The first thing we always want to do as parents is jump in, right? It's like a deep rooted instinct propelling you forward. We don't even have to think, we just react. We are always there to save the day.
Except, sometimes, saving the day really isn't helping anything. Oh, when there's imminent danger or an injury, swooping in is important. I think that's why we have those instincts; we need to be able to not think and just react when we have to. Otherwise, we might panic. But, when it comes to most instances of parenting, sometimes we need to fight the instinct and just step back.
So often, we are so hell bent on protecting everything (our child, our floors, our walls, etc.) that we end up hindering our child's learning process. Children need to be allowed to explore and react. It may not always go well, but humans learn from experiences, both good and bad.
It's a scary thing; and there's also a fine line. How do we allow independence while keeping our children safe? And what's the benefit of independence? What's the benefit of letting children figure things out on their own?
The latter questions are easier to answer. Independence is crucial to learning, because humans learn through experience. A few humans can learn from others through rules or anecdotes, but most need hands-on experience of their own. And many need repetitive experiences in order to learn. So, if you want a child to learn, you have to give him the opportunity to explore...on his own.
And, so, how do we both keep our children safe while letting them explore. And again, we come to the moment of parental pause. It is a moment of vigilance because you are watching your child closely. It is a moment that many Montessori teachers have learned to capitalize upon. It is the moment of waiting and seeing.
When your child begins to interact with something that could go in the direction of problematic, you may wish to jump in before the problem. If that problem is imminent danger, severe injury, or death, then it of course makes sense to intervene before seeing what happens. However, if the possible problem may simply require a clean up, it's better to wait and see how things play out. If we are always jumping in to intervene, children can't learn to problem-solve or see consequences. Sometimes breaking something is a necessary conclusion for the child to make. Sometimes children need to try to work out a conflict themselves an learn to seek help for resolution rather than be given it before they ask.
With my little guy, I find myself waiting to see what he chooses to do with something before I take it away. Sometimes he chooses to use things appropriately, and other times it gets to a point where I have to take it away and distract him with something else. I am certain that letting him explore things and waiting to intervene teaches us both something. He learns new ways to interact with things and I learn about the choices and explorations he chooses to make. Taking a step back benefits both of us. And yes, sometimes I'm cleaning up a mess, or something breaks, or he gets soaked (he just loves the dog's water bowl), or I have to distract him when he's upset that I inevitably took something away. But, it's all just part of the process of learning. And, I think that's worth it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Right Shoes For Baby
I love fashion. I love shoes. Now show me some baby shoes, and I completely fall apart. But, when it comes to dressing my son's feet, I have to think about more than fashion.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
During the early days of my son's life, I never put shoes on him. Baby's feet are just beginning to grow and shoes can restrict movement. Shoes are to protect the feet from the ground, so if you're child isn't touching the ground, it makes sense that he doesn't need shoes. Instead, we kept his little toes warm with socks and only when they felt cold to the touch.
Proper development of feet is just as important as any other aspect of a child's development. After a child is born, not all of the bones in his foot are fully developed. So, the same way that we protect the soft spot on the top of the head, we need to protect each little foot. In fact, the bones of the foot continue to develop for the first five years, so the issue of choosing shoes for developmental reasons rather than fashion remains important for a very long time.
Studies continue to show that the best thing for a child's foot development is being barefoot. Shoes inhibit how the foot moves, thus changing how the child moves. It's very much like a developmental domino effect. When a child is barefoot, his sense of touch and connection with what he walks on issues feedback that tells his body how to respond. This is how humans learn to walk, run, and move with proper coordination. While the shoe protects the foot from what's on the ground, it ultimately affects the information sent to the brain and can change a child's stride, gait, speed, and foot-fall. All of that affects his gross motor (large-muscle) coordination. So, it would make sense that while we want to protect the foot from damage, we want to protect the rest of the process as well.
Until the first steps are taken, children don't need traditional footwear. If their feet are cold, socks are all that's necessary. Loose socks are best, as any pressure on the toes is bad (this is important to remember about footie pajamas as well). When a child begins to crawl, barefoot is still the best route. My son used his toes to figure out how to crawl so it was essential that his foot not slip (the problem with socks). Unfortunately, as winter has set in, his feet get cold, so I decided to move him to soft soled shoes.
Soft soled shoes are essentially slippers for baby. Companies like Robeez (by Stride Rite) and Soft Star Shoes makes soft soled shoes that create the same environment as barefoot walking but keep the feet warm. For a little guy like mine who is pulling to stand, they work better than socks because they prevent slip. Unlike hard soled shoes, they allow the foot to move naturally.
Still, children whose feet are allowed to go barefoot and move naturally have lower incidences of many medical problems like flat feet. Even though soft soled shoes work at this stage, barefoot is always best. Really, at any stage. It's important to give children's feet that time to be free and natural during the day.
When walking starts, a thicker sole for on pavement is the next best step. In the house, barefoot or soft soled shoes are best. When looking at a thicker sole, it should be very flexible. The shoe should pretty much bend heel touching toe and bend at the center (not where the ball of the foot is). Arch support at this stage is bad, as are pointed toe or tapered toe shoes (broad toe is best). These guidelines hold true until a child is five years of age. But, at any age, being barefoot is still the best way to go.
As adults, we tend to get hung up on fashion or warmth when it comes to shoes. Or we think that shoes bring comfort. But, our feet and coordination have developed. For the developing child, the feedback and freedom of barefoot feet allow for the best development, and all those other factors are secondary. When it comes to choosing shoes, we should always be thinking about the shoe that supports the child's natural step rather than one that restricts or changes it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Problem With "No!": Positive Communication
I want to start out by saying, this is not a post against the concept of "no." This post is about the word itself.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
While there are many times that it is essential that we communicate to our children that they may not do or have something, there is an inherent problem with using the word "no" to make that communication. The problem with the word is that it doesn't have enough information; it's a set-up for failure. The problem with "no" is that it tells children what not to do instead of what they could do instead.
Imagine that you are an architect. You've been asked to design a building, so you do. Your client comes in, takes one look at it and says "no, that's not what I want; try again." He walks out the door. What information do you now have to do your job? Hardly any? All you know is that what you've chosen is wrong, but where do you go from there when the possibilities are endless?
It's the same with parenting. Consider yourself the client and your child the architect. You have to explain what it is that you want. But more that that, as you lay the boundaries of the world and society on your child (which is essential), you must help your child learn what he CAN do within those boundaries. If you don't tell him, he's gonna keep making it up, and he has no idea what's acceptable.
It's as simple as "please walk" instead of "don't run;" or "hold my hand in the street," instead of "don't run out into the street." Every negative can be turned into a positive if you just think about what you want your child to do instead of what you don't want him to do. Children often choose unacceptable behaviors because they just can't think of what to do instead. Or they simply forget in the heat of the moment. Repetition of the rules is far more effective than yelling negatives at your child.
The average one year old hears the word "no" more than 400 times a day. That's a lot of time that could be spent trying to help engage the child in something constructive. If your child has gotten to a place where you are now saying "no," then consider how he got there. If he's an infant, should you have been watching him and redirected him before he got there? Is it something you can simply redirect? If it's an older child, are you in a scenario where it might have helped to remind her of the rules before you got to this point? What can you ask her to do instead?
They key to this mindset is: what can you help your child figure out to do instead? When my son wants to go in the dog's water bowl, I put it on top of the counter before he gets it and give him something else to do (sometimes I put water in a different bowl he can play with). When he's got a dirty diaper and he wants to reach his hands down while I'm changing him, i move his hands up and say "hands up." Another example is if your child is running around the grocery store, you can enlist him to put the groceries in the cart or have him push the cart instead. Children need to be occupied, so take a role in helping your child occupy himself.
It's not that parents can never say "no." The reality is, we all get kind of hardwired that way. I try not to say it, but it just flies out of my mouth. So, now, instead of seeing it as a disciplinary tactic, I see it as a reminder to myself that I need to be parenting; I need to occupy my child, interact with my child, or teach my child something. For me, "no" is a reminder that the world is a big place and I've gotta help my little guy figure out what he CAN do.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thank You Baby-Led Weaning: An Update
In my previous post, Starting Solids, I admit that I had my concerns with Baby-Led Weaning when we started. Specifically, I was terrified that trial and error could end up in choking. Every time my little guy gagged, my husband and I look terrified.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Now, as my son is 8 1/2 months old, I'm so glad we stuck it out; my fears are gone. I realized this today when I watched my son eat a piece of sweet potato. Holding large enough of a slice to hold in his hand and still have enough sticking out of his hand to bite on, he leaned forward and took a small bite. Success, I thought, he's getting it!
Thinking back on the past few weeks of eating, he seems to have figured many thing out. He can eat chicken and turkey in small bites, even though he's only just now getting his first tooth. He's learned to bite down with his gums and separate off a piece. Those things he needs help getting pieces off, we let him try chewing on it but then break off pieces and feed them to him with our fingers (small bits of pork or fish). He hasn't mastered the pincer grip, so he still needs assistance food like fish that can't be held in large pieces.
He still gags, though. I'm seeing that it's part of the learning process. I figure it's better he gags now while his gag reflex is further up in his mouth. It's still scary, but I know that he's learning and it reminds me to stay vigilant. I'll admit, if I seem him pull off too big a piece, I've been known to go fish it out, but now that he understands chewing, there's far less of that.
A lot of this process is about exploration. Since his main diet is breastfeeding, I never worry about how much he eats. I focus on variety and I try to incorporate foods with iron since I've chosen not to given him a supplement. Sometimes (many times), he just smears the food around or tosses it to the dog. But, sometimes, he discovers something he loves. Yes to turkey. No to mango. I respect his desire to try as much as I respect when he pushes something away and says no.
Onward with the exploration as we move towards independence! Thank you baby-led weaning for making food much less complicated.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
This Too Shall Pass: A Mommy Mantra
That's exactly what it is: my mommy mantra. This too shall pass. The reality is, motherhood is hard. Don't get me wrong. It's enriching, amazing, thrilling, and beautiful. But it's also hard.
For a while there, the Mommy is everything. Especially if you are breastfeeding, because then you are a food source and pacifier. And then attachment comes, and it's all-mommy-all-the-time for many of us. It's hard not to lose yourself. There's the gamut of developmental phases and mother-child experiences: breastfeeding, attachment, colic, teething, diapering, etc. We all know that list can go on and on. I doubt there is not one of us that hasn't broken down, wondering what to do and for how much longer (if you haven't, how lucky you are!). The sleep deprivation alone will get you.
I had my moments in the beginning where I wondered, how much more?? Breastfeeding pain in the beginning. Colicky crying and my sons constant need for movement was challenging, to say the least. People would tell me: "it'll get better." I remember feeling like better was an eternity away.
But, it wasn't. It did get better. It passed. It always does. They go through phases and they grow up fast. And while one phase inevitably leads to another that has it's own challenges, it helps me most to remember, especially when the only way out is through: this too shall pass. Then you realize, this little person is creating himself in front of your eyes, and that's a complicated, challenging thing. And it's amazing. And it's worth all of it.
For a while there, the Mommy is everything. Especially if you are breastfeeding, because then you are a food source and pacifier. And then attachment comes, and it's all-mommy-all-the-time for many of us. It's hard not to lose yourself. There's the gamut of developmental phases and mother-child experiences: breastfeeding, attachment, colic, teething, diapering, etc. We all know that list can go on and on. I doubt there is not one of us that hasn't broken down, wondering what to do and for how much longer (if you haven't, how lucky you are!). The sleep deprivation alone will get you.
I had my moments in the beginning where I wondered, how much more?? Breastfeeding pain in the beginning. Colicky crying and my sons constant need for movement was challenging, to say the least. People would tell me: "it'll get better." I remember feeling like better was an eternity away.
But, it wasn't. It did get better. It passed. It always does. They go through phases and they grow up fast. And while one phase inevitably leads to another that has it's own challenges, it helps me most to remember, especially when the only way out is through: this too shall pass. Then you realize, this little person is creating himself in front of your eyes, and that's a complicated, challenging thing. And it's amazing. And it's worth all of it.
We Aren't Born With Empathy
I've been noticing that when I yawn, my eight month old son does not yawn in response. I tested it. I yawned over and over, but nothing. Even writing this I've yawned (have you yawned yet?), but nothing from my little guy. And so, it got me thinking about empathy.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
I wasn't sure how I knew yawning was related to empathy so I went and did a little research to confirm. We don't really know why people yawn, other than scientists agree that it is a form of reflex on the part of the respiratory system. It is not something that we control. But, what we do know is that the desire to yawn when others do is triggered by empathetic mechanisms. Yawning, in general, is involuntary, but yawning when others yawn is empathy.
This post isn't about yawning though. Yawning only triggered my realization. What I really began to think about: empathy. And my son doesn't have a lick of it.
He's not alone. People just aren't born with it. We're all little mini sociopaths when we start out, focused on our selves and having little regard of others. The difference between babies and sociopaths, however, is that babies just really haven't developed the concept of others just yet. They have an inherent need to focus on themselves given all that they have to learn. And while we are born with specific temperaments and genetics, we are born as social blank slates. Empathy has to be developed.
While babies have to develop empathy, the foundation for it exists as they grow. They develop abilities that put them on the path to empathy. They attain these foundational abilities without teaching, but through social interaction. First, to develop empathy, babies must develop a sense that other people exist and also have emotions, just as they do. They learn to recognize facial expressions and associate emotions with those expressions. They first learn that everyone is the same as them.
But, then, babies must come to the realization that these other people have feelings that can be different from theirs. Only then can they begin to develop empathetic responses. But this takes quite a bit of time. A two month old may respond to a smile, but that isn't empathy, it's more of an understanding, a knowledge of emotions that is developing. I read a post once where a mother reported that her nine month old would cry out and get upset when she screamed in pain. She wondered if it was empathy, but I think it was more likely her child getting upset at a sudden loud noise. My son gets very upset when I sneeze or cough, but I think he's more upset at the noise than concerned for my health. Children respond to emotions at a very young age, but the response is not empathy. Empathy, rather, is the ability to understand someone else's emotions and, in a sense, vicariously experience them yourself.
It's a process that comes with understanding the social nature of people and it takes time. A friend of mine once expressed to me her frustration when her daughter (barely two years of age) hits another child and the other child's parent reacts angrily, taking their child away. I can understand her frustration.
Empathy is essential to the concept of hitting. We don't hit because we don't want to hurt others. Empathy allows us to feel another person's pain and ultimately choose not to inflict it. People (babies and adults alike) who hit lack a certain empathy for the person they are hitting. With young children, this is because they haven't developed it (and I'd argue those adults failed to develop empathy properly as well). With very young children, couple lack of empathy with a lack of impulse control and a limited ability to communicate (which also take time to develop) and it's not surprising that they hit when frustrated or upset. It's something to remember before choosing to punish your own child or express anger toward's someone else's.
I'm not saying that hitting is excused by this lack of empathy development. What I am saying is that when we consider children's behaviors, we must consider where they are developmentally. It is our job to aid in this development. It is our job to assist in the development of empathy and social awareness, as well as provide examples of how to communicate and resolve problems.
Punishment is never an effective route for combatting these kinds of behaviors. For starters, very young children fail to understand their social interactions. The nine month old that hit my son a few months back was not trying to hurt him because in no way could she understand that he would be caused pain. A two year old is not in much different of a boat, although is getting closer to empathetic responses. So the reaction must be in the form of explanation. First, we recognize the child's problem or frustration and give them the necessary language for the response (eg. give me that toy back, please). We can also consequence the action. Perhaps have the child return the toy and explain that hitting hurts and we use our words.
If your child cannot stop hitting, removal from the situation with the statement "you may not play if you are going to hit and hurt people" may become necessary. This final consequence is for the sake of safety and teaching social parameters. But it must come along with all the other explanations. The problem with punishment rather than education is that it teaches children to omit a behavior out of fear of parental reaction rather than develop a social, empathetic conscience. The latter is far more beneficial to the child and society.
Your child may not understand everything you say, but over time, the message will sink in. It is the combination of the natural social development coupled with social education from the parent that allows a child to develop empathy and respond accordingly. And it's a process during which a child may not always get it right.
So, I'm aware that my little guy has no empathy. And I'm aware that the development of everything from gentle touch to sharing to playing with others to problem solving will require my assistance. I'm up for the challenge, but it reminds me of one more thing. Because I am able and have developed the ability, I must empathize with him and all children through these phases of their development.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Pizza? A Vegetable? Really, Congress?
I must say, I was extremely disappointed by what I learned this morning. I'm sure it's everywhere now, all over blogs and the news, but if you haven't heard, Congress has declared pizza a vegetable. More specifically, they are allowing the two tablespoons of tomato paste smeared on a pizza to be constituted as a vegetable, allowing it to be counted as a serving of vegetable in a school lunch.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
I was really impressed when Jamie Oliver took on the public school lunches, trying to convince Americans that we need to be encouraging our children to eat healthier. I remember watching his television program, Food Revolution, in which he challenged the notion that children will not eat vegetables. Disturbed by the amount of french fries being consumed at a high school, Jamie decided to change things up by making a wonderful veggie stir fry to serve for school lunch that day. I was shocked along with him when the food services director determined he did not have enough vegetables (the required one and a half cups serving) to fit requirements and decided to put french fries back on the menu to fix the situation. French fries are a vegetable??
Ok, I get that potatoes fall under the category of vegetable, but let's get real here. School food directors are considering a cup of french fries to be of more nutritional value than a healthy veggie stir fry based on volume? Are we even using our brains anymore? I thought things couldn't get worse, until the United States Congress decided that pizza is now a vegetable! Never mind that a tomato is technically a fruit.
Jamie Oliver and the Obama Administration have been working hard to change the quality of the school lunch. No, not by bringing in high end food. They aren't even trying to make it organic. It's really just about getting kids to eat more vegetables and less french fries. Simple. Should we really be feeding our kids nothing but chicken nuggets, pizza, french fries, and tacos? The USDA no longer thinks so. They wanted to make a real change in the direction the Obama Administration has been pushing: limiting the amount of starchy vegetables and tomato paste in children's lunches and branching out to other vegetables. The USDA's proposal would have limited starchy vegetable options to one cup per week for students and required that an food item be required to have one half a cup of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable.
Congress' response? That would just be too taxing on school systems' budgets. Instead, we should continue to allow two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a vegetable serving, thus allowing the food industry to market frozen pizza as a vegetable. In fact, they scrapped the whole starchy vegetable (which includes peas and carrots but was targeted at french fries which many schools serve daily) and tomato paste plan from the USDA's proposal to increase the health of school lunches. Additionally, Congress' provisions will require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines and require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. Republican House Appropriations Committee members argued that these restrictions were overly burdensome on local school districts.
At the end of the day, I know this all has to do with lobbying and money. These issues always have. Our children's futures always have, whether it be about music education, art education, or their health. American policy continually seems to value the dollar over health and development. I've watched programs about families desperate to save the almighty dollar so they eat burger king every week and never consider the impact of that on their health...which will one day affect their dollars. It doesn't matter how much information you spread about the dangers of fast food, the dollar is always more important. It doesn't matter how much people want regulation, the dollar always wins out.
My sister always says that the only way to change, given this mentality, is to fight the dollar with the dollar. It's our choices as consumers that affect the outcome. If we don't buy it, they won't sell it. I think that if we, as parents, want change, then we have to do it by not buying school lunches. If what they care about is the dollar, then we have to show our concerns with the dollar.
I don't know how much that will really help, though, considering most of us that care about this stuff probably don't let our kids eat school lunches already. But maybe that's not true...maybe there are plenty of parents out there who didn't know how to affect a change, so they haven't pulled their dollars. Then, again, it's not really a fair fight, considering the government subsidizes the lunch programs and there are plenty of unfortunate children who get their main meals (and need to) from these school funded food programs.
We have to start caring about food in this country: where it comes from, how we get it, and what we are eating. I could sit here and list many issues I have with the food industry and regulations, but sadly, we're not even talking about all those things when it comes to school lunches. All we are talking about is a balanced diet, and even that can't get passed.
So, I'm feeling sad for the state of American health today. And I don't know how teachers can continue to teach nutrition and standards (kids are always learning about the food pyramid) when that information is being undermined under their very own roofs. How can we have a healthy population if we aren't teaching our kids to eat healthy? And mark my words, an unhealthy population will affect the almighty dollar in more ways than Congress can imagine. But then, Congress has never had the foresight to be preventative.
So, you're looking at one parent who will be helping her child pack his lunch when the day comes. But, then again, she'll be sending him and that lunch to a Montessori school. That's where I'm putting my dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)