I går læste jeg denne blogpost fra New York Times om en sørgelig, sørgelig hændelse for en lille dreng på Facebook. Hvis du ikke orker at læse artiklen fra NYT, er essensen dette:
Yngre dreng, lad os kalde ham Peter, ser en fredag morgen på Facebook, at 57 personer har “liket” en anden, ældre, drengs status, hvori der står:
“Like” denne post, hvis du også hader Peter.
Den lader vi lige stå et øjeblik.
Jeg har mødt fornærmede attituder, når jeg har nævnt over for forældre, at deres børn foretager sig “upassende” ting på Facebook. Det skyldes formentlig, at de ikke mener, at ovenstående nogensinde kunne ske for deres lille uskyldige guldklump. Med “upassende” mener jeg i øvrigt en bred vifte af ting, som at videresende spam, sprede løgnehistorier og skrive nedsættende om andre, navngivne, børn.
Det er jo prisværdigt, at Facebook ikke, som YouTube, har en “dislike” knap, men ovenstående eksempel viser jo, at det slet ikke er nok til at undgå chikanerier. De mange hadesider på Facebook med hundredevis, nogle gange tusindevis af “likes” peger på det samme.
Nå men, den beskrevne hændelse fandt jo sted i USA, så den slags sker velsagtens ikke her. Men det tror jeg bestemt, det gør. Især fordi både danske forældre og skoler udviser en helt utrolig laissez-faire holdning i forhold til deres børn og Facebook/Internettet. Der er naturligvis også dem, der helt forbyder det, men det synes jeg også er en dårlig idé. Hvis du skulle have lyst til at læse en filosofisk udredning om, hvor falsk påstanden om “et bedre liv uden Internettet” er, så læs her. Det er et long-read af de bedre og stærkt tankevækkende!
Jeg vil derfor gentage mit mantra om, at man ikke bare skal være ven med sine børn på Facebook, men også have deres password og jævnligt sætte sig sammen med dem og scrolle ned igennem deres feed og tale om det, man ser.
Glædeligt er det, at den nye vejledning fra Medierådet for Børn og Unge siger netop det. Læs den nu, ing, hvis du stadig mener, at du ikke behøver engagere dig i dine børns liv på nettet!
REKLAME: Jeg kommer gerne til dine børns skole og holde et foredrag i stil med dette for forældrene.
I dag i Berlingske Tidende har cand. mag. Mette Thomsen, som jeg tror er kvinden bag dette designfirma, en kommentar om børn og ny teknologi. Desværre kan jeg ikke linke til den, for den er ikke på nettet (endnu da).
I artiklen indleder hun med at nævne de kommuner, skoler og børnehaver som på det seneste har anskaffet IPads til børnene og citerer deres lovprisning. Jeg læste derfor begejstret videre, da jeg altid bliver mistænksom, når det er teknologien, der bliver lovprist, og ikke det, den muliggør.
Jeg blev dog skuffet, for efter en omvej omkring Adorno, der som bekendt bekymrede sig om, at vi mennesker nemt kunne blive gidsler for vores egen teknologibegejstring, kom hun frem til sit egentlige ærinde, nemlig at hun for nylig havde været til familiefest, hvor samtlige de 12 tilstedeværende mindre børn, havde siddet bøjet over hver deres IPad og slet ikke havde leget sammen.
Hun gør dermed det samme som de skoleledere og kommunalfolk hun skoser i indledningen. Nemlig giver teknologien skylden for altings skrækkelige tilstand.
Vi var selv for nylig til en selskabelig komsammen med mange børn, og min søn kendte kun værtsbarnet. Han fiskede derfor straks telefonen op af lommen og begyndte at spille under bordet. Jeg bad ham straks om at pakke den væk og deltage i løjerne. Det gjorde det artige barn jo, men det gjorde de andre ikke. Og de inddrog ham ikke i deres samtale/leg/spil/fodboldkigning. Så efter en time meddelte jeg ham, at han godt måtte tage den frem igen, så han ikke skulle kede sig ihjel.
Og hvad vil jeg så sige med dette kedelige eksempel fra min egen virkelighed? Jeg vil sige, at problemet her ikke var teknologien men børnene og deres forældres opdragelse af dem. Hvis det er ok for et værtsbarn at sidde og se fodbold i fjernsynet, mens fødselsdagsgæsterne er overladt til sig selv, så har det da ikke noget med teknologi at gøre, men med opdragelse.
Jeg vil gerne have læserne til lige at bruge to minutter på at lytte til Dr. Michael Rich fra Harvard, som siger noget om opdragelse. Han understreger netop, at ordentligt opdragede børn klarer sig bedst i ALLE sammenhænge. På nettet, i skolegården, som teenagere. Som med næsten alting her i livet, kan teknologien bruges både godt og skidt. Det er op til os!
(Hvis du ikke gider se videoen, så læs her, jeg har oversat hans vise ord:
Dr. Michael Rich, director of Harvard’s Center on Media and Child Health (11/03/2010)
Jeg synes, at dit barns brug af Internettet er et godt sted at undersøge din måde at være forældre på. Vi har igen og igen kunnet konkludere, at den mest effektive opdragelsesmetode, uanset emnet, er den, vi kalder den autoritative. Autoritativ opdragelse betyder, at du er opmærksom på dit barn og i god kontakt med det, men også sætter meget tydelige grænser. Den autoritære opdrager derimod sætter tydelige grænser, men er ikke i kontakt med barnet. Den autoritære opdragelse indebærer meget strenge regler, men disse forældre er ikke i kontakt og dialog med deres børn og er ikke opmærksomme på barnets behov.
Så er der den eftergivende opdragelse, hvor forældrene er i kontakt med barnet, men ingen forventninger har til det og ingen begrænsninger sætter, så alt bare er OK. Sidst er der den uengagerede “opdrager”, som hverken er i kontakt med barnet eller har nogen forventninger til det. Dette er naturligvis den tristeste form for forældre, vi oplever.
Så, når du begynder at spekulere på, hvordan dit barn skal introduceres til og bruge Internettet, ja faktisk når det gælder al opdragelse, så er vores råd at prøve at optræde autoritativt. Lyt til barnet, vid hvad du taler om, vær en model for barnet ved den måde, du selv bruger nettet på. Sæt klare grænser og gør dine forventninger klart samtidig med at du forklarer barnet konsekvenserne, hvis de ikke lever op til dine forventninger.
Vær tydelig, åben og kommunikerende med dit barn, så bliver de det samme med dig.)
I find myself caught up in a parent-spiral and I believe many of my thinking co-parents feel the same. Parents are expected to do ever more for their children – and these expectations do not only stem from the children themselves. The pressure is always on, from other parents, the media and society in general.
Although a rather spoiled and over-cared-for lonely child myself, I still took the bus/bike to school, walked/biked the long dark way to ballet training and violin practice, had a job from I was around 12 and did my homework on my own in my room.
My older son (22) was far more spoiled than I was, but somewhat less spoiled than his peers and than my younger son (10) is now (to older son’s constant chagrin). But my young son is far less spoilt than a number of his peers.
Spoiling children with love and attention is always good and never bad, but driving them everywhere when they could perfectly well walk, bicycle or use public transportation can’t possibly be good for anything? And giving them money every day to buy junkfood because they won’t eat a packed lunch, what good is that for a child? At the skatepark where young son goes to practice his skills on his scooter, there are many boys with very wealthy parents. Some of these ten-year-olds have more scooters and scooter-parts than they know what to do with, they always seem to have money to buy junk food and mountains of sweets and soft drinks and they clearly have no concept of money at all, because they all throw away the bottles. Young son has thus been given a way to replenish what in his view is a meagre allowance, so he brings big plastic bags in his backpack and collects the bottles the other boys throw away. At the top of the season, he can make around 100 DKR a week (10£). There’s little competition, because a number of the other boys’ parents have forbidden them to collect bottles… Also, when he buys scooter parts, he often gets free stickers. These stickers he sells to some of the others boys for ludicrous amounts of money. I allow it, because if these children have money to spare to buy overpriced stickers, then it’s their parents’ problem, not mine.
A personally felt consequence of helicopter parents and their over-protected children is that the new, huge skatepark in Fælledparken in Copenhagen is now being closed to children riding scooters. I feel really sorry for my son and all the other boys who have practiced their skills in the road and at smaller skateparks and who know how to fit into the hierarchy of the skating community.
The reason it has come to this is only partly that anybody can ride a scooter (not so with skateboards and rollerblades), even if they’re only 2-3 years old. The real reason is that parents will take their small and/or inexperienced children to the skatepark and allow them to meander about on their scooters in the midst of a large group of very skilled and much older skateboarders and rollerbladers. This results in a lot of near misses and also some accidents when an 80-kilo young semi-professional skater with 50 km/h is unable to avoid a 4-year-old tottering along the bottom of one of the deep bowls. When the skaters ask the accompanying parents to please keep their children away from the bowls and big ramps, the answer is always “MY child has as much right to be here as you have”. But that is wrong! They don’t! They don’t need ramps and bowls, they need a road or a terrace or a playground.
If it were only inexperienced boys coming on their own to the skatepark, the problem wouldn’t have reached the heights that is has now. Because most boys on their own would quickly learn to fit into the hierarchy of such a place. All groups have hierarchies, and the hierarchy in a skatepark is really simple. The best are at the top! And it doesn’t matter what they are best at (as long as it has wheels) or how old they are. The less experienced will very quickly learn to keep well out of the way of the really good ones and will know quite precisely when they are ready to start trying a certain ramp, etc. But the helicopter parents ruin this with their My Child Comes First-attitude and also create big problems for these precious children by cutting them off from a valuable life experience.
Why are we letting ourselves spiral into this way of parenting? Who benefits from it? Our children get fat, helpless in a kitchen as well as in traffic and never gain an understanding of money.
at Folketingets nye flertal ville starte med at trække en streg i sandet og lægge alle former for symbolpolitik på hylden. Der er desværre mange eksempler – ikke kun fra VKO – på symbollovgivning, der er beregnet på en helt speciel situation eller befolkningsgruppe. Jeg håber oprigtigt, at “rød blok” har taget ved lære af de forgangne 10 år, hvor mangen en symbollov har ramt en masse andre mennesker, end dem de var ment for, typisk muslimske indvandrere. Eksempler på sådanne love er garanteret legio, men jeg kan selv komme i tanker om 24-års reglen, reglen om genopdragelsesrejser og knivreglen.
Denne post handler om loven om genopdragelsesrejser fra 2004. VKO og Socialdemokraterne (der skulle SKAMME sig) vedtog sammen en lov, der skulle afskrække familier fra at sende deres børn på genopdragelsesrejse til hjemlandet. Jeg har forsøgt at læse loven, men den er propfyldt med henvisninger til andre paragraffer, og jeg har jo også et arbejde at passe. Men ideen er, at hvis et barn eller en ung er for længe væk fra Danmark eller kommer til Danmark i for høj en alder, er de ikke længere “integrerbare” og skal derfor udvises, uanset at de har deres nærmeste familie her i landet.
Ifølge en dokumentar på P1 om emnet, har loven været bragt i anvendelse 1731 gange på børn under 15 år. Af disse er de 796 begrundet med manglende “integrerbarhed”, mens resten er begrundet med forældrenes manglende evne til at forsørge dem, m.v.
Det gør ondt i hjertet at forestille sig, hvordan forældre og børn i disse familier har det. Og det er hjerteskærende, at man har en lov, der straffer børn for forældrenes “synder”.
Helt konkret er jeg optaget af en lille pige fra Bangladesh, Ripa, på 8 år, der nu skal udvises af Danmark pga denne regel. På trods af at hun går i dansk skole og på dansk fritidshjem, bor sammen med sin far og dennes nye kone og deres nye barn, dømmes hun altså “ikke integrerbar” og skal sendes til Bangladesh, hvor der ikke er nogen til at tage imod hende. Læs mere om sagen her.
Jeg er generelt ikke særlig vild med at fokusere på enkeltsager, men
HELE denne lov er lige til skrotbunken, fordi den ikke tjener noget legitimt formål
Lige om lidt får vi en ny regering, der i hvert fald påstår, at den er modstander af sådan noget
Udvisningen er med garanti en overtrædelse af FNs børnekonvention og formentlig også af Menneskerettighedskonventionen, som den tidligere regering var ligeglad med, men som “rød blok” mange gange har sagt, at den vil overholde (læs fx hvad Karen Hækkerup siger her).
Der er tale om et lille barn på otte år. Jamen man kan da ikke sende små børn alene til et U-land, kan man?
Det må jo nødvendigvis være de socialdemokratiske folketingsmedlemmer, der skal punkes i denne her sag. De sidder nu med regeringsmagten og de afgørende stemmer til at ændre denne lov. Og Helle må kunne tvinge det nuværende forretningsministerium til at omgøre den konkrete afgørelse i Ripas tilfælde. Her er så mange e-mail adresser, det er lykkedes at skrabe sammen. Se alle de socialdemokratiske medlemmer af FT her. Skriv til den du bedst kan lide, eller som er valgt i din kreds. TAK!
På Twitter benytter vi hashtagget #RipaiDK, når vi omtaler sagen. Det må du også meget gerne gøre. Og hvis du læser, hører eller ser et nyhedsindslag, der omhandler sagen, så må du meget, meget gerne sende link eller omtale til mig som en kommentar til denne post eller sende mig en e-mail på firstname.lastname@example.org.
Brief summary in English: A 8yo girl is being expelled from Denmark to Bangladesh, where there are no-one to receive her. The (previous) Danish government introduced a law that was supposed to stop immigrants sending their children to the home countries for re-education. Stupid in itself, but this girl has never been sent away for re-education. How can you send an 8yo away from her dad?
We’re trying to make it an issue on Twitter, using the hashtag #RipaiDK
at vi kunne bløde fronterne lidt op i den danske skolediskussion! Jeg er selv sådan lidt “blå” i skolespørgsmål, da jeg mener at vi snyder børnene ved at “skåne” dem for karakterer helt til ottende klasse. For det første ved ungerne udmærket godt, hvor de ligger i forhold til hinanden (måske bortset fra nogen stykker, der er helt clueless), for det andet afspejler forbedringer i indsatsen sig helt konkret og ikke kun i forblommede ord. Mange forældre har fx svært ved at høre forskel på “lille Lars gør virkelig en stor indsats” og “lille Lars er virkelig meget dygtig”. De to udsagn er udtryk for noget helt forskelligt, og det vil karakterer afspejle. Karakterer skal dog stadig være bakket op af skriftlige kommentarer og af skole-hjem samtaler, ligesom de ikke bør uddeles før 4-5. klasse. For nogle børn bliver overgangen fra de bløde kommentarer til de benhårde tal meget hård, og den kommer på et tidspunkt, hvor det faktisk er blevet svært at flytte sig fagligt – ikke mindst er hormonerne i vejen.
Jeg er også enig med de borgerlige i, at man (næsten) ikke kan starte tidligt nok med at putte lærdom ind i hovederne på ungerne. Dermed mener jeg dog ikke, at de som 4-årige skal sidde pænt ved borde og lære alfabetet, men at de på det tidspunkt skal til at lære, hvordan man koncentrerer sig, hvordan man holder fokus, hvordan man samarbejder, hvordan man forholder sig til at løse en opgave. At den opgave så måske består i at tegne en giraf, er sådan set underordnet! Og den gruppe af børn, som desperat ønsker sig at lære at læse – hvorfor skal de ikke have lov? Min yngste gik i en børnehave, hvor dette var en mulighed, men ikke en pligt. Han var fuldstændig uinteresseret, så det deltog han ikke i. Til gengæld var han langt fremme med tegnegrejer, saks og papir, og blev sat på “hårdt arbejde” med at udføre vanskelige opgaver og lære fra sig til de andre børn.
Jeg mener også, at konsensuspolitikken er gået alt for vidt i Folkeskolen, og at det skader både de svage og de dygtige børn. Skolerne er alt for “dygtige” til at identificere de svage og urolige og skille dem ud og helt elendige til at finde, hjælpe og støtte de meget dygtige børn, der ellers kunne fungere som drivers for svagere børn.
Fra USA har vi importeret den underlige skik, at børn skal roses for ALT. Hver gang de slår en streg på et stykke papir, hopper fem cm op i luften med løbehjulet eller laver deres lektier, skal de have at vide, at de er fantastiske. VEL SKAL DE EJ! Børn skal roses, ja, men de skal roses, når de gør noget virkelig godt, og hjælpes og opmuntres, når de gør noget knap så godt. Hvad kan man bruge ros til, der gives for ingen ting?
Hele denne svada er udløst af denne artikel i New York Times, som jeg fandt i dag, takket være @tashiadam og @jeppeengel på Facebook. Det er en rigtig øjeåbner og ALLE, der har børn i skolealderen eller som arbejder i skolevæsnet skylder sig selv at læse den i sin helhed. Jeg er ikke sikker på, om jeg selv havde haft forfatterens stamina til at holde ud på ungernes vegne, men belønningen var righoldig!
Skønt jeg aldrig, ALDRIG ville gå så langt som de såkaldte Tiger Moms (ambitiøse kinesiske mødre i USA), har de ikke desto mindre fat i noget. Hvorfor har jeg fx ikke tvunget mine sønner til at gå til spil, når jeg nu selv ved, hvor lykkelig jeg har været livet igennem, for at jeg kan læse noder og forstår grundlæggende musikalske principper? For slap har jeg været, simpelthen!
Knowing how it upsets quite a few of my male readers I just can’t help myself. It’s Ada Lovelace day today, so we’re celebrating women who have excelled in technology.
I’ve chosen not to celebrate any woman in particular but instead to muse over why so many women still shy away from technology.
Ada Lovelace embraced technology although it hadn’t even been invented when she was around. She was guided by her curiosity combined with a brilliant brain and the financial circumstances to allow it.
I think that there’s a number of reasons why women don’t tend to embrace technology the way men do.
Please note that I use GENERALISATIONS in this post. I KNOW that not all men embrace technology or are good at it, I KNOW that there are women who excel in hardcore programming, etc. etc. But I’m sure you’ll agree that MORE women than men shy away from technology and that MORE men than women enjoy discussing Megabits of this and Gigabytes of that.
*end of disclaimer*
One of these reasons is the rather dull and unsurprising that technology has always been a male thing ever since the invention of the first technologies when women were still mostly “housewives” and dumbed down by themselves, their mothers, their fathers, their teachers, their brothers, their husbands and society in general. When computers started to be household items, everything to do with them was communicated in a special language, almost exclusive to people who worked with computers and completely unintelligible to anybody outside. But most men had to either pretend to understand or buy some copies of PC World and get an understanding quickly if they didn’t want to be out of the loop.
For women it was enough to learn the weird code language that was WordPerfect. Learning that was not at all considered a computer skill and nobody ever told any secretary that she could take her advanced WordPerfect coding skills and transfer them to other forms of computer coding – that the principles were the same even if the codes were different. So a large group of people – women – who could have become programmers and learned HTML as easy as one-two-three was completely lost. Because when Apple came with their What You See Is What You Get word processing technology and Microsoft came right at their heels and delivered Word to the world, everybody forgot all about WordPerfect and the skillset required to work it.
The language surrounding computers and other daily life technologies has certainly become a lot more accessible with the acceptance and knowledge that the target group has exploded and now includes everybody. But techno speak is still rife and you do need to learn some basics if you want to purchase some new technology and actually know what you’re buying. It’s also very helpful to know basic computer lingo when you make the inevitable call to the dreaded call centre for help. But I still think it would be really helpful if the ad said: This phone has 8GB memory. That equals x number of songs or x podcasts or x movie length films. I mean, who cares whether it’s 8 or 16GB? What you care about is whether there’s room for your entire Itunes library.
So when I talk to other women about technology and they get defensive about learning a bit of computer lingo I challenge them. Every time we enter a new chapter of our lives, we learn the language belonging to this particular subgroup without giving it much thought. You start studying law and after a year or so you’ve adopted a whole new set of words which you use effortlessly, inside and outside university. When you start cooking you learn the difference between tsp and tbsp and after the first mistake you know what “separate the eggs” means. When you first get pregnant (or your girl does) you learn a whole new set of words and phrases and suddenly know exactly what is considered a “normal” birth weight and what isn’t whereas previously you wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if somebody had told you that their baby weighed 12 kilos at birth.
I therefore challenge women to sit down and learn the basics about computers, so they can understand enough to make sane purchases, avoid viruses, guide their children and do what they want to do on their computers and smartphones. Whining that it’s “too complicated” just doesn’t cut any slack with me.
And now for the second reason why I think women are lagging behind when it comes to technology. I think they lack curiosity. Or rather, they lack the inclination to pursue their curiosity. And I think that’s with us from childhood. The further we go back in time the less women are likely to have been encouraged to act on their curiosity as children. And if you go to a toy store or a book store’s children’s department you’ll see how that’s still so very much the case. I should underline that this is a lot worse here in the UK than it is in Denmark. Can’t speak for the rest of the world. The wonderful Science Museum here in the UK has developed the most amazing series of exploratory toys and, happily, they’re on sale all over the world. However, in many a toy store or department store these toys are displayed in the boys’ section and not in the girls’. And where, unfortunately, it’s a general trend that children’s toys today don’t encourage them to think “out of the box” (Now, who is responsible for ruining that phrase? come here and I’ll spank you!) as much as previous generations’ toys, it’s much more true for girls’ toys. If you don’t believe me, go take a look. And don’t tell me that I can just avoid them. I only have boys. But then, I’m not talking about me. Keeping in mind the size of the toy departments and the amount of money spent on advertising toys every year, there CLEARLY are people who buy it, right!
I blame the mothers, particularly the ones who ought to know better, for giving in to this. Just heard this morning that some girls at son’s school were invited to a birthday party with a “Makeover” theme. That makes me want to be sick in somebody’s designer handbag.
In the teetering stack of books next to my bed is a book called Curious? by the psychologist Todd Kashdan (@toddkashdan on Twitter). I haven’t read it yet, but I bought it based on his op-eds in The Huffington Post and an article in the Guardian. I’m very curious myself and have often been told that I’m too curious for my own good. Imagine how pleased I was to read that curiosity is actually good for you and leads to much more “life satisfaction” if such a thing can be quantified. The curious are seldom bored, there’s always an avenue to explore. So what I know now, in the midst of the huge sea of things I don’t know, is that at least I’m not going to die of boredom.
So, what I meant to say on Ada Lovelace day, was this: Yes, ladies, there’s a historic precedence for women to not be curious and to be cr*p at technology. But that’s all it is. There are no excuses anymore. And if you can’t be bothered for yourself, then do it for your children. They deserve that you make the effort to understand the world they live in.
I’ve been reading some Danish blogs’n’stuff lately since I was in Denmark and was alerted to a friend’s new blog and reminded of an old favourite. If you don’t read Danish, don’t click these two links.
This woman writes about pink technology and how it’s a total turnoff for most women. So true, so true. I cannot think of anything more dreadful than a pink mobile phone with little sparkly thingies dangling from it.
She has also written an e-book about women and technology and divides us into Electronistas, Electroneutrals and Electronots. Well, as no surprise to any of my readers, I’m an Electronista. Trouble is, however, that I’m in reality far too old to be an Electronista, they are supposed to be younger than 35! Apparently, when you weren’t born into the tech age, you can’t be a true geek?
I’m the geekiest woman I know, maybe save one. In our home I do all things that have to do with technology, including opening envelopes from LoveFilm… I’m unafraid of technology but make no attempt to understand how it works and get annoyed when a tech product tries to tell me what to do and to prevent me from doing things it thinks I shouldn’t be doing (Windows) and when products are totally un-intuitive like my husband’s work Blackberry. When you’re used to an Iphone and prior to that to Nokia, the Blackberry seems devoid of logic. My Iphone is my best baby and I break out in cold sweat by the thought of losing it. It’s already a dinosaur, 1st generation, no 3G, 2 years old. But I adore it and use it for any thinkable and probably also some unthinkable purposes (no, you twat, not THAT unthinkable!!!).
My other best baby is my new Macbook Pro. I’m supposed to be able to make do with something much smaller and less powerful and that’s probably true. But my last MacBaby was exactly the same as this one and we had a loving relationship for 3+ years. So why change horses? (By the way, it still works and young son now uses it).
On my previous computer I had Microsoft Office installed. On this one I’ve avoided it so far, using the excellent Apple office package IWork and, mostly, Google Documents.
As you’ve guessed, because you’re so clever, I love all things Mac. I really can’t help it. When the Iphone first came out I tried to not like it, I tried to brush it off as yummy-tech for the Really Smart People. But I couldn’t. The thing about the Iphone has been that I have loved it more and more the longer I’ve owned it. There’s no grass that’s greener on the other side. Of course I’m now eying the IPad. I’m quite sure that I don’t want the first version. Mostly because I would like it as an E-Reader and it doesn’t have its bookstore ready for Europe yet. But also because I’d like to have Flash (rumour has it that the next version will sidestep Flash and use HTML 5. I honestly don’t know what that means, so I’ll just wait and see). And apparently you can’t use a USB stick on it but need Apple’s own special memory thingummies – I’m not sure I like that. But knowing Apple, all these things will be resolved in one of the next versions. That’s what happened with the Iphone; all the little things that irritated at first have been mended since. In the meantime, another rumour has it that Amazon will start giving away Kindles to all their Prime customers. Now THAT would be nice. Because I’m drowning in books and would very much like to stop buying pulped trees and start downloading.
Back to the pink. I so don’t understand why women will sink themselves and particularly their daughters into the Pink Pit. When I go shopping, both on the Interwebby (thanks Lulu) and IRL (in real life) I’m appalled at the amount of pink and glittery stuff offered to women and their daughters. It’s not that I can’t abide pink at all, I have a pink scarf somewhere and I used to have a pink t-shirt. In my bathroom I even have a line-up of pink coloured perfume bottles… What’s probably even more appalling is that it’s not just pink and glittery on the outside, very often it’s pink and glittery on the inside as well – understood in the sense that it speaks to women and girls as if they were morons and 2nd rate people.
As you may or may not have noticed, it was recently Valentine’s Day. Pink was everywhere. Where there was no pink was on Wired Magazine’s advice on how to win a geeky girl’s heart. Great advice, I would very much like to be at the receiving end of that kind of treatment and to some extent I am, thanks to my Dear Husband. But what so totally puzzles me is why this wouldn’t be a treat for any woman? Why does she have to be geeky (and why are there almost exclusively ads for men in Wired)?
In spite of the fact that I have two sons and a horde of nephews and only one niece, I’ve joined a network here in England called Pink Stinks. Go there and read about it. And, especially if you have daughters, do join!
The first many times I heard this, I quietly wondered to myself, What do they mean? Earl Grey or Darjeeling? Slowly it dawned on me that tea (look it up, it’s a hot drink FFS) in this country often (but not always!) means the evening meal. But no, no, not as in dinner. Dinner is something grown-ups have. No, tea is for children. Something they have in the late afternoon instead of dinner. And dad is not there and mum doesn’t eat tea, erh. (Apologies to the lovely househusbands I know, but you know you’re in the minority).
There, now it’s clear isn’t it? Tea is an afternoon meal for children. This is where some of the world’s least interesting and innovative cooking takes place, molding young peoples taste buds for the future. I cannot tell you how that upsets me! I’ve been in many British homes and seen tea being cooked. What I’ve seen is pasta, mash, peas, carrots (yes, boiled), sausages, fish fingers, chips, lasagne, beans on toast and eh, what else? Rice perhaps?
I’m not saying that my darling young son eats everything I set in front of him, far from it. And he’s had plain pasta with Parmesan and butter and some cucumber slices on the side more times than I care to remember. But, he sits with us at the table, he sees and smells what I cook and he’s made to taste everything we eat, if not every time then at least once in a while.
I realise that the evening meal causes problems for some families. Dad comes home late, children need to go to bed early. But this is not the case in all families and not in weekends? And in families with bigger children, surely they can have an afternoon snack, have homework done etc., so have evening meal when dad comes home? I fear that it’s not always the time that’s the issue, but parents who give in to tradition or give up the fight to make children eat a varied and interesting diet. I mean, nobody forces mums to put a packet of crisps in a child’s lunch pack, or what?
My oldest son was as picky as the next child when he was younger, but I pushed on and pressured him to try stuff and if he didn’t eat all the stuff I cooked, he certainly saw it and smelled it. Today I can only think of a handful of foodstuffs that he doesn’t eat and he eagerly tries new stuff all the time. I know a few young persons of his age (21) in this country. Suffice to say that they are not exactly courageous when it comes to trying out different food stuffs.
Also, how does this strange habit encourage “real” family life? When do these families sit down and talk about things? Obviously, most days it’s just the usual, “What did you do in school?” “Nothing much” conversation that goes on, but without dinner time I don’t know when the three of us could discuss important political issues and moral dilemmas? It’s fine that children talk with dad in the car on the way to football and with mum in the car to school, but it’s important for children to experience the dialogue between mum and dad. Also when it’s not rosy. This way they can also experience that one day there’s disagreement, but the next day mum and dad are in unison on something very important!
OK people, rant over. Voice your disagreement, but please argue your case. I’ll sit down with a cup of tea now, you know, the fluid hot stuff off of tea leaves?
The Health and Safety regulations concerning children in this country are going totally overboard. In young son’s previous school, a Church of England state primary, we were already shocked by the number of rules they had, supposedly for the children’s safety. No playing football in breaks, during the heatwave they had to stay inside or sit down under the trees in all breaks, when we had the snow last year the school was closed for a whole week (explanation was that there was ice on the parking lot…) and teachers cannot hug or cuddle a child who’s unhappy or has been hurt.
Then there’s this horrible story about a dinner lady who got sacked for telling parents the truth about their daughter being bullied. And there’s this silly, silly new regulations at a playground: To accompany your child or grandchild or whatever into this playground you have to be vetted as a “playground worker”. If you’re not, you have to stay outside the fence.
And there’s this, where home baked cakes for school fetes have now been forbidden for hygiene reasons.
In yesterday’s Times, Jenni Russell tells another horror story and concludes that we, as parents in the UK, must really do something and protest!
Unfortunately, since I’ve moved my child away from the English school system to an international school, I don’t have much of a say in the matter. It’s my son’s good fortune that I’ve done so, the International school doesn’t appear to harbour these hysterical views on safety and believe that some good old-fashioned common sense and respect for teachers, children and their parents goes a long way in keeping our beloved little ones safe.
However, it’s not all the government’s fault. We, as parents, must also look at our own views on safety. Where does good common sense end and over-cautiousness begin? Obviously, you can’t let your child play in the road, so that it will learn road safety. But you can let them fiddle with scissors and cut themselves a bit to understand why scissors are not toys? And where you can’t let a child stick its head into the fireplace, maybe you can let it light the candles on the table and burn their fingers a bit?
I remember an incident in my son’s preschool. He fell off the climbing structure and hit his head on one of the milk crates they used in their play. He of course hurt himself and had to have a few stitches at the doctor’s office. But a mum came up to me the next day and asked whether I didn’t think we had to pull the climbing structure or at least get rid of the milk crates, so a similar accident wouldn’t happen to another child. And she reminded me that a boy had fallen off the structure the previous year and broken his leg. She was rather surprised when I didn’t agree! It was the same mother who decided that her son could never again ride in a bus after she read about a tragic accident when a child was killed when a bus collided with a tractor. No number of statistics about children’s safety in cars versus buses could convince her to change her mind!
So now, let’s be sensible. If we let our children play and cycle and climb trees, there’s a good chance that they’ll scrape a knee, bump their heads or break an arm. But when I was young, we all had accidents like that! The only two real accidents, one fatal, I remember from school was a girl who was killed in traffic and another girl who got her finger crushed in a door, indirectly because of bullying. Neither of those episodes could have been prevented by all the crazy measures we take nowadays to protect our children!
India Knight’s column in today’s Sunday Times is about fat people. I commented positively on it on Twitter and got some response that amply shows how tender a spot overweight is.
India’s point is that overweight is something that can actually be reversed. She attacks the new “fat lobby” for wanting to completely disclaim any responsibility for their own situation. In California, a law prevents doctors from mentioning to their obese patients that losing weight could save their lives. These lobbyists want the same kind of law here. Furthermore, school teachers, nurses, dieticians etc., should not be allowed to mention it to the parents when their children are severely obese. They also lobby for the right not to be bullied or beaten up because they are fat. That’s obviously nonsense – bullying is everywhere and about everything and no law can prevent it. I can’t think of anybody who sanctions bullying – not India Knight either, although she writes that an extremely overweight person shouldn’t fall off his chair in wonderment when people stare at him. As to campaigning for the right not to be beaten – well, as far as I know, beating people up is illegal, no matter what the reason.
I’m not exactly a lightweight myself – a size 14 on a good day, 16 on a bad. I’ve been like this more or less since I stopped smoking 12 years ago. Before that I was thin as a reed. I have an end weight, not far from my present weight. I’m not ever going to weigh so much that I can’t buy my clothes in a “normal” clothes shop. And I don’t want to be so big that I become a burden to people around me and to society. Happily a new study has come out recently that claims that my kind of overweight is good. And I’m perfectly capable of curbing my eating for a period to shed a few pounds when I hit my weight ceiling. But it seems that I can’t be bothered to go the extra mile and lose the stone or two that would bring me down to a comfortable size 12. Point is, however, I know exactly what to do and don’t even need a book. For me it’s not about more veg, more fibre, less dangerous fats. It’s painfully simple. Eat less (& no wine). But unfortunately, it is just not that simple for the huge group of obese people who are a threat to themselves and to the health economy.
The number one problem with the whole discussion about obesity is namely, and India Knight fails to mention it, that obesity has become – like smoking – mainly a problem for the poor and uneducated. Whereas my overweight is the result of too great a love for cooking and good food (and I believe it’s the same for many roundish people of the upper- and aspiring classes) and therefore can be kept in check, their overweight is the result of a poor diet and total lack of understanding of the relationship between action and consequence in the food area. This kept well in check by the poor and uneducated’s preferred news sources and peddlers of confusion and fear, The Daily Mail, The Sun and Sky News.
Around me I see people with food/overweight-related health issues and I also see how they are usually in total denial about their own responsibility for their predicament. And furthermore, which is quite contrary to what the fat-lobby claims, mentioning that people could change their eating habits to get better is totally taboo.
What gets me more than anything is people who allow their little children to become severely obese and then won’t accept an offer of help. In my son’s old school (state primary) there was a girl in his class who was extremely fat. Her younger brother was the same – children of 8 and 6. The mother wasn’t particularly overweight and another mother told me that she had been on a diet, she’d previously been as fat as her children. How on earth can she put herself before her children like that? And my son informed me that they had some of the most unhealthy packed lunches in the whole school; and that’s saying something! Yes, the mother was working class and yes, their budget clearly limited. But bags of crisps, packets of cheese strings and packs of cookies are not cheap. And if she could put herself on a diet and lose 5-6 stone, what on earth prevented her from taking her children with her? Was she so dumb that she felt sorry for the children if they had to eat veg and no cookies like herself? I was told that there was nothing the school could do – not even preventing the mother from excusing the girl from PE!
Which is why I think that silence and “acceptance” in this area will not work. But I don’t believe in shaming either. I read somewhere that a school had decided to stop selling cakes at school events to curb obesity. That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a very long time. Obesity can only be fought by education and by taxing all prefab and semi prefab food with a sugar and/or fat content above x %. It is ridiculous that some of the very cheapest food items in the supermarket are also the most unhealthy! Jamie Oliver was right, right, right, when he tried to introduce proper food in schools and a love of cooking and ingredients. I have no doubt that for each person who learns to cook and to love and appreciate real food, there’ll be one person less to burden our health system with massive self-inflicted health problems. Have I told you about the boy from Dane’s old school who didn’t recognise a boiled egg?
The persons I mentioned above with food/overweight-related health issues all have one thing in common. They cannot cook and don’t have a clue about nutrition.
Earlier this week Dane and I went on a tour of the CBBC. As a fantastic bonus for my little Blue Peter super-fan, we were treated to a visit in the studio where they were shooting next week’s episode of Blue Peter. All three presenters came over and said hello and Dane, who was the only one with a Blue Peter badge, got special attention. He was so, so proud and happy!
When we got home, he more or less redecorated his room with cut-out pages from the Blue Peter book which we’d bought in the BBC shop.
Briefly, to those of my readers who don’t or can’t watch Blue Peter. The programme is more than 50 years old and the concept is more or less unchanged. It’s about being a good and decent person and taking good care of the less fortunate and of animals. The three presenters are fantastic, but we’re particularly taken with Helen Skelton who last year ran 78 miles in 24 hours through the Namibian desert for charity. We followed her training and were just amazed by her bravery and stamina. For a young pretty girl with a super job, this really wasn’t something she needed to do!
This week Blue Peter has launched a charity appeal that means something special to me and thus to Dane too. It’s called Operation Smile and the purpose is to give children like this one a chance to smile at the world by giving them an operation. Please click the link and read about it.
Some of you will know why this means something special to me, some of you will not. But I’ll tell you. I was born like that little girl and have had more than 10 operations between the age of a few months and 21 to make it right. They are much better at it nowadays, though.
The amount of humiliating bullying that I suffered as a child I wouldn’t wish for anyone. And I’m not whining here – it’s just a fact. I’ve had a great life as a young person and as an adult, but what would it had been like if I hadn’t had easy free access to all those operations? And what if I’d been born in India?
So Dane and I have been busy changing t-shirts into surgery gowns. Here are the results:
They have now been delivered in the Blue Peter Smile Appeal box at our local Curry’s.
Please set to work with your own children and post links to pictures as comments to this post. If you don’t have smallish children or if you’re not in the UK, click here and see how you can help to give a child a new start in life.
Her name is Lenore and she’s a New Yorker. Some time ago she wrote a small article in a relatively obscure paper which inadvertently changed her life. She admitted that she’d let her child ride the subway alone… close your eyes and imagine the torrent of hatemail, calls etc. that landed on her. Or read her own very funny account of it all on Huffington Post. Here’s her blog – it’s all about Free Range Kids, she’s even written a book about it.
I’m completely devoid of inspiration today, so I’ll just pass you on to a handful of women, who all write very well, engaging and funny:
This one calls herself @titianred on Twitter, where she never fails to entertain. She loves Monday mornings – or so she says.
Here’s Razorkitty – an intelligent, beautiful woman, who’s comments are gold when you’re watching certain programmes on TV.
Clare is also an eminent Twitterer. She’s promised (it was you, wasn’t it Clare?) to write on her blog why it is that buying clothes at Boden is a no-go. I’m waiting in trepidation…
Last one – I’ve written about Tania Kindersley before – and her lovely book Backwards in High Heels, which you can read more about on her own blog.
Many months ago I got newsletter from RHS Wisley, which is right around the corner from where we live, so we go there all the time – sometimes just for coffee & cake. This newsletter announced the yearly music festival. My inclination was to go for Katherine Jenkins (despite fear of repertoire of musical hits), but I knew Dane would find that utterly boring, so suggested to husband that we indulge the little one (a huge Abba fan) and buy tickets for Abba/Queen tribute night. He agreed and I bought the tickets. The concert was sold out a few days later.
So, Saturday night was the night. Luckily the weather was quite warm, if not dry. We packed a basket full of munchies, wine and coffee and set off. Lots of people of all ages and really lovely ambience. Every police officer I saw had a huge smile on his/her face!
Having spent a considerable part of my adult life in the more forward part of the (Danish) music business, I’m not a huge fan of copy bands and never was much of a Queen fan. It’s different with Abba – as a Scandinavian they were just THERE – all the time. You could not NOT know their songs, unless you lived as a hermit. I’ve disliked most music festivals I’ve been to except the Roskilde Festival, which I think I visited 17 years in a stretch. Because of being in the biz, I always had privileges, so didn’t have to queue for hours to visit yucky toilets. At Wisley nobody had to queue for toilets and they were ever so neat! And nobody stumbled around half unconscious with drink and drugs and the music was not loud at all. Actually, it was so muted that I wondered whether I’m just simply going deaf!
‘Abba’ wasn’t that good, although not bad either. Worst bit was ‘Björn’ trying to be funny with applied Swedish accent. Arrgghhh. ‘Queen’ really was rather good – so much like the real thing. Very entertaining.
Also entertaining was of course people watching. He. I can’t decide whether I find it hilarious or exhilarating to see middle aged chunky women (like yours truly) going crazy to Abba? I would possibly go crazy to a different kind of concert – who knows (Erasure – wouldn’t that be fun?). But this left me more amused than anything else and I rarely got out of my comfy chair… Next to us was the funniest family. 50ty-something parents, gaunt dad with long curly (uni-professor style) hair and steel-rimmed glasses, mum very overweight and eh, motherly, two pre-teens, a girl who looked like a boy and a boy who looked like he’d much rather be doing math course work. Both kids sat slumped in their chairs throughout the evening without saying one word to their parents or each other. Parents were singing and dancing, but didn’t seem to share the experience as much as living it separately… Their picnic consisted solely of “food” out of foil bags.
As you can see from the pictures, Dane enjoyed it very much and blabbered on for at least an hour after coming home about this that and the other he’d observed at the concert. So it was definitely worth it!
After using new Netvibes tools to arrange all the blogs I follow into neat groups, easy to sort through, I’ve hardly looked at them. The reason is the same as for not writing anything here. So today I thought I should have a quick look through them and see if there’s anything worth recommending. And of course there is. Lots.
My favourite economist Tyler Cowen meets another favourite of mine, Happiness-blogger Gretchen Rubin IRL. He teases us with their discussion subjects, but ends post with this, which I find very promising for when I’ll someday meet some of my blogger-favourites myself:
I have never once met a person whose blog I like and then been disappointed. Never.
Another economist (author of Parentonomics) obviously writes a lot about parenting. He recommends this post, which is one of the best I’ve ever read about children. It’s about how to teach them to argue well. And yes, we DO want to teach them that. If you have children, read it, read it, read it.
On the very, very important subject of food, I’ve just finished reading this absolutely mouthwatering post about Southern (We’re talking about the Southern US here) food prepared in a Northern kind of way. Oh me oh my; for a person who was in culinary heaven while travelling the US South and particularly in New Orleans, this post will inspire to quite a few meals around here. What do you say to Garlic Bread Pudding? I say YES.
Via one of my favourite food writers, Mark Bittman, is here a little treat to go with barbecued greens: Chili oil.
On being a woman, a mum, a person
Quite a while ago Tania Kindersley wrote the most beautiful and poetic post about what we do when a bad mood strikes. Except that I could never hope to write such adorable prose it echoes what I often think myself on these matters. How I wonder where the bad mood came from, what to do to expell it or even if I should (when not affecting others, of course). Tania has taken time off from her blog and Twitter and I must say, I truly miss her! Btw Tania, I was thinking we should also reflect on those days when we wake up in a great mood, equally inexplicably. That’s one of my favourite experiences of daily life -when you suddenly find that your spirits are high and the world looks like a friendly place. Where did it come from? We might never know. But I’m thankful.
The debate about working mums contra stay-at-home mums is still roaring. Here are three prominent voices: Sarah Vine in the Times. A fuming reply from “Potty Mummy”, a stay-at-home mum and a reply to this from Times editor Jennifer Howse on the Times Alpha Mummy blog. (Don’t bother with the comments, they are depressing, I just hate it when women are so poisonous against each other).
I am an in-betweener. I work, but I do it at home and often I don’t do much of it. But I would never choose to be a stay-at-home mum for the sole sake of my children. Although I love to cook and bake cupcakes, I’m just not the type. And I hate, HATE cleaning. I don’t entertain my children, I’m lousy at keeping up with their homework, I always try to wriggle out of playing board games etc. etc. And excursions never EVER go to kiddy entertainment places, but invariably to National Trust properties, Good Long Walks or museums etc. etc. I find it difficult to relate to many of the issues raised by the stay-at-home mums of my acquaintance, as I find them boring, quite simply. And I worry that they over-protect and overwhelm their children with their presence.
But I’m glad that I don’t have to go to work every day, because I do get to pick up son after school and chat with him, I do get to sit down with him and do something he wants, I do get to watch his TV favourites over his shoulder and I do get to make sure that he eats good and varied meals (almost) every day. And I don’t have to live in constant panic of him falling ill (which is probably why he never does).
But I can certainly relate to some of the points raised by Sarah Vine – the total lack of social status, the complete invisibility at social gatherings, the lack of a social life (besides Twitter…). I thoroughly miss the social status my job used to give me and it’s no use claiming that I don’t. But I don’t miss the stress of office life, the (sometimes) awful malice of other women, the struggle to live with a boss who’s just not that bright…
Bottom line I guess is same old, same old. You can’t have it all. So sit back and enjoy what you do have, while you still have it. Veeeery philosophical and not even very profound, I know. But that’s me.