House of Eratosthenes

Saw something yesterday for what must have been the thirty gazillionth time, and it took that much to make me realize I had been seeing it for awhile. I think we’re all seeing this, quite often, and not realizing we’re seeing it. It’s the kind of thing that doesn’t make an impression on you until later, and only if you think on it awhile.

It has to do with kids who aren’t yet old enough to understand, or act on, the concept of a “library voice.” Momma’s brought ’em to the bagel shop or at the coffee shop, some other interior setting not designed to absorb the shrieking…and their young voices BOUNCE off the farthest walls…that’s part & parcel of being a little kid. What fascinated me was the way the mothers reacted. Of course this can’t go un-corrected. It’s too embarrassing, and leaving it uncorrected would be a display of poor manners.

Loud Girl When a little girl does it, the response is “Honey, shhh.” But then, the little girl can clearly demonstrate by her actions just seconds later, that the message hasn’t gotten through. Yeah, whatever. AND LOOKIT THAT, MOMMY! The admonition is repeated. Honey, shhh. That’s what I was seeing yesterday.

Now in the same situation, this is not how we manage our little boys, is it. I see the parenting job is not completed, with boys, until the message has been communicated, and there is some solid evidence in behavior modification that the message has been so communicated. What you were doing just now is inappropriate. Mommy will pay attention to you when she’s darn good and ready. I’m standing right here, and I can hear you fine. Other people don’t want to hear you. You don’t talk the same way indoors as you do outdoors. Get it? Got it? Good.

With little girls, it’s Honey, shhh. Parenting job done. Repeat two seconds later. Parenting job done.

I think that’s worth noticing, although it probably violates all kinds of codes about political correctness, because I’ve observed that when you audibly comment on the results — that girls are more socially mature than boys — that’s not politically incorrect at all. In fact, you get extra brownie points for noticing it; perhaps climbing your way out of a hole you dug for yourself by saying something earlier. (Heh. Wonder if it’ll work here.)

It also has something to do with our epidemic of learning disabilities. As it’s been noticed by myself, and by others — dubious learning disability diagnoses, land disproportionately on male heads. We seldom wonder why this is. Meanwhile, here we are teaching our little boys that at times there may be something undesirable or incorrect about making oneself heard in certain settings. But we don’t teach our little girls the same thing.

Another thing I see about learning disabilities is that there is this difference of opinion about whether they are being grossly diagnosed or not, but there is no difference of opinion about the frequency in which they are so diagnosed. To say it’s on the “upswing” would be a gross understatement. And so, on this point, I confess I don’t understand my impassioned opposition. This kid has autism even though his behavior is completely removed from the behavior of a “classic” case; that kid has Asperger’s (which is autism now, they think); that other kid over there has ADHD; it’s oh so vital we recognize these things so they can get “the help that they need” now that “we know so much more about these things than we used to.” They are all boys and the situation has deteriorated to the point where anyone who doesn’t live in a cave, personally knows four families or more touched by the drama connected with a learning disability. But don’t you dare question any of it or you’ll get an earful about how this or that disorder “definitely exists” — even though that’s not the thing you just called into question.

I was pondering this one more time, how we have tens of thousands of people running around, proselytizing that we have all these diagnoses being made all of a sudden, and we shouldn’t question any of them. At all. They are suspiciously apathetic about the prospect of researching some root, envrionment-related cause. Some of them are making money off the racket, but most aren’t. Most are parents. We skeptics say, that’s because when you get a “diagnosis” about a kid whose personality is different from yours and you can’t relate to him, it gives you a good excuse not to, so life can go on. In response to that we get this “the lady doth protest too much” type of rejoinder. It’s easy to see what’s happening if you think on it awhile; among those motivated to form an opinion by the personal circumstances, most people are too emotionally connected to think on it awhile.

And the thought suddenly occured to me.

What if it was discovered, or simply suggested, that some of these learning disabilities were bacterial. Microscopic beasties with hundreds of icky legs and feelers. Yeah, I know, I’m being silly; but hang with me on this. Suppose, further, that while experts were mostly convinced these bacterial learning disabilities were non-contagious, they could make no guarantees about it.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children? We would then see an epidemic of inflamed, passionate curiosity about root causes…one that is mostly or completely missing now. Wouldn’t we? I can see it now. Aiiiggghhh!!! What’s happening with the chilllllddddrrrreeeennnn? Anti-bacterial soap on this. Bleach on that. And what is up with those icky, awful, terrible little boys? What kind of hygeine issues must they have going on that they’re incubating all these little beasties and perhaps putting our darling little girls in danger? Won’t someone think about the chilllllddddrrrreeeennnn?

It would produce a paradigm shift. A massive one. An abundance of curiosity, where a glaring paucity of same existed moments before. But if we were noodling on this stuff honestly, it would not.

But this isn’t a terribly useful thought exercise — we know things are gunnybags and bollywonkers. Anybody who thinks on it for a minute or two can see that. The lopsided gender ratio with those diagnosed, the word “diagnose” abused to the point where it no longer means anything, and most of all the skyrocketing incident frequencies…which seem to gather even more momentum still, every time more money is made available to handle bubbins’ little learning difficulties.

It’s all very simple.

Girls are allowed to speak when nobody was waiting for them to say anything. To shatter glasses with their dulcet toddler tones, should they choose to. To yammer away so loudly, that you can’t think about anything else. Sure they need correcting when they do so, but not with anything more impactful or long-lasting than a “Huneesh.” The lesson’s over in two seconds. It didn’t take, and that’s okay.

Boys can’t do this. They are required to learn that in some situations, and that’s most situations, they are not to be heard except according to protocol. The first step in this protocol is the request, which may very well not even be acknowledged, let alone granted. They become sleeve-tuggers. Mom? Mom? Mom? Oh…okay…

And then they become video game players. Once they’re there, they gleefully learn the purpose of the universe is to keep them entertained at all times. No doubt that comes as a huge relief to them, because now it’s no longer necessary to tug on Mom’s sleeve to get attention that probably isn’t forthcoming anyway.

And then at some point we require these kids to pay attention to people.

The little girls manage to pull it off, quite easily, if they can shut up long enough. The boys have more trouble. They have to be diagnosed with things.

It’s a good thing we have so many people working so hard to avoid asking the obvious questions about how this comes about. Because if they asked it, the answer would be fairly obvious too. This is a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma, because that is precisely what we want it to be.

It’s real simple, Morgan.

In our ancestor’s time, it was pretty obvious that it’s genetically infeasible to continue your line if you kill your kids for getting out of line, so they invented beatings.

In our day, people were just starting the touchy-feely bullshit, so mom had to settle for a backhand to teach us, rather than a right cross. With our sisters, however, she used flyswats, spoons, belts, whatever, to prove that there was no double-standard.

Thanks to lefties and Dr. Spock, all forms of corporal punishment (read: that to which children actually respond) have been legislated away. Moms KNOW that the only way their sons will listen is if the lesson is attached to a spanking. (I know I learned lessons attached to a belt, paddle, one time a cookie sheet, etc than the verbal ones.) So, since they can’t do that, and they know that talking to us does no good, the only option LEFT to them is to medicate us into civilization.

I’m telling you – roll back the laws so that giving your kid a beating he remembers well into his 50’s is not only allowed, but encouraged (and make it so that when the little bastard acts up at the neighbor’s house, not only does the neighbor’s mom kick his ass, but he takes an even *more* solid beating when he gets home for causing the family embarassment) and the cases of autism, asperger’s, and ADHD will drop by, in my guess, 99% or so.
- muttley | 09/09/2008 @ 15:37
Interesting article MK,
I have a young daughter and a son, and from my experience the girls are much more verbal, interested in people, yang (whatever you want to call it) than boys are at the same age. However, my son is more physically coordinated at an earlier age than my daughter was, but speach, language, and interest in people seems to come at a later age than with the girls. But it does develop. As they age the differences lessen as the human mind learns to compensate for the inate weakness of different parts of their psyche.

My observation and analysis of my kids and their friends is that the quantity and quality of the entertainment available to kids of all ages is a major part of the problem. Our society is raising millions of kids who are constantly able to entertain themselves, whether through intellectual methods like books, writing, drawing, or playing, as well as through more saccharine pusuits like watching TV, playing video games, computer games, internet, etc.

Whatever the form, the kids are constantly able to entertain themselves without having to interact with other kids for entertainment. And remember, the other kids are all being entertained themselves. There are few kids floating around the neighborhood, and the old wandering gangs of kids roaming the streets, playing games, picking on each other, etc. that we may remember growing up, is long gone, IMHO.

This constant stream of entertainment, with little or no counterbalance of work-like contribution to the family, or just plain old boredom, is at the heart of the matter.

With all of this high-quality entertainment to choose from, who needs people? Too the undeveloped mind, unable to distinguish between pleasurable pastimes and meaningful pursuits, real people are boring and meaningless. When others don’t cooperate, don’t entertain us, they are ignored or worse. Social skills are not learned and valued by the child early on; as the child gets older, this developmental defficiency becomes an even greater handicap.

I think this problem is worse for boys than for girls for two reasons:
1) With regard to the development of social skills (yang), young boys are naturally at a disadvantage compared to their female cohorts, a disadvantage that is usually overcome in a few years, with effort on the part of the boys.
2) Boys are much more attracted to the escapist reality of video games (yin), which, enabled by their family and friends, can have an actual, negative, impact on the development of their social skills (yang) to a point where they may never catch up to their peers.
- eman | 09/09/2008 @ 21:16
A follow-up to my previous comment,

We need to consider the quality of the entertainment available to kids nowadays. It is unfathomable how good this shit is to the kids of today.

I remember always wanting to watch TV, and we only had three grainy channels, with no ‘kids’ programming, except for Saturday morning. My ass was parked in front of that TV early Saturday morning until my parents kicked me off or the cartoons got too lame.

Video games? Back in my day, with the cutting edge Atari 2600 – or later Nintendo – we could kill a few weekends playing lame games with our friends until the parents kicked us off. Our video games had to be played on the family TV. None of us had our own sets back then.

Nowadays? There are a dozen cable channels with dedicated ‘kids’ programming available 24 hours a day. The quality varies obviously, but to a kid, who isn’t a savvy consumer anyway, this stuff is unbelievably awesome.

The video game technology is incredible. I know kids who have the latest PS3 hooked up to a 60″ Plasma TV, with surround sound, in the basement, with couches to sit on while playing, etc. WTF!?! I wouldn’t leave the basement with options like that!

Add to the home-based video console the mobile options: Nintendo DS, the Gameboy, IPods, Cell Phones, etc… To these entertainment junkies, the real world seems like a terribly lame, boring place.

How can reality compete with these options? “Little Jimmy, this is your Aunt Judy, she smells, doesn’t have any kids, smoked to much dope in the 60’s, and likes to talk about herself for hours at a time. Have fun and get to know each other, OK?” Little Jimmy rolls his eyes and can’t wait to get out of there. Better get him on Ritalin!

Everywhere I hear about people bemoaning the quantity of entertainment available to kids. I think quantity can be real boring. The real problem is that the available entertainment choices are way too good. I don’t know what to do about that, other than limiting their use of the ‘good stuff’ until they get older, or not allow it altogether. Yes, I’m a Nazi.
- eman | 09/09/2008 @ 21:43
Yup, I agree. Pretty much.

Of course the whole point of Yin and Yang is that you interact with reality the same way, every day, from age two or three until it’s time for you to take your dirt nap. So these “Yin” kids who are forced to learn social interaction at a later time, are still Yin even though they eventually get some kind of gift-of-gab going on. It just isn’t worked through the brain the same way when it’s picked up in teenagerhood as it would be if it was learned in the toddler years.

What happens, then, is to the Yin consciousness people end up being just one more puzzle. Which is then solved. But the Yin guy isn’t truly empathizing with people on an emotional level, like the Yangy little girls who learn how to chatter away while still in preschool.

One other thing: BOTH sides are being damaged. The boys are discouraged from communicating, while the girls, by being encouraged, learn to relate to the world this way (that’s what “Yang” really is). And so we end up pulling our hair out wondering why more girls aren’t making a success out of engineering and related disciplines. The answer is, most of ’em don’t have to. They relate to the world by achieving an emotional equilibrium with persons in proximity, and they end up in professions that capitalize on this. So we decry the lack of “diversity” in engineering fields, but we’re making it happen.
- mkfreeberg | 09/09/2008 @ 21:46

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The “Huneesh” RuleTuesday, September 9th, 2008

The “Huneesh” Rule
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008