Happier Families = Happier Kids

07.23.2010

The same Psychology Today magazine I was referring to the other day has an article in it about families and happiness. Being an issue near and dear to my heart, I, of course, read it. Here’s a summary with my notes:[1]

1) "Communicate Well and Often" – the best part was reading about a family where the parents encouraged their children to work out their differences without parental influence. I think this is an excellent idea because not only does it teach the children a way to problem solve on their own but it achieves two greater goals. One, each child has to figure out what is their best communication strategy and second, the issue of parental favoritism gets squashed to a minimum.

2) "Build Rituals" – the worst part of “ritual” is that it’s predictable. But the best part is that it’s dependable. Each person in the family knows what he/she is responsible for and it helps to run a tight ship. It also teaches team-building and that in order to have a successful dinner, party, or just a successful day with as little mishap as possible, it’s necessary that each person play a part.

3) "Stay Flexible" – as important as the ritual may be, it’s equally important to participate in the magic of spontaneity. When you plan something and it goes accordingly, there’s always a sense of accomplishment. But when you turn from the usual road you travel on you open yourself up to the possibility of some amazing memories.

4) "Have Fun and Reach Out Together" – do things together as a family even if that means dragging out a teenager who’d rather stay locked up in his/her room. Spending time together outside of the normal environment allows for kids to see their parents in a different light and vice versa.

---

[1] Rosenberg, Amy Psychology Today, August 2010, pp. 62-69.

The Forever Relationship That Defines You

07.19.2010

I picked up this month’s Psychology Today because of it’s cover article on siblings and how your relationship with them shapes who you are. I never looked at it that way but it was for me one of those “well, duh,” moments. I want to share the top 3 nuggets I found most interesting (though the whole article is pretty good).

1) “Siblings are born to compete for parental attention, and the strategies they use wind up encoded in personality. Small wonder it can take a lifetime to work out sibling relationships.”[1]

2) “Children only seem to share the same family environment. In reality, they inhabit radically different microenvironments.”[2]

3) “…parents invariably claim they treat their kids equally, even though children can’t possibly experience their care equally, as they are at different levels of understanding. Parents are quick to deny differential treatment of their kids, says Cal State’s Heidi Riggio, because it is difficult and painful for them to think about how they may have failed their children, whose experiences of favoritism are incorporated into identity.”[3]

My responses:

1) This is one of the “duh” moments because it totally makes sense that siblings would compete for parental attention. What’s surprising, to me, is that I never put it into context. I never realized that my determination to be the absolute best in everything that I do, my drive to compete in whatever I put my mind to, may actually have something to do with the fact that once my sister was born, I had to now compete for attention. I may have been 7 years older but I still needed care and attention but, as most eldest kids will tell you, I got looked over because I was “old enough” to take care of myself. My sister, as the baby, needed attention and, not to mention, her incessant screaming needed tending to. That was probably her way of competing with me and she continuously won. (Either that or she was laying the groundwork for her amazing singing voice that she inherited from my mom and grandfather.)

2) I noticed this within my own family a while ago and it doesn’t matter how many times I may think about it, it still astounds me. My sister and I are so totally and completely different. And what I never ever took into consideration is that a huge reason for our differences is probably in how differently our mom treated us. My reality of what our family is or was and the moments within that are vastly different from my sister’s. I already knew that my mom and I remembered certain situations differently (or she didn’t remember some things at all) but I never considered that my sister’s and my reality re: our family could be different and, therefore, would alter us in different ways. And it is, of course, because we were at “different levels of understanding.” I just always took for granted that because we grew up in the same family that our experience had to be the same.

3) I remember disliking hearing my mom say that she loved us both the same because those words didn’t necessarily reflect in how she treated us. I don’t doubt that she loved us but I don’t think it’s possible to love your children in exactly the same way. Hell, I once worked with a boss who hated his middle child (and apparently the feeling was mutual). The article touched up on the facts that even if parents attempted to treat their children equally, it wouldn’t happen because you couldn’t possibly do that. As the parent, you see yourself acting in one way but the child’s (or children’s) interpretation of your actions is going to be different.

I always thought that if Rob and I had kids, we would need to have 2 so that the single child wouldn't feel alone (although I/we do plan on adopting one day if we’re going that route). And I convinced myself that I would do everything in my power to treat the children as equally as possible…but apparently, this article debunks that. I don’t think parents shouldn’t try but I think it’s important to remember that whatever you do, there are going to be issues. What I can’t stress enough (because this I certainly didn’t experience) is that it’s important as a parent to not only identify the strengths and talents of your children and do what you can to support them in those but most importantly discover what your child’s passions are and cultivate those.

---

[1] Marano, Hara Estroff, Psychology Today, August 2010, p. 54.

[2] p. 56.

[3] p. 61.

Life Magazine's Iconic Photo

06.18.2010

We’ve all seen this picture; it’s iconic.[1] I wrote about it in a paper for a class about images and how transformative they can be and this photograph was as equally transformative as the images from JFK’s assassination or the first footprint on the moon. The miracle of birth truly is a miracle when you think about it. When you break it all down, the fact that there is only 1 day out of an entire month that a woman can conceive, it’s amazing that anyone actually does conceive. And, despite the little issue of that one window of opportunity, there are all these other factors that have to be in place in order for it to occur.

I wanted to write about this photograph so as to be reminded of the fragility of who we are and from where we came. And not only the fragility but of the mystery too. Yes, science can explain the how and the why (in terms of what sequence of events need to occur for conception), but there is still quite a bit of the unknown behind it all.

When a family decides to have a baby, I would like to think that it is for all the right reasons, but, as I’ve explored before, I don’t necessarily think that’s often the case. This picture reminds me how our fragility (emotional or physical) can be traced from the very beginning and by bringing a child into the world we should welcome this fragility and cherish it. We all put affronts that we’re one way or another way or we push our loved ones away because we’re afraid to be dependent or vulnerable, and we teach this (often nonverbally) to our children…but our dependence on each other starts at the moment of conception and never truly goes away. Yes, we should teach children to be self-sufficient and functioning adults (because you won’t be there to wipe up every boo-boo), but our fragility stays with us. And our responsibility to care for someone (or something) never goes away either which is why I wish more people would consider looking at this photograph and ask themselves: Am I truly ready for this?

---

[1] I found the image by going to Google/Images and typing in “life magazine baby photo.”

The Dangers of Education, Part III

06.05.2010

[I promise that this will be my last entry using the Mother Jones article on the crisis of overpopulation.]

I understand that organized religion can provide many benefits. Those who truly heed Jesus’ call or any other prophets to whom they pray really do do good in the world and help those less fortunate, provide an education, and try to help develop a positive self-esteem. But I believe that organized religion can fall into the same trap that many governments fall into: a need for control and power. The Catholic church is absolutely no exception to this and, I think, this comes out with issues about children and birth control.

Using the Philippines as an example, Whitty, the journalist from the Mother Jones magazine, states that birth control was once very high in the predominantly Catholic country. However, because of its religion, in 2003, the Philippine government “bowed to the church demands to support only ‘natural family planning’ – otherwise known as the ryhythm method, and grimly referred to as Vatican roulette.”[1]

“Today more than half of all pregnancies in the Philippines are unplanned – 10% more than a decade ago..the Guttmacher Institute [a think tank] calculates that easy access to contraception would reduce those births by 800,000 and abortions by half a million a year. Furthermore, it would deliver a net savings to the government on the order of $16.5 million a year in reduced health costs from unwatnted pregnancies, including the brutal medical consequences of illegal back-alley abortions.”[2]

So an education about birth control would:

1) REDUCE unwanted births by 800,000. REDUCE UNWANTED BIRTHS!

2) REDUCE abortions by ½ million a year. REDUCE ABORTIONS! Isn’t this what we ALL want regardless of where we stand on the issue?

3) saving money. Saving Money. One more time: SAVING MONEY!

So an education Reduces unwanted births, Reduces abortions and Saves money. What is the problem?

Ronald Reagan instigated the “global gag rule” in 1984 prohibiting the US funding of any foreign family planning organization to provide abortions which also, as a result, slowed and even stopped these organizations from providing health care to at least 26 developing nations, primarily in Africa. STDs skyrocketed along with unwanted pregnancies. I’m not advocating abortion as population control by any means. I’m advocating education of contraception and the dangers of sex when not careful. “The UN estimates that at its height in 2005, the unmet demand for contraceptives and family planning drove up fertility rates between 15 and 35 percent in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Arab states, Asia and Africa…”[3]

I get that Catholics want to advocate life and I don’t have a problem with that. But why can’t a woman (and a family) decide WHEN they want to bring a child into the world? It all comes down to sex and how it’s so “taboo.” An act that is innate and natural is taught that it is wrong and is used by the church to ensure control. This, in my opinion, is a crime against humanity. Accept that people have sex, provide them with the necessary information and celebrate the joy of a birth even more because you know that it was not only planned but that the parents have done what they can to prepare themselves to properly take care of the child. This could lower child abuse statistics, it could lower our overpopulation statistics and, in the end, contribute to raising happy, healthy and successful individuals. How is that so wrong?

---

[1] Whitty, Julia Mother Jones Vol. 35, No. 3, San Francisco, CA, June 2010, pp. 40.

[2] pp. 40-41.

[3] p. 41.

The Dangers of Education, Part II

06.04.2010

One of the solutions that the journalist in the Mother Jones article that I referred to yesterday wrote about is “education.” Ironic, of course, because I opened my entry yesterday about how depressing it can be when one is educated and able to think critically.

There have been a number of studies that have shown that when a group of people is educated, the benefits of living rise exponentially. This is self-explanatory, I think, but what surprised me greatly was the fact that most illiterate people in the world are women. Actually, that fact alone doesn’t surprise me. Men, who make up most of governments, have always tried to suppress women and a lack of education is a very good way to suppress anybody. But I digress.

I’m sure we’ve all heard of microloans where a person in a poorly developed country, mostly a woman, receives a small scale loan of some sort to help her provide for her family. It can range from a monetary loan to being provided with a goat or some other animal to help her make some money.

A Bangladeshi man by the name of “Muhammad Yunus founded Grammen (“villages”) Bank in 1983. His revolutionary model was to loan to the unloanable poor – notably women – who lacked collateral, enabling them to develop their own businesses and free themselves from poverty. This radical innovation won Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.” Next is the clincher: “Empirical studies now support his intuition of 27 years ago: Women make better loan recipients than men if your aim is to increase family well-being. Compared to men’s loans, women’s loans double family income and increase child survival twenty-fold…[In other words,] The best 21^st-century contraceptive is a Yunusian device, a microloan.”[1]

When a woman is educated enough at least to take a loan and support herself, she sees the world a little differently and may have fewer children so that they can have a better life than she growing up. More money provides an opportunity for a better quality of life.

Many Americans have a better quality of life, but I think what’s happened is we’ve become greedy. We want 4 cars for a two-adult household, we want to be able to take whatever we want and use it because, by golly, we’re entitled to it. Right? But our selfishness and greed is destroying our future. But, I guess, because we don’t immediately feel the affects of our actions daily and right away, we choose to ignore it. And as long as we keep popping out babies, the notion is that we won’t be around in 100 years to feel the affects of our decisions of today, so why should we care? Our great-grandchildren won’t know who we are personally so there’s no deep investment that far down the line. What matters is that our emotional needs of having babies are satisfied now.

I leave with the following to think about:[2]

[1] pp. 41-42.

[2] p.31.

The Dangers of Education, Part I

06.03.2010

I sometimes feel a burden of being educated and being able to think critically. I know how that sounds. I know it makes me arrogant and self-righteous. But education does bring an extra layer of worry. Keeping up with various topics and, for the purposes of this blog, keeping up with the issues of children, it’s exhausting to read an article and look into our future and see how grim it can be.

I picked up a magazine that I never read called Mother Jones. I’ve heard of it and seen it at my mom’s house before, but I’ve never actually read it. I picked it up because the cover page was titled “Who’s to Blame for the Population Crisis? A) the Vatican B) Washington C) You.” Under each choice is a sketch of the Pope covering his eyes, Uncle Sam covering his ears and a woman covering her mouth (based on the famous “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” motif). I immediately picked up the magazine because the issue of our global population crisis is one of the top reasons why I still have no child.

The article is mainly about India and I suppose the reason for that is because the population crisis there is emblematic of what the future holds for us. Much of India’s farmland has become desert with others in the process of becoming a desert. Topsoil in the US has long eroded shrinking our own farmland because of irresponsible farming practices as well as the demand for food outgrowing our ability to produce it. This prompted companies like McDonald’s to go to South America and start destroying the Amazon in order to graze cattle for beef to feed the need for our demand of fast food.

Globally, the tipping point came in 1983, “when our population of nearly 4.7 billion began to consume natural resources faster than they could be replenished – a phenomenon called ‘ecological overshoot.’ Last year, 6.8 billion of us consumed the renewable resources of 1.4 Earths.”[1]

What scared me immensely is the following statistic. “Planned or not, 139 million new people are added every year: more than an entire Japan, nearly an entire Russia…Countered against the 56 million deaths annually, our world gains 83 million extra people every year, the equivalent of another Iran. That’s 1.6 million more humans alive this week than last week and 227,000 more people today than yesterday – all needing food, water, homes, and medicine for an average lifespan of 69 years. We are asking our world to supply an additional 2.1 trillion human-days of life support for every single year. Eventually, most of these 83 million new people added every year will have kids, too.”[2]

How do I justify in my head bringing another human being into this world that is drowning in human population? How do I justify it?

The common misconception is that we are killing the Earth and one day, species will be extinct and we (humans) will all become extinct too. But the fact of the matter is that while we are killing parts of the Earth, she will survive. WE are killing ourselves and our future by overpopulating the Earth and using and abusing her resources for our own selfishness. Earth will figure out a way to survive. She has done so for decades and decades and decades. One of the ways she pays us back for our abuse is providing droughts. About 50,000 Europeans were killed in 2003 because of a heat wave while also slashing crops harvest by as much as 36%.[3] India is now experiencing a drought and we have begun to experience one in the US. Ever notice the water conservation ads that have started to hit the ad waves both on TV and on billboards? By over consuming and by the grace of our arrogance, we are killing ourselves. Not the Earth.

Do I want to bring a child into this?

---

[1] Whitty, Julia Mother Jones Vol. 35, No. 3, San Francisco, CA, June 2010, pp. 27-28.

[2] p.34

[3] p. 31.