I offer you, dear readers, some sage advice for free.
Say you happen to be a 30ish man who is a little soft in the middle. You don't really work out, because who has time with two kids? Forget that before the kids you didn't really work out either. So you're a bit out of shape, but you still can run (a little) and get on a bike. Besides the small beer gut and lack of physical activity, you're pretty healthy.
Say you have recently lost a few pounds and are feeling confident about your physical abilities. You then go on a family bike ride for 20 or so miles with a Burley in tow with a toddler. Afterwards you feel a little tired and sore, but pretty good.
The next day, you should not expand on your previous success by pulling the Burley with the toddler inside and a tag-a-long bike fourteen miles with 20 mile per hour wind on your side, pick up kindergartener from school, and ride with her "contribution" on the peddled tag-a-long the fourteen miles back with 20 mile per wind on your other side.
If you do that, despite my advice, you will find the entire journey will take over 3 hours (although it will seem like 6). Every slight incline will be met with horror as you try to drag the 100 pounds of girls and equipment latched to the back of your bike against gravity. Pain will emanate in every part of your legs, from the tips of your toes to your waist, and then spreading up your back. You'll fear to sit down, lest your body recalls for your pleasure every single bump you hit on the trail. Stairs will be a near impossibility for a number of hours. You will be incapable of helping out your sick wife with all the household tasks.
If you still don't take my advice, please, please, please, at least eat something before you go on this overly ambitious bike ride. When I say eat something, I mean more than a cracker and a dab of low-fat cottage cheese. And find some ways to repair your body upon return. I recommend laying on the floor and trying to stretch your muscles as your toddler crawls all over you. Eat a light meal and do so slowly so you don't throw up. Take two pills of ibuprofen (Advil) and drink a cool beer when your stomach is ready. Make sure you live next door to some neighbors with an outdoor hot tube they don't mind you using. Soak your body for as long as possible in the hot water. Try not to curse yourself too much about how stupid you were to try something you should have known better you were no where near able to do. Embarrass yourself by telling everyone you know about your bad judgment so that you'll remember not to overexert yourself like this ever again.
Hope you liked the advice. Now put it to use!
Showing posts with label kids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kids. Show all posts
Monday, September 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
How many kids? Part 2
I recently posted an argument asking people to not be too judgmental when it comes to people's choice whether or not to have a large number of kids. The issue of whether pregnancies are planned or not, or whether children can be afforded are red herrings that distract from the main issue.
The question is what is a reasonable size for a family today?
I'm not going to assert what the ideal population of the world is. I'm not going to tell you whether we are past, at, or near the ideal population in the world. What I can assert, which I think is difficult to argue, is that continuous population growth is unsustainable.
The question is what is a reasonable size for a family today?
I'm not going to assert what the ideal population of the world is. I'm not going to tell you whether we are past, at, or near the ideal population in the world. What I can assert, which I think is difficult to argue, is that continuous population growth is unsustainable.
Year
Graph courtesy of Wikipedia
Graph courtesy of Wikipedia
We have limited resources and limited space. We can't continue the global status quo.
But, you may say, the birthrate is low in our country. The growth of population in the United States can be attributed to immigration. The real problem is in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty and the birth rate abound. That's where you need to be concerned with family size.
And I would agree in large part. From a policy perspective, rampant population growth is a problem in developing countries and that is why the work of the UNFPA is vital in these areas. We know that rampant population growth can be curtailed with access to family planning services and information, with economic development, and with the educational/social/economic advancement of women.
While this is all true, it's not a reason to ignore global population growth in a wealthy country such as ours. From an environmental perspective, each body in this country consumes many times more energy and resources than just about any other place in the world--and that's regardless of that person's personal choices. Just by being here (in North America) you are contributing to the problem in a disproportionate way.
Each person born is going to take some share of the Earth's resources. In a world of finite resources, every person born is going to take a share that could be taken by someone else. Each additional person makes the pie slices a little thinner.
What do we do? We have less kids. And that means everybody. We're all in this together. It's unfair for one family to get what is morally unavailable to another. We're all on the same Earth and need to work in concert with each other.
The gifted science fiction writer, Ursula Le Guin, described a multi-generational colonizing space ship in the novella Paradises Lost. (It is a story that bears some resemblance to the future humans in the Wall-E movie.) Of course this confined spaceship of 4000 people has to have a carefully maintained population. Each person is restricted to having one child, with the possibility be allowed a second child if there is an open slot.
But, you may say, the birthrate is low in our country. The growth of population in the United States can be attributed to immigration. The real problem is in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty and the birth rate abound. That's where you need to be concerned with family size.
And I would agree in large part. From a policy perspective, rampant population growth is a problem in developing countries and that is why the work of the UNFPA is vital in these areas. We know that rampant population growth can be curtailed with access to family planning services and information, with economic development, and with the educational/social/economic advancement of women.
While this is all true, it's not a reason to ignore global population growth in a wealthy country such as ours. From an environmental perspective, each body in this country consumes many times more energy and resources than just about any other place in the world--and that's regardless of that person's personal choices. Just by being here (in North America) you are contributing to the problem in a disproportionate way.
Each person born is going to take some share of the Earth's resources. In a world of finite resources, every person born is going to take a share that could be taken by someone else. Each additional person makes the pie slices a little thinner.
What do we do? We have less kids. And that means everybody. We're all in this together. It's unfair for one family to get what is morally unavailable to another. We're all on the same Earth and need to work in concert with each other.
The gifted science fiction writer, Ursula Le Guin, described a multi-generational colonizing space ship in the novella Paradises Lost. (It is a story that bears some resemblance to the future humans in the Wall-E movie.) Of course this confined spaceship of 4000 people has to have a carefully maintained population. Each person is restricted to having one child, with the possibility be allowed a second child if there is an open slot.
"Everyone who wants to can gave a child. One child, two at most. A woman has her motherchild. A man has his fatherchild."
And also,
"Everybody can have a child. Some can't or won't or don't have children and some children die young, and so most of those who want two children can have two children."
The ship can be seen to represent the finite Earth. Now, I would not advocate that, like this science fiction society, we need "anthrogeneticists" with the authority to give us permission when and with whom to have children and how many. But wouldn't it be better to create a culture where the small family is a near universal norm--to an even greater degree than may currently be the case?
I'm told there are joys of having big families with multiple siblings. I bet that's true. But I bet there were also joys of shooting massive numbers of American bison in the Great Plains in the 1870s. We just can't afford to let people do that anymore.
If you are a parent of say five children reading this, you might be feeling a bit defensive. "I'm not selfish. I'm not causing the problem. There are bigger problems than whether I have a few more children than the median American." Again, I agree. I'm not trying to thumb my nose at you. I certainly have no moral high ground. While I only have two children, there are lots of ways I am consuming my grossly disproportionate share of the Earth's resources.
It would be unfair to judge people today for having too many children when there is no societal consensus on the subject. As Americans, we really haven't addressed the issue of overpopulation as it pertains to our own birthrate and the personal choices involved. I'm just saying that we do need to have that conversation and perhaps going forward we need to say goodbye to families with more than three kids (excluding adoptions of course).
So I'm not telling you that you're out of line if you have five kids. Yet. But I'm hearby putting you on notice. Going forward, once you get to the 2 or 3 kids mark, it's time to have the tubes tied or cut.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
How many kids? Part 1
I've been watching with interest (and dipping my toes in) the debate over Sarah Palin's childbearing and childrearing choices and to what degree they reflect on her as a person, a mother, and a candidate. I don't want to rehash those arguments here, but the subject did get me thinking about choosing to have large families in today's world.
Is it OK to look down on a person's judgment for bringing five kids into this world? Is it relevant if they have trouble affording five kids? Is this changed if both parents have demanding jobs that take them outside the home frequently?
Does it matter if all five of the kids were planned? Does it matter if all five of the kids were unplanned? Furthermore, what do we think about the women or men who have five children, but from multiple partners?
Are any of these scenarios fairly subject to ridicule?
First, let's look at the problem with being too judgmental of people's childbearing choices. The affordability question is a big slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If people waited until they could "afford" kids, we'd have a huge population of first-time parents waiting until they reach 40. (Oh, wait a minute...) While there is nothing ethically wrong with waiting until 40 to have kids, on the societal scale it means high numbers of infertility issues, maternal health issues, and greater risks (like Downs) for the resulting children. So, perhaps the affordability issue can be overemphasized.
We all have different standards on what is affordable. Are we really going to tell working class people struggling to make ends meet that they are ineligible to have families? The other side of the coin is that wealthy families get "permission" to have large families that are morally barred to less well off families. Hey, this isn't China. Rich people get more cars and homes and flashy entertainment systems than the rest of us, but should they get to have more children?
Connected to the wealth issue, is it better to have multiple kids if a parent can be at home as opposed to daycare? Again, a messy standard. The decision whether to go the childcare route versus at-home parenting relies on many factors. We know that for families and children both options have their positive and negative aspects. Why should that matter in the decision to have kids? Or are we telling career women that they are not allowed to have kids or at least not very many of them?
The planned versus unplanned distinction is a whole can of worms. I think we can all agree that due to inadequate sexuality education and irresponsible personal choices, a great many men and women unintentionally find themselves on the cusp of parenthood. But to paint all unintended pregnancies as evidence of moral failure is unhelpful and unfair. Approximately 50% of pregnancies in the United States are not planned. That would be a big number of "irresponsible" couples. Of women seeking abortions, over half had been using a method of birth control the month they got pregnant. Sometimes people are inconsistent with birth control and sometimes birth control methods fail.
I'm proudly pro-choice. But I would never judge someone harshly for making the personal choice to continue an unexpected pregnancy to term. Afterall, it's all about choice. If you negatively judge a woman who has had more than one child unplanned, you are putting a woman who has had multiple abortions on higher moral ground. I would assert they are of equal moral standing.
Too many kids?
NEXT UP:
Now that I've argued that it is unfair to judge someone for having large numbers of children in these kinds of circumstances, I'm going to get a little judgmental myself. I'm going to say that no one in North America today has the moral standing to birth large numbers of children regardless of circumstance. I'm not advocating a China one child policy, but in the world in which I'm in charge, no one bears five kids. Stay tuned.
Is it OK to look down on a person's judgment for bringing five kids into this world? Is it relevant if they have trouble affording five kids? Is this changed if both parents have demanding jobs that take them outside the home frequently?
Does it matter if all five of the kids were planned? Does it matter if all five of the kids were unplanned? Furthermore, what do we think about the women or men who have five children, but from multiple partners?
Are any of these scenarios fairly subject to ridicule?
First, let's look at the problem with being too judgmental of people's childbearing choices. The affordability question is a big slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If people waited until they could "afford" kids, we'd have a huge population of first-time parents waiting until they reach 40. (Oh, wait a minute...) While there is nothing ethically wrong with waiting until 40 to have kids, on the societal scale it means high numbers of infertility issues, maternal health issues, and greater risks (like Downs) for the resulting children. So, perhaps the affordability issue can be overemphasized.
We all have different standards on what is affordable. Are we really going to tell working class people struggling to make ends meet that they are ineligible to have families? The other side of the coin is that wealthy families get "permission" to have large families that are morally barred to less well off families. Hey, this isn't China. Rich people get more cars and homes and flashy entertainment systems than the rest of us, but should they get to have more children?
Connected to the wealth issue, is it better to have multiple kids if a parent can be at home as opposed to daycare? Again, a messy standard. The decision whether to go the childcare route versus at-home parenting relies on many factors. We know that for families and children both options have their positive and negative aspects. Why should that matter in the decision to have kids? Or are we telling career women that they are not allowed to have kids or at least not very many of them?
The planned versus unplanned distinction is a whole can of worms. I think we can all agree that due to inadequate sexuality education and irresponsible personal choices, a great many men and women unintentionally find themselves on the cusp of parenthood. But to paint all unintended pregnancies as evidence of moral failure is unhelpful and unfair. Approximately 50% of pregnancies in the United States are not planned. That would be a big number of "irresponsible" couples. Of women seeking abortions, over half had been using a method of birth control the month they got pregnant. Sometimes people are inconsistent with birth control and sometimes birth control methods fail.
I'm proudly pro-choice. But I would never judge someone harshly for making the personal choice to continue an unexpected pregnancy to term. Afterall, it's all about choice. If you negatively judge a woman who has had more than one child unplanned, you are putting a woman who has had multiple abortions on higher moral ground. I would assert they are of equal moral standing.
And as for the multiple partner angle, both fathers and mothers are judged for this, but women are judged much more harshly for having multiple partners than men. And women are usually the ones actually taking the responsibility for the resulting children! I'm not going to say that perhaps a person who has had five kids by three partners may be making some ill-advised and selfish decisions. But I would also urge people to pause before judging and assuming too much. None of us know where life may unexpectedly take us. Some of us are simply more lucky in love.
Too many kids?NEXT UP:
Now that I've argued that it is unfair to judge someone for having large numbers of children in these kinds of circumstances, I'm going to get a little judgmental myself. I'm going to say that no one in North America today has the moral standing to birth large numbers of children regardless of circumstance. I'm not advocating a China one child policy, but in the world in which I'm in charge, no one bears five kids. Stay tuned.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
What we've come to
Yes, what every kid (six years and older) needs! Motorized Sidewalk Paint Sprayer! It's available from just about every retailer out there for $10-18.
From Crayola:
"Create amazing sidewalk designs with the new Crayola Motorized Sidewalk Paint Sprayer. Choose between one of two colors or mix both, spray thick or thin lines to make unique effects that are all completely washable – just spray with water and start again!"
Whatever happened to simple sidewalk chalk?
From Crayola:
"Create amazing sidewalk designs with the new Crayola Motorized Sidewalk Paint Sprayer. Choose between one of two colors or mix both, spray thick or thin lines to make unique effects that are all completely washable – just spray with water and start again!"
Whatever happened to simple sidewalk chalk?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Neglect of kids
Via the Pioneer Press, a mother who left her 2 year-old and 4 year-old alone for a lengthy period of time has pled guilty to gross misdemeanor child neglect. Her four year-old son had been found outside with out shoes or a shirt at 2 AM in 34 degree weather. One's heart aches whenever these stories surface.
Almost a year ago, I saw another incidence of apparent child neglect. As I looked out the window of my office over the busy Rice Street in St. Paul, I see a man charging to the middle of the street and grabbing a small boy. He thrust him quickly, and out of the path of an on-coming car. Several cars stopped briefly as the man brought the boy to safety.
I go downstairs to see what happened. The boy, about 4 years old, is now standing across the street with a different man, who had pulled over in his car. The boy had on an open jacket in below freezing weather. After watching a few minutes, I go outside, with a bottle of water for the boy. (I had no snacks at hand.) The man is an off-duty firefighter. There are no signs of parents or other adults responsible for this child. He has the boy sitting in the backseat of his parked car and tells me that he called the police, but that the police told them it'd be a while. (Apparently there was some other big emergency in the neighborhood occupying all available cops.) The boy is sitting there silently, but a bit happy to be wearing a real firefighter helmet grabbed out of the trunk.
I keep an eye from the building for a while. Maybe after a half hour or so, the police do arrive. I don't see what happens next.
About two weeks later, in front of the building, I think I see the same boy in the same jacket across the street. (I didn't get a good look.) He's walking with a man in his early 20s down the sidewalk. I am tempted to catch up to them to see and say something, but what would I say?
I have no idea what happened in this case. How did this boy be wandering across a busy street during rush hour alone? Was it from some serious negligence, or not? Were charges ever filed? Do his parents even know how close he came to being hit by a car at 30 miles per hour?
When I hear a story about a woman leaving her child along, walking half-naked at 2 AM, one of my first thoughts is that we're dealing with a parent who probably shouldn't be a parent. More widely available and promoted birth control probably won't stop the neglect or abuse of children, but it damn well wouldn't hurt.
Almost a year ago, I saw another incidence of apparent child neglect. As I looked out the window of my office over the busy Rice Street in St. Paul, I see a man charging to the middle of the street and grabbing a small boy. He thrust him quickly, and out of the path of an on-coming car. Several cars stopped briefly as the man brought the boy to safety.
I go downstairs to see what happened. The boy, about 4 years old, is now standing across the street with a different man, who had pulled over in his car. The boy had on an open jacket in below freezing weather. After watching a few minutes, I go outside, with a bottle of water for the boy. (I had no snacks at hand.) The man is an off-duty firefighter. There are no signs of parents or other adults responsible for this child. He has the boy sitting in the backseat of his parked car and tells me that he called the police, but that the police told them it'd be a while. (Apparently there was some other big emergency in the neighborhood occupying all available cops.) The boy is sitting there silently, but a bit happy to be wearing a real firefighter helmet grabbed out of the trunk.
I keep an eye from the building for a while. Maybe after a half hour or so, the police do arrive. I don't see what happens next.
About two weeks later, in front of the building, I think I see the same boy in the same jacket across the street. (I didn't get a good look.) He's walking with a man in his early 20s down the sidewalk. I am tempted to catch up to them to see and say something, but what would I say?
I have no idea what happened in this case. How did this boy be wandering across a busy street during rush hour alone? Was it from some serious negligence, or not? Were charges ever filed? Do his parents even know how close he came to being hit by a car at 30 miles per hour?
When I hear a story about a woman leaving her child along, walking half-naked at 2 AM, one of my first thoughts is that we're dealing with a parent who probably shouldn't be a parent. More widely available and promoted birth control probably won't stop the neglect or abuse of children, but it damn well wouldn't hurt.
Quote: Menstruation from a kindergartener's perspective
Today's quote comes courtesy of writer Neal Pollock. His son, Elijah, receives a primer on menstruation and upon running into his mother in the bathroom, has a helpful question for her:"Mommy," he said, his eyes glistening with sincerity. "Did you remember to put your egg in the potty?"
The full explanation is available on Pollack's Parents magazine blog.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Disturbing television
From VH1 comes a one-hour documentary about 6 year-olds in beauty pageants. Great. It's sad enough that these events take place at all. But VH1 is jumping in to broadcast girls competing to look like spooky, tarted-up dolls to the masses.
I have not seen the show and don't plan to. So, I can't really comment on the content. Needless to say, labeling a six year-old girl as "the Flirt" doesn't bode well. Who are these people who feel comfortable tartin- up kindergarteners?
(Thanks to Feministing.com for highlighting this sad show.)
little beauties: ultimate kiddie queen showdown
Directly from the VH1 website:
I have not seen the show and don't plan to. So, I can't really comment on the content. Needless to say, labeling a six year-old girl as "the Flirt" doesn't bode well. Who are these people who feel comfortable tartin- up kindergarteners?
(Thanks to Feministing.com for highlighting this sad show.)
little beauties: ultimate kiddie queen showdown
Directly from the VH1 website:
Move over Miss America! The Little Beauties are coming to town! They're gorgeous, they're talented, they're six-years old and with the helping hand of eager moms, determined pageant coaches, fabulous spray tan artists and "flipper" (fake teeth) makers, not to mention a couple of Pixie Sticks for energy, these girls are taking the stage at pageants all over the Southeast U.S for the chance to win cash prizes and crowns!
Little Beauties: Ultimate Kiddie Queen Showdown is a one-hour documentary special that will take a light-hearted look into the wonderful world of children's beauty pageants through the eyes of four, precocious six-year old girls. This documentary reveals the humor and love behind an American tradition; the always colorful characters on the pageant circuit; and the "sparkle" it takes to win a crown.
What We Will See:The girls preparing for and competing in two of the biggest pageant on the circuit Interviews with girls, mothers, a coach, pageant directors, spray tanner and "flipper" (fake teeth) maker, Narration by "The Voice of Pageants" himself, the fabulous Mr. Tim Glamorous crowning ceremonies Practice sessions at home and with the indomitable Miss Nikki, one of the best coaches on the pageant circuit The girls at home/at school in their normal environments, with family and friends, participating in extracurricular/sports activities Spray tanning sessions "Flipper" (fake teeth) fittings
Who We Will Meet:Joanna, 6 years old - The Reigning Champ Aleena, 6 years old - The Flirt Kynnedy, 6 years old - The Diva Jordan, 6 years old - The Longshot Terry - Aleena's mom / Spray tan artist Kim - Kynnedy's mom Eddie - Kynnedy's dad Charlene - Jordan's mom Laurie - Joanna's Mom Mr. Tim - Narrator / Pageant emcee Miss Nikki - Pageant coach Michael Booth - Director, America's Fabulous Faces Carol Stephens - Director, International Total Miss Ray Smith - Pageant judge / entertainer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Halloween Pet Peaves
I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old. A friend and mine thought it would be funny to go trick or treating. So we quickly assembled some pathetic costumes and visited perhaps a half dozen houses. We got several of the "Aren't you old for this?" questions, which were more disapproving than I realized at the time.
Nowadays, it seems like some teenagers trick or treat until their 18 years old. I wouldn't mind it so much, but teenagers tend not to be aware of others beyond them. (Granted, this is a problem for a lot of adults too.) So they don't realize their loud, boisterous behavior or aggressive shenanigans are frightening and disruptive to the young kids out. (I'm trying to sound old with using "nowadays" and "shenanigans." Does it work?)
In past years, the older kids often come out later, introducing another whole problem. People knocking on my door and ringing the bell until past 9:00 PM. I put out a note, but that's been largely ineffective. We'll see how late it goes this year. In the city I grew up in, they set an official trick-or-treat time. It ended around sunset. (Something like 4:00-6:30.) In this neighborhood, I don't think people get started until 6:30. I suggested something to my city council member last year about having official hours and he politely regarded it as the strangest, silliest idea he had heard in a long time.
Then there's all that darn candy. I'm not a candy person, so the sight of it makes me sick to my stomach. It's none too healthy either. It seems we have half a cabinet devoted to the musical chairs of Halloween, Christmas, Valentines, and Easter candy. The candy largely sits there until I notice that it's hardened to the point of being able to crumble concrete if applied with enough force. The stale candy is then quietly disposed to make room for the next holiday. I read recently that the U.S. produces and imports twice as much calories as the population needs. Clearly, we Americans do end up consuming a lot of these unnecessary calories; but I wonder what percentage of it is discarded or goes bad--and what percentage of that is Halloween candy. Just think, there must be tons and tons of candy corn alone that goes uneaten every year.
(Though, maybe it's recycled...)
Nowadays, it seems like some teenagers trick or treat until their 18 years old. I wouldn't mind it so much, but teenagers tend not to be aware of others beyond them. (Granted, this is a problem for a lot of adults too.) So they don't realize their loud, boisterous behavior or aggressive shenanigans are frightening and disruptive to the young kids out. (I'm trying to sound old with using "nowadays" and "shenanigans." Does it work?)
In past years, the older kids often come out later, introducing another whole problem. People knocking on my door and ringing the bell until past 9:00 PM. I put out a note, but that's been largely ineffective. We'll see how late it goes this year. In the city I grew up in, they set an official trick-or-treat time. It ended around sunset. (Something like 4:00-6:30.) In this neighborhood, I don't think people get started until 6:30. I suggested something to my city council member last year about having official hours and he politely regarded it as the strangest, silliest idea he had heard in a long time.
Then there's all that darn candy. I'm not a candy person, so the sight of it makes me sick to my stomach. It's none too healthy either. It seems we have half a cabinet devoted to the musical chairs of Halloween, Christmas, Valentines, and Easter candy. The candy largely sits there until I notice that it's hardened to the point of being able to crumble concrete if applied with enough force. The stale candy is then quietly disposed to make room for the next holiday. I read recently that the U.S. produces and imports twice as much calories as the population needs. Clearly, we Americans do end up consuming a lot of these unnecessary calories; but I wonder what percentage of it is discarded or goes bad--and what percentage of that is Halloween candy. Just think, there must be tons and tons of candy corn alone that goes uneaten every year.
(Though, maybe it's recycled...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
