Today's post in Free Range Kids was a link from Circle of Moms, which appears to be a site for helicopter parents (at least judging from the multiple "better safe than sorry" comments to various posts). Here is the link: How to Spot a Child Predator. The author saw an older gentleman talking with two boys who were eating by themselves in a sandwich shop. The man went over to the boys and decided to strike up a conversation with them. He asked them normal things that any adult would ask a child: what grade are you in, where do you go to school, what is your favorite subject in school, do you like astronomy? The woman "had an epiphany" and decided that the man was an obvious child predator who was grooming the two boys with his questions. The writer decided that those questions are exactly what pedophiles ask when grooming their victims. She asked the boys where their parents were, then told a restaurant employee that she was concerned about the man talking with the boys. The woman even told the employee to call the police if the boys left the cafe with someone other than their parents. The man ended up leaving.
Did this woman actually know that this man was a child predator? No, she just assumed it because he was an older man talking to children. A man having a pleasant conversation with two boys was publicly humiliated simply because he was older and liked kids. The woman also was concerned about a stranger talking to two boys whose parents, by the way, deemed them capable of eating in a restaurant by themselves. Yet she went up to them and talked to them. But she somehow didn't see anything wrong with talking to the boys herself even though she was a stranger to them. I guess "stranger danger" only applies to men.
When did it become so crazy in the States that every man is viewed as a pervert who only wants to molest children? It used to be an old stereotype about gay men that they were child molesters. Now that hysteria has spread to all men, whether they are gay or straight. Men who sincerely love children are now becoming afraid to approach them or talk to them for fear that they will be viewed as perverts and potential child abductors. Even the number of male teachers has shrunk to a 40-year low, one reason being that they are afraid of being accused of child abuse. See this abc news story about the low number of male teachers, especially in elementary schools. Of course a child's father should be a good male role model. But kids need to have other positive male role models as they grow up. But how can children have good male role models when men aren't allowed to be near them? It is sad that men who want to work with children are now afraid to do so because mothers like the woman who wrote the post in Circle of Moms would automatically accuse them of being pedophiles. One of my very favorite teachers was Mr. Ort, my 8th grade English teacher. He got me excited about writing. Mr. Ort sincerely enjoyed working with junior high students. His students also liked him because they could sense that he truly loved teaching. None of Mr. Ort's students would ever have accused him of being a pedophile.
I have taught my son to talk to strangers, just not to go off with them. In fact, I have told him that when he is out by himself and needs assistance, he needs to ask an adult to help him. He put this lesson into action two years ago, when he was 11. My son wanted to ride his bike to the grocery store to get an official World Cup football (soccer) sticker book and wanted me to go with him. I told him that he had to go by himself because I was cooking dinner. I didn't really pay attention to how long my son was gone. But when he came back, he apologized for being late. It turned out that the chain on my son's bike slipped when he shifted gears. The closest adult that he found to help him fix his bike was an older man. As the man was fixing the chain, he asked my son where he went to school and what grade he was in. It turned out that the man's granddaughter was one of my son's classmates! When my son came home and told me what happened, my first thought was, "How cool that the person who helped you turned out to be a classmate's grandfather." The second thought was, "It's good that my son actually listened when I told him to find an adult when he needs some help." The thought that the Good Samaritan who fixed my son's bike was a child predator never even occurred to me.
Whenever I meet a child for the first time, I ask him things like where he goes to school and what grade he's in. Those are normal questions to ask a child. Who in their right mind would ask a child about how to solve the Greek monetary crisis? In fact, the woman who wrote the original post sounded more like a predator to me by asking where the boys' parents were. I think that we all need to take a deep breath and realize that most men are good people who would be repulsed at the thought of molesting a child. As Sigmund Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And most men who like children are simply men who like children.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Child Not Abducted---Film at 11
A story about a 7-year-old girl in Georgia named Brittney was on the Free Range Kids (FRK) site. Here is the link: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/a-walmart-abduction-attempt-and-what-the-video-means/ Brittney was with her mother at Wal-Mart. While her mother was a few aisles over, Brittney was in the toy section by herself. A man came up to her and tried to carry her off. Brittney kicked, screamed, and ended up running away from her would-be abductor. The kidnapping attempt was captured on security cameras and the man was arrested within the hour.
My initial reaction to reading the post on FRK was that someone did a great job teaching Brittney what to do if someone tried to grab her or ask her to go away with him. Brittney's mother felt that her daughter was capable of being by herself in the toy aisle. Young Brittney was obviously well-prepared for what to do in the very rare situation of a stranger trying to abduct her and she did a beautiful job executing what she was taught. No harm came to Brittney because she did all the right things.
I have read many comments on various sites about this situation. Most people said that Brittney's mother was negligent for leaving her alone in the toy aisle. They use this incident as a lesson in why a mother should never take her eyes off of her child for even one second. Their logic is that there are predators and abductors lurking everywhere. One of them can snatch your child in the blink of an eye. Just look at what happened to Brittney, whose mother was not glued to her side.
By the way, abductions by a stranger are very rare. Most children who are kidnapped are taken by people that the child knows. Only about 100 kids a year are abducted by strangers in the States. These abductions are considered newsworthy because they're so rare. I'm sure that there are many other kids who thwarted kidnapping attempts by screaming or running away. But they happened out of view of security cameras, so they weren't reported on the evening news.
Other people have commented that this incident is a good reason why parents should never let their kids talk to strangers. "Stranger danger" is taught to kids without teaching the difference between a good stranger and a bad one. Young children may easily get the impression that a "stranger" is a man who looks and talks like Snideley Whiplash. But a stranger is really anyone that a child doesn't know. Instead of a blanket, "Don't talk to strangers," kids should be taught that they can talk to a stranger like a salesperson at a store, a policeman, or a cashier at the movies. But they should learn never to go off with someone that they don't know personally. Again, Brittney incorporated the lesson of not going off with a stranger. She made a big fuss and ran away.
Instead of vilifying Brittney's mother as a negligent parent, we should be praising her for teaching her child what to do if someone tried to grab her. Brittney's mother knew her daughter would not be "vulnerable" if she was a few aisles away in the store. She decided not to hover her daughter. Instead, she gave Brittney the skills to be on her own in a store or other public place.
I have a feeling that stores will soon start passing age restrictions for kids being unattended because of this incident (Brittney's Law of course). Instead of letting parents be the judge of when a child can be a few aisles away in a store, there will be legislation requiring kids under 13, 15, or 18 to be with an adult at all times in a store. This will only serve to infantilize kids and render them even more unprepared to handle life when it's time to leave home.
My initial reaction to reading the post on FRK was that someone did a great job teaching Brittney what to do if someone tried to grab her or ask her to go away with him. Brittney's mother felt that her daughter was capable of being by herself in the toy aisle. Young Brittney was obviously well-prepared for what to do in the very rare situation of a stranger trying to abduct her and she did a beautiful job executing what she was taught. No harm came to Brittney because she did all the right things.
I have read many comments on various sites about this situation. Most people said that Brittney's mother was negligent for leaving her alone in the toy aisle. They use this incident as a lesson in why a mother should never take her eyes off of her child for even one second. Their logic is that there are predators and abductors lurking everywhere. One of them can snatch your child in the blink of an eye. Just look at what happened to Brittney, whose mother was not glued to her side.
By the way, abductions by a stranger are very rare. Most children who are kidnapped are taken by people that the child knows. Only about 100 kids a year are abducted by strangers in the States. These abductions are considered newsworthy because they're so rare. I'm sure that there are many other kids who thwarted kidnapping attempts by screaming or running away. But they happened out of view of security cameras, so they weren't reported on the evening news.
Other people have commented that this incident is a good reason why parents should never let their kids talk to strangers. "Stranger danger" is taught to kids without teaching the difference between a good stranger and a bad one. Young children may easily get the impression that a "stranger" is a man who looks and talks like Snideley Whiplash. But a stranger is really anyone that a child doesn't know. Instead of a blanket, "Don't talk to strangers," kids should be taught that they can talk to a stranger like a salesperson at a store, a policeman, or a cashier at the movies. But they should learn never to go off with someone that they don't know personally. Again, Brittney incorporated the lesson of not going off with a stranger. She made a big fuss and ran away.
Instead of vilifying Brittney's mother as a negligent parent, we should be praising her for teaching her child what to do if someone tried to grab her. Brittney's mother knew her daughter would not be "vulnerable" if she was a few aisles away in the store. She decided not to hover her daughter. Instead, she gave Brittney the skills to be on her own in a store or other public place.
I have a feeling that stores will soon start passing age restrictions for kids being unattended because of this incident (Brittney's Law of course). Instead of letting parents be the judge of when a child can be a few aisles away in a store, there will be legislation requiring kids under 13, 15, or 18 to be with an adult at all times in a store. This will only serve to infantilize kids and render them even more unprepared to handle life when it's time to leave home.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Josef Stalin and Parenting
The following is a continuation of a comment that I made on the Free Range Kids blog yesterday. Here is the link to the original post on FRK: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/why-it-feels-like-kids-are-being-kidnapped-all-the-time/. My comment is toward the end under the name "gap.runner." It's the second comment that I made to that post.
What does Josef Stalin have to do with parenting? At first glance, it would seem that the two are opposites. Josef Stalin was an evil dictator who was responsible for the death of about 20 million of his fellow Soviet citizens. It doesn't get more evil than saying, "One death is a tragedy, one million a statistic" in reference to the number of people who died during Stalin's reign in Soviet prison camps and of starvation in the Ukraine during forced collectivization. Parents are generally viewed as nurturing people who want the best for their children (though their children can sometimes view them as dictators), which is the opposite of how Stalin was.
A couple of days ago Lenore Skenazy, the author of the Free Range Kids (FRK) site, posted a story about the perception that people in the States have that children are constantly being abducted by strangers. In fact, very few kids are kidnapped and murdered by strangers (see the link above). The vast majority of abducted kids are taken by parents in custody disputes or by others that the child knows. Even though stranger abduction is very rare, it gets a lot of airplay in the media because it's such a rare event. These news stories also play to every parent's worst fear and make them afraid to let their children do things that they did as kids, such as walk or cycle to school alone.
There is a climate of fear in the States with parenting that would make Comrade Stalin very proud. Sometimes I think that the media has taken a page out of Stalin's playbook to reinforce the fears that parents have. Very rare events like stranger abduction, choking on button batteries, poisoned Halloween candy, and pedophiles in public bathrooms are played up in the news media. Mundane events, such as kids walking to school or taking a bus in town by themselves and arriving at their destinations safe and sound, are not broadcast at all. The perception is that the world is a dangerous place and children should never be without a parent in sight. I think if Comrade Stalin were alive today, the current media would expand on his quote that I cited above. It would go something like this, "One abducted child’s death is a tragedy that needs to be exploited for all it’s worth in order to instill fear and reinforce helicopter parenting; one million children walking, cycling, or taking public transportation by themselves without any incidents is a statistic that must be ignored or downplayed because it goes against the prevailing societal norms.”
Just as Soviets in Stalin's time feared a midnight knock on the door from the KGB, parents now live in fear whether they are helicopter parents or more free-range. Helicopter parents see pedophiles and kidnappers on every street corner and behind every bush. They are afraid to let their kids out of their sight because if they did, their children would be abducted and vanish without a trace in the blink of an eye. These are the parents who accompany their children everywhere and don't even let their children do sleepovers because the host parents could be pedophiles. Parents who are free-range (not negligent, but those who give their kids developmentally-appropriate independence) also have fears. Back in Stalin's time, there was a system of informants who denounced their friends, co-workers, neighbors, and even family members to the authorities. Free-range parents have been turned in to the police or Child Protective Services (CPS) for letting their kids walk to the store alone or leaving them in the car alone for a short time. Several free-rangers who are regulars on the FRK site say that they have either run into busybodies who turned them in to CPS or the police because their kids were unaccompanied by an adult while playing with other kids in their neighborhoods!
When Stalin ran the USSR, those who didn't follow the prevailing social norms were sent off to Siberian or northern Russian prison camps. While free-range parents don't get shipped off to the Soviet gulag, there have been many cases of parents and kids being detained or threatened by the police for innocent activities. For example, Ms. Skenazy wrote about an incident where her son took a commuter train by himself at age 10 to visit a friend and was detained by the police at his destination for riding alone. This was part of a post about a 10-year-old Tennessee girl whose mother was threatened with child neglect for the heinous crime of letting the daughter ride her bike to school alone. Here is the link:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/criminally-confident-in-our-kids/
There is another parenting fear: the fear of their child being left behind his peers. This fear starts very early. Toy makers and the media feed into this fear and tell parents that if they don't buy a certain toy, their child is destined to be the night janitor at McDonald's. And parents buy into it. They believe that their child must be fluent in Mandarin, be able to compose a symphony, and be able to read St. Augustine in the original Latin by age 3. If their child is "retarded" and doesn't do all of those things, forget about Harvard or Yale. Parents really need to trust themselves and let their children develop on their own timetables. In many cases, doing something early is not always better. Kids in the States are pushed to read at an early age. Finnish kids start school at age 7 and don't learn their alphabet or how to read until they're in first grade. One would think that the kids in Finland are miles behind the rest of the world. Au contraire. On international reading tests given to kids in industrial nations, Finland is one of the top-ranked countries. The US is way below Finland, despite its emphasis pushing kids to achieve at an early age.
It would be great if the media would devote less airtime to rare, yet sensational, events and spend more time talking about how safe it really is for kids to walk, ride their bikes, or take public transportation by themselves to wherever they're going. We all did those things when we were kids and are still alive. I imagine newscasts that say, "The 972 kids in Springfield who walked or rode their bikes to school today without a parent all made it there and back home again without any incidents," would be very boring. But I believe that parents need to hear more stories like that in order to realize that the world really is a safe place for their kids. Until that day comes, the best pieces of parenting advice are: turn off the TV, let your child develop at his own pace, and lose the fear and trust your instincts and about what is appropriate for your particular children.
What does Josef Stalin have to do with parenting? At first glance, it would seem that the two are opposites. Josef Stalin was an evil dictator who was responsible for the death of about 20 million of his fellow Soviet citizens. It doesn't get more evil than saying, "One death is a tragedy, one million a statistic" in reference to the number of people who died during Stalin's reign in Soviet prison camps and of starvation in the Ukraine during forced collectivization. Parents are generally viewed as nurturing people who want the best for their children (though their children can sometimes view them as dictators), which is the opposite of how Stalin was.
A couple of days ago Lenore Skenazy, the author of the Free Range Kids (FRK) site, posted a story about the perception that people in the States have that children are constantly being abducted by strangers. In fact, very few kids are kidnapped and murdered by strangers (see the link above). The vast majority of abducted kids are taken by parents in custody disputes or by others that the child knows. Even though stranger abduction is very rare, it gets a lot of airplay in the media because it's such a rare event. These news stories also play to every parent's worst fear and make them afraid to let their children do things that they did as kids, such as walk or cycle to school alone.
There is a climate of fear in the States with parenting that would make Comrade Stalin very proud. Sometimes I think that the media has taken a page out of Stalin's playbook to reinforce the fears that parents have. Very rare events like stranger abduction, choking on button batteries, poisoned Halloween candy, and pedophiles in public bathrooms are played up in the news media. Mundane events, such as kids walking to school or taking a bus in town by themselves and arriving at their destinations safe and sound, are not broadcast at all. The perception is that the world is a dangerous place and children should never be without a parent in sight. I think if Comrade Stalin were alive today, the current media would expand on his quote that I cited above. It would go something like this, "One abducted child’s death is a tragedy that needs to be exploited for all it’s worth in order to instill fear and reinforce helicopter parenting; one million children walking, cycling, or taking public transportation by themselves without any incidents is a statistic that must be ignored or downplayed because it goes against the prevailing societal norms.”
Just as Soviets in Stalin's time feared a midnight knock on the door from the KGB, parents now live in fear whether they are helicopter parents or more free-range. Helicopter parents see pedophiles and kidnappers on every street corner and behind every bush. They are afraid to let their kids out of their sight because if they did, their children would be abducted and vanish without a trace in the blink of an eye. These are the parents who accompany their children everywhere and don't even let their children do sleepovers because the host parents could be pedophiles. Parents who are free-range (not negligent, but those who give their kids developmentally-appropriate independence) also have fears. Back in Stalin's time, there was a system of informants who denounced their friends, co-workers, neighbors, and even family members to the authorities. Free-range parents have been turned in to the police or Child Protective Services (CPS) for letting their kids walk to the store alone or leaving them in the car alone for a short time. Several free-rangers who are regulars on the FRK site say that they have either run into busybodies who turned them in to CPS or the police because their kids were unaccompanied by an adult while playing with other kids in their neighborhoods!
When Stalin ran the USSR, those who didn't follow the prevailing social norms were sent off to Siberian or northern Russian prison camps. While free-range parents don't get shipped off to the Soviet gulag, there have been many cases of parents and kids being detained or threatened by the police for innocent activities. For example, Ms. Skenazy wrote about an incident where her son took a commuter train by himself at age 10 to visit a friend and was detained by the police at his destination for riding alone. This was part of a post about a 10-year-old Tennessee girl whose mother was threatened with child neglect for the heinous crime of letting the daughter ride her bike to school alone. Here is the link:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/criminally-confident-in-our-kids/
There is another parenting fear: the fear of their child being left behind his peers. This fear starts very early. Toy makers and the media feed into this fear and tell parents that if they don't buy a certain toy, their child is destined to be the night janitor at McDonald's. And parents buy into it. They believe that their child must be fluent in Mandarin, be able to compose a symphony, and be able to read St. Augustine in the original Latin by age 3. If their child is "retarded" and doesn't do all of those things, forget about Harvard or Yale. Parents really need to trust themselves and let their children develop on their own timetables. In many cases, doing something early is not always better. Kids in the States are pushed to read at an early age. Finnish kids start school at age 7 and don't learn their alphabet or how to read until they're in first grade. One would think that the kids in Finland are miles behind the rest of the world. Au contraire. On international reading tests given to kids in industrial nations, Finland is one of the top-ranked countries. The US is way below Finland, despite its emphasis pushing kids to achieve at an early age.
It would be great if the media would devote less airtime to rare, yet sensational, events and spend more time talking about how safe it really is for kids to walk, ride their bikes, or take public transportation by themselves to wherever they're going. We all did those things when we were kids and are still alive. I imagine newscasts that say, "The 972 kids in Springfield who walked or rode their bikes to school today without a parent all made it there and back home again without any incidents," would be very boring. But I believe that parents need to hear more stories like that in order to realize that the world really is a safe place for their kids. Until that day comes, the best pieces of parenting advice are: turn off the TV, let your child develop at his own pace, and lose the fear and trust your instincts and about what is appropriate for your particular children.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Old Science Fiction Movies and Free Range Parenting
My son has been on a kick of watching science fiction and monster movies from the 1950s. It started a couple of months ago, when he got a small canister of "alien slime" with a Donald Duck comic book. I told him that it reminded me of The Blob. Shortly afterward I got The Blob from the library and we saw it together. His reaction was, "Can you get more movies like that one?" So far we've seen: Godzilla (Gojira), It Came From Outer Space, The Creature From the Black Lagoon and its two sequels, and The Day the Earth Stood Still. I have a two-movie DVD of War of the Worlds and When Worlds Collide in my queue. One thing that I have insisted on with these movies is that they are the originals from the 1950s and not more modern remakes.
Yesterday I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still, which was made in 1951. Here's a quick summary from the imdb website: An alien (Klaatu) with his mighty robot (Gort) land their spacecraft on Cold War-era Earth just after the end of World War II. They bring an important message to the planet that Klaatu wishes to tell to representatives of all nations. However, communication turns out to be difficult, so, after learning something about the natives, Klaatu decides on an alternative approach. Written by Bruce Janson
So how does a movie about an alien and his robot coming to Washington, DC relate to free range parenting? There are several scenes which would not slip through the censors now because they would be too "horrific" for helicopter parents. Klaatu assumes human form and rents a room in a local boarding house, where he befriends Helen and her son Bobby. Bobby looks like he's about 9 years old. In one scene Helen and her fiance made plans to go out somewhere for the day, but there is nobody to watch Bobby. They may have to scrap their plans or bring Bobby with them. Klaatu offers to watch Bobby. Helen and her fiance think that's a wonderful idea. They don't have to cancel their plans and Bobby will be taken care of. Klaatu even asks Bobby to help give him a tour of the city. But wait...Helen is trusting her son to a single, childless man who she doesn't really know very well to watch her son. There were no thoughts of Klaatu being a pedophile, predator, pervert, or potential abductor. Can you imagine that scenario happening now?
In another scene, Helen goes out at night and leaves Bobby alone in his room in the boarding house. She tells him to remember to brush his teeth before going to bed. No "good" mother in her right mind today would leave a 9-year-old home alone, especially at night. OK, there are the other boarders in the house. But Bobby is without his mother. Today she would probably be turned in to Child Protective Services for leaving a child unsupervised at home. In a continuation of this scene, Bobby follows Klaatu to his spaceship. So not only was Bobby home alone, he then went out at night on his own to see where Klaatu was going. Nobody noticed Bobby or questioned him about where his parents were. Nobody reported Helen for letting her son go out alone at night.
Toward the end of the movie, Klaatu and Helen are in a taxi, being chased by the police. How did the police find out where Klaatu and Helen were? There were two boys playing outside by the boarding house without any adults in sight. The police asked the boys which way the taxi went. They didn't ask them where their parents were or why they were outside at night without supervision.
But some things still are the same. Instead of the today's climate of fear about pedophiles and child abductions, people in the 1950s were afraid of Communists. Talk of the Red Menace in the 1950s seemed as prevalent as news reports of sex offenders and kidnappers now. In the film there were no Communists, but the flying saucer and "spaceman" (Klaatu) were the objects of fear. People were afraid to go anywhere because of the possibility of running into Klaatu. There was even one scene where people were told to turn on their lights but not go out after dark for fear of being taken into the flying saucer by Klaatu or being destroyed by his robot Gort. There is mass hysteria and fear. A reporter interviews people who are in the park where Klaatu's ship landed. Klaatu is there with Bobby. The people that the reporter interviews all say that they're afraid of the spaceman and what he could do. Bobby thinks that the flying saucer is cool. Then the reporter asks Klaatu if he's afraid of the spaceman like everyone else. His response was one of the best lines in the movie and sums up free range parenting.
Reporter: I suppose you are just as scared as the rest of us. Klaatu: In a different way, perhaps. I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason.
After Klaatu's response the reporter quickly moves away because he obviously didn't like what he heard. Klaatu's answer didn't fit into the climate of fear that ran through the population. Today's helicopter parents are like the people in the movie. They believe that pedophiles and kidnappers are everywhere. Even when they are given the facts about the likelihood of their child being abducted by a stranger, they continue to parent through fear. Free range parenting fits into the theme of The Day the Earth Stood Still because a big part of it is about going against the climate of fear through reason. I want my son to grow up without fearing everyone in the world and thinking that harm will come to him every time he steps out the door.
Tonight's movie feature will be The Thing From Another World.
Yesterday I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still, which was made in 1951. Here's a quick summary from the imdb website: An alien (Klaatu) with his mighty robot (Gort) land their spacecraft on Cold War-era Earth just after the end of World War II. They bring an important message to the planet that Klaatu wishes to tell to representatives of all nations. However, communication turns out to be difficult, so, after learning something about the natives, Klaatu decides on an alternative approach. Written by Bruce Janson
So how does a movie about an alien and his robot coming to Washington, DC relate to free range parenting? There are several scenes which would not slip through the censors now because they would be too "horrific" for helicopter parents. Klaatu assumes human form and rents a room in a local boarding house, where he befriends Helen and her son Bobby. Bobby looks like he's about 9 years old. In one scene Helen and her fiance made plans to go out somewhere for the day, but there is nobody to watch Bobby. They may have to scrap their plans or bring Bobby with them. Klaatu offers to watch Bobby. Helen and her fiance think that's a wonderful idea. They don't have to cancel their plans and Bobby will be taken care of. Klaatu even asks Bobby to help give him a tour of the city. But wait...Helen is trusting her son to a single, childless man who she doesn't really know very well to watch her son. There were no thoughts of Klaatu being a pedophile, predator, pervert, or potential abductor. Can you imagine that scenario happening now?
In another scene, Helen goes out at night and leaves Bobby alone in his room in the boarding house. She tells him to remember to brush his teeth before going to bed. No "good" mother in her right mind today would leave a 9-year-old home alone, especially at night. OK, there are the other boarders in the house. But Bobby is without his mother. Today she would probably be turned in to Child Protective Services for leaving a child unsupervised at home. In a continuation of this scene, Bobby follows Klaatu to his spaceship. So not only was Bobby home alone, he then went out at night on his own to see where Klaatu was going. Nobody noticed Bobby or questioned him about where his parents were. Nobody reported Helen for letting her son go out alone at night.
Toward the end of the movie, Klaatu and Helen are in a taxi, being chased by the police. How did the police find out where Klaatu and Helen were? There were two boys playing outside by the boarding house without any adults in sight. The police asked the boys which way the taxi went. They didn't ask them where their parents were or why they were outside at night without supervision.
But some things still are the same. Instead of the today's climate of fear about pedophiles and child abductions, people in the 1950s were afraid of Communists. Talk of the Red Menace in the 1950s seemed as prevalent as news reports of sex offenders and kidnappers now. In the film there were no Communists, but the flying saucer and "spaceman" (Klaatu) were the objects of fear. People were afraid to go anywhere because of the possibility of running into Klaatu. There was even one scene where people were told to turn on their lights but not go out after dark for fear of being taken into the flying saucer by Klaatu or being destroyed by his robot Gort. There is mass hysteria and fear. A reporter interviews people who are in the park where Klaatu's ship landed. Klaatu is there with Bobby. The people that the reporter interviews all say that they're afraid of the spaceman and what he could do. Bobby thinks that the flying saucer is cool. Then the reporter asks Klaatu if he's afraid of the spaceman like everyone else. His response was one of the best lines in the movie and sums up free range parenting.
Reporter: I suppose you are just as scared as the rest of us. Klaatu: In a different way, perhaps. I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason.
After Klaatu's response the reporter quickly moves away because he obviously didn't like what he heard. Klaatu's answer didn't fit into the climate of fear that ran through the population. Today's helicopter parents are like the people in the movie. They believe that pedophiles and kidnappers are everywhere. Even when they are given the facts about the likelihood of their child being abducted by a stranger, they continue to parent through fear. Free range parenting fits into the theme of The Day the Earth Stood Still because a big part of it is about going against the climate of fear through reason. I want my son to grow up without fearing everyone in the world and thinking that harm will come to him every time he steps out the door.
Tonight's movie feature will be The Thing From Another World.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Why Moms Should Become Runners
Since the 1980s it seems like parenting in the States has become a real competitive sport. Every parent has a super high-achieving child who is destined for an Ivy League university. It's very typical for an American mother to talk about her child this way: "Herkie is in 2nd grade, gets straight As, reads at a 5th grade level and is at an 8th grade level in math. He just finished reading 'War and Peace' and can do some of his older brother's trigonometry problems. Herkie also plays the bassoon, speaks Mandarin, has a black belt in karate, volunteers at the local homeless shelter, and is the youngest kid on his travel Little League team." Whew! One has to wonder when poor Herkie gets some time just to be a kid.
Another aspect of the US competitive parenting culture is judging other parents. We get brownie points for thinking that another parent is bad. A child throws a tantrum in the grocery store because his mother wouldn't let him get a candy bar at the checkout counter. His mother is obviously a Bad Mother; otherwise her child would understand the meaning of the word, "No" and calmly accept not getting the candy. We forget that there may be extenuating circumstances for the kid pitching a fit, like being close to nap time. Instead, we automatically think that the mother can't control her child and we would obviously be better. We also judge other parents as Bad because they do things differently. For example, it's normal in Germany for kids to walk to school starting in first grade. But in the States a parent is judged as being negligent by other parents for letting a 7-year-old walk 100 meters to school on her own. American moms would judge the Germans as negligent parents who risk their children's lives. The German moms would judge the Americans as being too overprotective. Stay-at-home moms judge working moms as being bad, and vice versa.
As I've been out on my morning training runs, I've come to the conclusion that mothers need to become runners. Runners are the most non-judgmental people that I know. When I'm out running, I see people going at different speeds. Some of us are fast while others go at a cool-down jog pace. But everyone out there running is doing his or her best and is simply a fellow runner. We all get to our goal at our own pace and nobody tells us that we're too fast or slow. Some of my former running partners in Parsberg would apologize for being slower than me. But I would tell them that it just didn't matter because we were runners together. We runners also don't judge each other on the types of races that we prefer. Some of us love running marathons, while others of us are happy doing 5 and 10 km races. A runner who does 5K races is just as "real" a runner as a marathoner.
Runners also applaud each other's achievements instead of trying to tear each other down. When a runner finishes a marathon or places overall or in his age group in a race, that achievement is celebrated. We don't play "can you top this" with our running. I remember when a friend of mine from Parsberg finished her first marathon (Munich) in over 5 hours. Her time was about an hour slower than I would run a marathon. But I just couldn't imagine myself telling her that she was slow and that I can run a marathon faster and was therefore a better runner. That would have been horribly rude to judge her solely on her finishing time. Instead, I was so happy and proud for her because we trained together and I helped her to prepare for it. My friend running her first marathon motivated me to train for another marathon after almost a 10 year absence from that distance. Finishing a marathon is a huge accomplishment in itself. If you're not an elite-level runner, the finishing time is secondary. I used to say that I got the same finisher's medal as the winner but just didn't get the prize money.
While the Boston Marathon would be the runner's equivalent of going to an Ivy League university, most runners will never qualify to run in it. Does that make their running achievements as any less valuable? Not at all. I'll probably never qualify for the Boston Marathon. But I'm happy with everything that I have accomplished as a runner. Most runners feel the same way.
Like runners, parents are doing the best they can. Maybe moms should be runners to learn that we're all fellow parents who are finding our own way in how we bring up our kids. The finish line for a parent is a child who is independent and equipped to leave the nest. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly our children cross the proverbial finish line. The important thing is that they do.
Another aspect of the US competitive parenting culture is judging other parents. We get brownie points for thinking that another parent is bad. A child throws a tantrum in the grocery store because his mother wouldn't let him get a candy bar at the checkout counter. His mother is obviously a Bad Mother; otherwise her child would understand the meaning of the word, "No" and calmly accept not getting the candy. We forget that there may be extenuating circumstances for the kid pitching a fit, like being close to nap time. Instead, we automatically think that the mother can't control her child and we would obviously be better. We also judge other parents as Bad because they do things differently. For example, it's normal in Germany for kids to walk to school starting in first grade. But in the States a parent is judged as being negligent by other parents for letting a 7-year-old walk 100 meters to school on her own. American moms would judge the Germans as negligent parents who risk their children's lives. The German moms would judge the Americans as being too overprotective. Stay-at-home moms judge working moms as being bad, and vice versa.
As I've been out on my morning training runs, I've come to the conclusion that mothers need to become runners. Runners are the most non-judgmental people that I know. When I'm out running, I see people going at different speeds. Some of us are fast while others go at a cool-down jog pace. But everyone out there running is doing his or her best and is simply a fellow runner. We all get to our goal at our own pace and nobody tells us that we're too fast or slow. Some of my former running partners in Parsberg would apologize for being slower than me. But I would tell them that it just didn't matter because we were runners together. We runners also don't judge each other on the types of races that we prefer. Some of us love running marathons, while others of us are happy doing 5 and 10 km races. A runner who does 5K races is just as "real" a runner as a marathoner.
Runners also applaud each other's achievements instead of trying to tear each other down. When a runner finishes a marathon or places overall or in his age group in a race, that achievement is celebrated. We don't play "can you top this" with our running. I remember when a friend of mine from Parsberg finished her first marathon (Munich) in over 5 hours. Her time was about an hour slower than I would run a marathon. But I just couldn't imagine myself telling her that she was slow and that I can run a marathon faster and was therefore a better runner. That would have been horribly rude to judge her solely on her finishing time. Instead, I was so happy and proud for her because we trained together and I helped her to prepare for it. My friend running her first marathon motivated me to train for another marathon after almost a 10 year absence from that distance. Finishing a marathon is a huge accomplishment in itself. If you're not an elite-level runner, the finishing time is secondary. I used to say that I got the same finisher's medal as the winner but just didn't get the prize money.
While the Boston Marathon would be the runner's equivalent of going to an Ivy League university, most runners will never qualify to run in it. Does that make their running achievements as any less valuable? Not at all. I'll probably never qualify for the Boston Marathon. But I'm happy with everything that I have accomplished as a runner. Most runners feel the same way.
Like runners, parents are doing the best they can. Maybe moms should be runners to learn that we're all fellow parents who are finding our own way in how we bring up our kids. The finish line for a parent is a child who is independent and equipped to leave the nest. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly our children cross the proverbial finish line. The important thing is that they do.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
I'd Rather Be Uncool
I'm not a believer in corporal punishment for children. But in the case of the kid in these two commercials for the Toyota Highlander, which were posted on the Free Range kids site, I'd easily make an exception. That kid needs to be slapped and put in his place.
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0BhsFF2uo
#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIu8nAdxPx4
These commercials are wrong in so many ways. First of all, they assume that a factor in parents being considered "cool" or "lame" by their children is the car that they drive. With preteens and teenagers, it just doesn't matter what cars their parents drive. When kids get to a certain age, their parents are automatically considered "lame." That's called being a teenager. If parents are too cool, then they are being the child's friends instead of his parents. Parents are supposed to be a child's parents and not his best friend.
Toyota also sends the message that kids are smarter than their parents and therefore should be the ones to pick out the family car. I've always hated movies or TV programs with smart-ass kids who save the world because the adults around them are too incompetent. These commercials remind me of those shows. The kid obviously knows what's cool while his dad doesn't. But guess what, boy? Dad may be an incompetent buffoon and the child's slave (in the second ad), but he's the one paying for the car, gas, maintenance, and insurance. When you're old enough to buy a car and keep it filled, maintained, and insured, then you can choose the car. Until then, you just have to suck it up and ride in whatever your parents decided to buy.
Both ads also give the disturbing message that the attractive blond-haired, blue-eyed rich kid is the cool guy in his school. He has to be rich if his parents bought an SUV and can afford the gas for it, right? The girl in the second ad who gets the ride also has blonde hair and blue eyes. The kid in the first ad with the lame parents and car has dark hair and brown eyes. Popularity and coolness should not be a function of money or hair color. My fantasy ending for the second ad was much different. It would be the kids in line seeing another kid with an even cooler car and all running over to line up to ride in it, leaving the Highlander kid all alone. It would serve him right for trying to charge the other kids an admission fee for the "privilege" of riding in his dad's new car.
Another thing that I thought was disturbing in the first ad was the kid in the Highlander wearing headphones and promoting the entertainment system. The kid is sitting in the car watching TV instead of engaging his parents in conversation or doing something to entertain himself. It looks like he's on a short drive on a suburban street instead of on a long highway drive. Does he really need to watch TV while driving through the suburbs? I realize that a lot of American cars now come with entertainment systems. They can be useful for very long road trips. But do the kids really need to be watching TV every minute of the day? Last year I took a trip to Italy. My son entertained himself by reading or playing with his Nintendo. We also had a lot of opportunities to talk about the scenery (Austrian and Italian castles, apple orchards). He was not bored on the 4-hour drive. When I take short drives with my son, I turn off the radio and spend the time talking to him. What a concept!
The last disturbing thing was that the kids all considered it cool to ride in a car instead of a bus. The kids who got rejected for a ride in the Highlander were viewed as "losers" and had to take the bus. It really shows the influence of the car culture in the States. In Germany there's the opposite perception of riding in a car at the secondary school level. The wimps or lazy kids are the ones who are driven to school by their parents in good weather. It is much more cool (and grown-up) to take the train, ride the public bus, ride a bike, or walk to school. Here in Garmisch cool bicycles, and not cars, are considered a status symbol with the kids.
I must admit that my very first thought after viewing those commercials was, "Why would anyone in their right mind want to buy a big gas-guzzling SUV these days?" With gas in the States being about $4 a gallon, and European prices being about twice as high, one would think that a small car with good fuel economy would be a more sensible and "cooler" choice. When I went to Italy last year, my husband filled the tank of our Skoda (by the way, my son had no say in its purchase) before leaving Garmisch. We drove to the southern part of Lake Garda, drove around the Garda area, and came home without having to fill up. I also can't imagine a vehicle like the Highlander in Europe with its narrow roads and parking places that were designed for cars the size of a Smart. Trying to maneuver a Highlander through narrow European streets would challenge the best driver.
I'd rather be uncool with my Skoda and bicycle and save my gas money for other things. Just because I'm a parent doesn't mean I have to be lame and drive an impractical and environmentally-unfriendly vehicle.
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0BhsFF2uo
#2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIu8nAdxPx4
These commercials are wrong in so many ways. First of all, they assume that a factor in parents being considered "cool" or "lame" by their children is the car that they drive. With preteens and teenagers, it just doesn't matter what cars their parents drive. When kids get to a certain age, their parents are automatically considered "lame." That's called being a teenager. If parents are too cool, then they are being the child's friends instead of his parents. Parents are supposed to be a child's parents and not his best friend.
Toyota also sends the message that kids are smarter than their parents and therefore should be the ones to pick out the family car. I've always hated movies or TV programs with smart-ass kids who save the world because the adults around them are too incompetent. These commercials remind me of those shows. The kid obviously knows what's cool while his dad doesn't. But guess what, boy? Dad may be an incompetent buffoon and the child's slave (in the second ad), but he's the one paying for the car, gas, maintenance, and insurance. When you're old enough to buy a car and keep it filled, maintained, and insured, then you can choose the car. Until then, you just have to suck it up and ride in whatever your parents decided to buy.
Both ads also give the disturbing message that the attractive blond-haired, blue-eyed rich kid is the cool guy in his school. He has to be rich if his parents bought an SUV and can afford the gas for it, right? The girl in the second ad who gets the ride also has blonde hair and blue eyes. The kid in the first ad with the lame parents and car has dark hair and brown eyes. Popularity and coolness should not be a function of money or hair color. My fantasy ending for the second ad was much different. It would be the kids in line seeing another kid with an even cooler car and all running over to line up to ride in it, leaving the Highlander kid all alone. It would serve him right for trying to charge the other kids an admission fee for the "privilege" of riding in his dad's new car.
Another thing that I thought was disturbing in the first ad was the kid in the Highlander wearing headphones and promoting the entertainment system. The kid is sitting in the car watching TV instead of engaging his parents in conversation or doing something to entertain himself. It looks like he's on a short drive on a suburban street instead of on a long highway drive. Does he really need to watch TV while driving through the suburbs? I realize that a lot of American cars now come with entertainment systems. They can be useful for very long road trips. But do the kids really need to be watching TV every minute of the day? Last year I took a trip to Italy. My son entertained himself by reading or playing with his Nintendo. We also had a lot of opportunities to talk about the scenery (Austrian and Italian castles, apple orchards). He was not bored on the 4-hour drive. When I take short drives with my son, I turn off the radio and spend the time talking to him. What a concept!
The last disturbing thing was that the kids all considered it cool to ride in a car instead of a bus. The kids who got rejected for a ride in the Highlander were viewed as "losers" and had to take the bus. It really shows the influence of the car culture in the States. In Germany there's the opposite perception of riding in a car at the secondary school level. The wimps or lazy kids are the ones who are driven to school by their parents in good weather. It is much more cool (and grown-up) to take the train, ride the public bus, ride a bike, or walk to school. Here in Garmisch cool bicycles, and not cars, are considered a status symbol with the kids.
I must admit that my very first thought after viewing those commercials was, "Why would anyone in their right mind want to buy a big gas-guzzling SUV these days?" With gas in the States being about $4 a gallon, and European prices being about twice as high, one would think that a small car with good fuel economy would be a more sensible and "cooler" choice. When I went to Italy last year, my husband filled the tank of our Skoda (by the way, my son had no say in its purchase) before leaving Garmisch. We drove to the southern part of Lake Garda, drove around the Garda area, and came home without having to fill up. I also can't imagine a vehicle like the Highlander in Europe with its narrow roads and parking places that were designed for cars the size of a Smart. Trying to maneuver a Highlander through narrow European streets would challenge the best driver.
I'd rather be uncool with my Skoda and bicycle and save my gas money for other things. Just because I'm a parent doesn't mean I have to be lame and drive an impractical and environmentally-unfriendly vehicle.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Helicopter Dad
Whenever I hear about "helicopter parenting" in the States, I usually think of mothers. There are magazine articles, blogs, TV programs, and even books about helicopter moms. My impression of fathers is that they're the ones who give the kids a little more free rein than mothers do. But earlier today I saw a helicopter dad.
Before getting into what I saw this afternoon, let me explain how the base where I work is set up. There are actually two sides that are separated by a busy street and a bridge. The side where I work on Saturdays has the gym, chapel, offices, classrooms, one student dormitory building, and the Armed Forces hotel. Most soldiers and US civilians who visit Garmisch stay at that hotel. The other side has the PX, Commissary, gas station, bank, and all of the other standard base facilities. On Saturdays during my lunch hour I walk over to the the other side to get a little bit of fresh air and exercise and also to stretch my legs. I often see families who are staying at the American hotel walking between the two sides of the base.
As I was walking toward the traffic light where I cross the street to get to the other part of the base, I saw an American man with a military haircut with two girls. The girls, who were his daughters, looked to be about 7 and 9 years old. We got to the traffic light, which was red, at about the same time. The father told the daughters that everyone must hold hands when crossing the street. The light for us turned green and we all started across the street. As we were crossing, a car pulled up to the intersection and stopped at the light. The father told the girls to watch out for the speedy driver (who had stopped by that time). When we all got across the street, it was time to cross the bridge. On both sides of the bridge there is a railing with bars that's a little over a meter high. The bars are so close together that an anorexic toddler would have a hard time fitting between them. But as we all got to the bridge, the father told the daughters to stay away from the railing because it was dangerous and they could fall into the river. When we reached the base gate, we went through the pedestrian entrance, which is roped off from the vehicle entrance and cars can't get into it. That didn't matter to this dad. He told the girls to walk as far over to the side as possible so that they wouldn't get hit by a car.
To give this father a break, he may have just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, he probably saw plenty of things that would make him feel that the world is a dangerous place, especially for young girls. This father obviously loves his daughters very much and wants to protect them. But Garmish-Partenkirchen is a far cry from downtown Baghdad or Kabul. I can understand that man wanting his daughters close by, especially if they are tourists and aren't familiar with the city. When I'm in an unfamiliar city with my son, I like him close by, or I at least want to see where he is. But the father I saw today made it seem that everything in the short walk (about 100 meters) from the traffic light to the base entrance gate was scary. I felt a little sad for those girls. They will grow up believing it's normal to view the world as a place full of dangers.
If anyone was wondering, I didn't say anything to the father. I wouldn't want someone coming up to me and telling me that my parenting style was "wrong". Even though I disagreed with how that man was telling his daughters about everything being dangerous, he deserved the same courtesy.
Before getting into what I saw this afternoon, let me explain how the base where I work is set up. There are actually two sides that are separated by a busy street and a bridge. The side where I work on Saturdays has the gym, chapel, offices, classrooms, one student dormitory building, and the Armed Forces hotel. Most soldiers and US civilians who visit Garmisch stay at that hotel. The other side has the PX, Commissary, gas station, bank, and all of the other standard base facilities. On Saturdays during my lunch hour I walk over to the the other side to get a little bit of fresh air and exercise and also to stretch my legs. I often see families who are staying at the American hotel walking between the two sides of the base.
As I was walking toward the traffic light where I cross the street to get to the other part of the base, I saw an American man with a military haircut with two girls. The girls, who were his daughters, looked to be about 7 and 9 years old. We got to the traffic light, which was red, at about the same time. The father told the daughters that everyone must hold hands when crossing the street. The light for us turned green and we all started across the street. As we were crossing, a car pulled up to the intersection and stopped at the light. The father told the girls to watch out for the speedy driver (who had stopped by that time). When we all got across the street, it was time to cross the bridge. On both sides of the bridge there is a railing with bars that's a little over a meter high. The bars are so close together that an anorexic toddler would have a hard time fitting between them. But as we all got to the bridge, the father told the daughters to stay away from the railing because it was dangerous and they could fall into the river. When we reached the base gate, we went through the pedestrian entrance, which is roped off from the vehicle entrance and cars can't get into it. That didn't matter to this dad. He told the girls to walk as far over to the side as possible so that they wouldn't get hit by a car.
To give this father a break, he may have just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, he probably saw plenty of things that would make him feel that the world is a dangerous place, especially for young girls. This father obviously loves his daughters very much and wants to protect them. But Garmish-Partenkirchen is a far cry from downtown Baghdad or Kabul. I can understand that man wanting his daughters close by, especially if they are tourists and aren't familiar with the city. When I'm in an unfamiliar city with my son, I like him close by, or I at least want to see where he is. But the father I saw today made it seem that everything in the short walk (about 100 meters) from the traffic light to the base entrance gate was scary. I felt a little sad for those girls. They will grow up believing it's normal to view the world as a place full of dangers.
If anyone was wondering, I didn't say anything to the father. I wouldn't want someone coming up to me and telling me that my parenting style was "wrong". Even though I disagreed with how that man was telling his daughters about everything being dangerous, he deserved the same courtesy.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
It's a Dangerous World Outside
When I was on the Free Range Kids site yesterday (http://www.freerangekids.wordpress.com/), its author, Lenore Skenazy, posted a link from another parenting blog about playing outside. Here is the link to that piece from a blog called Moms Who Think: http://www.momswhothink.com/behavior/keep-kids-safe-when-playing-outside.html. I also posted the link on my Facebook page.
The person who wrote the piece on Moms Who Think started off with a good premise. Playing outdoors is good for kids. They need exercise and fresh air. But at the end of the first paragraph, the author brings up the idea that playing outside is fraught with danger. The second paragraph makes playing outside downright scary. Kids can fall down, hurt themselves, do dangerous things that can hurt another kid, become targets for predators, and even end up in the emergency room. In the third paragraph the author again mentions the "untoward dangers" of playing outdoors. The author goes on to say that adults should always be on hand to prevent any potential accidents or injuries and also to send the message to the other adults in the area that their child is safe and not vulnerable. Adults should also perform a thorough inspection of any play equipment and look for any potential dangers in the area. The tone of the article makes going outside to play as appealing as going to downtown Baghdad or a Siberian gulag in the winter.
I don't understand the American preoccupation with kids not being allowed to fall or get hurt. Of course I don't want to see a child become seriously injured. But bumps and bruises along the way are normal. My son's legs always seem to be bruised and I tell him that's the sign of being a real boy. The best way for a kid to figure out his limits is to fall. Most of the time when kids fall, they dust themselves off and continue playing. If a child is bleeding, he may come in to get a Band-Aid. Then he'll head right back outside to play some more. I had my share of childhood injuries: sprained ankle, bumps on the head, lots of bruises, skinned knees and elbows.
Because kids aren't rational beings, they will naturally do "dangerous" things. An activity with an element of danger automatically makes it fun. For preteen boys like my son, the crazier the acitivity, the better. My son and his friends like to jump on their skis. If there isn't a fun park in the ski area with jumps, the kids will make their own. The boys will also challenge each other when they are in an area with a jumping park. They'll do the same thing for making their own skateboard jumps. Sometimes they're successful and sometimes they fall. When they fall, they treat it as a lesson in figuring how to set up the jump correctly. I figure it's only a matter of time before my son ends up in the emergency room for a jumping injury. E.R. trips are supposed to be a part of childhood. I have also been injured doing "dangerous" things as a kid. When I was 10 or 11, my friend and I were throwing rocks at two neighbor boys. I got hit in the face just below my right eye and had to go to the emergency room for stitches.
The person who wrote the Moms Who Think article would also freak out about German playground equipment. She (I'm assuming the author is a woman, judging from the name of the blog) would have to wrap her children in bubble wrap before letting them venture onto a German playground. Instead of plastic playground equipment that's low to the ground over lots of rubber mats or bark chips, a lot of German playground equipment looks like it has seen better days. In one of the playgrounds where I used to live, the high wooden climbing structures had a lot of splinter potential and the slides were metal. There was no padding underneath the equipment except for sand, dirt, or grass. There were also merry-go-rounds and real seesaws, both of which are now a rarity on American playgrounds.
I would be considered a bad mother who is making her child vulnerable, and not safe, because my son has played outdoors with minimal or no supervision since he was very young. When he was preschool age, I'd take him to the local playground. He would play with his friends while I chatted with the other moms. As he got older, he played out in the front yard with no supervision. Now he plays, skis, and swims with friends without parental supervision.
Along with the American preoccupation with not letting kids hurt themselves, I don't understand the view that every adult is a potential predator. My son has grown up believing that most adults are good people and not kidnappers or child molesters. He knows that if he needs help when my husband and I aren't around to find the nearest adult. In the past he has had to ask an adult for help and has never been turned down. Through his experience he has learned for himself that adults are willing to help a child. He also knows how to avoid potentially bad situations: only accept rides from people that he knows, be with at least one buddy when going to the Burger King at the train station, and make a loud fuss if someone he doesn't know tries to grab him.
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to let my son play outdoors for fresh air and exercise. Despite the "dangers" of falling, getting hurt, doing crazy things, and the risk of a trip to the hospital, playing outside is a much healthier option than staying inside watching TV and eating junk food.
The person who wrote the piece on Moms Who Think started off with a good premise. Playing outdoors is good for kids. They need exercise and fresh air. But at the end of the first paragraph, the author brings up the idea that playing outside is fraught with danger. The second paragraph makes playing outside downright scary. Kids can fall down, hurt themselves, do dangerous things that can hurt another kid, become targets for predators, and even end up in the emergency room. In the third paragraph the author again mentions the "untoward dangers" of playing outdoors. The author goes on to say that adults should always be on hand to prevent any potential accidents or injuries and also to send the message to the other adults in the area that their child is safe and not vulnerable. Adults should also perform a thorough inspection of any play equipment and look for any potential dangers in the area. The tone of the article makes going outside to play as appealing as going to downtown Baghdad or a Siberian gulag in the winter.
I don't understand the American preoccupation with kids not being allowed to fall or get hurt. Of course I don't want to see a child become seriously injured. But bumps and bruises along the way are normal. My son's legs always seem to be bruised and I tell him that's the sign of being a real boy. The best way for a kid to figure out his limits is to fall. Most of the time when kids fall, they dust themselves off and continue playing. If a child is bleeding, he may come in to get a Band-Aid. Then he'll head right back outside to play some more. I had my share of childhood injuries: sprained ankle, bumps on the head, lots of bruises, skinned knees and elbows.
Because kids aren't rational beings, they will naturally do "dangerous" things. An activity with an element of danger automatically makes it fun. For preteen boys like my son, the crazier the acitivity, the better. My son and his friends like to jump on their skis. If there isn't a fun park in the ski area with jumps, the kids will make their own. The boys will also challenge each other when they are in an area with a jumping park. They'll do the same thing for making their own skateboard jumps. Sometimes they're successful and sometimes they fall. When they fall, they treat it as a lesson in figuring how to set up the jump correctly. I figure it's only a matter of time before my son ends up in the emergency room for a jumping injury. E.R. trips are supposed to be a part of childhood. I have also been injured doing "dangerous" things as a kid. When I was 10 or 11, my friend and I were throwing rocks at two neighbor boys. I got hit in the face just below my right eye and had to go to the emergency room for stitches.
The person who wrote the Moms Who Think article would also freak out about German playground equipment. She (I'm assuming the author is a woman, judging from the name of the blog) would have to wrap her children in bubble wrap before letting them venture onto a German playground. Instead of plastic playground equipment that's low to the ground over lots of rubber mats or bark chips, a lot of German playground equipment looks like it has seen better days. In one of the playgrounds where I used to live, the high wooden climbing structures had a lot of splinter potential and the slides were metal. There was no padding underneath the equipment except for sand, dirt, or grass. There were also merry-go-rounds and real seesaws, both of which are now a rarity on American playgrounds.
I would be considered a bad mother who is making her child vulnerable, and not safe, because my son has played outdoors with minimal or no supervision since he was very young. When he was preschool age, I'd take him to the local playground. He would play with his friends while I chatted with the other moms. As he got older, he played out in the front yard with no supervision. Now he plays, skis, and swims with friends without parental supervision.
Along with the American preoccupation with not letting kids hurt themselves, I don't understand the view that every adult is a potential predator. My son has grown up believing that most adults are good people and not kidnappers or child molesters. He knows that if he needs help when my husband and I aren't around to find the nearest adult. In the past he has had to ask an adult for help and has never been turned down. Through his experience he has learned for himself that adults are willing to help a child. He also knows how to avoid potentially bad situations: only accept rides from people that he knows, be with at least one buddy when going to the Burger King at the train station, and make a loud fuss if someone he doesn't know tries to grab him.
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to let my son play outdoors for fresh air and exercise. Despite the "dangers" of falling, getting hurt, doing crazy things, and the risk of a trip to the hospital, playing outside is a much healthier option than staying inside watching TV and eating junk food.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Cleanliness is Next to OCD
Maybe I've been in Europe too long, but I don't understand the Stateside obsession with germs. Kids in the States bring tubes of hand sanitizer to school with them. Even mothers carry hand sanitizer with them. I've been told to use hand sanitizer before holding a friend's baby. Having clean hands wasn't good enough for that particular person. Toys must be sterilized between children handling them. Playing in the dirt seems to be verboten these days because dirt has germs. The same goes for playing outside because there are insects, which could carry disease. Stores now have special disinfectant wipes for cleaning off shopping cart handles. Antibacterial soaps are the norm everywhere. Heaven forbid if something drops on the ground. It must be boiled to ensure that it's sterilized.
There was a recent article on the Free Range Kids website about a preschool where the kids must wash their hands after getting out of the sandbox if they want to play with a ball or ride a bike. Their cubbies must also be sterilized if the kids put their jackets into them before washing their hands. Here is the link:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/obsessive-compulsive-pre-k-disorder/ It seems like this school is trying to give these young children obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or at least severe skin problems, with all of the hand washing that they must do. I can't imagine how the teachers could keep track of which kids were doing which activities and if they washed their hands or not.
There are times when a lot of hand washing is appropriate. For example, I want the surgeon who's operating on me to have washed his hands with antibacterial soap. My family doctor should wash his hands between patients. The chef who's cooking my restaurant meals should have clean hands. But a child washing his hands after touching a toy in the sandbox strikes me as being over the top. I couldn't imagine how that could work in a typical German preschool situation, where the kids are outside for a good part of the day. Kids move from the sandbox to other areas, then back to the sandbox again. Those poor kids would have raw, chapped hands by the end of the day if they were required to wash their hands between activities. If I were a preschool teacher, I would have the kids wash their hands after using the toilet, before snack or lunch time, and if they had glue or other sticky stuff on their hands after doing an art project. Also, sterilizing a cubby because a child touched it with dirty hands is too much. As the person who sent in the article said, kids are touching dirty jackets with clean hands, which makes the hand washing pointless (unless the kids wash their hands again after putting their jackets into their cubbies).
My teachers would have had a field day with me if I was in school now. I was notorious for chewing on my pens. If I was sent to wash my hands after handling a pen that I had chewed on, I would have washed away my outer layer of skin. It's a good thing they didn't have hand sanitizers back in those days because I would have developed severe eczema from using it. I also had friends who chewed on their pens. If my pen ran out of ink, I'd borrow a pen that a friend had chewed on. Somehow my friends and I survived.
The paranoia about germs in the States is also having an unintended effect: breeding resistant bacteria. Antibacterial cleansers are justified in a hospital or doctor's office, where patients have a lowered resistance to infection and bacteria needs to be killed. But home use of antibacterial soaps and cleansers, and overuse of hand sanitizers, does not kill all of the bacteria on a surface. The surviving bacteria then pass on their genes for resistance to the next generation. Within a short period of time, all of the bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial soap. Antibacterial soaps may also kill off good bacteria that keeps harmful germs in check.
It seems like the germophobes in the States don't realize that our bodies are full of bacteria. We have harmful bacteria in our throats, lungs, digestive tracts, and on our skin. Bacteria also play an important role in digestion. What keeps the harmful bacteria from making us constantly sick is the good bacteria in our bodies. I wonder what some of the people who are into sterilizing their environment would think if they knew that their bodies were full of germs.
When I was growing up, and I got dirty, my mother always told me that there were two things called soap and water that would get rid of dirt. They worked very well. I wonder if this generation of kids growing up with germ phobic parents will be afraid to venture out into the world because they think that everything around them is contaminated. Will they develop OCD because of the constant hand washing or use of hand sanitizers? Will there be even more problems with resistant bacteria because of the overuse of hand sanitizers? Only time will tell. I think I'd rather stay in Europe where kids can get dirty and people aren't so paranoid about germs.
There was a recent article on the Free Range Kids website about a preschool where the kids must wash their hands after getting out of the sandbox if they want to play with a ball or ride a bike. Their cubbies must also be sterilized if the kids put their jackets into them before washing their hands. Here is the link:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/obsessive-compulsive-pre-k-disorder/ It seems like this school is trying to give these young children obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or at least severe skin problems, with all of the hand washing that they must do. I can't imagine how the teachers could keep track of which kids were doing which activities and if they washed their hands or not.
There are times when a lot of hand washing is appropriate. For example, I want the surgeon who's operating on me to have washed his hands with antibacterial soap. My family doctor should wash his hands between patients. The chef who's cooking my restaurant meals should have clean hands. But a child washing his hands after touching a toy in the sandbox strikes me as being over the top. I couldn't imagine how that could work in a typical German preschool situation, where the kids are outside for a good part of the day. Kids move from the sandbox to other areas, then back to the sandbox again. Those poor kids would have raw, chapped hands by the end of the day if they were required to wash their hands between activities. If I were a preschool teacher, I would have the kids wash their hands after using the toilet, before snack or lunch time, and if they had glue or other sticky stuff on their hands after doing an art project. Also, sterilizing a cubby because a child touched it with dirty hands is too much. As the person who sent in the article said, kids are touching dirty jackets with clean hands, which makes the hand washing pointless (unless the kids wash their hands again after putting their jackets into their cubbies).
My teachers would have had a field day with me if I was in school now. I was notorious for chewing on my pens. If I was sent to wash my hands after handling a pen that I had chewed on, I would have washed away my outer layer of skin. It's a good thing they didn't have hand sanitizers back in those days because I would have developed severe eczema from using it. I also had friends who chewed on their pens. If my pen ran out of ink, I'd borrow a pen that a friend had chewed on. Somehow my friends and I survived.
The paranoia about germs in the States is also having an unintended effect: breeding resistant bacteria. Antibacterial cleansers are justified in a hospital or doctor's office, where patients have a lowered resistance to infection and bacteria needs to be killed. But home use of antibacterial soaps and cleansers, and overuse of hand sanitizers, does not kill all of the bacteria on a surface. The surviving bacteria then pass on their genes for resistance to the next generation. Within a short period of time, all of the bacteria become resistant to the antibacterial soap. Antibacterial soaps may also kill off good bacteria that keeps harmful germs in check.
It seems like the germophobes in the States don't realize that our bodies are full of bacteria. We have harmful bacteria in our throats, lungs, digestive tracts, and on our skin. Bacteria also play an important role in digestion. What keeps the harmful bacteria from making us constantly sick is the good bacteria in our bodies. I wonder what some of the people who are into sterilizing their environment would think if they knew that their bodies were full of germs.
When I was growing up, and I got dirty, my mother always told me that there were two things called soap and water that would get rid of dirt. They worked very well. I wonder if this generation of kids growing up with germ phobic parents will be afraid to venture out into the world because they think that everything around them is contaminated. Will they develop OCD because of the constant hand washing or use of hand sanitizers? Will there be even more problems with resistant bacteria because of the overuse of hand sanitizers? Only time will tell. I think I'd rather stay in Europe where kids can get dirty and people aren't so paranoid about germs.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Free Range Stories
If I had a list of people who I'd like to have lunch with, the author of the Free Range Kids website, Lenore Skenazy, would be on it. Her blog, http://www.freerangekids.wordpress.com/, is one of my favorite sites. Ms. Skenazy posts a lot of items about the culture of fear and helicopter parenting in the States. Parents in the States don't let their kids do what they did as kids, such as walk to school alone or ride their bikes to a friend's house, because they are so afraid of pedophiles and kidnappers. Stateside schools seemed to have stepped into the role of an overprotective parent through such things as: no recess when the temperature is below 10 C (50 F) because a kid may get cold, no Valentine's Day parties because a child in the class may have allergies, and rules about teachers not talking about themselves or touching a child on the shoulder. In the States there is such a fear of "stranger danger" that even senior citizens who smile and say, "Hello" to a child are viewed as potential perverts or kidnappers. Ms. Skenazy has posted stories of children who ran to their parents screaming, "Mom! That stranger talked to me!" when a senior citizen smiled and said, "Hello" to them in a store. I must be a horrible parent because I let my son accept candy from grandmotherly-looking ladies on the train when he was younger (it's a requirement for every German woman over age 60 to have a stash of candy in her purse to give to children that she encounters). Ms. Skenazy also posts positive stories of kids whose families are bucking the helicopter parenting trend.
Here in Germany kids grow up free-range. They walk to school by themselves starting in first grade. In fourth grade they can start riding their bikes to school without parental supervision. In fifth grade kids start taking the public bus or train to school if they don't live nearby. My son rides his bike to school when the weather is nice, usually meeting up with a friend or two along the way. Kids here grow up with a sense of independence. When my son was 10, he rode the train by himself for the first time and loved it. When I picked him up at the station, the first thing he told me was, "I want to ride the train by myself again. That was fun." He skis with friends at the local ski area without adult supervision and knows what to do if someone gets hurt.
Here are a couple of Free Range stories that would probably get me turned in to the Child Protective Services people if they happened in the States. Let's see the violations: leaving a child unsupervised, letting a child talk to strangers, and inviting a child to be kidnapped because of being in a crowded area.
Last September, my family (husband, son) and I went on vacation in Italy. We were near the three big amusement parks in the Lake Garda area. When we were at Gardaland, the biggest park in the area, my husband and I wanted to go on the roller coaster with the loops. My son didn't want to go on it, no matter how hard we tried to convince him to do it. We decided that it was best not to force him to go on that roller coaster because he would be too scared to enjoy it. Next to the roller coaster there was a teacup ride, exactly like the teacups at Disneyland. My son really wanted to go on the teacups. My husband and I decided that our son could go on the teacups while we were on the roller coaster. We picked a place to meet when our rides ended, then went our respective ways. When my husband and I got off the roller coaster, my son was waiting in the appointed spot. We all then went on the teacups together because my son said that he wanted to share his enjoyment of them. OK, he really wanted to ride in them again. Nobody questioned an 11-year-old boy standing by himself for three minutes about where his parents were. All of the other families at the park were minding their own business. There was no park security waiting to haul my husband and me into his office for child neglect. When I was about my son's age, I was allowed to go off by myself or with a friend at Disneyland. I just had to meet up with my parents at a designated place and time, which I always did. This was back in the days before mobile phones, so my parents couldn't check up on me.
My next Free Range story happened last Sunday. The 2011 Alpine Skiing World Championships were here in Garmisch. We had tickets for the men's slalom race, which was the last race of the championships. My son loves collecting autographs and autograph cards from the skiers. After the race concluded, my son wanted to take his autograph pad and go to where the skiers exit the stadium so that he could catch them for autographs. We let him go. My husband and I stayed in the stands to watch the medal ceremony. Every skier that my son approached obliged him with an autograph or card. None of them questioned a child on his own with an autograph pad and pen. Nobody said anything to my son about talking to strangers. After all, he doesn't know any of the professional skiers personally. Therefore, they're strangers. I thought that it was wonderful that my normally shy son would ask the athletes that he watches on TV every weekend from November to March for autographs. When my husband and I finally caught up with him, he was bubbling with happiness about his autograph pad being almost full. He showed us all of the autographs and cards that he collected.
I may never have lunch with Lenore Skenazy. But I will contine to read her Free Range Kids website and feel sorry for children in the States who are so overprotected. Those kids with helicopter parents and overprotective teachers are really missing out on life.
Here in Germany kids grow up free-range. They walk to school by themselves starting in first grade. In fourth grade they can start riding their bikes to school without parental supervision. In fifth grade kids start taking the public bus or train to school if they don't live nearby. My son rides his bike to school when the weather is nice, usually meeting up with a friend or two along the way. Kids here grow up with a sense of independence. When my son was 10, he rode the train by himself for the first time and loved it. When I picked him up at the station, the first thing he told me was, "I want to ride the train by myself again. That was fun." He skis with friends at the local ski area without adult supervision and knows what to do if someone gets hurt.
Here are a couple of Free Range stories that would probably get me turned in to the Child Protective Services people if they happened in the States. Let's see the violations: leaving a child unsupervised, letting a child talk to strangers, and inviting a child to be kidnapped because of being in a crowded area.
Last September, my family (husband, son) and I went on vacation in Italy. We were near the three big amusement parks in the Lake Garda area. When we were at Gardaland, the biggest park in the area, my husband and I wanted to go on the roller coaster with the loops. My son didn't want to go on it, no matter how hard we tried to convince him to do it. We decided that it was best not to force him to go on that roller coaster because he would be too scared to enjoy it. Next to the roller coaster there was a teacup ride, exactly like the teacups at Disneyland. My son really wanted to go on the teacups. My husband and I decided that our son could go on the teacups while we were on the roller coaster. We picked a place to meet when our rides ended, then went our respective ways. When my husband and I got off the roller coaster, my son was waiting in the appointed spot. We all then went on the teacups together because my son said that he wanted to share his enjoyment of them. OK, he really wanted to ride in them again. Nobody questioned an 11-year-old boy standing by himself for three minutes about where his parents were. All of the other families at the park were minding their own business. There was no park security waiting to haul my husband and me into his office for child neglect. When I was about my son's age, I was allowed to go off by myself or with a friend at Disneyland. I just had to meet up with my parents at a designated place and time, which I always did. This was back in the days before mobile phones, so my parents couldn't check up on me.
My next Free Range story happened last Sunday. The 2011 Alpine Skiing World Championships were here in Garmisch. We had tickets for the men's slalom race, which was the last race of the championships. My son loves collecting autographs and autograph cards from the skiers. After the race concluded, my son wanted to take his autograph pad and go to where the skiers exit the stadium so that he could catch them for autographs. We let him go. My husband and I stayed in the stands to watch the medal ceremony. Every skier that my son approached obliged him with an autograph or card. None of them questioned a child on his own with an autograph pad and pen. Nobody said anything to my son about talking to strangers. After all, he doesn't know any of the professional skiers personally. Therefore, they're strangers. I thought that it was wonderful that my normally shy son would ask the athletes that he watches on TV every weekend from November to March for autographs. When my husband and I finally caught up with him, he was bubbling with happiness about his autograph pad being almost full. He showed us all of the autographs and cards that he collected.
I may never have lunch with Lenore Skenazy. But I will contine to read her Free Range Kids website and feel sorry for children in the States who are so overprotected. Those kids with helicopter parents and overprotective teachers are really missing out on life.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Parenting Blog Parody
Last month I wrote a post about parenting blogs. A couple of years ago at work my boss, co-workers, and I were talking about the "Life on the Home Front" column in the Stars and Stripes. My boss had the same sentiment about that column that I did. It was like an accident on the Autobahn. You know that you shouldn't look, but end up doing so anyway.
When I first came to Germany in 1992, I had no clue about military life. One of the other civilian contractor wives, who was a friend of mine, was equally clueless. Both of us arrived in Germany at the same time and we learned together how to fit into the overseas Army culture. We had our impression of what the perfect wife was supposed to be. Neither of us fit the bill. As a joke, my friend bought me The Air Force Officers' Wives Survival Guide, which was last updated around 1953. According to friends of mine who are Army officers' wives, most of the things in that book aren't done anymore (e.g. leaving a calling card after a social function). The following is a piece that I wrote about two or three years ago, just after the discussion with my boss and co-workers. It's a parody of "Life on the Home Front" (and more recent parenting blogs that are similar to "Life...") and those guides on how to be the perfect military spouse.
A Guide For Military Officers' Wives:
Part 1: How To Choose the Right Toilet Paper
One of the duties of an officer's wife is to be a good hostess. The most important item that will reflect your skills as a hostess is toilet paper. You will never want to be scandalized by the other wives complaining about how your toilet paper feels like newspaper. Nothing stops an officer's career like being called into his commander's office because the toilet paper in his home had the feel of old corncobs.
Buying toilet paper in the Commissary can be one of the most complex tasks you'll perform as a military officer's wife. First of all, there are so many different brands to choose from. Plus, each brand comes in so many different colors. It's enough to make your head spin!
Whenever I buy toilet paper, I make it a family affair. But can you imagine...each member of the family has his or her own preferences. They actually have knock-down-drag-out fights in the paper goods aisle trying to figure out who got to pick out the toilet paper the last time we went shopping. Herkie, who likes white Charmin, complains that Junie, who's partial to pink Northern, got to pick out the toilet paper last time. Davy likes light blue Scott because it goes with the blue bathmat. He says that it's his turn to pick the toilet paper. Herkie and Junie disagree, and they get into a real tussle over it.
Meanwhile, Bruno is watching the twins Billy and Bobby wander over to the napkin section. Billy and Bobby tear into packages of dinner napkins before Bruno can stop them. The only one in the family who is well-behaved is Baby Ricky, who sits drooling in the shopping cart. Fortunately, Ricky hasn't figured out his favorite toilet paper yet because he's still in diapers. But I noticed that Ricky doesn't like the Huggies baby wipes that I used with Billy and Bobby because they give him a rash. I use Pampers wipes on Ricky because they don't give him a rash. I also used Pampers wipes on Herkie and Junie. Davy, Billy, and Bobby could use any kind of baby wipe without a reaction.
But back to picking out toilet paper. Two-ply is always best because it's more cushy and absorbent. One-ply tears too easily and you have to use twice as much as the two-ply. Imagine the shame of the colonel announcing to all of your guests that your toilet paper fell apart while he was doing a rear end wipe up!
Now that I've established that two-ply paper is the best, it's time to pick the brand and color. This is where it gets very difficult. The floor of my bathroom is white. The walls have blue trim. Our bathroom towels are blue to match the blue trim on the off-white walls. The curtains in the bathroom are blue with white trim. The shower curtain is also blue and white, but it also has yellow and pink flowers on it. So...the dilemma arises...do I want my toilet paper to match the floor, the towels, the walls, the blue and white in the curtains, or the flowers on the shower curtain while maintaining the right level of softness to prevent complaints from the other wives?
Bruno doesn't really care about toilet paper. He'd use newspapers and old magazines if they were available. Typical man! But the kids are very choosy because the wrong toilet paper could ruin their social standing at school. One time I bought yellow Northern to go with the flowers on the shower curtain and to provide some color and contrast to the bathroom. But Junie complained that the pink flowers were being left out. Davy said that the toilet paper should be blue. But then again, blue is Davy's favorite color. He likes everything blue. I even have to put blue food coloring in all of his food to get him to eat it.
Since I have a hard time deciding which toilet paper to pick, I leave it up to the kids. I always resolve to write down who chose the toilet paper last time so that everyone will remember and things will be fair. But making lists of who did what is such a chore! But I guess I'll have to start doing that when Bobby, Billy, and Ricky get old enough to express their toilet paper preferences. What a family milestone that will be! I just can''t wait to find out which brands and colors they'll prefer.
Next week: You think that buying toilet paper in the Commissary is a chore? Wait until we learn about buying aspirin in the PX. You'll need that aspirin for the headache that you got from buying toilet paper.
When I first came to Germany in 1992, I had no clue about military life. One of the other civilian contractor wives, who was a friend of mine, was equally clueless. Both of us arrived in Germany at the same time and we learned together how to fit into the overseas Army culture. We had our impression of what the perfect wife was supposed to be. Neither of us fit the bill. As a joke, my friend bought me The Air Force Officers' Wives Survival Guide, which was last updated around 1953. According to friends of mine who are Army officers' wives, most of the things in that book aren't done anymore (e.g. leaving a calling card after a social function). The following is a piece that I wrote about two or three years ago, just after the discussion with my boss and co-workers. It's a parody of "Life on the Home Front" (and more recent parenting blogs that are similar to "Life...") and those guides on how to be the perfect military spouse.
A Guide For Military Officers' Wives:
Part 1: How To Choose the Right Toilet Paper
One of the duties of an officer's wife is to be a good hostess. The most important item that will reflect your skills as a hostess is toilet paper. You will never want to be scandalized by the other wives complaining about how your toilet paper feels like newspaper. Nothing stops an officer's career like being called into his commander's office because the toilet paper in his home had the feel of old corncobs.
Buying toilet paper in the Commissary can be one of the most complex tasks you'll perform as a military officer's wife. First of all, there are so many different brands to choose from. Plus, each brand comes in so many different colors. It's enough to make your head spin!
Whenever I buy toilet paper, I make it a family affair. But can you imagine...each member of the family has his or her own preferences. They actually have knock-down-drag-out fights in the paper goods aisle trying to figure out who got to pick out the toilet paper the last time we went shopping. Herkie, who likes white Charmin, complains that Junie, who's partial to pink Northern, got to pick out the toilet paper last time. Davy likes light blue Scott because it goes with the blue bathmat. He says that it's his turn to pick the toilet paper. Herkie and Junie disagree, and they get into a real tussle over it.
Meanwhile, Bruno is watching the twins Billy and Bobby wander over to the napkin section. Billy and Bobby tear into packages of dinner napkins before Bruno can stop them. The only one in the family who is well-behaved is Baby Ricky, who sits drooling in the shopping cart. Fortunately, Ricky hasn't figured out his favorite toilet paper yet because he's still in diapers. But I noticed that Ricky doesn't like the Huggies baby wipes that I used with Billy and Bobby because they give him a rash. I use Pampers wipes on Ricky because they don't give him a rash. I also used Pampers wipes on Herkie and Junie. Davy, Billy, and Bobby could use any kind of baby wipe without a reaction.
But back to picking out toilet paper. Two-ply is always best because it's more cushy and absorbent. One-ply tears too easily and you have to use twice as much as the two-ply. Imagine the shame of the colonel announcing to all of your guests that your toilet paper fell apart while he was doing a rear end wipe up!
Now that I've established that two-ply paper is the best, it's time to pick the brand and color. This is where it gets very difficult. The floor of my bathroom is white. The walls have blue trim. Our bathroom towels are blue to match the blue trim on the off-white walls. The curtains in the bathroom are blue with white trim. The shower curtain is also blue and white, but it also has yellow and pink flowers on it. So...the dilemma arises...do I want my toilet paper to match the floor, the towels, the walls, the blue and white in the curtains, or the flowers on the shower curtain while maintaining the right level of softness to prevent complaints from the other wives?
Bruno doesn't really care about toilet paper. He'd use newspapers and old magazines if they were available. Typical man! But the kids are very choosy because the wrong toilet paper could ruin their social standing at school. One time I bought yellow Northern to go with the flowers on the shower curtain and to provide some color and contrast to the bathroom. But Junie complained that the pink flowers were being left out. Davy said that the toilet paper should be blue. But then again, blue is Davy's favorite color. He likes everything blue. I even have to put blue food coloring in all of his food to get him to eat it.
Since I have a hard time deciding which toilet paper to pick, I leave it up to the kids. I always resolve to write down who chose the toilet paper last time so that everyone will remember and things will be fair. But making lists of who did what is such a chore! But I guess I'll have to start doing that when Bobby, Billy, and Ricky get old enough to express their toilet paper preferences. What a family milestone that will be! I just can''t wait to find out which brands and colors they'll prefer.
Next week: You think that buying toilet paper in the Commissary is a chore? Wait until we learn about buying aspirin in the PX. You'll need that aspirin for the headache that you got from buying toilet paper.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Parenting Blogs
Parenting blogs, especially "mom blogs," are like car accidents on the Autobahn. I know that I shouldn't look at them, but end up doing so anyway.
One of the first parenting "blogs" that I read was published back in the days before the Internet. It was a weekly column in the Stars and Stripes called "Life on the Home Front" by Pam Zich. Ms. Zich wrote about being married to a Marine and the adventures/daily life of herself, her husband, and their three sons Jimmy, Tommy, and Ronnie. It seemed like Ms. Zich wrote about every minute detail of her family's life. Every week I would vow to myself that I would never read that column again because I was always bored by people who constantly talked about their children. I often wondered how anyone outside of this woman's immediate family would actually be interested in such a column. I'd read it and tell myself, "Never again. Who cares about what little Tommy told Grandpa about using the potty?" But like that proverbial Autobahn car wreck, I would be drawn to "Life on the Home Front" the next week.
Parenting blogs and websites tend to fall into three distinct categories:
1) Blogs that are similar in tone to "Life on the Home Front." These are the ones where moms (most of these blogs are written by moms) write about every moment of their lives with Little Herkie and Junie. Everything that Herkie and Junie do, no matter how trivial, is published on the Internet for all to see. Of course everything out of their mouths is extremely witty. When Herkie or Junie are sick, Mom posts their hourly temperature reports. There are lots of photos of Herkie playing baseball and Junie in her ballet performance. Like "Life on the Home Front," I can't imagine these blogs appealing to someone outside the blogger's immediate family or circle of very close friends. But judging from the comments that they get, these types of blogs are very popular.
2) Perfect Parent Blog/Sites. These blogs are the ones which preach breast feeding, attachment parenting, keeping the TV off (or not having a TV at all), and only letting Junior eat organic homemade baby food. According to the people who write these blogs, moms who give their babies formula might as well be giving them strychnine. I drank formula as a baby because I was adopted and am alive and healthy. Parents who have their babies sleep in another room instead of in bed with them are cold-hearted monsters who are upsetting their baby's sense of security. And letting your baby have a cupcake on his first birthday? You're setting him up for a mouth full of cavities. When Precious gets out of infancy, Mom blogs about how her little one knows her alphabet, three foreign languages, and differential calculus. After all, a good parent would never let Precious fall behind her peers. These are the moms who become helicopter parents who won't let their kids out of their sight, even when they go off to college. After all, every adult out there is either a potential child molester or rapist. Moms who write these types of blogs stay at home with the kids, and usually homeschool, because that's what good mothers do.
3) The anti-perfect parent blogs. These are the ones where moms write about how they let Junior eat a candy bar or a meal at McDonald's, drink a bottle full of formula, play in the mud, or sit in front of the TV while Mom cooks dinner. They take on the same self-righteous tone as the Perfect Parent blogs. The general theme of these writers is that their child did or ate something "bad" and didn't become retarded, autistic, obese, or have a mouth full of cavities. I think that every parent has let a child do some of these "bad" things. The key is moderation. I also don't think that writing about how your child is still normal after eating a Happy Meal is newsworthy. Some of the moms who write these blogs work, while others stay at home with the kids. One of my favorite anti-perfect parenting blogs is Mompetition (http://www.mompetition.blogspot.com/). The woman who started that blog uses hilarious cartoon videos to poke fun at the extremes of "perfect" parenting.
My favorite parenting site (and one of my favorite sites in general) is Free Range Kids (http://www.freerangekids.wordpress.com/) . It's not a typical parenting site at all. The woman who writes the Free Range Kids blog, Lenore Skenazy, was dubbed "America's Worst Mother" because she let her 9-year-old son ride the New York City subway by himself. He had asked to do it; and Ms. Skenazy gave him the tools to help him arrive home safely. After that incident, she was criticized soundly for "endangering" her son. The Free Range philosophy is letting kids do the things that we all did as kids: walking or biking to school or to a friend's house by themselves, playing without constant parental supervision, or simply viewing other adults as good people. Ms. Skenazy's blog includes articles from various news sources which show how pervasive the American culture of fear has become. Some of the articles include items like: 6th graders not being allowed to bring pencils to school because they can be used as weapons, parents being turned in to Child Protective Services for leaving a child alone in a car (while within sight of the car), Barbie dolls with little video cameras that the FBI says can be used by pedophiles, and parents yanking their kids away from friendly senior citizens who dare to smile and say, "Hello" to the kids. Every time I read one of the articles that Ms. Skenazy posts, either ones that she found or that readers sent in, it makes me glad that I live in Germany where Free Range is the parenting norm.
I encourage anyone reading this post to check out Free Range Kids and Mompetition.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Bad Parent School Dropout ( or Honors Graduate)
I think that I read too many parenting websites. So many of them make me feel like a bad parent, especially if I was living in the States. I share Dr. Phil's view of parenting, which is that kids should grow up to be independent, productive citizens and not spend their whole lives as extensions of their parents. It seems like Stateside parenting is all about being a "helicopter mom" and not letting kids do anything on their own. I've even seen TV shows with college age kids whose parents call them to remind them to go to class, do their assignments, and even clean their kids' dorm rooms and do their laundry. My mom did my laundry once when I was in college. Then she told me to buy a box of Cheer and read the directions for which clothing went into hot, warm, and cold water.
Here in Germany just about all of the moms would be Bad Parent School Dropouts or Honors Graduates, depending on how you look at it. In the States, many kids aren't allowed to walk or ride their bikes to school on their own. My son rides his bike to school on his own, though I'll drive him in inclement weather. He also bikes or walks to friends' houses on his own. He and his friends ride their bikes all over town. When he goes to a friend's house, I tell him to be home by 6 for dinner. All of my son's friends do the same, just like when I was a child. Kids here are raised to be more independent at an early age. The German moms that I talk to think that US "helicopter moms" are crazy. Many of the kids in my son's class take either the train or bus to school without any parental supervision. They also walk or bike alone. And yet they somehow survive.
Last summer my son rode the train by himself for the first time from a town about 30 km north of where I live. He had slept over at a friend's house and I was supposed to have picked him up. But I was sick with the flu and knew that I couldn't drive that far to get him. I told him that he'd have to take the train home. The local train station is very close to my house--I was able to manage the two-minute drive even with my illness. When my son got off the train, the first thing he said was, "That was fun. I want to ride the train again by myself." He has since ridden the train and bus by himself to friends' houses. By letting him go short distances on the train or bus, he's getting both independence and self-confidence. I can see being turned in to Child Protective Services if I let my son ride a train or bus unsupervised in the States.
One parenting website that I used to read was crazy. Just about all of the people practiced attachment parenting, co-sleeping, gave their kids either homemade or organic baby food, and never ever gave their little darlings anything with sugar. What alternate universe are these people living in? These moms all make me feel like a Bad Parent because my son eats candy, cookies, and ice cream for treats. He even drinks an occasional soda without any ill effects. My diet at home is very healthy with lots of fruits and vegetables. A couple of cookies after dinner won't give my child a mouth full of cavities, cause hyperactivity or make him autistic or obese. I think that kids who never have sugary treats are more apt to crave them or binge on them since they're not allowed to have them at home.
There is one place where I don't like my son going alone--the Burger King at the train station, which is close to his school. A lot of the kids, including my son, like to go to BK during their lunch break (there I go again being a Bad Parent because my son eats at BK once in a while). But because it's in a train station, where some questionable types hang out, he can only go there if he's with a group. It's a safety in numbers issue. He's fine with that rule and understands why he has to follow it.
I would rather be a Bad Parent who gives her child independence and the self-confidence that goes along with it than someone who is constantly hovering over him. Keeping a child in a protective bubble will only stifle his growth. It will not teach him anything except how to be dependent on his parents for everything. The only way that he will learn to deal with the world is to go out in it and experience it for himself. Three cheers for all of the Bad Parents out there who feel the same way I do.
For more information on how to let your child be an independent person, check out http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/. It's written by a woman named Lenore Skenazy who was dubbed "The Worst Mom in America" because she let her son ride the New York City subway by himself at age 9. He wanted to ride the subway home from the store by himself, so his mom gave him a map, a $20 bill, a Metro Card, and quarters to make a phone call home. Forty-five minutes later he arrived home safe, sound, and feeling great about getting home on his own. It sounds a lot like my son's first solo train trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
