Imagine your child as a chimpanzee. Don't pretend as though this is a big stretch, especially if they're jumping on the couch cushions and making funny noises, as mine are at the moment. As furry little apes, do you suppose they'd still be drawn to the same toys--girls to dolls and housekeeping sets, boys to ninja weapons? Or would they, free from all of our cultural conditioning and television commercials, show no gender preference?
It's a longstanding debate in child development: Are sex differences in play something biological or something we create in children through social conditioning? For all of the back and forth debating this question has garnered, it's been largely impossible to answer, because you can't separate children from culture. As it turns out, child psychologists should have just asked a chimpanzee.
A new study, published in the December 21, 2010 issue of the journal Current Biology, shows that chimpanzees deep in the Ugandan forest display gender stereotyped play without other chimps modeling this behavior. Based on more than 14 years of fieldwork with the Kanyawara chimp community in Kibale National Park, primatologists Sonya Kahlenberg and Richard Wrangham authored the study, which provides the first evidence of a wild, nonhuman animal exhibiting sex differences in play. Their research provides strong evidence that such gender-typed play is a natural component of human children as well.
Young chimpanzees in the wild may not have Barbie dolls or Ninja Turtle swords to play with, but they do have sticks--the toy of opportunity for all chimp kids. So primatologists tracked the way the youngsters used them. Little girl chimps collected sticks that they used as dolls--cradling their stick, feeding it with other sticks, and generally engaging in "play mothering" in the same way a human girl might play house or take care of a doll. Since they could find no evidence that childbearing females or other adults modeled this stick play to young female chimps, they were able to conclude that this tendency arose naturally in the young primates.
Boy chimps, on occasion, would use sticks to mimic child care just like the girls. But far more often they used the sticks to fight with (sound familiar?); something the girls rarely did. As Elizabeth Lonsdorf of the Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes tells Science News: "These new data suggest that sex differences in how children play may go way back in our evolutionary lineage and predate socialization in human cultures."
This does not let caretakers nor culture completely off the hook for gender socialization, however. Studies which demonstrate that adults interact differently with male and female children remain as valid as ever. If you dress the same baby up in either boy or girl clothing, adults treat the child differently depending on what gender they presume the baby to be. Decades of research has shown that social conditioning--from the way adults treat children to what they model and what is modeled by the media--exerts a strong influence on children's behavior. Nature versus nurture is not an either/or proposition, but a two-way street, where each one influences the other.
Parents and teachers should continue to try and battle sex stereotypes whenever possible, particularly wherein it pertains to a child who desires to transcend those boundaries. (Girls can be firefighters too if they want to, and there's nothing wrong with a boy who likes to cook.) Just don't expect girls to lose interest in frilly stuff and boys to drop their lizards and snails and take up a sudden interest in ballet. There is a genetic component to stereotypical gender play, and children may simply be doing what comes naturally to them.
Reference:
1. Bruce Bower, "Female chimps play with dolls," Science News, Vol. 179j No.2, 16, Jan. 15, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Women at Risk for Gestational Diabetes
A new study released this last December 21 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology finds that thousands of U.S. women may develop diabetes during pregnancy, yet go undiagnosed and untreated, putting both their own and their baby's health at risk. About a third of women are not currently screened, and 19% of those who ARE diagnosed receive no follow up in the 6 months after giving birth. The study was based on an analysis of more than 900,000 pregnant women.
Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia, a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.
In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy.
Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.
On a related note...
Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later, and thus feed longer.
Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia, a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.
In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy.
Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.
On a related note...
Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later, and thus feed longer.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Strange but True: Military Dogs Get PTSD
This post is slightly off-topic, but we thought it was something our readers might find interesting.
We all know about the severe toll that combat stress takes on our troops who are serving in a war s zone. It turns out that man's best friend is not immune from this stress either. A report in Army Times discloses that military dogs that are exposed to repeat deployments are exhibiting signs of PTSD, and those who work with the dogs say rates of canine PTSD diagnoses are increasing.
"The dogs that go overseas...we're starting to see some distress related issues," says Dr. Walter Burghardt, who is in charge of veterinary care for the Army. "It results in difficulty doing work.
They're distracted by loud noises. We're not saying it's the same as in people, but there are common things."
Asked whether PTSD in dogs can be treated, Burghardt responds "maybe." Dogs that are so distressed and scared that they're shaking and hiding can sometimes be given anti-anxiety medication, he says. Some dogs may need antidepressants. (No, we're not making this up.) For other dogs, doggie-therapy may be in order, such as desensitization and counter-conditioning therapy (which involves rehabilitating the dogs to loud noises or other stressors in a controlled setting), or perhaps recreational, social and work therapy.
All in all, about 25% of PTSD-diagnosed dogs are returning to service, whereas the remainder are either assigned other jobs or retired and adopted by local families. I guess war really is hell on everyone involved, whether you have four legs or two, and our military dogs are paying a price for combat. However, the fun one can have with the mental image of a doggie taking Prozac, now that's priceless.
We all know about the severe toll that combat stress takes on our troops who are serving in a war s zone. It turns out that man's best friend is not immune from this stress either. A report in Army Times discloses that military dogs that are exposed to repeat deployments are exhibiting signs of PTSD, and those who work with the dogs say rates of canine PTSD diagnoses are increasing.
"The dogs that go overseas...we're starting to see some distress related issues," says Dr. Walter Burghardt, who is in charge of veterinary care for the Army. "It results in difficulty doing work.
They're distracted by loud noises. We're not saying it's the same as in people, but there are common things."
Asked whether PTSD in dogs can be treated, Burghardt responds "maybe." Dogs that are so distressed and scared that they're shaking and hiding can sometimes be given anti-anxiety medication, he says. Some dogs may need antidepressants. (No, we're not making this up.) For other dogs, doggie-therapy may be in order, such as desensitization and counter-conditioning therapy (which involves rehabilitating the dogs to loud noises or other stressors in a controlled setting), or perhaps recreational, social and work therapy.
All in all, about 25% of PTSD-diagnosed dogs are returning to service, whereas the remainder are either assigned other jobs or retired and adopted by local families. I guess war really is hell on everyone involved, whether you have four legs or two, and our military dogs are paying a price for combat. However, the fun one can have with the mental image of a doggie taking Prozac, now that's priceless.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Formula Fed Babies Who Start Solids Too Early May Become Obese
Even thought the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents delay introducing solid food until their baby is 4 to 6 months, 26% of American parents start their infant on solids before they are 4 months old. A new study in the February 7th issue of Pediatrics suggests parents may want to rethink such habits.
Researchers tracked 847 children over a period of several years. It was determined that formula fed babies who started solids before they were 4 months old were 6 times more likely to be obese than babies who started on solids later. (By age 3, about 9% of the children overall in this study were obese.)
In line with other research, they also found that breast fed babies faced no additional risk of obesity, regardless of when they started on solids. (The AAP advises mothers to breast feed exclusively for 6 months, then combine nursing with other foods for at least a year.) Just something new parents should keep in mind ... there is no rush to start a baby on solid food.
Be sure to check out oursafety facts and statistics on www.keepyourchildsafe.org
Researchers tracked 847 children over a period of several years. It was determined that formula fed babies who started solids before they were 4 months old were 6 times more likely to be obese than babies who started on solids later. (By age 3, about 9% of the children overall in this study were obese.)
In line with other research, they also found that breast fed babies faced no additional risk of obesity, regardless of when they started on solids. (The AAP advises mothers to breast feed exclusively for 6 months, then combine nursing with other foods for at least a year.) Just something new parents should keep in mind ... there is no rush to start a baby on solid food.
Be sure to check out oursafety facts and statistics on www.keepyourchildsafe.org
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Mom Jailed for Trying to Send Kids to a Decent School
A mother's attempt to secure a better education for her children has earned her a status as a convicted felon. Yet her case exposes a much larger and much more harmful crime that has been going on in the U.S. school system for decades.
Forty-year-old Kelley Williams-Bolar, who worked as a teacher's aide, broke the law when she claimed on enrollment forms that her two daughters lived in a nearby suburb with their father. In actuality, the girls lived with her, in the Akron housing project, where the schools are sub-standard. Hoping to get her children out of a poor-performing and underfunded school to give them a chance at a better education, she flubbed the truth.
A jury convicted her in January, and she was given two concurrent five-year sentences. Judge Patricia Cosgrove reduced that to 10 days in jail, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service, but only after a good scolding. She told the mother she had to serve some time "so that others who think they might defraud the school system, perhaps, will think twice."
Seeing hypocrisy from U.S. judges is as predictable as the rising of the sun each day, but judge Cosgrove really should check herself before she gets too carried away with self-righteous condemnation. It's not just Williams-Bolar who committed a crime here. The state of Ohio and its government officials (including judge Cosgrove) have been perpetrating a much more extensive fraud millions of times over, and one that harms children (and society) far more than what Williams-Bolar did.
Under Ohio's constitution, written in 1851, Ohio's General Assembly is required to "secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." Yet Ohio provides only a portion of the cost for educating its children, leaving the rest up to local jurisdictions. This, however, fuels an unfair imbalance that punishes the schools of the poor.
Since 1997, Ohio's Supreme Court has ruled on 4 separate occasions that the state's approach to funding public education is unconstitutional. The state has essentially ignored these rulings, disregarding law and leaving in place its system of funding that favors the rich and punishes the poor. Elected officials continue to offer nothing more than symbolic and meaningless band-aids that keep the status quo in place.
It's not just Ohio where these grave disparities exist. In fact, ,all 50 states in the Union rig funding for schools in similar manners, and child advocates have for decades cried foul about how this distorts the system and creates unequal opportunities. Middle class and upper-income kids get schools in richer areas with a higher tax base to properly pay for education, while lower-income students get the shaft. As McLanahan & Sandefur point out, "public school financing is community-based and schools with a high concentration of minority students usually have a low tax base." (*1)
This has long been one of the most fundamental problems with our education system, cited by numerous experts as one of the top reasons that lower income students under-perform. It's not as though elected officials are unaware that this injustice is going on...they just choose to look the other direction. Low income areas pay fewer income taxes, have low rates of home ownership (a primary source of educational funding is property taxes in most districts), and fewer sales tax revenues. This means less money for their schools, which means fewer programs, run-down equipment and facilities, and less funds to pay the type of salaries that would keep quality teachers from defecting to districts that can afford to pay more.
What's worse, these disparities will only widen as the budget crunch many states are in drags on. Time magazine reports that in many districts, parents are chipping in to pay a portion of the school's budget to fund a librarian or PE and music teachers, so that the schools can keep such programs for their children. Yet parents in poorer neighborhoods can't afford such things. As a result, there are "PTA wars" cropping up, in which parents from different schools are at each other's throat because one school is able to fund programs for children that another school cannot.
Meanwhile, the injustice lives on. Small potatoes like Williams-Bolar are held accountable to the law, while judges and state officials are allowed to disregard it with complete impunity. We'd like to see Judge Patricia Cosgrove stand behind her position, and put her own children or grandchildren in the school next to the housing project. Or better yet, charge herself with a felony for depriving lower-income students of their lawful right to a fair education--a theft of epic proportions. Perhaps then she'll consider enforcing the law on behalf of poor children too, and not waste time defending an unjust system that is breaking its own constitution, while defrauding Ohio's children of an equal opportunity for a decent education.
References:
1. Sarah McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, 'Growing Up With A Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps.' Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1994, p. 121
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for books and teacher worksheets.
Forty-year-old Kelley Williams-Bolar, who worked as a teacher's aide, broke the law when she claimed on enrollment forms that her two daughters lived in a nearby suburb with their father. In actuality, the girls lived with her, in the Akron housing project, where the schools are sub-standard. Hoping to get her children out of a poor-performing and underfunded school to give them a chance at a better education, she flubbed the truth.
A jury convicted her in January, and she was given two concurrent five-year sentences. Judge Patricia Cosgrove reduced that to 10 days in jail, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service, but only after a good scolding. She told the mother she had to serve some time "so that others who think they might defraud the school system, perhaps, will think twice."
Seeing hypocrisy from U.S. judges is as predictable as the rising of the sun each day, but judge Cosgrove really should check herself before she gets too carried away with self-righteous condemnation. It's not just Williams-Bolar who committed a crime here. The state of Ohio and its government officials (including judge Cosgrove) have been perpetrating a much more extensive fraud millions of times over, and one that harms children (and society) far more than what Williams-Bolar did.
Under Ohio's constitution, written in 1851, Ohio's General Assembly is required to "secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." Yet Ohio provides only a portion of the cost for educating its children, leaving the rest up to local jurisdictions. This, however, fuels an unfair imbalance that punishes the schools of the poor.
Since 1997, Ohio's Supreme Court has ruled on 4 separate occasions that the state's approach to funding public education is unconstitutional. The state has essentially ignored these rulings, disregarding law and leaving in place its system of funding that favors the rich and punishes the poor. Elected officials continue to offer nothing more than symbolic and meaningless band-aids that keep the status quo in place.
It's not just Ohio where these grave disparities exist. In fact, ,all 50 states in the Union rig funding for schools in similar manners, and child advocates have for decades cried foul about how this distorts the system and creates unequal opportunities. Middle class and upper-income kids get schools in richer areas with a higher tax base to properly pay for education, while lower-income students get the shaft. As McLanahan & Sandefur point out, "public school financing is community-based and schools with a high concentration of minority students usually have a low tax base." (*1)
This has long been one of the most fundamental problems with our education system, cited by numerous experts as one of the top reasons that lower income students under-perform. It's not as though elected officials are unaware that this injustice is going on...they just choose to look the other direction. Low income areas pay fewer income taxes, have low rates of home ownership (a primary source of educational funding is property taxes in most districts), and fewer sales tax revenues. This means less money for their schools, which means fewer programs, run-down equipment and facilities, and less funds to pay the type of salaries that would keep quality teachers from defecting to districts that can afford to pay more.
What's worse, these disparities will only widen as the budget crunch many states are in drags on. Time magazine reports that in many districts, parents are chipping in to pay a portion of the school's budget to fund a librarian or PE and music teachers, so that the schools can keep such programs for their children. Yet parents in poorer neighborhoods can't afford such things. As a result, there are "PTA wars" cropping up, in which parents from different schools are at each other's throat because one school is able to fund programs for children that another school cannot.
Meanwhile, the injustice lives on. Small potatoes like Williams-Bolar are held accountable to the law, while judges and state officials are allowed to disregard it with complete impunity. We'd like to see Judge Patricia Cosgrove stand behind her position, and put her own children or grandchildren in the school next to the housing project. Or better yet, charge herself with a felony for depriving lower-income students of their lawful right to a fair education--a theft of epic proportions. Perhaps then she'll consider enforcing the law on behalf of poor children too, and not waste time defending an unjust system that is breaking its own constitution, while defrauding Ohio's children of an equal opportunity for a decent education.
References:
1. Sarah McLanahan & Gary Sandefur, 'Growing Up With A Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps.' Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1994, p. 121
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for books and teacher worksheets.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Debate Over Tiger Mothers: What Isn't Being Said in the Media About Chua's Book
I had been doing my best to avoid the debate recently started by Amy Chua's controversial book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, on account that spending time addressing selfish, self-serving and abusive mothers seems, well, a waste of time. That, and the first taste I got made me mad, so I generally try to avoid unnecessary frustration. But after reading an article in Time magazine that attempted to partially defend Chua's approach while evoking some parenting advice severely out of context, I couldn't sit quiet any longer.
For those who have been out of the loop, Chua's book is a personal memoir in which the author promotes her extreme parenting style while making claims about the superiority of Chinese parenting styles over American parenting styles. But to say it's a debate over parenting styles is to put it mildly. The book is akin to a parenting guide written for aspiring evil stepmothers everywhere, filled with stories of blatant child abuse and a whole lot of poor parenting practices.
In the book, Chua makes no qualms about calling her older child "garbage" after the girl behaved disrespectfully. She talks about forcing her 7-year-old daughter Lulu to practice the piano for hours on end, "right through dinner into the night," without breaks for water or even to use the bathroom, until Lulu learned to play the piece. When upset with her daughter's progress, she is said to have threatened to burn her daughter's stuffed animals: "if the next time's not PERFECT, I'm going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM." She refused her girls any play dates, sleepovers, television, computer games, or even school plays. And when little Lulu drew a card for her mother's birthday, Chua threw the card back in her daughter's face, exclaiming "I don't want this," and adding that she expected to receive a drawing that Lulu had put some thought and effort into. "I deserve better than this," Chua barked, "So I reject this." She also describes battles with her children in which "'all out nuclear warfare' doesn't quite capture it," in which arguments escalated to screaming competitions and glass smashing fights, all started because her daughter couldn't stand any more violin practice. Suffice it to say, Amy Chua won't be winning any mother-of-the-year awards anytime soon.
The book has sparked plenty of outrage and debate. Meredith Vieisa even called Chua "a monster" to her face when she appeared on the Today show. Chua isn't a monster, just a self-centered, misguided mother who happens to engage in abusive tactics with her children. And like many abusive parents, her harshness is inter-generational: Her own childhood is filled with stories of being slapped with chopsticks or having her father tell her, "Never, ever disgrace me like that again," after she received second place at an awards assembly. However, the tactics she talks about are not to be taken lightly, either. (For example, we're about to publish a book 4-years in the making on various forms of child maltreatment, which outlines a wealth of research from different studies showing that the type of verbal abuse and high-anxiety environments Chua talks about can be just as harmful to kids as more conventional forms of child abuse.) So many of the tactics she appears to advocate is akin to the promotion of child abuse.
Time magazine pointed out (perhaps correctly) that part of the anxiety the book has stirred up may be about our secret fears that China and other rising powers are overtaking us. Students in Shanghai recently took the PISA test for student assessment, the first time Chinese students had been included since PISA began its rankings in 2000. They blew everyone else out of the water, taking a decisive first place in all three categories of the test. This comes as American test scores continue their slow and steady descent towards remedial school. As Annie Murphy Paul writes in the article: "With a stroke of her razor-sharp pen, Chua has set a whole nation of parents to wondering: Are we the losers she's talking about?" (*1, p. 37)
The article goes on to pull many facts and quotes out of context in an effort to defend Chua's philosophy:
"Research demonstrates that children who are protected from grappling with difficult tasks don't develop what psychologists call 'mastery experiences,'" she writes, quoting Psychology Today editor Hara Estroff Marano.
Yes, but there is a big difference between over protection or not allowing children to solve their own problems and the type of abusive practices Chua promotes.
"Kids who have this well-earned sense of mastery are more optimistic and decisive; they've learned that they're capable of overcoming adversity and achieving goals."
Once again, a well-earned sense of mastery has little to do with being forced to play the violin for hours on end. That's not a child's mastery, but an appeasement to their master.
Citing studies by Carol Dweck, which we're well familiar with: "The kids who were praised for their hard work...were eager to take on the demanding new exercise."
Chua did not praise her kids for hard work, she verbally abused them, calling them trash and telling them they weren't good enough.
Perhaps Paul's boldest statement follows a couple loose and misquoted examples about the science on memory drills, when she exclaims, "Cognitive neuroscience, in other words, confirms the wisdom of what the tiger mother knew all along."
No, actually, it doesn't. In fact, research on both neuroscience and child brain development blatantly refutes just about everyone of Chua's principles. Set aside for a moment the verbal abuse and domestic violence, her style commits several cardinal sins that are well documented to harm children:
1) The promotion of perfectionism
2) A rigid, stressful, high-anxiety environment
3) Developmentally inappropriate practices with severe detriments in free play time.
Perfectionism holds children up to unrealistic and/or developmentally inappropriate demands in order to please parents, who are generally more concerned with their own interests than the child's. In doing so, perfectionist parents also tend to teach their children, either directly or indirectly, that parental love is conditional on a self-worth that is measured by how they perform, and could be lost at any moment if the child doesn't measure up. This fits Chua's parenting style like a glove. So is this healthy? Let's turn to some quotes from Hara Estroff Marano that aren't taken out of context:
"And if ever there was a blueprint for breeding psychological distress, that's it. Perfectionism seeps into the psyche and creates a pervasive personality style. It keeps people from engaging in challenging experiences; they don't get to discover what they truly like or to create their own identities. Perfectionism reduces playfulness and the assimilation of knowledge; if you're always focused on your own performance and on defending yourself, you can't focus on learning a task...perfectionism reduces creativity and innovation--exactly what's not adaptive in the global marketplace." (*(*2, p. 82)
She goes on to add:
"Pushing for perfection clashes with children's developmental needs."
"Criticism implying that affection or approval is conditional on good performance is lethal."
"In the grand scheme of things, perfectionism is an intrusive form of parenting that attempts to control the psychological world of the child."
"The push for perfectionism comes at a high cost to children."
That hardly sounds like an endorsement of Chua's philosophy. So what about the hours of violin practice and boring drills with no free play time? Does neuroscience indeed back up Chua's philosophy here, vindicating the tiger mother's ruthlessness as Paul alleges? Once again, the answer is no.
A primary problem with Chua's style, and that of overly demanding regimens like it, is that they limit the type of spontaneous, creative free play time that is crucial to a child's social, emotional, and intellectual development. A healthy allotment of free play time has a direct link to child mental health, and has been shown to lower children's anxiety levels. Play releases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein critical for neuronal growth. A lack of play has been shown to cause underdevelopment in crucial problem solving skills. As renowned neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp observes, "play is the major mechanism whereby higher regions of the brain get socialized." (*3)
Chua's philosophy also promotes a high-stress, high-anxiety environment.
This bathes a child's mind in cortisol, the stress hormone, which has been shown to actually kill off neurons and shrink areas of the child's developing brain. (*4)
Children are capable of enduring quite a bit, but just because you can push a child to accomplish something doesn't mean you should. What Chua and others like her fail to take notice of is that this highly demanding environment takes its toll. China may have great test scores, but they also have youth suicide rates that are more than four times that of the U.S. Recent research shows that 25% of Chinese University students have suicidal thoughts, compared to 6% in the United States. Sadly, it's all-too-common to see Chinese youth kill themselves when they get a B on a test or endure some other seemingly minor academic setback. They would rather take their own life than face the wrath of their parent's disappointment. (*5) This push for achievement at all costs exacts such a heavy toll that many break, withdrawing into the fantasy of video games 24/7, a major epidemic in Chinese society. (*5) A Chinese father, talking about the enormous pressures on his daughter, admits: "It's too much. Something has to change." (*6) And for all this work, a primary problem China faces in its economy is a lack of innovation and creativity: hardly surprising given what we know about child development in such rigid environments.
A Deeper Question About What We Really Want For Our Children
As frustrating as this debate is, I'm more deeply disturbed by the insinuation that such neurotically aggressive parenting is necessary in order to keep up with the world economy. There's a scene in Jurassic Park where Malcom points out that scientists "were so obsessed with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think whether or not you should." I'm reminded of that point here. We feel compelled towards the idea that we must get on top at all costs, never stopping to question whether this game we are playing is really in the best interest of our children or humanity at large.
Capitalism is a recent social experiment in human history; a fact lost on most people simply because it's the only system everyone alive today has ever known. Yet capitalism in its current form is also a failed social experiment, though most people don't realize it yet. (You will in anywhere from 20-100 years, depending on how the cards fall.) Capitalism has brought us wonderful gadgets and gizmos. Many principles of capitalism are noble and good. But the type of consumer-capitalism and cut-throat, get ahead at all costs marketplace we've been promoting is also as unsustainable as the housing bubble, and those who pretend that world GDP can grow indefinitely are the same idiots who said housing prices would go up and never come down.
We live on a small earth with limited resources, and this push for constant economic exploitation is akin to the nuclear arms race: a lunatic’s exercise in self-destruction. If the whole world lived as we do in the United States, we would need 10 to 11 earths just to produce it all. We don't have 10 earths, and we're well on our way towards utterly destroying the one we have. The same China that brags of superior test scores, all part of its plan to climb to the top of this capitalist machine, also has air so polluted that its children are suffering major health problems and even early death, all in the name of this pursuit for economic superiority. (*7) We don't need more tiger moms to fuel this self-destructive machine. We need to step back and think about what we really want for our children: an anxiety-filled childhood devoid of fun; all in preparation for a lifetime of unfulfilled, anxiety-filled enslavement to the economic marketplace, so that we can keep this machine that is destroying our planet going? At what point do we step back and ask ourselves what type of world we want for our children, and at what cost? Even Chua admits that her parents "didn't think about children's happiness. They thought about preparing us for the future."
Parents should push their children to excel, they should set the bars high in whatever they do, and they should sometimes push their kids into areas that may be uncomfortable so that they can learn to conquer adversity. Many U.S. parents are far too overprotective, a style which can also be as unhealthy for children in the long run as Chua's. But that's a far cry from verbal abuse and replacing the wondrous exploration of childhood with violin practice for hours on end.
The sadder fact in all of this is that through a focus on unbridled competition, we've reached a point where an iconic U.S. magazine is pondering the question about whether we need to adopt verbally-abusive, overly demanding, age inappropriate approaches to parenting in order to keep up with the Chinese. If that type of cruel, rigid, robotic upbringing is what it takes to keep up with China, count me out.
References:
1. Annie Murphy Paul, "The roar of the tiger mom." Time Magazine, January 31, 2011, pp. 39-40
2. Hara Estroff Marano, "The making of a perfectionist." Psychology Today, April 2008, pp. 80-86
3. Melinda Wenner, "The serious need for play," Scientific American Mind, Feb./March 2009, Vol. 20(21 ):23-29; Dorothy G. Singer, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff and Kathy Hirsch-Pasek, "Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth.' Oxford Univ. Press, 2006
4. B. McEwen & H.Schmeck, 'The Hostage Brain.' New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1994
5. Taylor Clark, "Plight of the Little Emporers," Psychology Today, Vol. 42(4): 86-91, August 2008
6. Bill Powell, "Tiger daughter." Time Magazine, Jan. 31, 2011, p. 41
7. Dan Fagin, "China's children of smoke." Scientific American, Vol. 299(2): 72-79, August 2008
For those who have been out of the loop, Chua's book is a personal memoir in which the author promotes her extreme parenting style while making claims about the superiority of Chinese parenting styles over American parenting styles. But to say it's a debate over parenting styles is to put it mildly. The book is akin to a parenting guide written for aspiring evil stepmothers everywhere, filled with stories of blatant child abuse and a whole lot of poor parenting practices.
In the book, Chua makes no qualms about calling her older child "garbage" after the girl behaved disrespectfully. She talks about forcing her 7-year-old daughter Lulu to practice the piano for hours on end, "right through dinner into the night," without breaks for water or even to use the bathroom, until Lulu learned to play the piece. When upset with her daughter's progress, she is said to have threatened to burn her daughter's stuffed animals: "if the next time's not PERFECT, I'm going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM." She refused her girls any play dates, sleepovers, television, computer games, or even school plays. And when little Lulu drew a card for her mother's birthday, Chua threw the card back in her daughter's face, exclaiming "I don't want this," and adding that she expected to receive a drawing that Lulu had put some thought and effort into. "I deserve better than this," Chua barked, "So I reject this." She also describes battles with her children in which "'all out nuclear warfare' doesn't quite capture it," in which arguments escalated to screaming competitions and glass smashing fights, all started because her daughter couldn't stand any more violin practice. Suffice it to say, Amy Chua won't be winning any mother-of-the-year awards anytime soon.
The book has sparked plenty of outrage and debate. Meredith Vieisa even called Chua "a monster" to her face when she appeared on the Today show. Chua isn't a monster, just a self-centered, misguided mother who happens to engage in abusive tactics with her children. And like many abusive parents, her harshness is inter-generational: Her own childhood is filled with stories of being slapped with chopsticks or having her father tell her, "Never, ever disgrace me like that again," after she received second place at an awards assembly. However, the tactics she talks about are not to be taken lightly, either. (For example, we're about to publish a book 4-years in the making on various forms of child maltreatment, which outlines a wealth of research from different studies showing that the type of verbal abuse and high-anxiety environments Chua talks about can be just as harmful to kids as more conventional forms of child abuse.) So many of the tactics she appears to advocate is akin to the promotion of child abuse.
Time magazine pointed out (perhaps correctly) that part of the anxiety the book has stirred up may be about our secret fears that China and other rising powers are overtaking us. Students in Shanghai recently took the PISA test for student assessment, the first time Chinese students had been included since PISA began its rankings in 2000. They blew everyone else out of the water, taking a decisive first place in all three categories of the test. This comes as American test scores continue their slow and steady descent towards remedial school. As Annie Murphy Paul writes in the article: "With a stroke of her razor-sharp pen, Chua has set a whole nation of parents to wondering: Are we the losers she's talking about?" (*1, p. 37)
The article goes on to pull many facts and quotes out of context in an effort to defend Chua's philosophy:
"Research demonstrates that children who are protected from grappling with difficult tasks don't develop what psychologists call 'mastery experiences,'" she writes, quoting Psychology Today editor Hara Estroff Marano.
Yes, but there is a big difference between over protection or not allowing children to solve their own problems and the type of abusive practices Chua promotes.
"Kids who have this well-earned sense of mastery are more optimistic and decisive; they've learned that they're capable of overcoming adversity and achieving goals."
Once again, a well-earned sense of mastery has little to do with being forced to play the violin for hours on end. That's not a child's mastery, but an appeasement to their master.
Citing studies by Carol Dweck, which we're well familiar with: "The kids who were praised for their hard work...were eager to take on the demanding new exercise."
Chua did not praise her kids for hard work, she verbally abused them, calling them trash and telling them they weren't good enough.
Perhaps Paul's boldest statement follows a couple loose and misquoted examples about the science on memory drills, when she exclaims, "Cognitive neuroscience, in other words, confirms the wisdom of what the tiger mother knew all along."
No, actually, it doesn't. In fact, research on both neuroscience and child brain development blatantly refutes just about everyone of Chua's principles. Set aside for a moment the verbal abuse and domestic violence, her style commits several cardinal sins that are well documented to harm children:
1) The promotion of perfectionism
2) A rigid, stressful, high-anxiety environment
3) Developmentally inappropriate practices with severe detriments in free play time.
Perfectionism holds children up to unrealistic and/or developmentally inappropriate demands in order to please parents, who are generally more concerned with their own interests than the child's. In doing so, perfectionist parents also tend to teach their children, either directly or indirectly, that parental love is conditional on a self-worth that is measured by how they perform, and could be lost at any moment if the child doesn't measure up. This fits Chua's parenting style like a glove. So is this healthy? Let's turn to some quotes from Hara Estroff Marano that aren't taken out of context:
"And if ever there was a blueprint for breeding psychological distress, that's it. Perfectionism seeps into the psyche and creates a pervasive personality style. It keeps people from engaging in challenging experiences; they don't get to discover what they truly like or to create their own identities. Perfectionism reduces playfulness and the assimilation of knowledge; if you're always focused on your own performance and on defending yourself, you can't focus on learning a task...perfectionism reduces creativity and innovation--exactly what's not adaptive in the global marketplace." (*(*2, p. 82)
She goes on to add:
"Pushing for perfection clashes with children's developmental needs."
"Criticism implying that affection or approval is conditional on good performance is lethal."
"In the grand scheme of things, perfectionism is an intrusive form of parenting that attempts to control the psychological world of the child."
"The push for perfectionism comes at a high cost to children."
That hardly sounds like an endorsement of Chua's philosophy. So what about the hours of violin practice and boring drills with no free play time? Does neuroscience indeed back up Chua's philosophy here, vindicating the tiger mother's ruthlessness as Paul alleges? Once again, the answer is no.
A primary problem with Chua's style, and that of overly demanding regimens like it, is that they limit the type of spontaneous, creative free play time that is crucial to a child's social, emotional, and intellectual development. A healthy allotment of free play time has a direct link to child mental health, and has been shown to lower children's anxiety levels. Play releases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein critical for neuronal growth. A lack of play has been shown to cause underdevelopment in crucial problem solving skills. As renowned neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp observes, "play is the major mechanism whereby higher regions of the brain get socialized." (*3)
Chua's philosophy also promotes a high-stress, high-anxiety environment.
This bathes a child's mind in cortisol, the stress hormone, which has been shown to actually kill off neurons and shrink areas of the child's developing brain. (*4)
Children are capable of enduring quite a bit, but just because you can push a child to accomplish something doesn't mean you should. What Chua and others like her fail to take notice of is that this highly demanding environment takes its toll. China may have great test scores, but they also have youth suicide rates that are more than four times that of the U.S. Recent research shows that 25% of Chinese University students have suicidal thoughts, compared to 6% in the United States. Sadly, it's all-too-common to see Chinese youth kill themselves when they get a B on a test or endure some other seemingly minor academic setback. They would rather take their own life than face the wrath of their parent's disappointment. (*5) This push for achievement at all costs exacts such a heavy toll that many break, withdrawing into the fantasy of video games 24/7, a major epidemic in Chinese society. (*5) A Chinese father, talking about the enormous pressures on his daughter, admits: "It's too much. Something has to change." (*6) And for all this work, a primary problem China faces in its economy is a lack of innovation and creativity: hardly surprising given what we know about child development in such rigid environments.
A Deeper Question About What We Really Want For Our Children
As frustrating as this debate is, I'm more deeply disturbed by the insinuation that such neurotically aggressive parenting is necessary in order to keep up with the world economy. There's a scene in Jurassic Park where Malcom points out that scientists "were so obsessed with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think whether or not you should." I'm reminded of that point here. We feel compelled towards the idea that we must get on top at all costs, never stopping to question whether this game we are playing is really in the best interest of our children or humanity at large.
Capitalism is a recent social experiment in human history; a fact lost on most people simply because it's the only system everyone alive today has ever known. Yet capitalism in its current form is also a failed social experiment, though most people don't realize it yet. (You will in anywhere from 20-100 years, depending on how the cards fall.) Capitalism has brought us wonderful gadgets and gizmos. Many principles of capitalism are noble and good. But the type of consumer-capitalism and cut-throat, get ahead at all costs marketplace we've been promoting is also as unsustainable as the housing bubble, and those who pretend that world GDP can grow indefinitely are the same idiots who said housing prices would go up and never come down.
We live on a small earth with limited resources, and this push for constant economic exploitation is akin to the nuclear arms race: a lunatic’s exercise in self-destruction. If the whole world lived as we do in the United States, we would need 10 to 11 earths just to produce it all. We don't have 10 earths, and we're well on our way towards utterly destroying the one we have. The same China that brags of superior test scores, all part of its plan to climb to the top of this capitalist machine, also has air so polluted that its children are suffering major health problems and even early death, all in the name of this pursuit for economic superiority. (*7) We don't need more tiger moms to fuel this self-destructive machine. We need to step back and think about what we really want for our children: an anxiety-filled childhood devoid of fun; all in preparation for a lifetime of unfulfilled, anxiety-filled enslavement to the economic marketplace, so that we can keep this machine that is destroying our planet going? At what point do we step back and ask ourselves what type of world we want for our children, and at what cost? Even Chua admits that her parents "didn't think about children's happiness. They thought about preparing us for the future."
Parents should push their children to excel, they should set the bars high in whatever they do, and they should sometimes push their kids into areas that may be uncomfortable so that they can learn to conquer adversity. Many U.S. parents are far too overprotective, a style which can also be as unhealthy for children in the long run as Chua's. But that's a far cry from verbal abuse and replacing the wondrous exploration of childhood with violin practice for hours on end.
The sadder fact in all of this is that through a focus on unbridled competition, we've reached a point where an iconic U.S. magazine is pondering the question about whether we need to adopt verbally-abusive, overly demanding, age inappropriate approaches to parenting in order to keep up with the Chinese. If that type of cruel, rigid, robotic upbringing is what it takes to keep up with China, count me out.
References:
1. Annie Murphy Paul, "The roar of the tiger mom." Time Magazine, January 31, 2011, pp. 39-40
2. Hara Estroff Marano, "The making of a perfectionist." Psychology Today, April 2008, pp. 80-86
3. Melinda Wenner, "The serious need for play," Scientific American Mind, Feb./March 2009, Vol. 20(21 ):23-29; Dorothy G. Singer, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff and Kathy Hirsch-Pasek, "Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth.' Oxford Univ. Press, 2006
4. B. McEwen & H.Schmeck, 'The Hostage Brain.' New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1994
5. Taylor Clark, "Plight of the Little Emporers," Psychology Today, Vol. 42(4): 86-91, August 2008
6. Bill Powell, "Tiger daughter." Time Magazine, Jan. 31, 2011, p. 41
7. Dan Fagin, "China's children of smoke." Scientific American, Vol. 299(2): 72-79, August 2008
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Dangers of Pesticide Exposure During Pregnancy
A new study in the February 7th issue of Pediatrics, warns that exposure to a type of pesticide used for Spring pests could increase the risk for pregnant women that their baby will suffer learning disabilities. Lead author Megan Horton of the Colombia Center for Children's Environmental Health says fetuses exposed to the highest levels of the chemical Permethrin, which is commonly used in agriculture as well as pest control to get rid of termites, fleas, and other household bugs, were 3 times as likely to have a mental delay as those exposed to lower levels. Children with the highest prenatal exposures also scored about 4 points lower on the Dayley Mental Developmental Index, in intelligence tests -- about the same IQ detriment that is caused by lead.
A study last month in the journal of Environmental Health found that nearly all of the 268 women studied had detectable levels of 8 types of chemicals in their blood or urine, and that the typical pregnant woman had dozens of potentially toxic chemicals in her body, including ingredients that are found in flame retardants and rocket fuel. Many of these chemicals pass through the placenta and can concentrate in the fetus.
A study last month in the journal of Environmental Health found that nearly all of the 268 women studied had detectable levels of 8 types of chemicals in their blood or urine, and that the typical pregnant woman had dozens of potentially toxic chemicals in her body, including ingredients that are found in flame retardants and rocket fuel. Many of these chemicals pass through the placenta and can concentrate in the fetus.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Too Many Potty Accidents Gets Three-year-old Suspended from Preschool
We come across a lot of absurd cases of children getting in trouble at school for ridiculous things. But this next case is especially unique.
A three year old Virginia girl, Zoe Rosso, was recently suspended from preschool for the crime of peeing her pants one too many times. The child's mother, Betsy, was stunned when she received such news from the preschool's principle who added that "Zoe has had enough chances." Betsy thinks the school is being too strict, saying that potty training varies by child and that a three year old having accidents "is totally developmentally normal."
Having worked in the field before, I know what a pain accidents can be. It requires an extra staff member to get the child changed; it means often time hunting down spare clothes when parents forget; and there are even some government regulations that require children in certain classrooms to be potty trained. But c'mon, give the kid a break. Suspending the tot seems just plain silly, especially since there are things the teachers could be doing to assist in this process. Let us know what you think.
A three year old Virginia girl, Zoe Rosso, was recently suspended from preschool for the crime of peeing her pants one too many times. The child's mother, Betsy, was stunned when she received such news from the preschool's principle who added that "Zoe has had enough chances." Betsy thinks the school is being too strict, saying that potty training varies by child and that a three year old having accidents "is totally developmentally normal."
Having worked in the field before, I know what a pain accidents can be. It requires an extra staff member to get the child changed; it means often time hunting down spare clothes when parents forget; and there are even some government regulations that require children in certain classrooms to be potty trained. But c'mon, give the kid a break. Suspending the tot seems just plain silly, especially since there are things the teachers could be doing to assist in this process. Let us know what you think.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
GCF Blog Posts: Women at Risk for Gestational Diabetes
A new study released this last December 21 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology finds that thousands of U.S. women may develop diabetes during pregnancy, yet go undiagnosed and untreated, putting both their own and their baby's health at risk. About a third of women are not currently screened, and 19% of those who ARE diagnosed receive no follow up in the 6 months after giving birth. The study was based on an analysis of more than 900,000 pregnant women.
Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia--a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.
In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy. Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.
On a related note...
Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later and thus feed longer.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org to learn about child safety.
Gestational diabetes develops during pregnancy, and is associated with several health related risks, including birth defects, premature birth, and pre-eclampsia--a potentially life-threatening blood pressure condition that threatens both mother and child during birth. Furthermore, as many as half of the women who develop gestational diabetes will go on to develop full-blown diabetes. Medical guidelines recommend that women receive a follow-up screening between 6 and 12 weeks postpartum.
In separate research published earlier in December by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, it was found that 6.4% of the 4.2 million women who gave birth that year (or around a quarter-million) had either pre-existing diabetes or developed it during their pregnancy. Controlling diabetes during pregnancy through healthy diet, exercise and by watching blood sugar can ensure a healthy pregnancy, since "even a slight inability to control blood sugar during pregnancy has a direct impact on your body and your health," says Jon Nakamoto, author of the first study.
On a related note...
Babies & Formula
Past research has shown that formula-fed babies gain more weight than breast-fed babies, which might set them up for obesity down the road. A recent study in PLoS One suggests that formulas based on cows' milk may add even more pounds than soy or protein-based formulas, even though they contain the same amount of calories. The reason is that protein-based formulas are broken down earlier, signaling to the digestive system that the meal is nearly over. Infants who receive other formulas may get that signal later and thus feed longer.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org to learn about child safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)