Heroes
It's Toxic. It's Gross. And The Real (Fake) Johnny Cash Doesn't Like It.
The Real Fake Johnny Cash hears that train a-comin'. It's rollin' round the bend. But the stuff it's shippin' to the coast is givin' him the blues.
02.07.14
Photo by Johnny Cohen on Unsplash
It's a good news/bad news situation for parents of young kids.
The good news? Everyone wants to spend time with the kids! Grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends. They all want a relationship and lots of special moments with the little ones.
The bad news? One phrase:
"When are you bringing them over?"
Parents have been frustrated by the expectations of orchestrating stressful visits for generations — loading the kids in a car or on an airplane only to spend hours chasing them around in an un-baby-proofed environment and watching routines go to hell.
Now they're sounding off on social media and airing their grievances.
Why visiting grandparents and other relatives is so challenging for parents
A mom recently took to Reddit to vent about everyone in her life wanting her to "bring the kids to them."
"My parents live 30 mins away and always bug me about not coming to visit them," she writes. They constantly ask, "Why don't you bring our granddaughter to come see us?"
The fascinating discussion highlights a few things that make arranging visits with young kids a potential nightmare for parents.
Grandparents' houses are rarely childproofed
Grandparents love their breakable decor! Ceramic doo-dads, glass vases everywhere. They can't get enough. And while they should be able to decorate their house however they see fit (they've earned the right!) that doesn't make it a good environment for toddlers and babies.
The breakable decor found in every grandparents' houseozalee.fr/Flickr
"Last week was the last straw, I took my daughter to my parents and of course she went EVERYWHERE! flooded their toilet, broke a vase, and tried multiple times to climb their furniture," the Reddit mom writes.
Parents in a foreign environment are on constant safety duty and can rarely sit down
Let's be honest. Sometimes these "visits" are hardly worth the effort. After all, it's hard to get much catch up time when you're dutifully chasing your kid around.
"They don’t understand that my 3 yo ... is absolutely wild," writes another user in the thread. "She has no self preservation and nothing we do works. She doesn’t listen, she throws, she bites, she refuses to use the potty. It’s exhausting and then ... they expect us to entertain them, when I’m trying to just keep my kid from jumping off the stairs and into an ER visit."
Even just putting the kids in the car for a 20-minute drive is more work than it seems
Taking the kids out of the house requires packing a bag, bringing extra clothes, loading up on snacks, etc.
It seems easy to "pop over" but it actually absorbs the majority of the day between prep, visit, and aftermath.
Naps and routines go to hell
Parents with babies and toddlers know all too well — there is a price to pay for taking the kids out of the house for too long.
Chances are, the baby won't nap in a strange environment and then you're stuck with a cranky kid the rest of the night.
Kids with special needs require even more consistency
Kids with autism or ADHD can really struggle outside of their zone of safety. They might become severely dysregulated, have meltdowns, or engage in dangerous behaviors.
Explaining and mediating the generational divide
Photo by Tim Kilby on Unsplash
Why is this a conflict almost all parents can relate to?
Is this a Boomer vs Millennials thing?
Some experts think that generational values and traditions might play a role.
"Many Boomers were accustomed to more traditional, hierarchical family dynamics, where visiting grandparents was a way for the younger generation to show respect," says Caitlin Slavens, a family psychologist.
But that's not to say this is a new problem. I can remember my own parents driving me and my brothers over an hour to visit my grandparents seemingly every other weekend, but very few occasions where they came to visit us. It must have driven my parents nuts back then!
Plus, it's easy to forget that it's hard for older people to travel, too. They may have their own issues and discomforts when it comes to being away from their home.
"But for today’s parents, balancing careers, kids’ routines, and the demands of modern parenting is a much bigger undertaking. Grandparents might not always see how childproofing their space or making the trip themselves could make a huge difference, especially considering how travel and disruption can impact younger kids' moods and routines," Slavens says.
"So yes, this divide often comes down to different expectations and life experiences, with older generations potentially not seeing the daily demands modern families face."
Is there any hope for parents and grandparents coming to a better understanding, or a compromise?
"First, open conversations help bridge the divide—explain how much of a difference it makes when the kids stay in a familiar space, especially when they’re very young," suggests Slavens.
"Share practical details about the challenges, like childproofing concerns or travel expenses, to help grandparents see it from a parent’s perspective. You might even work together to figure out solutions, like making adjustments to create a more child-friendly space in their home or agreeing on a shared travel plan."
Ultimately, it's a good thing when grandparents, friends, and other relatives want to see the kids.
We all have the same goal.
"It’s helpful to approach the topic with empathy, focusing on everyone’s goal: more quality time together that’s enjoyable and low-stress for everyone involved. For parents, it’s about setting boundaries that work, and for grandparents, it’s about recognizing that flexibility can really show the parents that you are ... willing to make adjustments for their children and grandchildren."
Enjoyable, low-stress quality time — that's something everyone can get behind.
via Canva/Photos
A guy having a collaborative conversation.
The quickest way to stop having a constructive dialog with someone is when they become defensive. This usually results in them digging in their heels and making you defensive. This can result in a vicious cycle of back-and-forth defensive behavior that can feel impossible to break. Once that happens, the walls go up, the gloves come off and resolving the situation becomes tough.
Amanda Ripley, author of “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” says in her book that you can prevent someone you disagree with from becoming defensive by being curious about their opinion.
Ripley is a bestselling author and the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict.
How to have a constructive conversation
Let’s say you believe the room should be painted red and your spouse says it should be blue. Instead of saying, “I think blue is ugly,” you can say, “It’s interesting that you say that…” and ask them to explain why they chose blue.
The key phrase is: “It’s interesting that you say that…”
People coming to an agreement. via Canva/Photos
When you show the other person that you genuinely care about their thoughts and appreciate their reasoning, they let down their guard. This makes them feel heard and encourages them to hear your side as well. This approach also encourages the person you disagree with to consider coming up with a collaborative solution instead of arguing to defend their position.
It’s important to assume the other person has the best intentions while listening to them make their case. “To be genuinely curious, we need to refrain from judgment and making negative assumptions about others. Assume the other person didn’t intend to annoy you. Assume they are doing the best they can. Assume the very best about them. You’ll appreciate it when others do it for you,” Kaitlyn Skelly at The Ripple Effect Education writes.
Phrases you can use to avoid an argument
The curiosity approach can also involve affirming the other person’s perspective while adding your own, using a phrase like, “On the one hand, I see what you’re saying. On the other hand…”
Here are some other phrases you can use:
“I wonder if…”
“It’s interesting that you say that because I see it differently…”
“I might be wrong, but…”
“How funny! I had a different reaction…”
“I hadn’t thought of it like that! For me, though, it seems…”
“I think I understand your point, though I look at it a little differently…”
Two men high-fiving one another.via Canva/Photos
What's the best way to disagree with people?
A 2016 study from Yale University supports Ripley’s ideas. The study found that when people argue to “win,” they take a hard line and only see one correct answer in the conflict. Whereas those who want to “learn” are more likely to see that there is more than one solution to the problem. At that point, competition magically turns into collaboration.
“Being willing to hear out other perspectives and engage in dialogue that isn’t simply meant to convince the other person you’re right can lead to all sorts of unexpected insights,” psychologist and marketing Professor at Southern Methodist University tells CNBC.
In a world of strong opinions and differing perspectives, curiosity can be a superpower that helps you have more constructive conversations with those with whom you disagree. All it takes is a little humility and an open mind, and you can turn conflict into collaboration, building bridges instead of walls.
Wikicommons
Pro-choice and pro-life demonstrators face off
The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.
People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.
Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we'd hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.
It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.
There's far too much gray area to legislate.
No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.
I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.
Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.
a man holding a sign that says our life - our decisionPhoto by Aiden Frazier on UnsplashOne reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.
I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.
I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.
I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.
I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.
It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)
I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.
a crowd of people in front of the Supreme Court after Dobbs decision
Photo by Sarah Penney on UnsplashAnd yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing.As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands.
Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.
The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.
Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.
Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.
At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist in the real world.
Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.
This article originally appeared on 01.22.19