All

by Lianne Castelino www.whereparentstalk.com

Had the most intriguing chat with a business acquaintance a few days ago.  He is not married, and doesn't have children.  But at one point the conversation turned to parenting.  He brought it up. I listened intently, agreeing and shaking my head in affirmation (inside my head of course), so as not to appear overzealous about what was perplexing this person and why I agreed so completely with his stance.

Whether parents want to admit it or not, and frankly it doesn't really matter what age your child is, the innappropriate content that exists online and the ease of access to it is, in a word, frightening.

Firewalls, restrictive software, YouTube disclaimers, scoldings and warnings only get so far.  The question that this gentleman and I (many times especially in recent years) are asking --- why is porn not being policed on the net? 

In a world where homemade bombs, terrorist plots, jihadist training, murderous plans and schemes, cyberbulling seem to preoccupy the waking moments of many of us, it seems that butt naked men and women performing unspeakable acts have eluded our attention.  It is most definitely time to shed light on this growing concern.

As the parent of two teen boys and a nine-year-old girl, this topic is on my radar.  Not because I have had to address it in my household so far (goodness help us if and when that time comes), but because it is part of the reality of parenting in 2013.  Period.  If you do not come to grips with the p-word, it just may put you in a vice grip and have you flailing helplessly.

Regardless of your opinion on the existence of porn in the world at large, children of any age SHOULD NOT have access to it.  

Add that to the idea that children these days seem to know too much from a young age, then add to that the idea that they seem to mature at a rapid rate, throw in the reality that girls seem to mature at a more accelerated rate than boys and you suddenly have a pretty potent mix.  Once you throw in unrestricted access to porn on the internet --- CRINGE, we all should cringe.

I don't pretend to know the answer but whatever that answer is has to be quite stern and sweeping in nature.  No exceptions.

This is serious stuff.  It deserves our undivided attention.  Especially because kids, by and large, learn much by modelling behaviour they see. 

What is scary is when they feel the need to model behaviour that they likely do NOT understand.

Enough said.

by Lianne Castelino, www.whereparentstalk.com

I am questioning, wondering and in a word, struggling.  It is now a week since terror ripped through a running race, paralyzed a city and disturbed the world. 

The dead have been buried. The injured recover slowly. The loved ones mourn forever.

The alleged perpetrators have been captured. Neighbourhoods are left reeling try to piece together the events and now the aftermath of the Boston Marathon explosions.  

There is so much, so so much that is wrog with what happened last week in Boston, apart of course from the obvious.  

Just when I thought the worst was over, I turned the TV on (which I never do at an early hour) last Friday morning, only to see a play-by-play description of a city in lockdown and the police pursuit of two and then one alleged suspect.

I had turned the TV on to check the weather --- which I also never do. However given the erratic winter/spring we've endured, I have no idea what to wear any more.

I understand all the justifications for why tv stations and other media felt compelled to place reporters' in (potential) harms way with sirens, flashing lights and and then eerie quiet behind them.  I saw one of my former colleagues, herself a young parent, right in the middle of the madness, and thought to myself -- yikes...brave.

Just because you can justify something, DOES NOT make it right.  Goodness knows there are more spinmasters on the planet now than ever who can sell anyone on just about anything, if you give them the chance.

What hit home for me was a discussion that began in the car on Friday evening as I was driving home with five other people from a musical, no less.  Among those in the car, were a 13, 11 and 9-year-old.  Each had just expressed how much they enjoyed the show we had just seen -- music, dancing, a great story line --- a wonderful evening so far.  

Then, the topic turned to Boston.  I can't remember how it happened, cause I sure as heck would not be the one to start it.

I listened.  I did not say much. 

My stomach began to turn as I heard from each of these young people, some of whom belong to me, others who did not, about what they knew about Boston -- the latest.  They knew TOO MUCH in my opinion, for their age.

I am a traditionalist, always have been, always will be.  Kids of a certain age just DO NOT need to know about terrorism, limbs flying, a teenager being pursued by every level of law enforcement, why an 8-year-old boy was killed and his family decimated by a series of explosions during a running event.

But here I was, listening to what these little people in our van were sharing.  

I asked if they had talked about in school much that day.  The answer was 'not really'.  Still they knew so much.  We can all guess from where and why.

I am still not past teaching JKs on up about lockdowns in schools for goodness sake.  I better catch up fast. 

What concerns me is how children process things.  Just when we parents think they are not paying attention, they surprise us with facts, information and knowledge we thought they could not possibly have gained.  Guess what, they likely are.

The other thing that bothers me to the core of my being is the excessive, rampant and irresponsible amount of factually incorrect, rumour, innuendo, dead wrong, misleading, speculative reporting and fear-mongering that that Boston Marathon explosions unleashed -- on twitter, within various news organizations and elsewhere.

In their zeal to be the first, increase ratings, provide a public service, share important potentially life-saving information, many media outlets and fledgling twitter reporters made serious errors, many of them.  This IS WRONG.

In recent years, I find myself telling my children not to always believe what they read. As these words exit my mouth, I am always surprised I am saying them. What else is one supposed to do though?  You cannot believe everything you read or see for that matter. "Take it with a grain of salt", I advise them, "Ask plenty of questions".  

In the immediate aftermath of Boston, I read of t at least one person being taken into custody, erroneously.  There were likely plenty of other arrests that should never have happened, and that we will never hear about.

The alleged accused are now either dead or detained.  Boston will slowly return to 'normal'.  The headlines will belong to other stories soon.  The damage will remain.

Do we ever really learn from these 'lessons', I wonder?  

People, children, teens, adults, do not wake up and become murderers, terrorists, and purveyors of evil.  It comes from somewhere.

If we as a society could only spend our time, effort and money focusing on the SYMPTOMS rather than the RESULTS, we may move the dial forward.

Sure, it's easy to train and employ more security and law enforcement officials.  In fact, I would love to know the stats on the number of people employed in this field since 2011.  Must be off the charts.  And we remain obsessed with it.

We should be far more obsessed with building stronger families and stronger communities to hopefully prevent events like these from ever happening.

by Lianne Castelino www.whereparentstalk.com

So we have elected a new leader for one of the three main political parties in Canada.  Just days ago, a young, well-educated, bilingual, married, doting father of two, with a more-than-solid political pedigree being the son of a former Prime Minister whose name is still heard today when the concepts of leadership, charisma, political alliances and personal liaisons are discussed.

Here's wishing you the best, Justin Trudeau.

Genetics notwithstanding, he has inherited a party that has been sputtering for years now, looking up at the throne it once occupied for so long, with extra helpings of confusion and wonder.  The idea of a new body part --- fresh-faced, confident, brimming with energy, only minimally jaded (or so it appears), a father of two young children, an engaged wife and a varied background of experience --- should equal some sort of hope.  Should.

For too long now and not unlike many professional sports leagues --- let's take the NHL as an example ---- the recyling of well-used, almost listless coaches or 'political leaders' has more of less spread the same tired ideas and allegiances to an increasingly disengaged, apathetic electorate.  In short, old dogs, old tricks, got the t-shirt. Thanks for coming out.

I do commed anyone who wilfully runs for political office. It is a thankless job, that steals time away from so many other aspects of life - family and fun --- being two that come to mind. 

Which brings me to a suggestion I have for political leaders in 2013, and those aspiring to take up the mantle in the not-too-distant future.

Think of politics like parenting.  Even if you don't have children, hopefully you have had parents.

Most parents learn at some point or another that a negative approach to child-rearing will not work.  Scolding too often, less-than-positive reinforcement, a dictatorship mentality, strained communications.  Some parents only learn this harsh lesson too late --- after their child has left or just before he/she wants to have limited contact with their family.  Yet, these tactics are most political leaders of today, by and large, employ --- rooted in negativity.

A collaborative approach to parenting, politics or anyting for that matter feeds hope, inspires new ideas, promotes an environment in which sharing and exchanging the best ideas are welcome and encouraged.  What a concept.

They say it takes a village to raise a child.  Yes, an overused adage, but boy does it ever apply.  I think it also takes a village to raise a leader and certainly one employed in government office. Why not work together, pool all the best of the 'brilliant' ideas each party brings to the table and work together towards the singular goal --- which they all swear up and down is the same --- XXX in the best interest of whatever country you live in --- in this case Canadians.  If all these platforms are so darn revolutionary --- handpick the best and move the country's agenda forward, rather than sideways and usually backwards.

Finally, in politics, as in parenting, shut up for one second.  Listen, rather speak ad nauseam. Sometimes its a brief sentence or one of two words that a child utters that speaks volumes.  Many times these golden nuggets are drowned out by the overpowering voice of the parent.  Goodness knows there are enough people out there who love the sound of their own voices.  If they would zip it for a minute, they might learn more.

And finally, finally, oh new and emerging political leaders, run your government like you would run a household.  If you spend your money mindlessly and frivolously within your own home, budget only when you feel like it --- trouble would be quick and lasting.  Pretty obvious stuff. Why should it be different in government?

Mr. Trudeau, here's hoping that you can think outside the box, lead with vision and by cooperation to ultimately support growth, learning and positive steps forward --- as hopefully you do with your children. 

by Lianne Castelino www.whereparentstalk.com

There are some things that children should not have to know, depending on their age.  I guess that's where the term age-appropriate comes from and there is a reason why it exists. It seems recently, again, there has been a spate of news stories that fall directly into this category. The Boston Marathon bombings have now rocketed to the top of that list.

I first heard about it on Twitter.  A tweet from a parent writing something that ended "I am sick to my stomach" #Boston.

By the time my 15-year-old arrived home from school yesterday at 4pm, the story was firmly entrenched in most of our psyches.  Driving him to his ball hockey game an hour and a half later, he turns and says to me, "did you hear about what happened in Boston".  Our journalistic genes notwithstanding,  he is an avid news and current events follower and so of course I should have remembered that he would have known all about this horrific event. I kept listening and weakly offered, "what have you heard?" He rhymed off a slew of facts and information about the bombings, described some of the video of 'flying limbs' he had seen online and then said, "boy do we ever live in a sick world."

How would I respond? What could I say to a young boy in the throes of being a young man that would help him wrap his head around this unspeakable tragedy.  That would somehow make me sound like I understood these bombings as well.  I put on my best parenting hat and replied.  "I want you to remember something very important.  Goodness will always prevail in this world, despite the evil that may exist.  That is why it is so important how we treat each other.  'Doing the right thing', there was even a movie by that name, I think.  Remember that.  It starts with how we treat each other. Always strive to do the right thing, even when that may seem difficult."

He listened intently, clearly perturbed by the state of humanity, and nodded.

My response to him came out of me in a split second.  I have no idea what a 'crisis expert' would respond.  I answered what came naturally to me, based on my understanding of my son.  Period. 

When my 13-year-old got into the car, the conversation briefly returned to Boston.  He said to his older brother, "I thought I heard something about it, but mommy took the laptop away."  Yes, I did.  It was my instinct.  Why did he need to know about it.  My naive self forgot again that he can and will get the full gruesome details sooner rather than later.  But at that moment yesterday, I didn't think he needed to know about it.  Nor did my 9-year-old daughter.  Parenting fail?  Perhaps.  Age-appropriate information?  Absolutely not.  Gut instinct?  Definitely.  

All three will undoubtedly hear about it in school today. The morning paper, which will be arriving any second now, will be chock full of photos, edgy headlines and links to graphic online video that none of us --- children or adults --- should have to see. Let them learn about it in due time. We will likely be discussing it a the dinner table this evening and perhaps by then my husband and I will have a more enlightened answer to give them.  I doubt it. The answer I gave, upon reflection. is the best one I have. The only thing I would add, is "let us think about and pray for those families and people affected."

There are some things that children should just NOT HAVE TO KNOW. Depending on their age.  That's my opinion and I am sticking to it, despite the age of information overload that we live in.

There is also a huge part of me that understands how these types of 'breaking news stories' unravel, having worked in this industry for more than two decades.  In the immediate aftermath of a huge story like this one, the actual facts are peppered with wild speculation, rumour. heresay, and retractions all over the place.  The twitterverse being a huge proponent of this behaviour and reality.  

In my mind, I was thinking, let them hear about it when the dust has settled and we can all speak in FACTS rather than falsehoods.  That is the last thing that they need.

It has been a brutal few days for parents everywhere whose offspring with inquiring minds have heard about the S-word, the H-word and now the B-word.

Of course, at one point children will need to understand why 'suicide', 'hangings' and 'bombings' occur.  The old-fashioned and protective part of me just wishes if they would hear about it as adults, if ever.