Psychobabbling

Given the major events that will be occurring in my life in the next few weeks, it was quite fortunate/interesting/random to come across these studies.  One encouraging:  Having a sister makes you happier and more optimistic.  And one not so much: Giving birth hurts. End of story.

I’m interested in finding out more about how exactly happiness, psychological health, and cohesion were measured in the first story, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt.  And I also don’t like that the explanation the researchers come to is that families with girls are better off because girls talk more and are more emotionally open, resorting to using stereotypes to drive the point home.  It’s also plausible that because we are less accepting of emotional expression and dependence in boys, we discourage their closeness to one another, which contributes to decreased cohesion.  But, you know, that’s not as good of a story as “boys will be boys.”    

As for the second story, I’m not even going to get into it.

No Comments | In: articles, gender, research | | #

I’ve been trying to think of a way to get back in to this blog thing, and what better way than a hilarious breast milk-related news story?   What I love about this story is not that a drunk lady squirted her milk at a cop, but that her milk was classified as a “bio-hazard,” and she was charged with  felony.  Um, overreaction?  Ok, hilarious may not be the best word, this is really a sad comment on how grossed out we get about breast milk, but I can’t help but laugh at the response and the last sentence of the article.  Hopefully they will cut this lady a little bit of slack, I mean is breast milk any more offensive than saliva?  And what are the charges for spitting at a cop?  I’m sure not as harsh.  Thanks to  STFU, Parents for this one.

2 Comments | In: articles, feeding | | #

Some lively discussion has followed this article since I posted about it, and I was inspired to give it a second read after hearing one of the researchers on the radio this morning.  

While I agree with the main thrust of the article, I don’t agree that using “time out” is a form of love withdrawal.  I recommend it to many of the parents I work with, and they almost universally find it to be helpful in the restoration of peace and loving harmony in their homes.  The isolation that is involved in this technique is not meant to be from a parent’s love or affection, but from whatever was overstimulating/reinforcing the child to continue the undesired behavior.  For example, children who are disruptive, fighting, tantruming, etc.,  are often reinforced for their behavior by the attention that it brings, however negative.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Directly reprimanding a child for this serves to reinforce the behavior further.  But removing them from that reinforcement communicates that the behavior is not acceptable.  

Another example: you are with your child at the check out aisle, and there are many lovely candy bars vying for the child’s attention.  The child screams that he/she wants a candy bar, and the more you try to talk the child out of it the more he/she wants it and screams louder.  The solution?  Remove the child from the store, however inconvenient that is for you.  If you end up giving the child a candy bar, you’ve just let them know, “hey, if you scream for long enough, I will give in and you’ll get your Snickers.”  It’s not a time out, but is serves the same purpose, which is letting the child know that this behavior is not a good idea by removing them from the situation, and and that it will not get them what they want. 

It is of course important to always explain to children why their behavior is unacceptable, why you are responding in this way, how to make better decisions in the future, and that this is part of your job as a parent which you take seriously because of how much you love them.  Love withdrawal plays no part in good parenting.

1 Comment | In: articles, commentary | | #

It’s been a while, but I found this to be a worthy article (from the New York Times) and important to read for anyone who parents.  Several parenting “experts” have continued to propose that the withholding of praise and affection is an effective form of discipline, while research seems to be supporting that such “conditional parenting” may not be the best approach:

“It turned out that children who received conditional approval were indeed somewhat more likely to act as the parent wanted. But compliance came at a steep price. First, these children tended to resent and dislike their parents. Second, they were apt to say that the way they acted was often due more to a “strong internal pressure” than to “a real sense of choice.” Moreover, their happiness after succeeding at something was usually short-lived, and they often felt guilty or ashamed.”

The authors offer an alternative to conditional parenting,

“In practice, according to an impressive collection of data by Dr. Deci and others, unconditional acceptance by parents as well as teachers should be accompanied by “autonomy support”: explaining reasons for requests, maximizing opportunities for the child to participate in making decisions, being encouraging without manipulating, and actively imagining how things look from the child’s point of view.”

I’ve always had a bad feeling about that Dr. Phil, but now there’s some data to back me up.

No Comments | In: articles, research | | #

This business about the Breast-Feeding Doll is everywhere (Motherlode, Bust, Opposing Views, to name a few).   If you haven’t heard,  a Spanish company has created a doll that breast-feeds, which will be sold in the U.S. next year.  Not only does the doll make sucking sounds when placed in the correct feeding position, but it is also sold with a halter top complete with flowers where nipples would be, for the would-be mother to wear.  On the one hand, this seems like a reasonable development in the functions that a doll plays, as there are already dolls that can be bottle-fed and diaper-changed.  But there is also a kind of ick factor that I can’t wrap my brain around.  I’m not sure how to describe the ick factor, nor do I think that it is a good argument against something.  I think Motherlode makes the best point, that though breast-feeding is natural and should be normalized,

“there are many other things that are natural for adults that children don’t necessarily need to be mimicking at five, no? “

I guess the question is whether this is one of those things that should be considered “adult,” and it brings up all sorts of things about how we sexualize breasts which are, first and foremost, feeding devices.   The most compelling argument I’ve seen against the doll is that it takes the creativity and imagination out of doll play.  You can have a plain old doll and use your imagination to do all sorts of things to care for it, without it being specifically designed to do it.  But I’m still not sure what to make of this whole thing, and I’m certainly not the only one.

No Comments | In: articles, commentary, feeding | | #

Apparently in Sweden, names have to be approved by the tax authority, and several have not made the cut, prompting the writing of this article from Motherlode.    The article references examples of children named “Q,” “Adolf Hitler,” “4 Real,” and “Google.”  Certainly, such names grab attention, but it’s not clear whether they cause actual harm, at least I can’t find any research to back up the strong reaction such names garner.  Do kids with funny names actually get beat up more often?  On the other hand, what is it like to grow up named after an atrociousperson who caused so much suffering?  I’m not sure whether to laugh, grimace, be dismissive, or call my congressional representative.

1 Comment | In: articles, commentary | | #

Among the heap of unsolicited advice and declarations I received while pregnant, I found the predictions of my child’s gender based on belly shape and heartburn the most hilarious.  This feature from Scientific American has undertaken the task of dispelling these and several other myths using, if you can imagine, actual scientific research.  Thanks to Rational Moms for the link.  By the by, I had major heartburn when I was pregnant, and the dude was born with hardly any hair on his little head.   So there goes that one.

No Comments | In: articles, personal, research | | #

From Motherlode.

No Comments | In: articles | | #

Judith Warner wants to ban the breast pump.  In this New York Times article, she argues that women who need to be away from their babies for several hours a day should not feel bad about giving their little ones formula and that pumping is an unappealing and inhumane option.  I get where she’s coming from, but I’m also all for having options even if they are not optimal.  And there are many other reasons why a nursing mother might pump besides guilt or the slight health benefits of breastfeeding that she doesn’t mention, including physical discomfort and the fact that formula is friggin’ expensive.  Despite this, she poses some important questions:      

“Why, as a society, have we privileged the magic elixir of maternal milk over actual maternal contact, denying the vast, vast majority of mothers the kind of extended maternity leave that would make them physically present for their babies?

Why do we keep sticking our heads in the sand, putting all the burdens of our half-changed society on women – their “choices,” their “priorities,” their bodies – instead of figuring out reasonable ways to make our new family lives work?

Why do we, as women, accept all the guilt and pressure about breast-feeding that comes our way instead of standing up for what we need in order, in the broadest possible sense, to nourish and sustain ourselves and our families?”   

1 Comment | In: articles, feeding, work/family balance | | #

From PsychCentral.  Do these even need to be spelled out?  That’s depressing. 

1. Showing up late for the appointment.

2. Eating in front of the client.

3. Yawning or sleeping during session.

4. Inappropriate disclosures.

5. Being impossible to reach by phone or email.

6. Distracted by a phone, cell phone, computer or pet.

7. Expressing racial, sexual, musical, lifestyle and religious preferences.

8. Bringing your pet to the psychotherapy session.

9. Hugging and physical contact.

10. Inappropriate displays of wealth or dress.

11. Clock watching.

12. Excessive note-taking.

I’m curious about how the list was generated, whether from patient feedback or just this dude’s opinion.  Either way, watch the bling and keep fluffy at home. 

No Comments | In: articles, psychonerd | | #