Pages

Monday, July 28, 2014

Helicopter parents - Relax, your kids will be fine

Helicopter parents

Relax, your kids will be fine


IN 1693 the philosopher John Locke warned that children should not be given too much “unwholesome fruit” to eat. Three centuries later, misguided ideas about child-rearing are still rife. Many parents fret that their offspring will die unless ceaselessly watched. In America the law can be equally paranoid. In South Carolina this month Debra Harrell was jailed for letting her nine-year-old daughter play in a park unsupervised. The child, who had a mobile phone and had not been harmed in any way, was briefly taken into custody of the social services.

Ms Harrell’s draconian punishment reflects the rich world’s angst about parenting. By most objective measures, modern parents are far more conscientious than previous generations. Since 1965 labour-saving devices such as washing machines and ready meals have freed eight hours a week for the average American couple, but slightly more than all of that time has been swallowed up by childcare. Dads are far more hands-on than their fathers were, and working mothers spend more time nurturing their sprogs than the housewives of the 1960s did. This works for both sides: children need love and stimulation; and for the parents, reading to a child or playing ball games in the garden is more fulfilling than washing dishes.

There are two blots in this picture, connected to class. One is at the lower end. Even if poor parents spend more time with their children than they once did, they spend less than rich parents do—and they struggle to provide enough support, especially in the crucial early years (see article). America is a laggard here; its government spends abundantly on school-age kids but much less than other rich countries on the first two or three years of life. As this newspaper has pointed out before, if America did more to help poor parents with young children, it would yield huge returns.

The second problem, less easy to prove, occurs at the other end of the income scale, and may even apply to otherwise rational Economist readers: well-educated, rich parents try to do too much (see article). Safety is part of it: they fear that if they are not constantly vigilant their children may break their necks or eat a cupcake that has fallen on the floor. Over-coaching is another symptom. Parents fear that unless they drive their offspring to Mandarin classes, violin lessons and fencing practice six times a week, they will not get into the right university. The streets of Palo Alto and Chelsea are clogged with people-carriers hauling children from one educational event to another.

The fear about safety is the least rational. Despite the impression you get from watching crime dramas, children in rich countries are mind-bogglingly safe, so long as they look both ways before crossing the road. Kids in the 1950s—that golden era so often evoked by conservative politicians—were in fact five times likelier to die before the age of five. Yet their parents thought nothing of letting them roam free. In those days, most American children walked or biked to school; now barely 10% do, prevented by jittery parents. Children learn how to handle risks by taking a few, such as climbing trees or taking the train, even if that means scraped knees and seeing the occasional weirdo. Freedom is exhilarating. It also fosters self-reliance.

Get out of that helicopter
The other popular parental fear—that your children might not get into an Ivy League college—is more rational. Academic success matters more than ever before. But beyond a certain point, parenting makes less difference than many parents imagine. Studies in Minnesota and Sweden, for example, found that identical twins grew up equally intelligent whether they were raised together or apart. A study in Colorado found that children adopted and raised by brainy parents ended up no brainier than those adopted by average parents. Genes appear to matter more than upbringing in the jobs market, too. In a big study of Korean children adopted in America, those raised by the richest families grew up to earn no more than those adopted by the poorest families.
This does not mean that parenting is irrelevant. The families who adopt children are carefully screened, so they tend to be warm, capable and middle-class. But the twin and adoption studies indicate that any child given a loving home and adequate stimulation is likely to fulfil her potential. Put another way, better-off parents can afford to relax a bit. Your kids will be fine if you hover over them less and let them frolic in the sun from time to time. You may be happier, too, if you spend the extra time indulging your own hobbies—or sleeping. And if you are less stressed, your children will appreciate it, even if you still make them eat their fruit and vegetables.

Stressed parents - Cancel that violin class

Helicopter moms and dads will not harm their kids if they relax a bit




WELL-TO-DO parents fear two things: that their children will die in a freak accident, and that they will not get into Harvard. The first fear is wildly exaggerated. The second is not, but staying awake all night worrying about it will not help—and it will make you miserable.
Modern parents see risks that their own parents never considered. They put gates at the top of stairs, affix cushions to table corners and jam plastic guards into sockets to stop small fingers from getting electrocuted. Those guards are “potential choking hazards”, jests Lenore Skenazy, the author of “Free-Range Kids”. Ms Skenazy let her nine-year-old son ride the New York subway on his own. He was thrilled; but when she spoke about it on TV, a mob of worrywarts called her “America’s worst mom”.
Yet in fact American children are staggeringly safe. A kid under five in the 1950s was five times as likely to die (of disease, in an accident, etc) than the same kid today. The chance of a child being kidnapped and murdered by a stranger is a minuscule one in 1.5m.
What about academic success? Surely the possibility of getting into Harvard justifies any amount of driving junior from violin lesson to calculus tutor?
Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, says it does not. In “Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids”, he points to evidence that genes matter far more than parenting. A Minnesota study found that identical twins grow up to be similarly clever regardless of whether they are raised in the same household or in separate ones. Studies in Texas and Colorado found that children adopted by high-IQ families were no smarter than those adopted by average families. A Dutch study found that if you are smarter than 80% of the population, you should expect your identical twin raised in another home to be smarter than 76% but your adopted sibling to be average. Other twin and adopted studies find that genes have a huge influence on academic and financial success, while parenting has only a modest effect.
The crucial caveat is that adoptive parents have to pass stringent tests. So adoption studies typically compare nice middle-class homes with other nice middle-class homes; they tell you little about the effect of growing up in a poor or dysfunctional household.
The moral, for Mr Caplan, is that middle-class parents should relax a bit, cancel a violin class or two and let their kids play outside. “If your parenting style passes the laugh test, your kids will be fine,” he writes. He adds that if parents fretted less about each child, they might find it less daunting to have three instead of two. And that might make them happier in the long run. No 60-year-old ever wished for fewer grandchildren.
Does over-parenting hurt children? Probably not; but it exhausts parents. Hence the cascade of books with titles like “All Joy And No Fun” and “Go The F**k To Sleep”. Kids notice when their parents are overdoing it. Ellen Galinsky, a researcher, asked 1,000 kids what they would most like to change about their parents’ schedules. Few wanted more face time; the top wish was for mom and dad to be less tired and stressed.

Women in Saudi Arabia - Unshackling themselves

Saudi women are gaining ground, slowly





A RECENT move to introduce physical education to government girls’ schools met the same response as most attempts to give Saudi women equal rights with men. A group of conservatives protested in Riyadh, the capital, against “Westernising” moves that would lead to adultery and prostitution. Such mores, they argued, have no place in the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad.
But sport looks set to become a fact of life for women in the kingdom. In 2012 two Saudi women took part in the Olympics for the first time, weathering a torrent of abuse. Since last year the authorities have been giving licences to private sports clubs for women, a far cry from 2006 when Lina al-Maeena had to register her ladies’ basketball team in Jeddah as a company. Even in stuffier Riyadh, girls can be seen kicking footballs with their brothers, the hems of their black abayas trailing in the dust.

Slowly the tide in Saudi Arabia appears to be running in women’s favour. “The Saudi woman’s voice has always been there calling for change,” says Hatoon al-Fassi, a prominent Saudi historian of women in Arabia. “But today it is more apparent and it is getting to the decision-makers.” Though lambasting the lack of equality between the sexes in the kingdom, Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby group, last year referred to “encouraging, modest” reforms for women.
Since taking power in 2005, King Abdullah, the ageing monarch, has given women a bigger role in public life. In 2009 Norah al-Faiz was appointed deputy minister for education, the highest post attained by a woman in government. Last year 30 women took their seats in the Shura Council, a consultative body of 150 members, also appointed by the king. And women are due for the first time to vote and stand in municipal elections—the only ones permitted in the kingdom—albeit that only half the seats are elected and that the councils are pretty toothless.
In the private arena changes are afoot, too. This year Somayya Jabarti became the first female editor of a daily newspaper, the Saudi Gazette. More women are working, including running their own businesses, though the female unemployment rate remains a lofty 32%. The first female-run law firm opened this year, after the authorities lifted a ban preventing women law graduates from practising.
And women are generally more visible, even on the streets of Riyadh, which lies in the heartland dominated by the influence of Wahhabists, who follow an ultra-conservative version of Islam. Since restrictions on women at work have been eased, they operate cash tills everywhere, from lingerie shops to IKEA, a Swedish-founded furniture shop. They take taxis alone and head to the increasing number of facilities dedicated to women, from spas to separate floors of shopping malls.
Women are speaking up, too. Princess Reema bint Bandar al-Saud, a great-granddaughter of the founding king, runs a franchise of Harvey Nichols in Riyadh—and led a team of women to the base camp of Mount Everest to raise awareness of breast cancer. Women have written the most acclaimed Saudi novel of recent years, “Girls of Riyadh”, and directed the first feature film made in the country, “Wadjda”, about a girl in Riyadh who dreams of owning a bicycle to race against a neighbouring boy.
Across the board, Saudi women are pushing for changes to laws in a country where sharialaw is imposed by all-male courts. Last year human-rights groups hailed new legislation to criminalise domestic violence, though who is in charge of enforcing it remains unclear. From 2020 identity cards will be mandatory rather than optional for women, who until 2001 were required simply to be listed on their male guardian’s card.
Dainty steps at a time
There is still a long way to go. The guardianship rule—under which women must get permission from their husband, father or, less commonly, brother or son, to travel, work or get medical treatment—remains in place, in effect treating half the adult population as minors. Yet women can be held criminally responsible.
“Until [the guardianship rule] goes, all the changes are just a show for outside,” says Aziza Yousef, a professor at Riyadh’s King Saud University. By not tackling the issues head on, some argue that Saudi Arabia is institutionalising segregation, whereby women are still not allowed to be alone with unrelated men in public. Banks have “ladies branches”. Education is single-sex from kindergarten through to doctorates; King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, 80km (50 miles) north of Jeddah, is the sole exception. Even shopping for clothes, women suffer innumerable annoyances. If, for example, they want to try on a garment, they generally have to do so in a toilet, since male-manned shops do not offer changing rooms.
For every step forward, the kingdom appears to take one back. Last month the local media reported that a woman had been sentenced to 150 lashes and eight months in jail for the crime of driving a car. The kingdom still ranks 127th of 136 in the UN’s gender-gap index.
There is no sign of any rethinking of the Wahhabists’ interpretation of Islam and their grip on Saudi morals. The religious establishment, on which the House of Saud relies to sustain its autocratic rule, has embalmed many tribal customs as Islamic and enforces strict interpretations of the religion which are not shared by Muslims in other countries, nor indeed by many in Saudi Arabia.
Instead, change is coming in other ways. One is social media. Newspaper columnists such as Ms al-Fassi and Samar Fatany, a veteran journalist, have been joined by many others online. Eman al-Nafjan runs Saudiwoman’s Weblog, which tackles an array of women’s issues. Twitter is full of campaigns for (and against) women’s rights. Ms Yousef uploaded videos to YouTube of herself driving. Serene al-Feteih, a freelance writer and photographer, is just about to launch a chat show in which she and two other women will debate matters seldom aired before, from contentious aspects of divorce to why Islam permits one man to have four wives.
Clever clogs
Education is forging change, too. More women than men are now in higher education; women-only universities are popping up everywhere. At least 150,000 Saudi students, a large minority of them women, many of them without a chaperone, are studying abroad. “The young generation is being exposed to other cultures and ways of doing things,” says Haifa Jamal al-Lail, president of Effat University, a private college for women in Jeddah and the first to offer engineering courses to women.
More than anything, change is coming through economics. “Fewer men are happy to come home to their wife with her feet up,” says Khalid al-Khudair, founder of Glowork, a company that runs a website to connect women and employers. “And then they will get annoyed at having to drive her everywhere.” In a branch of a lingerie chain, Nayomi, one of the shops that must now have female staff only, four newly hired women discuss their jobs. “The attitudes of families and men are changing,” says Areej Yaseen. A colleague disagrees: “My father allows me to work only because we need the money,” she says.
Fatwas, such as one issued by Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Luhayan asserting that women would damage their ovaries if they were to drive a car, are the least of the obstacles. A range of other Saudis also resist change. The government is nervous of giving more power to any ordinary people, women included. Many in the clergy think likewise. Some men argue for change, but more simply want to keep women down. And many women themselves resist emancipation. A rare government poll (admittedly, back in 2006) found that 86% of women thought they should not work in a mixed environment; and 89% thought they should not be allowed to drive.
“The first women we got jobs for in a supermarket in Riyadh last year had to be sacked after a week—thanks to the public outcry,” says Mr Khudair. “But soon people got used to the idea.” His company finds jobs for women in call-centres, at home and part-time. And attitudes and practices shift naturally. When companies first employed women, they had separate buildings, entrances and areas to work. Now in many offices men and women mingle. “The law is unclear,” says a male businessman. “We take advantage of that.” Sahal Yaseen, an imam and family counsellor in Jeddah, says divorce is becoming more frequent as women become more assertive and aware of their rights.
Women disagree over how best to win more reforms, though most agree it is still happening too slowly. “Change is most likely to come by working within the system,” says Hoda Abdulrahman al-Helaissi, a Shura Council member. Those sharing her view argue that provocative gestures, such as driving, cause a backlash. They point to places such as Switzerland, where women got the vote only in 1971. “Change is happening rapidly here,” says Ms Helaissi. “It’s just several decades behind.”
Others argue that the country’s old and out-of-touch rulers need to move much faster. “No society changed without laws mandating it from the top,” says Ms Yousef. “People need pushing,” agrees Khaled al-Maeena, a veteran journalist who groomed Ms Jabarti for the editorship of the Saudi Gazette.
Where most Saudi women appear to agree is that their ultimate goal is not to copy Western women. Despite the globalising ways influencing the kingdom, they tend to see their identity as inextricably bound to their country’s as the home of Islam. Most want to abide by the Koran’s description of their role. Many agree that they should dress modestly. Others accept that a woman should ask her husband for permission to travel. Indeed, what Islam really says about women is still, in Saudi Arabia, waiting for a proper debate. Until that happens, change will continue. But slowly.