Talk about Pressure

Only The Onion would have a headline like this: “Autistic child ruins marriage he was born to save.”

Mar 11, 2010 :: Tagged under: autism, parenting, sociology of children :: #

Colin Ward – "Pioneer of Mutualism" – Has Passed Away

The author and activist passed away died on February 11, at the age of 86.

For those who don’t know of the man, Stuart White has written a wonderful remembrance of him at the Next Left political blog; he was particularly well known in Britain for his work in the Anarchist movement, but readers here may be most interested in his profoundly influential book on children’s street culture, “The Child in the City”. It’s one of the most important books of its kind, ever.

Feb 16, 2010 :: Tagged under: childhood experiences, children's street culture, colin ward, history of childhood, sociology of children :: #

'Hyper Parents & Coddled Kids'

A documentary for you Canadians, premiering tonight on CBC Television. (And hey, it has Carl Honoré in it.)

(And here’s another take on the doc.)

Feb 04, 2010 :: Tagged under: free range kids, parenting, sociology of children :: #

‘Plastic Baby’ Goes to School

Boy takes a baby doll off to Kindergarten. Dad sweats bullets, wondering if Boy will face mass ridicule. Guess what? He doesn’t!

I love stories like this. They just poke so many great holes into our reliance/fear of gender stereotypes.

Jan 23, 2010 :: Tagged under: gender, sociology of children, sociology of family :: #

Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?

The short answer: No.

The long answer, as reiterated in a new comprehensive meta-study of past research: Utterly not. As we’ve seen before, stability in relationships and parenting is the number one factor in the outcomes and wellbeing of children. The gender and even the number of parents have very little to do with it. As noted:

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the “partial exception of lactation,” noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children’s psychological adjustment and social success.

While this has important implications for opponents to same-sex marriages and adoption (basically deflating any argument against same-sex parenting on the basis that “children need a mother and a father”), it also backs up the Daddy Shift notion that mothers and fathers can share more egalitarian parenting and caregiving roles. With no distinct gender-based difference in parenting abilities, what’s left defining parenting roles is only cultural. The researcher says it best: “The gender of parents only matters in ways that don’t matter.”

Not to skim over another important conclusion from the study, though: The number of parents equally doesn’t have to matter. Single parents can often do as equally well as two-parents – although it is noted that, on average, two-parent households generally fare better. This one’s a bit tricky, since it really is down to the individual level of parenting – and practicalities play a part. Single parents have more up against them time-wise (having to juggle work and being a sole caregiver), whereas couples have an advantage practically, able to trade off caregiving and work. Still it’s important to remember that it’s about the quality of parenting, not how many people are providing it: “One really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones,” the researcher claims.

Jan 21, 2010 :: Tagged under: parenting, sociology of children, sociology of family :: #

"It's More of a Systemic Problem."

The Los Angeles Times reports on a new federal study – the first of its kind – that found about 3 out of every 25 youths in state and privately run juvenile correctional facilities have experienced at least one incident of sexual victimization.

The study, which is the first of its kind, brings attention to the need for more training and accountability for staff members at such facilities, said Linda McFarlane, deputy executive director of Just Detention International, a nonprofit human rights organization that works on preventing abuse in detention centers.

“It’s more of a systemic problem,” she said. […] “When we put kids in custody and staff has absolute power and control over what happens to those kids, it is crucial that very careful mechanisms to check that power are put into place.”

Absolutely shameful. But I think even more concerting is the punitive stance we hold toward youth that allows for juvenile correctional facilities to be as they are in the first place. It’s fundamentally opposite to the principles of human rights, and I believe we should adopt a more welfare-based approach like much of Europe – that emphasises the societal structures and motivations that would lead youth to commit crimes to begin with.

Jan 08, 2010 :: Tagged under: socialjustice, social problems, sociology of children :: #

Forecasting the 'End' of the Nuclear Family

Putting the grandparents-raising-grandchildren trend into context: Additional statistics and overall trends in a new report by the British Family and Parenting Institute.

Chief executive of the institute, Dr Katherine Rake, said “families were pulling society in multiple directions, between work and home life, singleness and cohabitation and marriage, between growing older and forming families across our many cultural divides”. Families’ adaptability constantly amazed, she said.

But it was fathers who were predicted to lead the coming change, Dr Rake argued. “The role of fathers is set to change dramatically over the next decades in the way that women’s roles have changed since the 1950s.”

I’ve not read the report yet, but it appears FPI’s analysis echoes what Jeremy Adam Smith calls “The Daddy Shift”; we’re now beginning to see a new definition of fatherhood emerge, where dads embrace more “caregiving and egalitarian relationships.”

As FPI concludes, this broadening of the caregiving role to more prominently include fathers – and, increasingly, also grandparents and extended family – is clearly redefining the roles and structures of the family. The “non-traditional” family is increasingly becoming the traditional, as we see what could well be the end of the nuclear family.

Nov 30, 2009 :: Tagged under: social science research, sociology of children, sociology of family :: #

Grandparents Parenting Again

A quick but thorough piece in the Houston Chronicle about a sociological trend that’s picking up – Grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.

With a carpooling itinerary and activities schedule rivaling those of suburban soccer moms, 69-year-old widow Shirley Reed fills her days parenting for the third time around.

Her Aldine-area home bustles with the energy of three great-grandchildren Reed is raising by herself, mostly on her retirement income. The 12-year-old and two 5-year-olds even call her “Mom.”

With a statistical jump of more than 6% within the past five years in the number of grandparents raising their grandchildren, what we’re looking at is no small shift in the way families are composed and children are brought up.

Nov 30, 2009 :: Tagged under: grandparents, parenting, sociology of children :: #

Kids These Days: Where Tweens Are Headed

By Daniel Bigler :: Saturday November 21, 2009

As it turns out, those darn kids these days are actually much more responsible and mature than kids were twenty years ago. Overwhelmingly, today’s youth:

• are not prone to risky or inappropriate behaviour;
• are civic-minded and generous;
• value diversity;
• know their own minds and stand by their opinions;
• and are close to, and respectful of their parents.

It’s all from a new study by the Girl Scout Research Institute that surveyed the “ethical beliefs and values” of youth today and compared them to a similar study that was conducted in 1989. The Twixt And Between blog has detailed statistics, so head there for more.

Just goes to show that kids really are decent people, and crotchety old adults complain too much, their opinions coloured by misplaced views of their own nostalgia-tinted childhood.

Tagged under: kids these days, sociology of children, the kids are alright :: #

Best Books for Manly Men

Alright, so the books aren’t really for men. They’re for boys. And young men. Still, it’s coming from a site called “The Art of Manliness,” so cut me some slack with the headline.

Ahem.

Without further ado, a list the “50 Best Books for Boys and Young Men,” by Brett and Kate McKay.

Ahem again. Alright, with a little ado first:

Unfortunately, not all boys have that kind of enthusiasm for reading. For several decades now, boys have scored lower on reading assessment tests than girls. Boys also take longer to learn to read than girls, are less likely to actually read and to value reading, and are more likely to label themselves as “non-readers” ….

What’s the problem? Some of it may be biological (boys’ language skills develop slower that girls). But a lot of it is sociological. Boys may see reading as a passive and thus sissy activity. Boys also lack male reading mentors – their librarians and teachers are often female, and it’s mom that reads to them. And in the name of gender-neutrality, teachers are foisting books on boys that they simply do not like.

But parents are to blame too, often trying to make their sons read “important books” to build their character. Dad loved some long tome as a boy and wants junior to come to an equal appreciation of it.

But reading experts all agree that boys need to be allowed to pick the books that really interest them.

Still, as they conclude, suggestions don’t hurt a bit. And so finally, without further ado… Well, you’ll just have to click over to see the list itself. With titles like “The Graveyard Book,” “James and the Giant Peach,” and “The Phantom Tollbooth,” though, it’s well worth it.

Just a side note, though: While all the books here are really exceptionally good books – no denying it – there’s a fat chance you’re going to get an average boy today to read “Where the Red Fern Grows.” And, well, a lot of these other titles too. (Heck, it’d take threat of Hungarian toenail-prying torture to get me to read some of these books again.)

That said, it’s always worth it to have a diverse mix of books at hand – a collection of different subjects and genres, books in different styles, a mixture of contemporary fiction alongside classics. Sure, some books will still never get read, but the kid is bound to have a lot more enjoyable an experience with the ones he does pick up to read.

Nov 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: gender, kids books, kids culture, sociology of children :: #

How Young Is Too Young for the Internet?

Rob Frappier responds to a recently posted question by CNN about children and the Internet, and points out that children now live in a political economy dependent on technology and the web; to cut them off from the Internet completely would be foolhardy. Instead, Frappier says a proactive approach of balance is required.

As the internet continues to grow, with social media leading the way, it is vital that we all take steps to make it a safer place through our actions. The current generation of children has a unique opportunity to set the tone for internet discourse over the next half century. If parents and educators take the time to teach them the right way to act, they can help usher in an era of responsibility and accountability online.

(Via Amy Pritchard.)

Nov 12, 2009 :: Tagged under: internet, sociology of children, technology :: #

How To Screw Up Your Kid For Life

From Cracked.com, a list of seven things “good parents” do that in the end just don’t quite pan out the way they expect. (Includes great classics like “#7. Giving Them a Creative Name,” “#4. Starting Them in School Too Early,” and “#3. Warning Them About Strangers.”)

Absolutely, completely, 100% spot-on. Just fantastic, and with some of the best social science research to back them up.

(Via Free Range Kids.)

Nov 12, 2009 :: Tagged under: childhood experiences, parenting, sociology of children :: #

New Research: Children Become ‘Depressed’ Without Playtime

All work and no play makes Jack a very, very depressed boy.

Nov 11, 2009 :: Tagged under: depression, play, sociology of children :: #

Advocates for Children's Play

Writer and speaker Bethe Almeras shares a great set of organisations that you should be aware of and follow if you’re interested in advocating for children’s play. Well worth a look.

Nov 11, 2009 :: Tagged under: advocacy, play, sociology of children :: #

Considering Kids and Stress, Part II

Lisa Belkin, of the New York Times, takes a more in-depth look at the American Psychological Assocation’s recent “Stress in America” report that I mentioned earlier, drawing attention to some of the statistics that I glossed over.

(The disparity between children’s stress levels concerning certain things and how little their parents recognise those levels is particularly interesting. I can only conclude that most adults are really, really bad at understanding and sympathising with children – sometimes especially their own.)

Belkin also considers recent research that looked at stress and college students. Gee, that’s unfortunately all too familiar.

Nov 07, 2009 :: Tagged under: child development, kids, sociology of children, stress :: #

How "Sesame Street" Has Cleaned Up Over the Years

Any essay that starts out like this immediately gets my admiration:

In the early days of “Sesame Street” — that is, B.E. (Before Elmo) — Sesame Street was a pretty grimy place.

The brownstone at 123 Sesame Street looked like it needed a serious power washing, the storefront of Mr. Hooper’s shop was intentionally dingy and the Fix-It Shop’s window was cluttered with toasters. It was gritty, but gritty in a magical way.

Katie McLaughlin recounts for CNN how PBS’s “Sesame Street” – incidentally celebrating 40 years on the air this week – has “cleaned up” over the years. Cookie Monster no longer smokes a pipe, kids ride bikes with helmets, and the Street itself is a lot more sparkly-clean now – just an overall sanitation of the show which many adults remember as a much grittier, dirty world during it’s first two or three decades of existence.

It’s certainly true, there’s been a lot of changes to the show over the years. It’s hard to say whether the changes have been made because childhood itself is different today – or because we just think differently about childhood. Of course it’s never strictly one or the other, but my own inclination (especially after reading Michael Davis’s excellent “Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street”) is that the balance has skewed much more toward the latter as motivation for the changes, in a very unfortunate way.

Nov 07, 2009 :: Tagged under: kids tv, sesame street, sociology of children :: #

The Economics of Potty Training

If you’ve ever been through the potty training process with a kid, you know exactly what is meant by “the economics” of it. In just a few words: Stickers. Gummy bears. Lauded praise. Treats!

Yup, exactly.

That’s why Chicago Pop’s thorough analysis of the “Applied Economics of Potty Training” is so hilarious.

We did not invent the use of stickers as a type of currency. Stickers have been used to incent toddler behavior as long as we can remember, probably since the dawn of adhesives. Like gold or precious stones, stickers have an intrinsic value to the toddler’s eye. So the first step in potty training is to establish a standard of value between a certain amount of potty production, and a certain number of stickers. In our study, this standard was 1 : 1, or, 1 sticker to 1 poop or 1 pee-pee.

Prior to this step, poop has no value. Suddenly, it is worth one sticker, and if he pees, maybe two. The basis for exchange has been created, and through the miracle of economics, poop has become a commodity.

Of course Chicago Pop pays due diligence to the economic roadbumps along the way – chief among them, the feared “Grandparent Hyperinflation” of the commodity market. Duh duh duh!

Nov 06, 2009 :: Tagged under: child development, economics, potty training, sociology of children :: #

"It's Not ADD; It's Childhood."

Just a brilliantly blunt but needed reminder that sometimes, when children aren’t paying attention to what you want them to, that isn’t ADD – just kids being kids normal, healthy kids.

(Though yes, please ignore the fact that the reminder is coming from one of those crappy commodified “personal tutoring and learning centers.” It’s still good advice.)

Nov 06, 2009 :: Tagged under: adhd, attention, sociology of children :: #

Stress Greatly Impacts Today's Kids

By Daniel Bigler :: Thursday November 5, 2009

Increasingly, health and psychology professionals as well as the public at large are recognising that adults aren’t the only ones impacted by stress – children are as well.

In what could probably be considered a milestone, the American Psychological Association included children, for the first time, in their annual survey of stress in America. USA Today has a run-down of the results of the survey, which cites school and their family’s finances as chief among the things that children were concerned about in their lives.

A major thing that sticks out as perhaps unexpected: full schedules of activities for children don’t particularly seem to affect their stress levels. It’s one area most adults worry is particularly stressful for kids – fearing children might be getting burnt out from doing too much, whether they’re “losing out on childhood.” Interestingly, most kids didn’t mind it at all.

Gabby and Izzy Cano, 11-year-old twins from Alexandria, Va., are cases in point. The sixth-graders are involved in lots of activities, but their busy lives don’t seem to cause them much stress.

They’re leaders on the student council at school, where Izzy is president and Gabby is secretary. They’re wrapping up soccer season (three times a week) and will start a weekly dance class this winter. They also take weekly cooking classes and are enrolled in violin lessons at school. “Sometimes it’s pretty busy, but it’s not too busy,” Izzy says.

I suppose that certainly does highlight how adults’ sociological concepts of what is and should be “childhood” – including our own Western idealised hopes for our children to experience a care-free, blissful growing-up, wrought out of a “Leave it to Beaver” nostalgia – often don’t match up with the real thing, or even what kids want for that matter.

I don’t want to read too far into this without consulting kids, but I might guess that children ultimately just want to feel a sense of connectedness and engagement to a broader life and culture, in some way. Many kids fulfil this need on their own, through their own unique, peer-based communities and by “hanging out” – but perhaps they’re also generally alright with meeting this need through programming and activities.

Another gem from the survey:

63% of the 235 parents who were among participating adults said they believed their stress levels had slight or no influence on their child’s stress levels.

I’m just blown away by that number – which of course doesn’t reflect the reality of kids. How can such an overwhelming percentage of parents believe their lives and behaviour doesn’t have an effect on their kids? Naturally children’s social relationships and the well-being of the people around them are going to be a profound role in the well-being of children’s own lives.

To end with, an ultimate reminder of how truly connected kids are to the broader world, even when we think they aren’t paying attention or don’t care:

Gabby Cano says she sometimes worries “about the problems of the world.”

“You kind of want to help, but it’s not easy to know what to do.”

Tagged under: child development, sociology of children, stress :: #

Texting, Surfing, Studying?

This pretty much sums up the state of adults’ understanding of children and their relationship with the new digital age we live in.

The New York Times:

Parents are digital immigrants, Dr. Christakis said; children are digital natives. “In the 20th century, you worried about a digital divide separating rich from poor,” he said. “That’s narrowed, and the one that’s emerging is separating parents from their children. We’re fairly clueless about the digital world they inhabit.”

Oct 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: child development, sociology of children, sociology of family, technology, television, texting, thefuture, video games :: #

Body Image Worries 'Affecting 8-Year-Olds'

A recent Australian psychological study by Deakin University professor Lina Ricciardelli examines young children’s self-esteem when making comparisons about their body shapes and weight with their peers – and notes a clear gender-differentiation, with young girls being most vulnerable to damaging self-assessments.

The researcher said she had focused on the eight-to-10 year range because it was at that age that children began defining themselves and their body images in relation to their peers.

School and health authorities have long been alert to the risk of eating disorders among teenagers, but the Deakin University study confirms that weight worries can begin far earlier.

“Often acting on it can come later, in the next few years,” Professor Ricciardelli said.

Oct 02, 2009 :: Tagged under: body image, childhood, gender, self esteem, sociology of children :: #

The Turbulent Rise of the 'Child Gamer'

The wonderful Sara Grimes – researcher, PhD candidate, and blogger – is celebrating the recent publication of a new journal article, entitled “The Turbulent Rise of the ‘Child Gamer’: Public Fears and Corporate Promises in Cinematic and Promotional Depictions of Children’s Digital Play.”

It explores “the ways in which child gamers have been depicted and mobilized within popular and public discourses since the introduction of home gaming systems in the late 1970s. We focus specifically on the ways in which moral panics and celebratory discourses about kids and gaming (which are inherently linked to discourses about kids and information technologies) resurface again and again within various cultural texts, from television ads, to magazine covers, to Hollywood film.”

A great read, if you have access to the journal article through, say, an academic library.

Sep 27, 2009 :: Tagged under: social science research, sociology of children, video games :: #

OMG! Texting Does Not Affect Children's Ability To Spell

There’s a new study out that, yet again, shows that texting doesn’t negatively affect children’s language abilities:

The study, published in Reading and Writing, involved third-year psychology students led by Professor Connie Varnhagen to examine minors’ text usage habits. The group surveyed 40 students between the ages of 12 and 17, asking them to save their instant messages for a week and then complete a standardized spelling test at the end of the survey. What they found was not what everyone has come to expect—that kids who engage heavily in abbreviated chat would perform poorly on spelling tests—but that kids’ text speak generally mirrored their real-life skills.

“Kids who are good spellers [academically] are good spellers in instant messaging,” Varnhagen said. “And kids who are poor spellers in English class are poor spellers in instant messaging.”

But there’s more (good) news from the study:

Varnhagen added that using this “new type of language” and translating it to standard English requires more concentration and attention than simply sticking to English, akin to “a little brain workout.”

I feel it’s really best to compare texting to language dualism, i.e. a second language; it doesn’t replace or hinder your primary language, but is something that can be used along with it. The simple act of translating between the two, then, is very much something of a mental workout, encouraging concentration and developing your brain’s elasticity.

(Via The Barking Robot.)

Sep 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: language, sociology of children, texting :: #

Boy Fakes Kidnapping In Order To Lose Bad Report Card

By Daniel Bigler :: Monday September 14, 2009

Here’s a story from Alabama that shows just how industrious kids can be when they take matters into their own hands. A young boy decided to fake his own kidnapping, in order so that he could get away with not bringing home a bad report card.

The Huntsville Times reports:

The Ed White Middle School student claimed a man in a red, beat-up car grabbed him after school at the intersection of Trail Ridge and Grizzard roads and forced him into the vehicle.

“I’m going to take you somewhere and kill you,” the boy claimed the man said. The boy also said the man had a pistol.

The boy then claimed to have jumped from the vehicle – without his bookbag, which contained the report card – and ran to his grandparents’ house.

He later confessed to the incident, and his grandfather called the police to explain. The police, meanwhile, say the boy faces no charges at this time. But the last sentence is my favorite part of the article:

The whereabouts of the bookbag and report card are unknown.

I might be glib, rebellious and unfit for parenting by saying this, but this young man’s act impresses me so much. It’s a perfect example of the precious few ways kids can gain power as individuals in society, and the lad showed a great resourcefulness and understanding of adults’ irrational fears and social taboos in choosing to fake his own kidnapping in order to get out of a negative, adult-controlled situation. Hey, if you know the folks aren’t going to be too pleased with a bad report card, why not try to get rid of it in the most impactful way possible?

This is also a powerful but depressing example of how we adults unfortunately too often use Education as a controlling measure over kids. ‘Bad’ report cards are a clear societal ‘faultline’ allowing us to peer into the heart of society and see what we really think of kids. We sadly judge them based on their academic progress, and so much of their inherent self-worth — and worth to others — becomes wrapped up in what grade they got on a test.

“My dog ate it” is, though, one way kids fight back. And I’m delighted to see this kid improve upon the technique in such a creative way.

Good for him, I say.

Tagged under: childhood experiences, education, sociology of children :: #

Helping Kids Cope with Stress

I’m a bit sick of solution-touting parenting books, but I don’t really mind the idea behind this one: Helping parents recognise when their own child is stressed, and helping them process that stress.

I’m glad the idea that stress can equally affect children as well as adults is making it out into the public sphere, and I often wonder if we truly underestimate how stressed some of the children in our communities become. Unfortunately, “every day” stress on kids is a relatively new topic of study among academics and we just don’t know much about it.

Dr. Michele Borba has a few (uggh) “tips” for parents, though, about how they might recognise an stressed-out kid:

Think stress is just for adults? Not these days. In fact, a recent iVillage poll found that almost 90 percent of mothers think kids these days are far more stressed than when they themselves were growing up. Research finds that between 8 and 10 percent of American children are seriously troubled by stress and symptoms; if left untreated, stress can not only affect your child’s friendships and school success but also his physical and emotional well-being. Overscheduled days, competition, school, treadmill-paced lives, home problems, scary nightly news, and stressed-out parents are just a few contributors.

Interesting that the sources of stress she lists are almost universally parent-afflicted.

Sep 10, 2009 :: Tagged under: child development, sociology of children, stress :: #

Teaching Kids That There Is A Battle Of The Sexes

Lisa Wade, writing for Sociological Images:

We socialize young children into thinking with gender (it’s always, somehow, boys vs. girls) and seeing the other sex as an enemy or competitor. Illustrating this, izhero sent us links to a set of t-shirts for young girls sold at David & Goliath Tees. The message for girls is, essentially, “boys drool, girls rule,” situating women and men in opposition, and setting girls up for a lifetime of battling the “opposite” sex.

Aug 21, 2009 :: Tagged under: gender, kids, sociology, sociology of children :: #

Over-Prepared for Kindergarten

Jacqueline Stenson, writing for MSNBC:

Long gone are the days when parents signed their kids up for kindergarten based on whether their birthdays met the school’s cut-off, and youngsters simply showed up on the first day, where they played, snacked and napped. Perhaps they had attended preschool, but if they did, they almost certainly didn’t have any summer tutoring to make sure they really were ready for kindergarten.

Today, many children go to two or three years of preschool and some stay on for another year of pre-K. Like Rubesch, some parents have begun signing their kids up for summer classes or one-on-one tutoring to improve their reading, math, writing and overall “kindergarten readiness.”

There’s a lot of ground covered in Stenson’s article, from an examination of the more societal-based trends of academic acceleration and attempts at educational reforms, to parenting paradigms and the contemporary question many parents are asking, of “How much preparation is too much?” Most of the issues at hand are well addressed in the Alliance for Childhood’s report from earlier this year, “Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School.”

I’m glad to see this as part of MSNBC’s “back to school” coverage, though. It takes time, but slowly we can see that many more modern families are, if not finding the right answers, at least asking the right questions.

Aug 18, 2009 :: Tagged under: education, free range kids, kindergarten, play, sociology of children :: #

Six-Year-Old Watercolour Artist

The Daily Mail:

A street scene from the paintbrush of a child usually involves triangle-topped boxes for houses. And often an unnaturally large dog. But Kieron Williamson’s attempts are so beautifully rendered that artists ten times his age will be filled with envy.

Experts have said that the six-year-old’s atmospheric paintings, which began with harbour scenes and expanded to include rural vistas, animal portraits and landmarks, have perspective, shadow and reflections that demonstrate an ability well beyond his years. He is even preparing for his first exhibition in a gallery near his home in Holt, Norfolk.

Here’s one of his paintings:

Kieron’s mother mused, “We often think about why Kieron has chosen art in this way and I think it’s because we live in a top-floor flat and we have no garden or outside space, so perhaps he’s had to create his own scenery.”

Whatever his motivation, Kieron’s certainly found a wonderful mode of expression for himself. And while not to belittle his impressive efforts, I do wonder how many children beyond Kieron are capable of such work – provided we adults allow and encourage them to do so. The work being done to help support children’s literacy and expression through the arts in the early childhood schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, for example, is simply stunning – and will undoubtedly impress a person of any age. (The first time I watched the video “To Make a Portrait of a Lion”, for instance – documenting a group of young children’s efforts to fully understand and make a portrait of one of the large marble lions in San Prospero Square in Reggio Emilia – I was simply floored with wonder.)

But what’s important to consider when we see great art coming from children is that it’s not so much a matter of talent, but of expectations. If we hold a powerful image of children in our heads – if we expect them to be strong, competent, thinking, and wise – then they will most often rise to meet those expectations.

Aug 01, 2009 :: Tagged under: art, kids, reggio emilia, sociology of children :: #

High Glitz and Toddlers in Tiaras

If this doesn’t give you nightmares, I don’t know what will: Photographer Susan Anderson’s latest photo series is called High Glitz, or “The Extravagant World of Child Beauty Pageants.”

For the past three years, Anderson has been travelling throughout the States to shoot these privileged portraits on location. Setting up her studio amidst the colourful spectacle, she captured the young girls at the height of their performance.

It’s still amazes me that 99 percent of people in this world could stand aghast at this, but there is always that 1 percent of the population – a small but thriving microcosm of those who relish in this pageantry.

There’s also, apparently (and I’d have been quite happy not to know this), a reality television series on TLC that puts the viewer in the throngs of all of this glam and mayhem; the San Francisco Chronicle reports on the controversy surrounding the show’s renewal for a second season.

At the risk of preaching to the choir, I really struggle to see how this is anything other than exploitation. Exploitation is not a word I use lightly, but it seems the only word appropriate here. When one person subjects another to an experience wherein the subject feels its impacts but largely none of its rewards, and the person doing the subjecting is the one to reap whatever benefits or positive outcomes that experience provides, this, my friends, is exploitation. An adult’s gain at a child’s expense is, purely and simply, exploitation.

There are almost always affordances to every childhood experience – things children can take away from an experience and turn into benefit, and my natural inclination is to always trust children, to believe that they can make the best of anything. The resilience of children, in general (as an age class), to adapt and thrive no matter the circumstances, is fascinating. Still, I fail to see how the affordances here serve any purpose to the children themselves – even the most creative of children don’t stand much to gain from pageantry. In the world of child beauty pageantry, its benefits are largely purely adult-conceived and oriented: they could be status or acclaim or a feeling of accomplishment, but they don’t provide one whit of good developmentally to a 4-year-old girl who interacts with the world in a very concrete way.

Pageantry moms can try to justify the experience by saying its affordances are also experienced by the child – but let’s be truthful: a basic knowledge of child development can tell us that these affordances are few and far between for the child herself, and not of a nature that she wouldn’t otherwise be able to gain from an afternoon spent playing at grandma’s house with her trunk of dress-up clothes.

Meanwhile, pageantry’s impacts (the psychological and emotional duress associated with being a participant) are almost universally only felt by the child. Anderson draws attention in her description of the High Glitz gallery to a statement that I think gets to the heart of child pageantry:

Whereas the children might take part enthusiastically in these ritual spectacles of crafted female beauty, as Lois Ann Holey-Dort wrote in The Nation: “Playing dress-up is part of being a kid, but when adults step in, apply the makeup, the clothes and instructions on composure, posture and gesture the game becomes something else. A new version of the child as both she and others perceive her emerges […] Children begin to think of themselves in the manner in which they are valued, in other words, in terms of surface beauty. Their lives become an act, a mark of grown-up affectation that they are unable to remove after the performance ends.”

Regardless of how you feel about the supposed benefits that adults derive from their child’s pageantry participation (and personally, I’m disgusted by them – it’s essentially mindless, self-centered ego-stroking), it isn’t hyperbole to suggest that this self-centered, performance-oriented regiment comes at a great negative impact to the children themselves. There’s a wealth of research showing that children need prosocial, undirected, and playful experiences in order to grow into healthy, well-balanced adults. (Read: experiences that are the opposite of beauty pageants.) Toss this onto the pile of other acknowledged problems with pageantry – an implicit condonation of materialism and female exploitation, inevitable self-image problems that manifest in anorexia and unhealthy behavior – and the impacts just keep adding up.

Pageantry’s costs, in no subjective terms, are great: they’re developmentally far-reaching, painfully damaging to the individual, and almost exclusively subjected upon the child alone. Meanwhile, pageantry affordances are few – and only experienced by parents.

The question is simple: how can this not be considered one of the most egregious forms of exploitation in America today?

(The original link to High Glitz came via Jason Kottke and Jörg Colberg.)

Jul 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: child pageantry, girlhood, sociology of children :: #

The Wonderfulness of Sidewalks

The town of Bangor, Maine, is awfully proud of their sidewalks. And for good reason.

Sarah Smiley, writing specially for the Bangor Daily News:

Last July, when I came to Bangor from Florida to search for a house, I commented again and again (until I’m sure our Realtor was sick of hearing it) about the way people here congregate on the sidewalks. My mom, who was with me, said it reminded her of neighborhoods from the 1950s, where you didn’t need a pass code to get into your friend’s gated community and calling the kids home for dinner was as easy as opening the front door and shouting their names.

Indeed, one year later, our boys enjoy the sidewalk in front of our house from morning until night. They run through multiple backyards, never meeting a blockade of privacy fences. I can think of 12 neighbors offhand whom I know well and who know my boys’ names and where to send them if they get into trouble. On most nights, after Dustin gets home from work, he and I stand in the yard and watch our boys ride their bikes up and down the sidewalk.

(Before I go on, I must say that the comments on this over at Free Range Kids are, as ever, deeply engaging.)

Sidewalks, kids roaming freely, lemonade stands, open lawns, and front porches... all of these things are often well loved and cherished, deeply rooted parts of our lives. It’s true, their importance is often only known fully in retrospect, but I think if you’ve ever experienced the kind of culture and sense of community that these they inspire, you have a glimpse already at their power. It’s an instance where very real, physical geography inspires culture, which in term impacts our very individual psychological well-being and happiness. Often, it’s this that is at the bedrock of real Community.

These experiences of Place, experiences rooted in our environment and how we use it, play a vital role in determining what our lives and social realities are like. The places and neighborhoods we live in, how we interact with – and let our children interact with – the physical spaces around us… this makes up who we are.

So for the children’s sake, move somewhere where there’s front yards and sidewalks where they can play.

Jul 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: free range kids, geography, sociology, sociology of children :: #

Teenager Launches His Own Fake Airline

It’s a scene right out of “Catch Me If You Can”. Daniel Foggo and Martin Foley, writing for The Sunday Times:

A teenage boy from Yorkshire succeeded in persuading British aviation executives that he was a tycoon about to launch his own airline. Using the pseudonym Adam Tait, the smooth-talking 17-year-old told airport and airline executives that he had a fleet of jets.

Tait, who said he was in his twenties, even flew to Jersey to attend a 1½-hour long meeting with the director of its airport. Their talks were considered promising enough for a further meeting to be arranged, which was due to be held next week.

Other air industry bosses found themselves dealing by telephone or e-mail with Tait’s fellow executives, David Rich and Anita Dash, who proposed to launch a cut-price Channel Islands-based airline servicing most of Europe.

What no one realised was that Tait, Rich and Dash were all the same person: an aircraft buff with the gift of the gab and an overactive imagination.

Exhibit A for why we should never, never underestimate kids’ abilities; and the kicker is that Tait is a teenager with a form of autism. (It’s not stated, but it’s likely Asperger’s.) I’m constantly amazed at how our mental conceptions of an age or handicap are, really and continually, profoundly limited when we look at the sheer scope of human potential. Tait’s father said this about him, and his airline-building efforts:

“People like him are not criminals, they are just misguided — they don’t understand what they are doing. Can someone grab hold of these people and harness their energy and use them for something that could be good?

“If someone with little or no education who has extreme enterprise and talent could have his energy channelled in the right direction, what could they achieve for themselves and our country?”

Frankly, I don’t see how young 17-year-old Tait’s efforts to start an airline are really all that different from a 30-year-old venture capitalist’s efforts.

Jul 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: sociology of children, teenagers :: #

Babies Don't Have to Crawl Before They Can Walk: Challenging the Taken-for-Granted About Childhood

By Daniel Bigler :: Friday July 17, 2009

I’ve always loved this rather esoteric fact: babies don’t have to crawl before they can walk.

Those of us in the West have always tended to have a very linear, defined view of child development – we’ve pretty much just assumed, based on what the books tell us, that crawling is a crucial step in development that precedes walking. When we really examine infant development across cultures, though, we find this isn’t the case. The Scientific American revisits this myth:

According to anthropologist David Tracer of the University of Colorado at Boulder, babies of the Au hunter-gatherers of Pa pua New Guinea do not go through a crawling stage. Instead their parents and other caregivers carry them until they can walk. Yet Au children do not appear to suffer any ill effects from skipping this phase. In a presentation given to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Chicago this past April, Tracer argued that, in fact, not crawling may be entirely normal and possibly even adaptive.

For children in many parts of the world, it’s healthier for them to be carried. Bangladeshi children who crawl have a greater exposure to ground pathogens and thus are more likely to get sick; so, their mothers carry them. Likewise, many African tribes swaddle or carry their children on their back, to prevent them from roaming the more dangerous ground terrain.

From different contexts emerge different practices. Human beings, in case you hadn’t noticed, are incredibly adaptive.

I get the sense, though, that most Westerners would still believe there’s something just ever so slightly antiquated or barbaric about this keep-the-baby-off-the-ground practice. Safety is a swell concern; but can’t those African villages just implement more environmental regulations to police those unsafe dirt floors? Children’s mobility is at stake! They won’t grow up to like traveling! They’ll be picked on by the kids who reach the ground first!

It’s jarring to see children deprived of what we largely consider a right of mobility… surely, as everything we know about child development tells us, this mustn’t be right.

There’s another factor that researchers have noted about the indigenous cultures that practice this – unrelated to a culture’s environmental adaptability, in fact. They’re finding these poor, mobility-deprived babies often hold a far greater degree of what researchers label “child-embeddedness” within their community. These children matter more, and are much more of a natural part of life for those around them. While Westerners might value a child’s independence – to the grand extent that we positively cherish a child’s first steps, and soon shuttle them off to child care so they can “learn things” and be individuals and socialize with others their age – mothers from these indigenous cultures might instead choose to keep their children close to them, keeping them more integral and interdependent to their own lives and work.

In short: every social group is led by a different worldview concerning children, and this system of beliefs and values changes how we interact with children.

In the West, it’s our past and our ideas of the future that guide the present. Our everyday efforts and practices in how we interact with children are particularly led by decades-upon-decades’ worth of “the research,” and by what “good science” tells us. Our histories have instilled in us deeply-held doctrines of what a child’s life and growth should look like, and similarly, our worldviews lead us to be deeply concerned about the future, about how our children will manage and navigate this unseen world. We’ve gotten raising kids down to a science: a science we call the field of “Child Development,” which every new parent must worship at the altars of upon delivery of their first child, paying homage for nine months beforehand to the prophets Spock, Montessori, Vygotsky… We’ve come up with firmly routed practices and conceptual frameworks that will, we think, get our kids safely into tomorrow – provided of course that we don’t veer from the path and mess them up too badly along the way.

We’ve gotten pretty good at this “child development” thing too; so good, in fact, that we’ve created an alternate, co-existing – yet ultimately artificial – “culture of childhood,” one situated external of our regular culture and lives for our children to exist in. We’ve segregated children into separate spaces apart from our own, different experiences than ours, and we’ve done it in the name of what is most “developmentally appropriate.” We do it, we rationalize, to help them develop as individuals and learn how to become a part of society.

Both our worldview and our scientific history clearly deeply impact and feed our practice, to a profound degree. We know more about children than ever, certainly, and we work harder than ever to engineer the “right” experiences for them to develop “properly.” But I do wonder if our knowledge and beliefs can also petrify us – if they can cripple our ability to change, to consider new ideas, to learn new ways of being and form new practices.

Babies don’t need to crawl before they can walk, after all.

There are other ways – many other ways – of existing with children, and I’m increasingly skeptical that any one of them is “the right” way.

Marilyn Fleer, who has conducted research on Australian indigenous family and education practices, suggests we should call into question our narratives of education and ultimately child development – not simply taking for granted our educational discourses and the theoretical frameworks upon which they are based. She suggests taking a post-Vygotskian, post-child centered lens at our children’s places in the world, orienting and defining our “best” practices not by the theory that has come before, accepted blindly, but by our individual, living communities. We should have an eye toward our own social histories, carefully examining how they’ve helped established the practices and institutions we have in place today – analyzing what we have inherited.

“For the structure of human exchanges, there are precise foundations to be discovered in the institutions we establish between ourselves and others;
institutions which implicate us in one another’s activity in such a way that, what we have done together in the past, commits us to going on in a certain way in the future. … The members of an institution need not necessarily have been its originators; they may be second, third, fourth, etc. generation members having ‘inherited’ the institutions from their forebears. And this is an important point, for although there may be an intentional structure to institutional activities, practitioners of institutional forms need have no awareness at all of the reasons for its structure – for them, it is just ‘the-way-things-are-done’. The reasons for the institution having one form rather than another are buried in its history.” – John Shotter

We need to be in a constant state of reconsideration of this history, analyzing how it fits with the communities before us, and considering the possibilities that different pasts might once have born. We need to leave nothing taken-for-granted.

Consider the act of learning, if you will:

“For many of us, the concept of learning immediately conjures up images of classrooms, training sessions, teachers, textbooks, homework, and exercises. Yet in our experience, learning is an integral part of our everyday lives. It is part of our participation in our communities…” – Etienne Wenger

Why do we have schools? Is it because they are the places children learn?

For many cultures, including the ones named earlier, children learn by being in and among their societies. They learn by being “embedded” among adults. They learn by observing those around them. Our practices of schools and teaching, clearly, would be superficial in these contexts.

We have these things because we value them, or because our pasts tell us they are necessary, or perhaps just because they’ve become traditions… but they are not the only right way of raising kids.

I am not suggesting we should necessarily change a thing about how we raise our kids. But I am suggesting, as Fleer writes, that we need to apply meaning to the things in our lives through “a dynamic process of living in the world” – not simply accepting inherited meaning from the past. We need to be much more reflexive about our practices and our concepts of childhood, considering whether what we hold from the past really fits with our communities today.

We can’t take anything for granted… Especially not the fact that babies don’t have to crawl before they can walk.

Tagged under: anthropology, child development, sociology of children :: #

Hired by Apple at Age Fourteen

You gotta love stories like this: Tom Williams was a 14-year-old who teachers regarded as rebellious, stubborn, and non-conformist. But in a powerless situation, he found his own solution in self-initiated entrepreneurial enterprises, and ended up completely taking things into his own hands. He started with activities like being a wholesale chocolate retailer, selling lemonade, writing birdwatching newsletters to sell – but soon moved onto pestering a local sales office for Apple Computer Co. to give him a job as a software developer.

As he recounts:

This was the stepping stone. It was clear to me that I wanted to try and short circuit life’s path. I didn’t want to stay in school until the 12th grade or at home. I wanted to live on my own and be free.

Eventually Williams got his job – hired by Apple at age 14 – and became a renowned developer in his own right. It’s just proof positive that kids can do big things when they dream big.

Jul 06, 2009 :: Tagged under: apple, kids, really cool things kids do, sociology of children, youth activism :: #

Princess Culture Marches On

Doctoral candidate and blogger Sara Grimes considers the connections between the consumption-based “princess” culture prevalent among young girls and issues of later narcissism when they get older.

Grimes does a great job at summarizing the current research (and criticisms) about the culture trend, and even links to the excellent Fallen Princesses photography exhibit that presents an interesting spin on the “happily ever after” fairy tale endings.

Princess play and the culture of princesses is definitely a worthy topic for discussion, but it’s one I’ve never really felt sure how to respond to. It’s easy to offer knee-herk responses: to criticise, to say that Disney’s ruining all of our little girls and turning them into spoiled brats. That hasn’t been my experience, though. The little girls at my preschool may dress up as princesses and be thoroughly enraptured by the culture, but they’ve always tended to be the ones in control of it, rather than it them. They rambunctiously add their own superhero capes and striped socks to the mix, with magic crowns and neighborhood firefighter duties for good measure. Being princesses for them is as much about rescuing stray dogs and wearing paper bags (see: Robert Munsch) as it is about fulfilling the “princess” role as defined by the commodified Disney princess culture.

I just don’t think we can define kids that easily. They’ll continually prove to us, without regard, that it can’t be done. This is certainly one of the dangers of the Sociology of Childhood: Kids are hardly ever willing to go along with being put in a box.

Unless it’s a cardboard box. Then, I find, they typically like that.

Jul 03, 2009 :: Tagged under: girlhood, kids culture, sociology of children :: #

Roger Ebert and "Free Range Kids"

I love this… Roger Ebert (yep, the movie critic) recently latched onto the “Free Range Kids” idea, from Lenore Skenazy’s excellent book, and now he writes up a massively entertaining column from his persective about how our conceptions and regulations of childhood have changed since he was young.

Certainly today we take for granted things that we never imagined in our own childhoods, like child car seats, bike helmets, bottled water, security guards, sunblock, hand sanitizer and childproof bottles. I mentioned my childhood memory that we boys would pee behind trees, shrubbery, or garages (“If you run home, your mom might grab you and make you do something”). I forgot to mention that one of the reasons we needed to pee is that when we got thirsty we drank out of garden hoses—our own, and anybody else’s …

I had a free-range childhood. So did most kids who grew up before about the Vietnam era. Marijuana was unheard of in high school and even college. You felt safe when you left the house. At 16 I had a newspaper job requiring me to drive home at 2 a.m. No problem. In grade school my mom gave me an “emergency dime” to carry if I ever needed to call home. I still have it. Now parent get antsy if they don’t hear from a kid for more than a few hours.

Is all the paranoia surrounding childhood justified? Sometimes, Ebert writes, things are just out of our hands. “Shit happens,” as he kindly points out Forrest Gump tells us. You just deal with it. Likewise, kids will always be kids – they’ll play, make mistakes, and do stupid things. Of course similarly Ebert will always be Ebert, and that means working a movie into the discussion:

I am reminded of the 1938 movie “Angels With Dirty Faces,” about two kids who grew up as best friends in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan. One of them (James Cagney) became a killer who ended up on Death Row. The other one (Pat O’Brien) was the priest who walked the last mile with him. “All right, fellas,” the priest said after his childhood pal had been executed, “let’s go and say a prayer for a boy who couldn’t run as fast as I could.”

What always impresses me about Ebert’s constantly top-notch column, though, is the high level of conversation he has with his readers: the deep insight and reflection from some of the comments, especially about this post, are just unmatched.

Jul 01, 2009 :: Tagged under: free range kids, roger ebert, sociology of children :: #

Kid Goes Into a McDonald's and Orders... Yogurt?

The trend among America’s youth of consuming unhealthy fast food seems to be shifting slowly but dramatically, with the ship now headed toward happier (and healthier) waters.

From the New York Times:

Chicken nuggets, burgers, fries and colas remain popular with the under-13 set, of course. But new market research shows that consumption of these foods at restaurants is declining, while soup, yogurt, fruit, grilled chicken and chocolate milk are on the rise.

This follows a recent report from the American Medical Association that childhood obesity appears to “have hit a plateau, after rising for more than two decades.” The NDP Group, which conducted this latest consumer research, says this shift toward healthier eating is likely due to a few things: Economics for one, at least partially. It’s simply a lot easier on the wallet to order and eat healthier foods on the go than it once was. (The increased popularity of Value Menu items and Subway’s “Five Dollar Footlong” deal are cited as reasons.)

But there is a second, fairly big reason for the shift: and it is that, quite simply, kids’ tastes and preferences are also changing. Kids as a national group are less interested in eating bad foods today; when given the choice, they’ll typically prefer foods that are healthier. But it wasn’t until only recently that healthy options have even been on the kids’ menu at most fast food places – and let’s keep in mind, it’s not often truly the kids’ choice to stop at a fast food restaurant in the first place. (Often the only options a parent might have to feed their family while juggling busy lives, sports practices, and piano recitals are to pack lunches for everybody beforehand, or succumb to the quick-and-easy Golden Arches amid scheduled stops; so it’s the Golden Arches.)

Kids largely then haven’t even had a choice about what to eat, up until very recently. Now, because fast food restaurants like McDonald’s and Burger King are starting to offer kids options beyond burgers and fries – with items like apple slices, salads, and yogurt – we see that kids are clearly making that choice for more healthy foods.

“We don’t know how many choices kids really make,” Dr. Birch said. “But my sense is that parents are much more likely to be hands-off in a restaurant situation and allow kids the freedom to make more choices.

“You go to these places where they offer healthy options for adults. But until recently, kids haven’t had the opportunity to choose the right thing.”

Score one for kids everywhere. And a big kudos to the adults who are finally realizing that, no, kids don’t naturally demand hamburgers and fries to eat, as they roll around in their own gluttony– instead, it’s the range of what adults and restaurants typically offer kids to eat that’s always been the problem.

Jun 16, 2009 :: Tagged under: fastfood, kids, sociology of children :: #

Happiness: It's All About Experiences

I love this piece from Montessori teacher Anja Geelen, entitled “Happiness, it is all about experiences.”

Experiences, on the other hand, continue to provide happiness through memories long after the event occurred. An experience that gives richness to your life will create a feeling of happiness that will last for months or even years to come. For whatever you can afford, you’ll maximise your happiness, and the happiness of others around you, if you spend it on a life experience, experts say.

She also considers the importance of wisdom in self-development – and wisdom can only come through experience, as Barry Schwartz says. For parents this is especially poignant.

Driving your child from soccer practice to ballet dancing, from piano lessons to language lessons, may make your child more knowledgeable or skillful or even brilliant, it will not make your child more wise. While children do need to become knowledgeable and skillful to be successful later in life, they also need unscheduled free time to have a childhood of play and exploration where they can have experiences that will give them wisdom and enrichment.

This kind of perspective is one that you can never get enough of.

Jun 11, 2009 :: Tagged under: childhood, happiness, nature, sociology of children :: #

Let the Kid Be

Lisa Belkin, writing for the New York Times Magazine, does a particularly good job examining one of the most disheartening trends of the day:

Perhaps you know it by its other names: helicoptering, smothering mothering, alpha parenting, child-centered parenting. Or maybe there’s a description you’ve coined on your own but kept to yourself: Overly enmeshed parenting? Get-them-into-Harvard-or-bust parenting? My-own-mother-never-breast-fed-me-so-I-am-never-going-to-let-my-kid-out-of-my-sight parenting?

There are, similarly, any number of theories as to why 21st-century mothers and fathers feel compelled to micromanage their offspring: these are enlightened parents, sacrificing their own needs to give their children every emotional, intellectual and material advantage; or floundering parents, trying their best to navigate a changing world; or narcissistic parents, who see their children as both the center of the universe and an extension of themselves.

But whatever you call it, and however it began, its days may be numbered. It seems as though the newest wave of mothers is saying no to prenatal Beethoven appreciation classes, homework tutors in kindergarten, or moving to a town near their child’s college campus so the darling can more easily have home-cooked meals …. Over coffee and out in cyberspace they are gleefully labeling themselves “bad mommies,” pouring out their doubts, their dissatisfaction and their dysfunction, celebrating their own shortcomings in contrast to their older sisters’ cloying perfection.

It’s nice to see how widespread a sentiment this is. Finally, slowly we’re moving away from the future-oriented parenting paradigm and getting back to the present.

May 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: free range kids, sociology of children :: #

The Daddy Identity Crisis

Lisa Belkin, from the New York Times’ Motherlode Blog, interviews Jeremy Adam Smith – whose new book, “The Daddy Shift,” chronicles both his own personal journey to becoming a stay-at-home dad and is a sociological examination of the growing social trend for more and more new fathers to stay at home with their children.

Belkin conducted a great Q&A, and the piece is a fine introduction to Smith’s work if you’re not already familiar with his blog, Daddy Dialectic.

Q. Do men and women see “taking care of the family” as meaning different things? Traditionally? How about now?

A. For centuries, men have seen breadwinning as the most important part of parenting. When my grandfather went to work at a quarry every day, he saw himself as being a good father. Indeed, to men of his generation, breadwinning was parenting.

So when working-class men organized themselves into unions and fought for pay, respect and benefits, they were fighting for their families. Parenthood drove middle-class men to jockey for promotions. For men of all social classes, parenting was all about a paycheck, not care, and their families needed that paycheck. Their jobs set the limits for their worlds, both inner and outer. Depriving a man of employment could destroy him and cut him off from his wife and children.

That dynamic has changed. Today, 80 percent of mothers work and a third of wives make more money than their husbands. In response, men have evolved, though many people fail to see it. Since 1965 the number of hours that men spend on childcare has tripled. Since 1995 it has nearly doubled. Fathers now spend more time with their children than at any time since researchers started collecting longitudinally comparable data.

I call it “the daddy shift” — the gradual movement away from a definition of fatherhood as breadwinning to one that encompasses a capacity of caregiving. Stay-at-home dads are the leading edge of the shift, but even sole-breadwinning dads are taking on more care than they did in the past.

May 27, 2009 :: Tagged under: daddy shift, sociology of children, sociology of family :: #

Children are the New 1950s Housewives

Lenore Skenazy (“the world’s worst mom,” if you’ve been following her epic saga and the ensuing movement), in an essay for the Washington Post:

The reality is that kids today are just as capable and safe as we were. We got to play outside. We got to walk to school. And yet I was chatting with a mom in the park who won’t let her 13-year-old ride the bus by himself. I spoke with another mom whose condo association prohibits anyone under age 14 from playing outside without adult supervision. I remember when the 14-year-olds were the supervision. They were the babysitters! They started at age 11 or 12!

We’ve been brainwashed with fear and our children pay the price. We clip their wings and wonder why they’re bored, sad, fat – just like the housewives of our youth (but without the Living Bras). It’s time to fight the newest problem that has no name.

You thought sisterhood was powerful? Wait’ll we liberate childhood.

The comparison between kids today and the rise of feminism in the 1950s really is, unfortunately, far too true, although I’m glad Skenazy made it. (She’s magnificent, and you should read her book, Free Range Kids, if you haven’t already.)

I’m a Children’s Studies major in college – a relatively new field in it’s own right – and I’m happy to say that I do think we’re seeing a new paradigm of childhood starting to emerge. The range of what conceptually is accepted as childhood has become so limited, so controlled, that I think we’re about to see what can only be imagined as an explosive liberation of childhood – where kids’ rights, ability to meaningfully participate in society, and, yes, ability to roam freely will finally be restored.

Think of it as kid-ism if you will. Just, as Skenazy says, without the bras.

May 27, 2009 :: Tagged under: free range kids, lenoreskenazy, sociology of children :: #

Princess Fever

Princess fever – It sounds like something out of a bad pirate movie (but then again, maybe I’ve just been listening to the “Cabin Fever” song from Muppet Treasure Island too much):

These days, that message begins practically at birth with everything from princess baby shirts and “her royal highness” bibs to princess-themed photo albums and picture frames for baby girls. By the time those girls are toddlers, many are drawn to the princess dresses, glittery crowns and even makeup.

And it goes on and on. Barbie has many princess-oriented items, including a top-selling “Princess and the Pauper” DVD. Even seemingly tougher girls like Dora the Explorer occasionally don crowns, too. And then, of course, there’s the undisputed leader in all things princess: The Walt Disney Co.

The “princess culture” has been around forever, but many parents are now asking if it has reached a tipping point: Has the “princess syndrome” – so commonly seen among young girls who, at a crucial age of early development, also typically have a penchant for fantasy play and a strong attraction to sparkly objects and the color pink – gone too far?

Child psychologists and sociologists are questioning whether the princess play culture (of Disney princesses, Barbie, and her sheer evil cousins, the Bratz dolls) has a direct impact beyond just the material culture of childhood – but an impact leading to an entitlement mentality and unhealthy narcissism among kids when they reach adolescence and early adulthood. Is this all just innocent fantasy, or do the underlying messages of “being a princess” have a significant, perhaps damaging, impact on children’s self-identity?

Whether to encourage this princess culture is unsurprisingly a big issue many parents are having to face, and the lines between innocent play and commodified play are murky. It’s hard to believe this material Princess culture is not impacting today’s sociology of childhood in some way – yet at the same time, it’s hard to separate out what tends to be children’s natural interests. Can a balance be struck?

For a sociologist, this is much more than just pretend play. It really starts to get at the core of how society views the “American girlhood.” Read, form thoughts. Bonus points for going on to read any of Dr. Daniel Cook’s research or books on the topic.

May 26, 2009 :: Tagged under: disney, girlhood, kids culture, sociology of children :: #

Kids Who Smoke

By Daniel Bigler :: Saturday April 25, 2009

The Holy Taco gives a tip-of-the-cap to the “good old days”:

Remember when kids used to be cool? My grandfather started smoking when he was nine years old. Sure, he died of lung cancer 65 years later, but he would not have changed a thing. These days kids aren’t allowed to be irresponsible because their parents and the Nanny State are too busy cramming tofu and wheatgrass down their throat and throwing bullies in jail. Well, we here at HolyTaco miss the days of kids doing things they’re not supposed to do.

Cue up the pictures of kids smoking – kids of all ages, at different times through the past few decades, smoking. Because smoking makes you cool, didn’t you know?

But maybe there’s something here. Not with the smoking – not that particularly… but the “kids doing things they’re not supposed to do.” I’d suggest clicking through and seeing the photos for yourself, and then analyzing what thoughts come up.

I’ve shown the photos to a handful of people and typically get a wide range of interesting responses. Some see the image of kids smoking as funny – and others, revolting. Several people saw it as exploitation by predatory tobacco corporations, expressing concern for the kids’ health and a sense of indignation at corporate America.

Others just saw these kids as “bad kids” – examples of a corrupt society that has lost its moral compass. The kids here, these are just the first victims of such a society; they’re the early casualties, who’ve decided to rebel against the old in favor of this new morally-depraved, anarchist society. (And, depending on your own tendencies toward anarchy, that in itself is either awfully cool or deeply upsetting.)

But let’s dig deeper.

One of the common cognitive images of children in society (how we mentally view and frame our perception of them as a social group) is the image of Child as Deviant. While we don’t typically throw all children into one so-called “deviant” lump, we might find ourselves guilty of picking out select groups of kids with similar traits – teenagers, perhaps, or Emo kids – and labeling them as the “social rebels”: the misfits who haven’t learned their place in the system yet or otherwise just choose not to stay there. It’s these groups of kids who often serve as our society’s scapegoats: they’re the obese, stupid, ill-mannered, foul-mouthed, disruptive, video game-playing, couch-surfing, lunch money-extorting flunkies who pick on old ladies – and they’re ruining all of our otherwise perfectly good lives. (And even worse, they’re noisy – “noisy” being one of the cardinal sins according for most old people.)

And yeah, looking at these photos you might begin to think these kids deserve the rebel label. They’re practically giving the middle finger to The Man (or their parents – it’s sometimes hard to tell who’s who). Some of these kids should know better.

But what’s really the case? Are these kids really the rebels of their age, like ‘em or hate ‘em?

What might be more interesting is not that these kids smoke, but why they smoke. Let’s get this out of the way first: In many of the photos presented, you can certainly immediately notice a clear spread toward lower-income and impoverished communities, as well as predominantly a “third world” geography. It’s hard to guess just how socially acceptable smoking is in general for many of these represented cultures. At least for a few of these places, it might seem that smoking is seen as a way for individuals – regardless of age – to cope… to deal with the hardships of an impoverished life. Suddenly smoking becomes a little less dangerous to us, since it’s placed in the context of a much more dangerous world all around these kids.

But then moving on, it definitely looks like some of the kids photographed don’t seem to have that excuse. At least given what we can imagine as their outlying culture and community, these kids are clearly going against the norm, breaking the rules. So what motivates them to smoke?

This might be the sociologist in me coming out, but what if a lot of this motivation came down to society’s distribution of Power?

Kids throughout history have been one of society’s most marginalized groups, alongside (oftentimes) the elderly. Having no inherent power, kids rely on the adults around them to appropriate power to them. With no opportunity for meaningful employment, kids rely on their parents for providing them social currency – often in the form of that most sacred of all thing, the hallowed “allowance,” whose economic roots makes society work and allows for participation in social life. Children’s cultural experiences as well are often determined by adults or regulated by adult-run institutions: parents arrange their kids’ play dates, choose the organized sport they’ll participate in, determine where they can spend a Saturday afternoon. Exact numbers are sketchy, but the percentage of American kids participating, and the amount of time they spend, in programmed after-school environments is clearly at an all-time high – further constraining the time American children are allowed to freely play, explore and navigate their neighborhood, and generally be themselves, while developing autonomy and self-competency.

Many social scientists and others are recognizing a startling trend toward an even further narrowing of the range of what conceptually is acceptable childhood. Children’s roles and opportunities to meaningfully participate in society are becoming increasingly constrained. The power gap between “Adult” and “Child” is widening, and “growing up” to attain that adult status is harder than ever before. It’s hard to miss the gigantic “kid world” that has been constructed around our kids – an artificial “culture” of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, Happy Meals and Spongebob boxer shorts, intended by adults to fill this adult/kid gap. And certainly, to some degree this separate kid culture could rationally be seen as supportive of kids, outlets for offering them more power. But in many other ways, this separation (and ensuing capitalization and commodification) of childhood further distances kids from adults.

It’s somehow implicit in this adult construction of a “kid world” that yes, kids have their own world – but we know it’s not the “real world.” It’s an artificial one. Kids can have more so-called power, but it’s not real power – you can’t pay the rent with Chuck E. Cheese bucks. This “kid world” is in reality just another way to control kids and engineer the perfect childhood.

This might start to get at why we find it so jarring to see kids smoking cigarettes: Adults smoke. Kids do not. Smoking is one of those things that falls into the category of the “adult world,” and it is not a part of our conceptual range of childhood. Getting back to the misfits, this might also be why we pick on some kids and label them as miscreants. Is it because they’re truly doing something wrong, or is it simply that they’re attempting to cross the line from our conceptual range of childhood into the adult world, without permission? (This, by the way, pretty much explains 90% of the problems you’ve ever had with your teenager.) In narrowing the social boundaries of the conceptual space children have to be children, we’ve inadvertently created the rebellious kid. We’ve created the irresponsible misfits, and those that don’t act “normal”. And worse, we typically punish them for it.

That’s why a certain small part of me finds glee in these photos of children partaking in the (admittedly very unhealthy) adult activity of smoking. Maybe they’re not doing it in defiance of adults, but rather because they want to be more like them. These kids are taking the ultimate step into the adult world – they smoke, because you can’t mistake smoking as anything other than one of those “adult” things to do. They sneak cups of coffee (and later, alcohol), because that’s a decidedly “adult” thing to do. They play Grand Theft Auto, because how much more (simulated) power can you get in a video game than being a big, bad adult who beats up old ladies?

Children crave participation in the “adult” world. They want to meaningfully take part in real life and engage in the broader discourse. They covet acknowledgement as full citizens of society. It’s only when they’re denied that right that they try to take it anyway – forcefully. By “rebellion.”

By behaving as much like “adults” in the most apparent, and often destructive, ways as they can. By pushing the boundaries and testing the limits. By smoking.

That’s a different way of looking at these kids, isn’t it?

Instead of shaking our heads in sadness and giving these kids up as lost causes, instead of chalking their behavior up to them just being the rebellious misfits – what if we tried helping them negotiate a shared participation in the world? What if we honored their lives and recognized their contributions to society? What if we listened to them?

Would these kids still smoke then?

Tagged under: kids, powerrelations, smoking, sociology of children :: #

Searching Tags

You’re searching through all the posts Daniel has written and labeled with the tag

Some other tags that you might find useful and related are:

adhd, advocacy, anthropology, apple, art, attention, autism, body image, child development, childhood, childhood experiences, child pageantry, children's street culture, colin ward, daddy shift, depression, disney, economics, education, fastfood, free range kids, gender, geography, girlhood, grandparents, happiness, history of childhood, internet, kids, kids books, kids culture, kids these days, kids tv, kindergarten, language, lenoreskenazy, nature, parenting, play, potty training, powerrelations, really cool things kids do, reggio emilia, roger ebert, self esteem, sesame street, smoking, socialjustice, social problems, social science research, sociology, sociology of family, stress, technology, teenagers, television, texting, thefuture, the kids are alright, video games, youth activism

Looking for something else?

This isn’t quite what you were looking for? Try the archives. You might find what you’re looking for there.

Copyright 2009 by Daniel Bigler. No stealing. Pretty please. It's kosher if you get a hold of Daniel and ask, though. Lost? Yeah, I like that show too. (Dig through some old stuff to find your way.) Wonder what this is all about? Read this. It's all good.