth-graders improve their math skills.

Melinda Anaya is a well-loved kindergarten teacher at Holy Angels School in Arcadia, where she’s taught for eight years. My two nieces, ages 13 and 10, adore her and remember how fun her classroom was. My own 6-year-old cried on the last day of school because he said he’ll miss her. (Don’t show this to him when he’s 16, please.)

I posed this question to them: What should parents of young children be doing now in the run-up to school? And what we can do throughout the year to help our kids succeed?

Van Rooyen stated it simply: “Just be a parent.

That means, get involved in your child’s learning, teach (and live) consistency, respect for authority and for peers, the meaning of the word `no,’ fairness and that there are choices,” she said.

And not to put undue pressure on you, but what we’re doing with our kinders now will echo through the years.

I do think that the primary grades are the most important,” Anaya said. “This is when they begin to develop their work habits and everything is a new learning experience.

The good habits we help instill in our pre-K and kindergarteners are the foundation to that perfect SAT score later on. (OK, just a 2,300.)

So herewith, homework for us parents on how to grow good students:

Forget the preaching. Instill a love for learning by providing kids with a model. Don’t just tell kids to read when you never read or to be nice and not fight when all you do is scream.

Play learning games, even simple ones like name everything in the room that’s green, and provide kids with a variety of experiences beyond video games and TV.

Consider volunteering in your child’s classroom

Both teachers’ No. 1 activity is reading. Read to kids and later with them when they’re old enough to read to you. It can be hard with everything else we have to do, but it makes a difference.

“Talk up” school and all that can be learned there plus the new friends they’ll make.

Recognize learning and reward it.

Right about now, start waking the kids up early and getting back into the routine. Observe a wise bedtime. Have a daily schedule kids can count on.

Your Mama said it to you too: eat a healthy breakfast.

To help with first-day tears, it’s best for parents to say goodbye, kiss their child and leave. Two minutes after you leave, your kid is fine. We feel terrible all day.

After school, let them snack and indulge in a half-hour of active play (PlayStation doesn’t count, Anaya points out.) Then they can tackle homework.

Give students their own work space free of distraction. Give them all the materials they need.

Kids are apt to get sick when around other kids so keep them home when they are sick, and serve chicken soup (really.)

And lastly, both teachers remind us to love our kids, listen to them and spend time with them.

“Bottom line, learning requires attention and just plain old hard work,” Van Rooyen said.

Just like parenting.

Source: Whittier Daily News, CA
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_10294073

25 August, 2008. 1:00 PM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Protect our Kids from Preschool

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he’s elected president he’ll pump “billions of dollars into early childhood education.” Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list. Democratic governors across the country — including in Illinois, Arizona, Massachusetts and Virginia — have made a major push to fund universal preschool in their states.

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.

“Advocates and supporters of universal preschool often use existing research for purely political purposes,” says James Heckman, a University of Chicago Noble laureate in economics whose work Mr. Obama and preschool activists routinely cite. “But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations.”

Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use — and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — the nation’s report card — have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

Preschool activists at the Pew Charitable Trust and Pre-K Now — two major organizations pushing universal preschool — refuse to take this evidence seriously. The private preschool market, they insist, is just glorified day care. Not so with quality, government-funded preschools with credentialed teachers and standardized curriculum. But the results from Oklahoma and Georgia — both of which implemented universal preschool a decade or more ago — paint an equally dismal picture.

A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia’s universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee’s preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade.

What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids.

Why don’t preschool gains stick? Possibly because the K-12 system is too dysfunctional to maintain them. More likely, because early education in general is not so crucial to the long-term intellectual growth of children. Finland offers strong evidence for this view. Its kids consistently outperform their global peers in reading, math and science on international assessments even though they don’t begin formal education until they are 7. Subsidized preschool is available for parents who opt for it, but only when their kids turn 6.

If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada’s C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.

Even so, the economic gains of these programs are grossly exaggerated. For instance, Prof. Heckman calculated that the Michigan program produced a 16-cent return on every dollar spent — not even remotely close to the $10 return that Mr. Obama and his fellow advocates bandy about.

Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone. Kids with loving and attentive parents — the vast majority — might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.

Yet that is precisely what Mr. Obama would do. His “Zero-to-Five” plan would increase federal outlays for early education by $10 billion — about 50% of total government spending on preschool — and hand block grants to states to implement universal preschool. This will make the government the dominant source of funding in the early education marketplace, vastly outpacing private spending.

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too — not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Source: Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936615766562189.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

22 August, 2008. 1:05 PM. Link | Comments: 1 Comment »

Child Watchdog Says Babies Should Be with Prison Moms

B.C.’s own representative for children and youth says that taking newborns from their mothers while they serve provincial prison time will hurt the children more than sending them to prison.

Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond said that mothers and babies benefit enormously from contact — the babies bond with the mothers, and the mothers have a reason to reform.

“I’m very disappointed. It’s a shortsighted move,” saidTurpel-Lafond, adding that wrecking the family unit would encourage more criminal behaviour in the parents and the kids.

What’s the cost to society of those children going into care and severing that bond?” she asked.

The provincial government quietly cancelled a pilot program that allowed 12 mothers to either give birth to babies in custody or bring newborns to prison with them.

Though the government would not comment to CTV News on the move, the reasons that were given were about safety of the babies.

The children are kept in a special unit of Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge, with other women who are chosen for the program.

But Turpel-Lafond said she had interviewed several of the women and reviewed the program and found that there was little risk.

“I’ve had a chance to meet some of the moms and to advocate for some of the babies. That type of brain development is happening. To sever that, to put them with a caregiver and a foster parent is far more harmful to the child than any harm that might be posed in an institution.

“In fact, I’ve never heard of any,” she said.

The representative for children and youth is an independent body in B.C.’s government that looks out for children.

The province is risking the recovery of other pregnant moms in the correctional system, she said.

“There are pregnant moms who need that program now and I don’t want to see the babies removed,” she said.

Jennifer Smith, 24, gave birth while in custody at Alouette Correctional Centre for Women. She said the chance to keep her baby made her want to change her ways.

“I had a child,” she told CTV News. “That’s basically the only thing that changed my life.”

There is still a federal program that allows babies in certain prisons.

Source: CTV British Columbia, Canada
http://tinyurl.com/6fjse4

21 August, 2008. 11:50 AM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Spanking Often Coincides with More Serious Child Abuse

Parents tempted to treat Junior’s misbehavior with a lashing from a tree limb out back or dad’s leather belt are being urged to think again.

A study released Tuesday by doctors at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill finds that parents who spank their children with an object - such as a belt, switch or paddle - are nine times more likely to abuse their child through more severe means. Also, parents are much more likely to beat, burn or shake their children if they spank frequently, according to the study which is being published by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“Parents get angry when they’re spanking and it’s not working,” said Adam Zolotor, lead author of the study and a pediatrician at the UNC-CH’s Department of Family Health. “If a child gets spanked so often, they just don’t care anymore and will misbehave anyway.”

It’s the latest finding in a growing body of research suggesting parents should use their voice, not their hands or household tools, to keep children in line. This study rests on anonymous admissions of 1,435 mothers of children from North and South Carolina randomly selected to share details of the discipline they and other caregivers use in the privacy of their own home.

Rates of abuse, the researchers found, are alarmingly high, even in a survey dependent on parents owning up to behavior that could cost them the right to raise their children. Twelve percent of mothers who reported spanking a child’s bottom with an object also admitted engaging in behavior researchers classified as physical abuse. Also, 12 percent of those who spanked 50 or more times in the last year admitted abuse such as beating, burning, shaking or hitting the child with an object about their body.

Spanking has been a mainstay in American parents’ discipline regimen for generations. Most national studies show that more than half of parents have spanked or slapped their child in the past year. In the UNC-CH study, Zolotor and his colleagues found that nearly half of those Carolina parents with a child between the ages of 7 and 9 whipped their child’s behind with an object in the past year.

Corporal punishment has been on the minds of North Carolinians this summer. In June, Triangle residents watched Johnston County mother Lynn Paddock admit she lashed out at her brood of adopted children with a plastic plumbing supply line; Paddock borrowed the parenting advice from an evangelical Christian minister who teaches parents how to rear submissive children. A Johnston County jury sent Paddock to prison for the rest of her life for suffocating her youngest son, 4-year-old Sean.

Over the last year, child advocates have appealed, without success, to legislators to outlaw corporal punishment in public schools. Some districts, such as Johnston County, have recently voted to abandon the practice.

“People want to change behavior immediately, and they think spanking is the way to go,” said Tom Vitaglione, a child advocate from Raleigh-based Action for Children who has pushed for the statewide ban on spanking in schools. “Down the line, though, (these children) do far worse. That relationship of trust is broken.”

At least 56 school districts still allow administrators to spank or paddle children. Efforts to ban that practice entirely have met fierce opposition.

John Rustin, vice-president of Family Policy Council, a non-partisan research group in Raleigh that focuses on family issues, opposed the ban and thinks there’s still a place for spanking in North Carolina’s homes and schools.

“Spanking can be administered in a loving manner to help children understand what’s right and wrong,” said Rustin. “But, it’s not just something that ought to be done with little thought.”

Some Christians heed the Bible’s admonition that parents who spare the rod will spoil their children. Several ministers have written books or taught seminars instructing parents how to employ the rod, preaching that a parents’ hand ought to be preserved for loving and nurturing, not discipline. Michael Pearl, the Tennessee pastor Paddock turned to for a discipline advice, suggests in his books that parents whip babies under one with “a footlong willow branch shaved of its knots” and for older children “plastic plumbing pipe, a 3-foot shrub cutting or a belt.”

Beth Taylor, a mother of two boys, said she finally gave up on spanking years ago when her oldest son began acting worse after she turned to a belt to punish him. It was the only tactic she knew, Taylor said. Growing up, her father had whipped her and her sisters with a strap.

“It made him lash out at me,” said Taylor, who lives in McDowell County in Western North Carolina. “It broke my heart. I worried about him hating me.”

Frustrated, she took a parenting class to figure out what was going wrong. There, Taylor said, she learned her spanking provoked her son. Now, to get her oldest son to behave, Taylor disconnects his cell phone. For her youngest, 7, she takes away his video game machine.

“Nothing gets their attention faster,” said Taylor.

Source: Kansas City Star, MO
http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/754399.html

19 August, 2008. 1:16 PM. Link | Comments: 1 Comment »

Parenting — It’s a Job and an Adventure

Young children can often prove to be an exciting adventure as well as a mighty challenge for parents. Michael H. Popkin, Ph.D., Betsy Gard, Ph.D., and Marilyn Montgomery, Ph.D., authors of 1, 2, 3, 4 Parents! Parenting Children Ages 1 to 4, emphasize that parenting is a “job” — one that entails specific skills and tasks.

A parent’s job is to protect and teach their children to survive and thrive in the society in which they live and to guide their children through their developmental stages. During this time, the child’s “job” is to fully experience each stage of development, to play, to learn and to grow.

A child’s development occurs rapidly from one to four years of age. The better parents understand the different stages of development the better they understand what is age-appropriate and realistic to expect …; and the easier the parent’s job will be! The authors of 1, 2, 3, 4 Parents! categorize those stages of development as follows:

Age 1 — The Explorer

This stage is self-explanatory — children are into everything! As they begin to gain motor skills, they are learning about the world through touching and mouthing. The job of a parent at this stage requires keeping a child safe while simultaneously providing opportunities for their child to experience the world around them.

Age 2 — The Boss

This stage unfolds when children want to do everything themselves, even though their little bodies may not be ready. There can be a lot of frustration at this stage but if managed in a positive way each challenge helps a child grow. The job of a parent at this stage is to be realistic in expectations of their child’s behavior and skills because it will help preserve a parent’s patience and help guide how to bridge the gap to the child’s next stage.

Age 3 — The Pal

This stage presents itself with questions like “Why?” A child is not only learning from his or her parents, but from other family members and friends as well. The job of a parent is to have clear expectations and create boundaries so that the child can begin to learn the rules of family life and be successful in interaction with their peers.

Age 4 — The Adventurer

This stage unfolds as the child learns what risks are safe and which are not. Allowing a child to exercise his/her independence and judgment while simultaneously teaching boundaries is important for safety — it is a tough balance to strike as a caregiver. It is essential that children experience success as well as failure because both are needed to build their confidence to persevere to try new things.

As a child’s first teacher, a parent guides their child from one developmental stage to the next. Creating an environment for a child’s learning and growth requires skills and techniques. Employing sound teaching strategies in concert with positive disciplinary strategies are necessary for parents to help their children succeed as they encounter the adventures of everyday life and the challenges that may come with them.

Three primary teaching strategies are highlighted in the 1, 2, 3, 4 Parents! curriculum and can be utilized throughout these early stages of development:

1. Choice and Consequences: Present children with a choice of two options. The parent can make the decision as to the choices offered. For example: “Would you like apple juice or orange juice this morning?”

2. ACT: Accept the behavior; Communicate your feelings about the child’s behavior; and Target a positive choice. For example: Accept — I know you like jumping on the bed. Communicate — Beds are for sleeping and we might fall and get hurt. Target — We can line up some pillows on the floor for you to jump on now.

3. When—Then: This strategy will help you get your child to do things they don’t want to do, for example, “When you get your coat on, then we can go outside.”

The key is for the parent to practice …; practice …; practice. Once these strategies are in an adult’s repertoire, they are much easier to use when a challenging parenting situation arises. Along with specific strategies for teaching and positive discipline, building a bond with any child is very important as well as consistency in routines. Children need predictability to feel safe and need to understand what is expected of them to feel secure. If we challenge children in positive ways, they will rise to the occasion.

Given that all children differ in personalities and parents differ in styles of care-giving, finding the balance between these two is the key to success. Remember, parenting is a verb, an action word. It taps every skill imaginable and is one job and adventure after another. The rewards sometimes come in small packages and may sometimes seem few and far between. When parents keep looking, they will discover one treasure after another. (…)

Source: Portsmouth Herald News, NH
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080819/LIFE/808190307

19 August, 2008. 12:41 PM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

It’s Never Too Soon to Start Reading to Kids

When parents read aloud to their children, everyone wins, according to LSU AgCenter family development professor Rebecca White.

“Reading is fun for the adult and great for the children,” White said. “It’s easy for you and good for them.”

Parents don’t even have to ration it because, unlike TV or ice cream, there’s no such thing as too much.

“There’s no such thing as too early, either,” White said, noting that if you wait until preschool age to start reading to your children, you’ll have missed out on years of opportunities to help your child with pre-literacy skills.

“If you even wait until they can talk, you’ll have missed out on precious months where you can interact with your child in a beneficial way,” White said. “As soon as your baby can focus her eyes on the pattern in your shirt or sweater, start showing her the pictures found in infant books and talk about the images.”

Reading to young babies is a way of talking to them. Talking not only speeds brain development but also cements relationships.

Reading to older babies is a way of expanding their experiences. You can’t always find a real cat or truck or fried egg to tell them about, but you can always find pictures of those things in books. And linking the sight of things with the sounds of names boosts language learning.

“Reading to toddlers is educational and loving and fun,” White said, adding that it’s about language itself and discovering the joys of jokes and rhymes and funny, long words. It’s about learning to “read” pictures to find the meanings of words or the answers to questions hiding behind those thrilling pull-tabs: “Where’s the kitten gone? There he is!”

“Reading to young children is about the sheer, entrancing magic of stories unfolding between the pictures and the voice, playing to an emerging imagination and learning to put oneself in someone else’s place,” White said.

For related youth development topics, visit the family and home link at the LSU AgCenter Web site at www.lsuagcenter.com . For local information and educational programs, contact an extension agent in your parish LSU AgCenter office.

Source: The Times-Picayune - NOLA.com, LA
http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base//library-152/1217742068244430.xml&coll=1

4 August, 2008. 1:24 PM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Save the Males!

Save the males! A new book says society is biased AGAINST men. Ridiculous? Hardly, says Amanda Platell

Every once in a while, a book not so much lands on your desk as lobs itself like a hand grenade, exploding preconceived wisdoms and shattering the bones of the status quo. Save The Males is such a book.

It is the fiercest and most fearless defence of men, fatherhood and ultimately the family I have read in many years.

American author Kathleen Parker’s courageous thesis is that initially, through extreme feminism, then via its craven implementation into society, women have demonised men and trivialised their contribution, especially to family life.

I say courageous because, in the eyes of many women and of the liberal establishment, suggesting men have had a rough deal is nothing short of heresy.

Parker should be burnt at the stake, they cry. But isn’t it ironic that only a woman could make such a plea for men?

She argues: ‘As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favour and approval they seek, as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour, as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.’

It’s enough to set a feminist’s hair on end. Parker argues that in trying to make the world fairer for women, an adjustment most agree was vital, we have made it unfair for men. In our attempt to honour women, we have dishonoured men.

By bending over backwards to make single mothers feel good about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women as the superior parents, we have gone a considerable way to destroying one of the basic tenets of a successful society - family life.

Apart from the effects of this seismic social shift on society, it is also grossly unfair. Can you imagine a world where men demanded women be more like them - dress like them, act like them, even look like them. Because that is effectively what our post-feminist society has done, but with the genders switched.

The traditional male values, what Parker almost poetically calls ‘masculinity tied to honour’, are now seen as nothing more than a direct assault on women.

Unless men are like us, the thinking goes, they insult us and threaten our existence: hence the feminisation of men, or as we so disingenuously describe it, getting in touch with your feminine side.

Thus Hybrid Man was born. An acceptable male model now is more likely to be of the David Beckham variety, wearing more make-up than the missus, hairless, perfumed, varnished, emasculated by his bossy wife and perhaps fond of wearing her undies.

Good dads, loving husbands, supportive male role models, they’re few and far between even in the fictional world of TV.

But in the real world it wasn’t enough that we demanded they be more like us, we superior human beings. We had to traduce men as well, treating them in almost all forms of popular culture as useless, ineffectual, even comic characters, or as violent, cheating and untrustworthy.

And so Sitcom Man was born. Parker challenges us to try to think of a wholesome, reliable role model in myriad ‘dads’ created on TV or in movies. Fathers are always portrayed as incompetent or inconsequential, mindless or mean, comic or cruel. If you relentlessly portrayed any ethnic or minority group in such a biased way, you’d be pilloried on air.

Parker cites many reasons for the dereliction of men. First, there has been the institutionalisation of motherhood at the expense of fatherhood.

‘We seem to accept that children shouldn’t be raised without mothers, but we regard the contributions of fathers as optional,’ Parker says.

Just last week, Nicola Brewer, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: ‘Fathers are being marginalised to the extent of simply “seasoning” in their children’s upbringing.’

And the state reinforces the ‘Mum best, Dad dodgy’ myth. ‘The family courts effectively make fathers a slave to the state, his wages become state property, his time with his children is determined by a family court judge, and he faces jail if for whatever reason he fails to pay his child support on time.’

Family courts in America increasingly approve of ‘virtual parenting’, which means Mum can take the kids and live wherever she likes and Dad can do it long distance, via the phone or internet.

‘Thanks to divorce, unwed motherhood, and policies that unfairly penalise and marginalise fathers, 30-40 per cent of all American children sleep in a home where their father doesn’t,’ she writes.

Parker believes that perhaps the biggest blow to men’s roles in families has come with the explosion and normalisation of single motherhood.

‘By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we’ve helped to fashion a world not just in which fathers are scarce, but in which men are superfluous,’ she says.

It’s enough to set a feminist’s hair on end

Single professional women shopping for donor sperm on the internet has become the equivalent of buying designer shoes online. The number of babies born to unmarried mothers aged between 30 and 44 increased by a staggering 17 per cent from 1999 to 2003.

In short, slowly but surely, men are being made obsolete as society embraces single motherhood as the equivalent of the nuclear family for fear of not offending the sisterhood.

And so, hey presto, the marginalisation of men marches on.

And if the child is born of a normal sexual encounter, the consequences for men can be equally dire, as they have no rights, only duties.

‘If a woman gets pregnant she can abort - even without her husband’s consent. If she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice.

‘Inarguably, a man should support his offspring, but by the same logic, shouldn’t he have a say in whether his child is born or aborted?’

The number of children living in fatherless homes has tripled since 1960, from eight million to 24 million in the U.S.. So it comes as no surprise that 21st-century man feels isolated and increasingly obsolete.

‘At the same time that men have been ridiculed in the public sphere, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are incredibly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy,’ Parker writes.

She also examines the feminisation of education. There is overwhelming evidence now that boys’ and girls’ brains are wired differently, but over 20 years both in America and in the UK we have made learning harder for boys and more suitable for girls. The result, Parker says, is that the gap between young men’s and women’s academic achievements is widening.

In 2005, 133 women graduated from college in the U.S. for every 100 men. By the end of this decade that gap is expected to be 142 females for every 100 males.

And as ever the poorest and most deprived are the hardest hit. Among African Americans, the figures are far worse. Twice as many women as men graduate. Parker blames the achievement gap on the absence of fathers.

What is especially refreshing is that Parker’s quest to Save The Males is not just about fairness to men. We need to do it, she says, not only ‘because we love our sons but because we love our daughters’.

And because she believes, as many of us do, that the best building block for a stable and peaceful society is the traditional nuclear family.

‘Part of our nation’s strength has always been a function of its families. Restoring the family is critical to our survival in these untidy and dangerous times.’ So, too, is ‘respecting men and the important contribution they make to children’s lives and society’.

Fathers are always portrayed as incompetent

Parker writes almost poetically about the ultimate beauty of men’s innate character. When she looks at her own father and fathers around her, she concludes that being a dad is, in fact, the manliest thing a man can do.

It encourages responsibility, sacrifice and the ability to put others before yourself - all essential qualities to a functioning society, let alone a home.

‘When we take away a man’s central purpose in life and marginalise him from society’s most important institution (the family), we strip him of his manhood.’

And it’s not all we strip away, as studies have discovered here. We reduce a child’s chance of a successful and happy life.

Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity. Yet some feminists and other progressives still insist that men are non-essential

The powerful argument Parker constructs is that unless we wake up, and wake up quickly, to the importance of men in family life, society as we know it is doomed. In the creation of a more femalefriendly world, we have unwittingly created a culture hostile to men, not in the workplace, but the most important place, the home.

How refreshingly honest, how devoid of political correctness or feminist dogma for a woman to argue for and ultimately celebrate the necessity and the goodness of men.

She rightly warns of the dangers to our society of a world without manliness. It’s all very well for the armed forces to affect an equality between men and women, she says, but when the chips are down and a child or a society needs rescuing, it will not fall on the shoulders of our womenfolk.

And in an increasingly hostile world, we will need our men and we’ll need them to be men, to display unashamedly the sheer physical strength and courage that even after a century of feminist intervention still dwarfs women’s.

‘In the coming years, we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities to family and country.

We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men - and boys be boys.

And we will need women like Kathleen Parker with the courage to fight for men. Saving the males, she argues, will also save women and children as we all ’stand to benefit from a society in which men feel respected and thus responsible’.

By engaging men’s nobility and recognising their unique talents, we all benefit. And the process could start with us just being a bit nicer to them.

‘It wouldn’t hurt to fix a guy a burger now and then without the woman acting as though she’s just established democracy in the Sunni Triangle.’

Chastened, I’m off to buy some burgers and a few buns.

• Save The Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care by Kathleen Parker, published by Random House

Source: Daily Mail, UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038469/Save-males-A-new-book-says-society-biased-AGAINST-men-Ridiculous-Hardly-says-Amanda-Platell.html

28 July, 2008. 2:13 PM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Shy? Just Blame your Birth Weight

Being born underweight leads to a shy and cautious wallflower-type personality, a McMaster University researcher has found.

People who feel inhibited in social situations, aren’t as talkative and are more anxious about taking risks, may not get these traits from their upbringing, said Louis Schmidt, lead author of the recent study and a professor of psychology, neuroscience and behaviour.

Such timidness potentially affects a person’s future and could lead to “delays in occupational obtainment, delays marrying and having children,” he added.

The study, which was published in the July issue of Pediatrics, harks back to the nature versus nurture debate about how someone’s personality gets developed.

“What plays a bigger role?” he asked. “We’re looking at how early life events and early experiences impact brain development.”

Schmidt hypothesized these personality traits could be because the underweight babies spent so much time in a neonatal unit - some for months at a time - and didn’t get the same chance to bond with their parents as normal-weight babies.

Underweight babies also are at risk for other medical problems, like compromised immune systems, and tend to face a higher rate of diabetes and heart disease as adults.

This study looked at 71 young adults, born in southern Ontario in the late 1970s and early 1980s who were underweight at birth, and compared them to 83 people who were born around the same time and region at a normal weight.

The young adults were asked a series of questions about how social they are and how likely they are to take risks.

Underweight babies typically weigh less than 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds). In Canada, one of every 16 babies are born underweight.

Schmidt’s study found the lower the birth weight, the more shy and inhibited the person is as an adult.

They have also been studying brain activity and hormones in these young adults, both those who were born underweight and at a normal weight.

The findings, which are currently under review, show being born underweight could also lead to an inability to handle stress, Schmidt said.

Source: Hamilton Spectator, Canada
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/410333

28 July, 2008. 12:16 PM. Link | Comments: No Comments »

Blog Categories

Recent Posts

Monthly Archive

Swiss Concept

Copyright © 2005-2008, Edukey Ltd., All rights reserved.