onehandclapping
Reason number umpteenbazillion and one for why spanking should be illegal – Child Killed for Failing to Say “Please”
This outrages me on so many levels. To even begin to assume that getting a child to do what you want justifies doing violence to them is just so utterly sad.
So to combine my mommy blogging and my rants on gender issues, I give you the Sippy Cup Exposé. I was looking at Emma’s sippy cups recently and noticed that we had a set of Playtex sippy cups that seriously played into gender stereotypes. The cups are pink and blue. The blue cup displays fish (in a school) undergoing academic pursuits. They are learning the ABC’s, looking at a globe, and using a ruler. The pink cup on the other hand has personified teacups, fruit, and flowers. WTF!
I am so sick of being faced with gender specific assumptions when I get anything for Emma. The whole pink and blue thing is everywhere – it’s hard to avoid exposing her to the idea that pink=girls and blue=boys. All the clothes are pink and purple covered in flowers, hearts, princesses, or ballet shoes. And now the sippy cups get involved too. So what does it matter that I let her use the blue=academic/intellectual cup? She knows that the pink one is for girls and so sees that girls are associated with tea parties and flowers while boys are associated with learning and school. I’m sure people will say that I’m overreacting and am too sensitive, but I’m just finding it really difficult to avoid imparting to my daughter oppressive gender roles. Does the world really have to promote cultural stereotypes on freaking sippy cups? This gets more annoying everyday…
You begin this way:
this is your hand,
this is your eye,
that is a fish, blue and flat
on the paper, almost
the shape of an eye.
This is your mouth, this is an O
or a moon, whichever
you like. This is yellow.Outside the window
is the rain, green
because it is summer, and beyond that
the trees and then the world,
which is round and has only
the colors of these nine crayons.This is the world, which is fuller
and more difficult to learn than I have said.
You are right to smudge it that way
with the red and then
the orange: the world burns.Once you have learned these words
you will learn that there are more
words than you can ever learn.
The word hand floats above your hand
like a small cloud over a lake.
The word hand anchors
Your hand to this table,
your hand is a warm stone
I hold between two words.This is your hand, these are my hands, this is the world,
which is round but not flat and has more colors
than we can see.It begins, it has an end,
this is what you will
come back to, this is your hand.Copyright © 1978 by Margaret Atwood.
I love that poem – the simplicity that hints at the vast complexity of language and knowledge. Teaching words to a child – naming the world and defining the boundaries. At this stage it feels like I am restricting Emma’s world. This word, this symbol, is this. Eye, hand, rain. The words are the thing itself. We struggle through this, this naming of things.
Emma – What happened to the mouse?
Me – The mice?
Emma – No, mouse.
Me – When there are more than one, they are called mice.
Emma – No, that’s not nice. Mouse.
Mice and Nice. We’re working on that one. The naming continues. Words are what she knows and there is power in words. I define the world for her, answer her “what is it?” question with a name – the right answer. Abstract words are harder. She knows saying please is associated with getting what she wants, but hasn’t quite realized that it isn’t a magical spell one casts that always results good things. She orders her world with the phrases she knows. She’s heard Dora when getting on a boat say “lifejackets – so we can be safe” enough times that as she played with her Noah’s Ark toy recently each animal had to put on a lifejacket before entering the ark. Words define, they set boundaries, they are secure.
But I see her from time to time breaking free of the constraints of language I have set for her. She is discovering the power to create with language – to be involved in her own process of naming. Tonight the space under the table became the realm of Puddleduck where the caped hero Gobbleguck attempted to escape from lions, tigers, dinosaurs and the mommy tickle monster. The world is not flat in reality, language does define and constrain, but there is still the power to create. Perhaps with just these nine colors we can create infinite shades.
I get rather annoyed when I hear people talking about how irresponsible youth are these days. Oh, I admit that there are teenagers who are self-centered and flaky, but so are many adults. It’s just that teenagers can be blamed and have rules and laws imposed on them to make them shape up (or at least allow the adults to pretend the problem’s solved). A few kids get drunk and have an accident, all teens then have to have a curfew. A few kids wear gang symbols, then all kids have clothing restrictions imposed on them. Not that rules don’t exist for adults, we at least have the opportunity to complain about their stupidity without being grounded or suspended.
Why does it annoy me? Because in my experience working with youth they are exceedingly more responsible than adults. I can hire a neighbor kid to cut my grass and I can be sure he will show up to do the job. The cable guy, the plumber, or the phone company are never that reliable. Similarly when I was a Children’s Pastor, I do not recall a single year of VBS when there were any adult volunteers who showed up every night. Every single one of them managed to come up with some last minute excuse to skip an evening or two (as well as the entire training period). The teenage helpers on the other hand made it to the training, showed up on time, and were consistently there every night for the kids.
And it’s not just that teens are often more responsible than adults, but that I have seen parents forcing their kids to bail on their responsibilities if it cramps their (the parents) style. One year when I was on vacation, I left the weekly Children’s Club to the responsibility of one of my teenage helpers. He knew the lesson, knew what set-up involved, and was a committed helper that all the kids knew. Well, he talked back to his mom that week and she grounded him from all activities he enjoyed – including helping with the kids club. (and yes his mom was a committed church member involved in other children’s ministry activities herself). Since when was a good punishment (if that exists) to teach your kid that failing one’s responsibilities is a good thing? Similarly when we would train teams of teens for mission trips we got to the point where we had to have the parents as well as the teens sign commitment forms. We had discovered that the parents saw a teen’s commitment as nonbinding if the parent wished. So last minute family trips, or chores, or babysitting siblings came before training sessions the teens had signed a commitment saying they would attend. But then nothing changed even after the parents signed the commitment forms as well. Apparently giving one’s word and signing a commitment held less value for the parents than personal convenience and pleasure.
What really got me though was that the same parents who forced their kids to avoid responsibility then complained to us (as youth and children’s pastors) that their kids were irresponsible and could we please teach them something about responsibility. Somedays I just wanted to shake those parents and tell them to open their eyes. But I didn’t. That wouldn’t have been the nice and responsible “Christian” thing to do. So I just rant about it now.
If you are at all aware of the news or have children and have received emails from 50 different friends about it, you have heard about the recent recall by Fisher-Price and Mattel of over 1 million toys due to excessive lead content. Then today the Chicago Tribune reported on some toys that are just now being recalled even though the company has known for over 5 years that the lead content in them was 40 times the safe limit. I looked at the Fisher-Price list, given that most of the toys on there are Sesame Street and Dora toys, we own a number of the ones on it. But since we got them all before May 1, 2007, they are apparently perfectly safe. Sure, whatever.
One of the most common responses to my recent justice bra story was that it was absurd for me to care about chemicals used to make my clothing. The comments ranged from stating gross misconceptions like if we don’t use fertilizers and pesticides people will starve to the old adage that everything causes cancer so why bother caring. The everyday exposure to dangerous chemicals has become so accepted that people no longer care. We expect it to be plastered all over the news if really dangerous stuff (lead in our child’s Elmo karaoke machine) gets out. Then there will be an outcry, a full recall, and we can all be safe. No need to worry, no need to care. But as the book Fast Food Nation pointed out, just because there are no reports of danger does not mean the danger doesn’t exist just that they aren’t bothering to test for it. Which is what gives me so much confidence that our copious Elmo and Dora toys are “perfectly safe.”
But how does one proceed? I don’t think that I’m going to throw away Emma’s favorite toys. And I know that there are tons of other unhealthy items in my home – toys and otherwise. But I am also not a fan of the type attitude that states, “well everything causes cancer (or whatever), so why waste your time caring?” If “everything” is harmful why in the world would I just want to expose myself (or my child) to as much of it as possible? Wouldn’t it be smarter to avoid what can be avoided and advocate to reduce the use of poisons in other areas? There are alternatives and contrary to popular belief those alternatives aren’t that hard to find (or that much more expensive). So perhaps getting rid of everything one already owns isn’t the best response, but changing one’s habits from this point forward is. It just takes being willing to stop exposing oneself to poison. But as I am discovering, that isn’t something that most people are willing to do. It’s too much work or something like that.
So I got to hang out with the kids in church today. We only have a handful of kids that are all pre-school age and we take turns in the kid’s room during church. There are many many things I dislike about that system, but at the moment its the best we can do. But from what can tell, the kids generally like it.
We usually don’t have “lessons” for the kids (it hard enough getting people to help much less teach a lesson – one of my issues with the whole thing). Basically whoever is in with the kids get to chose what to do – generally that involves free play time or watching a movie. I went with a lesson today based very loosely on the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd. We didn’t have any toy sheep or a shepherd really. But we had a whole set of toy dinosaurs. So we did the story with dinosaurs. The kids thought it was funny, but it worked.
Well my idea was to do the story thing using the toys then move on to sing songs about how God takes care of us. The kids had a different idea. They wanted to have the shepherd let the “sheep” out of the pen and count them coming back in over and over again. They wanted to make sure all the “sheep” were safe with the shepherd. Repeatedly. The songs full of abstract principles about this God person were fun, but they understood the shepherd counting the sheep.
I loved that. Fur a bunch of kids who (although loved dearly) hear most often through any given day to stop doing whatever it is they have chosen to do and start doing whatever the big people want them to do – to be counted and safely cared for is a big deal. To know that they are wanted no matter what is the ‘God thing” they need.
And so went my lesson on the good shepherd and his dinosaurs.
Okay serious rant to follow (Karen – here’s the terrible two “no’s” and stubborn independence you mentioned…). What is with our country moving towards more and more discrimination. Entire groups of people are being banned from restaurants and public places. Reminiscent of the days of segregation, signs are being put up banning a certain demographic from eating or swimming in certain places. But instead of signs proclaiming “Whites Only” or “No Colored People Allowed” these signs state “No Children Allowed.”
Apparently as the baby boomers kick their kids out of the house and more and more people are choosing to not have kids, they don’t want to be bothered by other people’s kids. They would rather not have to interact with that segment of the population and so are pushing for mandates and rules to protect themselves from children. I understand laws that prevent children from entering strip clubs or R rated movies, but this is going too far. It started in restaurants, private establishments that could discriminate as they choose. Then there were subdivisions (gated usually) that barred anyone under 18 from living there (and often even visiting). But now apparently public beaches in Illinois are banning children to meet the baby boomers’ demands for comfort. If this PUBLIC beach had put up signs banning women, or Mexicans, or Muslims there would be huge public outcry and an avalanche of lawsuits. But the ban on children is being met with praise and thanks for the opportunity for the self-center to not have to deal with that pesky and annoying minority – children.
And that is what children are – a voiceless minority that is generally despised because they are not adults. I’ve become increasingly annoyed by the death glares I get if I bring my toddler into certain stores or restaurants. I’m sick of always being seated in the far back corner by the kitchen in restaurants. But to be denied access because baby boomers are living up to their label of being the “me generation” is just too much. And this isn’t happening behind closed doors either. I’ve heard earfuls from empty nesters and the childless (usually bitchy bitter women at craft fairs) about how much they hate children. Stories of how they would spank strangers’ children because the mom obviously wasn’t going to give the kid the walloping they deserve for crying in a store. Or telling me that all restaurants should ban children or at least parents refrain from exposing other people to their children by eating out. As one lady put it, places like McDonald’s exist if parents insist on eating out with kids. So abuse of children and encouraging childhood obesity are better options that making a self-centered adult spend time in the presence of a child.
My response – GET OVER YOURSELVES! Stop being self-centered jerks. Life is not all about you. Stop discriminating against children because you are too lazy to understand them or too selfish to care. Just FYI – I’ll will continue to take my child out to eat and to play at the beach and no I won’t hit them if they get too loud. I will not give into segregation and will do my best to be an advocate for the voiceless.
(amazingly enough I agree with Al Mohler on this one. Age segregated communities, churches, or societies are not healthy)
Today is the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year. The day when we are blessed with the most light all year long. I love that the focus of the solstices is light not darkness. Today we celebrate the abundance of light and the life if brings to the earth. We give thanks for the first fruits of harvest and take pleasure in the warm days of summer. The focus is not on the return of the darkness but on appreciation of the light. In winter when the darkness is at its greatest, we celebrate the return of the light. We rejoice that light will always overcome the darkness.
We celebrated the Solstice with the alternative parents group I am a part of with a picnic and bubble extravaganza. (what better way to celebrate anything than to have laughing toddlers chase bubbles!) Here is Emma enjoying the occasion.
…but wait, how can you be nostalgic for something that never went away?
So here we go again. Rampant sexism, this time aimed at kids. And if the other anti-sexism voices that have spoken out about this are any indication – bring on the hate comments, the name calling, and the attempted censorship of the female voice.
And yes I’m talking about the recent American release of The Dangerous Book for Boys. (read about it here) Amazon describes the book as –
Equal parts droll and gorgeous nostalgia book and heartfelt plea for a renewed sense of adventure in the lives of boys and men, Conn and Hal Iggulden’s The Dangerous Book for Boys became a mammoth bestseller in the United Kingdom in 2006. Adapted, in moderation, for American customs in this edition (cricket is gone, rugby remains; conkers are out, Navajo Code Talkers in), The Dangerous Book is a guide book for dads as well as their sons, as a reminder of lore and technique that have not yet been completely lost to the digital age. Recall the adventures of Scott of the Antarctic and the Battle of the Somme, relearn how to palm a coin, tan a skin, and, most charmingly, wrap a package in brown paper and string. The book’s ambitions are both modest and winningly optimistic: you get the sense that by learning how to place a splint or write in invisible ink, a boy might be prepared for anything, even girls (which warrant a small but wise chapter of their own).
There’s the part of my that likes the concept of the book. Getting kids off their butts, getting them outside and active, and discovering the world around them. These are things I enjoyed as a kid. Learning how to build stuff, writing in code, playing spy games in the neighborhood, collecting all the discarded Christmas trees and making a huge fort at the local park, building fires, learning to identity trees and flowers, studying ancient history… These are all good, fun things. And I agree that often safety and fear of being sued have led to many fun activities (paper airplanes, field trips, snowball fights…) being banned. I think we should all learn about where our food comes from, survival skills, and historical perspectives. There are basic skills that just aren’t taught these days (as cramming useless facts for standardized tests takes up more and more time). This book has some good stuff in it.
But
Here’s where women and moms are being muzzled. The premise of the book is that this is fun stuff for boys and dads, of course moms won’t like it. So any criticism from women is met with a role of the eyes and a “see I told you so” aside. Pretty nifty marketing plan there. (see the promo video here). So at the risk of being dismissed before I even open my mouth, let me say I have issues with this as well.
No matter how you slice it its sexist. Beyond being marketed as a book for boys, the authors say that the book exists “to celebrate boys, because nobody has been doing it for a long while.” Why does this have to be about gender? Why is learning about history, nature, sports, and building things something just for boys? And when have boys failed to be celebrated? Is this anti-feminist backlash or just savvy marketing that capitalized on that backlash? I sick of reading on blogs that girls aren’t into this stuff anyway and that its so refreshing to be “beyond” feminism and PC”. Give me a break. Do we have to have the “all guys are like this and all girls are like this” lie once again? Must girls continue to feel like unwanted guests at the party and second class citizens? Do we really have to re-interpreted messages like this for our kids (yes Emma, I know it just addresses boys, but really you can try it too)?
So its a how-to book I find fascinating, but it supports gender biases I am trying to change. And the word out there is shut up and just enjoy it for what it is. Sorry, but if everyone does that things will never change.
Of course this bill is being labeled as intolerant and anti-christian. Apparently hitting children is the only godly way to get them to do what you want. While the revised bill does allow open handed spanking, that’s not good enough for some groups that insist that harder objects must be used to break the child’s will.
Why is this a bad thing to some? One church whose advice pamphlet on spanking will be challenged by this new law, says that “guiltiness of sin can only be removed by God at salvation, but God has established a method by which children can have human justice satisfied and thus remove guilt. This method is spanking,” because “The reality about Biblical spanking is that it works in a child’s life to help bring him to the point of salvation.” This church advises parents that “children should be disciplined starting shortly after birth with spanking beginning at the manifestation of the rebellious will,” and that if after spanking “If the will has not been broken, spank again. Some of the ways the administrator of discipline can tell if the child is still being willful is if he turns around or puts his hands behind him during the spanking, or if he screams during or after the spanking.” Oh and the Bible is clear that you can only use a rod to spank. They also tell parents that “when parents know to spank for a disobedience but withhold the rod, they are sinning.”
I guess they’re going to have to revise their theology or finally be punished for abusing children.
I know most spanking advocates aren’t as extreme as this church, but I really have a hard time understanding it still. Just like I really can’t fathom how anyone could hold the mindset that women are inferior to men, I can’t understand how anyone can think it’s okay to hit a child. I see it happen all the time, but I still don’t get it. If it was a man hitting a woman or even a person hitting a dog – they would be prosecuted. But to hit a child is considered an inalienable right. I posted this quote before, but it is fitting today –
Why? To show that they are bigger and stronger and have power over the child? To teach that might makes right? To break the child’s will/personality? To control the child? To instill the fear of discipline (or God)?
I do not want my child to think that just because someone is bigger and more powerful than she is they can do whatever they want to her (no matter what our national war policy might imply). I do not want my child to be a good person because she fears physical harm if she isn’t. I do not want my child to love/serve me or God out of fear.
There’s something messed up about having to use laws to punishment parents who hurt children in order to punish them. One would hope common sense and love would dictate that, but other forms of rampant violence (spousal abuse, rape…) show that control and intimidation through physical violence is too often the norm. So if we need to add laws that protect babies and children to those that protect women, then so be it.