Dr Bernard Nathanson, abortionist turned pro-life advocate, died on February 21 in New York after a lengthy battle with cancer.
Nathanson was responsible for over 70,000 abortions in the clinics he directed and personally responsible for about 5,000 prior to his conversion in the late 1970s. He was co-founder and last surviving founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
Nathanson’s story of conversion resembles that of Abby Johnson’s. Both left the business after seeing an ultrasound-guided abortion in which the unborn baby recoiled from the instrument that was being used to dismember and suck him from his mother’s womb.
In both cases, the conversions had nothing to do with religion, but rather the scientific evidence of ultrasound. Prior to his change of heart, Nathanson described himself as an atheist Jew; it would be nearly two decades before he would convert to Catholicism.
While at the same time enjoying the unrestrained enthusiasm of pro-life groups at his conversion, Nathanson suffered much at the hands of former colleagues and friends, who likened him to infamous traitors and political spies.
Nathanson, who converted to Catholicism following his renunciation of the abortion industry, took pro-life activist Joan Andrews Bell, as his Godmother. Bell is best known for her active opposition to abortion and has spent many months in prison for peaceful civil disobedience - trespassing and blocking the entrance to clinics.
Bell related that Dr Nathanson spent much time fasting in reparation for his past. A past which he would spend the remainder of his life speaking against.
Dr Nathanson is known for his videos The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason which show the gruesome realities of abortion. His book Aborting America describes how he and other abortionists fabricated statistics to advocate for legalized abortion.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Drumming Up Business
Apparently today – 14 February or Valentine’s Day – is National Condom Day. I know, I know it just makes you feel so warm and fuzzy inside, right?
Of all the things to celebrate on a day meant to celebrate love, the Family Planning NSW has chosen to shove the ‘safe sex’ message into clear view of university students across the state with O-Week information stalls and condom dissemination (pardon the pun).
The FPNSW website claims that condom use is one of the best ways to avoid STIs, but this inaccurate to say the least.
A few notes from Human Life International’s Condom Failure Rate Fact Sheet:
"24 sets of condoms tested and all failed" and almost 71% failed "In respect of one or more of the physical requirements of the specification, notably freedom from pinholes." SABS report April 89.
"Spillage from condoms occurs as much as 65% to 75% of the time." Bjorklund and Gordon. Univ of Manitoba. Nov. 1990.
"The rubber comprising latex condom has intrinsic voids about 5 microns in size." The HIV virus is 0.1 micron. Roland, Rubber World. June 1993. Roland and Sobieski, Rubber Chemistry and Technology. Vol. 62, 1989.
Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 70% if they are used "consistently and correctly" IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) Medical Bulletin Feb. 1997.
"It is not established whether the condom is as effective at preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV as it is for preventing conception." "The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence (of HIV) among condom nonusers. Thus the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy." Family Planning Perspectives, 1999.
The failure rate for condoms in preventing pregnancy is 10%. K. Niswander. Manual of Obstetrics 1980.
The ISO standard for condoms allows 2 per 350 to be defective (about six defects per thousand.) (Tough luck if you happen to be one of those six)
"Increased condom use will increase the number of [HIV/AIDS] transmissions that result from condom failure" and "a vigorous condom promotion policy could increase rather than decrease unprotected sexual exposure if it has the unintended effect of encouraging a greater overall level of sexual activity." "Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons" The Lancet, 29 Jan 2000
In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992
Ontario Ministry of Health campaign to promote condoms by means of televised AIDS messages made respondents more inclined to use condoms but less inclined to avoid casual sexual partners. Wilde, Target Risk, PDE Publications, 1994.
IPPF indicates that the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called "protected sex" approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases. Cates Medical Bulletin, IPPF 1997.
The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990.
So given the statistics, why does FPNSW continue to distribute copious quantities of condom? What are they hoping to achieve by giving these away? How can they possible benefit?
Perhaps condom failure is seen as a positive for FPNSWs bottom line which would then benefit by treatment of the ensuing STI. Or abortion of the resulting baby.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Of all the things to celebrate on a day meant to celebrate love, the Family Planning NSW has chosen to shove the ‘safe sex’ message into clear view of university students across the state with O-Week information stalls and condom dissemination (pardon the pun).
The FPNSW website claims that condom use is one of the best ways to avoid STIs, but this inaccurate to say the least.
A few notes from Human Life International’s Condom Failure Rate Fact Sheet:
"24 sets of condoms tested and all failed" and almost 71% failed "In respect of one or more of the physical requirements of the specification, notably freedom from pinholes." SABS report April 89.
"Spillage from condoms occurs as much as 65% to 75% of the time." Bjorklund and Gordon. Univ of Manitoba. Nov. 1990.
"The rubber comprising latex condom has intrinsic voids about 5 microns in size." The HIV virus is 0.1 micron. Roland, Rubber World. June 1993. Roland and Sobieski, Rubber Chemistry and Technology. Vol. 62, 1989.
Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 70% if they are used "consistently and correctly" IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) Medical Bulletin Feb. 1997.
"It is not established whether the condom is as effective at preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV as it is for preventing conception." "The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence (of HIV) among condom nonusers. Thus the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy." Family Planning Perspectives, 1999.
The failure rate for condoms in preventing pregnancy is 10%. K. Niswander. Manual of Obstetrics 1980.
The ISO standard for condoms allows 2 per 350 to be defective (about six defects per thousand.) (Tough luck if you happen to be one of those six)
"Increased condom use will increase the number of [HIV/AIDS] transmissions that result from condom failure" and "a vigorous condom promotion policy could increase rather than decrease unprotected sexual exposure if it has the unintended effect of encouraging a greater overall level of sexual activity." "Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons" The Lancet, 29 Jan 2000
In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992
Ontario Ministry of Health campaign to promote condoms by means of televised AIDS messages made respondents more inclined to use condoms but less inclined to avoid casual sexual partners. Wilde, Target Risk, PDE Publications, 1994.
IPPF indicates that the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called "protected sex" approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases. Cates Medical Bulletin, IPPF 1997.
The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990.
So given the statistics, why does FPNSW continue to distribute copious quantities of condom? What are they hoping to achieve by giving these away? How can they possible benefit?
Perhaps condom failure is seen as a positive for FPNSWs bottom line which would then benefit by treatment of the ensuing STI. Or abortion of the resulting baby.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
More fodder for Jerry Springer
Do-it-yourself paternity tests are now available at one the UK’s leading pharmacy chains, Boots.
The tests cost around $50 AUD plus a further $180 for 5-day laboratory testing. Particularly impatient speculators can double the lab test fee for results within 24 hours.
Many are applauding the wider availability of a product which could see a dramatic shift in the way child support payments are enforced but paternity testing experts say there is a danger.
Dr Helen Watt, Bioethics expert at Oxford University said, "The test could be harmful long-term if the child is not told, but grows up sensing that things are 'different' and that there is some mystery, or that something is 'wrong' with him or her."
The kit’s manufacturer, Anglia DNA Services, say half of the tests it processes are for children under one, which is only slightly comforting. One might expect the emotional fallout to be significantly reduced in cases where the child, although perhaps already attached to his/her father, does not yet understand the arguments that may arise from the procedure. But there’s still no guarantee that even a newborn will not later on be impacted by the ordeal.
Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, summed the dilemma up. "It will be used almost exclusively as weaponry between battling adults in fraught relationships, to the detriment of the unfortunate child caught in the middle. This child will be unable to give informed consent to the use of his or her tissue, but the emotional impact of the test results, which could include paternal rejection, are likely to be devastating."
In the US, where nearly half a million paternity tests are performed every year, experts are questioning whether a man should have the right to conduct the test after a child has reached the age of reason.
Thanks to a growing number of celebrities whose paternity has been questioned and tested, DNA testing for paternity is not the taboo topic it was a decade ago. Its continued discussion in soap operas, talk shows and reality television has also contributed to the real life glorified stories of misattributed paternity that have begun to emerge in the media. Perhaps Australia’s most famous recent case was that of Tony Abbott’s alleged son who discovered, 26 years after adoption, that Mr Abbott was not in fact his real father, as had been assumed.
Anglia DNA Services currently analyses more than 3000 DIY paternity tests every year, but this number is expected to sky-rocket with the wider available of the tests through 375 Boots outlets across the UK.
With infidelity and “paternity fraud” (a term used to describe the situation that occurs when a woman tries to gouge money from a partner she falsely claims is the father of her child/ren) on the constant rise, it seems the widespread availability of paternity testing kits is indicative of the direction of a society that has no understanding of the meaning of sex.
One thing’s for sure. It will make plenty of fodder for Jerry Springer, et al.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
The tests cost around $50 AUD plus a further $180 for 5-day laboratory testing. Particularly impatient speculators can double the lab test fee for results within 24 hours.
Many are applauding the wider availability of a product which could see a dramatic shift in the way child support payments are enforced but paternity testing experts say there is a danger.
Dr Helen Watt, Bioethics expert at Oxford University said, "The test could be harmful long-term if the child is not told, but grows up sensing that things are 'different' and that there is some mystery, or that something is 'wrong' with him or her."
The kit’s manufacturer, Anglia DNA Services, say half of the tests it processes are for children under one, which is only slightly comforting. One might expect the emotional fallout to be significantly reduced in cases where the child, although perhaps already attached to his/her father, does not yet understand the arguments that may arise from the procedure. But there’s still no guarantee that even a newborn will not later on be impacted by the ordeal.
Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, summed the dilemma up. "It will be used almost exclusively as weaponry between battling adults in fraught relationships, to the detriment of the unfortunate child caught in the middle. This child will be unable to give informed consent to the use of his or her tissue, but the emotional impact of the test results, which could include paternal rejection, are likely to be devastating."
In the US, where nearly half a million paternity tests are performed every year, experts are questioning whether a man should have the right to conduct the test after a child has reached the age of reason.
Thanks to a growing number of celebrities whose paternity has been questioned and tested, DNA testing for paternity is not the taboo topic it was a decade ago. Its continued discussion in soap operas, talk shows and reality television has also contributed to the real life glorified stories of misattributed paternity that have begun to emerge in the media. Perhaps Australia’s most famous recent case was that of Tony Abbott’s alleged son who discovered, 26 years after adoption, that Mr Abbott was not in fact his real father, as had been assumed.
Anglia DNA Services currently analyses more than 3000 DIY paternity tests every year, but this number is expected to sky-rocket with the wider available of the tests through 375 Boots outlets across the UK.
With infidelity and “paternity fraud” (a term used to describe the situation that occurs when a woman tries to gouge money from a partner she falsely claims is the father of her child/ren) on the constant rise, it seems the widespread availability of paternity testing kits is indicative of the direction of a society that has no understanding of the meaning of sex.
One thing’s for sure. It will make plenty of fodder for Jerry Springer, et al.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
We Did Vote Her In
Amongst all the vocal dissent against Julia Gillard after last week’s flood levy announcement, many seemed to forget that they voted her in. And it doesn’t seem to be the levy itself as perhaps the way it is proposed and the Government that is proposing it.
All evidence suggests that Tony Abbott, despite opposing Gillard’s levy, would have imposed a similar levy were it his decision to make. And the Howard Government imposed a number of levies that were not has vehemently opposed as this current flood levy.
Many decry the levy because they’ve already donated. Others dislike the idea of subsidizing the rebuilding of infrastructure on flood plains. Still others don’t understand why they should have to fund the building of public infrastructure at all, considering the many billions of taxpayer dollars which currently fund the erection of bridges and roads. But there is a minority who doesn’t particularly care what the money would be spent on; they believe it won’t be well spent regardless of good intentions. They simply don’t believe this Government has the ability to spend well.
The Government could scrap any number of overly generous grants which subsidise the lifestyle choices of Australians – first home buyers, paid parental leave, baby bonus, child care rebates. Perhaps it should have thought with the budget in mind when they paid for election campaign advertising. Or maybe they could slash the public service workforce like the Opposition promised to do if they made it into power.
One would not begrudge a levy if the Government was able to manage the budget, but it is difficult to trust a Government who went from a $20 billion surplus in 2008 to a $54 billion deficit less than 2 years later. After all, we have a Prime Minister who has never had to pay school fees or buy over-priced school uniforms; never struggled to pay a mortgage while meeting the other financial demands of raising a family.
But then, we did manage to vote her in.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
All evidence suggests that Tony Abbott, despite opposing Gillard’s levy, would have imposed a similar levy were it his decision to make. And the Howard Government imposed a number of levies that were not has vehemently opposed as this current flood levy.
Many decry the levy because they’ve already donated. Others dislike the idea of subsidizing the rebuilding of infrastructure on flood plains. Still others don’t understand why they should have to fund the building of public infrastructure at all, considering the many billions of taxpayer dollars which currently fund the erection of bridges and roads. But there is a minority who doesn’t particularly care what the money would be spent on; they believe it won’t be well spent regardless of good intentions. They simply don’t believe this Government has the ability to spend well.
The Government could scrap any number of overly generous grants which subsidise the lifestyle choices of Australians – first home buyers, paid parental leave, baby bonus, child care rebates. Perhaps it should have thought with the budget in mind when they paid for election campaign advertising. Or maybe they could slash the public service workforce like the Opposition promised to do if they made it into power.
One would not begrudge a levy if the Government was able to manage the budget, but it is difficult to trust a Government who went from a $20 billion surplus in 2008 to a $54 billion deficit less than 2 years later. After all, we have a Prime Minister who has never had to pay school fees or buy over-priced school uniforms; never struggled to pay a mortgage while meeting the other financial demands of raising a family.
But then, we did manage to vote her in.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Oprah Phenomenon
Australia has been well and truly besieged by the Oprah fever. From screaming teens to crying mid-lifers, it seems few have escaped the grip of the most popular, if not also the most powerful, woman in the world.
Oprah Winfrey didn’t inherit her fortune and she wasn’t born into a privileged family. A classic rags to riches story, she is where she is today largely through her own merit. And it seems to be this which appeals to so many. And of course there’s something totally unique about a talk show host who is more powerful than the celebrities she interviews.
But watching the “Oprah’s Ultimate Favorite Things” show last night, one might be forgiven for thinking she is really just a brand. And anything with the O-branded seal of approval is something worth buying. Oprah is a marketer and those Favorite Things shows smack of a Danoz ad from the 90s.
The Favorite Things episodes feature throngs of audience members falling all over themselves, crying with joy over the new (heavily over-priced) kitchen knives they will walk away with, while home viewers quickly write down the names of all the products. Everything about this facet of the Oprah franchise feeds the consumerist culture of modern day America, and increasingly the rest of the world. What Oprah has, we must have. If Oprah says it’s good, it must be. Never mind that multi-million dollar international companies just paid well to have their product endorsed by her.
In a clever marketing ploy by our country’s tourism industry, Oprah’s latest “favorite” thing is Australia. Considering that companies like Nike and P&N Cruises probably pay well into the millions for product endorsement, 5 million dollars to endorse a country probably isn’t too bad.
In a media conference during her visit, Oprah promised to repay the Australian taxpayer’s 5 million dollar investment in her, describing her impact on tourism to Australia as “immeasurable”.
Here’s hoping.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Oprah Winfrey didn’t inherit her fortune and she wasn’t born into a privileged family. A classic rags to riches story, she is where she is today largely through her own merit. And it seems to be this which appeals to so many. And of course there’s something totally unique about a talk show host who is more powerful than the celebrities she interviews.
But watching the “Oprah’s Ultimate Favorite Things” show last night, one might be forgiven for thinking she is really just a brand. And anything with the O-branded seal of approval is something worth buying. Oprah is a marketer and those Favorite Things shows smack of a Danoz ad from the 90s.
The Favorite Things episodes feature throngs of audience members falling all over themselves, crying with joy over the new (heavily over-priced) kitchen knives they will walk away with, while home viewers quickly write down the names of all the products. Everything about this facet of the Oprah franchise feeds the consumerist culture of modern day America, and increasingly the rest of the world. What Oprah has, we must have. If Oprah says it’s good, it must be. Never mind that multi-million dollar international companies just paid well to have their product endorsed by her.
In a clever marketing ploy by our country’s tourism industry, Oprah’s latest “favorite” thing is Australia. Considering that companies like Nike and P&N Cruises probably pay well into the millions for product endorsement, 5 million dollars to endorse a country probably isn’t too bad.
In a media conference during her visit, Oprah promised to repay the Australian taxpayer’s 5 million dollar investment in her, describing her impact on tourism to Australia as “immeasurable”.
Here’s hoping.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Deficits of another kind
If you tune in to the right sources and listen very, very carefully, you might just hear the faint whisper which suggests that many children who have been diagnosed with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) might actually be suffering attention deficit disorder of a parental kind.
Around the traps, thoughtful psychologists, school teachers, church leaders and single parents are starting to recognize that children who lack the significant individual attention of one or both parents, are the same children being prescribed Ritalin.
Of course, the pharmaceutical companies that suck millions from families each year are unlikely to spread the word, but slowly, ever so slowly, it’s getting out there. And there are no more outspoken proponents of this new-age view than the parents raising children who have been diagnosed with the developmental disorder.
Emily Cairns, Army wife and mother of two young boys, says her children’s behavior changes dramatically on about day 4 of a deployment when her little boys realizes Daddy is not coming home yet. “They cope fine when it’s just a day or two, but more than that and it gets really tough. The last time my husband was deployed, I ended up taking the kids to a doctor because they just weren’t themselves. It was the doctor who suggested it might be a separation anxiety issue rather than ADHD as I had first suspected.”
The online journal, ScienceDaily, recently reported that 1 million children in the United States may have been misdiagnosed with ADHD, simply for being the youngest kid in the class.
And yet the hype remains.
Trawl the mummy forums and you’ll find many women feeling helpless about their 2 year old son who simply won’t sit still. Not even for 5 minutes. What could possibly be wrong with my child, they ask, thoroughly exasperated and entirely convinced that if they took their child to the doctor, the kid would be prescribed Ritalin.
At a time when many children are abandoned to mass care at one point or another during the first 4 years of life, it may be useful to look at separation anxiety, sleep disturbance, dysfunctional environments and bullying as a cause for a child’s behavioural issues, before medicating them.
After all, they’re only young. And we put a lot of pressure on children to conform.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Around the traps, thoughtful psychologists, school teachers, church leaders and single parents are starting to recognize that children who lack the significant individual attention of one or both parents, are the same children being prescribed Ritalin.
Of course, the pharmaceutical companies that suck millions from families each year are unlikely to spread the word, but slowly, ever so slowly, it’s getting out there. And there are no more outspoken proponents of this new-age view than the parents raising children who have been diagnosed with the developmental disorder.
Emily Cairns, Army wife and mother of two young boys, says her children’s behavior changes dramatically on about day 4 of a deployment when her little boys realizes Daddy is not coming home yet. “They cope fine when it’s just a day or two, but more than that and it gets really tough. The last time my husband was deployed, I ended up taking the kids to a doctor because they just weren’t themselves. It was the doctor who suggested it might be a separation anxiety issue rather than ADHD as I had first suspected.”
The online journal, ScienceDaily, recently reported that 1 million children in the United States may have been misdiagnosed with ADHD, simply for being the youngest kid in the class.
And yet the hype remains.
Trawl the mummy forums and you’ll find many women feeling helpless about their 2 year old son who simply won’t sit still. Not even for 5 minutes. What could possibly be wrong with my child, they ask, thoroughly exasperated and entirely convinced that if they took their child to the doctor, the kid would be prescribed Ritalin.
At a time when many children are abandoned to mass care at one point or another during the first 4 years of life, it may be useful to look at separation anxiety, sleep disturbance, dysfunctional environments and bullying as a cause for a child’s behavioural issues, before medicating them.
After all, they’re only young. And we put a lot of pressure on children to conform.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Cover Up
One stupid ‘tweet’ and the world’s dumbest celebrities make news.
This week it was Kim Kardashian who ‘tweeted’ to her nearly 4 million followers that a woman breastfeeding in a restaurant without a cover was “eww”.
Yes, eww. Apparently it’s a word.
And yes. This is coming from the same Kim Kardashian who shot to fame for creating a sex tape. Without having seen this tape, one might safely assume she was filmed exposed without a cover.
Ah the logic.
Breastfeeding mothers have come under fire a lot recently. Just last week, the UKs leading parenting magazine Mother & Baby published an article by the deputy editor, Kathryn Blundell, in which she stated that breastfeeding was “creepy”, because in her opinion, breasts are “funbags”.
And last month in New Zealand, Better Homes and Gardens magazine published a list of “commandments” for eating out with children. "Yes, I have seen table-side breastfeeding at a four-star restaurant," wrote the author. "If at all possible, take it to the ladies room."
What’s truly creepy is that mothers who actually perform a natural function with their God-given breasts are shoved into the toilets, yet models and actresses who expose themselves for other reasons are protected from public scorn by a multi-billion dollar industry that earns its money by keeping these women exposed.
How did we get to the point where we can walk past a newsagency with scores of exposed breasts on the covers of magazines without batting an eyelid, but we can’t bear the sight of a woman breastfeeding in public without a cover?
The World Health Organisation recommends partial breast-feeding until the age of 2 and full breast-feeding until 6 months, but children who are fully breastfed for the first 6 months make up between 1% and 25% of babies, depending on which country you live in.
For a practice that is recommended for the health of the child and the speedy post-birth recovery and weightloss of the mother, it sure is copping a beating from so-called parenting experts and governments whose economic policies ensure that babies cannot be breastfed for even close to 6 months.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
This week it was Kim Kardashian who ‘tweeted’ to her nearly 4 million followers that a woman breastfeeding in a restaurant without a cover was “eww”.
Yes, eww. Apparently it’s a word.
And yes. This is coming from the same Kim Kardashian who shot to fame for creating a sex tape. Without having seen this tape, one might safely assume she was filmed exposed without a cover.
Ah the logic.
Breastfeeding mothers have come under fire a lot recently. Just last week, the UKs leading parenting magazine Mother & Baby published an article by the deputy editor, Kathryn Blundell, in which she stated that breastfeeding was “creepy”, because in her opinion, breasts are “funbags”.
And last month in New Zealand, Better Homes and Gardens magazine published a list of “commandments” for eating out with children. "Yes, I have seen table-side breastfeeding at a four-star restaurant," wrote the author. "If at all possible, take it to the ladies room."
What’s truly creepy is that mothers who actually perform a natural function with their God-given breasts are shoved into the toilets, yet models and actresses who expose themselves for other reasons are protected from public scorn by a multi-billion dollar industry that earns its money by keeping these women exposed.
How did we get to the point where we can walk past a newsagency with scores of exposed breasts on the covers of magazines without batting an eyelid, but we can’t bear the sight of a woman breastfeeding in public without a cover?
The World Health Organisation recommends partial breast-feeding until the age of 2 and full breast-feeding until 6 months, but children who are fully breastfed for the first 6 months make up between 1% and 25% of babies, depending on which country you live in.
For a practice that is recommended for the health of the child and the speedy post-birth recovery and weightloss of the mother, it sure is copping a beating from so-called parenting experts and governments whose economic policies ensure that babies cannot be breastfed for even close to 6 months.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Making Innocence a Myth
A recent 5-day study by Dr Mindy Blaise has received surprisingly little media attention, considering the nature of the research and the age of the subjects.
The Monash University researcher spent 5 days in a conveniently unnamed Victorian childcare centre trying to gauge the sexual knowledge and views of the 3-4 year olds at the centre. Blaise asked the children questions like, “Are you a flirt?” and “Have you ever kissed a boy?” Presumably, Blaise had to explain the word ‘flirt’ to the children. I doubt it is in the vocabulary of most toddlers.
Blaise believes childhood innocence is a myth (wishful thinking, perhaps?) and says she intentionally brought a topic into the preschool that adults usually ignore. She has since defended her work, stating that she was just raising issues that children are already discussing in childcare and kindy. So first she’s discussing topics that are being ignored and now she’s discussing topics that are already being discussed. It’s hard to know what to believe, but if the topic is usually ignored, that is probably because it doesn’t exist in the minds of 3 year olds.
She asked the children to comment on a picture of two crocodiles kissing and when one little girl concluded that one crocodile was a boy and the other a girl, Blaise concurred that the child's views were heterosexual. Seriously.
Psychologists and family groups had something to say about the research, with Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, one of Australia’s leading child psychologists, weighing into the debate, "It's part of the general adultification of children. Why the hell can't we just let children be children?"
Apparently, the parent’s consent was given. They would not have given consent to a random stranger to question their child’s sexual knowledge (in fact, they would doubtless have called the police), but they happily gave it to an academic. However, the difference between one’s child being asked questions of a sexual nature by an academic and being asked by a stranger on the street is non-existent because the effect is the same. To use Carr-Gregg’s term, the “adultification of children” occurs regardless of who asks the question.
Is it just me, or are parents far too quick to forfeit their responsibilities these days? Do they really think that allowing a stranger to probe their children with sex-related questions at the age of three will make the birds and the bees talk any easier when they’re 12? Chances are the kid won’t need it anyway. By 12, they’ll probably know more than the parents.
Blaise’s article appeared in the March 2010 edition of the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood which featured other articles about bringing the subject of sexuality into the early childhood educational setting. Considering the vast number of 3-4 year olds who have spent time in institutionalised care in the past decade, and the plummeting rate of literacy in primary schools across the nation, one might have thought simple phonics theory to be a more useful discussion topic for the esteemed Journal.
Source:
Kiss and tell: Gendered narratives and childhood sexuality; Australasian Journal of Early Childhood – Volume 35 No 1 March 2010, pp. 1–9
© Eva Whiteley 2010
The Monash University researcher spent 5 days in a conveniently unnamed Victorian childcare centre trying to gauge the sexual knowledge and views of the 3-4 year olds at the centre. Blaise asked the children questions like, “Are you a flirt?” and “Have you ever kissed a boy?” Presumably, Blaise had to explain the word ‘flirt’ to the children. I doubt it is in the vocabulary of most toddlers.
Blaise believes childhood innocence is a myth (wishful thinking, perhaps?) and says she intentionally brought a topic into the preschool that adults usually ignore. She has since defended her work, stating that she was just raising issues that children are already discussing in childcare and kindy. So first she’s discussing topics that are being ignored and now she’s discussing topics that are already being discussed. It’s hard to know what to believe, but if the topic is usually ignored, that is probably because it doesn’t exist in the minds of 3 year olds.
She asked the children to comment on a picture of two crocodiles kissing and when one little girl concluded that one crocodile was a boy and the other a girl, Blaise concurred that the child's views were heterosexual. Seriously.
Psychologists and family groups had something to say about the research, with Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, one of Australia’s leading child psychologists, weighing into the debate, "It's part of the general adultification of children. Why the hell can't we just let children be children?"
Apparently, the parent’s consent was given. They would not have given consent to a random stranger to question their child’s sexual knowledge (in fact, they would doubtless have called the police), but they happily gave it to an academic. However, the difference between one’s child being asked questions of a sexual nature by an academic and being asked by a stranger on the street is non-existent because the effect is the same. To use Carr-Gregg’s term, the “adultification of children” occurs regardless of who asks the question.
Is it just me, or are parents far too quick to forfeit their responsibilities these days? Do they really think that allowing a stranger to probe their children with sex-related questions at the age of three will make the birds and the bees talk any easier when they’re 12? Chances are the kid won’t need it anyway. By 12, they’ll probably know more than the parents.
Blaise’s article appeared in the March 2010 edition of the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood which featured other articles about bringing the subject of sexuality into the early childhood educational setting. Considering the vast number of 3-4 year olds who have spent time in institutionalised care in the past decade, and the plummeting rate of literacy in primary schools across the nation, one might have thought simple phonics theory to be a more useful discussion topic for the esteemed Journal.
Source:
Kiss and tell: Gendered narratives and childhood sexuality; Australasian Journal of Early Childhood – Volume 35 No 1 March 2010, pp. 1–9
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
