Posted by: Lauren Young on November 09
The horrific killings at Fort Hood last week have dominated the headlines, and it's been hard to shield my five-year-old son from the news. Even so, I wonder is it a good idea to protect your children from what's happening in the world around us? I asked Suri Roth, a former teacher and young mom to two daughters, for her thoughts. Roth is the founder of the country’s only national newspaper for kids, The Current Events.
As a parent, how do you determine if an event is age-appropriate to discuss, such as the death of a major figure?
It really depends on the child. Is the child aware of this event? In some instances these events pass right over children and they have no interest in knowing. It's important to determine if the child really wants or needs this information. It is certainly less complicated to deal as a parent on a one-to-one basis with children about a tragic event such as death. Children are most affected by these events if they had a relationship with the deceased. Some children find it comforting to know that the person or people involved not in pain anymore. I have found that with my own kids the primary concern is the "pain factor," and "can it happen to us?"
I like to draw on what Kathie Scobee Fulgham, daughter of an astronaut who died on the Space Shuttle Challenger, shared with other children whose parents had died in terrorist attacks or space disasters. Kathie describes seeing the shuttle explode over and over again on the TV screen and virtually seeing her dad dying over and over again. She said that each time brought more confusion and pain.
Today Katie shares with children of disaster victims that "the same way your brain doesn't register immediately when you break your arm," the victims don't feel the pain and don't know what is happening. I talk to my children about this concept and find it very helpful.
However, covering bad news, such as fire or terrorist attack, tends to dominate the headlines. Should we shield our children from those discussions?
We can't - in most instances, that is. I would certainly not draw attention or describe the details of events that can be frightening to children. Children pick up on what's happening around them and sense tense situations. It is best to talk to them about the situation so that they feel secure that they are getting the information from a safe, age-appropriate resource and that they don't have to look for answers on their own, or try to make sense of events on their own, which often leads to misunderstanding and unnecessary fears and anxiety.
The point is to give them the information that they need and not extraneous information that can be harmful. I often focus on what is being done to prevent a given situation from happening in the future, and what steps we are taking as a family and a nation to prevent this from reoccurring. For example, pointing out the volunteerism that took place after 9/11 gives children a sense of "we're not alone" and helps them shift their focus to positive, and in some instances courageous, actions taken by fellow Americans.
What kinds of news events spark the best conversations with your own family? Sports? Local? National?
I think it is my passion for imparting knowledge that drives these discussions in our home. It's my tone, my attitude such as: "I came across an amazing news item today...it was about such-and such," and my children are all ears! Then come the follow-up questions which lead us to explore the topic on a deeper level.
How can schools do a better job of incorporating current events into the curriculum?
In the Information Age, where we are today, current events are a crucial part of education. Textbooks are typically a few years behind and in many instances the information is outdated. If educators make an effort to tie in the news across the curriculum, learning comes alive and becomes relevant.
I can't think of a better way to spark students' interest in government than to present the headlines of what's happening in our government now. The same applies to all content areas. For example: "What is currently happening in the region being discussed in your history class?" "Are there any scientific studies being conducted in the field your science class is exploring now?" By incorporating current events in classrooms we provide our students with a foundation for lifelong learning that they can apply to their everyday lives.
What's the best way to get kids engaged in the world around them?
Tune into their natural curiosity. What are their interests? Build on them!
For more tips on talking to children about bad news, check out this article from the Portland Examiner.
Posted by: Karyn McCormack on October 30
This item was written by Savita Iyer-Ahrestani. She is a freelance financial journalist who guest blogs for Working Parents.
This is my family's first Halloween in suburban USA (we moved here after four years living in Europe and Asia, prior to which we were in New York) and the one question everyone has for us is: "Did you celebrate Halloween in the other countries you lived in?"
"Yes," I say, "we did," because Halloween has been a big deal every place we have lived in or been to, including the small Spanish town of Salobrena, where we happened to be at this time last year, and where during the sacred siesta hour, the only store open was the one selling Halloween costumes.
I first celebrated Halloween 35 years ago as a second grader at the International School of Geneva, Switzerland. I remember quite clearly a class party organized by an enterprising American mother, and a rather itchy black skirt and turtleneck top my mother put on me for a witch’s costume. We bobbed for apples and I tasted candy corn for the very first time.
Continue reading "The Internationalization of Halloween"
Posted by: Cathy Arnst on October 30
Parents and pregnant women around the country are rightfully disturbed about the shortage of vaccine for H1N1. The nightly news is filled with stories about people lining up to get the few supplies they can find, and panicky parents are scouring their regions for the vaccine, fearful that their child might end up hooked up to a ventilator otherwise.
Nevertheless, these fears about swine flu, or even garden-variety seasonal flu, have not kept many parents from refusing to subject themselves or their child to any vaccine containing the preservative thimerosal. This despite zero evidence that there is any danger at all from the additive. Instead, there is extensive safety data that shows that the vaccine is far safer than the flu itself, and thimerosal makes it even safer:
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says the only danger is "a myth that has been propagated." Fauci says the real danger is not using the preservative. Thimerosal actually protects the vial that is stuck several times with a needle.
Thimerosal fear is clearly widespread. A recent CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans say they are not very likely to get the swine flu vaccine, and more than a third of parents are not likely to vaccinate their children--even though three out of four respondents viewed the H1N1 virus as a serious problem. New York State recently dropped a requirement that all health workers get the H1N1 vaccine after outcries from some who feared it might be unsafe--and these are supposedly educated health care consumers.
These unfounded fears could make a bad situation much worse. The U.S. is already suffering from a refusal to use adjuvants that could double the potency of the H1N1 vaccine, thus stretching available supplies. Adjuvants are chemical compounds, usually oil and water emulsions, that boost the human body's immune response to the vaccine's active ingredient so more doses can be made. There is 12 years of safety data behind them, and they are widely used in Europe, where there is no vaccine shortage as a result. But the fear in the U.S. of vaccine additives, and even vaccines themselves, has kept the FDA from approving any adjuvant-laced flu vaccine, because it might make the populace even more reluctant to get the shots.
Before refusing a vaccine containing thimerosal, parents should keep in mind that 36,000 people die in the U.S. every year from seasonal flu. Since April, about 1,000 people have died from swine flu, including 96 children. Deaths from the swine flu vaccine: 0. If you're worried about the vaccine, or H1N1, take the time to educate yourself about the flu, the vaccine, and the risk factors for both.
Here's some links, and excerpts:
From the surgeon general's official www.flu.gov site, dispelling myths about thimerosal:
Thimerosal is a very effective preservative that has been used since the 1930s to prevent contamination in some multi-dose vials of vaccines. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. The 2009-H1N1 influenza vaccines that FDA has licensed will be manufactured in several formulations, including pre-filled, single-dose syringes and nasal sprayers along with multi-dose vials. Only multi-dose vials of seasonal influenza vaccine will contain thimerosal to prevent potential contamination after the vial is opened.
From the CDC's H1N1 information site:
Thimerosal is an important preservative that protects vaccines against potential microbial contamination, which may occur in opened multi-dose vials of vaccine. Such contamination could cause serious illness or death. Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.
Three leading federal agencies (CDC, FDA, and NIH) have reviewed the published research on thimerosal and found it to be a safe product to use in vaccines. Three independent organizations [The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] reviewed the published research and also found thimerosal to be a safe product to use in vaccines. The scientific community supports the use of thimerosal in influenza vaccines.
I admit to being on a bit of a crusade against the anti-vaccine forces. Here's a link to an earlier post (some might say rant) of mine on the issue.For a well-researched article dissecting the anti-vaccine hysteria, read Wired's lastest cover story, "An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All" (better, yet, buy the magazine, the whole package is very good).If you want some really detailed insight into the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines from someone with the credentials to know, head over to the excellent blog Science-Based Medicine and read Flu Vaccine Efficacy by Dr. Mark Crislip, an infectious disease specialist in Portland, Oregon.
Posted by: Lauren Young on October 28
No wonder they call it the boob tube.
Children spend more than an entire day in front of the television each week. According to research from media tracking firm Nielsen, television viewing among children is now at an eight-year high.
Kids aged 2-5 now spend more than 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen. The older segment of that group (ages 6-11) spend a little less time, about 28 hours per week watching TV, due in part that they are more likely to be attending school for longer hours.
Mea culpa. As a working parent, I can attest that I have used the television as a babysitter when I need to get work done. In fact, right before I read about this study, I actually made mental note to tape (a.k.a. Tivo) a show my son has been bugging me to watch because I have an evening conference call next week. Incidentally, Nielsen says kids are watching taped shows more often.
I know I'm not alone. Many of my friends and coworkers admit that they use TV to keep their kids entertained—and, most important—quiet while they try to answer emails, talk to their customers and colleagues, write reports, and whatever else needs to be done when they are out of the office.
But I do worry about my son's consumption of television, especially when he starts humming the theme song from Jeopardy, or suggesting vacation locations. "Call your travel agent," he has told me several times. (Thankfully, he hasn't recommended Viagra yet.)
Do you use the television as a babysitter to help you get the work done? Do you feel guilty about it? Also, if anyone has good ideas to keep kids engaged and quiet that do not involve a DVD when work calls, please let me know.
Posted by: Cathy Arnst on October 25
A bit of a brouhaha erupted recently over basketball games at the White House. Seems President Barack Obama likes to unwind over a friendly game of basketball, and invites a rotating squad of high-level Washington power brokers to join him on the White House court. All of them, of course, are men, a growing point of contention in the feminist blogosphere.
I can already hear the groans from many readers, who likely think this is just a bunch of angry women getting their knickers in a twist over some minor male/female difference. I might have thought the same, except for an image that stopped me short while reading a front page story in the New York Times about the controversy, headlined "Man's World At White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say."
First of all, that headline is a tad misleading. It is the president's male aides who see "no harm, no foul." Five women who work in the White House, all of whom asked for anonymity because of concerns of appearing "publicly critical" (i.e., not good girls?) responded with eye rolls and complaints when asked about the sports-heavy atmosphere in the White House. But what I found most disturbing was the mention of an off-the-record meeting that White House communications director Anita Dunn recently hosted for women reporters--over chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies!!!
Well isn't that sweet? The gals got together over cookies--homemade, I hope, by one of the attendees--while the guys solved the world's problems on the playing field.
I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I have no interest in professional sports. This failure on my part has often left me looking on with a weak smile while the editors I've worked for throughout my career (virtually all men) talked about last night's game. I despise football (the remnants of growing up in a football-mad small town), I couldn't care less about March Madness, and though I do pay slight attention to the Red Sox, I am not all that interested in the World Series when they aren't in it. Nor do I know the first thing about tennis or golf. Has that hurt my career? Who knows? I'm guessing that there are plenty of work environments where it would.
I realize that women have come a long, long way over the last 50 years, as well-documented in the excellent new book When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 To the Present, by New York Times columnist Gail Collins. From her publisher:
The interviews with women who have lived through these transformative years include an advertising executive in the 60s who was not allowed to attend board meetings that took place in the all-male dining room; and an airline stewardess who remembered being required to bend over to light her passengers' cigars on the men-only 'Executive Flight' from New York to Chicago. We, too, may have forgotten the enormous strides made by women since 1960--and the rare setbacks. "Hell yes, we have a quota [7%]" said a medical school dean in 1961. "We do keep women out, when we can." At a pre-graduation party at Barnard College, "they handed corsages to the girls who were engaged and lemons to those who weren't." In 1960, two-thirds of women 18-60 surveyed by Gallup didn't approve of the idea of a female president. Until 1972, no woman ran in the Boston Marathon, the year when Title IX passed, requiring parity for boys and girls in school athletic programs (and also the year after Nixon vetoed the childcare legislation passed by congress).
All of that sounds like ancient history now. It's hard to believe that just a few decades ago women weren't allowed to have a credit card or mortgage in their own name, much less hold an executive position or run for president. But it's not all that ancient. Women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men in similar jobs, with similar levels of education and experience. In business, politics, journalism and law women occupy only 20% of leadership positions (and much lower in Fortune 500 firms), despite making up 48% of the workforce. I don't know if playing basketball with the residents of the executive suite would change any of that. But it might be nice to be invited. Or have the men join us for cookies.
I'd love to hear from women, and men, out there in the working world: Is facility with a ball, or knowledge of last night's scores, an important career booster in your office?
