ProWomanProLife

Wow. Just wow.

When parents say their children are the true source of happiness and fulfillment in their lives, they may be enacting a psychological defence to justify all the time, money and energy they put into the job, finds a new Canadian study.

The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, suggests parents are idealizing their role to cope with the downsides of being mom and dad — namely, how expensive it is to raise a family.

Not to mention the fact that parents idealize and overemphasize the joys of parenting sometimes to prevent themselves from strangling the apple of their eyes when they’ve stuffed something nasty down the toilet or scribbled all over the walls or peed on their car seat after swearing they didn’t have to go, or when they won’t stop asking one dumb question after another, or [supply your own list of examples here].

Parenting is WORK! It’s hard! And yes, it can get expensive. Nothing that’s worth doing is easy. People do what they can to get themselves through it. That’s because they’re human.

The parents of Joseph Maraachli could be told any day now that they no longer have power of attorney over their son. The London Health Sciences Centre, currently treating baby Joseph with life support, would then undoubtedly remove his breathing tube without his parents’ consent.

The medical opinion was that “ongoing life support and extension of treatment with tracheostomy is not in JM’s best interest given his current condition and ultimate prognosis,” according to the Consent and Capacity Board’s summary of the hearing.

“A tracheotomy would likely provide for a longer period of life, however, in our view would not result in improvement of well-being and could reduce quality of life,” Fraser told the board.

[...]

But as the family’s plight hit the media, strangers jumped in with offers of help. One of them was Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who helped the couple retain Mark Handelman, a Toronto lawyer who was once a vice-chairman of the Consent and Capacity Board.

[...]

Handelman hasn’t ruled out another legal appeal and is still trying to reach a compromise with the London Health Sciences Centre, keeping in mind that the hospital has contacted the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, which could come back with a decision on Joseph’s fate any day.

Yes, more of this please.

PICTURES OF KATLYN GUNN’S little girl line the walls, cover the fridge and top the tables. Her baby’s name — Kylie — loops across her inner wrist, a tattooed reminder when the child isn’t in her arms.

“She’s my everything,” the 18-year-old Dartmouth mother says. “If I didn’t have her, I don’t know where I’d be.”

Perhaps the same could be said of where she actually is — a unique apartment complex, once a 1950s parochial school, tucked away behind a Dartmouth church.

These days, it’s a sanctuary of sorts for young single mothers like Katlyn. And the staff of volunteers guides the girls to far greater life lessons. Like how to bond with their babies, how to balance their chequebooks, how to rise above the people or places or behaviours that have been keeping them down.

The non-profit Supportive Housing for Young Mothers (SHYM) opened this 14-unit dwelling in October 2007, after extensive renovations funded by the federal government.

The organization bought the building — owned by Halifax Regional Municipality and used as a storage facility — for $1.

Single mothers aged 16 to 24, mostly teenagers, live in most of the units, although two units are set aside for staff, one of whom is a permanent resident. The girls stay for up to two years, occasionally longer. Most have no place else to go.

Katlyn used to live in group homes.

Former resident Amanda Young used to be homeless, going from friend’s house to friend’s house — and spending a month at a Halifax shelter with her now 3½-year-old son Jordan — until she came here.

“For one reason or another, they’re not able to live with their families,” says SHYM executive director Wendy Fraser. “Those reasons can be anything from financial, to capacity of the family, to mental health or drug and alcohol issues.

“There’s not really any one scenario that would fit for any of them. The common denominator is that they were young and didn’t have family that was able to provide the support they needed.”

So says this piece. Add your grain of salt in the comments.

Despite the long push for more equality in parenting duties, new research suggests that mothers and fathers may actually get along better when parenting roles are divided along more traditional lines -that is, when fathers back off caregiving duties, such as feeding and bathing, and put more effort into playtime.

Researchers at Ohio State University looked at 112 middle-class couples with four-year-old children. Researchers looked at how involved fathers were in play activities and how much they took part in caregiving.

They also observed parents working together to help their children perform certain tasks, such as building toy structures or drawing pictures.

Families in which fathers were more involved in play activities had more of what researchers called supportive interaction between the two parents.

In contrast, more of what is described by researchers as “undermining behaviour” was seen among families in which fathers do more of the caregiving.

Undermining behaviour was seen in statements such as “that’s a stupid idea” made by one parent to another, or taking separate approaches to helping their children.

It is unclear why the study yielded the results it did, but Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, a professor of family science at Ohio State University and one of the study’s co-authors, suggested parents may be subconsciously bothered when parenting roles conflict with their pre-conceived ideas.

From the mother’s point of view, it could be a function of “maternal gatekeeping,” she said. “For mothers, maybe, it’s hard to give up some control to the father. That could be a total social effect, but there could some sort of biological underpinning to it.”

The sex of the child did make a difference in the study’s findings.

With boys, the father’s involvement in play proved to be even more beneficial to the parents’ relationship.

On the other hand, fathers’ caregiving did not have a notable negative effect when it came to girls.

“Maybe fathers just feel more confident to participate in rearing their sons,” Prof. Schoppe-Sullivan said.

“If the mother is doing something with the son that he doesn’t like, the father feels like he should say something, or he has more of a role. Whereas with girls, it may be that the father lets the mother do more what she feels is best.”

Anne-Marie Ambert, a retired professor of family studies at York University in Toronto, said it makes sense that relationships would be good between couples where the father plays with the kids.

“Mothers are probably very appreciative when fathers

play with children, because it does take the children off their backs,” she said.

“Also, it’s very good for the children; the children are more active.”

She said it is less clear why having fathers involved in the caregiving would cause problems.

“You would think that caregiving from the father would make mothers much happier.”

Since we all learn to parent from popular culture, I thought it important to spend a minute of introspection figuring if we are more like “Amy Chua” — of Tiger Mother fame — or “Betty Draper” — Mad Man Don Draper’s long suffering wife. (I’m still in season three so shush already!) 

Where are the positive parenting models asks  this piece from the Huffington Post. Well, I see plenty all around me. But I don’t spend my time in front of a TV screen. Maybe that’s why.

The invaluable folks at Mashable.com produced a handy list of parent-friendly social networks. How to find advice, parents who’ve been through what you’re now going (seems to be a lot of 2-year-olds refusing to eat out there…), or simply to find new friends who are up to their ears in crayons and diapers just like you.

The article Why Chinese Mothers are Superior has been a hot topic in Internet-parenting circles, blogs and news sites. The response to the article has been heated to say the least. I enjoyed reading this level-headed analysis for a change.

Anybody who has children in violin or competitive gymnastics  knows that Asian children are, on the whole, better. They are emotionally stronger under pressure and technically superior. To say that we, as “Western Parents,” are not ready to go to the lengths of hard work that “Chinese Mothers” put their children through is obvious. Equally obvious is that any skill requiring technique to succeed, like music or gymnastics, will be mastered through repetition. Practice makes perfect. It’s a  fact, not only a convenient catch phrase. Natural talent will only take you so far.

So what? If I have learned one thing in my parenting career, it’s that there is 24 hours in a day for everybody. The sun sets everyday for Western, Chinese or Questioning mothers. What you do with your 24 hours is up to you. I have accepted the fact that my children will never be as good as those who practice their music 4 hours a day; as rested as those who sleep 12 hours a night or as literate as those who read all the time. On the flip side, my children are more pleasant in society than those who read all the time; have more friends than those who practice their music all the time and are more helpful around the house than those who sleep all the time (chores oblige…). I have chosen to raise well-balanced children and steered away from extremes: they will never be known for their prowess at anything but they will likely grow to become competent, responsible, considerate, and generous men and women who are committed to live by principles of integrity (h/t to educator James Stenson for the catchy phrase).

That’s what I do with my 24 hours. How about you?

A recent blog post linking to a Slate article asks if parents’ brains are different than child-free brains. Off the top of my head, I would say that parents’ brains are non-existent. Actually, AWOL more accurately describes it: used to have a brain. In fact, I sometimes re-read things I wrote in University and am struck by how clever I was. Now, I stare at one of my children and call every other sibling’ name – including the dog — before I can remember the child’s name. A child I named myself!

One of my friends has a theory: what they call the placenta is really half of our brain. After six children, I’ll let you figure out how much grey matter I have left. But oddly enough, while I did lose short term memory and attention span with the “placenta” <wink, wink> I also lost the need for sleep and the ability to sweat the small stuff. Last night, at 2 am, when I was comforting my 2-year-old newborn baby, I marvelled at how relaxed she was, poured into my arms like warm milk; I marvelled at the complete trust she had in me, that the monsters of the night would not harm her if I only gave her a hug; I marvelled at the intelligent design of a child’s head, how the softness of the hair and the curve of the head was always a perfect fit for a mother’s neck and shoulder.

I don’t mind losing half of my brain as long as it is replaced with half of my heart.

I came across this blog post on the cost of staying home with young children, linking to another post on the cost of staying home with young children, referring to a series of articles on the cost… Not exactly a new topic, is it?

In the interest of full disclosure, I will mention that I sacrificed a potentially successful (I will never know) and highly paying (heck, why not?) legal career to stay home with my four oldest children. I returned to university when my fifth child was born and started working while pregnant with my sixth. I like to think of myself as a specialist in matters of family-work balance or (more often) lack thereof.

Let me make one thing clear to all the mothers, working or otherwise, thinking of “opting out:” this is not an economic investment. You will not be better off financially if you stay home with your children instead of working for remuneration. Kids don’t pay. If they do, it’s with your money. Anyway, they cost way more than they bring in. Until they grow into successful hockey players and hip hop artists and buy you a house, you will be out of pocket. And even then.  This is an investment in yourself, your family and your children, rooted in deep-set values and a sense of doing the right thing.

That being said, you cannot pay the rent with good intentions. If you decide to leave the work force to raise your children, someone will have to support you financially. This role generally falls on the other parent, often the father. And for each millionaire who can acrimoniously support his ex-wife to stay home with their children, I can name you 10 000 regular guys who cannot pay their rent as well as yours. As a result, your ability to stay home with your children hinges on a solid commitment between yourself — the caretaker — and the provider, also known as marriage (or something like that–civil union, nuptial agreement, memorandum of understanding, I’m not fussy.)

Women don’t find themselves suddenly “post-divorce, with two adolescent sons to care for, no job, no job prospects and a seriously dated resume that looks less-than-stellar in the middle of a recession” because they stayed home with their children but because of the breakdown of their marriage. Don’t get me wrong: my resume is less-than-stellar and I am working an entry-level job for an entry-level salary in my late-thirties.  Staying home for ten years has kept me from building-up my resume and networking in the workplace. However, it should be understood that the most important decisions of your parenting career are the myriad of choices, small and large, that build-up (or destroy) a solid commitment between you and your spouse (or whatever you call the person you reproduce with). A solid, respectful — ideally loving — relationship between parents is the bedrock of all parenting decisions. The rest, including the loss of income and work experience, will fall into place.

Whether or not women under the age of 18 should be required to inform their parents/guardians prior to an abortion is a controversial issue. People who oppose notification want young women to have the same rights and privacy as their older counterparts, and those who are for it fear that younger women may not be mentally prepared for the decision or could be victims of statutory rape going unnoticed or unreported by medical professionals. Either way, the State of Alaska has voted in favour of parental notification, which takes effect this Tuesday.

Ballot Measure 2, which passed, and is now the parental notification law, would require minors under the age of 18 to notify a parent or guardian before getting an abortion.

A third group joined in on arguments between the state and Planned Parenthood during Friday’s preliminary injunction hearing.

Planned Parenthood and the State of Alaska met for the first time in court, after a ballot initiative was passed in the August primary.

It’s not surprising that Planned Parenthood disagrees and has, of course, filed a complaint.

Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest and two doctors filed a complaint Friday in state court in Anchorage, the Anchorage Daily News reported. They contend the law treats teens who want to end their pregnancies differently from those who do not want abortions and are not required to tell their parents about their pregnancies.

The law is so vague, physicians are likely to have trouble determining when they are in compliance, the doctors said. The law, approved by the voters in August, allows teens to avoid the consent requirement by going before a judge or presenting doctors with a notarized affidavit of parental abuse.

Firstly, young women who are pregnant will, eventually, find it very difficult to keep their pregnancies secret from mom and dad. Secondly, there’s no grey area here. Women with affidavits or judge approval don’t need consent, that’s it. If a doctor finds this too confusing, perhaps they’re not mentally sound enough to practice medicine in the first place.

A few months ago, when the State of Nebraska voted for more in-depth screening for abortion procedures, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed a lawsuit, and the state couldn’t financially handle the fight. Alaska, however, with its annually granted permanent funds and  strong oil and fishing industry, has a lot more money.