Strollerderby : New York Times Magazine

Weekly Check-Up: Girls Get Hurt More Than Boys

Kelly Mills — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:02:00 GMT

I hope you caught the New York Times magazine article on Sunday about girls and sports injuries, because if I could just soapbox for a sec, I think we all ought to be concerned about this. There's lots to digest in there, but one of the things that stands out: Some experts believe that in sports that both sexes play, girls rupture their A.C.L.s (i.e. blow out their knees) at rates as high as five times that of boys. Girls are also more likely to suffer concussions in sports like basketball. And as more girls play sports, we'd better figure out what to do about it.

Some possible reasons include the fact that girls have more estrogen, which makes ligaments more flexible and likely to tear; wider hips may lead to being 'knock-kneed'; and smaller necks can contribute to concussion rates. There's talk of how the mechanics of boys in running and jumping are better for the body, and that girls need to learn to "jump like a boy." One possible aid for the problem comes from a program designed to build strength through plyometric drills and lunges--but the initial study showing effectiveness needs to be replicated in a more scientific manner. I will say that I fail to see the harm in this program, and we may want to do some quick implementation. If my personal training client base is any indication, in ten years some of those girls will probably be handing money over to a trainer to learn the same movements.

But I just can't help but add that we can't allow kids to play one sport year-round. It's wearing out the bodies of all our young athletes. We have to get parents and coaches on board, and basically stop the practice before our children are hobbled at age thirty.

The Serious Side of Play

Madeline Holler — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:01:00 GMT

I kept waiting to get my pat on the head this morning while I was reading the New York Times Magazine cover story on taking play seriously. I just knew I'd be congratulated for not overscheduling my children. The author was certain to conclude my kids' preschools were excellent choices -- devoid of any emphasis on academics and early reading and Suzuki violin classes as they were.

But no pat. No congratulations. Likewise, no admonishments or wagging fingers that my children aren't being adequately enriched. What I learned from the piece is that there's still so much to learn about play -- why kids (and other animals) do it, what the benefits of play are, whether a lack of play harms, and whether totally undirected play is better than directed play (there's no evidence that it is!).

So what do we know about play? For one, parents and educators are slightly freaked out about it (guilty!). Do they get enough? Too much? Does it need direction? Are adults too involved? We know that we don't know enough.

Researchers in play also know that as intuitive as it may be, there's no scientific evidence that play is a way of rehearsing for real life.

But we do know some stuff about play and brain growth. One researcher found that cerebelum growth tracked perfectly with the especially intense period of childhood play -- from 4 years old to puberty. Fascinating, but what does it mean? This discovery prompted other experiments -- giving baby rats lobotomies, raising some in play-free environments -- and then examining their brains at puberty. They found that the brains cells in the play-deprived rats weren't as refined and organized as those who got to play. Which, again, means what? Who knows. The researchers can only conjecture -- maybe it means those played-out rats were better with subtle social cues. But they don't know whether it's made up in some other way.

Come on, we want some play/brain answers! Play is THE most important form of childhood development and education, no?

No. In fact, some of the play experts think that the effect of play might be one of the many brain redundancies -- a another means to a certain human brain end but by no means the only.

So which is better -- turning the kids loose in a room full of dress up clothes or toddler Mandarin classes? Answer: we still don't know. Crap. I hate being not entirely right.

Hollywood Power Players Show Their Kids How To Be Creeps

Kelly Mills — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:29:00 GMT

Here's a lovely story: Hollywood big shots use their power and position to take their kids to advance screenings of children's movies and shows and so on. Okay. But as it turns out, these parents sometimes have to weasel and threaten to make sure Junior gets a first look at the latest kid flick. And even worse, a kind of one-upping and power playing has become part of the allure for some on the A, B, and C-lists. Check it: "A lot of these parents simply want to be heroes at home. Still, as with most matters involving the inner workings of the entertainment business, this jockeying carries a heavy flavor of status and bragging rights." Um, gross. Feeling all special because you have the power to get your kid into the latest film screening is lame, but it's equally as lame to go all out to try and impress your own children. Note to industry folks: we are supposed to be raising and caring for our kids, not bowling them over with our star pull, okay? "Look honey, Daddy's a bigshot!"

I wish that was the end of it, but naturally, there's more ick to come. There's tales of kids having to smile pretty for the camera on the red carpet, because naturally the studios love the celeb offspring at screenings since it gets the film publicity. Fame-whoring your youngsters is obnoxious. And worst of all, creeps (like Pat O'Brien of show The Insider) have no problem bumping the little people out of their seats, or making celebs with less fame power move to worse seats when a hotter commodity comes knocking with brood in tow. In short, the spawn of the Hollywood elite are getting front row seats to lessons on acting like a total asshole.

Night Owl Kids Are Suffering

Kelly Mills — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:03:00 GMT

Oh, we working parents are so mean and selfish. It turns out that many folks who get home from work late are pushing back their children's bedtimes so they can spend time with them. While this story is tied to New York, it's a phenomenon I've seen here on the other coast as well. There's mention of a couple parents who don't get home till 8 p.m. and keep the kids up till 9 or even 10. And of course, we've documented that lack of sleep in kids has been linked to behavioral problems, obesity, hyperactivity, cognitive issues, and we'll probably find out soon it's responsible for global warming and lead in toys as well. Sigh.

The advice from the expert is to keep an early bedtime for the kids, but to come home early from work a day or two, or make breakfast the family meal if necessary. Hmmm. Okay, could we working parents also start lobbying for more reasonable hours at jobs, and even a later school start time if necessary? Both those would benefit everybody, and I think it's time we looked at some of this crap as a social problem born out of a workaholic society rather than the issue of a few parents who are trying to balance career and family.

How I'm Grooming a Super Athlete

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:21:00 GMT

When I was very young, I was sure I was going to be a great hockey player -- if only the professional leagues allowed players to wear used white roller skates their Aunt Melissa gave them. I was that good. A few years later, it was baseball. And then adulthood came and I've become a professional observer.

If only I had been groomed properly. The New York Times Magazine explores how super athletes are groomed from a very young age. A Russian tennis camp, for instance, drills technique and repetition as a way to bolster hand-eye coordination and also to more properly "hard wire" the brain cell coating -- myelin -- that speed up signals. Do something enough times, and the coating acts less like dial up and more like a T1 cable, according to the theory.

Tiger Woods? Super fast connections. Mike Adamick? Not so much. But you knew that already. Still, there's hope for the next generation -- if I'm willing to set my young daughter on the links or a ballfield and force her to endlessly perfect her technique, which will speed up those brain connections and, one day, earn her a spot in the pros.

The article says it takes 10 years to reach world class levels. I just hope she likes golf. Or hockey. Maybe baseball. I haven't decided for her yet.

Father's Rights: Part I

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:11:00 GMT

According to John Fowler, Fathers 4 Justice Board Member and activist, one of his group's primary goals is "to promote equality in family courts." The organization's tagline reads "every father is a superhero to his children" which is fitting, given that the group in Britain uses daring stunts to draw attention to the issues of shared custody, including demonstrating outside of Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons wearing Batman and Robin costumes. These methods haven't translated as well in the States, and father's rights groups here tend to favor legislative solutions rather than superhero antics.

Such heroics weren't always necessary -- at least by fathers. According to reporter Susan Dominus' New York Times Magazine related piece, children were considered part of men's property until the 1850s. This was eventually replaced by the practice of awarding sole maternal custody on the theory that young children were best cared for during their tender years by their mothers. Since the late 70s custody has been awarded from the standpoint of the best interests of the child, an amorphous concept many father's rights groups believe naturally favors the mother.

Not surprisingly, the uncomfortable intersection of law and personal choice never fails to raise the blood pressure of those on the Left and Right, especially when it comes to issues such as father's rights. People understandably feel strongly about their personal choices -- kids, family, marriage, abortion -- and are willing to become a superhero or heroine or junkyard dog or martyr making sure those rights aren't trampled upon.

But in the case of custody, I think the "tender years" proponents were right. Even though biological determinism is outre´, the mother-child bond is undeniably biological in the beginning: Think pregnancy, delivery, hormones, breastfeeding.

Whether we, or our bosses who grant us 6 weeks unpaid leave, or our exes agree, babies and young children need their mothers more than they need their fathers in the beginning. Awarding 50% custody of children under 3 years of age is an act of total ignorance. And I think groups like Fathers 4 Justice are naive to think otherwise.

To Be Continued...