Caring Parent, Caring Kid: Planting the Seeds of Change in the Hearts and Minds of the Next Generation

When I was growing up, the furnace room in my parents' home doubled as a storage room for my Dad's massive slide collection. Every once in a while, Dad would venture downstairs, haul out the slide projector and massive screen and allow my sisters and I admittance to that almost unimaginable place: the world he and mom had inhabited before we were born.

One of his slide shows took us to South Carolina. In addition to the strange-looking trees and the much-younger looking parents (always a remarkable sight when you're a kid), we saw photos of signs that captured in a way that words could not the stark realities of segregation: images of WHITE – COLORED drinking fountains; or signs spelling out who could or couldn't walk through a particular door.

The conversations we had about those photos changed my life. They forged my values and set me on a path I continue to follow to this day through my work as a parenting author and someone who is passionate about social justice.

Tomorrow is going to be a day that our generation and our kids' generation will talk about and remember forever -- an ideal time to have a conversation with your kids about what inspires you, what infuriates you, and why.

Here are some of the types of conversations I've been having with my own kids lately. Perhaps one of these conversation threads might inspire a conversation of your own:

• - Why we need leaders who will be honest and accountable (and who will not mislead the people in an effort to save their own jobs) and why the people and the media need to hold our leaders accountable;
• - Why we can't expect leaders to be perfect (because no one is perfect) but we can expect them to admit their mistakes and change course when they realize that a mistake has been made;
• - Why we should expect our leaders to ensure that all people are treated with respect and live in dignity (which necessitates action on poverty, mental health, health care, social justice issues, etc.);
• - Why we need leaders of vision (who will do what is right for the long-term health of the Planet, the good of the economy, and the health and welfare of the people rather than just focusing on getting re-elected)
• - Why it is important to be an involved and active citizen (and that doesn't just mean showing up to vote on voting day; it means being informed about the issues, understanding how government works, and determining who is going to represent you at all levels of government);
• - Why we need to join with other families to find innovative environmental, economic, and social justice solutions at the community level. That way, each of those unique local solutions can, in turn, become a building block that brings Canada closer to becoming both environmentally and economically sustainable and a global leader in social justice, peace-keeping, and diplomacy.

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping that the political winds of change will prove to be contagious -- that Barack Obama's inauguration will encourage Canadians to dare to dream big once again. Just imagine what that could mean for our children and our country's future, to say nothing of the future of the Planet.

Reality TV Industry Reality Check: Babies Aren't Props, Says APA

You don't often catch the American Psychiatric Association playing the role of TV critic, but clearly the APA felt it had to give the reality TV industry a reality check about the use of real babies as TV props.

The sternly worded press statement, issued this afternoon, condemns the controversial NBC reality TV show The Baby Borrowers -- a show in which teenagers are given the opportunity to showcase their caregiving skills (or lack thereof) by borrowing babies, toddlers, tweens, teens, and senior citizens.

What's particularly chilling about the way NBC has packaged the show (at least online) is the fact that it's described as a "social experiment" right from the get-go. And then there's the fact that the attention paid to the furnishings in the homes seem almost Stepford-like (we're supposed to be talking about caregiving skills, not home decorating, right?)

What's most disappointing about this whole incident is the fact that a non-profit organization that works with teens allowed itself to be part of this whole dog and pony show. That organization even produced episode guides that focused narrowly on its own organizational mandate (preventing teen pregnancy) while neglecting the broader issue of family well-being. (Babies and toddlers don't like being taken away from their parents and dumped with strangers. You'd think this would have raised a red flag with someone.)

If the MythBusters make a point of telling you at the start of each episode that you really shouldn't be trying this cool-but-incredibly-dangerous thing at home, shouldn't The Baby Borrowers have to issue a similar disclaimer when they're totally messing with everything learned to date about healthy infant and child attachment and development? Having a nanny and the real parents watching the temporary teen parents via one-way camera doesn't mean a thing to a baby who is experiencing separation anxiety -- unless the parents and the producers agree that it would be appropriate for a parent to intervene. And, of course, too many interventions make for bad TV.

Clearly the APA is concerned about this very issue -- what the viewing public will make of this surreal piece of reality TV. Just for the record, here's what they had to say in their statement. Oh yeah: They're not speaking the language of cautionary press releases this time around. They're spitting mad (assuming a professional body representing psychiatrists allows itself to get spitting mad.) Check out the wording for yourself.

"The American Psychiatric Association deplores the use of babies and toddlers as props or experimental subjects for a television program. It is inappropriate and sometimes harmful to remove very young children from their families and familiar environments, and the level of harm may not be apparent on simple observation. Since the program is meant to reveal whether or not the 'borrowers' are competent to care for these children, at least some of the children will have been exposed to incompetent and confused caregivers, and to whatever problematic situations arose as the caregivers struggled with each other. We urge NBC never to repeat this misuse of children; not to allow reruns to air; and to use every means to discourage the use of episodes in parenting classes or other venues where they might well be shown."

It will be interesting to see how NBC responds -- and how the viewing public reacts in turn.

Stay tuned.

Sustainable Happiness

Loading up on the latest gadgets won't buy happiness -- and it certainly can lead to much unhappiness if what you purchase today only triggers the desire for more stuff tomorrow. However, it's a tough lesson to teach to our kids, given that marketers are selling them an entirely different bill of goods 24/7. If you're looking for something new to add to the discussion, you may want to track down a study published in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science.

A team of psychologists at Texas Tech University asked a group of university undergrads to conduct an inventory of their possessions. The researchers asked which of 52 different items ranging from a car to a stereo to a bed they possessed. They then asked the students to rate their level of happiness with each possession and, in the event that they didn't own a particular possession, to indicate (by assigning a rating) how much they desired that particular item.

When the researchers analyzed their data, they discovered a couple of interesting trends.

First, undergraduate students who are generally happy with what they already have tend to be happier than those who want less of what they have (an attitude which may indicate dissatisfaction with what they have).

Second, undergraduate students who have an abundance of whatever it is that they really want tend to be happier than those who don't have enough. (Feeling satisfied with what you have is the key.)

The implication for us parents is clear: if we can teach our kids to enjoy what they already have and to anticipate and savor future purchases (as opposed to immediately shifting their focus to what they can buy next), they won't feel the same need to get new stuff to satisfy that fleeting happiness fix. The net result will be happier kids, a less stressed family budget, less cluttered homes, and emptier landfill sites (and a happier Mother Earth).

Given that marketing messages are designed to create dissatisfaction and make kids (and adults) want more stuff, how can we teach kids to manage and respond to those messages?

Play Paranoia: Is Everybody Having Fun Yet?

I've been away on a combined romantic getaway and writing sabbatical for the past few days. (Any readers who are thinking about becoming seriously involved with writers: please treat the previous sentence as a cautionary note.)

As inspiring as such a retreat may be, a writer can't stay holed up in the woods with coffee, her laptop, and her beloved forever, so, at the mid-point of our getaway, I ventured into town to scavenge for books: vintage books, to be specific. And because there are both used book store and a thrift store within a stone's throw of one another in downtown Bancroft, I was able to score big. We're talking six books for under $20.

The find of the day was A Guide for Parents: All Children Want to Learn, published in 1954 by The Grolier Society of New York and Toronto. Co-authored by three top experts of the day—Lorene K. Fox, then associate professor of education at Queens College in New York; Peggy Brogan, member of the professional staff at the Child Education Foundation in New York; and Annie Louise Butler, early childhood education instructor at Columbia University's Teacher's College in New York, the book features multi-colored retro illustrations and, by today's standards at least, a simultaneously refreshing and shocking approach to the world of play.

What struck me repeatedly was the authors' almost complete disregard for child safety (or at least the ways in which we define child safety, circa 2008: a world in which a safe product is increasingly defined as a mass-produced, over-packaged product that is sold in a store).

Contrast this with the world of play, circa 1954, the world which the authors of this book lived: they recommend using discarded wooden crates to create everything from puppet theatres to play furniture to doll houses. They suggest hitting the scrap-yard to scoop up old car seats, steering wheels, and other obsolete car parts for use in pretend play. They even suggest hanging outdoor swings from indoor door frames, placing chairs underneath window sills so that little ones can sit and gaze out the window, and placing three, four, and five-foot ladders against walls inside the house so that children can have fun (literally) climbing the walls. Oh yeah: they suggest wheelbarrows as the ultimate fun-mobile for kids who like to wheel one another around (and there's no mention of a helmet or head-to-toe protective gear whatsoever).

Do some of these recommendations cross the line of good judgment? Absolutely. We've come a long way in our knowledge of what it takes to keep kids safe. But sometimes I wonder if, in our effort to protect our kids from an ever-growing list of perceived threats, we've taken out a lot of the fun and adventure that were once part and parcel of being a kid.

Here's what I'm thinking.

Our kids are less likely to want to head outdoors if their play is carefully circumscribed and has to meet the grownup definition of acceptable play. They can no longer build a tree fort in a nearby wooded area (stranger danger) or climb on a pile of dirt (suffocation risk) or do something goofy (goofy usually includes a dash of dangerous). And so they head for the TV or the video game console instead.

In replacing homemade toys (toys that were often made by kids or kids and their parents), we've removed a lot of the fun, creativity, and spontaneity that were part of play. When your parents told you to go and "Make your own fun," they weren't kidding. Sometimes you, quite literally, had to build your own doll house or design your own board game if you wanted something to do that afternoon. I think we had a healthy mix of store-bought toys and toys you made yourself (or with help from a grownup). I remember, for example, designing cardboard dollhouses so that Barbie would have a place to live. It didn't take me long to figure out that Barbie was never going to convince my parents to buy her a Dream House. She would appreciate it so much more if she worked hard and saved for it. (Wait a minute. That's what they told me about the skateboard I wanted around the same time.)

We've also increased the expense of raising kids (that store-bought stuff doesn't grow on trees, as 1970s parents were fond of telling kids) and we've increased our family's environmental footprint massively by thinking we need all this stuff (broken, worn out, or obsolete plastic or electronic toys eventually end up in landfill sites, after all).

I worry that we parents have allowed ourselves to be sold a bill of goods that has, for the most part, been fueled by child safety fears and child development concerns: the idea that a toy that comes from a store is safer and more educational than anything that can be made at home.

Buying into that myth has cost us plenty: economically (in terms of dollars spent on products we didn't necessarily need), environmentally (those products have to go somewhere at the end of the product life cycle), health-wise (an alarming number of mass-produced juvenile products have proven to be dangerous) and lifestyle-wise (in terms of the decreased motivation to play and be active when we ask our kids to accept pre-programmed fun as a substitute for the spontaneous DIY fun of yesteryear.

So what do you think? Is there some sensible middle ground to be found between letting kids dump their baby brothers out of wheel-barrows and handing kids the officially sanctioned educational toy du jour? How do you find that middle ground in your family?