The words we use

True, This! - 

Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! - itself a nothing! -
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Caesars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! - Take away the sword -
States can be saved without it!

~Edward Bulwer-Lytton 

Sticks and stones may break my bones

But names will never hurt me.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can also hurt me.
Stones and sticks break only skin, while words are ghosts that haunt me.
Slant and curved the word-swords fall, it pierces and sticks inside me.
Bats and bricks may ache through bones, but words can mortify me.
Pain from words has left its' scar, on mind and hear that's tender.
Cuts and bruises have not healed, it's words that I remember.

~Ruby Redfort

How many times growing up did you hear, or say "sticks and stones......words/names will never hurt me", all the while knowing that, in truth, those words did hurt. Getting hit hurts, it leaves a mark, it can make you bleed, but these things pass with time. A stubbed toe hurts horribly, but ice and a bandage makes it better. A hug, a kind word from a loved one, these things make the pain go away. Harsh words, screams of rage, words spoken in anger, these leave long lasting scars. They leave deep scars. They affect us at our very core. And yet, as adults and as parents we often find ourselves, without thought, using words, or language, or a tone of voice that scars our children. Many of us don't do it intentionally, we get caught up in the moment, we don't think that our children are paying that much attention to us. But they are. 

When we sit and scream at the television, the news we're watching, or the sports game, our children listen. They learn. When we talk about our ex's and how much we hate them, our children listen. Every word we speak around our children teaches them something. Especially at an early age. If you say it, they hear it, if they hear it, they learn it. And then they repeat it. And that is when you have to stop and think, why did my child just use that word? Why does my child think it's OK to say such a thing. Oh, because I do. You are the very first teacher your child is exposed to. They learn from us, they emulate us, in the end, they end up much like us. 

I have, on many occasions, become angry or annoyed at my child for the things they have said. And then I realize that they are only repeating what I have said. How can we expect a young child to know that it isn't acceptable? At the age of 5 or 7 or even 15, if they see the parent do it, time and time again, how can they be expected to not? And how can they then take the parent seriously when we tell them not to do it? Do as I say, not as I do only works in theory. And it goes further that harsh words. It is those words and phrases we use every day when talking with our children. There are some that say it's best to talk with your child as closer to a peer than a child, I'm certainly not one of those people. Children are children (obviously), but they are much smarter than we often give them credit for. Take the following phrases for example. I'm quite guilty of using each and every one. And I don't stop often enough to ponder what it is my children actually hear when I do.

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

~~~Ephesians 4:29

What is your problem? I have asked this of my children, my wife, my friends. I've never really stopped to think just how aggressive this question is. Or that it's accusing, somewhat demeaning and completely rhetorical. I don't want a response. I certainly don't expect one. It's nothing more than a nicer way of yelling. Nice as it may be on the surface, it has the same end result. 

I'm not one for the touchy, politically correct "new age" approach. I actually rather loath it. However, there are much better ways to say what you're thinking and what you're feeling than simply yelling "what is your problem!". What about asking if something is bothering them? You know that there is a problem, or you wouldn't have demanded to know what it is, so ask them nicely. Ask them if they want to talk about it, or need to talk about. Show them how to communicate and express their feelings in a positive way.

Calm down! Umm, OK parental unit, way to lead by example here. Seriously. If you, the adult, the parent, the person in charge, can't remain calm how in the world to expect the child to do it? How many years of experience controlling yourself do you have? And them? Think about what your body language, your words and your tone of voice are conveying to your child. You are asking them to do what you aren't able. Imagine if your child looked at you and said "you first". Or "show me how". Because that is what you're doing, you're showing them exactly the opposite of what you're asking them. Give them a positive reason to calm down. Something along the lines of, "when you calm down we'll finish .......".

Why do you always do that? How is a child supposed to answer this question? Perhaps you're asking the wrong person. Ask yourself what would cause your child to repeat the same behavior, with the same negative outcome, over and over again. How did they learn this behavior? If they keep doing something they know the parent doesn't approve of, they're doing for a reason. 

And there's my personal favorite. One I find myself using more and more often without really thinking about it. In fact I'm pretty sure I used this phrase once or twice today. 

How many times have I told you? This can be followed by a few different words. I'm sure you know the ones I'm talking about. Not to, how to, to _________. You may as well tell your child they're stupid. It amounts to the same thing. You're telling them that there really must be something wrong with them. And it's another rhetorical question that you really don't want an answer to. My daughter once came back with "I don't know, like a trillion". I'm trying a different approach. Something similar to "What did I tell you the last time you did that?" It's a reminder. It's a direct question. And most importantly it's a question with an answer. Do you honestly expect your young child to remember everything you say to them? Look at how busy they are, how fast they go. It takes time, patience and repetition for them to learn. 

I have learned a method I find quite useful. Not just with my children, but people. When I get frustrated, angry, hostile, I hit the pause button. I close my mouth. I stop typing. I take a moment, or 5. I think. It is, ironically enough, called the STOP method.

Stop when you realizing your actions aren't appropriate 

Take a breath (or 5 or 500)

Observe what is going on, with your body, your reactions, the situation

Proceed, also uses as Plan

When you are about to use one of these phrases with your child use the word "STOP". You can do this by hearing your inner voice say "stop" or you can envision a big red stop sign. Just as you automatically break for a stop sign when driving, you can learn to put an automatic brake on your angry behavior. After you have stopped or interrupted an angry response, think about calming down to analyze the frustrating situation and think your coping thoughts. Think about how your response is going to alter your child's way of thinking. Observe and analyze the life problem and back away from your angry thoughts and behavior. After you have done all this then you can proceed, you can plan you response. 

Much of parenting seems to be anger management. Anger and frustration. Much too often we react without first thinking about how our reaction will affect our child. The words we choose, the tones we use, the way we react, our children pick up on all of it, they learn form us and in the end, they tend to emulate us. 

"A man is about as big as the things that him him angry."

~Winston Churchill

"Anger blows out the lamp of the mind."

~Robert Green Ingersoll

"Anger is never without reason, but seldom a good one"

~Benjamin Franklin

If you vocalize your negativity, or even slightly frown when you say “no,” more stress chemicals will be released, not only in your brain, but in the listener’s brain as well. The listener will experience increased anxiety and irritability, thus undermining cooperation and trust. In fact, just hanging around negative people will make you more prejudiced toward others!

~HaririAR, Tessitore A, Mattay VS, Fera F,Weinberger DR.. The amygdala response to emotional stimuli: a comparison of faces and scenes. Neuroimage. 2002 Sep;17(1):317-23.

"Even words that don’t have a negative connotation – such as “You’re the smart one” – can have an adverse effect on children. It’s a lot of pressure that may be put on a child that is inadvertently too much for them, but they still strive to live up to that label, because every child, remember, at the end of the day, wants to make their parent happy and love them and accept them and do what’s right, believe it or not. When you pick out one attribute, such as, “You’re pretty," or “You’re the smart one," you also derail your child from thinking of themselves of other possibilities. So even though these comments may be a good strength-based comment, there are a whole other array of things you can say to your child that are all strength-based."

~~~~Dr. Charles Sophy, child psychologist

I often hear it said that hate, racism, bigotry and such are learned behaviors. And they are. A child isn't born a racist. A child is born a misogynist, or a bigot. They learn this from the adults in their life. And the usually learn it early. A child that is never taught to hate a person because of their sexuality with not suddenly decide to do so as an adult. A child that is taught to communicate, to express their feelings, to control and deal with their anger, will not suddenly forget how to do these things later in life. The opposite isn't so true. If we don't teach our children to think before they speak, who will? If we don't teach our children that hate and bigotry aren't OK, who will? Remember that the words you speak become the actions they live. How many children become bullies because they felt bullied by a parent? If you call a child stupid, or bad, or inept or anything else negative enough times they believe it. And then they become it. These children have no sense of boundaries and that allows others to abuse and take advantage of them. Sociological and psychological studies have shown that children with low self-esteem are easy prey to bullies. Many others become underachievers because they believe that they are not smart enough and have nothing to contribute in the academic setting. Of course, many more become bullies because they want to exert and prove to others that they have power but inwardly they know that they are quite insignificant.

Additional reading and sources:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/words-can-change-your-brain/201207/the-most-dangerous-word-in-the-world

Fathers and the film industry

"The combination of two factors make this report important reading for anyone concerned about the state of American society," said NFI President Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "One, nearly 40 percent of America's children do not live with their biological father and two, television is arguably America's most powerful cultural institution. "Thus," he continued, "for millions of American children, the only portrayal of what a father is and how a father should behave is found on television."
I have a 7 year old daughter. She, like many children these days, watches entirely too much television. The Nielsen Co. reported that in 2009, children’s television viewing had reached an eight-year high. Children ages 2 to 5 watched TV for more than 32 hours a week. Kids ages 6 to 8 spent 28 hours per week in front of the tube, most likely because they were in school, explains Nielsen. The Kaiser Family Foundation also conducted research on the media habits of children ages 8 to 18. Kaiser found that on average, this age group spends 4½ hours each day watching TV in various forms, including on their mobile phones and the Internet.

• Children who consistently spend more than 4 hours per day watching TV are more likely to be overweight.
• Kids who view violent acts are more likely to show aggressive behavior but also fear that the world is scary and that something bad will happen to them.
• TV characters often depict risky behaviors, such as smoking and drinking, and also reinforce gender-role and racial stereotypes.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html

But there's more to it than that. Have you ever paid attention to the shows your children or grandchildren, or children in general watch? Sit down some day and watch the Disney channel for a few hours. You are sure to notice something. That something is how fathers are are depicted in almost every show, if they're seen at all. Look at the average sitcom father. We have gone from Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable, a family doctor, a black man, a positive influence in the lives of many real word fathers and young children, to not even in the picture. And that brings me back to the Disney channel. 

Show example number one, "Jessie". The series follows Jessie Prescott (Debby Ryan), a young woman from a small town with big dreams who, rebelling against her strict father, decides to leave the military base in Texas where she grew up and moves to New York City. She accepts a job as a nanny and moves into a multi-million dollar penthouse on the Upper West Side with the wealthy Ross family which includes: jet-setting parents, Morgan and Christina; and their four rambunctious children: Emma Ross, Luke Ross, Ravi Ross and Zuri Ross. Assisting her are Bertram Winkle, the family's lazy and sarcastic butler, and Tony, the building's 20-year-old doorman.

So we have dad number one, Jessie's father. Overbearing, strict, in the military, completely out of the picture. Unless we here some story about what a hard ass he was. Wealthy Ross family parents? Wandering the world while a nanny raises their (oh, how heartwarming) mostly adopted family. OK, let's stop right there for a moment. There is no positive parental role model in this show aimed directly at children. None. Of course that's fine because hey, they're rich and rich people have things to do. So, then we have Bertram, a portly old fellow who, instead of being made a positive male role model (why would we do that) is written as a whiny, lazy buffoon. The young man working the front desk? Incompetent moron. In fact, if it has a penis it made to look like a complete idiot. Except for Ravi, because he's not white, but they still hit pretty much every possible racial stereotype with his character. 

Show example number two, "Austin & Ally". Ally Dawson is an aspiring singer-songwriter with extreme stage fright who works at her father's instrument shop at the Mall of Miami. Austin Moon is a singer. Ally writes the songs, Austin sings them, Trish de la Rosa is Austin's manager and personal stylist, and Austin's friend Dez Wade is their producer and music video maker.

I have yet to see a responsible adult character spend more than 5 minutes on this show. It's dad's store, yet no dad. Hell, no real adult. The few male characters are, again, written to look like clowns. Positive male role models here? Zero. 

So who do we have on television to act as a reminder of what a father is supposed to be like? Let's see. Peter Griffin from Family Guy. Here's a description of Peter I found online. When he's not out causing mayhem, he can be found at home farting in Meg's face, avoiding Chris's hunger for fatherly attention, flat out ignoring Stewie's existence, and generally driving his family insane. Awesome. Frank Reynolds, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Frank Reynolds may legally be a father, but he did everything to avoid acting like one. In fact, he made a point of buying the gifts his children wanted for Christmas and keeping them for himself. If that wasn't bad enough, he forced his son into a sex ring and pretended to be engaged to his own daughter. At least this is one TV dad that had a fitting end: His children hated him so much that his tombstone read: "He was a dick of a father." What happened to dads like John Walton? Or Charles Ingalls? Or Howard Cunningham for Happy Days? How did we go from that to Homer Simpson? But I digress.

These are the shows that our children watch as they grow up. Like it or not, television and other forms of media have a huge influence on how children think. On what they think. That's why companies spend billions every year on advertising. Imagine being a young boy, growing up in a house where dad is around much, or at all. Or he's just not involved when he is. And you watch television, seeing these men portrayed at buffoons, incompetent, stupid. How long before you're convinced that dads are idiots. Dads are good for making money for the wife and kids to spend and holding down the couch. When did the television fathers go from the likes of Danny Tanner from full house, to an idiot like that depicted by Ray Ramano? And what influence has that had on children growing up watching it?

Women complain about being depicted as sex symbols, and that is somewhat true, but look at how men are portrayed. Not just in movies, but television shows, "reality" television, music videos and even books. We are apparently good for taking out the trash, if we remember (because we're really really dumb) or if we can stop watching sports long enough. We work, to pay the wife and kids. We always defer to the mother in matters of parenting, because we're incompetent. If we are portrayed in a "positive" manner it's because we're blowing shit up, being manly men and killing people. Watch any of the "Die Hard" series. Several movies with Arnold S. that come to mind. So, you can be a shitty father who makes up with his children after saving the world, or you can be a bumbling idiot. This is what our children spend 30 hours a week watching and learning. If dad isn't there to be a positive role model and show them how to do it right, who is?

Despite all their efforts, however, dads have to sit back and watch themselves being endlessly lampooned on television as not much more than lazy sperm donors. Half of them complained that too many families on television were either shown with feckless fathers - or with no father figures in sight at all.  The insidious message that men are witless and pointless, mere playthings to be stamped on by the entire family is broadcast over and over again.

...........
Yet their ineptitude is unrelenting. At home it is always the mother figure - long-suffering Mummy Pig, Wilma or Marge - who gallop to the rescue to fix everything he messes up. The more this image takes hold, the more the role of the father in the family unit is marginalized and the more hurtful this will be to society.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2340677/Why-does-TV-portray-dad-dimwit.html#ixzz3BvOrZ26W 

Matt Campbell, an administrator for Mensactivism.org, expressed his own concerns about the consequences of such media content.

"Negative general portrayals of fathers/husbands/men in TV commercials and sit-coms contributes to a decrease in men wanting to assume those roles in society, and creates the impression among others that men need not assume such roles anyways, that such simply aren't important."

"They're kind of stupid and they're not needed," Gurian said regarding fathers in the media. "So the message to the young people is that males are not needed, or Dad is not needed. That's dangerous because it's going to set up guys who will not take care of their kids, and kids who will not respect or understand the males and women who will say, 'Ah, they're not needed anyway.'"

Read more: 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574236/Dumbing-down-Dad-How-media-present-husbands-fathers-as-useless.html?pg=all

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fatherhood-group-studies-tvs-portrayal-male-figures

Paternity leave

63% of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child

California in 2002 and became the first state to guarantee six weeks of paid leave for mothers and fathers. 62 countries, other than the United States, require paid paternity leave. Russia, Rwanda, Cambodia? Even Guatemala requires it. But not the U.S.

"We're so indoctrinated that work is our life -- we really struggle with that," says Randell Turner, Ph.D., vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative (www.fatherhood.org), a non-profit group dedicated to promoting the importance of fathers.

When a sports player had the audacity to miss a couple games to be with his wife during child birth, and the child after, he was ridiculed mercilessly. It because quite evident that much of our society felt a game was much more important than the well being of wife and child, was certainly more important than the chance to bond with a child. Get back you to work!

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows parents and other caretakers to take up to 12 weeks unpaid, job-protected leave if they work at a company with 50 or more employees. A large number of workers aren't covered under this act, since only about half of U.S. workers are employed by a company of 50 or more people. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, only 22 percent of employees who are eligible for leave under the FMLA take it, mainly because most can't afford the loss of income

In certain conditions, employees or employers may choose to substitute accrued paid leave (such as sick or vacation leave) to cover some or all of the FMLA leave. However, an employee is not guaranteed this-- paid leave is determined by the terms and conditions of the employer's normal leave policy. Therefore, some employers have the right to prohibit men from converting accrued paid sick leave to paternity leave.

Timberland is one of only a handful of companies offering paid paternity-leave. IBM and Microsoft also give dads two weeks; Merrill Lynch, the insurance giant, offers one week.

"The trend is in the right direction but still very small," says Professor Malin, who has tracked paternity leave policies and practices since the 1980s. His research shows that ongoing "workplace hostility" at many companies still prevents men from actually using the benefit.

"It must be paid and it must be supported at the top," he says. "If men believe (the leave policy) shouldn't be used or 'there goes my career,' they won't take it."
~http://life.familyeducation.com/working-parents/fathers-day/36483.html#ixzz3Buo3vf5J

So, if you're lucky enough to work for a large enough company, and you're lucky enough to have scratched together a little money, then you can take some time off to be with your brand new child. If not, get back to work. How many employers would tell that to a new mother? Hey, congrats on popping out the bambino, now get back at it. And that is assuming that you haven't been convinced by society and your coworkers that you're somehow less of a man if you do take the time off.

And what of the "low income" fathers who can barely afford to pay the bills? They certainly can't afford time off to bond with their child. And this all assuming that their exists a healthy relationship between both parents. That isn't always true. How is a father to bond with his child if not allowed to see them until after the court demands it, or until after the paternity test comes back? We have the option to blame, to ridicule, to second guess the parents, or we can help the father. We can take the time and effort to remind the father of every bad choice he's made, or we help him. 

And even if you are lucky enough to work for a company with paid leave, or you work for the federal government, a state or local government, or any company that has 50 or more employees working within 75 miles of your workplace. AND you've worked for your employer for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours during the previous year (which comes out to 25 hours per week for 500 weeks) then, and only then you qualify for 12 weeks UNPAID family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. 

Of course there are catches even then. Because we all know that work, profit, money and the well being of our employers is far more important than that of children.  You can be legally denied this leave if you're in the highest paid 10 percent of wage earners at your company and they can show that your absence would cause substantial economic harm to the organization.  If you and your partner both work for the same company you're only entitled to a combined 12 weeks of parental leave between the two of you. Not true if you work for two different companies. The dollar is far more important to our culture than the family. And we wonder why there are so many issues. 

The what?

The plight of the American father. Have you ever thought about? We focus on women and their issues. We spend billions of dollars helping them with those issues. What of the fathers? Look online, or in the phone book, or just look around. Do you see any services or programs for dads? Now, do the same for women. Notice the difference? And no, I'm not one of those angry white men about to go on a tirade about women and minorities and oh poor me. That isn't what this about. It's about a real problem this is mostly ignored in this country. In the world really. That problem is the expectations put on a father, the judgement, the guilt and the lack of any real support. Men are told to suck it up, be man, take care of your responsibilities. Women get the opposite. That is an undeniable truth.

Here are some examples to highlight my point.

"Despite current interest in father involvement in families, an extremely large proportion of family research focuses on mothers and children. Health care agencies and other organizations exclude fathers, often unwittingly. Starting with pregnancy and labor and delivery most appointments are set up for mothers and held at times when fathers work. The same is true for most pediatric visits. School records and files in family service organizations often have the child's and mother's name on the label, and not the father's. In most family agency buildings, the walls are typically pastel colors, the pictures on the wall are of mothers, flowers and babies, the magazines in the waiting room are for women and the staff is predominantly female. In most welfare offices, fathers are not invited to case planning meetings, and when a home visitor is greeted at the door by a man, she often asks to speak with the mother. Given these scenarios, fathers are likely to get the message that they are invisible or irrelevant to their children's welfare, unless it involves financial support."

~The decline of fatherhood and the male identity crisis
   Published on June 19, 2011 by Ray Williams in Wired for Success


We have all heard the term "deadbeat dad". Oh, how we have heard it. Because if you are a man and you have child you're suddenly a walking wallet. The same is never applied to a mom. By many estimates mothers receive primary custody 68-88% of the time, fathers receive primary custody 8-14%, and equal residential custody is awarded in only 2-6% of the cases. There is (an admittedly improving) bias in the family court system toward the fathers. It's painfully obvious to most people. NOLO.com says this: If you are a father and want to ask the court for physical custody, do not let gender stereotypes stop you. If both you and the mother work full-time, and the kids have after-school care, you may be on equal footing. In fact, if you have more flexible hours than the mother, you could have a leg up. In any event, the judge will look at what's best for the children. So if you think that you should have primary custody and that you can persuade the judge that it's in the kids' best interests, you should go ahead and ask for custody. If you present yourself as willing and able to parent, it will go a long way towards challenging any lingering prejudice against you as a father. Sure, that's easy to say, until you experience the bias for yourself.

The point is, there is a common misconception that the father doesn't have a choice. Many dads simply go along with it because it's the norm, it's what society expects. Mom stays home with the kids, dad mans up and provides. That the way it is, that's the way it's supposed to. But is it? Should it be? Why is it socially acceptable for a woman to be a stay at home parent but when the dad does the same he's given many disparaging labels. We expect the father to do many things, but rarely offer them help. Fathers are supposed to figure it out on their own. And when they can't, we just let them fail and then blame them for that failure. The same is certainly not true of of the mom. Some sources attempt to claim that there is no bias when it comes to custody. They look at "who's best for the child". How can a father be best if they don't know how?

If a man has never been given the tools to succeed, the knowledge to use the tools and the support in finding the intestinal fortitude to use all these things, how can he? Take for example basic cooking skills and nutrition. Right or wrong, the majority of women who become mothers have at least rudimentary skill in the kitchen. If the extent of the fathers skill is making a sandwich and opening a box of noodles, how can he have faith and confidence in his ability to feed his children? It's simply easier to let them stay with mom. Because he becomes convinced that it's the better option. And society reinforces that belief. That's just one of many issues facing fathers. There are many more. The social stigma attached to asking for any kind of help. The appearance of bias in family court and family law. The shaming of fathers who make poor choices simply because no one ever took the time to teach them differently. When a mom is poor she's often encouraged to seek state assistance, and then told to "go after that dad for support". When a dad is poor he's told to go get a job.

Why does any of this matter? Because children from a fatherless home are:

• 5 times more likely to commit suicide
• 32 times more likely to run away
• 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• Boys are 14 times more likely to commit rape
• 9 times more likely to drop out of high school
• 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
• 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
• 20 times more like to end up in prison