RSS

Category Archives: Childhood

People Let Me Tell You ‘Bout Children Of ‘Single Parents’

19 Jul

Periodically a new study is published about the affects of single parenting on children. The results (either pursued or emphasized) are pretty much tied to the times. Studies today often highlight the economic hardship and handicap of single parenting. When pop-psychology was king (I’m okay, you’re okay, anyone?) the happiness of the child and later social adjustment were measured. The common thread in most of these studies is; “How does the child fare later on?” Very few studies, whether looking to support the researcher’s thoughts on money and happiness or not, ever looked beyond a headcount. It is rare to see a study that takes into consideration (or has any interest in) what the actual parenting situation is for the child.

“Child of a single parent” can have multiple meanings, among them are; 1) the parent could be recently widowed and the child was raised by two parents at some point or 2) the parent might be divorced and there is a non-custodial parent very much involved in the child’s life. There are studies that might even “overlook” the fact that non-married people (of the same gender or not) are raising a child together, and consider the child to be of a single parent. Certainly many researchers reporting on the permanent scarring and emotional handicap of parents’ divorcing never discuss remarriage. “A child of divorce” could easily be raised by two parents in the home if there is a remarriage. The actual details of a child’s upbringing and parentage seem too complex for these studies. A cynic would deduce that these studies exist to reinforce a researchers’ interest in making people feel badly about their life. A less cynical person would theorize that these broad generalizations are useful to someone somewhere.

There is a recent trend of people intentionally parenting alone. Tragedy has not befallen them nor has abandonment. These people, for various reasons have pursued single parenthood. Within this category alone, are variations that might boggle the average social researcher. These single parents may be men or women of any and every socio-economic background and age. They may have adopted babies or hard to place children. They may have become pregnant (more than once) with a partner they did not marry. They may have orchestrated a pregnancy (either genetically related or not) with medical assistance. Clearly there are more meaningful factors in these child’s future outcomes than how many adults are in the home. Should the biological child of a single 16 year old parent be seen as “starting from the same place” as the adopted child of a 50 year old? Maybe.

As a culture we’ve progressed in how we define ‘family.’ At the same time marriage is becoming more inclusive it is also becoming less relevant for others. Remarriage, blended families, birth parents, and donor parents are all in the mix now. Is there a way to talk about children of single parents in any meaningful way? Is it even meaningful to try? I think we’d all agree that the more caring, consistent and attentive adults in a child’s life the better. Most of us would also agree that a child who grows up in a home with an emphasis on education will do better in school. Money will always matter, and a child whose families’ financial life is precarious will probably not do as well as one raised in a financially stable home. What more do we need to know?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on July 19, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Seeing Something, Saying Something

13 Jul

There are incidents so overwhelming and horrific that it is nearly impossible to step outside of them and develop any understanding of what occurred. But it is imperative we do just that. When natural disaster strikes we scramble to rescue and recover and then must assess our preparedness and responsiveness. It’s how we gain control over our environment and perhaps mitigate the impact of future disasters. It is tempting, after the trauma of rescue and recovery to turn away and step into the sun, step into the light. But we are more than our emotions we are also our intellect.

As we watch the horrific facts pour forward in the Penn State University case we must keep this analysis at the forefront of our minds. It is challenging to pull ourselves out of the realization that corruption is far more insidious than we ever imagined. The news that systemic self-interest took precedence over protecting children is mind-boggling. But it happened and we should assume it always has and probably is happening right at this very moment in any place. The fact that a handful of people have been identified as actively covering up a heinous crime and allowing the rapist to carry on, does not mean there were/are not more people engaged in similar cover-ups. (Lying to a grand jury probably happens periodically as well, but lying to protect a child predator is worth noting.)

There are few things we agree upon as a nation; and one of them is exaltation of childhood. For a century or so we’ve come to view childhood as a special time. We consider children innocent, impressionable and in need of our protection. We’ve created an entire consumer market devoted to protecting children from the hazards of the world. We agree, on a social, psychological and capital level, that children need protecting. Yet what we are learning is that people chose to not protect children in serious danger because of self-interest (i.e., fear of job loss, reputation of department or institution, reputation of self or family.) Nothing is entirely black or white of course. None of these people were lurking in the shadows twisting their mustache in evil glee. These are just people, probably people who have some good qualities. No doubt they created compelling narratives to assuage their guilt or quiet the voices in their heads. The eyewitness janitor might have convinced himself that what he saw was disturbing but not illegal (perhaps the child looked old enough to give consent.) Perhaps he was so shocked he considered what he had seen to be a homosexual act (versus child rape.) But yet he told two people. He (almost) did the right thing (doing the right thing is calling 9-1-1 while dragging the rapist off of the child.) The people he told no doubt wondered what their responsibility was in having second-hand information. Most of us know what a maelstrom a bureaucracy “in action” can be. Were they hesitant to bring that particular storm upon their heads? Making very poor choices doesn’t make one evil, it just reinforces the shades of grey that is life.

And what of the children? If we believe that they need protection at all costs does that not color in any shade of grey? There are professions that are legally mandated to report child endangerment (i.e., teachers, doctors, therapists, etc.) (Incidentally, loosely interpreted any employee at an institution of learning with students under the age of consent might qualify as a mandated reporter.) But what if we broadened the scope a bit? What if we created a campaign to deputize all adults to be mandated reporters? What if “see something, say something” came to mean more than abandoned mysterious packages? Are we worried that there will be a flood of unsubstantiated calls? What little I know of human behavior (and the results of the ‘see something say something” campaign) leads me to believe that won’t be the case. What will happen though will be an awareness and a change in our orientation toward child sexual abuse. We will gradually rid ourselves of our mental prototype of a molester or victim. We will begin to view all people, regardless of gender, age, orientation, profession or religion as being a complex human being capable of anything. And we will come to terms with the lessons learned long ago; silence equals complicity.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on July 13, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Indoor Voices Please

10 Jul

If you’ve ever been in earshot of a small person who has recently acquired language, you have no doubt heard (in your head or in your ears) the cry of; “indoor voices!” The ability to form complete sentences arrives prior to volume control; exemplifying Mother Nature’s sense of humor. There is a real reason for this of course. The awareness of the world around us comes incrementally. Babies begin to explore that world through their mouths (via milk or their own foot.) Others don’t exist beyond what they can do for the baby’s immediate needs. If you’ve ever seen two infants on a play date you can attest to this. Up until toddlerhood babies only engage in parallel play (def: playing side by side without direct interaction. ex: sharing a meal while both parties text others.) By preschool children have developed a sense of a world outside of their own home and needs. They understand that when they leave the zoo the animals don’t cease to exist. (This is why peek-a-boo is not such a mesmerizing game for this age group.) But it’s not until school-age that children have a fully formed sense of otherness.

At about 5 years old children are aware of others and how they differ from themselves. Gender becomes somewhat of a fascination as little boys and girls discover that some are fancy on the inside and some are fancy on the outside. (This is the age that is often cited as time to give different gendered children their own bedroom.) Children at this age learn to whisper and tell secrets (a clear indication of an awareness of others.) They learn, or are reminded, that there are behaviors that should remain private. Kindergarten teachers have spent more time than they care to consider telling little people to remove their fingers from noses, mouths or worse.

Historically, activities outside of school have existed to assist in socializing little people. Team sports, scouting, dance class and birthday parties traditionally began at this developmental stage. Beside the obvious life skills taught (how many times have you found yourself grateful for the skills of perfect turnout, bugling, or catching in your daily life?) what’s really being taught is group dynamics. Learning to work, play and live with others is the foundation of most structured activities. It is quite plausible that the average child spends thirteen years having these skills drummed reinforced on a daily basis. Some parents consider ‘socializing’ to be a top priority in their job description. You can see them guiding their little people in the ways of social graces and niceties. They are the ones dining out and instructing on how to sit, talk, order and eat. The child is learning that eating in the backseat of the car is not the same as eating in the presence of strangers. You can see these ‘lessons’ at museums, movies, theatres, libraries, or anywhere there are other people.

Whether it’s school, scouts or parents, or any combination thereof, there is consensus that childhood leads to adulthood, And with the right kind of guidance we hope to produce adults who will be; strong, confident, and kind. Yet with all these efforts to teach children how to interact with others, adults don’t always do such a gold star job in their own implementation. As you go through your day you will notice a lot of grown people using their outdoor voices (literally or figuratively.) Someone will have a conversation (with their phone or with a person in their physical presence) that will be loud and very personal. You will be subjected to gruesome details and possibly glared at for not having the ability to close your ears. (It’s as if by not wearing headphones you are now eschewing social mores.) You may be lucky enough to be enjoying a lovely meal in a beautiful restaurant. You are there not just for the food but for the specialness of it all. Then without warning there appears at the entrance a couple. The light shines from the open door behind them. You can see silhouettes only, wait they are stepping in, and there it is; baseball caps, shorts and sleeveless undershirts. Does the management have the right to refuse them? Probably. But only the snootiest of establishments feel they should/could. So you decide to start dining at home and save your money for the snootiest establishments. How about the theatre? Let’s try sitting up front in the most expensive seats. Surely people who have overpaid will have an appreciation of the specialness of the occasion? Unless by “specialness” you mean texting throughout the performance, or sipping a big gulp, then the answer would be no.

One explanation to at least the restaurant and theatre behavior is that we’ve all become terribly spoiled. We consider what was once “special” to be quite commonplace. We’ve had money or at least credit to spend and our definition of ‘bare essentials’ has expanded. But that doesn’t really explain wearing underwear as outerwear in places of worship or to stroll the streets. Increased standards of living don’t touch upon personal grooming in public or loud personal conversations in the presence of strangers. No doubt contagion and fashion is in play. As the volume around us increases, we are likely to raise our own voice. As style changes we are apt to discard and adopt accordingly. It can be exhausting to swim upstream day in and day out. It is risky to call out to strangers; “indoor voices, no touching, use your words, phones down, say; excuse me, thank you, please, you’re welcome.”   But there are times (more frequent than we possibly care to recognize) when we would relish a booming voice from above instructing us all to play well with others.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Everybody In The Pool

03 Jul

Teenagers attacked a lifeguard on opening day of the McCarren swimming pool.  The lifeguard had reprimanded the teens for reckless diving behavior. There was a bit of buzz about the event, but generally it seemed to be ignored.  There was a suggestion that lifeguards should be adults, as if teenagers respect adults. Teenagers push limits, it’s actually their job.  But there is more than a thin line that separates normal developmental boundary pushing and attacking another person.  The real issue in an attack on a public lifeguard (besides the guard’s safety) is the alarm bells it should be ringing.  If the only person(s) of authority at a public facility are shown no respect what are the other swimmers shown?  What kind of environment are these potential emotional terrorists creating for hundreds of other people.  The moment after this incident occurred was the time to initiate the ‘zero tolerance’ policy.  A pool is not a right nor is it the public education system.  One strike and you’re out.  The tone must be set from the very beginning that there are rules of civility in public spaces.  Clearly this tone hasn’t been set as three days after the lifeguard incident swimmers punched a police officer in the face.  The officer was assisting the lifeguard reprimanding the teenagers for diving.  A second officer was injured as well.

Now before I get all “what in tarnation is going on here” let’s remember that this is a very large pool!  About 1,500 people can fit into that pool at one time.  It stands to reason that a majority of those people are under 21.  That’s a lot of kids.  That’s the size of most high schools.  Add to that the fact that the pool has been closed for 28 years and you might have one or two generations who have never been to a public pool.  This is why you have clearly stated rules and zero tolerance policies.  However, even if you have never been to a public pool you know you’re in public.  What in fact does it say about us that regardless of pool experience our teenagers would even consider attacking anyone let alone a lifeguard or police officer?  None of the perpetrators were identified as a roving gang of thugs (it’s hard to imagine swimming gangs isn’t it?)  By all accounts these were just regular old teens looking to feel more important than they actually are.  But when exactly did that age-old bravado cross the line into borderline sociopathic behavior?  When did they get the idea that it is actually acceptable if not even cool to attack people?!

But for every good student who did show up on time and did complete their homework who has to sit and listen to the teacher’s tirade, I say focus on the kids playing by the rules.  McCarren (and every other public pool) should be a safe and enjoyable respite for all.  Let’s be clear, anyone who attacks a person of authority has no problem wreaking havoc on civilians.  It is intolerable that 1,400+ people should feel intimidated.  There is a very small window in setting a tone for a short season.  A little crackdown in the next couple of (steaming hot) days will go a very long way.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 3, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A Place Of One’s Own

24 Jun

Do you remember hearing about people who kept an uncle in the attic?  Was that just my family?  The attic seemed to be where relatives who might not be entirely suited to living in society, were stashed.  You never hear these references any longer.  We could chalk that up to the demise of the cohabiting extended family, but I doubt it.  If there ever really were uncles up there, they’re long gone now.  The modern generation of uncles is more mainstreamed or perhaps people don’t have attics any longer.  The extended family does seem to still be cohabiting, but now it’s the adult children.  And they seem to not be in the attic or basement but be in their old room.

You’ve heard countless reports of adults in their 20s (or older!) living with their parents.  They don’t seem to be there to offer support to parents presumably in their senior years, but to live as they did as a teenager.  They live in the manner they’ve grown accustomed with; reliable climate control, plumbing, food, laundry, cable, wireless, and perhaps access to a car.  You’ve no doubt heard that unemployment is the cause of this phenomenon.  No doubt for some it is.  But there’s something else in play too, no?

Let’s think back, way back (cue flashback music and wiggly screen.)  There you are headed off to college.  You’ve got your new comforter, milk crate of albums, a hotpot and every stitch of clothing you own.  Maybe a parent drove you to campus.  If so they’re long gone by the time you start to unpack.  Those first few hours are filled with nervous meetings of roommates and suite-mates and a growing euphoria of having left home.  Yes, the university is nice.  Yes, the classes seem mildly interesting.  But YOWZA, you don’t have to live with your parents anymore!!!!  You go through the next four years jerry-rigging yourself into a major that will render you employable.

Ah the world of work and the demoralizing entry-level position.  You probably worked weekends, maybe even graveyard shift.  You’d stumble home to your apartment, careful not to wake your roommates sleeping on the couch.  You’d collapse in your bed, lucky to share an actual bedroom with just one other person.  Most nights you’d be too tired to boil up a generic hot dog or open a can of no-frill baked beans.  In the morning you’d wake up 10 minutes early to avoid the maddening crush of all your roommates fighting over the shower.  Our developmental milestones were measured in how many roommates we were able to discard.  Living alone was the ultimate brass ring.  I’m not so sure that’s the case any longer.

There is now more than one generation that has no familiarity with sharing a childhood bedroom let alone a bathroom.  Colleges and universities know this and have been churning out “singles” at an impressive rate.  There is also little romance now associated with being ‘poor.’  There have been too many post-Reagan decades for communes and ‘living off the land’ to hold any mystique for people under 40.  We all spend money in ways that would have floored our generic hot dog eating selves.  Bottles of water?  Cups of coffee for $5?  Electronics?  New cars?  It’s fair to say we considered making a long-distance call a luxury back then.

There are no doubt many young(er) people living with their (extraordinarily generous) parents who have simply had a bad run of luck.  They chose a path to a degree that they could afford.  They chose a course of study that should lead to employment.  They’re ready willing and able to share a garage apartment in the suburbs with three strangers.  But nothing has gelled for them.  They are cooking all the family meals, taking care of the home and generally making themselves an asset to their parents while they look for employment and housing 8 hours a day.

And then there’s everyone else.

There’s Brandon, whose parents paid his tuition entirely and set him on a debt-free course, only to have him drop in and out of the workplace.  He currently lives at his parents’ home while working on his web business, or saving up for a condo (home ownership is now a birthright by the way.)

Emma has college debt, some of it avoidable no doubt.  She eschewed starting at a community college and floundered a bit for it.  Her 4-year degree took 5 1/2 years, but she’s done!  Yes, $200K is a staggering amount of debt for anyone, but surely a dance major can find well-compensated work?

And then there’s dear sweet Madison.  She/he (who knows with a name like Madison!) worked her way through a school she could afford.  She applied for every grant, fellowship and scholarship and even got a free ride to graduate school.  Madison has a good job with a bright future.  She lives with her parents because it makes everyone happy.

Are unemployment rates high?  Of course.  Are students being trained in areas which have projected job growth?  Perhaps.  Has our culture changed radically in the past 20 years?  Absolutely.  That flashback you, bolting through the door of your parents’ home towards your own life is now quaint.  If you had been raised in the child-centric universe that exists today, you may have been less eager to jump into adulthood.  It would seem that the most important takeaway from the “more adult children are living with their parents” buzz is that it may very well not simply be the result of high unemployment.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 24, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →