Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Where Are June and Ward Cleaver When We Need Them?

This morning I listened to a discussion about the Massachusetts bullying case that is in the news. The cable news commentator and the child psychology expert from Harvard had an interchange for about ten minutes wherein they mentioned school responsibilities and on-line social communities. I waited and listened carefully and was disappointed because at no time did either person mention parental responsibility.

As I mentioned before on this blog several times, I believe there shouldn't be any discussion about children without highlighting parental involvement. Yet it seems a rare occasion that parents are acknowledge as part of children's environmental system. Schools seem to be the scapegoat for everything while parents have decreasing responsibility. Gone are the days when a teacher/principal would call a parent and the parent would work out a problem with another parent. I simply don't understand why parents are no longer responsible for the behavior of their children.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Protecting Children from Abuse (Part 1)



Currently, the Vatican is being asked to explain why the Pope didn't weed out a child predator from the priesthood when the Pope was a bishop. I wasn't surprised to learn of this situation since I read Marci A. Hamilton's book, pictured above, last year. Prior to reading the book I was totally unaware how different systems dealt with child abusers. Now I interpret news of child abuse from a new light.

For example, here are a few revelations for me from Hamilton's book:

A key part of processing child sex abuse cases is the statues of limitation (SOL) to file a case; however, "the SOLs are arbitrary rules, and they stop litigants even when survivors have strong and just claims." (p. 3)

"Child sex abuse is a massive national problem; at least 25 percent of girls and 20 percent of boys are sexually abused." (p. 4)

"There was a time when child abusers were referred to as 'Stranger Danger.' Most of use lived in an unfortunately mytical world where 'incest' was only a word in the dictionary, and sexual perverts were just rumors: lurking strangers in trench coats, but not 'nice' dads, teachers, or priests. To stay safe, [a child] simply had to refuse candy or car rides from 'Mr. Stranger Danger.' In reality, though [a child] is most at risk from those who care for her and make friends with her, from parents to chatroom buddy who is in fact a predator." (p. 5)

Monday, March 22, 2010

Toy Story



This story might cause you to chuckle. The BBC on line has a story about a California couple who boasted about selling stolen toys and ended up in jail.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Sins (?) of the Mothers

The title of this blog entry came to mind from an old Rod Serling Night Gallery episode titled Sins of the Father wherein a son had to physically eat the sins of his father. I watched the episode nearly 40 years ago and am still haunted by the idea. In any case, today I'm referring to the story of a Catholic school expelling a child because the mothers are a lesbian couple.

I'm not really surprise of the choice made by the Catholic school. Nearly ten years ago I taught an Early Childhood Education Seminar course at a junior college, and to generate a lively discussion, I asked the students, mostly home childcare providers, whether they would care for children of same-sex couples. Overwhelmingly, the answer was negative. I was perplexed at the time since I can't figure out why the child should suffer.

As to the Catholic school's decision, I'm wonder what Marci a. Hamilton, who wrote Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children. Hamilton has strong opinions about the Catholic's church and the treatment of child abusers. For months since reading her book, I've been meaning to highlight some of her thoughts about our failure to protect children. Soon I'll present some of those thoughts.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Children in TV Commercials

I'm beginning to wonder whether anyone is monitoring how children are being used in TV commercials. I know that at least in the film industry laws are strictly enforced about how children are to be used. Maybe on TV not so much.

These thoughts have been brewing with me for a while now since noticing commercials for a bank that uses children as the butt for its jokes and advertisement. In this particular bank's first commercial that I noticed, a man asks a little girl, who has brown hair and non-white features, if she wanted a pony. She replies yes, and he gives her a cutout of a horse. The little girl is delighted. The man then asks a little girl with blond hair, seated next to the first little girl, if she wants a pony. The blond little girl replies yes. The man makes a clicking sound with his mouth, and a real pony enters the scene. He then gives the pony to the blond little girl. The first little girl then remarks that the man didn't say she could have a real pony, and he replies that she didn't asked. The first little girl gives the man a mean look and even intensifies the mean look. I got the impression that she was thinking she wish she were big enough to kick his butt.

That commercial annoys me so much that I now change the channel from it and would never consider using that bank. To further irk me, the bank has expanded its use of children in other commercials with the same tactic of tricking young children to make a point about the bank's trustworthiness.

Something about this makes me think that this bank as others are socially irresponsible as well as tone deaf. I've had only a few marketing courses, but I don't think I would ever brand myself or my products using children in a negative light. Just sayin'...