Watch Dropout Nation on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Karen Klein And The Village
Karen Klein is the bus monitor who recently became a viral video sensation after video of her being horrifically berated by some kids on a bus became national news. Her fund-raiser (which had a target of $5,000) has broken $600,000 at the time of this writing. Many people are saying that this has as much to do with hatred of kids as it does support for Karen. I think that it's not simply child-hatred or a perception that children today are worse than children of yesterday. I think that it is merely a visible element of a complex social mix.
Even though conservatives responded very negatively to Hillary Clinton's book It Takes A Village, they actually agree with what it says. The only difference is that in the conservative formulation, they are allowed to be judgmental assholes since they blame the family for the failure of a child as opposed to the society in which the family lives.
What do I mean by them agreeing? Go out and talk to anyone who was of childbearing age fifty years ago, sixty years ago, and ask about the social pressure to have children. Those who didn't have kids were seen as selfish and strange — judgments that the religio-conservative right still fling around today. These ideals were still strongly felt in all social segments as little as twenty years ago. Understandably, this created a feeling of contempt among those who had no interest in having children, and the lingering judgments create further contempt now.
No, it's not as explicitly stated as it once was, but the act of marriage and children is still seen as the badge of adulthood by a large hunk of the population. And for the young people of today, this pressure comes from those who were raised in decades past where these expectations were explicitly stated: their parents, grandparents, and extended family. My own family (and the family of my partner) are not-so-quietly hoping that we will reproduce.
That is, I think, at least one of the primary roots of this amazing outpouring of support for this woman. Many of us hate children not just because children are pricks, which they sometimes are, but because we are seeing children as a symbol of social pressure that is stressful.
Oddly, I also argue that the wellspring of the behavior on the children's part is also of the same sort. We have the aforementioned renouncers of parenthood, but on the other end of the spectrum, we have those who happily engage in child-bearing. They are doing so in a society that today has two large, conflicting pressures: the pressure to be an individual and reject social expectations, and the pressure to be a "good person." This gives an opening for those to inject an enormous amount of self-importance and self-rigteousness into the act of having children. They still see themselves as part of the individualists, but enjoy a sensation of being traditional as well. They try to raise themselves above the individualist din by appealing to conservative values. This sort of activity was hilariously lampooned in the song Pregnant Women Are Smug.
In this rejection/acceptance of parenthood, we run the risk of highly entitled children being produced. People have injected such an enormous amount of importance into the child, because they are living vicariously through that child, that any assaults on the child are seen as unjust, even if the child is a complete jerk. This is because assaults on the child are interpreted as assaults on the parent.
This is not new behavior, obviously. Parents have lived vicariously through their kids for generations. I suspect that the problem is growing because of the loss of reverence of authority.
I think here we are seeing a pendulum swing. Sixty years ago, authority was automatically assumed to be correct in any conflict with a child. Look at the unprecedented child abuse cases from decades past that are only being revealed now. How many of these cases could have been uncovered if children had been listened to. For further evidence, look the trope in television and movies of the child who knows the truth, but is ignored as a liar, fabricator, or storyteller. Sixty years ago, teachers were allowed to hit children, today, teachers can't even hug children.
Compounding the problem is Internet access. Kids today can more easily learn than ever before that adults are just as stupid, immature, and dickish as other kids are. The separation of "child" and "adult" is becoming harder to maintain. And even if kids aren't thinking too deeply about the concept, they can use the Internet to simply enact experimental actions against authority. The AP covered this in only slightly-alarmist tones here.
Obviously, in any discussion like this, alarmism must be carefully avoided. Kids today are not fundamentally worse than kids from a generation ago. I think that observable behavior is increasing because the environment is both allowing or amplifying the behavior. Likewise, since the generation isn't fundamentally worse, they will likely turn out just the same as previous generations — afflicted by the same problems and resulting in the same demographic groups.
This is a long way from my original subject, Karen Klein. I think that the support shown her is a historical fluke. The event of her exposure happened at the right place, in the right time, to the right population. The remnants of an old social order are in their death throes, and are mixing with the emerging social order to create specific psychosocial anxieties and issues. Once the old way dies, so goes our contemporary specific problems with children; so goes the wellspring of our reaction to this event; and so goes the wellspring of the event itself. In another time, no element of this series of events would have ever happened.
But for now, for all of the incidental elements of the process, it did happen. So send the women a couple bucks. Because, man, kids suck.
Even though conservatives responded very negatively to Hillary Clinton's book It Takes A Village, they actually agree with what it says. The only difference is that in the conservative formulation, they are allowed to be judgmental assholes since they blame the family for the failure of a child as opposed to the society in which the family lives.
What do I mean by them agreeing? Go out and talk to anyone who was of childbearing age fifty years ago, sixty years ago, and ask about the social pressure to have children. Those who didn't have kids were seen as selfish and strange — judgments that the religio-conservative right still fling around today. These ideals were still strongly felt in all social segments as little as twenty years ago. Understandably, this created a feeling of contempt among those who had no interest in having children, and the lingering judgments create further contempt now.
No, it's not as explicitly stated as it once was, but the act of marriage and children is still seen as the badge of adulthood by a large hunk of the population. And for the young people of today, this pressure comes from those who were raised in decades past where these expectations were explicitly stated: their parents, grandparents, and extended family. My own family (and the family of my partner) are not-so-quietly hoping that we will reproduce.
That is, I think, at least one of the primary roots of this amazing outpouring of support for this woman. Many of us hate children not just because children are pricks, which they sometimes are, but because we are seeing children as a symbol of social pressure that is stressful.
Oddly, I also argue that the wellspring of the behavior on the children's part is also of the same sort. We have the aforementioned renouncers of parenthood, but on the other end of the spectrum, we have those who happily engage in child-bearing. They are doing so in a society that today has two large, conflicting pressures: the pressure to be an individual and reject social expectations, and the pressure to be a "good person." This gives an opening for those to inject an enormous amount of self-importance and self-rigteousness into the act of having children. They still see themselves as part of the individualists, but enjoy a sensation of being traditional as well. They try to raise themselves above the individualist din by appealing to conservative values. This sort of activity was hilariously lampooned in the song Pregnant Women Are Smug.
In this rejection/acceptance of parenthood, we run the risk of highly entitled children being produced. People have injected such an enormous amount of importance into the child, because they are living vicariously through that child, that any assaults on the child are seen as unjust, even if the child is a complete jerk. This is because assaults on the child are interpreted as assaults on the parent.
This is not new behavior, obviously. Parents have lived vicariously through their kids for generations. I suspect that the problem is growing because of the loss of reverence of authority.
I think here we are seeing a pendulum swing. Sixty years ago, authority was automatically assumed to be correct in any conflict with a child. Look at the unprecedented child abuse cases from decades past that are only being revealed now. How many of these cases could have been uncovered if children had been listened to. For further evidence, look the trope in television and movies of the child who knows the truth, but is ignored as a liar, fabricator, or storyteller. Sixty years ago, teachers were allowed to hit children, today, teachers can't even hug children.
Compounding the problem is Internet access. Kids today can more easily learn than ever before that adults are just as stupid, immature, and dickish as other kids are. The separation of "child" and "adult" is becoming harder to maintain. And even if kids aren't thinking too deeply about the concept, they can use the Internet to simply enact experimental actions against authority. The AP covered this in only slightly-alarmist tones here.
In Maryland, students posed as their vice principal's twin 9-year-old daughters on pedophile websites, saying they had been having sex with their father and were looking for a new partner. Elsewhere, students have logged on to neo-Nazi and white supremacist sites claiming to be a Jewish or minority teacher and inciting the groups' anger. Others have stolen photographs from teachers' cellphones and posted them online.These are the kinds of behaviors that we should be regulating. Instead, we try to take cell phones away, expel kids for legitimate criticism of teachers, and have inane zero-tolerance policies that causes kids to be expelled for bringing plastic flatware into school. The pendulum has not only swung too far, it is downright broken.
Obviously, in any discussion like this, alarmism must be carefully avoided. Kids today are not fundamentally worse than kids from a generation ago. I think that observable behavior is increasing because the environment is both allowing or amplifying the behavior. Likewise, since the generation isn't fundamentally worse, they will likely turn out just the same as previous generations — afflicted by the same problems and resulting in the same demographic groups.
This is a long way from my original subject, Karen Klein. I think that the support shown her is a historical fluke. The event of her exposure happened at the right place, in the right time, to the right population. The remnants of an old social order are in their death throes, and are mixing with the emerging social order to create specific psychosocial anxieties and issues. Once the old way dies, so goes our contemporary specific problems with children; so goes the wellspring of our reaction to this event; and so goes the wellspring of the event itself. In another time, no element of this series of events would have ever happened.
But for now, for all of the incidental elements of the process, it did happen. So send the women a couple bucks. Because, man, kids suck.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Circumcision And Parental Rights
San Francisco is trying to ban male circumcision. Apparently, they're following France's lead in passing laws that proscribe religious practice, i.e. Jewish circumcision. Their logic goes that removing chunks of your baby at a young age is mutilation in the same way that female circumcision is mutilation. While they're similar, male circumcision is much less destructive. With the female variant, you're not only removing skin, you're removing the densest ball of nerves on the human body. Moreover, female circumcision removes the vast majority of sexual pleasure... it's kind of the point. Male circumcision, while damaging sexual pleasure, does not eliminate it. So while both procedures count as mutilation, they are in different leagues as far as actual damage goes.
This case also runs counter to my belief that parental rights are paramount, even if that ends up killing the child. Parents, basically, have the right to do whatever they want to their child in their quest to raise the child "right." Considering that there are religious sects out there that won't bring their kids to doctors for any reason, letting parents remove a flap of flesh seems pretty inconsequential.
This case also runs counter to my belief that parental rights are paramount, even if that ends up killing the child. Parents, basically, have the right to do whatever they want to their child in their quest to raise the child "right." Considering that there are religious sects out there that won't bring their kids to doctors for any reason, letting parents remove a flap of flesh seems pretty inconsequential.
Monday, February 07, 2011
What Males Do
Huffington Post has a short article about a bunch of high school girls rallying against a website that apparently rates the girls of that school in rather nasty terms. Sexist words are as one would expect, but racist words also permeate the website.
It got me thinking about men and our psychology. For example, I don't think that rape evolved, I suspect that it's a side-effect of males being prone to violence and being frustrated by something that they want, as such, they lash out in the form of rape. With this, we're talking about high-school boys. They can't be much older than seventeen, with the youngest clocking in at thirteen. Why on God's green Earth would they, at an age where they can barely poop correctly, feel the need to create a website to not only objectify girls, but to positively degrade them.
I suspect it's, again, because they want them, and they're too much a bunch of pussies to do anything about it, so they lash out. They want them, but they fear them. Mature, guys. Real mature.
It got me thinking about men and our psychology. For example, I don't think that rape evolved, I suspect that it's a side-effect of males being prone to violence and being frustrated by something that they want, as such, they lash out in the form of rape. With this, we're talking about high-school boys. They can't be much older than seventeen, with the youngest clocking in at thirteen. Why on God's green Earth would they, at an age where they can barely poop correctly, feel the need to create a website to not only objectify girls, but to positively degrade them.
I suspect it's, again, because they want them, and they're too much a bunch of pussies to do anything about it, so they lash out. They want them, but they fear them. Mature, guys. Real mature.
Just Below and to The Side of The Influence.
A new study out of Temple University has shown that teenagers don't actually need peer pressure to do dumb shit. In fact, the mere presence of peers makes teens act in ways they otherwise would not. These peers were not saying anything, doing anything, truly, the peers in the experiment were not even visible to the experimental subject.
Anyone who actually remembers being a teenager will not find this study surprising. I did a number of very stupid things with friends with absolutely no goading on their parts. And what I hope this study helps people understand is that those god-awful, ridiculous, absolutely pointless Above the Influence PSA's that litter television and print DO NOTHING. They are addressing an imaginary problem!
I was asked if I wanted to smoke pot on precisely two occasions in my high school career. Both times, it was done in a friendly, social manner. This person was inviting me in as a show of friendship. There was no pressure. Never in the HISTORY OF TIME has the line "All the cool kids are doing it" been uttered by anyone but stand-up comics. Above the Influence fails for the same reason that Nancy Reagan and her retarded Just Say No campaign failed: it imagines an American child that doesn't exist.
P.S. The Just Say No campaign reached a point of hilarity by the mid 1990's. I have come across urinal cake holders with "Winners Don't Do Drugs" printed on them. I really don't know what demographic they were hoping to reach with that one.
Anyone who actually remembers being a teenager will not find this study surprising. I did a number of very stupid things with friends with absolutely no goading on their parts. And what I hope this study helps people understand is that those god-awful, ridiculous, absolutely pointless Above the Influence PSA's that litter television and print DO NOTHING. They are addressing an imaginary problem!
I was asked if I wanted to smoke pot on precisely two occasions in my high school career. Both times, it was done in a friendly, social manner. This person was inviting me in as a show of friendship. There was no pressure. Never in the HISTORY OF TIME has the line "All the cool kids are doing it" been uttered by anyone but stand-up comics. Above the Influence fails for the same reason that Nancy Reagan and her retarded Just Say No campaign failed: it imagines an American child that doesn't exist.
P.S. The Just Say No campaign reached a point of hilarity by the mid 1990's. I have come across urinal cake holders with "Winners Don't Do Drugs" printed on them. I really don't know what demographic they were hoping to reach with that one.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Bayer Beyaz Commercial is Shockingly Straightforward (UPDATED)
Bayer has released a new birth control pill called Beyaz, which isn't notable in and of itself; it's the commercial that's amazing.
This is the most frank and truthful ad I have seen in a long time, especially in the world of prescription drugs. Most of them seem to imply that the drugs allow you to do things that you were never stopped from doing anyhow. For example, ads for herpes drugs show people in hot tubs, horseback riding, swinging from trees, sailing, and other weird shit that herpes wouldn't actually stop you from doing. They could at least use euphemisms for sex. But no. It was like the first ad for Claritin, where they had to legally avoid mentioning what the drug did, instead showing some guy windsurfing through a field of wheat, which eventually spelled out the logo. WTF? How does that convey allergy relief?!
But back to Beyaz. I actually find this ad refreshing. It's saying what lots of people are already thinking. Take this pill to prevent pregnancy, because babies ruin your life. TRUTH! Obviously, that's not only true for women, but they have the most to risk. Indeed, it is true for anyone who wants to be a parent, man or woman alike. Having a kid ruins your life for at least ten years. You can't do shit. You can't go to movies, you can't go to nice restaurants, you can't go on two-week trips to exotic locales. You need a baby sitter for everything.
I've read some commentary online where people are taking offense to the ad, saying that the ad implies that women can't have a kid and do fun stuff. They can't! Nor should they! If you aren't ready to focus your life on that kid, you shouldn't be having it. It's that simple. Having a child is a massive obligation. Possibly the greatest obligation that a human can accept. And frankly, the fact that the commercial doesn't sugarcoat the idea that having a kid isn't nearly as fun as visiting other countries, owning things, and finding love isn't at all offensive.
In fact, it is my opinion that life offers so many great things, having a kid borders on insane. If you have a child, you should have one for a wide array of emotional and philosophical reasons. If you can't articulate those reasons, you're not ready to have a kid. So take this pill.
UPDATE:
A recent study has come out seemingly indicating that people who report how satisfying having kids is might be lying just a wee bit. Basically, people talk up the joys of parenting to gloss over the massive financial burden of children.
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
This is the most frank and truthful ad I have seen in a long time, especially in the world of prescription drugs. Most of them seem to imply that the drugs allow you to do things that you were never stopped from doing anyhow. For example, ads for herpes drugs show people in hot tubs, horseback riding, swinging from trees, sailing, and other weird shit that herpes wouldn't actually stop you from doing. They could at least use euphemisms for sex. But no. It was like the first ad for Claritin, where they had to legally avoid mentioning what the drug did, instead showing some guy windsurfing through a field of wheat, which eventually spelled out the logo. WTF? How does that convey allergy relief?!
But back to Beyaz. I actually find this ad refreshing. It's saying what lots of people are already thinking. Take this pill to prevent pregnancy, because babies ruin your life. TRUTH! Obviously, that's not only true for women, but they have the most to risk. Indeed, it is true for anyone who wants to be a parent, man or woman alike. Having a kid ruins your life for at least ten years. You can't do shit. You can't go to movies, you can't go to nice restaurants, you can't go on two-week trips to exotic locales. You need a baby sitter for everything.
I've read some commentary online where people are taking offense to the ad, saying that the ad implies that women can't have a kid and do fun stuff. They can't! Nor should they! If you aren't ready to focus your life on that kid, you shouldn't be having it. It's that simple. Having a child is a massive obligation. Possibly the greatest obligation that a human can accept. And frankly, the fact that the commercial doesn't sugarcoat the idea that having a kid isn't nearly as fun as visiting other countries, owning things, and finding love isn't at all offensive.
In fact, it is my opinion that life offers so many great things, having a kid borders on insane. If you have a child, you should have one for a wide array of emotional and philosophical reasons. If you can't articulate those reasons, you're not ready to have a kid. So take this pill.
UPDATE:
A recent study has come out seemingly indicating that people who report how satisfying having kids is might be lying just a wee bit. Basically, people talk up the joys of parenting to gloss over the massive financial burden of children.
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Caution. Time-Traveling Children
Seriously, who the hell drew this sign? And who approved it?! Was the artist 120? The last time children dressed like this was 1905.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The New Epidemic.
Every generation changes things. Frankly, I think that change only comes with each generation and the passage of power. It seems pretty simple as to why this is. Humans are remarkably intransigent creatures. Combined with a healthy dose of stupidity and fear, we sort of determine what the world is and should be at a pretty young age. Changes beyond that norm are to be either feared or hated.I look to a recent survey done in Rhode Island, my home state, where the gay marriage debate is heating up because our governor is a little bit slow in the brain case. If this survey is to be believed, that's not surprising.
In it, 60% of Rhode Islanders supported gay marriage, with 31% opposed. Further cementing the Republican party as the party of intolerance and outright idiocy, those numbers went strongly along party lines, with Elephants against and Donkeys for.
But it was the generational divide that was interesting, with a scant 32% of those over the age of 70 supporting gay marriage, but 18-29 year-olds supported strongly with 87%. 70% of 30-39 year-olds gave their support, as well.
This all leads to video games. How so? Well, the generation of people who are currently, apparently, Repbulican and against gay people, think they're ruining our children. Because, seriously, what isn't ruining our children?
Every generation has a boogeyman. Whatever the parents don't understand, they hate. And yet, with every generation crying how they'll never become like their parents, they do the same thing. Over and over again. The children don't dislike the particulars, be it comic books or video games, but they never seem to catch on to the underlying principle, they thus make the same mistakes.
I have long been against any politician who says things about video games. Joe Lieberman is a modern-day Anthony Comstock. He's a grand-standing blowhard who uses hot-button topics to further his own career. He is total scum.
I'm aware of the fact that Hillary Clinton has discussed similar topics about video games, and yet I supported her during the elections. Basically, Hillary never turned video games and other possible first-amendment issues into a personal crusade as Lieberman did with Mortal Kombat all those years ago. Moreover, my primary desire out of the presidential elections was a good manager to basically fix what Bush broke.
The irrepressible march of society continues, and despite the cries of untold fear-mongers throughout history, we're still here. We haven't devolved into bestiality and cannibalism. Out children are not all rabid serial killers. They were wrong. They were wrong then. They're wrong now. Just shut the fuck up.
Is it the only lesson of history that man is unteachable?
-- Sir Winston Churchill
The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder ... I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control.
- US senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2005
The effect of rock and roll on young people, is to turn them into devil worshippers; to stimulate self-expression through sex; to provoke lawlessness; impair nervous stability and destroy the sanctity of marriage. It is an evil influence on the youth of our country.
- Minister Albert Carter, 1956
Many adults think that the crimes described in comic books are so far removed from the child's life that for children they are merely something imaginative or fantastic. But we have found this to be a great error. Comic books and life are connected. A bank robbery is easily translated into the rifling of a candy store. Delinquencies formerly restricted to adults are increasingly committed by young people and children ... All child drug addicts, and all children drawn into the narcotics traffic as messengers, with whom we have had contact, were inveterate comic-book readers This kind of thing is not good mental nourishment for children!
- Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, 1954
This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'
- The Annual Report of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1909
A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship.
- Scientific American, July 1859
The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.
- The Times of London, 1816
The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?
- Reverend Enos Hitchcock, Memoirs of the Bloomsgrove Family, 1790
-- Sir Winston Churchill
The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder ... I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control.
- US senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2005
The effect of rock and roll on young people, is to turn them into devil worshippers; to stimulate self-expression through sex; to provoke lawlessness; impair nervous stability and destroy the sanctity of marriage. It is an evil influence on the youth of our country.
- Minister Albert Carter, 1956
Many adults think that the crimes described in comic books are so far removed from the child's life that for children they are merely something imaginative or fantastic. But we have found this to be a great error. Comic books and life are connected. A bank robbery is easily translated into the rifling of a candy store. Delinquencies formerly restricted to adults are increasingly committed by young people and children ... All child drug addicts, and all children drawn into the narcotics traffic as messengers, with whom we have had contact, were inveterate comic-book readers This kind of thing is not good mental nourishment for children!
- Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, 1954
This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'
- The Annual Report of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1909
A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship.
- Scientific American, July 1859
The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.
- The Times of London, 1816
The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?
- Reverend Enos Hitchcock, Memoirs of the Bloomsgrove Family, 1790
Some Quotes Of Note: Politicians Damning New Technologies/Cultural Artifacts (TechDirt.com)
Forget Video Games, Why Aren't Politicians Complaining About Chess? (TechDirt.com)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Let the Kid Die!
There's a story on Yahoo! about a woman and 13-year-old son who have apparently gone on the lamb to avoid court-ordered cancer therapy for the son.
They belong to one of those wack-job religious groups that believe in faith-healing, and the son himself has testified that he believes that chemotherapy will kill him. I guess he thinks the cancer won't.
First off, I believe firmly in the primacy of parental responsibility. The government cannot and should not take on the job of parents in cases like this. I even go so far as to say that kids should be left with drug-addict parents, just so long as the parents actually want them. It is the right and the responsibility of parents to care for their children, even if I think they're doing a shitty job.
But even then, the government has enough problems with children that no one wants. I think that as an enlightened society, we should care for these unwanted children because we can and because the possibility of a bright future, however weak, is there. But why take on more?! The foster system is already broken. The DCYF is maxed out. Social workers burn out in three minutes. Let's focus on these aspects.
I also think that in a free society, a government has no right to step on the toes of free parents teaching and raising their children however they see fit. Drugs, alcohol and orgies, not my place to judge. Daily beatings? Well, we might want to step in.
And finally, people of this sort of religious creed are the bottom of the intellectual barrel. This kid has NO hope for a bright, productive future. The more of these people that die, the better. Do not save him! We don't want him! The boy himself has said he will fight anyone who tries to treat him. His death is a good thing, trust me on this one.
Article copies below.
They belong to one of those wack-job religious groups that believe in faith-healing, and the son himself has testified that he believes that chemotherapy will kill him. I guess he thinks the cancer won't.
First off, I believe firmly in the primacy of parental responsibility. The government cannot and should not take on the job of parents in cases like this. I even go so far as to say that kids should be left with drug-addict parents, just so long as the parents actually want them. It is the right and the responsibility of parents to care for their children, even if I think they're doing a shitty job.
But even then, the government has enough problems with children that no one wants. I think that as an enlightened society, we should care for these unwanted children because we can and because the possibility of a bright future, however weak, is there. But why take on more?! The foster system is already broken. The DCYF is maxed out. Social workers burn out in three minutes. Let's focus on these aspects.
I also think that in a free society, a government has no right to step on the toes of free parents teaching and raising their children however they see fit. Drugs, alcohol and orgies, not my place to judge. Daily beatings? Well, we might want to step in.
And finally, people of this sort of religious creed are the bottom of the intellectual barrel. This kid has NO hope for a bright, productive future. The more of these people that die, the better. Do not save him! We don't want him! The boy himself has said he will fight anyone who tries to treat him. His death is a good thing, trust me on this one.
Article copies below.
By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago
NEW ULM, Minn. – Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.
Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a doctor's appointment and court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed his tumor had grown.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.
The family belongs to a religious group that believes in "natural" healing methods. Daniel has testified he believed chemotherapy would kill him and told the judge that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified he didn't know where his wife and son were but had made no attempt to find them. He testified he last saw his son Monday morning, and he saw his wife only briefly that evening when she said she was leaving "for a time."
As of Wednesday morning, the mother and son still had not been found, said Carl Rolloff, a sheriff's dispatcher.
Officials distributed the arrest warrant nationwide. Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said Tuesday that investigators were following some leads locally, but declined to elaborate.
"It's absolutely crazy. It's very disappointing," James Olson, the attorney representing Brown County Family Services. "We're trying to do what's right for this young man."
A message left at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye early Wednesday wasn't immediately returned. But in an interview in Wednesday's editions of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, Anthony Hauser said he knew places where his wife might have gone though he did not know where she was.
He said he and his wife had a plan for Tuesday's hearing and he was a "bit disappointed" she didn't follow it. "We were going to present a treatment plan to the court. If they didn't go with it, we would appeal it," he told the newspaper.
"I know many people around here who have had cancer, they did the chemo, it would come back," Hauser told the newspaper. "They did the chemo again and again and they are all in the grave. Chemo isn't foolproof."
Olson, the family services lawyer, had considered asking the judge to hold Anthony Hauser in contempt as well, but he said Wednesday he decided against that.
"I'm thinking that he probably doesn't know where his wife and child are," Olson said.
Daniel's Hodgkin's lymphoma, diagnosed in January, is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but the boy quit chemo after a single treatment.
The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.
The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.
The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son. "You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge," Landis said.
The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that he examined Daniel on Monday, and that an X-ray showed his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.
"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.
Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists, but the Hausers declined, then left in a rush with lawyer Susan Daya.
"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.
Daya did not immediately respond to a call Tuesday from The Associated Press. The court also tried to reach her during the hearing, but got no answer.
Minnesota statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.
NEW ULM, Minn. – Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.
Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a doctor's appointment and court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed his tumor had grown.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.
The family belongs to a religious group that believes in "natural" healing methods. Daniel has testified he believed chemotherapy would kill him and told the judge that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified he didn't know where his wife and son were but had made no attempt to find them. He testified he last saw his son Monday morning, and he saw his wife only briefly that evening when she said she was leaving "for a time."
As of Wednesday morning, the mother and son still had not been found, said Carl Rolloff, a sheriff's dispatcher.
Officials distributed the arrest warrant nationwide. Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said Tuesday that investigators were following some leads locally, but declined to elaborate.
"It's absolutely crazy. It's very disappointing," James Olson, the attorney representing Brown County Family Services. "We're trying to do what's right for this young man."
A message left at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye early Wednesday wasn't immediately returned. But in an interview in Wednesday's editions of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, Anthony Hauser said he knew places where his wife might have gone though he did not know where she was.
He said he and his wife had a plan for Tuesday's hearing and he was a "bit disappointed" she didn't follow it. "We were going to present a treatment plan to the court. If they didn't go with it, we would appeal it," he told the newspaper.
"I know many people around here who have had cancer, they did the chemo, it would come back," Hauser told the newspaper. "They did the chemo again and again and they are all in the grave. Chemo isn't foolproof."
Olson, the family services lawyer, had considered asking the judge to hold Anthony Hauser in contempt as well, but he said Wednesday he decided against that.
"I'm thinking that he probably doesn't know where his wife and child are," Olson said.
Daniel's Hodgkin's lymphoma, diagnosed in January, is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but the boy quit chemo after a single treatment.
The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.
The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.
The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son. "You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge," Landis said.
The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that he examined Daniel on Monday, and that an X-ray showed his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.
"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.
Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists, but the Hausers declined, then left in a rush with lawyer Susan Daya.
"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.
Daya did not immediately respond to a call Tuesday from The Associated Press. The court also tried to reach her during the hearing, but got no answer.
Minnesota statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Might Explain Timmy's Obsession With That Well
A recent article on HealthDay, and linked-to on Yahoo!'s homepage, reveals that parents know surprisingly little about their children and the way they should or should not be.
Really?! No! All parents are rational, intelligent, informed people! That's the reason every child in America grows up into well-rounded, sane adults.
Ok, as someone who's had the honor of working with parents, I'm not kidding when I say that large sections of our population should not be having children. Many parents than you would like to think about do not actually want their children. The only thing tying them to this tiny bag of puke and shit is some nebulous, primal mechanism nested may back in their hind brain. Every, single other aspect of their brain expresses annoyance.
Obviously, this is far from the rule, but in my exposure, as much as one in ten parents quite visibly didn't want their children. Refrigerator parents, if you will. And the majority is quickly included as you move up the spectrum of interest and love. It's disgusting. DO NOT HAVE KIDS IF YOU AREN'T ONE-HUNDRED-FUCKING-PERCENT POSITIVE YOU WANT THEM! Is it really that hard?!
And I'd say that the numbers of just plain-freaking-stupid people having kids shoots up to 70%. Nice people. Caring people. Really, truly want the children. Dumb as rugs. Not dumb in the sense that they have low IQ's, no. I met many parents with IQ's somewhere two floors up. Still, the research skills and dedication to education on a subject is seriously lacking in large swaths of the child-pooping populace.
It really makes me think that we should have some Big Brother going on. Perhaps a law that requires you to take child development classes before you can have kids. Again, not haaard. I mean, come ON, parents not knowing that children before a certain developmental step do not understand right and wrong? Are you shocked that the little booger-eater can't do long division, as well?!
So, yeah. A bit pissed off? I am. Bad parenting is something that infuriates me beyond reason. When I seee someone in a grocery store with some child having a temper tantrum, or some white trash teenager ignoring her toddler to bitch at the baby-daddy, I want to just fucking stab them.
There is greatness hidden amongst our children. We never know who will be the next Van Gogh or Einstein. And every child lost to bad parenting is one lost chance for the next great person.
One-Third of Parents Lack Facts About Child Development (HealthDay)
Really?! No! All parents are rational, intelligent, informed people! That's the reason every child in America grows up into well-rounded, sane adults.
Ok, as someone who's had the honor of working with parents, I'm not kidding when I say that large sections of our population should not be having children. Many parents than you would like to think about do not actually want their children. The only thing tying them to this tiny bag of puke and shit is some nebulous, primal mechanism nested may back in their hind brain. Every, single other aspect of their brain expresses annoyance.
Obviously, this is far from the rule, but in my exposure, as much as one in ten parents quite visibly didn't want their children. Refrigerator parents, if you will. And the majority is quickly included as you move up the spectrum of interest and love. It's disgusting. DO NOT HAVE KIDS IF YOU AREN'T ONE-HUNDRED-FUCKING-PERCENT POSITIVE YOU WANT THEM! Is it really that hard?!
And I'd say that the numbers of just plain-freaking-stupid people having kids shoots up to 70%. Nice people. Caring people. Really, truly want the children. Dumb as rugs. Not dumb in the sense that they have low IQ's, no. I met many parents with IQ's somewhere two floors up. Still, the research skills and dedication to education on a subject is seriously lacking in large swaths of the child-pooping populace.
It really makes me think that we should have some Big Brother going on. Perhaps a law that requires you to take child development classes before you can have kids. Again, not haaard. I mean, come ON, parents not knowing that children before a certain developmental step do not understand right and wrong? Are you shocked that the little booger-eater can't do long division, as well?!
So, yeah. A bit pissed off? I am. Bad parenting is something that infuriates me beyond reason. When I seee someone in a grocery store with some child having a temper tantrum, or some white trash teenager ignoring her toddler to bitch at the baby-daddy, I want to just fucking stab them.
There is greatness hidden amongst our children. We never know who will be the next Van Gogh or Einstein. And every child lost to bad parenting is one lost chance for the next great person.
One-Third of Parents Lack Facts About Child Development (HealthDay)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Protecting Our Children.
I have ranted about overly righteous boobs who's sole purpose in life is to "protect our children." One way you can tell they're bunk is in the ways they choose to protect our children. You'll notice that they all involve some moral judgement about something. Since the validity of their actions and claims is usually dubious at best, the only other consistent variable is this underlying morality.
When we have situations where we can actually protect our children, these same defenders of childhood are strangely silent. One of these areas that gets my goat to the absolute max is the over-medication of our children. I say over-medication because it is.
Every person I have ever met who has been "diagnosed" as ADD or ADHD is neither. And what's worse, behavior for which they should be taking responsibility, they are able to explain away with the crutch of their diagnosis. I'm working on a full article for this site and will go into further detail.
A recent study drives the point home, for me. It talks about the emergence of suicidal ideation in children who are taking antidepressants. The drugs can actually make them more depressed, albeit with different outward symptoms. No it should be noted that this is coming from a "Use Natural" group of tree-hugging hippies. They are, in many ways, just as bunk-filled as the drug companies against whom they speak. Still, I believe the point they make is valid.
There are many, non-drug methods to controlling and eliminating depressive symptoms in children. I say symptoms specifically because I don't think many of them are actually depressed. Real, honest-to-god clinical depression can not be stopped through behavior modification or psychoanalytic treatment. I don't think most of these kids have that, though. I think they have the symptoms, but not the root cause.
I liken it to a bad headache. You take Advil, or your doctor prescribes you migrain medication. In reality, you're not drinking enough water. This is an incredibly common problem. Your problem isn't the headache, it's the dehydration.
We have the science. We have the research. We know how raise kids correctly, yet large amounts of us don't. A kid with depressive symptoms might mean any number of things. We have to analyze every aspect of that child's life. We have to dig into the family and rip apart his social group. We have to track his activities and his diet.
We have to turn him upside down before medication is even considered. Because the parents think they're doing a great job, and even if they don't, most won't say so, the kid can barely hold his own piss, his friends are equally clueless, and our school systems are notoriously bad. The job of every medical professional with the power to give kids these drugs is charged with responsiblity to find the truth at the center and diagnose based on that, not just on outward symptoms and the testimony of people who are most likely either idiots, clueless, or lying.
Can Kids Cope With Depression Without Medication? (Via Science.QJ.Net)
When we have situations where we can actually protect our children, these same defenders of childhood are strangely silent. One of these areas that gets my goat to the absolute max is the over-medication of our children. I say over-medication because it is.
Every person I have ever met who has been "diagnosed" as ADD or ADHD is neither. And what's worse, behavior for which they should be taking responsibility, they are able to explain away with the crutch of their diagnosis. I'm working on a full article for this site and will go into further detail.
A recent study drives the point home, for me. It talks about the emergence of suicidal ideation in children who are taking antidepressants. The drugs can actually make them more depressed, albeit with different outward symptoms. No it should be noted that this is coming from a "Use Natural" group of tree-hugging hippies. They are, in many ways, just as bunk-filled as the drug companies against whom they speak. Still, I believe the point they make is valid.
There are many, non-drug methods to controlling and eliminating depressive symptoms in children. I say symptoms specifically because I don't think many of them are actually depressed. Real, honest-to-god clinical depression can not be stopped through behavior modification or psychoanalytic treatment. I don't think most of these kids have that, though. I think they have the symptoms, but not the root cause.
I liken it to a bad headache. You take Advil, or your doctor prescribes you migrain medication. In reality, you're not drinking enough water. This is an incredibly common problem. Your problem isn't the headache, it's the dehydration.
We have the science. We have the research. We know how raise kids correctly, yet large amounts of us don't. A kid with depressive symptoms might mean any number of things. We have to analyze every aspect of that child's life. We have to dig into the family and rip apart his social group. We have to track his activities and his diet.
We have to turn him upside down before medication is even considered. Because the parents think they're doing a great job, and even if they don't, most won't say so, the kid can barely hold his own piss, his friends are equally clueless, and our school systems are notoriously bad. The job of every medical professional with the power to give kids these drugs is charged with responsiblity to find the truth at the center and diagnose based on that, not just on outward symptoms and the testimony of people who are most likely either idiots, clueless, or lying.
Can Kids Cope With Depression Without Medication? (Via Science.QJ.Net)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)