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.

Given these expectations, I’ve been wondering whether I’m going to be more protective of this little one because she is a girl.  I think that’s one of the ways that we start to shape kids into their gender roles, by encouraging boys to venture out more into the world and being more reticent about such things with girls.  That certainly seems to be true when they get to be teenagers; we have such a different take on boys’ and girls’ emerging sexuality, and seem to fear girls’ sexual maturity whereas we have more of a go get ‘em attitude with boys (if I write about this again I’ll see if there’s some data to back this up).  

So something I read a few years ago has been on my mind, which is a statistic that while girls and women are more likely to be victimized by someone they know, boys and men are more likely to be attacked by strangers.  Even though people seem to freak out if, as a woman, you chose to ride the subway home alone late at night, you are actually statistically safer than the lone man sitting across from you (thanks to this post on Freakonomics for reminding me of that fact).  But there is still this belief that girls and women are more fragile and in need of protection, which undoubtedly shapes their experience of their place in the world.  I’m trying to keep this in mind as the big day gets closer.

Some interesting findings:

• first-born children have been found to be more conscientiousand higher achievers, while later-born siblings have been found to be more rebellious, agreeable, and liberal (Paulhus et al., 1999, Psychological Science).
• higher-rank (born earlier in the family) children have also been found to attain professional positions with higher prestige, and tend to complete moreyears of school, leading to greater economic success (Herrera et al., 2003, Journal os Personality and Social Psychology).   
• earlier-born children have been found to have higher IQ scores than later-born siblings, explained by the fact that the earlier-born children have more exposure to adult conversation and the benefit of tutoring younger siblings to reinforce their learning (Zajonc, 1976, Science).
• people tend to gravitate toward long-term relationships, romantic or platonic, with others of similar birth order within their families (Hartshorne et al., 2009, Journal of Individual Psychology). 

Has anyone else noticed that all of the original Sesame Street muppets are male?  I’ve been watching a bit more Sesame Street in the past year than I have in, say, the past 30 years, and the addition of two relatively new female muppets, Abbie Cadabie and Zoe,  since my own Sesame Street heyday, made me notice their conspicuous absence in years past.   I totally didn’t even pay attention to this when I was a kid, but what is this communicating about gender?  Can you imagine a show with all female characters, and no one taking notice?  Sesame has been so progressive in the inclusion of diverse types of people in their neighborhood, so what’s up with the all-dude muppets? 

Ok, so I’m not there first person to notice this.   Here’s a study that found that male characters appeared twice as often as female characters in randomly selected episodes of Sesame Street (though this study predates the two new female muppets), and “the total number of characters portrayed in stereotypical roles was 10 times greater than characters portrayed in non-stereotypical roles.”  Why is this important?  As we all know, children learn the norms of society from, at least in some small part, television.  And though women are 51% of the population, they are usually portrayed as a minority or “other” group.  Just think about the use of male-normative language (this is a nice post too), like “mankind” to refer to both women and men, and what this implies about our cultural values.  I really expected better from you, Sesame Street.     

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.

“Part of the job is already being done as fathers step into at-home roles and immerse themselves very successfully. But here they face resistance from not only other men, who resist the changing roles and the infection of the workplace with domesticity. They also face a peculiar sort of resistance from women. Some women view at-home dads in a spectacularly evil light, as sexual prowlers hoping to seduce neighbourhood moms. But even more insidious is the casual assumption that men are buffoons when placed in a domestic role. This assumption, and the dismissal of male competence in the home and with the children, does more, I think, to deter men from stepping into those roles on their own than any pressure from male peers…

…  It is subtle misandry, misogyny’s dance partner, and it is an obstacle to the very balance and equality that would help you to never feel that kind of superiority, disappointment, and anger ever again. It is an obstacle to the creation of a class of men who collaborate with you to change social and economic structures that will result in gender equality and improved work-life balance. Think about the converse situation, in which men would congregate to laugh about the sad attempts of the newly “liberated” women to operate in a man’s world. Did it, does it, happen? Yes, I’m certain of it. But it is not something to be tolerated, and it is certainly not something to be lauded. “

Word, ladies.  Word.

“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.