Psychobabbling

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 | | #

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 | | #

Here’s a little essay about why we moms should not be working outside of the home from Opposing Views:

“Raising children is a full-time job, one that dramatically alters the paths women were on prior to becoming mothers. Therefore, working full time while trying to raise young children is impossible. This is not anti-feminist, nor is it a matter of one’s politics. It is just a fact. No matter how much women would like to balance work and family, the endless demands of children don’t allow mothers to dedicate themselves fully to someone or something else. This doesn’t mean mothers must be out of the workforce permanently. But it does mean they’ll need to sequence their lives — plan their lives in such a way that they’ll be able to pursue work and motherhood, but at separate times. Or do them simultaneously when their children are older, as women have historically done.”

There are several good critiques of this argument in the comments section of this post, but I can’t help but add my own.  There is no mention of the responsibility of fathers in contributing to the care of their children and the author does not cite any research to back up the “fact” of the assertion that it is impossible to work full-time and raise a child.  Certainly, our culture needs to be more supportive of the integration of parenting in general with work outside the home (longer parental leave, for a start).  But balancing work and home responsibilities in a meaningful and healthy way is a real possibility.  To suggest that women need to stop everything to have kids neglects the fact that many families are not financially able to do so, and that women who want to work are happier and better parents when they are able to do so (which I posted about here).  Also, in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce, allowing for women to have greater financial means and to be less dependent on their husbands will undoubtedly improve their circumstances if and when their marriages end (and similarly, it makes it more possible for wome to feel able to leave bad marriages).   In fact, this study found that women’s standard of living actually decreases 27% after a divorce, while for men it increases 10%.         

And, I’m sorry, is this 1950?  Did we gain nothing from second wave feminism?  I can’t believe people still buy into this crap.  I’m not arguing that mothers (or fathers, for that matter) should absolutely work outside of the home, but there is not only one good way to raise a child.  Like anything, I’m skeptical of either-or arguments, life is way more complicated than that.

No Comments | In: commentary, gender, research, work/family balance | | #

Building on the discussion of the work-family-gender balance, Motherload has posted about how the economic downturn has shifted this balance, as more men have lost jobs than women.   In fact, according to the article, a whopping 82% of the newly unemployed are men, because men tend to work in such hard-hit industries as manufacturing and construction, while women are overrepresented in jobs in more stable fields of health care and  education. 

This of course has resulted in a lot more dads being home, and has had interesting repercussions for the distribution of domestic responsibilities.   A leveling of the playing field?  Hardly.  It turns out, when a woman looses her job, she tends to increase hours spent in childcare, whereas for unemployed men, their childcare time allocation does not change from when they were employed.  Craziness. 

But I’m not going to buy into the whole men-are-lazy-and-can’t-be-trusted-to-scramble-an-egg explanation of this.  After reading some of the comments to this article, it seems that a lot of this may stem from our cultural expectation that men are only worthwhile if they bring home a paycheck, and don’t cancel day care for their kids when they’re unemployed because they don’t want to settle in to their unemployed status.  That’s not to excuse someone from not pulling his own weight around the house, but it seems important to look at the larger social context of this situation.  Still though, dude, spend some more time with your kids before you have to go back to a 50 hour work week.

No Comments | In: articles, commentary, gender, work/family balance | | #

You know all of that bellyaching I do about not-so-family-friendly work place policies like short parental leave and lack of support for breastfeeding?  Well here’s a group that’s actually doing something about it.  Moms Rising is a grassroots organization which is fighting for improvements in maternity and paternity leave, flexible work hours, and better health care and child care for families, among other campaigns.  They also have lots of resources for folks fighting the good fight, and an interesting blog to boot. 

No Comments | In: commentary, feeding, gender, work/family balance | | #

So this is another one of those posts that is neither about psychology nor about parenthood, but this is my soapbox and it doesn’t seem too out of left field.  My question is, why is it that people feel the need to highlight the number of “women and children” who are victims in bombings and other tragedies?  I get that it is awful for children to die and it highlights the awfulness of a situation, but is a woman dying worse than a man dying?  10 were killed in this bombing, 4 were women and children,  and who gives a crap about the 6 men, collateral damage not worth mentioning.   

This is slightly related for me to the whole “women and children first” thing when a boat sinks.  Of course I’m thinking about this because of the recent amazing events surrounding a plane landing in a body of water really near my home.  Let the women and children off and leave the men to fend for themselves.  I guess this one is a little more reasonable because it maybe has to d0 with the average level of physical strength being greater for men, so maybe they’re stronger swimmers and such (though not every man is stronger than every woman, but we tend to rely on generalities in stressful situations).  And again, I get the children thing, but are we saying that a woman’s life is more valuable than a man’s?  I’m all, I am woman, hear me roar, but I’m not willing to go there.  I invite your comments on this one, ’cause I’m at a loss.

3 Comments | In: commentary, gender | | #

Here’s another example of the inclusion of Reactive Attachment Disorder in the discussion of Attachment Parenting over at PhD in Parenting (which I posted about previously here) .   See my response in the comments section.

No Comments | In: attachment, commentary | | #

Thanks to PhD in Parenting for the link to this awesome public service announcement.

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

It can be said that learning how to be a parent is one giant experiment, even with each child, a series of trials and errors guided to some extent by previous family experience and expert advice.  This recent article from the New York Times discusses the experiences of parents who have taken this concept a step further, and have involved their children in their actual scientific research.  It’s convenient, if not exactly random or unbiased, but is it ethical?   Piaget based most if not all of his seminal work on cognitive development on his own children, out of which, one could argue, the entire field of developmental psychology evolved.  It seems reasonable if no harm is being done to the child, and the purpose of most research is, or should be, to improve our scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity.  So that seems like a good thing.  But I would question the validity of the findings because of the unique and certainly subjective relationship between parent and child; I don’t see how a parent, even with the best of intentions, could not at least unconsciously interpret the results of their child’s participation through a tainted lens.  I guess that’s a question for the journal review boards, but it would certainly stop me in my tracks.  Of course, they let researchers publish studies paid for by drug companies, so that tells you where the bar is set, at least in those instances.

1 Comment | In: articles, commentary | | #