During this morning’s Senate DOMA hearings, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) destroyed Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery’s argument that children are better off with opposite-sex parents by demonstrating how Minnery misrepresented an HHS study. The study — which Minnery cited to oppose marriage equality — actually found that children do best in two-parent households, regardless of the parents’ gender.
You can watch it below:
Normally I’d avoid linking to something so potentially partisan, but this incident – which has been well-popularized around the Internet since it happened – seems to be a prime opportunity to take a look at a very complicated issue: that of what families should look like, what children’s needs are, and what parenting really is all about.
First, it almost goes without saying that this is a fine example of how research findings can easily be abused and misused. But second, and arguably more interestingly, this incident also highlights how swiftly ‘parenting’ can be co-opted by cultural beliefs and dogma – and, getting to the heart of the matter, how far our society’s concepts and public discussions of ‘parenting’ and ‘families’ have been removed from where I believe they should really lie: with children themselves. Ideally, I believe we should view ‘Parenting’ as as a responsibility taken on by an adult, whether through the birth or adoption of a child, to meet and provide for that child’s needs; while ‘Families’ can be viewed simply as whoever comes together around children to help in that task of meeting their needs. Unfortunately, such a focus on children themselves and their needs is often far from the true center of public discussions about families – so if I may, I’d like to try to reframe things here, in these different terms.
Parenting can be seen through several different frames of reference. First there is a societal perspective – where parenting can be seen as a way to either perpetuate current social traditions and ways of life, or to prepare ‘future members of society’ for continued adaptation and the ability to meet the challenges of the future. Parenting can also be seen from a parent’s perspective – where the act of parenting provides some sort of meaning, gratification or change in the life of the parent. Finally, we can view parenting from the child’s perspective – where a parent is typically the primary person in their lives through whom that child’s needs are met.
It’s likely fair to say that all these frames of reference are valid, and can potentially be complementary to each other. Yet often, Western cultures like ours get too wrapped up in the first two perspectives, at the neglect or even exploitation of the third.
Yes, parenting is largely a cultural and philosophical act: how you interact with your children, and the environments and experiences you establish for them, is I think a profound statement on the way you see the world and how you want it to be. And Mr. Minnery and the Focus on the Family organization have every right to work toward a family subculture of their own, that matches their vision of the world. But, first, it is a problem when you try to press this subculture on others; second, and more disturbing, it is malicious and exploitative to intentionally misuse the researched evidence around children’s lives – to in essence use children themselves – to justify your own way of life, while persecuting others for theirs.
In this particular case, the research around children and their well-being proves that children are undeniably resilient and accommodating of many different family structures – and contrary to Mr. Minnery’s fervent belief, can absolutely still thrive while having two parents of the same sex, so long as their needs are still being met.
Since we raise the topic of children’s needs – and since we bandy about the term so freely in our discussions, often using it to justify our own prejudices and beliefs – it stands to question: what are these actual needs of children? Interestingly, they appear to be fewer and far more basic than one might imagine, according to eminent psychologist Jerome Kagan. After conducting decades of longitudinal studies globally, Kagan established that children, across all cultures, have only four essential, universal needs that have to be met in order for them to grow up emotionally and physically strong and socially well-adapted. They are:
Both history and cultural anthropology bear out that children can and have had these needs met in an infinitely rich and diverse number of ways. And everything else surrounding children and childrearing, everything outside of these needs, is either ultimately unnecessary or some culturally defined variant of these needs.
What the study by the Health and Human Services department (link goes to full PDF of the study), which Minnery unsuccessfully tried to use, clearly shows – and any number of other recent studies can corroborate – is that children need to grow up in a predictable family structure, where they are reassured that their needs will be met… but how and by whom those needs are met simply just doesn’t matter that much, provided that predictability is there.
To quote another important study which examined the significance of gender in parenting: “The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting… The gender of parents only matters in ways that don’t matter.”
An inevitable question soon arises about whether two-parent (or ‘nuclear’) households are better for children than single-parent households, and can offer more stability, commitment, and so on. To continue to quote the same study from earlier, though: “One really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones.” Predictability also comes in an emotional form, and one committed parent can provide this relationally to children just as well as two might.
One area where single parents do have the deck stacked against them, though, is the simple matter of practicalities. With single parents raising children on their own, you can statistically expect for their household’s family income (in a North American context) to be half, or often less than half, that of a typical two-parent (usually dual-earning) household’s family income. You can also generally expect for a single parent to have far fewer available hours in the week to devote to childcare and to attending to children’s needs, compared to two parents in a household who together can have more hours to devote to the children. So the question isn’t whether single parents are inherently worse parents, or whether children inherently need two parents, but whether a single parent has as equal an ability as a two-parent household practically and financially to meet the children’s needs. This is not to say that single parents can’t make it all work out, just that statistically it is simply harder for them, at least without an established social network of help.
But I don’t see this as an argument against single-parent family arrangements – or any type of other family arrangement. I simply see this as a sign that we as a society should increase the support we offer to all parents and families – politically, with better family leave policies, universal healthcare, and more accommodating employers and work schedules; and culturally, with supportive neighborhoods and community programs, a positive and caring collective attitude toward children, and a better understanding and openness in our culture of the struggles parents face every day.
Nuclear families, mothers and fathers, homosexual parents… It’s too easy to fall into the trap of blindly upholding and believing in particular family and social structures around children. What we need to realize are that these structures are cultural and, ultimately, don’t matter as much as we think they do. Meanwhile, the one thing that is truly important – making sure children’s needs are met – can be realized in any number of infinitely rich and diverse ways.
For kids, at least, there is no one right way to have a ‘family’.
Kagan, J. (1978). The Growth of the Child: Reflections on Human Development. W. W. Norton & Company Limited. ↩
In his piece, Adams brings up an old but important idea:
I read someplace that the brain needs some boredom during the day to process thoughts and generate creativity. That sounds right. My best ideas always bubble up when I’m bored. And my period of greatest creative output was during my corporate years when every meeting felt like a play date for coma patients.
Browsing back through the Danielsaurus archives, though, I came across this old piece I linked to and referenced more than a year ago: “Boredom Begins at School”. It highlights research which shows some of the physiological dangers of boredom, and shares how many scientists and education reformers are actually faulting it as one of the key reasons our education system fails.
I’ve linked to both perspectives, and I actually do believe there’s some truth in both perspectives even though they seem at odds with each other: On the one hand, boredom can be a breeding ground for creativity – and certainly, it is something I believe is vital for children to experience and have (a lot of) in their life as they grow up. On the other hands, boring places don’t make for good learning environments, at least if its inhabitants are expected to learn certain things and not how to doodle cartoons in class while ignoring the intended curriculum.
It leaves me to ask myself several, possibly overlapping questions. Wondering out loud right now:
Is boredom the same as disengagement? Is it possible, and maybe even good, to by physically bored (perhaps by a lack of intentioned activities or tasks you need to do) but mentally engaged and curious? Is there a difference between a “boring” geographic place (or person, or book, or…) and an individual person, child or adult, “being bored”? Could a boring place be the same, and perhaps more aptly described, as an “un-stimulating” place? And when we talk about “boring” classrooms and schools, are we perhaps really just talking about environments that force their users into a natural inclination toward disengagement?
This may seem like playing with semantics, but I wonder if there’s something there. Who knows, maybe there isn’t. But if there isn’t, how do we reconcile the boredom paradox? Is it simply a matter of saying “some boredom is good” but “constant boredom is bad”?
]]>Oh sure, I’m not alone in this sentiment. Like me and many others, Peter Hartlaub is another fan of Mr. Rogers, a profuse apologist of Mr. Rogers’s ‘Hood – and so it was to Peter’s surprise as well as mine when he recently discovered and shared video footage of Mr. Rogers actually moonwalking during one long-past TV episode. Yes, as in Michael-Jackson-is-alive-and-well, wow-this-is-really-the-’70s moonwalking. Take a look:
As Peter recalls:
I’m a huge Mr. Rogers fan, but I somehow wasn’t aware of this video’s existence until this afternoon. Of course it only makes me love the guy more, if that’s possible. This just proves that Fred Rogers was physically incapable of being patronizing or self-conscious. He clearly knows nothing about breakdancing – and may have never seen a boombox. (“How do I turn your music on?”) This was a time when most squares in Middle America equated breakdancing with drive-by shootings and crack sales. But Fred Rogers was game anyway. And he looked cool trying to do it, because children are excited about it, and he was excited about children.
“Because he was excited about children.” Excited about children. I can’t think of any better attribute in a person.
]]>It does not seem intrusive to wonder about the Romeros’ and Dekkers’ exact understanding of the notion of parental responsibility. Moreover, we would point out that being young is not, in itself, an achievement.
Not to give the London Times the short shrift, but it is just unfathomable to me that someone could claim this point of view. How is having faith in kids and trusting in their capacities really some grievous form of parental irresponsibility? Nonetheless, the Times’ columnist apparently does honestly believe this, and very much defends it (in the most bitter and snarky of manners, if I might say). Unfortunately she’s not alone: you can also behold a whole raft of complaints in the column’s comments about the clearly “tantamount” physical risk and psychological harm these high-achieving children are surely now burdened by.
It all just leaves me puzzled and saddened, and ultimately left to question: Why are we so begrudging our children that sense of the awesome wonder and achievement possible in life? What do we actually do to them when we say that their dreams are too dangerous, too unrealistic, or even plain impossible? How can it be a bad thing to believe in them, and know along with them that anything is possible? I can’t help but believe that everyone needs a little adventure – most especially, I would say, kids. Going out bravely into the fog to meet the unknown head-on and tame it… why, that’s the very essence of what growing up is about.
]]>The video is short and succinct, but captures well what makes Finland’s education system work. I’d encourage everyone to watch it. In short, though, Finland’s success really all comes down to a few things: a strong sense of trust – both in students and in teachers and schools; a pedagogy based on deep, meaningful, long-term relationships between students and teachers; and a relaxed, non-competitive culture of education, where learning is seen as natural and is valued and encouraged by everyone in society.
Those may sound like simple solutions, but, as anyone within the education field can tell you, that kind of culture takes a lot of hard work to establish – especially when you’re working against the status quo. That may be one reason why private or chartered alternative education settings – like Montessori, Reggio-inspired and Waldorf schools, and democratic schools like Summerhill and Sudbury, as well as Unschooling – often do so well; they start out with a blank slate when creating that culture, and the people whom these settings draw are either already devoted to a culture of living, breathing democratic education or are open to questioning the status quo and searching out new ways of education. That’s not the case with regular public schools, where the ideologies and frameworks of education are firmly entrenched and to question them is to go up against a vast, monolithic 100-year-old system.
That’s why, in a culture of competition and faux-accountability, with an ‘education’ system that has strayed so far from the real nature of education, alternative settings offer a chance to reboot the system entirely.
]]>From their “The Truth about Boys and Girls” cover article:
If there is a neurological disparity between the genders, it could explain important behavioral differences. But surprisingly, researchers have found very few large-scale differences between boys and girls in brain structure or function. Yes, boys have larger brains (and heads) than girls—from birth through old age. And girls’ brains finish growing earlier than boys’. But neither of these findings explains why boys are more active and girls more verbal or reveals a plausible basis for the consistent gaps in their reading, writing and science test scores that have parents and teachers up in arms.
They go on to illuminate how experience – or nurture, if you feel compelled to put it in terms of that age-old argument – plays a much more important role in establishing gender: “Most sex differences start out small—as mere biases in temperament and play style—but are amplified as children’s pink- or blue-tinted brains meet our gender-infused culture.”
I’ll chime in to say it’s important to remember that children’s brains are quite malleable, especially in early childhood. In practical terms, this means that our own cultural ideas and subtle gender-based biases present within our interactions with boys and girls actually impact and help shape our children’s physical brains – with the potential to magnify the originally small sex-based neurological differences that a child may start out with. As much as there may be real neurological differences between older boys and girls, those neurological differences, to a large degree, have been a result of the brain’s own self-shaping responses to culturally informed experiences.
This has been perhaps one of the largest faults present in past scientific research about children and gender: much of the research simply never acknowledged that there is no fixed, neurological standard in brain development, or that the brain itself grows and shapes itself based on experiences. In effect, studying the neurological roots of gender is like trying to pin down a fast-moving target, and then trying to tell others how to do the same thing with other fast-moving targets. It just can’t be done.
]]>Little girls are saying goodbye to their dollies and hello to tech gadgets and computer games. Does this mean they’re missing out on imaginative play?
Wow. If that’s not a patronizing thing to say, I don’t know what is. Girls, boys, dolls, and computers and cell phones everywhere should feel highly begrudged right now. (Yes, I’m including inanimate objects in that list. Hush now.)
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Just to be clear: I do actually get that the author is attempting to make a point about the supposed ‘disappearance’ of children’s imaginative play, and unconsciously presuming this is linked with children’s increasing use of mediated toys and technology instead of physical toys. I’m alright with being concerned about that, even if I think that fear is overplayed. Rather, it’s the wrapping that she surrounds her point in which is just presumptuous and sexist, while unconsciously reinforcing potentially harmful gender stereotypes.
First, there’s nothing necessarily “bad” with girls being interested in technology, nor is imaginative play necessarily inhibited by it. It’s a different topic, but one that should be considered: why is computer literacy still thought of as a predominantly male trait? As far as linking technology with the downfall of imaginative play – that’s a stretch, by far, and doesn’t actually consider the unique benefits that technology may offer to imaginative play. ‘Tis a topic worth it’s own discussion, and the research just ain’t there to make blanket statements at this point.
Second, while the prevalence of dolls has perhaps led us to accept that they’re necessary and beneficial, why should we assume that dolls are really all that important a thing in order for a girl to have a rich, imaginative playlife? As one commenter to the piece mentioned: If you’re concerned about a girl’s creativity and imagination, why not give her a tub of LEGO bricks in response? I should also probably not leave out the other begrudged party here – boys. What? Boys can’t play with dolls? History has shown that children (and adults) of all ages and genders have played with dolls in the past (see Howard Chudacoff’s book, “Children at Play: An American History”), so why have dolls become such a regimented part of the ‘girl’ gender stereotype?
I don’t mean to hate on dolls – there’s definitely a lot of play value in them, and I know a lot of little girls (and boys) who play with them. Even as the author recounts her own daughter’s doll play, you can get a picture of the richness dolls often add to play. But the real issues with this type of hypothesizing are the underlying assumptions made in the process: first with conflating doll play as a given and natural part of an imaginative girlhood (introducing gender stereotypes in doing so), and then with unnecessarily dichotomising technology against imaginative play (and undermining children’s potential in the process).
Those are some pretty big holes to be standing on when you’re asking about otherwise good topics.
]]>Leading the activism charge: the Racebending.com website. By way of introduction, here is timeline they provide of the series and the movie (including its casting), and following are some excerpts from a recent explanatory letter the activists sent to the President of Paramount Pictures:
Avatar: The Last Airbender featured characters of color, and the film adaptation was an opportunity for Paramount to develop leading talent from Asian American and Inuit American communities—groups the Screen Actors Guild has acknowledged as underrepresented, particularly in leading and heroic roles. Only 1.8% of lead roles in Hollywood go to actors of Asian descent and less than 1% of lead roles go to actors of Native American descent. Yet, Airbender lead casting breakdowns worded as “Wanted: Caucasian or any other ethnicity” failed to provide adequate outreach to communities of color during lead casting. And the production’s specification of “Caucasian” and the initial casting of all four leads with white actors further reinforced Paramount’s failure to extend the rare opportunity to be a lead heroic character to minority actors. The casting of The Last Airbender exemplifies the “glass ceiling” that pervades Hollywood casting.
Of course, that’s one side to the story. Io9.com offers Shyamalan’s view, in this interview:
When we were casting, I was like, “I don’t care who walks through my door, whoever is best for the part. I’m going to figure it out like a chessgame.” Ideally we separate the nations ethnically — ideally. I didn’t know how or what it was going to be. And it was so fluid. For example if you found a great brother, [but] he didn’t go with my favorite Katara, then we couldn’t use him. Theoretical things like that. There was an Ang that we really loved, but he was like 5’10.” There’s all kinds of issues that come to the table physically. And I had a board of all the people that I was considering, the seven or eight. There was, at one time, a Chinese Sokka and Katara, and they were over here. One of them was a better actor than the other, and so I was gathering my pros and cons. I was without an agenda, and just letting it come to the table. Noah is a photo double from the cartoon. He is spot on. I didn’t know their backgrounds, and to me Noah had a slightly mixed quality to him. So I cast the Airbenders as all mixed-race. So when you see the monks, they are all mixed. And it kind of goes with the nomadic culture and the idea that over the years, all nationalities came together.
Whatever you may say about the process, it’s clear just by his answers that Shyamalan’s had a well-thought-out rationale for how he casted the film. The film news site UGO.com seemed to pick up on this as well, saying essentially as much in their “primer” to understanding the controversy:
Racebending.com argues that Katara and Sokka are clearly of Inuit heritage, and Aang, who can certainly pass for “mixed race” by his physical appearance, is nevertheless a clear depiction of Asian culture. Shyamalan argues that his film is the most culturally diverse tent-pole ever made, and that his casting decisions were based on a) finding the best performers and b) maneuvering appropriate races to the different “nations” on the Airbender mythos. […] What makes this controversy so fascinating is that it isn’t, if you’ll forgive the expression, a clear expression of black and white. Avatar: The Last Airbender, created by two Caucasians, was a show that borrowed heavily from all sorts of world cultures and philosophies. M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most successful directors of color working in Hollywood. There is dismay that the only characters of color in The Last Airbender are villains, but should the film continue through the full story arc we’ll meet other heroes of other races (and some of our original baddies will be redeemed.) What’s clear is that the characters of Aang, Katara and Sokka mean a lot to a lot of people. Heck, they mean a lot to me and I am not a member of an underrepresented minority in film. To many, The Last Airbender is a missed opportunity, to others, despite protestations to the contrary, it is a simple business decision on how to cast for a multimillion dollar movie.
Obviously it’s a touchy subject to some, and you can bet there will be opinions flying about it. Me? I have none (or at least none that I’m sharing). I’m a huge fan of the cartoon series, but also respect the process filmmakers have to go through to get things on screen. And yes, I’m sure there’s an ideal out there that all involved with the film would have loved. But as Jordan Hoffman, of UGO, noted: there’s nothing black and white about any of this.
A final, tangentially related bit: Media guru Henry Jenkins has an excellent look at how fan Lorraine Sammy came to become a fan activist and help run Racebender.com.
]]>Facing down protesters who didn’t want him at Notre Dame, President Obama fought back not with harsh words but with the most devastating weapons in his political arsenal: a call for “open hearts,” “open minds,” “fair-minded words” and a search for “common ground.”
There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama’s opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn’t. They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.
Many of my more personal friends know my stance on abortion. It’s a sensitive topic to be discussed in public, but one that I’ve grown slowly more accustomed to speaking out about vocally – not because I hold strongly to any one position on it, but because of how much the abortion discussion has been co-opted and dwarfed by dogma, to the point where the statistical and individual realities of abortion have long been left out of the picture. It’s natural that some of the nuance of reality will be lost in social policy discussions, but on this – on abortion – I feel we’ve reached a breaking point, where the rhetoric surrounding it is actually harming any meaningful effort to address the tensions of the topic. But It’s more important than ever that we know the singular, statistical facts about abortion, and they are these:
Outlawing abortion has no impact on the number of abortions performed – in fact, the countries with the lowest rates of abortion also have the most open and supportive laws regarding abortion.
A full 75% of abortions are driven overwhelmingly by economic motivation – women donʼt feel they can afford to have a baby or will have the necessary support to continue raising a child.
Finally, social and economic supports at a societal level do more to reduce abortion rates than any judicial or legislative efforts. Countries like Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom rank among the lowest in terms of abortion rates, despite their very open policies allowing it, and there is a powerful argument to be made that this is directly related to these countries’ systems of universal healthcare and strong safety nets for those of low-income status. In short, in order to see abortion rates decline (as much as it can), we need to see this not as a war against abortion, but instead against poverty.
These three facts make up much of the statistical reality America faces with abortion, and this reality simply doesn’t change based upon your personal disposition, values, or political orientation.
The evangelical American Church needs to realize this. As vocal as some from both sides of the debate have been, and as much as there are people on both sides acting out of the best and most moral reasoning, many still need to acknowledge that the abortion issue is far more complex than they’ve assumed –– and they need recognize that President Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s longstanding commitment to rebuilding our social safety net and providing better social and economic supports for the poorest among us may actually make more of a difference in reducing the rates of abortion than their own efforts. Shouting and demonizing doesn’t change reality, nor does it bring us closer to working out real solutions or to finding a conciliatory center that’s good for us all – and most especially for the women and families facing circumstances which may lead them to choose an abortion.
Instead, we’ve allowed the conversation to devolve into a culture war, and for that proponents on both sides of the debate should be ashamed. We’ve strayed from reality, allowed ourselves to be blinded by jealousy and hate, and hurt those we most need to help. We should instead humbly search out a common ground between these two ultimately insufficient labels, of “Pro Life” and “Pro Choice.” We need to find, as Notre Dame president Reverend John I. Jenkins said, a place of “conciliatory dialogue” where we can approach each other and the matter at hand “with love and a generous spirit.”
]]>