It happened, it finally happened; Early's first tantrum, a few weeks from turning two.
He decided to really really go for it. At St Lukes shopping mall, from when I tried to sit us down for lunch in a cafe to about thirty minutes later when he made a dash for the wine glass display (!!) outside Stevens, fell over and dropped his bread, lay there for a little while loudly contemplating the ongoing awfulness of his horrible life, and then deigned to allow me to wrestle him into his stroller with only faint resistance.
This may have been Early's first but ahah, little did he know, this was not mine.
I started out all wrong. I tried to placate him, thinking he was just hangry, impatient for the lunch that was coming. He'd eaten all his snacks sometime earlier, a miscalculation on my part.
He paraded his grievances with his awful mother to all the other tables around us, visiting each in turn and giving them a smile before refusing any overtures from me and moving on to the next lovely stranger. One of the lovely strangers was more delightful than the others, possessing a plate with hot chips on it. Early loves hot chips. I swear his eyes grew even larger.
The lovely stranger was not immune to Early's charms or his garbled message and a chip was offered, accepted and consumed. I craftily picked a long chip, knowing it would take him longer to eat so I might be able to capture him and return him to our table. Hangriness addressed, I thought. My normally happy chappy will return now, phew.
But no.
Early was not finished. Once the chip was gone there was the grieving process to go through, thus:
1. Denial - That cannot be the last chip! I see other chips! Take me to the chips!!
2. Anger - No more chips? This Shall Not Pass! (This bit took rather a long time, including rolling around on the floor; trying to hide from mummy under someone else's table then being unable to find the way out so I had to go and try to get him from one side so that he would escape out the other; pleas to many lovely strangers for rescue, assistance, chips; general grumbly crying noises; actual hot angry tears and a little snot; doing that breakdancing move that involves running around in a circle on your side on the ground; a sort of half downwards dog arrangement.)
3. Bargaining - Ok, I will consider your poor offer of bread that you ordered especially for me because I love bread, but there better be more. Not that bit though. And this bit was ok but now it is Not Ok in fact it is Awful, are you trying to poison me woman?! Oh that other bit will do I suppose, but actually no it won't.
4. Depression - Wailing, lots of wailing. I just want to lie here on the ground face down wailing, I'm going to drown in my own tears and it will be All Your Fault, and also don't even think about trying to get me in the stroller, I shall never ever move again.
5. Acceptance - Well alright then, why haven't you taken me home already?
And the irony was that we would have got home and the bottle would have been made and imbibed, the snuggly cot entered and embraced, much much earlier without the tantrum.
I'm hoping he hasn't started as he means to go on.
I don't do comments here now - you can @ me on Twitter @juliefairey or Facebook.
Showing posts with label Children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 May 2017
Sunday, 22 June 2014
The invisible women
On Friday I went to the Wellington launch of a new book, Child Poverty in New Zealand, by Jonathan Boston and Simon Chapple (Bridget Williams Books). It's been heartening to see the recent upsurge of attention being paid to child poverty, with 285,000 children living in families with incomes below the most generally accepted poverty line: 60% of the median income after housing costs. (The book explains in detail exactly what such "lines" mean and how they work.)
But I've been getting steadily more concerned about what seems to be a general refusal to consider mothers' poverty. Children are almost never independently poor, they are poor when their parents are poor. The group of parents-and-children who are far and away the most likely to be poor in New Zealand are sole parents and their dependent children. And the vast majority of these families are headed by women: 125,000 out of 151,000 in June 2013. The percentage of those receiving a sole-parent benefit who did not have enough income to meet daily needs was 42.2% in 2008, 45.7% in 2010, and 51.1% in 2012. Close to two-thirds of poor children (64%) do not have a parent in full-time paid work. BUT 29% of poor children do have at least one parent in full-time paid work. Despite the state topping up low wages through Working for Families, even full-time paid work does not necessarily keep families out of poverty.
When I've finished reading Child Poverty in New Zealand, I'll be writing more about this issue. But the focus should not and cannot be solely on poor children, and to come up with useful solutions, any analysis has to take the effects of gender inequality fully into account.
But I've been getting steadily more concerned about what seems to be a general refusal to consider mothers' poverty. Children are almost never independently poor, they are poor when their parents are poor. The group of parents-and-children who are far and away the most likely to be poor in New Zealand are sole parents and their dependent children. And the vast majority of these families are headed by women: 125,000 out of 151,000 in June 2013. The percentage of those receiving a sole-parent benefit who did not have enough income to meet daily needs was 42.2% in 2008, 45.7% in 2010, and 51.1% in 2012. Close to two-thirds of poor children (64%) do not have a parent in full-time paid work. BUT 29% of poor children do have at least one parent in full-time paid work. Despite the state topping up low wages through Working for Families, even full-time paid work does not necessarily keep families out of poverty.
When I've finished reading Child Poverty in New Zealand, I'll be writing more about this issue. But the focus should not and cannot be solely on poor children, and to come up with useful solutions, any analysis has to take the effects of gender inequality fully into account.
Monday, 27 January 2014
Guestie: Being Brilliant in the Classroom
Many thanks to an anonymous teacher who emailed this in.
Teachers often bemoan a lack of funding for education.
Yet I suspect I'm not the only teacher feeling deeply uneasy about the $359 million the government is planning to spend in education over the next four years.
For teachers to complain of such an huge investment seems at best ungrateful and at worst, a confirmation of every stereotype of the unionised teacher out there: unwilling to compromise, stubborn and arrogant.
After all, why are we paying our worst teachers the same as our very best?
And there in lies the deep ideological divide between many in the teaching profession and the government.
Because underpinning the initiative of lead teachers, change principals is a philosophy that talent is something innate which needs to be recognised and rewarded rather than something that is constantly being developed and nurtured.
It strikes me as odd that when it comes to our kids the government has embraced the vision that all children can learn. That it's s a matter of good teaching that will, to borrow a talking point, ensure five out of five kids are achieving.
Yet when it comes to managing those entrusted with educating our kids, talent is in short supply.
Good teachers need titles to make change and in the words of the Prime Minster "we are going to pay them more to get it."
To me this isn't good enough.
We should want expert teachers in front of all our kids and that's what we should paying to get.
Fortunately most teachers will quite happily admit that they themselves are still learning. More importantly, teachers will learn from anyone be it a 1st year teacher, an internationally renowned expert and most importantly their students. Teachers know that what works for one group of kids will not automatically transfer to another.
Just as each kid has their own personality so too each class and school. The danger in paying to get results from super teachers is that it assumes the process of teaching and learning can be standardised - follow what the expert teacher to get results - when it needs to be personalised.
I know I'm not the only teacher who has taken an idea from an expert at a conference or a classroom observation and tried to implement it in class only to have it fail miserably. But then I adjust a few things and make the idea work for my learners or I try a new approach. Yes expertise is important but just as important is that teachers know how to tweak best practice to fit the needs of the kids in my class.
It's what the New Zealand curriculum calls teaching as inquiry and what high achieving systems strive for - all teachers need to be experts in how their students learn.
On a more structural level teachers as a professional acutely feel the effects of income inequality in New Zealand. Even at the high decile school I worked at there were teachers dipping into their own funds for food, trips and schools.
Throwing millions into establishing an executive level of educators won't help the 11 year old in tears because there are holes in their shoes and no money in the house until payday.
Yes teaching quality is the biggest in-school factor in, to borrow another sound byte, lifting student achievement. However it is those out of school factors, having enough food to eat, secure housing to avoid transience as well as sickness and above all a feeling of love and belonging which have a far greater impact on our kids' learning.
I'm sure my rant might easily be construed as jealousy - if I'm not going to get recognised and rewarded then no one else should.
However I don't actually have any skin in the game as I no longer teach in New Zealand.
Would this announcement be enough to lure me home in the next few years?
No.
While my prime motive for moving overseas is for travel, the support and resources I now enjoy are well beyond what the education system in New Zealand is resourced to provide. There is more admin support, specialist help, a smaller class and more release time. I am still as busy as I ever was back home however I am now far more focused on teaching and learning.
Because while money is important, the most important resource for teachers is their time.
Rather than injecting a few thousand super teachers into our education system how about focusing on ensuring that every teacher and more importantly every child is supported to be brilliant in the classroom?
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
For Queen and country
Monarchy New Zealand have come up with a delightful suggestion for celebrating the birth of our likely future monarch, the great-grandchild of our current Queen; lighting up notable landmarks either blue or pink depending on the gender of the baby.
It appears that yes this is for real, and not, as a friend suggested, a post that has accidentally been published at Stuff instead of The Civilian.
Quite apart from the issue about why we would want to particularly do this, at all, is the very tired, very old-fashioned and very sexist insistence on colour-coding based on gender. It's been getting steadily worse in recent decades,and this Is Not Helping.
The old-fashionedness of this rubbish is relatively new. And what about thinking beyond two genders? I sincerely hope that all the local authorities approached to take part in Monarchy New Zealand's bizarre idea have a good chuckle then offer a firm no.
It appears that yes this is for real, and not, as a friend suggested, a post that has accidentally been published at Stuff instead of The Civilian.
Quite apart from the issue about why we would want to particularly do this, at all, is the very tired, very old-fashioned and very sexist insistence on colour-coding based on gender. It's been getting steadily worse in recent decades,and this Is Not Helping.
The old-fashionedness of this rubbish is relatively new. And what about thinking beyond two genders? I sincerely hope that all the local authorities approached to take part in Monarchy New Zealand's bizarre idea have a good chuckle then offer a firm no.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Vaccinations and Beneficiary Bashing
And now the government is considering penalising beneficiaries who don't immunise their children.
Just as I believe access to free contraception is a good thing, I think vaccination is a good thing. I believe parents should adhere to the regular vaccinations schedules, except in rare and specific cases.
This has nothing to do with vaccinations.
If the goal was to make sure all children were vaccinated, as well as making it easier for parents and dispelling some of the myths, the government could consider a policy like that in some regions of the US where children are unable to attend school if unvaccinated. I have significant concerns about such a policy. But what it would do is (a) put pressure on parents (all parents) to have their children vaccinated, and for those who didn't limit the potential for communication of diseases to other students. That would be the more sensible policy for a government concerned about vaccination rates.
This has nothing to do with vaccinations.
But it is quite clever. On the one hand, it's the usual beneficiary bashing, introduction of nasty punitive measures, and the implied slur that beneficiaries are irresponsible, illogical people who don't care about the health of their children (just like they're apparently all sluts who are popping out one child after another to play the taxpayer, or something).
But I think there's something else going on. There's been an outbreak of whooping cough in my low-income suburb. Obviously lack of vaccination is a significant contributor, as is sheer chance, but it also thrives in crowded conditions. There's a reason it happens in places like this rather than wealthy suburbs, and it ain't because parents are stupid.
Rheumatic fever - for which there is no vaccination - affects young Maori people at vastly disproportionate rates. Preventative measures, however, are well known and documented, including less overcrowding and better quality housing. And that's not even touching asthma rates and severity, depression and repeated contraction of minor illnesses.
But rather than tackling these, the focus seems to be not just on the beneficiary bashing, but on the framing of health issues amongst beneficiaries as issues of personal irresponsibility and ignorance, rather than a public health issue which needs to be tackled on a structural level. And facilitates both the bashing and the sticking-one's-head-in-the-sand.
So yes, parents, it's generally a good idea to vaccinate your children. But to the government, what would be a good idea for you to do is to stop screwing people over, quit the beneficiary bashing and start tackling the fact that (poor, Maori and Pacific Island in particular) families are living in shitty, cold, uninsulated, overcrowded housing, and it's doing no-one's health any good.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
i knew it:
... new research shows that it's possible kids can be too clean.
You read that right.
That's because all of the soap dispensers, hand sanitizers and alcohol-tinged wipes could be robbing our kids from exposure to the germs that help strengthen their immune systems.
According to new research done on mice, increasing exposure to germs helps develop the immune system, thereby preventing allergies and other immune-related diseases like colitis and asthma later in life.
i have to say though that one of the worst immunity-building times is when kids start childcare or kindy. it's like they're sick every 3 or 4 weeks for the next 6 months, as their little bodies try to cope with all the new varieties of germs that other kids carry. i'm particularly glad that this period of my life is over and sympathise with others who are going through it.
... new research shows that it's possible kids can be too clean.
You read that right.
That's because all of the soap dispensers, hand sanitizers and alcohol-tinged wipes could be robbing our kids from exposure to the germs that help strengthen their immune systems.
According to new research done on mice, increasing exposure to germs helps develop the immune system, thereby preventing allergies and other immune-related diseases like colitis and asthma later in life.
i have to say though that one of the worst immunity-building times is when kids start childcare or kindy. it's like they're sick every 3 or 4 weeks for the next 6 months, as their little bodies try to cope with all the new varieties of germs that other kids carry. i'm particularly glad that this period of my life is over and sympathise with others who are going through it.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Of children and protests and taking the former to the latter
 |
| Port workers and their families on the picket line. Child holds placard saying "All my daddy wants is a roster". |
My children will be coming with me, and their father, to the rally. I expect to see many other children there too, not least because at the heart of the issue of the Ports dispute is the impact of casualisation on families.
Wriggly and Snuffly are unlikely to be holding placards or chanting (neither can read and one can't talk) but they will be there and we will talk to them about what it is and why and see what the verbal one things and so on.
Part of my reason for taking the kids is to show them the possibilities of collective action, of standing up together with others, and give them experiences that are about challenging authority. In time I shall possibly be the authority that gets challenged, but no matter as long as they are thinking critically.
But the main reason they are going, and the main reason most small children who go to protests are there, is because I simply cannot participate unless I can bring my children with me.
Do I think that Wriggly and Snuffly understand precisely the cause and the chants and the speeches flying around above their heads? No. And I don't expect anyone who sees them to think "wow those kids are big supporters of this cause." They are there primarily because I am there.
Is that selfish on my part, to take them along so that I can participate? I don't think so. I'm not putting them in danger or depriving them of something vital; in fact I'm showing them a part of civil society that lots of kids probably only see from the outside, on the television.
If I go shopping and I take them with me no one says I am cruel for making Wriggly and Snuffly tag along. Whenever I've taken the kids to council work I haven't faced any criticism for forcing them to be in a workshop or meeting; rather I've been apologising for when they are a bit noisy or try to steal someone's shoe.
When they get older and it becomes more feasible to do so, I will ask them if they want to come and if they say no then I'll try to arrange a babysitter or something. We'll see how that goes.
And as with protests so with so much else in life - if you make it so that children are unwelcome then you are also effectively shutting out their primary caregivers, and most of the time that's going to be women. Let's see if we can change that.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Transphobic tripe, again
I want to write on some related issues to this piece of bigotry by Rosemary McLeod, which I shall try and do later, but in the meantime:
- Referring to a known person (particularly one with a clearly stated gender identity) as he/she questions that identity, and is not acceptable.
- I assume by "surgically created penis thingy" you mean a penis. If so, say so.
- I have no idea why the man in question has not had 'bottom surgery', but there are a lot of reasons (medical risks, cost, the fact that the results are often not that great) why he may not have done so (DOES NOT NEED A PENIS TO BE A MAN is another option). If you don't know the reasoning, don't draw any conclusions from what you think it might be.
- As a queer woman with short hair, a little facial hair and who sometimes wears men's clothes, I'm actually not like Thomas Beattie when it comes to gender. THAT IS BECAUSE I'M NOT A MAN. He is, I'm not. Therefore, none of the above are determining factors.
- Plainness = so utterly irrelevant.
- I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ABORTION RATE HAS TO DO WITH THIS.
- Have you ever considered the fact that maybe the couple are modelling pride in who they are, openness and the fact everyone is entitled to respect for their children?
- Have you ever considered that maybe it would be hard for them to keep this secret and they are trying to reveal it on their terms.
- If all the people (disabled, non-white, unmarried, low income...) who some obnoxious bigot thought shouldn't have children acted on that advice, the world would have a lot less kids and be a far worse place.
- I've never heard of a child with a trans* parent being made homeless by that parent because of their gender identity. Maybe that needs to be considered when we're thinking of the children.
- When you start talking about BIRTHING LIVE GOLDFISH, OF ALL THINGS you make this sound like a freak show. It isn't. Shut up.
- If you're concerned about the children, oh the children, why won't someone think of the children, why don't you stop worrying about what may or may not have been between their parents' legs at whatever times in their life, and make the world a bit easier for them by showing some respect.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
A response to the Can't Feed Don't Breed Brigade
On Monday the NZ Herald started a week-long series looking at the gap between rich and poor in Auckland. On the first day they examined two families - one well-off and one struggling. The first had two kids, 10 and 13, the second three children, all aged 3 and under. The article was widely shared online by leftie progressive types I follow and I was startled by some of the responses, particularly on the issue of the struggling family including three children.
Comments such as these were made:
"Agree though that life is all about choices and looking at the big picture of deciding to have 3 kids (and another from a prior relationship) to support when not in a strong enough financial position points to perhaps the wrong choices being made along the way."
"I agree that an average worker should expect to be able to support a family on average pay, but three or more kids I think is pushing it. You shouldn't enter into a situation you can't afford to maintain, that's irresponsible in my view."When did we decide that having three kids constitutes a large family?
In the whole of human history there has been a massive period of time with average family sizes of more than 3 children born to one couple. In many countries in the world now women are likely to have more than two children over the course of their fertile years, indeed the world average fertility rate is a bit over 2.5 on all three measures Wikipedia lists. Why is it unreasonable to expect to be able to have three children and be able to get by in Aotearoa New Zealand, a comparatively well-off place to live?
What also bugs me is how, like with so many issues that come up through a feminist prism, this is about pretending that you know more about someone else's life than they know about it themselves. Second guessing the life choices of others is a game I'd rather not play. There could be many reasons why people have 2< children (or indeed any children, one child, no children). Maybe there was a contraceptive failure, or cultural pressure to have a big family, or a desire to have children of different sexes, or they had the financial resources at the time of conception, or any range of other reasons that are theirs and not yours, or mine.
And what's are the assumptions made by those saying the equivalent of "you shouldn't breed more mouths than you can feed"?
- People's financial situations don't change over time - or at least they don't get worse.
- Someone can totally foresee how much more each child will add to their outgoings.
- Contraception is fool-proof and freely available and widely used and not socially, religiously or culturally discouraged for anyone.
- Abortion for economic reasons is legal and accessible.
None of these is an accurate assumption. Taken together they in fact look quite ludicrous, and the last one in particular I find quite chilling. Those advocating for the termination of pregnancies which are going to put financial pressure on a parent, based on projected income, well, there's a name for that.
And if you don't take it that far, if you merely encourage people who are on tight incomes to end pregnancies, then you are actually asking them to break to law, because, as we frequently discuss on this blog, an abortion for reasons other than the physical or mental health of the pregnant person is illegal in this country. While personally I'll be working to change that law, it isn't likely that abortions on economic grounds will be allowable in the near future.
So if the "Can't Feed Don't Breed" brigade don't want to force poor people to have abortions, or even encourage them to break the law, then what's the next thing? Use contraception? Not 100% effective, so no guarantee of children resulting to impoverish their siblings and parents. Oh wait I know, don't have consensual heterosexual sex! At least not during the fertile years - so that's never for men and not until post-menopause for women. This would certainly be good for that Homosexual Recruitment Drive we've all heard so much about.
Let's not lose sight of the original point of discussion that the Herald article was about - the widening income disparity in Auckland. How about we actually look at the real problem, rather than getting distracted. The issue here is not too many children but too little money; low incomes, whether it be from paid employment or social welfare or a combination of both.
It's not that long ago that most people in this country could expect a reasonable standard of living for their family based on the income of one full time worker, even with three or more children in the household. The area I represent at Auckland Council, Puketapapa, had the 18th lowest median income in the Herald's stats, despite having a lower percentage of people on benefits (10.5%) than many of the suburbs higher up. I live here, in one of the poorer suburbs, and I work all over this part of town. This gap is not about the choices of individuals, it is about a system that distributes wealth in a way that is all wrong. We simply must lift incomes. And we do that not by bagging people for having kids but by investing in education, in infrastructure, in social welfare, in job creation, in innovation, in pay equity and, in the public sector, in actual pay to public servants of all hues. Focusing on procreation is a distraction, not a solution.
Monday, 19 December 2011
Christmas conversations with Wriggly
Saturday morning
Wriggly: Why aren't there any presents under our Christmas tree?
Me: What would you do if I put presents under the tree?
Wriggly: Unwrap them!
Me: That's why there aren't any presents under the tree.
Wriggly: *big grin*
Monday morning
Wriggly: Mummy look! *points at presents under the tree*
Me: What are those?
Wriggly: Presents!
Me: Who are they for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: Not all of them.
Wriggly: Oh?
Me: Who is this one for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Snuffly!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Daddy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Mummy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Um...
Me: Who else lives here?
Wriggly: Cat!
Me: That's right, it's for Cat.
Wriggly: Can I open it?
Me: Is it Christmas yet?
Wriggly: No.
Me: You can help her open it on Christmas Day though.
Wriggly: Ok.
*pause*
Wriggly: How come there are presents under the tree?
Me: Because we decided that you could help by being our Christmas Present Guard. It's your job to make sure that no one opens any of these presents until Christmas Day. Not you, not Snuffly, not Daddy, not Mummy, not Cat.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour!
Me: That's right.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour's Son!
Me: Errr, yes.
Wriggly: OK!!!!
Me: So you understand there will be no opening presents until Christmas Day?
Wriggly: YES!!!!!!
*pause*
Wriggly: Is that present for me?
Me: No, but this one is. *points to long cylinder-shaped present*
Wriggly: It's a green clock!!!
Me: Probably not.
I am curious to see how many presents remain intact when I return home this evening.
Wriggly: Why aren't there any presents under our Christmas tree?
Me: What would you do if I put presents under the tree?
Wriggly: Unwrap them!
Me: That's why there aren't any presents under the tree.
Wriggly: *big grin*
Monday morning
Wriggly: Mummy look! *points at presents under the tree*
Me: What are those?
Wriggly: Presents!
Me: Who are they for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: Not all of them.
Wriggly: Oh?
Me: Who is this one for?
Wriggly: Me!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Snuffly!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Daddy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Mummy!
Me: No.
Wriggly: Um...
Me: Who else lives here?
Wriggly: Cat!
Me: That's right, it's for Cat.
Wriggly: Can I open it?
Me: Is it Christmas yet?
Wriggly: No.
Me: You can help her open it on Christmas Day though.
Wriggly: Ok.
*pause*
Wriggly: How come there are presents under the tree?
Me: Because we decided that you could help by being our Christmas Present Guard. It's your job to make sure that no one opens any of these presents until Christmas Day. Not you, not Snuffly, not Daddy, not Mummy, not Cat.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour!
Me: That's right.
Wriggly: And not Neighbour's Son!
Me: Errr, yes.
Wriggly: OK!!!!
Me: So you understand there will be no opening presents until Christmas Day?
Wriggly: YES!!!!!!
*pause*
Wriggly: Is that present for me?
Me: No, but this one is. *points to long cylinder-shaped present*
Wriggly: It's a green clock!!!
Me: Probably not.
I am curious to see how many presents remain intact when I return home this evening.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Thinking of the children (and the rest of us)
An acquaintance, someone I once knew well but have largely drifted apart from, posts about her son's screaming in response to various stimuli. She doesn't know why it happens, she says, but it's wearing her down and she doesn't know how to manage it. She's a parent in need of more support than she's getting, like many are. You'd have to be a parent to understand, she says.
My fingers hover over the comment box. I'm pretty sure I know exactly why her son is reacting why he does. I have some educated guesses on things that would make life easier for him - but they start from a different philosophical viewpoint to that she appears to hold. You'd have to be a parent to understand. I click away.
Another time - and really this isn't one time, it's hundreds - I look for advice online on how to do things in a way that accommodates my needs. How to learn to drive. How to arrange meals in a way that works for me. How to survive the commute when people insist on playing music audible over their headphones. I mostly get strategies for helping one's child through primary school. Once I try looking to see if tiredness is a probably cause for an increase in impairment I noticed at a particular time; instead I find posts from parents complaining how tired they are of their child's disability.
I get frustrated by it. The various frustrations subside into one. There's an unspoken assumption that it is the needs of our parents only that matter, and when we cease to be their problem those needs disappear also, or that our needs disappear at age 18* because people fail to acknowledge that just like anyone else we change and grow up and find better ways of interacting with the world, and thus see any changes as a cure. Where less autonomy was a horrible thing - and it was for me - being thought of as a child instills fear. And then there's a feeling of looking at children who are very like you were, and watching the same mistakes being made over again, and you know that it generally has little to do with individuals and far more to do with a society but you're really not sure how to express that to an already stressed out parent.
Then I start thinking elsewhere. And I think of what we do in the queer community. Queerness isn't generally equated to childhood - the opposite in fact, with may queer kids being told they are far too young to understand their identity. And whilst some people do feel the need to be wary of interacting with young people, there are more of us who can't see a kid in school uniform smiling in a queer friendly space without feeling teary.
So when we see marginalised kids in our community but aren't afraid of being considered children ourselves, what do we do? We send books to them or to their schools. We offer them sofas to sleep on. We lend them money or help them navigate hellish systems to claim entitlements. We educate them about safe sex because mostly their schools utterly fail at doing so. We engage in activism and let them yell through the megaphone and oh god they're too young to understand why we yell no blood for oil at every single demo how did this happen? We offer advice on talking to families or schools if needed. We do our level best, in whatever way we think we can - and we know only too well that it's not always enough - to make them feel welcome and accepted and safe.
And what works in one situation doesn't work in others. Queer kids tend to have supportive parents or are pushing away from their parents, sometimes living independently by necessity. Many neuroatypical kids are more dependent than average - whether by reason of their impairment or because there are no facilities set up to enable them to become more independent. It isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons. But as much as I wish that people would stop treating adults like children, or recognising the needs of neurotypical parents only, I also hope we can find a better solution than abandoning and ignoring kids who are like we were.
*well actually a bunch of them did. It's amazing what happens when you learn exercising =/= catching a ball and writing =/= to holding a pen, but that is neither universal, nor does it mean they weren't partially replaced by others.
My fingers hover over the comment box. I'm pretty sure I know exactly why her son is reacting why he does. I have some educated guesses on things that would make life easier for him - but they start from a different philosophical viewpoint to that she appears to hold. You'd have to be a parent to understand. I click away.
Another time - and really this isn't one time, it's hundreds - I look for advice online on how to do things in a way that accommodates my needs. How to learn to drive. How to arrange meals in a way that works for me. How to survive the commute when people insist on playing music audible over their headphones. I mostly get strategies for helping one's child through primary school. Once I try looking to see if tiredness is a probably cause for an increase in impairment I noticed at a particular time; instead I find posts from parents complaining how tired they are of their child's disability.
I get frustrated by it. The various frustrations subside into one. There's an unspoken assumption that it is the needs of our parents only that matter, and when we cease to be their problem those needs disappear also, or that our needs disappear at age 18* because people fail to acknowledge that just like anyone else we change and grow up and find better ways of interacting with the world, and thus see any changes as a cure. Where less autonomy was a horrible thing - and it was for me - being thought of as a child instills fear. And then there's a feeling of looking at children who are very like you were, and watching the same mistakes being made over again, and you know that it generally has little to do with individuals and far more to do with a society but you're really not sure how to express that to an already stressed out parent.
Then I start thinking elsewhere. And I think of what we do in the queer community. Queerness isn't generally equated to childhood - the opposite in fact, with may queer kids being told they are far too young to understand their identity. And whilst some people do feel the need to be wary of interacting with young people, there are more of us who can't see a kid in school uniform smiling in a queer friendly space without feeling teary.
So when we see marginalised kids in our community but aren't afraid of being considered children ourselves, what do we do? We send books to them or to their schools. We offer them sofas to sleep on. We lend them money or help them navigate hellish systems to claim entitlements. We educate them about safe sex because mostly their schools utterly fail at doing so. We engage in activism and let them yell through the megaphone and oh god they're too young to understand why we yell no blood for oil at every single demo how did this happen? We offer advice on talking to families or schools if needed. We do our level best, in whatever way we think we can - and we know only too well that it's not always enough - to make them feel welcome and accepted and safe.
And what works in one situation doesn't work in others. Queer kids tend to have supportive parents or are pushing away from their parents, sometimes living independently by necessity. Many neuroatypical kids are more dependent than average - whether by reason of their impairment or because there are no facilities set up to enable them to become more independent. It isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons. But as much as I wish that people would stop treating adults like children, or recognising the needs of neurotypical parents only, I also hope we can find a better solution than abandoning and ignoring kids who are like we were.
*well actually a bunch of them did. It's amazing what happens when you learn exercising =/= catching a ball and writing =/= to holding a pen, but that is neither universal, nor does it mean they weren't partially replaced by others.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Guest post: Government child support proposals would further impoverish single mums and their children
By Leonie Morris, Centre Manager, Auckland Women's Centre - from their Spring 2011 newsletter
The Government has signalled its intent to change Child Support calculations so that “receiving
parents” (usually mothers) lose up to two-thirds of their support payments. The current legislation,
which is already woefully inadequate, will be altered so that the threshold for reductions in Child Support payments for “paying parents” (usually fathers), due to them having shared care of their child, kicks in at a much lower rate. Currently fathers must have the child/ren 40% of the nights in a year to qualify for a
lowering in the amount of support they must pay. With the new law, that will drop to just 28%.
This means a father with two children who currently contributes $7,400 a year to their mother’s expenses, and has his children for an average of two nights a week, would only have to pay $2,600 a year – a reduction of 64%.
Whose best interests are served by this legislation? Not children’s!
There is a major problem with the legislation: it should have as its primary objective the best interests of the child. Yet while the Act references the child’s right to be maintained, the welfare and best interests of the child are notably and regrettably absent. This is a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a party.
The Government’s discussion paper identified the parts of the Act that they believe need changing.
Unfortunately, these changes are in the interest of fathers, not children or mothers. For instance, a major problem of the legislation is that the formula used to determine how much Child Support a father will pay automatically assumes that if the father has a new partner, that person is a dependent, and consequently the Child Support amount is reduced!
Most of the submissions to the discussion paper supported the proposed changes. It is likely that
these were made by fathers. Fathers have always been very vocal about Child Support, complaining
that they are expected to pay too much. By comparison, mothers are seldom heard on this topic, partly because they are too busy childrearing and struggling to make ends meet and partly because mothers are often reluctant to go on record saying anything that might be construed by their children, now or later, as a
criticism of their father.
The Government’s plan will make it even easier for fathers to avoid financially supporting their children
This change to how Child Support is calculated provides a financial incentive for fathers to increase the amount of nights they spend with their children to at least two per week. At first glance, this might seem like a great result. Yet when the incentive to do so is the avoidance of paying Child Support, is this a quality outcome for children? (As at 30 June 2011, the Child Support debt, excluding penalties, is $605 million).
The Government’s discussion paper fails to address this issue. However, New Zealand research on this topic highlights that:
• The two most important things for children’s psychological wellbeing after parents separate are: 1) to maintain and strengthen their relationship with their mother; and 2) to minimise exposure to inter-parental conflict.
• The studies do not consistently demonstrate that a high level of contact with the father is always in the best interests of children.
• The benefit of contact with fathers after separation depends on the style and quality of the father’s parenting, as opposed to the amount of contact.
• The one thing that has been shown to be associated unquestionably with good outcomes for children is the father paying Child Support.
• With very young children, particular care is needed to preserve their relationship with the mother because of their need to have at least one secure attachment (New Zealand Universities Law Review, Vol 24, No 1, June, 2010, Julia Tolmie, Vivienne Elizabeth and Nicola Gavey).
The Government announced in August that the legislation will be passed before the election. Hopefully this won’t happen, because it would not allow enough time for the legislation to go to a Parliamentary Select Committee to receive and discuss submissions from the public - an essential step in our democratic process.
The Government has signalled its intent to change Child Support calculations so that “receiving
parents” (usually mothers) lose up to two-thirds of their support payments. The current legislation,
which is already woefully inadequate, will be altered so that the threshold for reductions in Child Support payments for “paying parents” (usually fathers), due to them having shared care of their child, kicks in at a much lower rate. Currently fathers must have the child/ren 40% of the nights in a year to qualify for a
lowering in the amount of support they must pay. With the new law, that will drop to just 28%.
This means a father with two children who currently contributes $7,400 a year to their mother’s expenses, and has his children for an average of two nights a week, would only have to pay $2,600 a year – a reduction of 64%.
Whose best interests are served by this legislation? Not children’s!
There is a major problem with the legislation: it should have as its primary objective the best interests of the child. Yet while the Act references the child’s right to be maintained, the welfare and best interests of the child are notably and regrettably absent. This is a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a party.
The Government’s discussion paper identified the parts of the Act that they believe need changing.
Unfortunately, these changes are in the interest of fathers, not children or mothers. For instance, a major problem of the legislation is that the formula used to determine how much Child Support a father will pay automatically assumes that if the father has a new partner, that person is a dependent, and consequently the Child Support amount is reduced!
Most of the submissions to the discussion paper supported the proposed changes. It is likely that
these were made by fathers. Fathers have always been very vocal about Child Support, complaining
that they are expected to pay too much. By comparison, mothers are seldom heard on this topic, partly because they are too busy childrearing and struggling to make ends meet and partly because mothers are often reluctant to go on record saying anything that might be construed by their children, now or later, as a
criticism of their father.
The Government’s plan will make it even easier for fathers to avoid financially supporting their children
This change to how Child Support is calculated provides a financial incentive for fathers to increase the amount of nights they spend with their children to at least two per week. At first glance, this might seem like a great result. Yet when the incentive to do so is the avoidance of paying Child Support, is this a quality outcome for children? (As at 30 June 2011, the Child Support debt, excluding penalties, is $605 million).
The Government’s discussion paper fails to address this issue. However, New Zealand research on this topic highlights that:
• The two most important things for children’s psychological wellbeing after parents separate are: 1) to maintain and strengthen their relationship with their mother; and 2) to minimise exposure to inter-parental conflict.
• The studies do not consistently demonstrate that a high level of contact with the father is always in the best interests of children.
• The benefit of contact with fathers after separation depends on the style and quality of the father’s parenting, as opposed to the amount of contact.
• The one thing that has been shown to be associated unquestionably with good outcomes for children is the father paying Child Support.
• With very young children, particular care is needed to preserve their relationship with the mother because of their need to have at least one secure attachment (New Zealand Universities Law Review, Vol 24, No 1, June, 2010, Julia Tolmie, Vivienne Elizabeth and Nicola Gavey).
The Government announced in August that the legislation will be passed before the election. Hopefully this won’t happen, because it would not allow enough time for the legislation to go to a Parliamentary Select Committee to receive and discuss submissions from the public - an essential step in our democratic process.
Friday, 2 September 2011
Expanding and contracting and expanding again
I was so sure it would be the Tuesday. No particular reason, just a hunch. Due date was the first or second of September; the midwife seemed to waggle back and forth between them. I was full and heavy, the most pregnant I'd ever been before. Maybe I thought Tuesday because I wanted the pregnant part to be over. I was very apprehensive about the labour part though, so I just kept pushing it away in my mind.
Magically this process was going to be:
- Pregnant
- ????
- Baby and mother healthy and well
By 10.30pm I'd given up waiting to feel my first ever contraction and I headed to bed.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Youth Workshop in Waitemata (Akl)
Message via the awesome Auckland Women's Centre:
The Waitemata Local Board is developing its first local board plan that sets out the community’s aspirations, priorities, and preferences for the next three years and beyond. Youth issues and youth engagement are some of our priorities. They've set up a Youth Workshop to set things moving on their local board plan, and are looking for school-aged young people interested in Central Auckland and surrounding suburbs. Whether the kids live here, travel into the area to go to school, or like to spend time here on weekends, they are all welcome.
Do you want to make central Auckland a better place for young people?
Almost half (48%) of the people living in the city centre and central suburbs of the Waitemata local board area are aged under 30.
The Waitemata Local Board, part of the Auckland Council, is developing a plan for the area and want to know what you think.
Hi, I’m Jesse Chalmers, the Waitemata Local Board member youth contact. I want to invite you to
share your thoughts at a workshop for young people:
When: Wednesday 13 April 4-6pm
Where: Jubilee Library Room, Auckland Girls Grammar School.
The workshop will be a fun and informal session for you to share your views on topics like events, the environment, transport and parks. We value your involvement and want you to be a part of the future look of this area. This is your opportunity to help make Auckland better for young people.
Delicious snacks will be provided!
To let us know you’re coming do one of these easy things:
1. Txt me, Jesse, on 021 344 174
2. Join the event on Facebook
3. Tell your teacher
To find about more about the event, you can contact me (021 344 174, jesse.chalmers@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz )
More information on the Waitemata Local Board and community engagement on our plan.
If you are can’t make it this event and you want to share your ideas and thoughts check out the Waitemata Local Board Facebook page.
Thanks and I hope to see you soon.
Jesse Chalmers,
Waitemata Local Board member
The Waitemata Local Board is developing its first local board plan that sets out the community’s aspirations, priorities, and preferences for the next three years and beyond. Youth issues and youth engagement are some of our priorities. They've set up a Youth Workshop to set things moving on their local board plan, and are looking for school-aged young people interested in Central Auckland and surrounding suburbs. Whether the kids live here, travel into the area to go to school, or like to spend time here on weekends, they are all welcome.
Do you want to make central Auckland a better place for young people?
Almost half (48%) of the people living in the city centre and central suburbs of the Waitemata local board area are aged under 30.
The Waitemata Local Board, part of the Auckland Council, is developing a plan for the area and want to know what you think.
Hi, I’m Jesse Chalmers, the Waitemata Local Board member youth contact. I want to invite you to
share your thoughts at a workshop for young people:
When: Wednesday 13 April 4-6pm
Where: Jubilee Library Room, Auckland Girls Grammar School.
The workshop will be a fun and informal session for you to share your views on topics like events, the environment, transport and parks. We value your involvement and want you to be a part of the future look of this area. This is your opportunity to help make Auckland better for young people.
Delicious snacks will be provided!
To let us know you’re coming do one of these easy things:
1. Txt me, Jesse, on 021 344 174
2. Join the event on Facebook
3. Tell your teacher
To find about more about the event, you can contact me (021 344 174, jesse.chalmers@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz )
More information on the Waitemata Local Board and community engagement on our plan.
If you are can’t make it this event and you want to share your ideas and thoughts check out the Waitemata Local Board Facebook page.
Thanks and I hope to see you soon.
Jesse Chalmers,
Waitemata Local Board member
Friday, 25 March 2011
The Grandad Twinkle
Snuffly loves cuddles. He's quite happy, most of the time, to be cuddled by anyone who is gentle and loving, and everyone is when faced with teh cuteness he brings. Maybe one day soon he'll start to get that clinginess that sometimes sets in after six months, but Wriggly didn't get it, so maybe not.I've got quite adept at picking when someone would love to have a cuddle, and offering. I have no qualms about Snuffly being held by others, even complete strangers, although I know not every parent feels this way and I respect that it's not for everyone. Often once I've passed him to one person I find he gets shared around a little, as people steal him off each other. It's nice to share him around like that, for me as well as him, and the cuddlers too.
It makes me a bit sad though that so many men are afraid to show they love babies. I think they fear judgements that they are perverts, because why would any man want to cuddle a baby that isn't their own? Probably for the same reasons some women do - because they are lovely joyful things that snuggle into you and make you smile.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Open thread: Children's Commissioner's report on education & care of infants & toddlers
Here are links to both the Summary and the whole of the report Through Their Lens: an inquiry into non-parental education and care of infants and toddlers.
For those not into reading long stuff *cough* me *cough*, here's an excerpt that jumped out at me:
These findings are made in a context in which many parents feel they do not have a choice about returning early to work, or that their choice is very constrained and determined by factors other than their preference. These findings should not be construed as a criticism of working mothers. Society has changed. Working mothers and consequently non-maternal childcare are part of this change. The inquiry on which this report is based has concluded that formal ECS should be seen as a contribution, in partnership with parents and often extended family members, to a child’s learning and development.And here's some of the media coverage for quick overviews:
Under-2s best at home, says report - Herald
'Time to take under two's seriously': report - Stuff
Please consider this an open thread to discuss this and related matters.*
One of the things I have really liked about a lot of the media I've seen so far (mainly radio) has been the prevalent use of the word "parent". Such a relief to not have everybody assuming it's just about mums!
* I have previously felt quite constrained about discussing early childhood education stuff because of my day job. However I'm on maternity leave now, and when I return to work soon I'll likely be working in a different sector, so now I feel a bit free-er to talk about the education and care of under 5s. No one should misconstrue anything I say as being the opinion of my regular employer, NZEI Te Riu Roa.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
yes, it is ok
cactus kate wrote a post in response to this one of mine on the article by dr amy chua published by the wall street journal. naturally, kate disagrees with me & i wrote a pretty long comment over at her place. but i've realised i have more to say, and thought it would be better to put it in a post here rather than write another missive over there.
the thrust of kate's post appears to be that dr chua is right and that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a weak one that will inevitably lead to failure. she sees it as a fear based approach, and believes that success can only be measured economically.
the bit of her post that i want to address here is the notion that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a bad one. the chua style of parenting demands success and doesn't accept failure. this is seen as motivational for children. and it seemed to work for dr chua, even when she took it to the extreme.
however, there are downsides to the approach of "you will succeed, no matter what it takes", some of which i wrote about at kate's blog so won't repeat here. but there's another one i didn't mention, which is that this type of approach strongly discourages risk-taking. i've seen it with children who are programmed for success: they will simply not take on activities where there is a strong risk of failure.
this can actually be reduce the chances of a person being successful (using chua's and kate's definition of success, which i still don't agree with, but that would take a whole other post to deal with). i've seen an example of a young child refusing to go into a maths extension class because the problems were difficult and this child didn't want to risk failure. the child preferred to stay in a lower group where success was assured.
and this doesn't only apply to parenting. i've seen it applied in companies that invest heavily in R&D - those that allow their employees to have several failures tend to get the big successes, because those employees are more likely to take a wider range of risks which increased the likelihood of coming across something really spectacular.
the message that it's ok to fail is actually one which liberates the mind and encourages a much wider variety of experiences. not only that, it enriches the mind as we learn from our mistakes and improve our situation. i've found that it has actually improved performance, motivation and the level of happiness. successes are just as sweet and as keenly sought after, and often more easily achieved. in fact, i'd say success is more valued when you've taken a huge personal risk to achieve it.
so i'd rather ensure my kids get the message that it's ok to fail, as long as you put in a solid effort. i know they are better human beings because of it.
on another note, i mentioned in my previous post that we hadn't heard from dr chua's daughters. one has now entered the public arena, and totally supports her mother and her mother's parenting style. make of that what you will. there have some terribly sad stories coming out of this discussion from children who didn't do well in similar situations, and one could also argue that we don't know how successful this young woman might have been had she been brought up with a different style of parenting. on the other hand, here is an obviously intelligent young woman telling us how she feels, and we have to respect that.
the thrust of kate's post appears to be that dr chua is right and that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a weak one that will inevitably lead to failure. she sees it as a fear based approach, and believes that success can only be measured economically.
the bit of her post that i want to address here is the notion that the message "it's all right if you fail" is a bad one. the chua style of parenting demands success and doesn't accept failure. this is seen as motivational for children. and it seemed to work for dr chua, even when she took it to the extreme.
however, there are downsides to the approach of "you will succeed, no matter what it takes", some of which i wrote about at kate's blog so won't repeat here. but there's another one i didn't mention, which is that this type of approach strongly discourages risk-taking. i've seen it with children who are programmed for success: they will simply not take on activities where there is a strong risk of failure.
this can actually be reduce the chances of a person being successful (using chua's and kate's definition of success, which i still don't agree with, but that would take a whole other post to deal with). i've seen an example of a young child refusing to go into a maths extension class because the problems were difficult and this child didn't want to risk failure. the child preferred to stay in a lower group where success was assured.
and this doesn't only apply to parenting. i've seen it applied in companies that invest heavily in R&D - those that allow their employees to have several failures tend to get the big successes, because those employees are more likely to take a wider range of risks which increased the likelihood of coming across something really spectacular.
the message that it's ok to fail is actually one which liberates the mind and encourages a much wider variety of experiences. not only that, it enriches the mind as we learn from our mistakes and improve our situation. i've found that it has actually improved performance, motivation and the level of happiness. successes are just as sweet and as keenly sought after, and often more easily achieved. in fact, i'd say success is more valued when you've taken a huge personal risk to achieve it.
so i'd rather ensure my kids get the message that it's ok to fail, as long as you put in a solid effort. i know they are better human beings because of it.
on another note, i mentioned in my previous post that we hadn't heard from dr chua's daughters. one has now entered the public arena, and totally supports her mother and her mother's parenting style. make of that what you will. there have some terribly sad stories coming out of this discussion from children who didn't do well in similar situations, and one could also argue that we don't know how successful this young woman might have been had she been brought up with a different style of parenting. on the other hand, here is an obviously intelligent young woman telling us how she feels, and we have to respect that.
Friday, 14 January 2011
depends how you measure success
random lurker, a commenter here, popped over to my blog a couple of days ago to ask me what i thought about this piece in the wall street jounal about chinese mothers. it's written by a chinese mother, one amy chua who is a professor at harvard and has raised 3 daughters.
dr chua (i'm assuming the phd, given she's a professor) basically compares chinese parenting to western parenting. though she does make the effort at the beginning to say that she is using these terms loosely & that she acknowledges that many in both groups don't fit the stereotype, and what she labels as "chinese" parenting is practiced by people of many cultures & countries.
she then goes on to stereotype these parenting styles throughout the article, and her basic premise is that western parents are soft, chinese parents are tough but better because they expect & demand more of their kids. what she calls chinese parenting is really an autocratic & dictatorial style of family management, where failure is punished, success is rewarded, and giving up (for the child) is not an option. these parents are direct in their criticism of their children, because children can handle it, because it's better for the children, and because this motivates children to behave and achieve in ways that won't be criticised. in all, she believes this style of parenting is better because chinese children are more successful.
of course, feel free to read the full article for yourself, and let me know if i've missed out anything or if i've unfairly mischaracterised what she has tried to say.
as to my reaction, well, where to start. my own parenting style is much more "western" ie more relaxed than the dictatorial model which dr chua describes. not surprising since i've grown up in the west and am basically a westerner with an eastern ethnicity. however, when she goes through her experiences as a parent, they are quite familiar to me.
but i hate her labels so am not going to use them henceforth. i'm trying to think of terms that are less loaded and judgemental, but i'm struggling. so i'll go with autocratic and relaxed.
my gut reaction as i read through the piece was one of disgust. i tried to think about my own internal bias as i read, i looked at my reactions from all angles to see whether there were elements of racism, of a blinkered world-view that i was projecting on to the situation. was i simply being intolerant? those are difficult questions and i'm not sure i know the exact answer.
the basic problem for me is that the autocratic style she described didn't seem to allow enough respect of the children: respect of their wishes, their preferences, and sometimes of their essential humanity. she speaks of achievement, but it seemed to me that this achievement came at too high a cost. on the other hand, we haven't the voices of the children in this piece. we don't know how they feel about their structured lives, and maybe they're actually very happy. maybe the positive benefits of their achievements make them feel good about themselves and the lives they lead. even so, i don't think i could do.
on the other hand, i don't think i'm a completely relaxed parent either. i do expect my children to do well, i expect them to try hard. but i try not to criticise them for their failures, unless i believe that they really haven't put the effort in. in other words, the message i give them is "as long as i know you've worked hard and tried your best, i don't really care what result you achieve. i just want to know that you really, sincerely tried". i've also set more concrete expectations, but unlike dr chua, i'm not prepared to put the details of my children's lives into the public sphere and open them up for scrutiny, so you'll just have to guess at those.
i'm relaxed in that i've let them make their own choices about sport and music. i've let them make choices about the school they attend. i certainly haven't and don't intend to direct them into any area of study, though i've made a couple of suggestions. some of these suggestions have been ignored & that doesn't bother me at all.
my definitions of success tend to be quite different to dr chua's. i'll never judge my children's success by what they own, how high they reach in their career or such things. i want to know that they're happy with what they're doing and i want to know that they spend some of their time in serving the community they live in. i want them to have enough of a social conscience that it translates into action. but even with that, i'm not prepared to dictate it or criticise them for failing to do so. i'll continue to encourage them in that direction, but in the end it's up to them. even community service often depends on privilege - on having the time and money available to put towards those causes.
so. i can't say that i'm particularly impressed with the parenting style espoused by dr chua. i'm not impressed with the self-righteous tone of the article, nor with the stereotypes it portrays and buys into. it completely rubs me the wrong way, and some of that may be because i look at it with western eyes.
here's another review of the piece at racialicious, and they don't like it either.
dr chua (i'm assuming the phd, given she's a professor) basically compares chinese parenting to western parenting. though she does make the effort at the beginning to say that she is using these terms loosely & that she acknowledges that many in both groups don't fit the stereotype, and what she labels as "chinese" parenting is practiced by people of many cultures & countries.
she then goes on to stereotype these parenting styles throughout the article, and her basic premise is that western parents are soft, chinese parents are tough but better because they expect & demand more of their kids. what she calls chinese parenting is really an autocratic & dictatorial style of family management, where failure is punished, success is rewarded, and giving up (for the child) is not an option. these parents are direct in their criticism of their children, because children can handle it, because it's better for the children, and because this motivates children to behave and achieve in ways that won't be criticised. in all, she believes this style of parenting is better because chinese children are more successful.
of course, feel free to read the full article for yourself, and let me know if i've missed out anything or if i've unfairly mischaracterised what she has tried to say.
as to my reaction, well, where to start. my own parenting style is much more "western" ie more relaxed than the dictatorial model which dr chua describes. not surprising since i've grown up in the west and am basically a westerner with an eastern ethnicity. however, when she goes through her experiences as a parent, they are quite familiar to me.
but i hate her labels so am not going to use them henceforth. i'm trying to think of terms that are less loaded and judgemental, but i'm struggling. so i'll go with autocratic and relaxed.
my gut reaction as i read through the piece was one of disgust. i tried to think about my own internal bias as i read, i looked at my reactions from all angles to see whether there were elements of racism, of a blinkered world-view that i was projecting on to the situation. was i simply being intolerant? those are difficult questions and i'm not sure i know the exact answer.
the basic problem for me is that the autocratic style she described didn't seem to allow enough respect of the children: respect of their wishes, their preferences, and sometimes of their essential humanity. she speaks of achievement, but it seemed to me that this achievement came at too high a cost. on the other hand, we haven't the voices of the children in this piece. we don't know how they feel about their structured lives, and maybe they're actually very happy. maybe the positive benefits of their achievements make them feel good about themselves and the lives they lead. even so, i don't think i could do.
on the other hand, i don't think i'm a completely relaxed parent either. i do expect my children to do well, i expect them to try hard. but i try not to criticise them for their failures, unless i believe that they really haven't put the effort in. in other words, the message i give them is "as long as i know you've worked hard and tried your best, i don't really care what result you achieve. i just want to know that you really, sincerely tried". i've also set more concrete expectations, but unlike dr chua, i'm not prepared to put the details of my children's lives into the public sphere and open them up for scrutiny, so you'll just have to guess at those.
i'm relaxed in that i've let them make their own choices about sport and music. i've let them make choices about the school they attend. i certainly haven't and don't intend to direct them into any area of study, though i've made a couple of suggestions. some of these suggestions have been ignored & that doesn't bother me at all.
my definitions of success tend to be quite different to dr chua's. i'll never judge my children's success by what they own, how high they reach in their career or such things. i want to know that they're happy with what they're doing and i want to know that they spend some of their time in serving the community they live in. i want them to have enough of a social conscience that it translates into action. but even with that, i'm not prepared to dictate it or criticise them for failing to do so. i'll continue to encourage them in that direction, but in the end it's up to them. even community service often depends on privilege - on having the time and money available to put towards those causes.
so. i can't say that i'm particularly impressed with the parenting style espoused by dr chua. i'm not impressed with the self-righteous tone of the article, nor with the stereotypes it portrays and buys into. it completely rubs me the wrong way, and some of that may be because i look at it with western eyes.
here's another review of the piece at racialicious, and they don't like it either.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
you can stop feeling guilty now...
... if you ever did feel guilty about being a mother in paid employment. can't say that i ever did, but now the research proves that your kids' turn out just fine, so i was right to not waste my time worrying:
According to a review of 50 years of research on the subject, kids whose moms went back to work before the kids were 3 years old had no worse academic or behavioral problems than kids whose moms stayed home. In fact, in some instances they did better. The research, which appears in the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Psychological Association, looked at 69 studies between 1960, when research on the issue started, and 2010. The researchers looked specifically at academic and behavioral outcomes....
The researchers found little evidence to suggest that mothers who work part-time or full-time have children with problems in later life. But the researchers did find two positive associations between working motherhood and well-adjusted children: kids whose mothers worked when they were younger than 3 were later rated as higher-achieving by teachers and had fewer problems with depression and anxiety.
The only small caveat was that children whose mothers worked in the very first year of their lives tended to have slightly lower formal academic scores than those whose moms didn't. However children whose mothers were employed when the child was 1 or 2 years old had higher academic scores than kids with full-time moms. Over the three years, the effects evened out.
yes, i too hate the term "working mums", because all mums work. they just don't all get paid for the work they do. but aside from that niggle and a crappy last paragraph to make sure you feel guilty about something, it's nice to see actual research is showing that whether you take up paid employement through choice or necessity, your kids aren't going to be any worse off.
on a related topic, it was interesting to hear the interview on nine to noon this morning (11.20am) with desmond morris, author of "child: how children think, learn and grow in the early years. at 21 minutes into the clip, he also talks about women in paid employment feeling guilty about leaving their children in childcare. he says they shoudn't feel so guilty, because a nursery school provides social interaction which is very natural. he speaks of the importance of children being able to interact with others of their own age, to become more socially educated, more in tune with the behaviour of other individuals, and more able to give and take. after all, he says, we evolved for a million years in small tribes where the children were playing with one another and there wasn't the isolation that we have now.
it's something i see even now when i visit india. many live in an extended family situation, and parents don't actually see much of their kids at all. they see them when the kids are hungry, or when the kids need to be bathed. this is especially so in the village situation. in the cities, there is a greater movement to nuclear families, and so much more competitive pressure with the education system, that the natural interaction of village life is being lost.
it's one of the outcomes of a developed and industrialised society that we lose a lot of that social interaction. and the response has been to make mothers feel that they should be spending every possible moment at home with their children, as if this would somehow make up for the loss. my own sense always was that this is not natural, or at least not traditional, the way it has often been claimed.
which is not to say that i have any problem with women who choose to stay out of paid employment, and who do focus more of their time & attention on their children. it's an equally valid & valuable choice, but what the research is showing is that it's not a better (nor a worse) one.
According to a review of 50 years of research on the subject, kids whose moms went back to work before the kids were 3 years old had no worse academic or behavioral problems than kids whose moms stayed home. In fact, in some instances they did better. The research, which appears in the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Psychological Association, looked at 69 studies between 1960, when research on the issue started, and 2010. The researchers looked specifically at academic and behavioral outcomes....
The researchers found little evidence to suggest that mothers who work part-time or full-time have children with problems in later life. But the researchers did find two positive associations between working motherhood and well-adjusted children: kids whose mothers worked when they were younger than 3 were later rated as higher-achieving by teachers and had fewer problems with depression and anxiety.
The only small caveat was that children whose mothers worked in the very first year of their lives tended to have slightly lower formal academic scores than those whose moms didn't. However children whose mothers were employed when the child was 1 or 2 years old had higher academic scores than kids with full-time moms. Over the three years, the effects evened out.
yes, i too hate the term "working mums", because all mums work. they just don't all get paid for the work they do. but aside from that niggle and a crappy last paragraph to make sure you feel guilty about something, it's nice to see actual research is showing that whether you take up paid employement through choice or necessity, your kids aren't going to be any worse off.
on a related topic, it was interesting to hear the interview on nine to noon this morning (11.20am) with desmond morris, author of "child: how children think, learn and grow in the early years. at 21 minutes into the clip, he also talks about women in paid employment feeling guilty about leaving their children in childcare. he says they shoudn't feel so guilty, because a nursery school provides social interaction which is very natural. he speaks of the importance of children being able to interact with others of their own age, to become more socially educated, more in tune with the behaviour of other individuals, and more able to give and take. after all, he says, we evolved for a million years in small tribes where the children were playing with one another and there wasn't the isolation that we have now.
it's something i see even now when i visit india. many live in an extended family situation, and parents don't actually see much of their kids at all. they see them when the kids are hungry, or when the kids need to be bathed. this is especially so in the village situation. in the cities, there is a greater movement to nuclear families, and so much more competitive pressure with the education system, that the natural interaction of village life is being lost.
it's one of the outcomes of a developed and industrialised society that we lose a lot of that social interaction. and the response has been to make mothers feel that they should be spending every possible moment at home with their children, as if this would somehow make up for the loss. my own sense always was that this is not natural, or at least not traditional, the way it has often been claimed.
which is not to say that i have any problem with women who choose to stay out of paid employment, and who do focus more of their time & attention on their children. it's an equally valid & valuable choice, but what the research is showing is that it's not a better (nor a worse) one.
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Should this woman have gone to prison?
A report of a mother's sentencing this week has been haunting me. The first thing to note is that the woman, a recent immigrant from Fiji, aged 29, had suffered long-term domestic violence. In other words, her husband regularly beat her up. She was also suffering from a "major depressive episode" and was not copng with her youngest child, a toddler, so Child Youth and Family removed him and his older sister. However, they then put him back with her. They later admitted that this was a mistake, due to the case being handled by "an inexperienced social worker and an overloaded supervisor" and failure to complete "final checks".
After the child had been home for two days, his mother left him alone in a deep bath and he drowned. The judge accepted that "she had no intention of killing her son". But this week she was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison. Her five-year-old daughter, who had been sexually assaulted by a 13-year-old boy while she was in CYF care, was being looked after by her father. (It was not clear whether this was the same man who had inflicted the "domestic violence", or a different man.)
I can't see that sending this woman to prison for two years and ten months was the right and just thing to do. She should obviously have been getting help, not simply so she could cope as a parent, but for her own sake. But the only solution was to remove the children - which I would have thought wasn't calculated to make her feel any better about herself. Nor was it safe to leave them with her on her own - as the little boy's death so tragically proved. I do understand how difficult it must be for CYF to cope with such cases, but somehow it seems that it was no one's job to look after her, and everything else stemmed from that.
After the child had been home for two days, his mother left him alone in a deep bath and he drowned. The judge accepted that "she had no intention of killing her son". But this week she was sentenced to two years and ten months in prison. Her five-year-old daughter, who had been sexually assaulted by a 13-year-old boy while she was in CYF care, was being looked after by her father. (It was not clear whether this was the same man who had inflicted the "domestic violence", or a different man.)
I can't see that sending this woman to prison for two years and ten months was the right and just thing to do. She should obviously have been getting help, not simply so she could cope as a parent, but for her own sake. But the only solution was to remove the children - which I would have thought wasn't calculated to make her feel any better about herself. Nor was it safe to leave them with her on her own - as the little boy's death so tragically proved. I do understand how difficult it must be for CYF to cope with such cases, but somehow it seems that it was no one's job to look after her, and everything else stemmed from that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)