Psychology Today Blogs - Singletons

Forty is the New 20 for Having Babies

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:26:38 -0700

Forty is the new 20 when it comes to having babies creating a distinct trend with a host of positives for women who delay motherhood including living longer than those who give birth at young ages.

When my son was three-years-old, he and my husband went out to buy the weekend newspapers. One Sunday, as they approached the store, a gentleman crouched down to my son's level and said, "It's so nice that you're taking your grandfather out for a walk." Not vain, my husband was unperturbed by the comment and the incident has become a family joke. Yet I, and many older moms I've spoken with, keep ears perked, ready to deflect any "you're the grandmother" comments or insinuations.

Think you're too old to have a baby...you're probably not. Just ask first time moms Halle Berry who gave birth at 41, Jennifer Lopez who had twins at 38, or one of your friends. In 2006 one in every twelve first babies was born to a woman over 35. When you look at women having babies regardless of whether or not it's their first child, one in seven babies were delivered by women 35 or older.

Women are in no rush to marry or have children. In the mid to late 1950's, the median marriage age for women was 19. Today it's 25, but many women wait much longer to marry and have babies. Reproductive advances give women a security blanket on waiting. The surge in births to older women tells us that they are exercising that option. The National Center for Health Statistics states that in the 24 years between 1980 and 2004, the number of women giving birth at age 30 has doubled, at age 35, tripled and after age 40 has almost quadrupled. Forty is the new twenty.

Waiting with good results

In her book, "Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood," Elizabeth Gregory, director of the Women's Studies Program at the University of Houston discovered that older mothers are usually more emotionally ready to cope with parenting. Gregory says that "many older mothers have met their career and personal goals so they can and want to focus on family." Life experience is a boon in terms of translating work experience into running a household. She also notes that marriages among older women, almost 85 percent are married when they become mothers, tend to be more stable. Older, single first-time moms have built a stable support network by the time they have a child.

Although older mothers may face infertility issues, may have more difficult pregnancies, and are more likely to have Cesareans (National Institute of Health), on an overall, the positives outweigh the possible problems for the women over 35 who are fueling the trend to motherhood later-among them, a group called Motherhood Later rather than Sooner, a resource for midlife mothers. Women over 38 using assisted reproductive methods adjusted in almost the same ways to pregnancy as those who were younger, and older mothers scored higher on things like ability to handle challenges and flexibility according to a study conducted in Sidney, Australia further underscoring Gregory's results.

John Mirowsky, sociology professor at the Population Center at University of Texas who also works with the National Institute of Health says the ideal age to give birth is between 34 and 40. On the plus side he reports that those mothers experience better health, have healthier babies, and are less likely to turn to risky behavior. Much of this excellent news relates to the fact that older mothers tend to have more education and to be more financially as well as emotionally secure.

The Argument: You won't be around...

Oh, yes, you probably will. When people say: "It isn't fair to have a child at your age." "You may not live to see your son or daughter married." Or, "you won't be around to know your grandchildren." You can reply, "I'll be here." Professor Mirowsky found that health problems drop steadily the longer that first birth was delayed, up to about age 34, then rise increasingly steeply, particularly after about age 40. However, The New England Centenarian Study conducted by Boston University Medical Center found that women who give birth after 40 were four times more likely to live to 100 or longer than were women who gave birth at younger ages.

Feeling like delaying motherhood? Go right ahead.

Obama vs. McCain—Do Children and Divorce Count?

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:55:00 -0700

Among recent elected presidents, all but Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. had an only child or two children and only one president has been divorced.

When tracking how many children the last 10 elected presidents have had, the number is quite small. Will the trend continue? Like the general population, for almost 75 years our presidents have moved in the direction of smaller families. There is a pattern.

The Count

George W. Bush -2 children
Bill Clinton -1 child
George H. W. Bush -5 children (and a son who died as a child)
Ronald Reagan -2 + 3 children
Jimmy Carter -1 child
Gerald Ford -4 children (Ford was not an elected president)
Richard Nixon -2 children
Lyndon B. Johnson -2 children
John F. Kennedy -2 children
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1 child (his other son died at age 3)
Harry S. Truman -1 child
-----------------------------------------
Franklin D. Roosevelt -5 children (and a son who died before his first birthday)

Of the last 10 elected presidents, only two had more than two children. Gerald Ford became president after Richard Nixon resigned and served out the remainder of what was Nixon's second term. He was not elected or re-elected. Ronald Reagan had two children with former first lady, Nancy Reagan and three with his first wife. With the exception of Geroge Bush, Sr. and Reagan, we have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, our 32nd President, elected in 1933, to find an elected president with many children. Roosevelt fathered six children; five were alive during his presidency.

Obama -2; McCain -4+3

Obama has two children. McCain has more children than any president among the last dozen. He has seven (four as the biological father and three adopted) including one with his first wife Carol and her two sons whom he adopted, the three children he fathered with Cindy McCain and a daughter they adopted.

If the remarried candidate becomes president, he will be the second ever divorced president-Ronald Reagan is the only divorced president thus far. And, if the candidate with fewer children becomes our president, can the number of children a presidential hopeful has become a factor worth noting in future elections?

The significance of this exercise is to be determined.

The Kid-Ceiling: Women Feel It Long Before Seeing Glass-Ceiling

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:03:15 -0700

The kid-ceiling seems to have little or no effect on Sarah Palin, but for most women who work having a family alters their income, their ability to advance, and their well-being. All is not right in the world of women's work and the glaring deficiencies force more women to move in the direction of the smaller, new traditional family. In this post I look at some of the more telling issues and facts. The more children you have, the more likely you'll feel the impact of the kid-ceiling long before you see the glass-ceiling.

Call it what you will

The "kid-ceiling," "maternal wall," "mommy gap," "baby gap," "motherhood penalty" or "mommy track"-it boils down to the same thing: barriers and obstacles for women who work and want to move up AND raise a family. The kid-ceiling confronts women in both obvious and subtle ways. Employers' attitudes, the lack of on-the-job flexibility and support for mothers in the workplace, and salary gaps between male and female workers further underscore the strong bias that exists against women.

Employers' Attitude

During dinner with a group of friends not too long ago I had a heated argument with Dave, the head of a fairly sizable law firm. Dave announced that he didn't want to hire women attorneys. "It's a waste of time and resources," he said. "You put all this money into training them and then they leave as soon as they have children."

With law schools turning out at least 50 percent female attorneys, Dave is greatly narrowing his field. More striking is his thinking. It dates back a of couple generations when women stayed home to raise their children. This underlying mind-set lingers widely, ignoring the fact that the majority of women work, most because they have to. In a presidential address to the American Psychological Association a few years ago, Diane Halpern noted, that "despite changes in the workforce, the world of work is still largely organized for a family model that is increasingly rare-one with a stay-at-home caregiver."

These personal stories collected by Northern Colorado psychologist Jill Kuhn and reported in The Feminist Psychologist illustrate how deep in the dark ages companies and their policies remain:

--"My boss attempted to get me to agree to attend a retreat scheduled two days after my due date. When I explained why this would not be a good idea, she replied, "Can't you get a sitter?"
--"When I told my boss that my infant was scheduled to have a surgical procedure, I was told that I needed to return to work that same day after lunch."
--"When I told my boss I was pregnant he replied, "I can't believe you are doing this to me."

This excerpt from an article in Educational Psychology Review, "Nurturing careers in psychology: Combining work and family," reminds us how difficult it is to work and have the family you hoped for. What researchers discovered brings home the reality that women are scaling back family size in reaction to the treatment and attitudes of employers in all fields:

"...women faculty who have babies within the first 5 years following the receipt of their doctorate are less likely to earn tenure than women without babies or men in general. Women at research-intensive universities are twice as likely as their male colleagues to report that they had fewer children than they wanted. In addition, only one-third of women who begin their academic career at research-intensive institutions without children will become a mother."

For those that do, pregnancy alone is difficult in many places of business. According to National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a federal commission found: "In 2005, 4,449 pregnancy discrimination charges were filed with the commission or state and local employment agencies around the country. Half were related to unlawful dismissals either during a pregnancy or immediately after returning from maternity leave...Between 1992 and 2005, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges in the United States went up by 31 percent even while the national birth rate decreased."

Dollars and Timing

Women experience interruptions in their careers in order to care for children (and many for aging parents as well). These interruptions discussed by Steven Rose and Heidi Hartmann for the Institute for Women's Policy Research are costly: "Across the 15 years of the study, the average prime age working woman earned only $273,592 while the average working man earned $722,693 (in 1999 dollars)."

The Journal of Family and Economic Issues summarized a study by saying that "white women experience the largest threat to wages as a result of conventional gender ideology. Further, the number of children and the timing of childbearing are detrimental to black and white women's earnings, while neither of these factors hampers men's earnings." As significant as those differences are, the biggest gap is between women with children and those without.

Female workers today have to make lifestyle choices about how far up the ladder they want to climb and who and what will hold them back. Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist, in an article for the Harvard Business Review explains the timing factor that works against women. "There's a certain age, long established by large organizations, at which professionals must decide to make their play for the big promotion-the one that will put them in line for the C-suite-and while it's a good time for men, it's not a good time for women...Women tend to pride themselves on their multitasking capabilities-and rightly so-but as their children grow past grade-school years the demands on women's brains reach their maximum levels. This may seem counterintuitive, given that younger children are less independent. It's not the quantity of care required that taxes the brain, however, so much as the unpredictable need for care... People coping with heightened levels of unpredictability rarely go looking for even more ways to mix it up. To expect the typical woman to make her play for a newly demanding role at this particular life stage is unrealistic. Yet this expectation is implicit in most organizations. Top management starts looking seriously at a cohort as it enters its forties. But the high-potential women may be opting out-temporarily, they hope-because the timing is wrong to introduce yet another source of high-stress unpredictability into their lives." Makes good sense especially when combined with all women have to do.

Wear and Tear

In a previous post I asked, If Men Helped More, Would Women Have More Babies? Today I'm asking: what can be done to make having a family and raising the children easier on women? The workday has been stretched. With cell phones and e-mail and portable devices to receive work or answer questions anytime day or night, employees are on-call 24/7. When a woman works, it's likely that playing a game of Candyland or going for a walk with her children may have to wait until the weekend.

Most working women face a combination of the high cost of raising children and working to pay the bills. The pressures force many of them to choose between limiting the number of children they have and climbing their workplace ladder. The kid-ceiling with its dollar inequities and employers' views affects everything from women's titles to paychecks, from how many hours they work to how guilty they feel about the child they have, the children they want, and the time to attend to them in the ways they had hoped they could.
There are solutions to help break down the kid-ceiling, but are they governmental, corporate, or personal?

Children are Big Ticket Items: How Many Can You Afford?

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:57:58 -0700

Children have become big ticket items (eventually wanting big ticket items). We all agree that you can't put a price tag on children, yet the expense of raising them gives many couples reason to reconsider if, when, and how many. From the nursery to college graduation, many parents are looking at close to half a million dollars. To some of you, even bringing up this discussion may sound harsh and unfeeling, but for more and more people having babies is a financial and quality of life concern and the rocketing costs are fueling the trend toward one-child families.

In an earlier post, Dollars for Babies, I talked about several industrialized countries' efforts to pay women to have more children. Payment policies put into effect thus far have not worked in any significant way; the long term costs are too high to convince couples to expand their families.

In real dollars

According to the Department of Agriculture, families with an income between roughly $46,000 and $77,000 will spend a little over $200,000 to rear their offspring from birth through high school. The more you earn, the more you spend: Families with incomes over $77,000 can figure spending closer to $300,000 BEFORE factoring in the costs of a college education, public or private. The Department of Agriculture costs are modest given their absence of the endless stream of extras.

The National Association of Child Care Resources reports that, on average, families spend between roughly $4,000 and $13,500 on infant childcare alone. When the routine costs of housing, food, and clothing are mingled with today's commercialism and parents' competitiveness, the pressure to buy makes the numbers soar. In her book, Parenting, Inc.: How We Are Sold on $800 Strollers, Fetal Education, Baby Sign Language, Sleeping Coaches, Toddle Couture, and Diaper Wipe Warmers-and What It Means for Our Children, Pamela Paul outlines the where and why of so much spending for babies. In her introduction she writes, "Baby signing-for babies who can hear perfectly well-had become so popular that we also felt prodded by a competitive impetus: Everyone else seemed to signing their children up."

As I read through Parenting, Inc., I realized that there is virtually no end to the baby equipment parents can buy in what has become a six billion dollar niche industry. Frankly, what's available at what prices and how parents are targeted in ads and guilt trips is just the beginning of the feelings (and fears) and spending parents experience to raise a baby. The intense marketing for all varieties of tutoring and trainers that children supposedly need to succeed up the budget way beyond anything the Department of Agriculture includes. And, expenses are higher depending on where you live.

When you bring baby home from the hospital, team sports, signup fees, uniforms, protective gear, plus travel expenses are far from your mind. With school budget cuts, you will probably be adding music and art lessons, special trainers and coaches for your little league pitcher, gymnast, or swimmer. Don't forget birthday party costs and, later, must-have items in the form of technology gadgets and clothing your preteens and teens will dub "essential," all putting more drain on the coffers. A cell-phone, for example, has become a everyday accessory for children even in elementary school.

The Wall Street Journal made a far more realistic estimate than my half-million dollars for households in the top one-third income bracket/earning about $118,000 a year: "At the lowest end, our estimates came in at about $800,000 (in 2007 dollars) through age 17. Add in luxuries like private school, a nanny and a flat screen TV set in a kid's bedroom, and the figure climbs to $1.6 million."

Couples are asking...

...Can we afford a child? Two? Three? Five?

Parents want the best for their sons and daughters, but at what point is it unrealistic to think you can manage a brood without having to make significant sacrifices? Where you live, what jobs you have, what hours you work, what vacations you take (or don't), what childcare and then schools your child will attend, what extras you can or cannot give your child...go into the tabulation.

As insensitive as it sounds, for growing numbers of people without limitless funds, the skyrocketing cost of raising children is a conscious and prohibiting factor in childbearing today. Even if you don't succumb to the advertising claims that your child will be brighter or happier given the benefits of whatever the product or service or to your child's gadget requests, the cost of raising children frightens and keeps more and more couples out of the delivery room. Yet, as Vivianna Zeiler, author of Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children, noted: when children were no longer needed for farm work, they became economically useless and emotionally priceless.

Empty Nest: Who is needier, parent or child?

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:13:47 -0700

September marks the true test of a child's march toward independence and a parent's ability to let go. As college Freshmen settle into dorm rooms and college life, parents feel sad, nervous, and protective simultaneously. Well, some parents...and surprisingly, men can be more affected by a child's departure than women.

In the best of all worlds the move toward independence began much earlier, but many parents continue to orchestrate and manipulate their children's education and social lives into adulthood. Parents of only children are considered the worst offenders of both control and feelings of loss when their singletons leave the nest. Most parents miss a child who has gone off to college, but the idea that depression sets in and a mother losses her sense of identity is as "old hat" for mothers of one as it is for mothers with several children.

In our digital age, the real risk is that parents remain in charge directing a student's every move no matter where in the country he or she attends college. E-mail, instant messaging, and cell phones allow immediate contact -truly a double edged sword. For college-age children, the journey toward independence is being short-circuited when parents continue to micromanage their college lives. Older adults might recall being deposited at college with instructions to call home once a week followed by a quick reminder that "Thanksgiving is around the corner." Today it's extraordinarily easy for parents to interfere-a quick call here, a short e-mail there.

Patterns Set Early

I have friends who were horrified when I put my nine-year-old only child on an airplane to spend summer weeks at overnight camp. I wanted him to be with children his own age, to fend for himself, to learn to make his own decisions and cope without parental interference, without a parental buffer. I have friends who still make me feel as if I am not a very good mother when I haven't talked to my now adult son in a week or two. I feel confident he'll call me when he really needs me.

We all know parents who hover and mastermind their offspring's lives closely beginning with play dates, choices in sports and other extracurricular activities. Making most arrangements and decisions for young children leads to total dependence on parents. Throughout college, daily and lengthy phone calls seek parental advice on solving every little problem with a roommate, a teammate or a professor. Mom or Dad calls back for an outcome report or to rehash the still sticky issue.

Sure, it's great to call home from college for a recipe or to report a test or paper grade, but not to ask for help writing that paper. Conversations on how to navigate sexual dilemmas with a girlfriend or boyfriend are subjects more appropriate for discussion with a friend or sibling. In the end, when parents run interference for every single snag in their child's life, mom and dad maintain control of their college student. Constant involvement is a very hard habit to break.

In response to Michele Weiner-Davis's PT blog, Confessions of a Mother in Mourning, one son wrote, "If you didn't feel what you're describing [mothers feeling back-to-school sadness], I would think you were a terrible mother. The problem isn't the feeling per se, but the fact that so overwhelming many are unable to let go. As the son of a mother that doesn't let go, I ask you all, please, let us go, we won't be too far away. But, please, don't place this weight on our shoulders."

Empty Nest is Overrated Especially for Women

When parents take charge of a child's life from an early age, it is far more difficult to separate during the college years and beyond. The empty nest, initially manifest as a sense of loss for parents, can become excruciating for helicopter parents if and when a child decides to break loose. On the other hand, according to Karen L. Fingerman, professor of child development and family studies at Purdue University, parents who have given their offspring independence early on feel a sense of pride and joy when their children begin the campus or any away from home young adult experience. Fingerman, author of Mothers and Their Adult Children: Mixed Emotions, Enduring Bonds, says, "What I've seen in my research, what happens is actually the opposite of empty-nest syndrome." Women feel closer to their grown children who have left home, they have better relationships when they don't have to deal with the hassles of daily life living together. And women find time to renew their other relationships (including with their spouse) and personal activities.

Men are "less prepared for the emotional component of the transition [of a child leaving home]," reports Wheaton College professor of psychology Helen M. DeVries whose findings agree with Fingerman's. For women empty nest is not such a terrible thing, but rather they view it as an opportunity to move on. In her research DeVries found that men express regret for the things they didn't do and opportunities they didn't take to be with their children.

Seems it would best for parents and children alike, if mothers and fathers begin the pull back sooner, when a child takes that first step into a kindergarten classroom. Balanced involvement and guidance without designing and dictating on the parents' part trains children to make their own decisions and learn from their own mistakes. By the time college rolls around, mothers, fathers, and children will be less dependent on each other and ready to progress independently with respect, encouragement, and space to go in their own directions.

Is Cindy McCain Really an Only Child?

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:17:37 -0700

Her "sister" doesn't think so.

McCain says she is. She's said she's an only child repeatedly in major national interviews. I think she would like to be-especially right now. Her inheritance from father and beer baron, Jim Hensley, would indicate she's an only child, but for the $10,000 left to her half-sister, Kathleen Hensley Portalski, 65. They look remarkably alike.

Cindy has another half-sister, Dixi Burd,, from her mother's marriage before marrying Hensley. She's older, but is that a reason to deny her existence, too? I haven't seen a picture of Burd and I wonder if she resembles Cindy McCain having had the same mother. As far as I can tell Burd is keeping quiet.

You don't have to be best friends or spend holidays with your half-siblings, but when your husband is running for the top office in the country, it would be wise to recognize your father and mother's other children. If you don't, someone else will.

No public acknowledgment of two sisters who share your bloodline seems odd to me given the number of divorces, remarriages, half- and step-siblings in this country. This "oversight" would not be so controversial or damaging if Cindy McCain had simply been honest. She could have said, "I was raised as an only child. I have two half-sisters, but didn't live with them or see them very often."

The McCain campaign issued a statement saying roughly that AFTER the media pounced on the NPR interview with Kathleen Hensley Portalski's son, Nicholas, and Kathleen. Kathleen told one reporter, "I was his [her father's] family, too...I saw him at Christmas and I spent my birthdays with him." Jim Hensley was generous with Kathleen and her family until his death when all support to the Portalski's ended.

Is Cindy McCain an only child? In a New York Daily News poll 75% of respondents said no. What do you think? Is all the hoopla just about wills and money? Or, is it a question of semantics and how one defines being an only child?

Dollars for Babies

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:14:41 -0700

Around the globe in industrialized countries, fertility rates have dropped below the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per female causing economic and social concerns for the future. In the U.S. with a fertility rate of 2.09, keeping pace with the "break-even" level is attributed to immigration. The unknown is: How long can we maintain that rate with U.S. family size shrinking? Will money convince women to have more babies?

Jonathan V. Last, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote, "The 2008 election may be about Iraq and George W. Bush and the housing market. But the future of U.S. politics is going to be which party helps people have babies." Should we be discussing that now?

It takes more than money to convince women to have babies

Last week a friend and her husband visited with their two young children. I observed: Yes, the father helps a bit more than my father or husband did, but my friend, even on vacation with no work pressures for either of them, is the "director" and "doer" of most responsibilities relating to caring for the children. She has the number of children needed to replenish the population. Is the reason she stopped at two because of her husband's participation level? Yes and no. Like so many couples the reasons are complicated and individual as I discussed in previous posts: Behind the Trend Toward Smaller Families and If Dads Helped More, Would Moms Have More Babies?

Dad's support, be it in America or Asia, isn't the whole issue but it is a contributing factor, if not stated certainly subliminally. A dozen years ago Makoto Atoh, then director general of the official Institute of Population Problems in Tokyo, told the New York Times, ''I'm very pessimistic about a restoration of fertility. The main reason for the decline in fertility is that women have advanced. They want to get ahead in the world, but they're also asked to care for children and do all the housework. Men never do that stuff.''

Women everywhere are expected to juggle work and family responsibilities and it's too difficult. Linda Duxbury, business professor at Carleton University in Canada, observes that the decrease in fertility coincides with the rise of the women's movement. She says, "We haven't paid attention to work-life balance for 30 years." She found that Canadian women, particularly the better educated and higher paid, are putting off motherhood, having their children later, and having fewer of them. Lack of flexibility on the job is a root cause.

Dollars for babies

Paying women to have babies has been tried in countries from Russia to Britian to Japan and Germany with varying success and only modest gains in fertility. When Japanese birth rates hit a low about ten years ago, some town governments instituted programs to encourage women to have more babies. In the town of Kyokushu women were offered $5,000 if they had a fourth child-no one did. In Yamatsuri, a small town outside Tokyo, women were paid $4,600 for the birth of any child plus $460 per year for ten years. Australia provides bonuses for babies at $3,000 each. Russia proposed a subsidy of roughly $9,000 for the birth of a second child. Whatever the money offered, birth rates remain alarmingly low: Canada, 1.5 babies per woman; Australia and Britain, 1.8; Germany. Russia, and Italy, all around 1.3 and Japan hovers at 1.2.

American feminist and author of Taking On the Big Boys: Or Why Feminism Is Good for Families, Business, and the Nation, Ellen Bravo, says, "the countries with the worst work-life policies are the ones that also have falling fertility rates." To keep pace with replacement levels, the solution to low fertility rates in any country may be more government and corporate support. Duxbury reports that programs which make life easier for parents reflect the greatest upticks in birthrates. The program in France (which has one of the highest fertility rates in Europe along with the Scandinavian countries), indicates that payment for having babies works best when combined with longer parental leave, daycare, and social benefits.

All eyes on France

France has seen its fertility rate jump from 1.8 to 2.0 in just a few years with only one-fourth of the rise due to immigration. In a country in which 80 percent of the women work, government-based incentives for parents make life easier for mothers and fathers alike.
French bonuses and encouragements include:

• 16 weeks mandatory paid maternity leave to stay home to bond with a newborn (with proposals to extend that)
• Job security guaranteed
• 1,000 euros per month for a year for a third child
• Tax breaks that increase the more children a couple has (no income tax for families with three children, subsidized rent and transportation and free admission to public recreation areas)
• Tax deductions for at-home child care

Canada, Germany, and other countries are modeling proposals on France's success. Should America? To avert a potentially disastrous fertility situation, it would seem tax breaks for parents who send their children to college or for parents of multiple children makes sense to help defray the high cost of raising children in this country. Without some form of government support, won't women who want to get ahead in the workforce continue to have fewer children? Like energy, fertility and population growth should be bipartisan issues.

Raising “Star” Children: The Pressure May Be Too Great

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:28:36 -0700

Probably nowhere in the world is the pressure to shine greater than that exerted on Chinese only children. In a nation with a one child policy in effect for 30 years, these children are studied and scrutinized. Their outcomes are not always positive.

Although economic opportunity is not similar, the dreams of Chinese parents are not so different from what most parents want for their offspring. The focus in China is on academics and the pressure begins early in preschool to prepare for the country's college entrance exam. American parents, similarly, vie for slots in prestigious preschools hoping that their children will excel and be admitted to well-respected colleges.

In addition to reducing the population, the one child policy's "greater purpose was to turn out a group of young elites who would enjoy the undivided resources of their whole family," and develop "high quality children who would facilitate China's introduction as a global power," writes Taylor Clark in his article, "The Plight of Little Emperors." The only child in whatever country he is being raised has the advantage of his parents' full attention and resources, but no matter how many children parents have it seems as if most American parents are striving to raise "star children" be it in field of academics, sports, or the arts.

Resume building begins early with parents seeking out or hoping for the fast reading group, the right afterschool job, the perfect accelerated summer program, the special team, event, or volunteer contribution to "beef up" the college application. No matter where you live, the time, intensity, and stress can backfire. Chinese educational demands and parental expectations have led to increased suicides among young people. Urban students are at the highest risk, in fact, reports Taylor Clark, "over 25 percent of university students have had suicidal thoughts, compared to 6 percent in the United States."

The pressure has also led to millions of internet addicted males between the ages of 14 and 19 who often turn to the internet after perceived and real academic slides or failure. According the Washington Post, the Communist Youth League considers internet addiction "a grave social problem" that threatens the nation. The government has started military-style, countrywide rehabilitation programs as well as efforts to keep teens out of Internet cafes and limit time online to stop it.

When a child doesn't lean in a scholarly direction, parents turn to sports or another competitive area in which their child or children stand out. In sports-crazed America, children and parents see cheering fans, spectacular plays, young heroes being carried off on the shoulders of their teammates, lucrative contracts and big buck endorsements. How can that not seem glamorous, enticing, possible? If not fame and glory, parents envision paid college tuitions and televised college games.

Whatever the aspiration, parents-and children-are influenced by the "stars" and their success. Right before our eyes and in minute detail, athletes just entering their teen years catapult to celebrity status. Golf sensation Michelle Wie, soccer's World Cup phenomenon Freddy Adu and tennis's Martina Hingis all burst on the scene at age 14. They exemplify what many parents fantasize for their own children. The media present an unrealistic and warped picture of sports' potential for children who devote excessive time to one sport at the same time the American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee of Sports Medicine and Fitness, warn us that the dedicated youth increasingly are injured or burnout. The Academy finds that young and adolescent participants who play a variety of sports have fewer injuries and play sports longer than those who specialize in one sport before puberty.

Some of the world's young "stars" will face off soon at the Olympics having spent most of their lives training for their events often beginning as early as age 6. How can you not bring home gold when you have reached the level of American's Nastia Liukin or Shawn Johnson, gymnasts featured on sports pages and magazine covers? How can you not win if you are Liu Xiang, China's first-ever track star, with an entire nation counting on you?

Whether they are vying for a chance to mount the balance beam at the Olympics or a spot in a college freshman class, you have to wonder what they (and their parents) have sacrificed to be there. Parents of one have great expectations for their singletons, but they need to temper their own dreams and drive to avoid backlash. An only child knows hers is the only report card coming home, the only performance you will watch-be it on a stage or field or in an arena. The overly pressured only children of China seem to be sending a strong message to parents-all parents.

Spoiled—Not My Kid

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:26:08 -0700

Some professionals argue there's no such thing as a spoiled child. I beg to differ.

A child whines for gum in the supermarket aisle and Mom takes down a packet from the rack to avoid a tantrum or "scene." Your teenage son "must have" the electronic gizmo his friend just got and your preteen daughter claims she's not too young to go to a concert with her friends without adult supervision. Never mind the cost of the tickets; the band is the hottest or so say the messages your daughter receives from Internet advertising, TV commercials, and on her cell phone.

We live in an age of yes-parenting, in a culture of parents who can't say NO to their offspring whatever their age and whatever the number of children in the family. Yet, it's common practice to categorize parents of only children as indulgent-their children as spoiled rotten-and overlook the same parental behavior in parents who have more than one child.

We don't generally label the children who ride in $800 strollers "spoiled" if a brother or sister is tagging along, but put a singleton in the very same extravagant stroller or give her a brand new iPod and the spoiled only child stereotype will be voiced. "Many of the stereotypes still pervasive in today's society seem to be vestiges of the past, artifacts of outmoded belief systems once, but no longer accepted as social realities," wrote Sam Sommers in arguing another PT bloggers claim that "all stereotypes are true."

Although the spoiled only child stereotype is not a social reality if it ever was, it remains accepted as true. For more than a century, only children have been tagged "spoiled" because the popular thinking is that parents of one have the resources to give that child everything he wants. The Chinese feared they were raising a generation of "little emperors" as a result of the country's one-child policy. During the last twenty year large studies have been undertaken to evaluate Chinese only children as well as only children in other countries. The conclusions are all similar: Singletons cannot be differentiated as spoiled from the overall population.

The root and prevalence of spoiled children can be linked to parents succumbing to commercialism and societal pressures. Susan Linn, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, calls it "Commercializing Childhood." The dollars spent on marketing to children have escalated, she notes, from around $100 million in 1983 to some $17 billion today. Given the myriad ways to reach children with "buy, buy" messages, it's no wonder we have a society filled with spoiled children in all family sizes. What we need more are parents resistant to their children's "I have to have's" and parents who can withstand their offspring's temporary unhappiness of on hearing the word NO.

Who first told you only children were lonely and bossy? When was that?

Susan Newman, Ph.D. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:41:10 -0700

Not to worry if you don't remember. Sam Wang, associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton, and Sandra Aamodt, a former editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience report that "As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength." It doesn't seem to matter after a short period of time whether or not you trusted the person who told you only children were lonely, bossy, and spoiled. Could have been your mother years ago talking about a neighbor's child or your very own cousin (my mother actually did that) or a pregnant friend last week who wants you to have another baby so hers will have a relatively same-age companion.

Brain Research Explains Stereotypes

In their discussion of false political beliefs, Your Brain Lies to You, Wang and Aamodt point out that "This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true."

Most of the blame for the negative labels that cling to only children date back to the late 1800's when G. Stanley Hall, called the father of child psychology, studied only children and reported a host of things wrong with them. Hall's research summary is offensive: "Being an only child is a disease in itself." If you have an only child you might consider his descriptive, which he would likely defend as scientific findings, blasphemous, and you would be correct.

Bringing up the information over and over, right or wrong, only reinforces it. Hence, the faulty results in Hall's study prevail today no matter what the evidence to the contrary in the intervening 100 plus years. Only children and their parents can't shake them because "if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked," according to Wang and Aamodt.

Legends propagate particularly when they collide with emotions, and emotions and opinion run high on the subject of onlies. "Ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke - or about a presidential candidate." And only children.

So if your parent, in-law, or sibling, for instance, is anti only children, maybe you are, too. Myths about only children have passed through generations, and the more emotional and negative they are, the harder they stick. People tend to adhere to their original positions and beliefs.

Have you ever heard someone tell you that only children have more education? Or that they are loyal friends. Unlikely. But if you announce you are stopping after one child, someone will remind you of the unflattering traits assigned to only children that they heard at some point and have held onto as gospel. It is, after all, a lot less "work" to label a group than to look at people individually.

Maybe with a little effort we can dismiss the misinformation of Hall's lingering stereotypical views at least among our family and friends by asking them, as researchers did with students in a Stanford University study, to contemplate that the opposite may be valid. In the study, the students were more open-minded after giving the contrary position some thought.

Assignment: When someone tells you that only children are lonely, bossy, selfish, spoiled or have more imaginary friends, you might ask them to consider the reverse and offer examples of the only children you know who lack what should be nonexistent stereotypical traits.