Full Time Father Blog (weekly, not daily)
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Monday, July 28, 2003
I hear that ABC World News Tonight may have a segment on "at home dads" tomorrow. I will try to check it out and add my two cents here.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
On Saturday, the boy printed a picture of Mickey Mouse on my printer, from his computer. I'm still not sure why my wife networked the two computers together. Fortunately, he did not realize what he was doing, and I did not let on. Those ink cartridges are too expensive to start this already.
Then today, he clicked off of Disney.com and got one click away from an item called "Pamela Anderson" before I intervened. Time for net nanny!
How quickly they grow up. The boy will be 29 months old next week.
Forget the $400 check Congress is debating sending to families too poor to pay taxes. Send each family a computer. Those teens out there without computers...how will they compete in a world where 2 year-olds are surfing the web?
Friday, July 25, 2003
Hey, full time father: this guy makes blockbuster Hollywod films from home, and you can't even get the living room cleaned before your wife gets home?!?!
"'Family is the core of your identity,' says Rodriguez. 'My idea was to make family the center of my life and work around that.' So he makes his unconventionally pro-family films in an unconventionally pro-family way. He sleeps when the kids go to school, then wakes up in time to play with them at night before he goes off to work. Except for filming on a sound stage at the old Austin airport, Rodriguez did everything on Spy Kids 3-D at home, overseeing the digital effects, done mostly by Hybride in Canada, from the computer in his studio and letting his wife of 13 years, Elizabeth Avellan, act as producer and deal with the outside world. 'I never go anywhere,' says the director. The Rodriguez bedroom has two king-size beds jammed together so the whole family can watch videos and play video games together on the weekend."
Reasons to be grateful, #12,642: you are not a kid sent to this day care center in Japan:
"Foremost is the lack of day care, which for many forces stark choices between motherhood and career. There are also the working hours of many offices, which extend deep into the evening and sometimes all but require social drinking afterward.
"Haruko Takachi, 37, a postal manager, is luckier than most. Her child was accepted into a 20-student nursery school opened last year by the Ministry of Education.
"It is the only public nursery school available for the 38,000 government employees who work in Kasumigaseki, central Tokyo's administrative district. Unlike most private nurseries, which close earlier, the school remains open until 10 p.m.
"'I work until 8 in the evening, but there are plenty of times when I work much later,' she said. 'That's just the social reality in Japan. There are some other women in my milieu, but most of them have just one child and don't plan for more.'"
Thursday, July 24, 2003
My son downloaded Disney screensavers by himself yesterday. He did not know what he was doing--I'm pretty sure--but he clicked his way from the games section to the screensavers and now they are on his computer.
I'm not sure I know how to download screensavers.
It's a reminder to update my virus software. And also to put up a firewall to keep him away from my computer files. (Then again, he often says he's a fireman, so he can probably breach a firewall.)
I forgot to link to this earlier. But it's still interesting.
A fairly popular Governor says he will not seek re-election, because he wants to spend more time with this family. A nice twist, if true:
"It came down to 'We want a normal life,'" said the 53-year-old Locke, who is married and has two children, ages 4 and 6."
[His wife is about 38, for those of you with Enquiring minds.]
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Here's a nice story: Crying babies receive thumbs-up at theaters.
The last movie my wife and I saw at a theater was the spectacular Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon!
My son has a new phrase that is quickly becoming one of his favorites: "What are you talking about?"
I guess we are moving into the questioning everything stage. It certainly makes you watch what you say.
Sunday, July 20, 2003
By the way, remember those blockbuster studies last week on day care that garnered extensive media coverage (see below)? The Washington Post covered the story--four paragraphs on A4.
Pretty darn interesting (even though I do not agree with all of it). Here's an excerpt:
"What if dad drops out instead? Studies suggest this may work better. Parental time with children may be less affected because employed mothers typically are less willing to consign all child care to the stay-at-home spouse. So children in families with stay-at-home fathers may well receive more parental attention than children in households with stay-at-home mothers."
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Thursday, July 17, 2003
I can't tell the whole story right now, but yesterday, I went to a meeting of about 40 people with an important government official. The meeting was in a hotel conference room.
My son was with someone in the hotel lobby, playing.
At one point, it became a bit hard to hear the government official, because some kid was complaining very loudly from the hotel lobby--it would turn out this 2 year-old had been urged not to put his entire foot in the fountain, which he "needed" to do.
I figured my secret was secure--I looked no different from the rest of the suits in that room. But that kid was mine.
But when the event ended, the guy next to me said, "By the way, I saw you in the lobby earlier. Cute kid you have there. I have an 18 month-old."
Such is life when you're trying to squeeze some "real" work in as a full time father!
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Sorry, but one more. USA Today. This is interesting:
"One small study on family day care found smaller cortisol rises than at centers. There's no research on nanny care yet, Gunnar says.
"The best day-care centers can meet the needs of even timid children, 'and we don't know that keeping them home longer with a nanny helps them,' says Stanford University psychologist Eleanor Maccoby, an expert on child development.
Still, shy kids might benefit from some home care 'if finances allow it,' she says. 'We know the environment can program the nervous system, and there might be a little risk to putting a very fearful toddler in some child care centers.'"
They never even CONSIDER the possibility that a mom or dad (or grandparent) could stay home with the kids for a while. In the world of these scientists, it's either commercial day care centers, or commercial day care in homes, or nannies.
Parents, anyone?
More on the new day care studies, this from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. And finally, the conservative Washington Times, which is not alone in putting all the focus on mothers. But why not put some heat on dads to spend more time with their kids?
On a day like this it's nice to be a full time father....
New York Times:
July 16, 2003
Two Studies Link Child Care to Behavior Problems
By SUSAN GILBERT
With findings that are bound to rekindle the debate over its effects on children, two studies being published today build on evidence that those who spend long hours in child care may experience more stress and are at increased risk of becoming overly aggressive and developing other behavior problems.
One of the studies found that the more time children spent in child care, the more likely they were to be disobedient and have trouble getting along with others, though it suggested that factors like a mother's sensitivity to the child's needs could moderate that outcome.
This report is from the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, the largest long-term study of child care in the United States, which was undertaken by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a branch of the National Institutes of Health. The findings elaborate on preliminary research that created a storm of debate when presented by the study's investigators at a child development meeting two years ago.
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.
Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the shyest. "These children struggle in group situations and find them stressful," said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.
Dr. Gunnar said that while none of the cortisol levels measured were high enough to be considered signs of psychological trauma, they were nonetheless a cause for concern.
In a measure of how sensitive the topic of child care has become, the studies, appearing in the journal Child Development, are accompanied by nine commentaries from researchers around the world that put the findings into perspective and, in some cases, rebut them. The editors of the journal delayed publication of the studies for several months while they circulated the manuscripts to more than 1,000 child development experts and invited them to write commentaries.
"I think it was worth holding up publication of the research so that we could put it in context," said Dr. Lynn S. Liben, editor in chief of Child Development. "Child care is a controversial issue."
Unlike the University of Minnesota research, which dealt only with children in day care, the study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development followed more than 1,000 children in 10 cities who were in the full range of child care arrangements, including day care centers, preschools, care with nannies and care with relatives other than their mothers. The children's behavior was evaluated by their mothers, caregivers and kindergarten teachers.
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and the greater its severity.
Over all, about 17 percent of the children had above-average levels of problem behavior like disobedience and overassertiveness. Though their behavior fell within normal limits, children exhibiting such traits would be at risk of developing behavioral abnormalities, said the study's scientific coordinator, Dr. Sarah L. Friedman.
Most of the children in the study spent 10 or more hours a week in child care, and 10 percent spent more than 45 hours a week there. The correlation between quantity of child care and behavior problems remained even when other variables were taken into account, including the quality and type of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her child's needs and the family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study found that the time spent in child care was linked more strongly with children's behavior than was the quality of care.
But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity and higher level of family income and education correlated with better behavior in the children, the study found.
The commentaries published along with the two studies elaborated on some of the findings and challenged others. Susan C. Crockenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Vermont, cited other research concluding that boys were more vulnerable than girls to negative effects of child care.
A few of the commentators argued that contrary to the findings of the National Institute study, the quality of child care mattered a great deal in fostering young children's social and emotional development. A commentary by several researchers led by John M. Love, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research of Princeton, N.J., noted that the more time that infants and toddlers spent in Head Start programs, considered to be of high quality, the fewer their behavior problems and the greater their intellectual and language development.
[END]
Here's a researcher who thinks the latest bad news about child care is being suppressed, but even the left-leaning New York Times (see next post, above) did not mince words. This is from the Wall St. Journal, which requires a paid subscription to read. But maybe they'll allow us a full posting this once:
The Dangers of Day Care
By JAY BELSKY
Published today in the scientific journal Child Development are the latest results of the most comprehensive investigation ever conducted of the effects of day care on child development. The report, peer-reviewed and based on the federally funded National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Childcare, addresses how time spent in nonmaternal care in the first years of life relates to aggressive and disobedient behavior later on.
Contrary to the expectations (and desires) of many in the field, the NICHD study shows that the more time children spend in day care arrangements before they are 4 1/2 years old the more aggression, disobedience and conflict with adults they manifest at 54 months of age and in kindergarten. These patterns remain even after taking into account multiple features of children's families, as well as the quality and type of day care that children experienced. Worse, spending a lot of time in care predicted not just more assertive or independent behavior, but more truly aggressive and disobedient behavior, as well.
* * *
Not that you'd know any of this from reading the NICHD's press release or listening to many of the commentators. The results, after all, are not politically popular: many have made their careers representing good child care as a sort of social cure-all. Because child care is here to stay, the argument goes, only the improvement of its quality is important. Anyone highlighting disconcerting evidence is simply against child care. And a weatherman reporting rain is against sunshine.
One must wonder why, after the government invested tens of millions of dollars, so many are bending over backward to minimize the results. This is particularly astonishing in light of the fact that we are talking about early experience had by tens of thousands of children. It's practically the norm these days for American children to start nonmaternal care in the first year of life, often for more than 20-30 hours per week. They continue at similar levels until they enter school.
The recent results, however disconcerting, are consistent with others that have been reported over the years in the study. Published evidence has shown that more time in care, irrespective of its quality, predicts more problem behavior among two-year-olds, less sensitive maternal behavior when children are 6, 15, 24, and 36 months of age; and lower rates of secure attachment to mother when children are 15 and 36 months of age if their mothers' parenting is relatively insensitive.
Those inclined to make light of the recent study will note that the adverse effects of lots of time spent in nonmaternal child care across the infant, toddler and preschool years are rather modest in magnitude. But the same holds true of "good-news" findings emanating from the NICHD Study showing that higher-quality child care is associated with somewhat enhanced cognitive-linguistic development. Critics will emphasize that better quality child care was associated with lower levels of problem behavior in the most recent report when, in fact, the evidence for this was extremely limited. But when it comes to experiences shared by so many children in the U.S. today, even small or modest effects may have larger consequences for schools, communities and the society at large.
To be sure, most children participating in the NICHD Study who experienced very high levels of nonmaternal care did not show levels of problem behavior suggesting a need for clinical treatment. Indeed, most of these children functioned "in the normal range." But the same holds for children who grow up in poverty or experience low-quality child care. Our children are resilient. But the critics of this study's findings are all too ready to remedy the other ills mentioned above on the basis of scientific evidence no stronger or weaker.
One only need to think about a first-grade teacher to appreciate the potential significance of the latest findings. Imagine being in charge of a classroom of 22 six-year-olds in which half of the children have averaged more than 30 hours per week of nonmaternal care across their first five years of life. Now contrast this teacher's experience with that of another with only 20% of her pupils having such early and extensive child-care histories. It's conceivable that the former teacher will spend more time managing her class and less time teaching than the latter. In other words the collective consequences of modest increases in aggression and disobedience in the case of many children is something to be concerned about.
Ultimately, it is the tendency of all too many social scientists (and the public) to deny, dismiss or minimize findings they do not like while embracing, if not playing up, those they do like. That gives social science a bad name -- as ideology masquerading as science. Would much of what is being said to devalue the day-care findings be spoken if they applied to time spent in poverty or low-quality child care? Even modest adverse effects would be decried in the name of healthy development for all children. Why, then, should the same analysis not apply to children spending 30, 40 and even 50 hours per week, in nonmaternal child-care arrangements in a society in which economic forces coerce all too many parents to make child-rearing decisions which they would rather not?
What those who deny, dismiss or minimize the latest findings continually fail to appreciate is that they hold no monopoly on wisdom or caring, nor even necessarily speak in the best interests of many American children and families. Rather, they spin developmental science in support of their political views, failing to realize the disservice they do to children and families alike, to say nothing of the scientific enterprise itself.
Mr. Belsky is director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck University of London, and has been a collaborating investigator on the NICHD Study of Early Child Care since its inception in 1989. [END]
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
I have avoided this topic because it is so thoroughly sad and grotesque, but Michelle Malkin is at least willing to get the debate going. How can people leave little children strapped in cars in brutal heat?
A related (and admittedly perverse) follow-up question:
Which would be worse for a parent: leaving your own kid in a car, or having your kid's day care leave your kid in a car?
I never let my kid out of my site, so this is one issue I do NOT lose sleep over.
Monday, July 14, 2003
I promised myself when I started this blog that I would not stoop to potty humor, both because it is too easy and because it is crass.
But....
It's bad enough that we parents have to have kids watching us do our business all the time. I am resigned to that.
Today, however, it came with a twist.
My son serenaded me with his kazoo today while I hastily used the bathroom.
And they say full time parenthood is not glamorous....
The timing on this is interesting, given my post of yesterday.
"Divorce lawyers say jurist is biased"
"'Her disposition and point of view is that a man is incapable of raising a child,' said Joseph Fleischmann II, a lawyer in Ellicott City and one of the few people willing to talk on the record."
Sunday, July 13, 2003
I received an email from a dad the other day, wondering if I had any good data defending fathers as parents. He was not just curious--he is dealing with the courts and a custody dispute following divorce.
While root canal sounds more fun than wading into somebody's divorce, I would certainly pass along any information that any of you send along.
I don't doubt that in aggregate, dads are discriminated against in custody cases, but I just haven't followed this issue closely. Any takers?
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Sorry I have been AWOL. But if I kept this blog current, wouldn't you wonder if I was really spending any time with my son?
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Maybe it's my new haircut.
Just two days ago (see next item below), I wrote that I was asked a funny question recently. Well, today it happened again! The scene: a birthday party for a three year-old. The questioner, a father. The question had an ever better formulation this time:
"So you're an at home dad? Did you do that by choice, or were you sort of backed into it?"
I guess I was backed into it, in the sense that my wife got pregnant....
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Funny question recently asked of me:
"Were you working full time before your son was born?"
People simply refuse to believe that a man would actually junk a viable career to raise his own child. It's fascinating!
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
You don't often see an op-ed attacking a working parent for the choices he or she made, but here's one that does. An excerpt:
"What kind of mother leaves a baby on the bottle, a husband with a housekeeper, and preschool-age twins to fend for themselves, as she indulges her far-flung Mother Teresa fantasy?"
Ouch!
