Madonna's Adoption Woes

Normally I do not care about Madonna, although she is a good diagnostic example of someone falling on Axis II between Histrionic and Narcissistic. It is interesting that she gets a lot of flack for wielding her power and money to push a second international adoption through. It is interesting that a lot of things are pointed out excpet that these children are not being adopted into two parent homes. Normally, this might cause me concern. This blog is about the importance of fathers. However, even with that in mind I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule.

Although I would love it if these kids could go to two parent homes, this is extremely unlikely. I even kind of wonder why these countries do not let more people adopt these children. Normally these children would spend the rest of their lives in abject poverty, and will die early deaths. I realize that they will be less likely to maintain their cultural identity, but the alternatives seem so much worse. So I say let her take all the kids she wants. (Angelina already has ten doesn't she?). Despite my extreme moral disregard for Madonna, I believe that adopting these kids is providing them with an extremely better life had they staid where they were at. Am I wrong to think this?

Good parents, Bad results

One of the hardest parts to being a parent today is that so much is expected of us.  As a therapist I frequently see how people's lives are deeply impacted (sometimes quite screwed up) by the parent's behaviors.  To add to this we have specialists frequently coming out telling us that we are doing things wrong.  There is almost as many trends in parenting as there are in dieting.  I think after awhile parents become so overwhelmed they head straight for the cookie aisle.  

Well be that as it may, this article I found in U.S. News and World Report does have some good pointers as to where good parents fail.  I guess with anything it is easier to do a poor job than it is to do a good one.  Doing a good job takes patience, control and an eye on the end results.  Here's a list of the eight things that even good parents do poorly.  I know I need to work on a few myself (see #1 and #3).  How do you measure up?  

1. Parents fail at setting limits.
2. They're overprotective. 
3. They nag.  Lecture.  Repeat.  Then yell.  (my personal favorite)
4. They praise too much - And badly.  
5. They punish too harshly.  
6. They tell their child how to feel.  
7. They put grades and SATs ahead of creativity.  
8. They forget to have fun.  (this is one is not a struggle, see below)

Read This, It's Controversial

Isn't that interesting that a magazine that calls itself Parenting seems to want to stir up controversy between parents as well as foster negative sentiment towards fathers in general? (as pointed out in this Glenn Sacks article) Ironically I get it. Since I started blogging there is this driving force within me to get people to read my blog, as validated by their postings. Yes I know a narcissistic endeavor, but fun just the same. What I have learned in this process is the way to get a response is to say something controversial. A quick look at the Salt Lake Tribune's frequent headlines goading Mormons will tell you that. You'd think there the reason behind every bad thing that happens in this state - including why my poptart burned this morning.

I diverge. The point is for this magazine to put together some pathetic research (SLOP - Self Selected Listener Opinion Poll) is understandable. But to present it as anything more legitimate than the Enquirer is reprehensible. Granted we here participating in this blog are educated and familiarized with research enough to spot a methodological hole a mile away, but your average reader... probably not.

Interestingly, the Glenn Sacks article goes on to explain that fathers surprisingly spend almost as much as time as mothers in parenting. It also points out that although women average 11 more hours of housework, men average 14 more hours at the office. I also liked the reminder that mom's tend to be the gatekeepers. I thinking if magazines are putting ideas out about how bad dads are maybe some of these moms will feel more justified in keeping dads out. As we know from class research can be our powerful tool, and people who conduct it should do so responsibly.

How much time for our kids?

A recent article - or at least just the headline, disses Australian dads for only spending a little over an hour a day with their kids. I didn't really notice the headline at first and was wondering if the article was stating this was good or bad, because it didn't sound so bad. For myself working and going to graduate school I'm probably just as busy as any dad (maybe more) and there might be some weeks where eight hours is my average. Fortunately it is usually more than that.

Just the same many men often face the dilemma of dealing with their responsibilities and attempting to balance that to spend time with the kids (let alone your spouse). Ultimately one always seem to rob from the other. Granted there are a number of men who chose to work long hours to avoid homelife. Sometimes the office is just easier to deal with then the family (just ask Hochschild). Maybe we need to get paid more so we can afford to stay home.

And what about divorced dads? I would think they would be happy to average that amount of hours. I can tell you my dad thought nothing would change in the divorce, and all I can say is it did. There was so much he missed in not being there in the day to day experience. Consequently I really try to help people understand the full ramifications of getting divorced on their life, rather than thinking life will continue to go on its merry way.

Teen Parent's Rights vs. the Rights of the Child

Alife Pattens's story is like a car accident - you'd like to look away, but yet you feel voyeuristically drawn to stare. Like, "what the heck happened here?!?" Granted this isn't the most scholarly story and probably finds itself more comfortable on an episode of Springer, it got me thinking about the rights that a teen parent has. I don't know the statistics but I would imagine teen fathers are not always the most involved. They probably continue living life like a young person, and I imagine many of the mother do too with the grandparents to pick up the slack.

Unless of course your Sarah Palin's child, and then you are forced to get married. Although it sounds like a viable solution, in reality very few of these couples pull this off. Believe me I have seen enough in my office to know. Though I am not denying the success stories, often these couples either break up as teens, or continue in a very difficult marriage.

As much as I want to respect these teen parent's lives, the gaping hole in this is what about the rights of the child? Don't their rights count for anything? I think these children have the right to grow up in a home where their parents have the level of maturity to take care of them. I wonder what would happen if we mandated that children born to teen parents under a certain age are adopted out. Would it make them think twice about having sex, or at the very least using a condom? Or would it make them think think their off the hook to have unlimited promiscuity.

Granted I don't see this happening any time soon. Grandparents would put up quite a fight to this. Interestingly it is the pregnant girl's mother that has the greatest influence on her daughters choice on whether to keep the baby or place the child for adoption. I have personally known children raised by teen parents, and although I love these kids I still have the nagging feeling of how much better the child's life would have been in a home with parents who are more ready and desperately trying to have a child of their own.

Restraining Orders as a Weapon

Although Glenn Sacks article is focused on why Joe Biden is bad (this article was written pre-election), his reasoning behind it is due to Biden's legislative support of certain domestic violence policies.  Sacks's opinion is that these policies have made it too easy to place restraining orders on men, putting these men at risk. 

I have worked with both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence.  I have to admit that there is some truth that this restraining process is too easy.  A wife can have her husband put in jail for a few days, unable to make any contact with his children for weeks, and have to attend a four month domestic course just as quickly as you can make a police report.  As a father, having no contact with my children would be devastating, especially if my wife was dishonest.  

However, I am not sure what the solution is.   Simply there are men that are abusive, and there needs to be a protection in place for the safety of these women and children.  I agree with Sacks that women can be abusers too.  Despite what some have speculated it is not always in self defense.  However, Sack's argument that half of abusers are women seems to be going a bit far - I love would love to see the study that found that.  I will also agree that the physical abuse can come from both parties.  But DV perpetrators always blame the victim and explain why the other person is just as guilty, or provoked it - "I wouldn't have done it, if they hadn't done what they did".  So you can see why it is sometimes difficult to identify a clear perpetrator and a victim acting in self defense.    

I do not think that softening the ability to get a restraining order is the solution.  Salt Lake City is in the process of setting up a court/judge specifically to deal with domestic violence.  I think that is a step in the right direction to have someone specifically trained to get to the bottom of things.  Overall I suppose these "easy" restraining orders are the price we have to pay for some peoples choice to be domestically violent.  

Deadbeat Dads

Ok, we can probably all agree deadbeat dads are a menace.  Unfortunately I can verify this from personal experience.  When I worked in county mental health in a low ses community it was frustrating to see the lack of responsibility taken up by these men.  I have another memory of working at a fast food restaurant when I was in high school and having a co-worker explain to me that he worked there to avoid making enough money to pay child support to his ex-wife.  Back then I didn't have the guts to tell him what a jerk he was, but I wouldn't mind telling him so now.  

The government would probably stay out of the matter if they were not the ones footing the bill to these dads (I know mom's are guilty of also being deadbeats, but I have chosen here to focus on fathers).    Although I do not like enabling, I also believe children should not be punished for their parent's misdeeds.  

With all that being said, I think most of us can agree that we all want to see these men ante up.  However, as the Cato Institute has pointed out that doing so can be a slippery slope to removing us of our individual freedoms.  I think there is a tendency for many of us to want to run in and fix things - which we have done repeatedly, but often we forget to consider the unintended consequences.  Too often when we create another law with the intent of punishing the bad guy, we often rob ourselves of yet another freedom.  The cure becomes worse than the disease.  After the price that has been paid repeatedly by the blood of our forebears to develop and maintain our freedom we should be careful to not trample on it too easily for the sake of civil order.  Maybe the place to start would be to make sure and tell that guy what a jerk he is next time I see him - rather than being afraid of offending him.  Perhaps we are expecting the government to do what we are afraid to do ourselves.  Another case of enabling.