development

Is football safe for kids?

Philmundo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:01:48 -0700

by Phil Stott

About a month ago, my brother-in-law sent me a video of his four-year-old son's first touchdown in a flag football game. It's remarkable in several ways: first, that my nephew seems to understand the purpose of the game at such a young age-when he gets the ball in his own half of the field his first instinct is to head for the opposition end zone. Second: he understood that once he crossed the end zone line, he could stop running. And, third, he threw a proper football pass to the referee when returning the ball. A couple of weeks later, as if to prove it was no fluke, he did it again, and my brother-in-law again captured the evidence on video. Clearly he's a boy who's going to grow up loving his sport, and perhaps even has a natural aptitude for it.

All well and good, I thought. As someone who loves sport myself (albeit the other kind of "football"), I can remember the point in my childhood where I became infatuated with it-and it's lasted to this day. Becoming obsessed by a sport is a pleasure that, while not unique to boys, certainly seems to be more common among them-at least in my experience. Seeing that bloom in my nephew is a heart-warming thing, and I was happy both for him and his Dad, who is perhaps the quintessential jock-one that, to be honest, I don't know would have been able to relate to a son that didn't play sports.

My happiness for them both lasted approximately a week-right up until I read this disturbing piece on pro football in the New Yorker. While the premise of the piece is to present a parallel between football and dogfighting-a case that rests on a link between "gameness" in fighting dogs that keep coming back for more to please their owners and the culture in football of playing through pain, even to the detriment of your long-term wellbeing-the most disturbing evidence it offers is on the prevalence of serious brain injuries among ex football players.

Sure, the piece mainly details autopsy results of guys who have made the pros, therefore subjecting themselves to many more hits to the head-and at greater speeds from bigger guys-than someone who only plays through high school, but the evidence is frightening nonetheless. Guys in their forties showing symptoms of Alzheimer's disease normally seen only in the very elderly-the likely cause: brain damage from too many hits. The brain of an eighteen year-old who had "been playing football for a couple of years" with the kind of damage not normally seen in someone at 50, much less his own age.

There's obviously a long way between a fledgling love affair with flag football and taking recurring hits with the force of a car crash, but nonetheless the article left me concerned about my nephew. After all, I became obsessed with soccer at a very young age, and am still playing the game over a quarter of a century later (and, yes, typing that does make me feel very, very old)-who's to say he's not going to do the same with football? Even if he doesn't, even if he only plays until the end of high school, the evidence in the New Yorker piece suggests he's still got a better than average chance of sustaining some sort of damage to his brain from all the collisions.

Given all of that, then, it makes me wonder: is there anyone out there who's happy that their kid's playing football? And if so, why?

Freaky Fortnight: Credit where it's due

tony — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:12:37 -0700

by Phil Stott

So last Friday saw one of the best things I've read about parenting recently come to a close: Slate's Freaky Fortnight feature. The basic premise of the feature was that a Slate editor, Michael Agger, would switch roles with his wife, Susan Burton, for two weeks. In short, she would do his job while he stayed home in Brooklyn and took care of the kids. Both then blogged about the experience, and also put regular updates on Twitter.

Of the two, it's perhaps not surprising that I enjoyed Agger's posts more-mostly because I found them informative in many ways on the whole question of being a Dad who works. Over the course of the two weeks, he covered a whole range of issues, but I was hooked when he began his first post with the following quote: "My oldest son is 4, so it's a little early to tell how much fatherhood has changed me, but I have noticed two things. I stopped moping. (There's not enough time.) And I really, really love the office." It's hard not to get hooked, I suppose, when someone is willing to be so honest about their experiences-and doubly so when the words he's writing put my own thoughts into words.

Actually, that's what I most enjoyed about the two weeks of blog postings: the fact that both writers-but Agger in particular-seemed to keep putting my thoughts on the parenting thing into words. As a writer, I'll put my hand up and say that it's kind of humiliating to be beaten to so many punches, but I've always believed that the best thing to do when you find someone who does something better than you is to pass it on to others. (Plus, I'm consoling myself with the thought that because they only had a two-week assignment-and a fairly intense experience to base their writing on-they're mining a rich vein that gets harder to sustain the longer you write about it.)

Anyway, in that spirit, here are a couple of my favorite observations from Agger's posts over the two weeks. Each of them struck me as having distilled a basic truth about the art of being a Dad in this day and age.

When considering how his priorities have changed since becoming a parent, Agger commented on how his attitude towards work has shifted. Gone are the concerns over fulfillment, or ladder climbing. Instead, he comments that "now the job thing has simplified: gotta feed the family." As someone who only began looking for a regular 9 to 5 job when my wife got pregnant, I can well understand the truth in that statement. (And, on an inter-generational, universal sort of note, my own father also claims that he went to work every day with the attitude that he could quit any time he liked: something that lasted until my brother was born. At that point, he says, "I realized that it wasn't only me who would suffer if I lost a job.")

As the experiment wore on, Agger came to realize that he didn't really know his youngest child. Not in terms of personality, but in the rhythms of his days, the simple things you miss out on when you spend between 8 and 12 hours a day outside of the home. Thus, when he took his kids to a park, he found himself over-parenting to compensation, prompting the following observation: The "stay-at-home thing requires a different pace. I had to remind myself that I did not have to pay attention to Will all the time. I would have to slow down and be less of a spaz." What mostly-weekends-through-necessity Dad can't resonate with that?

For brutal honesty (and because I felt more than a pang of guilty recognition), I also love the following quote: "I do my share of dealing with the kids in the morning, but I don't have that internal monitor that Susan has. The kids aren't always on my mind. They are always on Susan's mind."

And, just because I've read reams of advice on being a writer-none of which is much use when it comes to facing a blank screen-I loved the following quote: "Giving parenting advice is a lot like giving writing advice. You can say a lot of things that sound very intelligent and thoughtful, but when it comes down to the actual act, it's mostly intuition and the inescapable fact of who you are." In fact, I like that so much that I may just write it down and keep it somewhere.

Apologies to both Slate and Michael Agger for basically stealing your work for this post, but as I said before, I'm a big believer in giving credit where it's due. (Burton is also due a whole bunch, but my appreciation for her has to be limited to silent applause given her lack of dad-ness!) And, just to prove that I'm not some mere plagiarist, here's the link one more time. Click it-I promise you'll find something you like.

(Image: Slate.com)

Social Networking and Kids

Philmundo — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:58:23 -0700

by Phil Stott

How many reports of people over-exposing themselves on social networking sites and then coming to regret it do we need to hear before we start thinking before posting or tweeting? Take the recent case of Washington Redskins linebacker Robert Henson venting his rage at "dim-wit" fans who booed their team as an example. Here's a guy who doesn't even make the starting line-up in the team, and yet he somehow feels like he's earned the right to attack the team's fans via Twitter when they show their displeasure with the Redskins' performance. As with all things social network-ish, he started out expressing his feelings to a few followers only to see his comments (52 tweets in all) passed around the internet like wildfire.

Now, I don't much care about how the Redskins play, or the fate of Robert Henson, but what does interest me is how he seemed to forget-or more likely just didn't care-about airing his thoughts in a public format in the way he did. I know that, if I were to lose it like that and make similar comments either about my employer or our customers in such a public forum, I'd probably be embarking on a search for a new job in the not-too-distant future. Because I'm well aware of how powerful viral networking can be, I stay well away from discussing anything of the sort online (at least in a way that can be traced back to me!).

Unfortunately, for those with kids that are old enough to be tech-savvy, it's not enough to look after how you're representing yourself digitally; you need to be aware of what your kids are up to online as well. I know one guy (an ex-cop) who regularly logs into his teenage daughter's Facebook page to see what she and her friends have been up to, or are planning (she has no idea he knows the password). I'm not recommending that anyone go that far, but it certainly doesn't hurt to sit down with your kids, lay some ground rules, and make sure they're aware of the bigger picture when using social networking sites. Here, then, are three things every kid should know:

1)    If you don't want the "wrong" people to find out, don't put it on Twitter

It's difficult to imagine that Henson didn't know that his comments could spread like wildfire across the Twittersphere. But if a more-or-less grown adult can make that kind of mistake, a tween or teen can too. So if they've got something negative (or embarrassing) they need to say about a teacher, classmate or acquaintance, tell them to do it the old-fashioned way: face-to-face. That way, the possibility of viral spreading is all but eliminated; all you have to worry about is someone recording you!

2)    People aren't always who they say they are online

Case in point: Lori Drew, better known as the Missouri mom who is accused of taking part in a bullying campaign on MySpace that drove a 13 year old girl to commit suicide. Having been acquitted of all charges of computer hacking (see the full story in the link above), it seems that there's little police can do to try and bring her to justice, as there's no statute in Missouri against cyber-bullying. While that case is an extreme one, it's also one that starkly underlines the dangers of kids being suckered into believing that the people they're talking to online are who they claim to be. Good rule of thumb: If you don't talk to them in real life, don't talk to them online.

3)    Close your networks

Sure, there's a certain thrill to putting your thoughts and personality out there in cyberspace for all to see. Not restricting profiles on social networks to only people you know and trust, however, greatly increases the chance of all of the previous things going wrong: people misrepresenting themselves, and you, cyber-stalking, bullying, the works. In fact, as parents, it may be worth making this-and the agreement that you get to check in on their accounts every once in a while-part of any bargain with a kid who wants to get involved in social networking.

Too Much Information

Philmundo — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:50:28 -0700

by Phil Stott

The big news out here on Long Island this week has been of an alleged gang rape of a girl on the campus of Hofstra University that turned out to be a lie. Four guys were paraded in front of the media, their lives and reputations (not to mention those of their families) held up to scrutiny and judgment because of a lie told by one college student. Not 24 hours after the initial story broke-with news crews camped out on campus, and mug shots of the men concerned plastered across newspapers, computers and TV screens-it was over, with police now said to be considering bringing charges against the girl for wasting their time.

It's a case that's given me pause for thought both as a general member of society, and as a parent-and mostly because of volume of information I've digested in the past week, none of which has done me a single bit of good.

Too soon
First, I'm reminded once again of the double standard in the justice system: four innocent men have had their reputations seriously tarnished by one false accusation, from a "victim" whose identity we may never know. In the day and age we're living in, where information can get passed around at unprecedented speed, and where even our politicians have realized that telling a lie often enough can get people to start believing it, I can't believe that information like that is getting out, only for the guys to be cleared of all charges less than a day later. The key to uncovering the truth, apparently, was that police told the girl there was video footage of the incident: they couldn't have tried that before subjecting four innocent guys to a media perp walk?

Too early
Watching a news bulletin on the case before going to work on the day it fell apart (9/17), my immediate instinct was to cover my daughter's ears-and she's not even two, way too young to understand anything about it. The reason? In less than a minute-and with no warning of the graphic details to come-the news station went from talking about how the four guys had been charged with gang rape to explaining that the case fell apart because the sex between the woman and the four men had been consensual, something the guys had maintained all along. All this before seven in the morning.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm no prude. I curse with the best of them and have heard and said my share of downright offensive things. But I can't for the life of me understand how something so graphic is permitted on TV at a time when children are almost certain to be around. What, so I can't hear the "f" word in case it offends someone, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to have to monitor my TV before I've finished my first cup of coffee in case I end up having to explain the horrors of the adult world to a child? You tell me which is easier: correcting a child who repeats a curse word, or having to answer the question "Daddy, what's gang rape?"

At the end of it all, I'm left wondering if I really needed to know any of that information. Or if anything good has come of any of it. And my answer to both questions is the same: probably not. But I have learned a valuable lesson that will stay with me as my kids get older: there's no such thing as a "safe" time to forget about monitoring what they might be watching.

(photo: AP Photo/Frank Eltman)

Daddy's house as a sanctuary.

jmishak — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:08:48 -0700

My toddler (2 1/2) lives primarily with his Mother, half-brother and the boyfriend and his two kids. Life is chaotic for him there so when he comes to my house he seems to just want to rest and enjoy the quiet. When we do play we play until we sweat and fall down, but more recently all he wants to do is watch his Sponge Bob dvd and sit on the couch.

How do I say no? At mom's he fights for attention and the harrassment of three older boys (ages 7-9). I feel like he deserves the peace and quiet and to think of daddy's house as HIS house, so....I am at a loss. I do not want to force him to play when he does not want to, but I am also concerned of the ever growing addiction to dvd's.

Help.

Elmo's mom gets laid off

Philmundo — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:40:45 -0700

by Phil Stott

It's probably fitting that this week-the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the financial meltdown that has caused carnage in the economy and led to millions of job losses across the country-is the week that Elmo finds out his mom has lost her job on Sesame Street. Not literally-the actress will still be appearing on the show-but her character will break the news to Elmo on September 9 on PBS (that's on Wednesday-check your local listings for the exact air time).

Among the important lessons Elmo (and by extension any kids watching the show) will learn are that cutbacks are needed: so trips to amusement parks are canceled in favor of trips to the playground, while visits to the cinema become nights at home with a DVD instead. Also important: Elmo learns that it's not his fault and that there's a big difference between needs (things like food) and wants (things like toys).

In a country now boasting an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, the upcoming episode is both timely and potentially very useful for any parent who finds themselves in the situation of having to explain a downturn in their family's personal fortunes to their kid. (OK, so it might have been more timely back in the spring when companies were announcing layoffs with such frequency that it seemed like a competition, but beggars can't be choosers.)

Anyway, to further set the scene, here's Elmo appearing on the Today show last weekend to discuss the economic situation (no, really!), and provide some lead-in to Wednesday's show

AND HERE'S THE LINK (just in case): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32713599#32713599

Do words matter?

Toby — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:34:38 -0700

Greetings dads,
There is a local case here in MA that received National press - the arrest of Harvard professor Gates.
Here is a link to it that includes the police report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/police-officer-obama-butt-arr...
I do not want to open a can of worms of who is correct; I would like to discuss the President's words. He said that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."
Each day, my wife and I work to teach our children how to communicate, and we cannot stand them calling anyone stupid. Again, not taking sides for or against the President, the Professor, or the Police, should the President of the United States done a better job of choosing his words?
I look forward to your comments.
Cheers,
Toby

The Art of Sleep Training

Philmundo — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:41:36 -0700

By Phil Stott

"What are we going to do when she gets too big for the crib?"

So said my wife last night as we closed the door on a daughter who was already a half-hour past her bedtime, clearly too tired to stay up any longer, but practically inconsolable about the fact that it was time to end the fun for another day. As a result, when we shut the door she was standing gripping the sides of the crib, peering out over the top of it, yelling "Mama" at the top of her voice while sobbing. A pretty heart-rending scene, if you're not going through it several times a week.

The prediction behind my wife's question, obviously, was that as soon as Maeve is too big to contain in a crib, we're going to have to put her in a real bed-one with no sides to contain her-and we're both pretty certain that the first thing she'll do will be to get out.

That's one of the main reasons we've been doing our best to get her on a regular schedule. As much as possible, we've been trying to make sure her bedtime falls at around the same time, and we've been working hard on establishing a routine based on the following points:

Get a routine going

There are all kinds of things you can do to signal to your child that their day is coming to an end. Bath time right before bed. The appearance of the toothbrush. A couple of storybooks or songs to calm down. Then, tell them it's time for bed, lay them down, and get out of the room. While it might be nice for both you and your child if you stick around until they get to sleep, you're risking setting up a situation where they can't get to sleep unless you're there. Sure, there will be nights where you need to do a little extra calming once your child is in bed, but provided they're not hysterical, it pays to get out as soon as possible. A child that learns to go to sleep alone young is one that you'll spend less time chasing back into bed as they get older. Not to mention the amount of time you'll free up for yourself.

Turn down the monitor...

...or turn it off altogether. Nothing's going to pull you back to your child's room faster than the sound of crying coming out of a monitor. All you'll achieve by going back in, though, is to legitimize the behavior in your child's mind, and create a scenario where they know that a screaming fit will get them a little more time with you before they have to go to sleep. To avoid making that a routine, try turning down the monitor so the cries aren't as intrusive. Ever wondered why some of them come with a light meter on the front that goes up and down with the volume of your child's cries? Now you know: some models actually allow you to mute the sound but still keep an eye on them. Once they're asleep, though, you'll probably want to turn it back up again.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you completely ignore a crying child once you've put them to bed-just that you give them an opportunity to fall asleep by themselves. For that reason, I'd also recommend that you:

Set a timer and stick to it

If your child is new to the concept of you leaving them to fall asleep alone, and responds by crying, you may want to start by building in set periods of time before you go back to them. Start out with something you're comfortable with-5 to 10 minutes-and, as the days wear on, gradually increase the waiting period. Remember: the longer you can wait before going back in, the more opportunity your child has to fall asleep by themselves. Of course, if they genuinely sound like they're in distress or particularly upset, or if the crying goes on for a long time, you'll want to go in and find out what's wrong.

We've seen some pretty good results so far, although we still get the odd occasion-mostly for afternoon naps-where Maeve just won't go to sleep without one of us there until she passes out. I'm figuring that the longer we persist, the more likely it is that she'll come to accept bedtime without a struggle. As soon as she starts that, I'll feel a whole lot better about putting her in a real bed.

As always, I'm open to further suggestions from those who have been there and done this before me, or who are trying different things right now. Post any recommendations in the comments field below.

Reading: More Than Just Books

Philmundo — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:42:07 -0700

by Phil Stott

As someone who's always read, and who basically makes his living from being able to read and write, I've always known that reading is important. And that a love of reading begins in childhood. What I didn't know until I read this piece in The New York Times, however, was exactly how important reading is to a child's development. According to the article, kids who don't read during their summer vacation fall behind those who do: whether by their own choice or through being forced to at home or summer camp. And that's not just a "well, duh!" moment that gets wiped out easily once school starts again; kids who don't get a mental workout over the summer vacation display demonstrably lower I.Q. scores than they did before the vacation. The advantage for a child who keeps mentally active over the break, therefore, is clear to see.

Now, the piece in the Times was more or less an excuse for the writer to compile a list of his all-time favorite children's books. Having grown up in Britain, my own list would probably look significantly different (although Harry Potter and the Hardy Boys would still make it onto mine), but the point of this piece isn't to provide recommendations or any kind of exercise in nostalgia.

Rather, what I'd like to make a case for is the role that environment plays in reading-and it's something that's easily overlooked in an age when kids have so many things competing for their interest and attention.

Hands down the smartest family I know has five kids. One parent is a graduate of Cambridge. The only 2 kids old enough to have graduated high school now attend Princeton and Yale, while the other 3 look set to follow in their footsteps. Their house, as might be expected, is a chaotic mess, the sort of place where you can stumble sideways and bring a wall of books crashing down on you wherever you turn. Clearly the kids have something of a genetic advantage, not to mention a socio-economic one, but it seems to me that there's more to it than just having smart, well-educated parents who seem to have saved every book they or their kids have ever read.

What it comes down to, I think, is that the parents aren't afraid to let their children get bored. None of the kids has their own TV, and the one games console the family owns is located in the living room-a factor that greatly reduces the amount of time the kids can use it. On top of that, the parents limit the time their kids get to spend doing frivolous things on the Internet (i.e. anything that isn't homework-related), and have set up the house with chairs, couches and cushions tucked into just about every nook and cranny that's not occupied by books. The result: a place with lots of quiet, private spaces for a child to sit down and get lost in the pages of whatever they happen to find on the shelves. And, with less competition for their attention, an increased likelihood of that actually occurring.

That's what I mean when I talk about environment. Often, it's not the instructions we give our kids that has the greatest effect on their behavior. (Indeed, in my toddler's case, instructions tend to get me the exact opposite result to the one I'm seeking.) Thus, sitting a child down and telling them to read is likely to be as well received as telling them to eat their vegetables at the dinner table. Creating an environment where reading seems like as natural a diversion as picking up a PSP, however, may just make the difference in ensuring that your child's I.Q. continues to develop all through their lives. So if you're planning on starting any kind of pro-reading campaign this summer, by all means start with someone else's list, but consider also phasing out some of the other distractions in your child's life.

Ask the Savvy Daddy Expert MD

tony — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:56:04 -0700

by Tony Chen

You may have seen that we here at Savvy Daddy have recently added a distinguished Panel of Experts. You can see their bios here, but basically these folks are profs, physicians, clinicians, and academics that are savvy gurus on topics relevant to us dads trying to raise great kids. These experts have been gracious enough to answer real questions from real dads - email me your questions (tony at savvydaddy dot com) and I'll be passing along the most relevant & compelling questions to them. Today, we are honored to present to you Dr. Russell Robertson, Chairman of Family & Community Medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.

Dad Question: What's your take on the explosion of ADHD in America? Are we diagnosing this disease correctly? Why do you think most ADHD cases are boys?

Robertson: We had dinner with good friends recently. The husband had just retired from a high ranking position at a Fortune 500 company. He described his behavior as a young boy as one that would have surely labeled him as ADHD and likely in today's world, would have found him on prescription medications. Yet many of his "ADHD" behaviors made him highly productive and successful at multitasking. He routinely answered over 300 emails per day.

My concern is that the energy and vitality of young boys is wrongly and often assumed to be ADHD as opposed to behaviors that indicate a high degree of intelligence and curiosity. Teachers (I was an elementary school and junior high school teacher) are often frustrated in dealing with these children and often because their classrooms are an increasingly challenging environment made more so by children who are presumed to be easily distracted.

Instead, I would ask parents and teachers to re-direct rather than attempt to suppress these behaviors. These boys, and they are mostly boys, are high energy kids and need to be exercised physically and mentally. They are like racehorses. Sitting them in front of a computer screen to play games or in front of a TV, while temporarily distracting, is not good for them at all. Make sure your kids are well exercised. Playing with them at home is a great thing to do. Ride bikes, play basketball, run with them. This is great bonding time as well. Challenge their intellects by learning more about their interests and then help them to engage in focusing on completing tasks. Only children with the most disruptive behavior should be evaluated for medications and even then, I would look for mental health providers who have a reputation for being stingy with medications.

I would also recommend a book my wife found for me to read. It is called, "The War Against Boys" by Susanna Hoff Summers - a fabulous read!

Dad Question: What's your take on the growing trend of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of negative side-effects (e.g. autism)? There seems to be "solid scientific evidence" on both sides of the argument, or is there?

Robertson: By way of example, in the early 70's, the vaccine for pertussis was not as pure as it could have been and there were children who did have reactions, some that were severe. In the United Kingdom, a number of parents chose not to vaccinate their children for pertussis as a response. Subsequently, the number of children who died from pertussis easily outnumbered those who had been having reactions.

What is happening at the present is a truly dangerous trend that is endangering the lives of millions of children. Because the first vaccines for measles are not given until the age of 15 months, all children under this age are at risk of contracting measles from unvaccinated children. World wide, over 200,000 children died from measles in 2007 and as new cases continue to appear in the US, there will inevitably be preventable deaths.

While having a child with autism is a challenge beyond my imagining and understanding that the desire to locate a treatable cause is understood, after numerous studies, there is NO EVIDENCE that vaccines are a cause of autism. Further, it is irresponsbile to perseverate the notion that vaccines are a cause and to choose not to have your children vaccinated.

Dad Question: How did you keep your promises to your wife and kids about being at games, etc? How did you handle it if you had a work emergency to attend to?

Robertson: As a physician, I learned that I needed to take every opportunity to control my schedule. I also did a great deal of reading early in my years as a Dad about what I would call "unintentional narcissism:, i.e. the notion that my presence at work or with my patients was essential. If one is not careful, this is an easy trap into which one can fall, regardless of your profession.

In the final analysis and in almost every situation, work was the place where I was most replaceable, not home. There are no "do overs" with your wife and children. Time accelerates as your children grow and I did not want to be like many of my colleagues whose careers were successful, but their personal and family lives were in ruins.

I made an effort to schedule everything and then to stick to it. That way, when there truly was an emergency, it was understood and accommodated. I also worked very hard to make no promises that I was not able to keep.

The other thing to keep in mind is that prioritizing family over one's work should not be considered a sacrifice! This is your wife for all time and your children. How could you not value them above all else!

Have a question for Dr. Robertson? Send your questions to me via email (tony at savvydaddy dot com).