Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years. The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. The prevalence of obesity among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased from 5.0% to 18.1%, according to the National Institutes of Health. Childhood obesity has both immediate and long-term effects.
Obese children are more likely to have risk factors for heart disease. They have a greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep disorders, and social and psychological problems. They are more likely to be obese as adults and risk other diseases such as diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer and osteoarthritis.
Now amid questions about the causes of this jump in obesity, a number of studies, reported in Science Daily, have surfaced that show a link between childhood obesity and insecure bonding with parents,
One study showed that toddlers who do not have a secure attachment, usually with their mothers, have a 30% chance of becoming obese by age 4-1/2. Another study linked childhood obesity with parental neglect, citing cases in which both parents work and do not provide adequate attention to their kids. Still another study indicated a link between mothers involved in domestic abuse and obesity in their children.
Mary Ainsworth did pioneering work on the importance of attachment for babies. She described securely attached children as those who rely on their parents as a "safe haven," which allows them to explore their environments freely, adapt easily to new people and be comforted in stressful situations. Toddlers who are insecurely attached tend to have experienced negative or unpredictable parenting, and may respond to stress with extreme anger, fear or anxiety, or avoid or refuse interactions with others.
When babies and toddlers form insecure attachments in their early childhood, they are more susceptible to a range of adult psychological and physiological disorders. Poor bonding as children leads to poor bonding with peers and later with intimate others. Eating is used as a way of dealing with stressful situations, and chronic over-eating leads to the array of diseases mentioned previously.
The problem is staggering and if we are to address it effectively we will have to do something nearly impossible: change our values. Adults must put the primary emphasis on child rearing rather than on their careers. Their child’s well-being must take priority over their jobs. They must be sure their child is getting quality attention. The key word is “quality.”
A parent who stays home and resents it will not foster quality intimacy and will not be helping a child to form a good bond. Parents who stay home but give their children sugary foods whenever they are down rather than giving them emotional comfort will be unwittingly encouraging obesity.
A good parent is not just there but also emotionally there.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Should we raise our kids to be genderless?
A few weeks ago the Internet was buzzing with the story about a Canadian couple who was raising their three sons without telling them what gender they were.
Kathy Witterick, 38, and her husband, David Stocker, 39, said they wanted to eliminate any chance for gender stereotypes to creep into their children’s development. “It is inappropriate to impose gender identity on a child,” she stated in a report by Zachary Roth on The Lookout, a Yahoo News Blog. “If you really want to get to know someone,” her husband echoed, “You don’t ask what’s between their legs.”
The couple refused to reveal the sex of their newest son, Storm, not even to their nearest relatives, until he was born, and then they proceeded not to tell the boy anything about his gender identity nor surround him with anything that suggested either sex. They claim they are all about letting their kids decide what they are. They call parents who make choices for their children “obnoxious,” chastising them for not challenging how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
Their two older sons, Jazz and Kio, according to their parents, already “decide” when to cut their hair and what clothes to wear. Five-year-old Jazz recently picked out a pink dress; he wears his hair long and in three braids. Two-year-old Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. If Jazz want to stay home from school, that is all right with the mother too.
Witterick and Stocker are under the delusion that they are giving their children the freedom to choose, but in fact, the children are no doubt picking up signals from the parents. A child of five does not make choices. He looks to his parents for cues and then choose what he thinks will please them.
It's all about what behavior the parents are reinforcing. If the children braid their hair and wear dresses and stay home from school, and they pick up signals of approval from the parents for doing these things, the parents are thus reinforcing that behavior. This often happens: parents reinforce behavior even though they don't consciously intend to. If the two boys get a smile of approval every time they wear dresses, they will continue to wear dresses. The parents may think they are smiling because they enjoy the boy's freedom of choice, but this is not what their boys pick up.
Even the choice not to tell the boys their gender is a decision these parents are making for their children. For them to pretend they are not making decisions amounts to self-deception and vanity. They want to out-PC everybody else to show just how progressive they are—at the expense of their sons.
As other outraged professionals have pointed out, children need to have a strong sense of identity, including gender identity, to go through life. Instead, these children are being used as pawns in their parents’ crusade against gender stereotypes. As a result they will likely grow up confused about their gender and with a chip on their shoulders due to unpleasant experiences they have been forced into enduring by their parents.
Sometimes, unfortunately, politics overruns common sense.
Kathy Witterick, 38, and her husband, David Stocker, 39, said they wanted to eliminate any chance for gender stereotypes to creep into their children’s development. “It is inappropriate to impose gender identity on a child,” she stated in a report by Zachary Roth on The Lookout, a Yahoo News Blog. “If you really want to get to know someone,” her husband echoed, “You don’t ask what’s between their legs.”
The couple refused to reveal the sex of their newest son, Storm, not even to their nearest relatives, until he was born, and then they proceeded not to tell the boy anything about his gender identity nor surround him with anything that suggested either sex. They claim they are all about letting their kids decide what they are. They call parents who make choices for their children “obnoxious,” chastising them for not challenging how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
Their two older sons, Jazz and Kio, according to their parents, already “decide” when to cut their hair and what clothes to wear. Five-year-old Jazz recently picked out a pink dress; he wears his hair long and in three braids. Two-year-old Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. If Jazz want to stay home from school, that is all right with the mother too.
Witterick and Stocker are under the delusion that they are giving their children the freedom to choose, but in fact, the children are no doubt picking up signals from the parents. A child of five does not make choices. He looks to his parents for cues and then choose what he thinks will please them.
It's all about what behavior the parents are reinforcing. If the children braid their hair and wear dresses and stay home from school, and they pick up signals of approval from the parents for doing these things, the parents are thus reinforcing that behavior. This often happens: parents reinforce behavior even though they don't consciously intend to. If the two boys get a smile of approval every time they wear dresses, they will continue to wear dresses. The parents may think they are smiling because they enjoy the boy's freedom of choice, but this is not what their boys pick up.
Even the choice not to tell the boys their gender is a decision these parents are making for their children. For them to pretend they are not making decisions amounts to self-deception and vanity. They want to out-PC everybody else to show just how progressive they are—at the expense of their sons.
As other outraged professionals have pointed out, children need to have a strong sense of identity, including gender identity, to go through life. Instead, these children are being used as pawns in their parents’ crusade against gender stereotypes. As a result they will likely grow up confused about their gender and with a chip on their shoulders due to unpleasant experiences they have been forced into enduring by their parents.
Sometimes, unfortunately, politics overruns common sense.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Do babies born in winter fare worse?
Children born in the winter months already have a few strikes against them. Study after study has shown that they test poorly, don't get as far in school, earn less, are less healthy, and don't live as long as children born at other times of year. Researchers have spent years documenting the effect and trying to understand it.
Recently a new study by two professors at the National Bureau of Economic Research theorizes that babies born in winter fare worse because their mothers are poorer and less educated.
"What we're actually doing is asking how children born at different times of year might be different at birth, said Kasey Buckles, one of the authors of the study. "And we think an important way that they're different is that they're born to different types of families."
"Past studies have argued that children born in the winter have lower wages because they get less education," said Dan Hungerman, the other author. "We're showing that children born in the winter are often born to women of a lower socioeconomic status and that fact might explain both the education result and the wage result."
To do the study, the authors collected data on over fifty million births from all parts of the United States. "Women who give birth in the winter are more likely to be without a high school degree, they're more likely to be non-married, they're more likely to be teenagers than other women," concluded Hungerman.
When you read their research more closely, you find out that women who give birth in winter are 10% more likely to be without a high school degree and also about 10% more likely to be teen-aged mothers. This seems like a small fraction on which to base their conclusions. However, it must be noted that both are economists so, naturally, their focus is primarily on socioeconomic factors.
However, economic factors do not explain all aspects of the research. For example, how does the fact that mothers are teenagers and less educated explain research showing that babies born in winter have shorter life spans?
What they ignore are the psychological factors. It has been well established by research that there is more depression in the winter months as well as a higher suicide rate. It would seem to follow, then, that mothers who give birth in winter are more likely to suffer from depression. The question then becomes, how much does a mother’s depression affect the child in her womb as well as the baby after birth?
Also well established is research that shows that children of depressed mothers do not perform as well as other children in school, due to the fact that depressed mothers are too distracted by their depression to pay adequate attention to their kids. And the neglect of depressed mothers translates into lowered self-esteem of their kids, which does not bode well for their functioning as adults.
Yes, economy may well be a factor in the diminished functioning of winter babies, but psychology may be a bigger factor. But in today’s climate, the psychological factor is often swept under the rug.
Recently a new study by two professors at the National Bureau of Economic Research theorizes that babies born in winter fare worse because their mothers are poorer and less educated.
"What we're actually doing is asking how children born at different times of year might be different at birth, said Kasey Buckles, one of the authors of the study. "And we think an important way that they're different is that they're born to different types of families."
"Past studies have argued that children born in the winter have lower wages because they get less education," said Dan Hungerman, the other author. "We're showing that children born in the winter are often born to women of a lower socioeconomic status and that fact might explain both the education result and the wage result."
To do the study, the authors collected data on over fifty million births from all parts of the United States. "Women who give birth in the winter are more likely to be without a high school degree, they're more likely to be non-married, they're more likely to be teenagers than other women," concluded Hungerman.
When you read their research more closely, you find out that women who give birth in winter are 10% more likely to be without a high school degree and also about 10% more likely to be teen-aged mothers. This seems like a small fraction on which to base their conclusions. However, it must be noted that both are economists so, naturally, their focus is primarily on socioeconomic factors.
However, economic factors do not explain all aspects of the research. For example, how does the fact that mothers are teenagers and less educated explain research showing that babies born in winter have shorter life spans?
What they ignore are the psychological factors. It has been well established by research that there is more depression in the winter months as well as a higher suicide rate. It would seem to follow, then, that mothers who give birth in winter are more likely to suffer from depression. The question then becomes, how much does a mother’s depression affect the child in her womb as well as the baby after birth?
Also well established is research that shows that children of depressed mothers do not perform as well as other children in school, due to the fact that depressed mothers are too distracted by their depression to pay adequate attention to their kids. And the neglect of depressed mothers translates into lowered self-esteem of their kids, which does not bode well for their functioning as adults.
Yes, economy may well be a factor in the diminished functioning of winter babies, but psychology may be a bigger factor. But in today’s climate, the psychological factor is often swept under the rug.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Should parents do therapy for their children's sake?
A new study indicates that mothers who are diagnosed with mental health problems a year after they give birth, tend to have children with behavioral problems.
Half the mothers in the study, reported on Forbes.com, had a condition a year after delivery in at least one of three categories: mental health, substance abuse, or domestic violence. At the same time 22 percent of the children had at least one type of behavioral problem such as aggression, anxiety-depression, or inattention/hyperactivity. The more problems a mother reported, the more likely her child would develop behavioral problems by the age of three.
After 30 years of practice in psychotherapy, I am not at all surprised at the results of this study. I have made this connection myself again and again when adult patients tell me about a mother who suffered from depression, was hospitalized due to a schizophrenic breakdown, had problems with alcohol or other drugs, was involved in an abusive relationship, or had some other severe mental disorder at the time they were born.
I have also made this connection when I work with young couples that are having and raising children. I have encountered a number of cases in which the father is in therapy with me but the wife is resistant to therapy. Mother are particularly important during the first few years of a child’s life.
In one such case many years ago a wife suffered from postpartum depression. She was unable to nurture her new baby after she came home from the hospital, so the father had to take over this role after work. Fortunately, the father had been in therapy for a few years and he was able to be loving and nurturing when he was home. But his job called for him to travel a lot and there were many weeks when he wasn’t home and the baby was neglected.
After a year, the mother had recovered to the extent that she was able to carry on with her life in a somewhat limited way. She was able to feed and care for the baby, but her depression caused her to be negative and critical toward the boy—as she was about life in general. Often she lost her temper and yelled at him.
Again and again, the father, at my urging, would bring up the notion that the mother should seek treatment. Whenever he did, the mother would be appalled.
“I don’t need therapy! You think everybody needs therapy.”
“Well, I’ve gotten a lot out of it and I think you could too.”
“I’m fine. I was a little depressed after I came home from the hospital. I just felt empty because everything was over. But I’m fine now.”
“But, you know, sometimes you get into fights with Joey over little things and you start yelling at him, and, well, I think therapy…”
“I know what I’m doing! Therapy is not for everyone!”
He never made any headway in these discussions.
A few years later the child began to have learning problems in school as well as problems getting along with other children.
Should parents do therapy for the sake of their children? What do you think?
Half the mothers in the study, reported on Forbes.com, had a condition a year after delivery in at least one of three categories: mental health, substance abuse, or domestic violence. At the same time 22 percent of the children had at least one type of behavioral problem such as aggression, anxiety-depression, or inattention/hyperactivity. The more problems a mother reported, the more likely her child would develop behavioral problems by the age of three.
After 30 years of practice in psychotherapy, I am not at all surprised at the results of this study. I have made this connection myself again and again when adult patients tell me about a mother who suffered from depression, was hospitalized due to a schizophrenic breakdown, had problems with alcohol or other drugs, was involved in an abusive relationship, or had some other severe mental disorder at the time they were born.
I have also made this connection when I work with young couples that are having and raising children. I have encountered a number of cases in which the father is in therapy with me but the wife is resistant to therapy. Mother are particularly important during the first few years of a child’s life.
In one such case many years ago a wife suffered from postpartum depression. She was unable to nurture her new baby after she came home from the hospital, so the father had to take over this role after work. Fortunately, the father had been in therapy for a few years and he was able to be loving and nurturing when he was home. But his job called for him to travel a lot and there were many weeks when he wasn’t home and the baby was neglected.
After a year, the mother had recovered to the extent that she was able to carry on with her life in a somewhat limited way. She was able to feed and care for the baby, but her depression caused her to be negative and critical toward the boy—as she was about life in general. Often she lost her temper and yelled at him.
Again and again, the father, at my urging, would bring up the notion that the mother should seek treatment. Whenever he did, the mother would be appalled.
“I don’t need therapy! You think everybody needs therapy.”
“Well, I’ve gotten a lot out of it and I think you could too.”
“I’m fine. I was a little depressed after I came home from the hospital. I just felt empty because everything was over. But I’m fine now.”
“But, you know, sometimes you get into fights with Joey over little things and you start yelling at him, and, well, I think therapy…”
“I know what I’m doing! Therapy is not for everyone!”
He never made any headway in these discussions.
A few years later the child began to have learning problems in school as well as problems getting along with other children.
Should parents do therapy for the sake of their children? What do you think?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Should parents be licensed and trained?
Vegetarian parents starve their baby to death….Mother drowns her five sons….Teenage mother throws newborn into the garbage….Toddler beaten to death by stepfather….Girl molested by father….Boy suffers brain damage from abuse.
These are some of the headlines we see in the news daily. Incidents of infant and child abuse are on the rise in America. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect notes that child abuse has tripled in America over the past three decades. And these are just reported cases. It is estimated that the majority of cases are never reported, because they happen behind closed doors.
And many more cases of emotional neglect also go unreported as well, yet are equally devastating to those individuals involved.
To address this problem, Jack C. Westman and Charles D. Gill wrote a book called Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. The authors have verbalized what many in the profession have been advocating for years.
We require licenses and training for people who want to drive a car, and we require them for people to get married. The skills required to be a parent are much more complex than the skills required to drive a car. And it is certainly more important to society to have skilled parents who can raise well-adjusted children than it is to have skilled drivers who can drive safely on our highways.
How would this work? Parental licensing and training could be administered by government agencies. Newly pregnant women and their spouses (or boyfriends) would be required to register and sign up for psychological testing, parenting classes and counseling.
The testing would be a way to weed out those parents who are too emotionally disturbed to care for children. Classes and counseling would ensure that all parents would receive training and insight into themselves. One of the most important parenting skills is self-analysis: parents must be able to look at themselves objectively to understand how their own behavior is affecting their children. They need to understand how they displace violence, depression or anxiety onto their children.
Despite the rise in child abuse, a large percentage of the populace will oppose parent training and licensing. People say it would be yet another government infringement on the rights of parents—“Big Brother is watching!” Parenthood, some feel, is a sacred right that should not be interfered with by the state.
Either we interfere with parents and monitor their child rearing, or parents are going to interfere with society by producing a slew of abused and neglected children who later become maladjusted and dysfunctional adults.
These are some of the headlines we see in the news daily. Incidents of infant and child abuse are on the rise in America. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect notes that child abuse has tripled in America over the past three decades. And these are just reported cases. It is estimated that the majority of cases are never reported, because they happen behind closed doors.
And many more cases of emotional neglect also go unreported as well, yet are equally devastating to those individuals involved.
To address this problem, Jack C. Westman and Charles D. Gill wrote a book called Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. The authors have verbalized what many in the profession have been advocating for years.
We require licenses and training for people who want to drive a car, and we require them for people to get married. The skills required to be a parent are much more complex than the skills required to drive a car. And it is certainly more important to society to have skilled parents who can raise well-adjusted children than it is to have skilled drivers who can drive safely on our highways.
How would this work? Parental licensing and training could be administered by government agencies. Newly pregnant women and their spouses (or boyfriends) would be required to register and sign up for psychological testing, parenting classes and counseling.
The testing would be a way to weed out those parents who are too emotionally disturbed to care for children. Classes and counseling would ensure that all parents would receive training and insight into themselves. One of the most important parenting skills is self-analysis: parents must be able to look at themselves objectively to understand how their own behavior is affecting their children. They need to understand how they displace violence, depression or anxiety onto their children.
Despite the rise in child abuse, a large percentage of the populace will oppose parent training and licensing. People say it would be yet another government infringement on the rights of parents—“Big Brother is watching!” Parenthood, some feel, is a sacred right that should not be interfered with by the state.
Either we interfere with parents and monitor their child rearing, or parents are going to interfere with society by producing a slew of abused and neglected children who later become maladjusted and dysfunctional adults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
