This article says that it is not.
I partially agree with the premise.
Having a child means taking a step into the unknown. It isn't completely uncharted territority, since others have traveled there before and written visitor guides, but you won't truly know what it's like for your until you get there.
I don't think that means that no part of the decision-making process is rational. We make decisions based upon incomplete information all the time, from traveling to a new destination to undergoing a new medical procedure. We can make decisions to commit to a course of action, knowing that there is no guarantee and that there is some assumption of risk.
While you can't always know with 100% certainty how you or someone else will react to parenthood, there are some ways to have a pretty good guess. My husband always doted on his much-younger sister and was an awesome camp counselor and youth group leader. No big surprise that he's a good dad. My sister's husband always worked with kids with special needs, loved the work and was absolutely loved by everyone. No surprise that he's great with his own kids, including my nephew who is on the autism spectrum. My husband's brother was the favorite uncle with my kids. No big surprise that his kids adore him either.
On the other hand, I would agree that there are feelings that I would have had difficulty describing or understanding before I got pregnant. There are also things that I don't really discuss that much with others, because it would just sound too corny or religious or out-of-character for someone snarky like me. So, before I got pregnant for the first time, I knew that I liked kids in general, that my husband would make a good father, and that we were approaching a time in our lives where kids could fit into the picture. That was the rational part. The part that I didn't discuss is that I sometimes wondered while reading all the pregnancy and parenting magazines is this was all worth it, or that I was slightly terrified of the changes that would happen. I told people about the miscarriage, but most weren't aware of the depth of the grief and the fact that I was wondering if I was losing my mind. It was a mental and emotional landscape that I hadn't known existed. I didn't know that it was possible to physically feel grief, to have an actual sensation of empty arms. I do know that our decision to get pregnant again was very different - it wasn't a "sure, I guess we want kids now", but an actual hunger to be parents. It's a bit hard to explain that to people in real life, especially if they've never experienced anything like that, if you don't want to sound like a lunatic.
It's also hard to explain the joy that we felt upon the birth of our first baby. It was just an instant end to the depression and paranoia, and a moment of pure joy. Again, outside of religious circles, you don't use terms like "pure joy" in real life in rational conversations. So, I'd talk about the mundane and funny stuff, like the first time I had the baby pee AND poo AND puke over me all at once. I had the words for that. I didn't have the words to describe that I didn't really mind that much, because she was part of me and a living miracle and I was still floating on this cloud. I'd complain about the fact that she never slept between 1 am and 5 am, but didn't talk about the feeling of emptiness that I had felt before she was born and how, even though I was insanely exhausted, I needed to feel her in my arms.
It's hard to explain the neat feeling of having your baby grow into a person, and getting to know their own little personality quirks. I didn't know that my sensitive oldest child could move me so much, or that I could be so fascinated with my smart and independent middle child's imaginary world, or that I could learn to cheer on my youngest child's interest in all things sports-related. Rabbi Orlowek once described love as meaning, "if it is important to you, it's important to me". I didn't fully appreciate that until having kids.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Medical issues, and the post I had planned to do
Friday started off as a busy day, and I had thought about doing a post about it. It would have been called something like "Fridays and the Jewish Supermom", and detailed how I spent my day buying frozen unbaked challah bread, throwing together a chicken soup in the crockpot, going to court, and then getting the kids early and making a big dinner.
[At some point, I stopped and realized that this post would come across as First World Programs (since having a career, family and food are all things that I'm lucky to have), and that there were a ton of people who were no doubt juggling far more than dinner and a job.]
Anyway, I got back from doing carpool, popped some stuff in the oven, and answered the phone. It was my husband, telling me that he had just collapsed at the gym. Luckily, my father happened to be at my house, so I had him watch the kids while I got my husband and took him to the hospital. They are running a bunch of tests to figure out exactly what happened. This may have just been some fluke cardiac rhythm - or it could be a sign of a potentially more serious issue that could have caused him to suddenly drop dead.
The crazy thing is that he is far better about taking care of his health than I am. I'm the one who hasn't been sleeping properly and who has been eating complete crap and getting no exercise for the past month, and dealing with it through a combination of stress-induced energy and Red Bull. He's the one who is a serious runner and who makes spinach shakes for breakfast.
[At some point, I stopped and realized that this post would come across as First World Programs (since having a career, family and food are all things that I'm lucky to have), and that there were a ton of people who were no doubt juggling far more than dinner and a job.]
Anyway, I got back from doing carpool, popped some stuff in the oven, and answered the phone. It was my husband, telling me that he had just collapsed at the gym. Luckily, my father happened to be at my house, so I had him watch the kids while I got my husband and took him to the hospital. They are running a bunch of tests to figure out exactly what happened. This may have just been some fluke cardiac rhythm - or it could be a sign of a potentially more serious issue that could have caused him to suddenly drop dead.
The crazy thing is that he is far better about taking care of his health than I am. I'm the one who hasn't been sleeping properly and who has been eating complete crap and getting no exercise for the past month, and dealing with it through a combination of stress-induced energy and Red Bull. He's the one who is a serious runner and who makes spinach shakes for breakfast.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Drowning prevention
One point that struck me when I first read Freakonomics was the claim that a swimming pool was more likely to kill a child than a gun in the home. It felt counter-intuitive. Then, a close friend lost her toddler as a result of drowning.
This summer, there's been a lot of focus on the tragedies of gun violence, whether in Toronto or Colorado. Those stories are heart-breaking, and I don't have the answers to the problems.
I also noticed, though, that while the violent deaths are shown on the news in an endless loop, I've been seeing much smaller reports of drowning deaths this hot summer.
Many of the victims of the shootings were true heroes, and they should be honored. I'm also hoping, though, that a bit of time can be taken from the coverage of the crimes and debates to bring some attention to drowning prevention. How many parents will be too paranoid to allow their kids to see a movie or fear that the streets are getting too violent, while failing to take basic precautions to prevent something that is statistically more likely to kill their kids?
I thought this report was good, especially the video footage of a near-drowning:
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/48145228#48145228
Many people have no idea what a non-swimmer drowning looks and sounds like. They don't realize that what you see and hear is....nothing. There's no screaming or splashing, because they are under water. The only way to effectively supervise a child 5 or under in the water is to get in the water yourself, keep your eyes on your kids at all times, and always be within arms' reach. Period. You can't supervise from a pool chair, or think that there are enough people around that someone would notice a problem, or rely on a floatie ring.
Parents also need to view pools, ponds and other bodies of water in the same way that they would view a loaded gun when it comes to children. There needs to be a sturdy, self-closing gate between the house and the pool. During a backyard event, someone needs to be watching the pool and watching the young kids, because a child can fall in without anyone noticing. Children need constant vigilance around bodies of water, if they are visiting a cottage or camp.
People don't recognize the dangers of boating, especially with weak or non-swimmers. Life jackets need to be worn, since they won't do any good lying on the floor of the boat.
Parents should learn basic lifesaving techniques. If a weak swimmer tries to just jump in and rescue a non-swimmer, it's likely that they will both drown since the instinct of the non-swimmer is to grab onto the rescuer and try to climb up.
This summer, there's been a lot of focus on the tragedies of gun violence, whether in Toronto or Colorado. Those stories are heart-breaking, and I don't have the answers to the problems.
I also noticed, though, that while the violent deaths are shown on the news in an endless loop, I've been seeing much smaller reports of drowning deaths this hot summer.
Many of the victims of the shootings were true heroes, and they should be honored. I'm also hoping, though, that a bit of time can be taken from the coverage of the crimes and debates to bring some attention to drowning prevention. How many parents will be too paranoid to allow their kids to see a movie or fear that the streets are getting too violent, while failing to take basic precautions to prevent something that is statistically more likely to kill their kids?
I thought this report was good, especially the video footage of a near-drowning:
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/48145228#48145228
Many people have no idea what a non-swimmer drowning looks and sounds like. They don't realize that what you see and hear is....nothing. There's no screaming or splashing, because they are under water. The only way to effectively supervise a child 5 or under in the water is to get in the water yourself, keep your eyes on your kids at all times, and always be within arms' reach. Period. You can't supervise from a pool chair, or think that there are enough people around that someone would notice a problem, or rely on a floatie ring.
Parents also need to view pools, ponds and other bodies of water in the same way that they would view a loaded gun when it comes to children. There needs to be a sturdy, self-closing gate between the house and the pool. During a backyard event, someone needs to be watching the pool and watching the young kids, because a child can fall in without anyone noticing. Children need constant vigilance around bodies of water, if they are visiting a cottage or camp.
People don't recognize the dangers of boating, especially with weak or non-swimmers. Life jackets need to be worn, since they won't do any good lying on the floor of the boat.
Parents should learn basic lifesaving techniques. If a weak swimmer tries to just jump in and rescue a non-swimmer, it's likely that they will both drown since the instinct of the non-swimmer is to grab onto the rescuer and try to climb up.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Camp video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qnY6XIFDjI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
This sounds awfully familiar....
For those of you without kids at a camp with Bunk1, here's an article with some background:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/10/kidsick_parents_and_bunk1_kids_go_off_to_camp_parents_stalk_them_online.html
Now, I have a confession to make: I'm not a stalker parent. When my husband leaves his Facebook account open, I see that we have friends who are. I write to my daughter and I do get concerned about the big stuff - I wonder how she's doing during a heat wave without air conditioning, and got concerned when she mentioned that her bunkmates planned to leave out food in the hopes of attracting a bear. I think that heat stroke and bears are a legitimate concern. I just don't see the point in worrying about that much else. To my mind, camp is about developing independence.
This sounds awfully familiar....
For those of you without kids at a camp with Bunk1, here's an article with some background:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/10/kidsick_parents_and_bunk1_kids_go_off_to_camp_parents_stalk_them_online.html
Now, I have a confession to make: I'm not a stalker parent. When my husband leaves his Facebook account open, I see that we have friends who are. I write to my daughter and I do get concerned about the big stuff - I wonder how she's doing during a heat wave without air conditioning, and got concerned when she mentioned that her bunkmates planned to leave out food in the hopes of attracting a bear. I think that heat stroke and bears are a legitimate concern. I just don't see the point in worrying about that much else. To my mind, camp is about developing independence.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Condo kids
Toronto's Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday apparently doesn't think that downtown condos should be for kids.
Too bad.
Yes, I'm currently a suburban mom of 3, but once upon a time I was a condo-dwelling urban mom. My husband was a medical resident working 80+ hours/week, so living within walking distance of the hospitals was a necessity. For a year, I was also able to work downtown when my oldest child was a baby.
It worked well for our young family. Most of the time, we walked to work and to the daycare, so transportation costs were minimal. There wasn't much space to spare, but we used the building's recreation centre well, doing endless laps around the track with the stroller, and then letting our daughter run around once she learned to walk. Instead of a basement and backyard, we had the YMCA Family Development Centre up the street, which offered plenty of toys and a place to hang out with other moms. Having everything close by allowed us to work without relying on a nanny. It also allowed us to go out and have fun with the baby, without having to constantly get in a car. We'd stroll through the Eaton Centre, jog around Queen's Park, and go for long walks all around downtown Toronto. One of my favorite memories is from the time that we walked to the Taste of Little Italy street festival, where our toddler entertained the crowd when she danced to a South American street band. We had a chance to raise her for 3 years in a wonderful, diverse area. No, she didn't play in the streets - urban condo kids quickly learn that they need to hold hands with an adult the moment they walk out the door.
At that stage of our lives, we wouldn't have been able to afford the time or money to live in the suburbs. A single detached house within the City of Toronto is just not affordable for many families, and living in a quiet residential area means that public transit is less of an option. Living in our old condo allowed us to be able to start our family. Today, we are able to make the suburbs work for us - with 3 kids, it's nice to have a larger home, and we are lucky to have careers that allow us to work close to home. If we didn't have that option, though, the commute would be horrible. Family-friendly condos just make sense.
Too bad.
Yes, I'm currently a suburban mom of 3, but once upon a time I was a condo-dwelling urban mom. My husband was a medical resident working 80+ hours/week, so living within walking distance of the hospitals was a necessity. For a year, I was also able to work downtown when my oldest child was a baby.
It worked well for our young family. Most of the time, we walked to work and to the daycare, so transportation costs were minimal. There wasn't much space to spare, but we used the building's recreation centre well, doing endless laps around the track with the stroller, and then letting our daughter run around once she learned to walk. Instead of a basement and backyard, we had the YMCA Family Development Centre up the street, which offered plenty of toys and a place to hang out with other moms. Having everything close by allowed us to work without relying on a nanny. It also allowed us to go out and have fun with the baby, without having to constantly get in a car. We'd stroll through the Eaton Centre, jog around Queen's Park, and go for long walks all around downtown Toronto. One of my favorite memories is from the time that we walked to the Taste of Little Italy street festival, where our toddler entertained the crowd when she danced to a South American street band. We had a chance to raise her for 3 years in a wonderful, diverse area. No, she didn't play in the streets - urban condo kids quickly learn that they need to hold hands with an adult the moment they walk out the door.
At that stage of our lives, we wouldn't have been able to afford the time or money to live in the suburbs. A single detached house within the City of Toronto is just not affordable for many families, and living in a quiet residential area means that public transit is less of an option. Living in our old condo allowed us to be able to start our family. Today, we are able to make the suburbs work for us - with 3 kids, it's nice to have a larger home, and we are lucky to have careers that allow us to work close to home. If we didn't have that option, though, the commute would be horrible. Family-friendly condos just make sense.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
More problems with Agudath position on reporting abuse
See my previous post here for the basic background.
Well, it looks like the Agudath position is even worse than I previously thought.
The Forward recently published an article, reporting on their interview with Agudath head Rabbi David Zwiebel and director of communications Avi Shafran. In that article, they make several points explicitly clear:
1. Anyone who didn't personally witness the abuse is required to get rabbinic permission before making a report to authorities.
2. There is no registry of rabbis specially trained in this field, precisely because they don't want any such rabbis to be arrested. [According to this logic, a rabbi counselling a parent not to report a child's allegations of abuse to authorities could be fine - the concern is just that having a panel of trained rabbis would attract the attention of secular authorities.]
3. He quotes head Haredi rabbi Elyashiv as commenting on the potential harm of a false allegation - but fails to mention that the same rabbi had explicitly ruled that a Jew with a reasonable suspicion of abuse was permitted to go to secular authorities. It was the Agudath Israel organization - not Rabbi Elyashiv - who imposed the condition that one had to get a rabbi to agree that reasonable suspicion existed.
4. They make it clear that a rabbi wouldn't just tell a parent to report if their child disclosed abuse, but that the rabbi might conduct some sort of investigation himself. In Shafran's words:
Asked how a rabbi could ascertain whether a child is lying, Shafran said, “There are certain subtle [signs] in a child that show whether the child is fantasizing.” He said these indicators included a child’s tone of voice or specific things he or she says.
Offering the hypothetical example of a parent who came to a rabbi after his child told him she had been abused by a teacher, Zwiebel said the rabbi’s decision on whether the parent can go to law enforcement “depends on whether your child has the habit of fantasizing. It depends on whether your child and the teacher have had run-ins in the past. It may require some level of nuance and investigation [by a rabbi] that go beyond the mere allegation.”
Zwiebel said that concerned ultra-Orthodox parents could consult their own rabbi, who, if not experienced in dealing with abuse cases, could find another rabbi equipped to help. The consulting rabbi could, if necessary, also turn to a mental health professional or a social worker to assess the claims, Zwiebel said.
Read my previous post for a full explanation of just how bad an idea this is. Even in the best case scenario, with everyone having the best intentions, this is a recipe for disaster. You have a rabbi with no training in child protection assessing credibility and possibly conducting their own investigation - in other words, doing exactly what the child protection workers are trained to do. Unlike child protection workers, however, there is no duty to keep accurate, timely records of the investigation, no training, no supervision and no duty to uphold the law. Furthermore, ANY interviewing by rabbis can taint the evidence. Child protection workers need disclosure to be made as quickly as possible, with as little interfere as possible, in order to get the most accurate information. Once again, there is no acknowledgement or understanding that child protective services INVESTIGATES reports of suspected abuse, and doesn't automatically cart anyone off on the basis of a mere report.
In the worst case scenarios, any child who has problems - and it's not unreasonable to expect that a child being abused would have problems - becomes a target as the teacher is immune from being reported.
5. They are instructing mandated reporters to go against the law.
Under New York State Law, social workers and mental health therapists are classified as so-called “mandated reporters,” with an absolute legal obligation to report to law enforcement authorities when they suspect child abuse may have occurred. But Zwiebel has stated that mandated reporters who are members of the Orthodox community are also not exempt from obtaining rabbinic permission first.
Does he realize that he has just ensured that agencies will be forced to interrogate religious Jewish social workers and mental health professionals, to make sure that they aren't following the Agudath Israel dictates?
Does he also realize that he is undermine the legal protections for children? The mandated reporting systems ensures that there are multiple ways that abuse can be detected and reported. Agudath Israel's policy is to remove that, and force reporting to go through gatekeepers from the community.
6. Despite all of the uproar, they are still either completely ignorant of mandatory reporting requirements, or deliberately misrepresenting them.
Zwiebel said the rabbinic imperative to assess claims before reporting them to police was similar to what he characterized as a requirement for teachers and therapists to establish “reasonable suspicion” before reporting a case to law enforcement under New York’s mandatory reporting laws.
But state guidelines issued pursuant to those laws set the bar much lower. A mandated reporter does not even need a child’s claim of abuse to go to the police. “Your suspicion can be as simple as distrusting an explanation for an injury,” one of the guidelines states.
7. They are turning this into a political battle, with some severely misplaced priorities.
Tapping the manila folder containing the rabbinic pronouncements on sex abuse, Zwiebel said the Aguda’s first loyalty is to “the weight of rabbinic authority in the world today.”
Really? You're first loyalty isn't to justice, or to protecting children? Or even to the will of G-d?
No, they've set this up as a political battle between themselves and secular authories. Rabbinic authority shall prevail - even if their alleged rabbinic authority ruled that reporting abuse was permissible and if they themselves were the ones to invent the requirement for rabbinic approval to make a report. There is plenty of concern that a panel of rabbis could be "vulnerable" to arrest, and plenty of concern about false allegations, but precious little concern for vulnerable children.
Slifkin also comments on the absurdity of Zwiebel's positions here
My one ray of hope comes from the Jewish mothers on imamother.com:
http://www.imamother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=186110&highlight=
Agudath Israel may not feel that they have to answer to secular authorities - but they will need to answer to Jewish mothers, especially as increasing numbers of those mothers are becoming aware of just how twisted this policy is and how vulnerable their children are in any institution under the Agudath Israel umbrella. Perhaps we will see changes when they refuse to support this organization or allow their children to be entrusted to anyone following their policies.
Well, it looks like the Agudath position is even worse than I previously thought.
The Forward recently published an article, reporting on their interview with Agudath head Rabbi David Zwiebel and director of communications Avi Shafran. In that article, they make several points explicitly clear:
1. Anyone who didn't personally witness the abuse is required to get rabbinic permission before making a report to authorities.
2. There is no registry of rabbis specially trained in this field, precisely because they don't want any such rabbis to be arrested. [According to this logic, a rabbi counselling a parent not to report a child's allegations of abuse to authorities could be fine - the concern is just that having a panel of trained rabbis would attract the attention of secular authorities.]
3. He quotes head Haredi rabbi Elyashiv as commenting on the potential harm of a false allegation - but fails to mention that the same rabbi had explicitly ruled that a Jew with a reasonable suspicion of abuse was permitted to go to secular authorities. It was the Agudath Israel organization - not Rabbi Elyashiv - who imposed the condition that one had to get a rabbi to agree that reasonable suspicion existed.
4. They make it clear that a rabbi wouldn't just tell a parent to report if their child disclosed abuse, but that the rabbi might conduct some sort of investigation himself. In Shafran's words:
Asked how a rabbi could ascertain whether a child is lying, Shafran said, “There are certain subtle [signs] in a child that show whether the child is fantasizing.” He said these indicators included a child’s tone of voice or specific things he or she says.
Offering the hypothetical example of a parent who came to a rabbi after his child told him she had been abused by a teacher, Zwiebel said the rabbi’s decision on whether the parent can go to law enforcement “depends on whether your child has the habit of fantasizing. It depends on whether your child and the teacher have had run-ins in the past. It may require some level of nuance and investigation [by a rabbi] that go beyond the mere allegation.”
Zwiebel said that concerned ultra-Orthodox parents could consult their own rabbi, who, if not experienced in dealing with abuse cases, could find another rabbi equipped to help. The consulting rabbi could, if necessary, also turn to a mental health professional or a social worker to assess the claims, Zwiebel said.
Read my previous post for a full explanation of just how bad an idea this is. Even in the best case scenario, with everyone having the best intentions, this is a recipe for disaster. You have a rabbi with no training in child protection assessing credibility and possibly conducting their own investigation - in other words, doing exactly what the child protection workers are trained to do. Unlike child protection workers, however, there is no duty to keep accurate, timely records of the investigation, no training, no supervision and no duty to uphold the law. Furthermore, ANY interviewing by rabbis can taint the evidence. Child protection workers need disclosure to be made as quickly as possible, with as little interfere as possible, in order to get the most accurate information. Once again, there is no acknowledgement or understanding that child protective services INVESTIGATES reports of suspected abuse, and doesn't automatically cart anyone off on the basis of a mere report.
In the worst case scenarios, any child who has problems - and it's not unreasonable to expect that a child being abused would have problems - becomes a target as the teacher is immune from being reported.
5. They are instructing mandated reporters to go against the law.
Under New York State Law, social workers and mental health therapists are classified as so-called “mandated reporters,” with an absolute legal obligation to report to law enforcement authorities when they suspect child abuse may have occurred. But Zwiebel has stated that mandated reporters who are members of the Orthodox community are also not exempt from obtaining rabbinic permission first.
Does he realize that he has just ensured that agencies will be forced to interrogate religious Jewish social workers and mental health professionals, to make sure that they aren't following the Agudath Israel dictates?
Does he also realize that he is undermine the legal protections for children? The mandated reporting systems ensures that there are multiple ways that abuse can be detected and reported. Agudath Israel's policy is to remove that, and force reporting to go through gatekeepers from the community.
6. Despite all of the uproar, they are still either completely ignorant of mandatory reporting requirements, or deliberately misrepresenting them.
Zwiebel said the rabbinic imperative to assess claims before reporting them to police was similar to what he characterized as a requirement for teachers and therapists to establish “reasonable suspicion” before reporting a case to law enforcement under New York’s mandatory reporting laws.
But state guidelines issued pursuant to those laws set the bar much lower. A mandated reporter does not even need a child’s claim of abuse to go to the police. “Your suspicion can be as simple as distrusting an explanation for an injury,” one of the guidelines states.
7. They are turning this into a political battle, with some severely misplaced priorities.
Tapping the manila folder containing the rabbinic pronouncements on sex abuse, Zwiebel said the Aguda’s first loyalty is to “the weight of rabbinic authority in the world today.”
Really? You're first loyalty isn't to justice, or to protecting children? Or even to the will of G-d?
No, they've set this up as a political battle between themselves and secular authories. Rabbinic authority shall prevail - even if their alleged rabbinic authority ruled that reporting abuse was permissible and if they themselves were the ones to invent the requirement for rabbinic approval to make a report. There is plenty of concern that a panel of rabbis could be "vulnerable" to arrest, and plenty of concern about false allegations, but precious little concern for vulnerable children.
Slifkin also comments on the absurdity of Zwiebel's positions here
My one ray of hope comes from the Jewish mothers on imamother.com:
http://www.imamother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=186110&highlight=
Agudath Israel may not feel that they have to answer to secular authorities - but they will need to answer to Jewish mothers, especially as increasing numbers of those mothers are becoming aware of just how twisted this policy is and how vulnerable their children are in any institution under the Agudath Israel umbrella. Perhaps we will see changes when they refuse to support this organization or allow their children to be entrusted to anyone following their policies.
Monday, April 9, 2012
A sample sex-ed curriculum
After reading more and more abstinence-only insanity, I thought I'd go a step beyond my previous post on my approach to sex ed and do a sample curriculum.
Topic: Sex is for consenting adults
Discuss the meaning of the term "consent".
Have students look up laws in various jurisdictions on sexual assault/rape, including statutory rape/age of consent.
Have student read case law on the topic, including the recent Supreme Court of Canada case
Discuss how one's partner needs to be awake and reasonably sober to give valid consent.
Discuss how consent is an ongoing process, not a one-shot deal, and that it can be revoked at any time.
Have students look up rules of professional discipline for certain professions, and discuss concept of relationships involving imbalance of power or trust which make it impossible to have valid consent. In other words - psychiatrists cannot date patients, ever.
Discuss good touch/bad touch.
Discuss fact that kids can always tell parents, teachers, doctors or another trusted adult if someone is hurting them or doing something to them that makes them uncomfortable. Do NOT keep a secret just because someone tells you that you cannot tell anyone - in fact, that's a sign that you should tell an adult. If they are scared to tell a parent, it is always ok to talk to a teacher, doctor or school counselor instead. Teachers, doctors and counselors are required by law to help you. If one doesn't help, you can tell someone else. If someone says that something bad will happen if you tell, do not believe them, and tell someone right away. You will not get in trouble for being honest. If you are ever worried about something, there is always an adult who is ready and willing to listen to you.
Discuss how hormone surges in adolescence affect mood and behavior
Research how development of frontal cortex of the brain is not complete until early 20s, and how that affects risk-taking
Have students do detailed life-plans, based on having children at 15, 20, 25, and 30. Life-plans should include educational plan, future career options and salaries, childcare arrangements, budgeting, etc.
Topic: Sex needs to be safe
Research various STDs, their modes of transmission, and what we know about how to prevent transmission. Highlight how recommendations may differ from one disease to another. Include ALL methods of transmission. Give practical instruction on how to prevent transmission (condoms, dental dams, etc.), where to obtain items, and things to avoid (such as nonoxynyl-9 or Vaseline).
Provide information on clinics that do testing, and on accuracy of testing.
Role-play discussion to have with potential partner about safe sex and doing testing.
Refer back to Topic 1, and discuss risks associated with lack of sobriety. Also discuss risk of being slipped "date rape" drugs and ways to minimize risk.
Give information on rape crisis centres and shelters for anyone being abused. Mention that violence isn't always man on woman - it can occur the other way, or in same-sex relationships, and it is always too serious to ignore.
Discuss no-risk and lower-risk activities. Also discuss risks that may be present with various forms of sexual activity.
Emphasize that pain is a problem which should not be ignored.
Topic: Babies need parents who are prepared to care for them
Have students job-shadow a family lawyer or child protection worker, or at least interview them about their work.
Research child support laws.
Research how factors such as alcohol or drug use, poor nutrition or use of certain medications in utero are related to various lifelong medical issues. Discuss the importance of proper prenatal care and pre-pregnancy planning.
Research how parenting impacts children.
Research the impact of parental conflict on children. Discuss how relationships between couples may end, but that you and your child will be tied forever to your child's other parent - for better or worse.
Brainstorm desirable qualities to seek in the person who will be the mother/father of your child.
Provide a list of local public health/birth control clinics, with complete contact information and hours.
Do a comprehensive review of all birth control methods, including proper usage, risks and failure rates. Explain how to access each method of birth control.
Do a math exercise on probability, and the effect of using more than one method of birth control on probability.
Read "Taking Charge of Your Fertility".
Role-play discussions about delaying sex, and about using proper birth control.
Discuss full impact of an unplanned pregnancy on life plans (see Topic 1)
Discuss option for women if faced with unwanted pregnancy (services for teen moms, adoption options, foster care kinship placement, laws against pregnancy discrimination, financial supports available, Plan B, abortion options and side effects).
Discuss fact that men have very limited control over what happens with a pregnancy, and what legal obligations and options exist after the birth.
Topic: Your body
Provide some decent books on puberty, anatomy, hygiene and reproduction
Discuss the full spectrum of what is normal
Point out signs of what may not be normal, discuss breast/testicular self-exam
Discuss body image and self-esteem
Topic: Functional and Dysfunctional Relationships
Provide role models for healthy relationships (obviously, something that goes a bit beyond a mere health class)
Read "How to Talk So Your Kids Will Listen and Listen So that Your Kids Will Talk", and work through the examples. Get into pairs or small groups and work on constructive vs. destructive communication. Discuss "I" vs. "You" statements, avoiding words like always or never, avoiding negative labels, expressing feelings and doing active listening.
Group discussion about respect.
Group discussion about love (being committed to someone else and wanting to do what's best for them) vs. lust
Workshop on negative relationship patterns and how to avoid them
Observation of healthy co-parenting relationships, and discussion of expectations for the other parent
Workshop and discussion on abuse and control - physical, verbal, emotional, financial
Guest speaker (police, lawyer, social worker) on identifying potential sources of physical danger (violence, threats, serious uncontrolled mental illness, serious substance abuse), and options for safely dealing with the situation (use and limits of restraining orders, shelters, criminal law, etc.)
Range of sexuality, current legal issues/status and services for the LGBT community
Topic: Sex is for consenting adults
Discuss the meaning of the term "consent".
Have students look up laws in various jurisdictions on sexual assault/rape, including statutory rape/age of consent.
Have student read case law on the topic, including the recent Supreme Court of Canada case
Discuss how one's partner needs to be awake and reasonably sober to give valid consent.
Discuss how consent is an ongoing process, not a one-shot deal, and that it can be revoked at any time.
Have students look up rules of professional discipline for certain professions, and discuss concept of relationships involving imbalance of power or trust which make it impossible to have valid consent. In other words - psychiatrists cannot date patients, ever.
Discuss good touch/bad touch.
Discuss fact that kids can always tell parents, teachers, doctors or another trusted adult if someone is hurting them or doing something to them that makes them uncomfortable. Do NOT keep a secret just because someone tells you that you cannot tell anyone - in fact, that's a sign that you should tell an adult. If they are scared to tell a parent, it is always ok to talk to a teacher, doctor or school counselor instead. Teachers, doctors and counselors are required by law to help you. If one doesn't help, you can tell someone else. If someone says that something bad will happen if you tell, do not believe them, and tell someone right away. You will not get in trouble for being honest. If you are ever worried about something, there is always an adult who is ready and willing to listen to you.
Discuss how hormone surges in adolescence affect mood and behavior
Research how development of frontal cortex of the brain is not complete until early 20s, and how that affects risk-taking
Have students do detailed life-plans, based on having children at 15, 20, 25, and 30. Life-plans should include educational plan, future career options and salaries, childcare arrangements, budgeting, etc.
Topic: Sex needs to be safe
Research various STDs, their modes of transmission, and what we know about how to prevent transmission. Highlight how recommendations may differ from one disease to another. Include ALL methods of transmission. Give practical instruction on how to prevent transmission (condoms, dental dams, etc.), where to obtain items, and things to avoid (such as nonoxynyl-9 or Vaseline).
Provide information on clinics that do testing, and on accuracy of testing.
Role-play discussion to have with potential partner about safe sex and doing testing.
Refer back to Topic 1, and discuss risks associated with lack of sobriety. Also discuss risk of being slipped "date rape" drugs and ways to minimize risk.
Give information on rape crisis centres and shelters for anyone being abused. Mention that violence isn't always man on woman - it can occur the other way, or in same-sex relationships, and it is always too serious to ignore.
Discuss no-risk and lower-risk activities. Also discuss risks that may be present with various forms of sexual activity.
Emphasize that pain is a problem which should not be ignored.
Topic: Babies need parents who are prepared to care for them
Have students job-shadow a family lawyer or child protection worker, or at least interview them about their work.
Research child support laws.
Research how factors such as alcohol or drug use, poor nutrition or use of certain medications in utero are related to various lifelong medical issues. Discuss the importance of proper prenatal care and pre-pregnancy planning.
Research how parenting impacts children.
Research the impact of parental conflict on children. Discuss how relationships between couples may end, but that you and your child will be tied forever to your child's other parent - for better or worse.
Brainstorm desirable qualities to seek in the person who will be the mother/father of your child.
Provide a list of local public health/birth control clinics, with complete contact information and hours.
Do a comprehensive review of all birth control methods, including proper usage, risks and failure rates. Explain how to access each method of birth control.
Do a math exercise on probability, and the effect of using more than one method of birth control on probability.
Read "Taking Charge of Your Fertility".
Role-play discussions about delaying sex, and about using proper birth control.
Discuss full impact of an unplanned pregnancy on life plans (see Topic 1)
Discuss option for women if faced with unwanted pregnancy (services for teen moms, adoption options, foster care kinship placement, laws against pregnancy discrimination, financial supports available, Plan B, abortion options and side effects).
Discuss fact that men have very limited control over what happens with a pregnancy, and what legal obligations and options exist after the birth.
Topic: Your body
Provide some decent books on puberty, anatomy, hygiene and reproduction
Discuss the full spectrum of what is normal
Point out signs of what may not be normal, discuss breast/testicular self-exam
Discuss body image and self-esteem
Topic: Functional and Dysfunctional Relationships
Provide role models for healthy relationships (obviously, something that goes a bit beyond a mere health class)
Read "How to Talk So Your Kids Will Listen and Listen So that Your Kids Will Talk", and work through the examples. Get into pairs or small groups and work on constructive vs. destructive communication. Discuss "I" vs. "You" statements, avoiding words like always or never, avoiding negative labels, expressing feelings and doing active listening.
Group discussion about respect.
Group discussion about love (being committed to someone else and wanting to do what's best for them) vs. lust
Workshop on negative relationship patterns and how to avoid them
Observation of healthy co-parenting relationships, and discussion of expectations for the other parent
Workshop and discussion on abuse and control - physical, verbal, emotional, financial
Guest speaker (police, lawyer, social worker) on identifying potential sources of physical danger (violence, threats, serious uncontrolled mental illness, serious substance abuse), and options for safely dealing with the situation (use and limits of restraining orders, shelters, criminal law, etc.)
Range of sexuality, current legal issues/status and services for the LGBT community
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Post-Holocaust Anti-Nazism Theology
As someone born to a Jewish family 26 years after the Holocaust, the Holocaust wasn't just a historical event. It was this dominant theme that colored every discussion and moral lesson. Growing up, this was completely normal to me. More recently, I've met people in person and online who weren't raised this way, and I've found myself explaining things that look like contradictions to outsiders. I've also noticed parallels between Christian religious paintings depicting hell, and images of the Holocaust.
Image of sinners going to hell:
Holocaust images (graphic):
So, I've toyed with the idea that in some ways, the reaction to the Holocaust had actually morphed into its own theology.
What are the major tenets of this theology?
1. Evil = Nazis, Devil = Hitler, Hell = Holocaust
This would be the #1 principle, from which all else derives.
If something resembled Nazis, Hitler and/or the Holocaust, it was bad. This was true for the obvious examples of atrocities, like the Rwandan genocide. It was also true for things that others may view as neutral or even positive, if there was a connection to Nazis in any way. So, if Eichmann had claimed that he was "just following orders", then it must be that obedience to authority was bad.
2. Good is defined as whatever is in opposition to Nazism.
Nazis wanted to kill Jews, so Jews were good.
Nazis killed people with disabilities, so working for disability rights was good.
Nazis sent homosexuals to concentration camps, so gay rights were good.
3. A moral dilemna is what happens when two things that Hitler opposed also oppose each other.
Nazis opposed free speech and the ability to demonstrate freely, so the proposed march by neo-Nazis in Skokie provoked intense division and debate in the community.
Nazis were against both Orthodox Judaism and homosexuals, so it's not unheard of for some of the same people to go to Orthodox synagogues and the gay pride parade.
4. G-d is a fuzzier, more problematic concept in this theology. On one hand, the simplistic idea of a G-d who is All-Powerful AND All-Good AND who personally runs the world AND who punishes the bad and rewards the good gets a real beating. On the other hand, the Nazis were against G-d, so G-d must be good and the Nazis cannot be allowed to win on this point.
Elie Wiesel has described this paradox, in which rabbis in a concentration camp put G-d on trial:
The trial lasted several nights. Witnesses were heard, evidence was gathered, conclusions were drawn, all of which issued finally in a unanimous verdict: the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind. And then, after what Wiesel describes as an "infinity of silence," the Talmudic scholar looked at the sky and said "It's time for evening prayers," and the members of the tribunal recited Maariv, the evening service.
Image of sinners going to hell:
Holocaust images (graphic):
So, I've toyed with the idea that in some ways, the reaction to the Holocaust had actually morphed into its own theology.
What are the major tenets of this theology?
1. Evil = Nazis, Devil = Hitler, Hell = Holocaust
This would be the #1 principle, from which all else derives.
If something resembled Nazis, Hitler and/or the Holocaust, it was bad. This was true for the obvious examples of atrocities, like the Rwandan genocide. It was also true for things that others may view as neutral or even positive, if there was a connection to Nazis in any way. So, if Eichmann had claimed that he was "just following orders", then it must be that obedience to authority was bad.
2. Good is defined as whatever is in opposition to Nazism.
Nazis wanted to kill Jews, so Jews were good.
Nazis killed people with disabilities, so working for disability rights was good.
Nazis sent homosexuals to concentration camps, so gay rights were good.
3. A moral dilemna is what happens when two things that Hitler opposed also oppose each other.
Nazis opposed free speech and the ability to demonstrate freely, so the proposed march by neo-Nazis in Skokie provoked intense division and debate in the community.
Nazis were against both Orthodox Judaism and homosexuals, so it's not unheard of for some of the same people to go to Orthodox synagogues and the gay pride parade.
4. G-d is a fuzzier, more problematic concept in this theology. On one hand, the simplistic idea of a G-d who is All-Powerful AND All-Good AND who personally runs the world AND who punishes the bad and rewards the good gets a real beating. On the other hand, the Nazis were against G-d, so G-d must be good and the Nazis cannot be allowed to win on this point.
Elie Wiesel has described this paradox, in which rabbis in a concentration camp put G-d on trial:
The trial lasted several nights. Witnesses were heard, evidence was gathered, conclusions were drawn, all of which issued finally in a unanimous verdict: the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind. And then, after what Wiesel describes as an "infinity of silence," the Talmudic scholar looked at the sky and said "It's time for evening prayers," and the members of the tribunal recited Maariv, the evening service.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Medical issues
I haven't posted for a while, as my husband has been dealing with a serious medical issue for the past month. I may be able to reflect on it a bit more once it resolves, but right now it's just nerve-wracking and I'm trying to focus on helping him recover and doing the extra work that needs to be done.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Disturbing view of child abuse
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a29429659/possible_trigger_child_abuse_or_deserved_punishment?cpg=61&csi=2359431435&pd=-1
I understand that we are dealing with people who are terrified of the consequences of misbehavior with their children, since they see prison or death as realistic outcomes. They want to do what it takes to change that.
What I don't understand or accept is the methods used. What evidence is there that beating your child, putting him down and basically torturing him will turn him into a good kid and strong student? Absolutely none. They'd be better off using their energy to say, "what works for other groups?" and "what factors are not working for us?".
Yes, I know that all children are different and come with their own challenges. At the same time - I'm a lawyer, my husband is a doctor, his brothers are both doctors, and we went to school with tons of professionals and very few criminals, so I think we've seen what works. Our parents weren't doctors or lawyers, and my in-laws were immigrants with English as their 3rd language and just high school education. We also have kids who do well in school and get great conduct marks. We don't use corporal punishment, foul language or put-downs, and treat our kids with respect.
Aside from dealing with institutional racism, some tried and true methods for success include:
1. Strong role models of decency and success.
2. For boys in particular, strong male role models with positive morals.
3. Raising kids with the constant message that you EXPECT them to do good, and do well. It's not just semantics - there is a real difference between hearing "when you go to university, are you going to study law or medicine?" vs. "if you keep this up (at age 7), you'll land your ass in prison and may end up dead". From personal experience, I can tell you that law schools and med schools are filled with students who were told from birth that they were destined to become professionals.
4. Parents need to be the sort of people that they want their children to become.
5. Parents need to have a rock-solid relationship with their children, so that their children will WANT to follow in their footsteps.
I understand that we are dealing with people who are terrified of the consequences of misbehavior with their children, since they see prison or death as realistic outcomes. They want to do what it takes to change that.
What I don't understand or accept is the methods used. What evidence is there that beating your child, putting him down and basically torturing him will turn him into a good kid and strong student? Absolutely none. They'd be better off using their energy to say, "what works for other groups?" and "what factors are not working for us?".
Yes, I know that all children are different and come with their own challenges. At the same time - I'm a lawyer, my husband is a doctor, his brothers are both doctors, and we went to school with tons of professionals and very few criminals, so I think we've seen what works. Our parents weren't doctors or lawyers, and my in-laws were immigrants with English as their 3rd language and just high school education. We also have kids who do well in school and get great conduct marks. We don't use corporal punishment, foul language or put-downs, and treat our kids with respect.
Aside from dealing with institutional racism, some tried and true methods for success include:
1. Strong role models of decency and success.
2. For boys in particular, strong male role models with positive morals.
3. Raising kids with the constant message that you EXPECT them to do good, and do well. It's not just semantics - there is a real difference between hearing "when you go to university, are you going to study law or medicine?" vs. "if you keep this up (at age 7), you'll land your ass in prison and may end up dead". From personal experience, I can tell you that law schools and med schools are filled with students who were told from birth that they were destined to become professionals.
4. Parents need to be the sort of people that they want their children to become.
5. Parents need to have a rock-solid relationship with their children, so that their children will WANT to follow in their footsteps.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Interesting study on distinctiveness of Jewish attitudes in America
http://www.ajc.org/atf/
cf/{42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF}
/JewishDistinctivenessAmerica_TS_April2005.pdf
The study's findings, for the most part, weren't exactly a huge surprise for me. Seeing it organized in this way, however, prompted an "Aha!" moment.
It's becoming common in Orthodox Jewish circles to dismiss liberal values (such as equality and commitment to civil rights) held by non-Orthodox Jews as simply another symptom of their assimilation into the outside secular society. The image used is one of poor lost Jewish souls, adrift from their spiritual heritage, who didn't know any better and got led astray by the non-Jewish world.
I could give lots of examples of this thinking, but this blog post is a good illustration.
What the data shows, however, is that embracing liberal values is NOT something that American Jews do in order to assimilate into the mainstream. To the contrary, these values - while they may not be the current values of right-wing Orthodoxy - are actually a distinctive feature of the Jewish community in general. Ironically, the social values of right-wing Orthodoxy are actually a step closer to those of non-Jewish Americans.
cf/{42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF}
/JewishDistinctivenessAmerica_TS_April2005.pdf
The study's findings, for the most part, weren't exactly a huge surprise for me. Seeing it organized in this way, however, prompted an "Aha!" moment.
It's becoming common in Orthodox Jewish circles to dismiss liberal values (such as equality and commitment to civil rights) held by non-Orthodox Jews as simply another symptom of their assimilation into the outside secular society. The image used is one of poor lost Jewish souls, adrift from their spiritual heritage, who didn't know any better and got led astray by the non-Jewish world.
I could give lots of examples of this thinking, but this blog post is a good illustration.
What the data shows, however, is that embracing liberal values is NOT something that American Jews do in order to assimilate into the mainstream. To the contrary, these values - while they may not be the current values of right-wing Orthodoxy - are actually a distinctive feature of the Jewish community in general. Ironically, the social values of right-wing Orthodoxy are actually a step closer to those of non-Jewish Americans.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Bad internet parenting advice
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/carseat_in_a_medical_emergency
I wish this was a joke. It's not.
Did I ever mention that my first child protection trial involved a baby who suffered broken ribs when the car was struck IN A PARKING LOT?
I wish this was a joke. It's not.
Did I ever mention that my first child protection trial involved a baby who suffered broken ribs when the car was struck IN A PARKING LOT?
Friday, August 19, 2011
Cute kid-ism with a Biblical reference
2 years ago, I mentioned to my kids that the Dead Sea Scrolls special exhibit would be coming to a museum near us in the fall.
Before we went to the exhibit, we took a family trip to Israel. While there, we went for a hike in the Ein Gedi nature reserve, located near the shore of the Dead Sea. Along the trail, we noticed numerous rock hyraxes, on trees and rocks.
So, what did my then-6 year old daughter say?
"Look, Mommy! It's the Dead Sea Squirrels!"
Before we went to the exhibit, we took a family trip to Israel. While there, we went for a hike in the Ein Gedi nature reserve, located near the shore of the Dead Sea. Along the trail, we noticed numerous rock hyraxes, on trees and rocks.
So, what did my then-6 year old daughter say?
"Look, Mommy! It's the Dead Sea Squirrels!"
Sunday, August 14, 2011
New proposal for integrating faith-based schools into the public system
I've been trying to design a framework for integrating faith-based school with the public system, in a way that meets the goals and values of each. I call these "surround school" concepts, since the faith-based program "surrounds" the public school component.
Here are possible models:
Model 1 - Integrating existing faith-based schools:
The public school board would lease space from the existing faith-based school, and use it to run a public school program within the facility.
The schedules of the public and faith-based schools will be coordinated, so that students will attend one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and will have the same holidays.
Existing general studies teachers who meet the basic requirements for the public system will be absorbed by the public system.
While there is coordination, the public school will be a separate legal entity, subject to the policies of the public school board. The faith-based school will have no control over admissions, dress code or curriculum. There will be a parent advisory council, who may address cultural and religious issues (like explaining why students may wish to avoid Halloween, for example), but final decisions on curriculum will be made by the public school board.
All of the religious activity and instruction would take place in those parts of the facility that are not leased by the public school.
EXAMPLE:
Public school leases one side of the school.
Students may arrive at school for an early prayer service, then proceed to the public school side in time for morning classes. The lunch room will be on the faith-based side, while the gym, art and music areas will be on the public side. After lunch, the morning students proceed to the faith-based classes, while the other half of the students file into the public school side for their general studies classes. After those classes, students may go back to the faith-based side for more prayers or other after-school programming.
If a child in the area doesn't want the faith-based programming, they can simply attend the public school program. The hours may be a bit different, but the curriculum is essentially the same.
Model 2 - for new faith-based school programs:
There would be a facility, used by the public school to run its program. The school and its program would be designed so that special groups, including faith-based groups, could lease space for their programs before, after and even during lunch break of the public school program.
Again, there would be coordination of schedules and school calendar, and a parent advisory council, but the public school would retain control of admissions, basic policies and curriculum.
In addition - more than one faith could be operating in conjunction with a given public school, so students would have an opportunity to learn with those of different faiths.
Some of these schools may be single-gender, as long as a similar school for the other gender is located nearby.
The public school part of the curriculum may include language instruction.
EXAMPLE:
Faith-based students may arrive early, and go to prayer services in rooms leased for their particular faith - Jewish in room 101, Muslim in room 102, Hindu in room 103, Christian in room 104, etc. After that, the public school program would begin. If the schedule allows it to run in 2 shifts, faith-based programs can operate in their leased spaces at the same time so that student can do one in the morning, one in the afternoon.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Makes the public system more inclusive, by accommodating religious needs.
2. Reduces inequality (where I live, only the Catholic system receives public funding)
3. Reduces extreme financial burden of religious education for those communities.
4. Ensures that basic public curriculum is taught.
5. Public funding does not go to any program that is not open to all members of the public, nor to pay for religious content.
6. Preserves the ease of scheduling that makes parents choose religious day schools over public school plus supplemental education.
Here are possible models:
Model 1 - Integrating existing faith-based schools:
The public school board would lease space from the existing faith-based school, and use it to run a public school program within the facility.
The schedules of the public and faith-based schools will be coordinated, so that students will attend one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and will have the same holidays.
Existing general studies teachers who meet the basic requirements for the public system will be absorbed by the public system.
While there is coordination, the public school will be a separate legal entity, subject to the policies of the public school board. The faith-based school will have no control over admissions, dress code or curriculum. There will be a parent advisory council, who may address cultural and religious issues (like explaining why students may wish to avoid Halloween, for example), but final decisions on curriculum will be made by the public school board.
All of the religious activity and instruction would take place in those parts of the facility that are not leased by the public school.
EXAMPLE:
Public school leases one side of the school.
Students may arrive at school for an early prayer service, then proceed to the public school side in time for morning classes. The lunch room will be on the faith-based side, while the gym, art and music areas will be on the public side. After lunch, the morning students proceed to the faith-based classes, while the other half of the students file into the public school side for their general studies classes. After those classes, students may go back to the faith-based side for more prayers or other after-school programming.
If a child in the area doesn't want the faith-based programming, they can simply attend the public school program. The hours may be a bit different, but the curriculum is essentially the same.
Model 2 - for new faith-based school programs:
There would be a facility, used by the public school to run its program. The school and its program would be designed so that special groups, including faith-based groups, could lease space for their programs before, after and even during lunch break of the public school program.
Again, there would be coordination of schedules and school calendar, and a parent advisory council, but the public school would retain control of admissions, basic policies and curriculum.
In addition - more than one faith could be operating in conjunction with a given public school, so students would have an opportunity to learn with those of different faiths.
Some of these schools may be single-gender, as long as a similar school for the other gender is located nearby.
The public school part of the curriculum may include language instruction.
EXAMPLE:
Faith-based students may arrive early, and go to prayer services in rooms leased for their particular faith - Jewish in room 101, Muslim in room 102, Hindu in room 103, Christian in room 104, etc. After that, the public school program would begin. If the schedule allows it to run in 2 shifts, faith-based programs can operate in their leased spaces at the same time so that student can do one in the morning, one in the afternoon.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Makes the public system more inclusive, by accommodating religious needs.
2. Reduces inequality (where I live, only the Catholic system receives public funding)
3. Reduces extreme financial burden of religious education for those communities.
4. Ensures that basic public curriculum is taught.
5. Public funding does not go to any program that is not open to all members of the public, nor to pay for religious content.
6. Preserves the ease of scheduling that makes parents choose religious day schools over public school plus supplemental education.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Advice on future responses to internet idiocy
Warning: language
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
Thanks Jill!
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
Thanks Jill!
Monday, July 25, 2011
Problems in the Agudath position on abuse reporting
Here is the latest statement by Agudath Israel on reporting suspicions of child abuse.
In a nutshell, it says "yes, child abuse is bad and you may really need to report it - but you can't do so unless you speak to a rabbi first".
Here's my list of what's wrong with that position, written from my perspective as a family and child protection lawyer who has worked for a child protection agency and also worked with victims of abuse and parents accused of abuse.
1. HUGE potential for conflict-of-interest, at best, and cover-up of abuse at worst. Unfortunately, there have been cases of abuse by rabbis or teachers, where nobody did anything to stop the abuser.
I have to wonder whether these people are completely unaware of everything that has been happening in the rest of the world for the past 20 years when it comes to abuse awareness, particularly sexual abuse. Do they not know about the crisis in the Catholic Church, or about the multi-million dollar claims against religious organizations that ran orphanages and residential schools?
2. Nobody has identified who these expert rabbis may be, or what qualifications they have.
3. Assumes that followers are incapable of using their own brains to be able to know when there are clear-cut indications of abuse. The Agudath Israel could have just as easily said, "We have been in contact with child protection officials, and here are some guidelines as to when there would be an obligation to report".
4. There's no indication that they recognize just what child protection workers do, or just how important it is to make reports without delay. I really can't stress this enough. Child protection workers don't simply swoop in and take children just on the basis of a phone call from someone saying, "I think that child X is being abused". The phone call merely alerts them to potential problems and gets them to investigate whether or not there is in fact a reason to get involved. Now, in order to properly investigate, the concern needs to be reported ASAP to child protection officials - before physical evidence disappears, before a young child forgets what they have said, before too many people have spoken to the child. Any evidence really needs to be as fresh as possible.
5. Asking a rabbi first can easily lead to tainting or tampering with the evidence, especially if they speak to the child before police or child protection officials do. Again, it is vitally important for child protection officials to know EXACTLY what a child has said, to whom they have said it, and when they said it. Anything said to or asked of the child can make a difference.
6. Creates a suspicion that any religious Jewish professional or organization may not comply with mandated reporting requirements. This could in turn mean that child protection organizations won't be able to work with these people or organizations.
For example, where I live, Jewish Family and Child Services is licensed to act as a child protection agency. This means that a Jewish child is more likely to have a Jewish social worker, to receive services in Hebrew if needed, to be placed in a Jewish foster home, and to generally get religiously and culturally-appropriate services. I can't stress how important this is for Jewish families. I've handled cases where Portuguese clients were able to get Portuguese social workers, Portuguese counselling, and Portuguese foster homes, and it was wonderful because language, religious and cultural issues never became a problem. On the other hand, I've had cases where I had to explain why the Jehovah's Witness child couldn't celebrate Halloween, and why the Hindu child shouldn't be fed beef in the foster home, and dealt with suspicions of racism by Native parents, and even dealt with a social worker who told me with a straight face that my illiterate Somali client who spoke no English had just signed away her legal rights without needing to speak to a lawyer. In short, Jewish families and child benefit from Jewish services - but not if there are concerns that abuse won't be reported as required by law.
7. Eliminates potential safeguards for Jewish children, and puts the decision into the hands of just a few: With the mandatory reporting system, there are many people who may potentially report a concern - teachers, daycare workers, doctors, nurses, counselors, etc. Agudath's position would take these diverse potential sources of reporting, and force them to go through just a few gatekeepers. This is an enormous concentration of power, with tremendous potential for harm if mistakes are made.
8. It doesn't acknowledge problems that have occurred with a "culture of silence", aside from a simple statement that in obvious cases, abuse should be reported. Far more self-reflection is needed, far more education on the effects and dynamics of abuse (particularly sexual abuse) is required.
It doesn't talk about conversations that parents need to have with children about abuse prevention.
It doesn't talk about awareness programs for students and staff in schools.
It doesn't talk about making sure that students know which adults they can tell if there are problems.
It doesn't talk about methods to ensure that a potential abuser is not allowed around children pending an investigation.
It doesn't talk about ways of overcoming reluctance to report in a small, insular community.
It doesn't talk about removing old administrators who may have swept problems under the rug.
It doesn't talk about what needs to be done to ensure that victims are not re-victimized and that their families are not terrorized.
In a nutshell, it says "yes, child abuse is bad and you may really need to report it - but you can't do so unless you speak to a rabbi first".
Here's my list of what's wrong with that position, written from my perspective as a family and child protection lawyer who has worked for a child protection agency and also worked with victims of abuse and parents accused of abuse.
1. HUGE potential for conflict-of-interest, at best, and cover-up of abuse at worst. Unfortunately, there have been cases of abuse by rabbis or teachers, where nobody did anything to stop the abuser.
I have to wonder whether these people are completely unaware of everything that has been happening in the rest of the world for the past 20 years when it comes to abuse awareness, particularly sexual abuse. Do they not know about the crisis in the Catholic Church, or about the multi-million dollar claims against religious organizations that ran orphanages and residential schools?
2. Nobody has identified who these expert rabbis may be, or what qualifications they have.
3. Assumes that followers are incapable of using their own brains to be able to know when there are clear-cut indications of abuse. The Agudath Israel could have just as easily said, "We have been in contact with child protection officials, and here are some guidelines as to when there would be an obligation to report".
4. There's no indication that they recognize just what child protection workers do, or just how important it is to make reports without delay. I really can't stress this enough. Child protection workers don't simply swoop in and take children just on the basis of a phone call from someone saying, "I think that child X is being abused". The phone call merely alerts them to potential problems and gets them to investigate whether or not there is in fact a reason to get involved. Now, in order to properly investigate, the concern needs to be reported ASAP to child protection officials - before physical evidence disappears, before a young child forgets what they have said, before too many people have spoken to the child. Any evidence really needs to be as fresh as possible.
5. Asking a rabbi first can easily lead to tainting or tampering with the evidence, especially if they speak to the child before police or child protection officials do. Again, it is vitally important for child protection officials to know EXACTLY what a child has said, to whom they have said it, and when they said it. Anything said to or asked of the child can make a difference.
6. Creates a suspicion that any religious Jewish professional or organization may not comply with mandated reporting requirements. This could in turn mean that child protection organizations won't be able to work with these people or organizations.
For example, where I live, Jewish Family and Child Services is licensed to act as a child protection agency. This means that a Jewish child is more likely to have a Jewish social worker, to receive services in Hebrew if needed, to be placed in a Jewish foster home, and to generally get religiously and culturally-appropriate services. I can't stress how important this is for Jewish families. I've handled cases where Portuguese clients were able to get Portuguese social workers, Portuguese counselling, and Portuguese foster homes, and it was wonderful because language, religious and cultural issues never became a problem. On the other hand, I've had cases where I had to explain why the Jehovah's Witness child couldn't celebrate Halloween, and why the Hindu child shouldn't be fed beef in the foster home, and dealt with suspicions of racism by Native parents, and even dealt with a social worker who told me with a straight face that my illiterate Somali client who spoke no English had just signed away her legal rights without needing to speak to a lawyer. In short, Jewish families and child benefit from Jewish services - but not if there are concerns that abuse won't be reported as required by law.
7. Eliminates potential safeguards for Jewish children, and puts the decision into the hands of just a few: With the mandatory reporting system, there are many people who may potentially report a concern - teachers, daycare workers, doctors, nurses, counselors, etc. Agudath's position would take these diverse potential sources of reporting, and force them to go through just a few gatekeepers. This is an enormous concentration of power, with tremendous potential for harm if mistakes are made.
8. It doesn't acknowledge problems that have occurred with a "culture of silence", aside from a simple statement that in obvious cases, abuse should be reported. Far more self-reflection is needed, far more education on the effects and dynamics of abuse (particularly sexual abuse) is required.
It doesn't talk about conversations that parents need to have with children about abuse prevention.
It doesn't talk about awareness programs for students and staff in schools.
It doesn't talk about making sure that students know which adults they can tell if there are problems.
It doesn't talk about methods to ensure that a potential abuser is not allowed around children pending an investigation.
It doesn't talk about ways of overcoming reluctance to report in a small, insular community.
It doesn't talk about removing old administrators who may have swept problems under the rug.
It doesn't talk about what needs to be done to ensure that victims are not re-victimized and that their families are not terrorized.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
World perspective of my 8-year-old
I often get this feeling during a debate where I want to yell "don't you know..." or "don't you remember", and then stop myself as I realize that no, they don't know what I know, and/or they are too young to remember what I do.
My 8-year-old said a couple of things that drove home to me just how much her view of the world can be different than mine. She's a very bright girl - but she's only 8.
Those 2 things were:
"Mommy, what's are Jesus?", and "What's 9/11?".
Now, when I was her age, I was going to a public school where most of the kids were Christian, and as an adult I live in an extremely multicultural world. Our Jewish neighbourhood is just one part of my life. I like the fact that my kids have a strong identity and are able to feel "normal" instead of constantly feeling like a minority - but I forget sometimes just how different their upbringing is from what mine was, and just how much they are living in a Jewish bubble. Until she attended a camp on the Italian side of town last summer, she had never heard of Jesus. She wasn't actually aware that Jesus was a person - she just assumed that it was the plural form of jeez, and has no idea what that was.
The second question floored me even more. We were in New York last winter, and went to Ground Zero. My older daughter knew all about 9/11. She had been a toddler when it happened, and it's part of her earliest memories. Kids at daycare and school talked about it, and she saw us watching footage on TV. My 8-year-old, though, is 3 years younger, and was born 13 months after the attacks. Even though it was still all around us, from our books to conversations, she was in her little-kid world and never clued in, preferring endless Disney programs to CNN. It never occurred to me, however, that she DIDN'T know about it until she asked me that question.
My 8-year-old said a couple of things that drove home to me just how much her view of the world can be different than mine. She's a very bright girl - but she's only 8.
Those 2 things were:
"Mommy, what's are Jesus?", and "What's 9/11?".
Now, when I was her age, I was going to a public school where most of the kids were Christian, and as an adult I live in an extremely multicultural world. Our Jewish neighbourhood is just one part of my life. I like the fact that my kids have a strong identity and are able to feel "normal" instead of constantly feeling like a minority - but I forget sometimes just how different their upbringing is from what mine was, and just how much they are living in a Jewish bubble. Until she attended a camp on the Italian side of town last summer, she had never heard of Jesus. She wasn't actually aware that Jesus was a person - she just assumed that it was the plural form of jeez, and has no idea what that was.
The second question floored me even more. We were in New York last winter, and went to Ground Zero. My older daughter knew all about 9/11. She had been a toddler when it happened, and it's part of her earliest memories. Kids at daycare and school talked about it, and she saw us watching footage on TV. My 8-year-old, though, is 3 years younger, and was born 13 months after the attacks. Even though it was still all around us, from our books to conversations, she was in her little-kid world and never clued in, preferring endless Disney programs to CNN. It never occurred to me, however, that she DIDN'T know about it until she asked me that question.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A simple comment and a great lady
4 years ago, we were going through a stressful time. We had a big move and renovation. In the middle of all of that chaos, several people close to us tragically died. With all of that, plus some negative experiences on a religious internet forum, I was experiencing a bit of a spiritual crisis.
In the middle of it all, one simple comment from a new neighbour made a difference.
We had been invited for lunch since we had just moved in, and we got to know each other. They mentioned that their child had gone to a school for kids with special needs when she was younger. I mentioned that my sister's mother-in-law had been the principal, and then informed them that she had just passed away that week.
They were shocked and saddened, and told us she must have gone straight to G-d in heaven because of all the great work she did.
THAT was the comment that moved me, simple as it was. You see, by some standards, my sister's mother-in-law would not have been considered "frum" (religiously observant), and I was worn out by online discussions blasting those who weren't maintaining the latest rules, and other fanatic remarks. I was also worn out by the casual disrespect that I often saw, where people would say that a non-frum person kept "nothing".
This family saw beyond that. They saw a lady who obviously recognized the holiness of every child's soul, regardless of that child's abilities, and who had dedicated her life to these children.
A great lady passed away 4 years ago, and we know that she went straight to heaven.
In the middle of it all, one simple comment from a new neighbour made a difference.
We had been invited for lunch since we had just moved in, and we got to know each other. They mentioned that their child had gone to a school for kids with special needs when she was younger. I mentioned that my sister's mother-in-law had been the principal, and then informed them that she had just passed away that week.
They were shocked and saddened, and told us she must have gone straight to G-d in heaven because of all the great work she did.
THAT was the comment that moved me, simple as it was. You see, by some standards, my sister's mother-in-law would not have been considered "frum" (religiously observant), and I was worn out by online discussions blasting those who weren't maintaining the latest rules, and other fanatic remarks. I was also worn out by the casual disrespect that I often saw, where people would say that a non-frum person kept "nothing".
This family saw beyond that. They saw a lady who obviously recognized the holiness of every child's soul, regardless of that child's abilities, and who had dedicated her life to these children.
A great lady passed away 4 years ago, and we know that she went straight to heaven.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Oh, the irony....
Original post
The links would all make good examples for a course in logical fallacies, but let's assume for a moment that this blogger truly believes in these reasons. Apparently, we need the government to protect heterosexual marriage in order to create peace between the two genders, because otherwise adults would behave like my 7-year-old and 8-year-old and only hang out with their own genders, thus increasing gender separatism and friction. Good to know.
This blogger then proves that he's committed to improving relations between men and women by posting charming stuff like this
So, what's the only thing more persuasive than a childless man arguing that the government should be able to ban abortion because it has nothing to do with a pregnant woman's body? It's having a single, childless man, who lives with his parents, watches Stargate, resents Shabbat because it would cut into his ability to play on the computer 24/7, and enjoys saying things like "go back to your kitchen, you dumb bitch" defend traditional heterosexual marriage as being necessary for good relations between the sexes, and needing government protection from lifestyles that threaten it.
So - should the government ban boorish and sexist behavior? What about being a geek?
Personally, if politicians see a need to strengthen traditional marriage, I'd suggest:
1. Not impregnating the housekeeper, especially the same week that you impregnate your wife.
2. Not impregnating your mistress while your wife is dying of cancer.
3. Not going to washroom stalls with boys if you are married.
4. Not flying to your mistress in South America.
5. Get serious about requiring some sort of premarital counseling before marriage, making family life education and interpersonal skills an integral part of the high school curriculum, and making sure that access to good quality marital counseling is available regardless of income.
The links would all make good examples for a course in logical fallacies, but let's assume for a moment that this blogger truly believes in these reasons. Apparently, we need the government to protect heterosexual marriage in order to create peace between the two genders, because otherwise adults would behave like my 7-year-old and 8-year-old and only hang out with their own genders, thus increasing gender separatism and friction. Good to know.
This blogger then proves that he's committed to improving relations between men and women by posting charming stuff like this
So, what's the only thing more persuasive than a childless man arguing that the government should be able to ban abortion because it has nothing to do with a pregnant woman's body? It's having a single, childless man, who lives with his parents, watches Stargate, resents Shabbat because it would cut into his ability to play on the computer 24/7, and enjoys saying things like "go back to your kitchen, you dumb bitch" defend traditional heterosexual marriage as being necessary for good relations between the sexes, and needing government protection from lifestyles that threaten it.
So - should the government ban boorish and sexist behavior? What about being a geek?
Personally, if politicians see a need to strengthen traditional marriage, I'd suggest:
1. Not impregnating the housekeeper, especially the same week that you impregnate your wife.
2. Not impregnating your mistress while your wife is dying of cancer.
3. Not going to washroom stalls with boys if you are married.
4. Not flying to your mistress in South America.
5. Get serious about requiring some sort of premarital counseling before marriage, making family life education and interpersonal skills an integral part of the high school curriculum, and making sure that access to good quality marital counseling is available regardless of income.
More "fetal rights" nonsense
I got mad reading more ideological nonsense about how fetus' require protection because they are so "separate" from the mother. From here.
Of course, it has nothing to do with a woman's body. The fetus is simply growing in some random incubator, right? Because the placenta isn't attached to anything and isn't drawing nutrients from anyone's blood, and the uterus doesn't belong to anyone, and nobody's blood volume needs to increase to deal with the pregnancy, and nobody's bladder and bowels are affected, and nobody's lungs and stomach are affected by a distended uterus, and an increase in fluid doesn't cause anyone's extremities to swell, and nobody suffers from potentially fatal increases in blood pressure call pre-eclampsia, and nobody's heart needs to work harder to pump blood, and nobody needs to forego the medications needed to treat serious conditions like cancer or rheumatoid arthritis because they are known to cause birth defects, and nobody ever has vomiting so severe that they need to be hospitalized, and nobody has ever had spinal anesthetic for a c-section immobilize their diaphragm and cause breathing difficulties, and nobody has ever had urinary or bowel incontinence after delivery, and nobody has ever developed a fistula, and nobody has ever had their uterus literally rip open (uterine rupture) during a delivery, and nobody has ever had the anesthesia wear off in the middle of a c-section, and nobody has ever had a c-section incision that kept bleeding for a month after the birth, and nobody has ever had a potentially fatal hemorrhage following delivery, and nobody has ever had a serious infection following either vaginal or c-section delivery, and nobody has ever had a violent partner beat them during pregnancy and specifically target the abdomen, and no one has ever had difficulty landing a job while pregnant....
Now, before anyone screams that I must hate babies and pregnancy, check my profile: I (unlike the other blogger in question) have 3 kids, all very wanted and loved. My point, yet again, is to point out just how insane it is to think that we can advocate for babies without having any regard for mothers. It's a package deal. Support women. Make sure that they can feed and house themselves and their children. Make sure that decent nutrition is available. Make sure that good health care is available. Don't beat pregnant women. Make sure that any woman facing domestic violence has a viable, safe way out. Do the research necessary to ensure that safe medications exist for use during pregnancy. Make sure that there is really good birth control information and access, so that pregnancies are wanted in the first place. Make high-risk OB care available for women facing serious medical issues while pregnant. Make sure that pregnant women have adequate job protection. Reach out to those that are marginalized, living on the streets and/or engaging in substance abuse, and offer them the help they need. Above all - make them feel valued.
Of course, it has nothing to do with a woman's body. The fetus is simply growing in some random incubator, right? Because the placenta isn't attached to anything and isn't drawing nutrients from anyone's blood, and the uterus doesn't belong to anyone, and nobody's blood volume needs to increase to deal with the pregnancy, and nobody's bladder and bowels are affected, and nobody's lungs and stomach are affected by a distended uterus, and an increase in fluid doesn't cause anyone's extremities to swell, and nobody suffers from potentially fatal increases in blood pressure call pre-eclampsia, and nobody's heart needs to work harder to pump blood, and nobody needs to forego the medications needed to treat serious conditions like cancer or rheumatoid arthritis because they are known to cause birth defects, and nobody ever has vomiting so severe that they need to be hospitalized, and nobody has ever had spinal anesthetic for a c-section immobilize their diaphragm and cause breathing difficulties, and nobody has ever had urinary or bowel incontinence after delivery, and nobody has ever developed a fistula, and nobody has ever had their uterus literally rip open (uterine rupture) during a delivery, and nobody has ever had the anesthesia wear off in the middle of a c-section, and nobody has ever had a c-section incision that kept bleeding for a month after the birth, and nobody has ever had a potentially fatal hemorrhage following delivery, and nobody has ever had a serious infection following either vaginal or c-section delivery, and nobody has ever had a violent partner beat them during pregnancy and specifically target the abdomen, and no one has ever had difficulty landing a job while pregnant....
Now, before anyone screams that I must hate babies and pregnancy, check my profile: I (unlike the other blogger in question) have 3 kids, all very wanted and loved. My point, yet again, is to point out just how insane it is to think that we can advocate for babies without having any regard for mothers. It's a package deal. Support women. Make sure that they can feed and house themselves and their children. Make sure that decent nutrition is available. Make sure that good health care is available. Don't beat pregnant women. Make sure that any woman facing domestic violence has a viable, safe way out. Do the research necessary to ensure that safe medications exist for use during pregnancy. Make sure that there is really good birth control information and access, so that pregnancies are wanted in the first place. Make high-risk OB care available for women facing serious medical issues while pregnant. Make sure that pregnant women have adequate job protection. Reach out to those that are marginalized, living on the streets and/or engaging in substance abuse, and offer them the help they need. Above all - make them feel valued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)