The Runaway Bunny

As a child, my favorite storybook was The Runaway Bunny.  The story begins:

Once there was a little bunny who wanted to run away.

So he said to his mother, “I am running away.”

“If you run away,” said his mother, “I will run after you.

For you are my little bunny.”

The bunny then comes up with various scenarios where he transforms into other animals, trying to escape his mother.  The mother in turn thinks of a way to catch her little bunny.  For instance:

“If you run after me,” said the little bunny,

“I will become a fish in a trout stream 

and I will swim away from you.”

“If you become a fish in a trout stream,” said his mother,

“I will become a fisherman and I will fish for you.”

And so on.  The book ends with:

“Shucks,” said the bunny, “I might just as well
stay where I am and be your little bunny.”

And so he did.
“Have a carrot,” said the mother bunny.

The mother will do anything to keep her little bunny safe and close to home.  But is this truly for her child's benefit, or is it for her own?  It seems to be that young children are ready to become independent long before their parents are ready to let go.  This story is a depiction of a mother who is always there for her child.  But the little bunny in this story is forced to come back home, he gives up on running away because he knows he can never escape his mother.  Is this story teaching kids that mother is always there, ready to catch you?  Is it best for a parent to always be searching for their child?

Toxic Parents

In class, a "sucky parent" has been brought up more than once.  A New York Times article describes those kinds of parents as "toxic."  We hear all sorts of stories about bad parents, parents who physically abuse their children, parents who neglect their children and some who emotionally abuse.  Although some toxic parents  leave don't actually physically abuse their children, I think that we can all agree that any sort of neglect can be considered 'toxic.'  In the movie Matilda, the young heroine's parents are more concerned with their lives rather than the well being of their child.  In the end of this film, Matilda (the protagonist) discovers that she has magical superpowers and ends up being adopted by her grade school teacher who was also victim to a toxic guardian.  However this is only a story, and as we know children who have sucky parents usually don't have such a happy ending.  The article bring to light that in almost any other abusive relationship, there is a way out for the victim.  However, a child cannot escape their parents.  Few children are able to break the cycle of toxicity.  How do you think a child can escape a toxic parent?  Can they do it on their own, without any magical powers?

What "I love you" really means from mom and dad

I came across an interesting article entitled When a Parent’s ‘I Love You’ Means ‘Do as I Say’. This article described a parenting disciplinary tactic called "conditional parenting."  In this tactic, parents show love and affection to their children only when they are good and only when they earn it.  As a form of punishment, they withhold affection.  This type of parenting is advised by parenting figures like Dr. Phil and Supernanny, and it is a tactic that is shown to be somewhat affective.  Generally, children who are disciplined in this way act like they're parents want them to.  However, these children tend to be more resentful of their parents and also feel more pressure from their parents.  This article quotes "Supernanny's" parenting book which says: “the best rewards are attention, praise and love,” and these should be held back “when the child behaves badly until she says she is sorry,” at which point the love is turned back on."  The love between a parent has for a child is supposed to be unconditional, is it right for parents to use love and affection as a tool to get their child to act a certain way?

Freedom to Wander

Overprotective parents have prevented their children from exploring life in a way that was once common. In Huckleberry Finn's world, he and his comrades have the freedom to wander and have "adventures."  Although the other children in Twain's novel did not have as much freedom as Huck, they were still able to go out all day and play without having to worry about reporting in to thier parents.  Technology has certainly changed the ability for a child to wander.  Almost everyone has a cell phone and chilren are electronically wired and attached to their parents at all times.  Also, more high school graduates than ever are applying to colleges, and parents are holding their kids down with school pressure.  Children are no longer playing robber and pirate games or running around the neighborhood.  They are being sheltered and are being subject to rigourous school work at an earlier age than ever before.  Parents are keepping a closer eye on their kids and an imaginary line seems to attach children to parents when the kids are playing.

How far were you allowed to "wander" as a child?  Do you think this has changed between you and your other siblings?  Why are kids so sheltered today?

Siblings growing up in "different families?"

A very typical belief today is that the order of your birth can cause you to have a certain personality type.  The oldest is the hardworking over achiever, the middle is always trying and catch up to their older sibling, and the youngest is outgoing.  A New York Times article discusses this and also the family experience that each child in a family goes through.  The author discusses that birth order doesn't really effect a child in the way we usually think it does an that a specific kind of personality cannot at all be assumed by the child's birth order.  One claim that the author made that I found very interesting was "children and parents alike are profoundly affected by the constellations of siblings; it is said that no two children grow up in the same family, because each sibling’s experience is so different."  So other siblings and parents past experience with their children effects how a child acts.


How does the birth order stereotype fit in with your family?  How do you think your siblings have effected your growth?  Do you think you have grown up in a "different family" then your other siblings?

"Boozy Grandmas"

I found an article form CNN that caught my eye.  The title was Boozy Grandmas, not exactly two words that are normally seen together.  The article was about how television shows, and even some movies, are using a grandmother who drinks to add some humor and drama to the show.  I feel a "boozy grandma" would attract people to watch a show, its so unexpected that many would find it humorous and intriguing to see and old woman in such a light.  

The article describes the hard-drinking grandmothers on television shows to be "wealthy, white and cruelly witty, with poor parenting skills."  The last description of a boozy grandma, a woman with "poor parenting skills",  is what really stuck with me.  Why would there be a correlation between bad parenting and a drinking grandmother?  I guess a better question to ask is, why do the people creating these characters believe that a grandmother who drinks is automatically a bad parent?  In addition to the boozy grandma, it is common to see an alcoholic father in television shows.  Why is it that we seldom see an alcoholic mother?

New Year's Resolutions and the Media

Take a moment to think about the kinds of television ads are common during this time of year.  Diet plans, gym memberships, low calorie meal packages, anti-aging treatments and deals on fitness equipment. Looking better and improving appearances is probably the most common resolution people have for the new year.  Companies realize this and are defiantly using this to their advantage.  


The desire to look good in the United States is more prevalent than ever and people feel immense pressure to live up to the standards of Hollywood and the media.  So right when people are making resolutions to improve themselves, the media pounces.  They attack the public with ads promising better bodies and younger appearances.  They are attacking consumers with low self esteems at a point where they desperately want to change.  Really, they are taking advantage of these people.  This is very similar to the clip from TheCorporation that we watched and discussed in class.  In class, we discussed whether or not it was fair to target children, who are still of course under-deveopled, in commercials.  


Is it fair to target adults around the new year? Are the ad companies taking advantage of them or exploiting them?  Is it fair to use people's weaknesses to sell a product?

Can a Criminal Change?

In a Newsweek article, Second Chances by Raphael Johnson, the author tells his story of arrests and murder during his teenage years. He stole a gun at 12 and was arrested, then sent to a boy's home at 14.  At 18, when he was supposed to head off to college, he killed a chaperone who threw him out of a party.  Despite the rough neighborhood he grew up in and his arrests and violence, Johnson excelled in school and earned scholarships to both high school and college.  He spent 12 years in prison, and during this time he still worked hard to become certified as a carpenter, plumber, electrician and paralegal.  After being released from prison, he ran a motivational speaking and fitness company.  Needless to say, Johnson is very successful and has come a long way since his teenage years.

Clearly, Johnson made a huge mistake as a child that caused a man his life.  However, Johnson has managed to pull his life together because he was given a second chance and was released from jail for a crime that would usually cost someone a life sentence.  Saying this, there are also many teenagers who commit crimes and fail to redeem themselves later in their life.  So, can a criminal change, should criminals be given a second chance?  Or is it too risky?

"The kids were what we had in common.."

Having moved around a lot when I was really young, one would think that I never got a chance to experience the very American tradition of a close-knit neighborhood.  However, every place that I lived, all very different in location and size, I feel I did fully experience the American tradition of a 'neighborhood'.  I remember all sorts of neighborhood children and their parents and babysitters.  The memories and adventures I had with the kids on my block are ones I know I will remember for the rest of my life.  But this got me wondering what the experience may have been like for my parents.

 I found an article about the relationships on the street where one man lived with his family for many years.  When talking about the fading relationships he was experiencing with the adults on his street, he said "Looking back, the kids were what we had in common, and now we don’t. "  Maybe this is because I'm still a child myself, but I really cannot cannot think of a worse thought.  When we grow older and have children, is that what our lives will become?  Will our relationships with other adults be held together only by our children?  

FBI Violates Privacy

I find it frightening when an organization as powerful as the FBI starts to violate civil liberties.  As we discussed in the Minority Report thoughtcrime blog, no good can come of the government violating civil liberties.  I found an article from The New York Times that reveals such an instant where the FBI has violated the right to privacy and has also discriminated against people to weed out potential suspects that may, or may not, pose a national threat. 

In response to a suicide bombing in Africa by a Somalian in 2008, the FBI began to suspect people of terrorist attack based solely on ethnicity or religion rather than actual evidence.  In fact, for most cases, they had no evidence to support their accusations other than the persons ethnicity. The FBI would collect personal, and private, information about these 'suspects' without even having evidence that they had done anything wrong.  Not only are theses investigators discriminating certain ethnicity and religions, but they are digging into their private lives with no evidence to support that they are guilty at all.  The FBI has said that they have some other reasons to believe that these people pose a threat, but we of course can never really know how much evidence they have.  Is it at all justifiable for the FBI to investigate these 'suspects' almost solely on religion and ethnicity?  Is that enough?

Miss California's Civil Liberties

Most of us are pretty familiar with the infamous Carrie Prejean incident.  If not, you can read a short summary here.  Miss Prejean claims that the reason she lost the crown during the Miss America pagent was beacuse she openly disagreed with gay marriage. She said in response to a question regarding gay marriage asked by a gay man,  "I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage . . . I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense." Miss Prejean could have said her statement in a more intelligent way, but her point, which is completely valid, still comes across.

She of course was not taken to court or severely punished for her statement, but nonetheless she was still scrutinized for it.  The statment she was made against gay marriage was not only unexpected from the mouth of a young beauty queen, but some felt it was also unethical. I read an interesting ariticle that discusses Miss California's ordeal. This author says that Prejean's claim that her right to free speech was violated is completely ridiculous.  He points out that, although she did take some heat for her words, that others were simply exerting their right to free speech.  Their argument was just disagreed with Prejean.  Was her right to free speech violated when she was stripped of the crown?  Perhaps if she had more eloquently stated her belief, would the public have had less of a reaction to her statement?