Parenting is a controversial issue these days. It shouldn't be, but it is. The reason for its controversial nature is in the fact that people's ideas about how to raise children are as diverse as people themselves. For the wayfarer, parenting or any relationship with a child, is an enhancement, but also a reflection of the necessity for honesty in the life of the adult. The simplicity and honesty of the natural child is a constant challenge to the adults around them and the child's capacity to be inspired is a constant source of insight into the forces that shaped our own young lives and led us to where we are today. Speak Easy (August 1997) Effective communication is not just a matter of words and sentences and speaking them. Many other related aspects have to be considered. Not the least of which are the implications that each different listener may attach to even the most basic of communications. The Parent Trap (July 1997) It is generally recognized that the formative years of a child's life are the most important. Perhaps traditional concepts of child raising need to be revised. Fairy Tales (August 1997) What is the true nature of teenage conflict? Is it biological, chemical, just a part of growing up - or is it contrived and created through interaction between child and parents? A Condition of Culture (June 1997) Children are inspired, make decisions, become adults and manifest those decisions. In the process the manifestations become separated from the decisions... The Persistent Boy (April 1997) The gender identity adopted by an individual goes beyond just recognizing our own physical characteristics as male or female. Science is yet to investigate must why this is so. Speak Easy (August 1997) Effective communication is not just a matter of words and sentences and speaking them. Many other related aspects have to be considered. Not the least of which are the implications that each different listener may attach to even the most basic of communications. By sheer necessity we must use terminology to describe relationships between things. Without the words day and night for example, how could we specifically refer to the time period without having to use many words to imply our meaning? Such terms are shortcuts to communication. They abbreviate our language and allow us to communicate meaning in the least possible number of words and save our conversations from becoming unwieldy. Whilst this sort of shorthand is not only useful, but absolutely essential, there is a downside to the process. Because we are relying on the use of one word to convey meaning we must also rely on other peoples interpretation of the words we use being the same as ours. If they are not, conversing can become very complicated. To add to the complication, communicating is not confined to words alone. Intonation, expression, context, gesture, implication and even silence contribute to the way in which we convey meaning. So as much as we like to imagine that verbal communication is in fact verbal, the evidence in our everyday lives suggests that verbal communication depends on non-verbal elements to support and add to the meaning. It is no surprise then that even though at times we may think that what we say couldn’t be more self-evident, our meaning can still be misconstrued. The spoken word alone seems to have the least impact of any of the ways of communicating available to us. The more you look for it the more evidence there is to be found to support this. Out in society making ourselves understood can be a trying task. Recently I had cause to make an appointment over the phone. The receptionist answered and I introduced myself, explained what time I wanted the appointment for and my purpose for requiring the appointment. The response from the receptionist: “And what’s the appointment for?” I realized later that I had failed to fall in with the expected convention required by the receptionist in order to process my request. What I should have done was to allow the receptionist to prompt me for the information she required, step by step: ‘what is your name? What is the appointment for? What time would suit you? And so on. But even then, complication can arise. We had similar struggles on a recent visit to the hospital, accompanying a friend who had taken ill. From the ambulance officers, right through to the various doctors and nurses who all asked us to recount what had happened, almost every time some part of what had been a clear communication was either not heard, misheard or misinterpreted. It also transpired that things we had not said and that were not part of the story at all became added to the tale as it was passed on from official to official. The experience left us wondering what more we could have done to communicate our message and to have had it understood without the distortion that followed. And indeed under different circumstances, what the consequences of such misunderstandings could have been in a life or death situation. It’s confusing enough trying to communicate in an adult world, but nowhere is an understanding of these complications more important than in the realm of parenting, where everything we say and do can have a direct impact on an impressionable child - a child who depends on us for its learning and for its direction in life. And nowhere else is the unspoken aspect of communication more powerful. Much of what children learn in life is learned through implication. Sometimes the simplest of adult statements can lead to the most complex network of realizations for the child. The example of child and adult is itself an illustration of the kinds of implications that can arise from a desire to explain our differences to an inquiring youngster. The concept seems straightforward enough. People are either adults or they are children. Children soon learn that the differences do not only apply to age and physical size, but that the distinction defines what the individual may and may not do. They begin to realize that there are many restrictions in the world of a child and by contrast, many relative freedoms in the world of the adult. They identify the inherent inequality between adults and children and recognize that adulthood is something desirable to be aspired to. Adults are superior; they have access to a whole range of activities that are inaccessible to the child. They can drive cars, they can have sex, they can go to bed when they please, they don’t have to go to school, they can tell children what to do and when to do it – they have power. Children are told that they too can do these things when they reach adulthood. In the mind of the child, adulthood represents a freedom they do not themselves possess. In the mind of the child there is little to be valued in childhood when compared with what they will be able to do when they grow into adulthood. Ironically, many adults envy the freedom enjoyed by young children and will often spend the rest of their adult lives longing for the carefree days and simple pleasures. We forget how intensely we yearned to grow up and how with the passing of each birthday we could proudly proclaim that we were a year older. Much of what a child recognizes as distinguishing them from the adults in their lives is the product of implication and of comparison. Children acquire the knowledge of their differences through making observations in addition to what they are told. However, the degree to which they are given specific information has little relevance when compared with what they learn through watching and listening. The adults around them are often unaware that this process is even occurring. Perhaps one of the ways adults can attend to this discrepancy is to become more aware of how they communicate concepts to the children in their care. More understanding of how children take in learning and a dedicated attempt to be more responsible about what is passed on would certainly help the relationship between parents and children. However, what cannot be avoided by awareness alone is the fact that most parents do feel superior to their children. They do make the distinctions between themselves and their children. In fact most demand it. The concept of equality with one’s child is abhorrent to many adults who have waited a long time to acquire their right to assert authority over their own children and to enjoy the superiority that comes with being an adult. They identify with adulthood. Something that was longed for over a period of many years is not surrendered easily. It is the credence given to this concept, the concept of inequality, that is the real culprit in the battle between parent and child. The value attributed to adulthood largely by inference and the lack of value also passed on by inference, is largely responsible for the resultant struggles. Perhaps we should concentrate less on our differences and concentrate more on our similarities. The fact that we are an adult or a child should always be secondary to the fact that we are people and that, above all else, should always take precedence. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. The Parent Trap (July 1997) It is generally recognized that the formative years of a child's life are the most important. Perhaps traditional concepts of child raising need to be revised. Terms like parenting skills and good parenting are often the subject of debates over education and welfare and many an argument is heard in favor of training for parenthood and for the creation of some sort of standard for parenting. The more extreme advocates might call for the introduction of parental licenses like those issued to dog owners, making them a necessary prerequisite to having children. In theory many people would agree with these measures. In theory. Social engineering is a dangerous game and the liberals in society will always, thankfully, speak out in favor of the rights of the individual, in particular the right of the individual to introduce their own ideals and principles to their children absolutely and without the prejudicial influence of government. And even if parenting standards could be enforced, a couple of serious complications arise. Firstly, trying to force the introduction of anything will not produce the desired results, particularly in the fields of human development and particularly if you are dealing with unwilling participants. Secondly and more pertinent, whose standards will be held up as the model, which standards would be judged to be the right ones? It is assumed that there are fundamental standards or basic principles against which it is unlikely that anyone would argue, such as a child’s right to proper nourishment and a proper education. And these seem fair enough. But what is proper? What is for example, a proper education? Are the standards that are already commonly accepted as the norm necessarily those that will benefit a child most? It is difficult not to sound like an extremist when scrutinizing the interaction between parent and child and concluding that much of what is taken for granted as being right and proper parenting is in fact potentially harmful to the development of the child. A kind of benign conspiracy exists in society designed to protect and shelter the child and to keep the child from harmful influences. This philosophy essentially arises from the notion that children are inferiors. The fact that by necessity, children are dependents in the formative years is insufficient justification to regard them in such a manner. It cannot be ignored that the umbrella-like approach to keeping children from the world of reality is acceptable only because of this assumption of the child as inferior. Why do we teach our children to read? To better prepare them for the adult world. Why do we seek to introduce them to the geography and workings of the earth? To better prepare them for adult life. Why do we encourage them to enjoy learning? To better prepare them for the challenges that will arise throughout their adult lives. Do we do any of these things solely to occupy them for the first twelve or so years of living? Always there is an implication that the education of children is essentially aimed at preparing them for the adult years. These are the years that typically assume the lion’s share of the years an individual is alive. So why do so many parents feel the necessity to consciously create a world, bearing little resemblance to the world of an adult, in which the child is encouraged to adopt a way of being and a way of perceiving that will inevitably become inappropriate in later life? Surely the circumventing of these wasted years, based on fantasy and upon the separation of the child from the adult world, would provide the child with the optimum chance of understanding their world in a competent and mature manner years earlier than the child who is encouraged to maintain the child-like identity for as long as possible. It is not unusual to attract ardent vilification from horrified parents at the suggestion of home schooling one’s child. The focal point of the outrage seems to be the concern over children who spend ‘too much time’ in the company of adults and not enough time in the company of other children. The nature of the social interaction of the home-schooled child aside, for this varies considerably, what is so improper about children learning their social skills in the company of adults? Does it not make sense given the fact that the ultimate and inevitable ‘fate’ of the child is to enter the adult world? It is common for the child who does spend a substantial period of time in the company of adults and who is welcomed into that world as an equal to tend to be more articulate and more outgoing than those who are deliberately thrust into the company of other children. They tend to be more self-assured and self-sufficient. They move within their world with confidence. This is not a case for the isolation of children from other children by any means, but it does expose the point that a considerable degree of disapproval exists in parents everywhere of the notion of a child assuming an equal and important place in the adult world. But doesn’t every parent want their child to be confident and assured and equal within their world? Well no. In fact when it comes down to it most parents are quite content with the separation between themselves and their children. They are comfortable with the conventions of keeping children down, of keeping them ignorant, of keeping them in their place, of lying to them about the existence of fictitious figures such as Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Precocious children are challenging, they make adults feel uncomfortable, they threaten the authority of the adult. Better to keep the child inferior than to have the child become too mature, too perceptive, too advanced. The point is that a child should not be judged as an inferior simply because they have not yet learned many of the skills required in the adult world. Everybody is a novice prior to the acquisition of knowledge and experience. Children are no different. Nor should they be denied the chance to prepare themselves for the world of adult reality at the earliest opportunity. Most adults would probably argue that either children should be treated differently, as inferiors, or indeed they would dispute that children are regarded this way at all. Why then resist the idea of equality so strongly? Why refute the idea of being known to their children by their first names, as friends and other adults have the privilege of? Why shelter them from the ‘harsh realities’ of the world? Children are the most unequal group of any in our society and ironically they are regarded in this manner with the absolute sanction of the public at large. On the 11th of April 1996 a single engine Cessna Cardinal 177B plummeted into a residential neighborhood in Cheyenne Wyoming shortly after take-off, killing the pilot and two others. What made the crash unique was the fact that it was piloted by a seven-year-old girl, Jessica Dubroff. Her companions in death were her father and her flying instructor. The crash ended her attempt to become the youngest pilot ever to fly across the USA. Overshadowing the obvious tragedy of the deaths themselves was the ensuing furore over whether or not a seven-year-old child should have been allowed to fly a plane. Despite the fact that it was later ascertained that the crash was due to the actions of the flying instructor and not Jessica, the media leapt on the occasion to heap scorn on her parents, in particular her mother, for their unconventional views about parenting. In a determined effort to undermine the achievements of this remarkable youngster, her death was unashamedly used to justify criticism of the children who dare to take equal part in the world of adults and the parents who encourage them to do so. One wonders what sort of response would have resulted if Jessica had successfully attained her goal and succeeded in setting a new world record. Would the media have been as quick to condemn what took place or would they have clambered for the first pictures of a triumphant heroine? This sort of ageism has been long been recognized as the domain of the elderly. Perhaps it is time we recognized that it applies equally as strongly to prejudices against children on the grounds of age. Many adults will of course argue that children are not emotionally equipped to handle the adult world. That may be so, but aren’t just as many adults at a loss in today’s social environment? Give kids a head start and they may fare better later on. The worst case scenario for future generations is for the public to continue to paint forward thinking parents like the Dubroffs as cruel new age extremists depriving their children of their rights to a normal youth. Many adults might well feel intimidated by a new breed of intelligent and forthright young people able to direct the course of their lives from an early age, cognizant of what lies ahead in the adult world but nevertheless able to play a significant and meaningful role in the world of reality from the earliest times. If this were not something that every parent would want for their child we would seriously have to question the motives for having children at all. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Fairy Tales (August 1997) What is the true nature of teenage conflict? Is it biological, chemical, just a part of growing up - or is it contrived and created through interaction between child and parents? An interesting battle of wills emerges in the lives of most young people that seems to coincide with the surging of hormones which characterizes the onset of puberty. These anguished struggles dividing parent and child are usually put down to hormonal activity or the difficult nature of the transition between childhood and adulthood and the trials of enduring a period of not quite being one or the other. The teenage years tend to be the most tumultuous years and many of us recall the rebellion, the frustration, the idealism, the reckless fearlessness and the burgeoning sexuality, most of us surviving the ordeal with mind and body intact, some not so lucky to have paid the ultimate price for an unfettered lust for new experience. Let us suppose that the angst of the teenager can be attributed to the transition between childhood and adulthood. If we imagine this to be true we must also imagine that there are distinct boundaries between the two stages and that the distinctions are so dramatic that the resulting heartbreak and conflict is inevitable. And furthermore what or who is responsible for this transition or is it simply a natural and normal part of growing up? The fact that something seems to be normal doesn’t prove it to be natural. The fact that the troubled teen is a commonly accepted norm doesn’t make it right. Parents everywhere try in vain to rescue sagging relationships and hopelessly throw themselves at a problem too far advanced to be successfully resolved at such a late stage. This teenage conflict has its origins in the earliest years and stems from the misguided and dangerous concept that childhood is a magical wonderland to be treasured and preserved until, reluctantly, it can be maintained no longer. Any advocate who seeks to threaten the idea of this paradise is lustily debunked and the heretic who dares to suggest that childhood should be anything but ignorance and restriction is quickly castigated. The kind of childhood hurriedly subscribed to by many new parents and enthusiastically installed as the desired model is the stuff of fantasy. Yet surprisingly this sort of illusion can be sustained in today’s world, albeit with increasing difficulty as individuals actively persevere in their attempts to protect their children from the blossoming evils of nasty Mr Reality. For the children of these individuals life is blissfully naïve and judiciously manipulated. Theirs is a world of careful deception and cotton wool. The child must be protected at all costs from the harsh realities of the world outside and made to feel safe and secure. They need routine, they need to feel special, they need to be praised; the list goes on. Possibly the most shocking fact of all is that the kind of childhood to which we refer to is not some weirdo extremist point of view but is the childhood that the majority of children, in the Western World at least, are introduced to. It’s a familiar world: Mummy, Daddy, Nana, Poppa, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy... Do we see a pattern forming? It’s a world of identities, a world of titled adults, it’s a manufactured world. It’s a world where death is avoided, violence is hidden and where parents are careful to not to reveal their weaknesses to impressionable youngsters. Parents in this big bad modern world are faced with more and more dilemmas. They want their children to be computer literate but how to protect children from Internet pornography and video nasties. They want children to be self-sufficient but struggle to allow the child to make his or her way in the world without eagle-eyed supervision. They want to enjoy healthy and harmonious relationships with their children but insist on a regime of restriction and discipline. They want to be friends with their children, but friendship is equated with weakness, ‘how can you make the child do what they’re told if you make them a friend?’ The biggest battle faced by parents is not sex and violence, it’s not drugs and aids, it’s not even discipline. The most severe struggle arises from the insidious damage done by the active pursuit of contradiction and hypocrisy by parents in the name of the preservation of childhood. Is it this hypocrisy that is at the seat of the conflicts so prevalent in teenage years? Few parents will admit to the fact that persisting with the fabrications of Santa Claus and the like are nothing more than justified lying. Most will see these lies as acceptable and necessary in order that childhood is remembered as a wonderful and magical time. What’s wonderful about being lied to? Few parents will concede that referring to themselves in the third person only serves the purpose of hindering the child’s attempts to learn a language, complex enough already, without unnecessary contradictions. Serious indeed are the implications of correcting the child who is likely to say “Me go out to play” yet continuing to utter “Mommy (Mummy)/Daddy will tie your shoes”. Few parents will acknowledge that the insistence on being referred to as a title (in preference to a name) only serves to alienate and distance the child from them. Most not only attach remarkable sentimentality to this exercise but adamantly defend this romanticism as being a necessary way of identifying themselves to the child, for which there is no acceptable alternative. Many parents probably never think about the fact that the use of the word ‘grown-up’ is no more easily understood than any other word, once it is taught to a child and that to create new words is not necessary, nor is it even helpful in preparing a child for the adult world. In these ways, to name but a few, parents consistently portray contradiction and hypocrisy as acceptable forms of behavior, all the while insisting on scrupulous standards of honesty from their children, much to their dismay it seems, as it is rarely forthcoming – and no wonder given the example that many children are presented with. It should not be surprising then, that when the child begins to develop a social conscience and an ability to formulate their own perceptions about the world and the people in it, at a time when the youth is entering a period of intense idealism and passion, the realization of the years of hypocrisy often results in the destruction of the parental/child relationship. The unrelenting urge to fabricate a kind of candy coated world for the child seems to emerge from the misconception that reality is not only frightening and corruptive but that it could have dangerous influence on the impressionable mind of the child. The display of parental struggle, the honest admission that adults don’t know everything, the communication of the fundamental realities of being a sensual being living in a physical world, seem to be regarded by many as inappropriate to the experience of childhood. This is a tragedy for many reasons. Perhaps the worst is that once childhood is gone and if reality is so terrible, what is there left to look forward to in life but work, marriage and old age? - all bastions of adulthood that are represented as being part and parcel of this damning world of adult reality. Equally tragic however, is that this view of reality and of adulthood is so negative. Parents can be heard to say that they do not want their children to grow up ‘too soon’, and that a childhood can be ‘stolen’ from a child if exposed to too much reality or if aspects of the adult world are introduced ‘too quickly’. What a shocking indictment on life in what is truly a diverse and stimulating place. If anything is to change in the business of relationships between parents and children surely it is parents who must examine their own perceptions about life and reality and seek to be more concerned about the kinds of messages they are passing on to future generations. It is time to stop underestimating children and to begin recognizing them as the astute and perceptive individuals that they are. It is not for parents to rear children as one might rear an animal, but rather to share their lives with their children, warts and all. It is time indeed to begin to properly prepare children for what will inevitably become their world for the major part of their lives, the world of adulthood and the world of reality. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. A Condition of Culture (June 1997) Children are inspired, make decisions, become adults and manifest those decisions. In the process the manifestations become separated from the decisions... A web site called McSpotlight (www.mcspotlight.org) hosts a fund of information devoted to ‘exposing’ the McDonalds Corporation and detailing the McLibel trial under progress in Britain. The Debating room is a chat room on the site listing hundreds of accounts and responses from anyone interested enough in posting their point of view. Stories range from dedicated staff praising the organization to individuals passionately opposed to everything that the company stands for. The reasons such individuals have for their axe grinding are not in themselves particularly interesting, although one can only wonder at the purpose this kind of preoccupation serves in the progress of their daily lives. As one Canadian respondent put it: “Whoever started this site or sites like this obviously have no life. What happened? You had a bad experience at McD’s one day and you spend the rest of your life getting even?” What is interesting though is the nature of some of the comments. One McDonalds employee writes: “I eat 22 Big Macs a week and I still think it tastes like shit!” Another woman from the USA shares her contradictory thoughts: “I think the food there is awful too. It tastes good, but makes me feel lousy afterwards…” On a lighter note, someone from England considers the effect on sales if “McDonalds changed their name to Deathburger and included large Day-Glo orange health warnings on every burger box in a similar manner to ciggy packets…” This is not a story about McDonalds, nor is it a declaration of an opinion either for or against McDonalds, the people in the McSpotlight chat room will no doubt continue to do that without our participation being required. Remarks like the ones above do however highlight important questions. Especially the remarks that take a negative stance. If, for some of these individuals, the food tastes so bad, why do they continue to eat it? Perhaps this is a question better answered by McDonalds advertising people. The publicity machine of the McDonalds Corporation is absolutely huge, so vast in fact that the McDonalds restaurant experience has practically become a cultural feature of life in modern society. It is the knowledge of how this culture works that lines the pockets of the advertising executives. And why shouldn’t it? - Whether or not you approve of it, they are extremely good at what they do. They understand something about human nature that few people are prepared to recognize or acknowledge about themselves. If people want something badly enough they will do almost anything to achieve it. And if achieving it means being a part of a desired culture or achieving a way of life, then the forces that motivate the individual (especially that of denying reality) seem even stronger. Some would argue that advertising is really just a form of conditioning, especially when it can seem to make people do something that they may not necessarily even want to do. Those who do hold this opinion demonstrate a common misconception about the nature of conditioning and the way in which individuals make decisions about their lives. The advertisers know that the desire to be a part of the culture has to outweigh the desire for the product in question. If it does, then the details of the product are less important than the way in which the culture is promoted. The last few years have seen the promotion of products as culture become much more prevalent and when you think about it, the marketing people have been very astute. Nothing can equal the force of human desire - particularly the desire to belong. If the role of desire is properly acknowledged, then the notion that people are conditioned is a complete myth. Arguing the role of conditioning in advertising is one thing but most people will maintain that conditioning is responsible for the way in which our lives tend to be shaped. Still the myth prevails. Just as the desire to belong to a merchandising culture causes youth to make choices about their lives in all sorts of areas, whether the product is inherently desirable or not, so too does desire determine the choices the young child makes in response to the environment in which he or she lives during early life. Children find the concept of being like an adult intensely attractive, it can be observed in their play. If this particular adult is an object of adoration, the child will feel the overwhelming force of its own desire and be inspired to be as much like that person as possible. What the promoters of conditioning fail to recognize is that what we later come to recognize as negative behaviors or compulsive ways in adult life are just as much the product of choice and inspiration as the traits that we find more acceptable. The justification seems to be that if we develop characteristics that are negative they must be the products of something that is imposed on us, for the idea that anyone would choose to adopt such characteristics is unthinkable. The fact that they come to be considered as negative is a clue as to how we might choose in such a manner. The choices we make as children and the things that inspire us are often surprising in their nature. We often hear people say that children are not judgmental. It’s one of the characteristics that many adults find particularly endearing. Children also look to the adults around them in order to gain a sense of how their own lives might be when they reach adulthood. This commonly acknowledged lack of judgment combined with a desire to take inspiration from other people leads to what is mistakenly referred to as conditioning. The child is not unwillingly inspired, nor is the inspiration imposed on the child. A child who is inspired to lead a lifestyle like that of the adults around them will copy not only what we might perceive to be the positive attributes, but it will also copy the less positive attributes, for unless the copy is a good one, the inspiration has not been satisfactorily served. And to the non-judgmental child, what is positive and what is negative anyway? And if even if it could be argued that the child was able to deem something to be negative, it is a mistake to assume that if something is repulsive to us that we will be deterred from doing it or wanting to do it. Youngsters who are inclined to try cigarettes for the first time almost never enjoy the taste, nor is it likely to be the taste that drives a youth to continue smoking. Fashion is a classic example of the desire to belong to a culture exceeding the sensibilities of the individual who may even profess to be repelled by the clothes that they are inspired to wear. The concept of heroin chic has come under scrutiny in recent weeks as the fashion industry was taken to task by President Clinton for increasing the allure of heroin among young people by depicting gaunt models who appear to be in a drug induced daze. Some industry leaders have already admitted that the images in fashion photos made heroin addiction seem glamorous, sexy and cool. In fact, when we examine the influence of much of the ‘culture’ that inspires people in society today, quite a proportion of it centers on failure, inactivity and indifference. These aspects feature again and again in popular and music culture, despite being seemingly inherently undesirable and continue to inspire people everywhere to adopt characteristics and encourage lifestyles that would seem to be anything but inspiring. If adults, even young adults, who have learned to differentiate between so-called positive and negative can be inspired to passionately choose to lead lifestyles that do not seem desirable or appealing, then a child or three or four with severely limited judgmental faculties and even less experience of the implications of such choices could easily be inspired to make lifestyle choices that reflect a whole array of negatives, without even realizing the magnitude of such a decision. The choices may not be nearly as extreme but nevertheless the consequences of these passionate decisions could prove to interfere with the desires of the adult in later life. The intensity of the child’s ability to desire coupled with a strong drive to copy admired adults is more than enough to act as an effective basis for the decisions the child makes throughout its life. It does not stand to reason that a child will only copy the positive attributes of the people it aspires to imitate. Perfection is rare; people have their struggles. And to the child, struggles are a significant part of living in an adult world. If struggles are perceived by the child to be a necessary part of a specific adult lifestyle, then struggles will become a part of that child’s and ultimately, that adult’s, life. Why wouldn’t they? Those who give credence to conditioning ignore the responsibility of the individual in determining the course of his or her own life. But of more significant consequence, they ignore the extraordinary power of desire and inspiration in the shaping of human life which, particularly in the very young, are virtually unshakable motivators. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. The Persistent Boy (April 1997) The gender identity adopted by an individual goes beyond just recognizing our own physical characteristics as male or female. Science is yet to investigate must why this is so. Dr Phyllis Katz from the Institute for Research on Social Problems in Colorado concluded from studies that children as young as six months old are able to distinguish differences in gender. Her conclusions resulted from testing methods based on the principle of habituation, a technique devised for testing on a non-verbal level. Babies tested were shown pictures of children and the time spent looking at the picture before their attention shifted from the photograph was recorded. A succession of pictures was paraded before the child one at a time. Results showed that initially the first picture depicting a female face captured the baby’s interest for a certain period before it looked away. The picture was then exchanged for another female face and again the baby looked at the picture but in the second instance, for less time. The picture was changed once more, a third female face was shown to the baby and the baby took an interest but again, as the pictures were changed for different faces of the same sex, the attention of the child diminished with each change. However, at the point at which a change in the gender of the child in the picture was introduced the baby’s attention shot up once more and the time spent viewing the picture was much longer. Successive changes showed similar patterns in that the attention level progressively dropped off until the introduction of a change in the gender of the child in the picture. These tests clearly suggest that a baby as young as six months is able to distinguish the categories of male and female in a visual sense even from pictures of young children where the differences are often less distinctive. Dr Katz was unable to ascertain just what cues the children were using to make these distinctions but their behavior suggested that they were making them all the same. It is astonishing to imagine that, when most of our perceptive skills are still in their infancy, before we are able to talk and to sit up for ourselves, we can tell the difference between a male and female by looking at a face. What this implies is that we are making decisions about the gender of the people around us in the earliest stage of our lives. What processes must be required for a baby to be able to make these kinds of decision, science is yet to explain. Time Magazine recently reported on an interesting case in America that began in 1963 when one of an infant pair of twin boys had an accident that damaged his penis beyond repair. Experts at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore advised the parents to agree to the castration of the boy, allowing surgeons to construct a kind of vagina from the remainder of tissue. In this manner as the boy grew older, with the help of hormone supplements he could live as an anatomically correct female. The case was hailed as a success and featured in medical texts, helping to justify the advice of doctors to rear damaged boys as girls. The sad facts of the case are that ‘Joan’, as the child had been called, suffered years of torment, beginning when ‘she’ was a toddler. She would rebel against feminine clothing, showed a preference for stereotypical male toys and was often referred to as a tomboy. Suspicions arose within her that she was really a boy but assurances from doctors and therapists persisted, leaving her with the feeling of being what she later described as a ‘freak’. Joan would even urinate standing up until she was eventually ‘forced’ out of the girl’s toilets by the other kids. At 14, in a tearful confrontation with her father, having contemplated either living life as a male or suicide, she finally discovered the truth about her gender history. Suddenly everything became clear and for the first time, the anguished years of wrestling with her sexual identity made sense. A second sex change operation was carried out in the late seventies and today Joan has become John, a happily married father of three adopted children. What’s interesting about this case is that despite surgery, extensive hormone treatment and having been embraced as a female by her parents, Joan’s inherent maleness asserted itself on her life in almost every way and persistently caused her to doubt her sexual identity. The really intriguing part is that the hormone treatment failed to change the behavior and the instinctive maleness experienced by the child. In cases of hormone imbalance due to deficiencies or disease, the introduction of the right amount of hormone not only triggers the body to begin producing the correct sexual characteristics (where possible), but usually adjusts the behavior of the individual, either producing a more ‘feminine’ child or a more ‘male’ child, as the case may be. In Joan’s case this did not occur, almost against all odds. If we are able to make distinctions about gender at such a young age and if in the case of Joan even chemical and surgical changes cannot always overcome the urge toward a particular sexual identity, does this imply that something else determines or plays a significant part in the development of our gender identity? Perhaps the power of perception and decision has greater influence than the body’s own physical structure in helping to determine our sexual identity. Could it be that what we decide, somewhere between the age of six months and adulthood, steers us in the direction of behaviors that are representative of one gender or another, according to the nature of such decisions? Perhaps science will eventually provide a conclusive answer. Of course, in order to come up with an answer, you have to recognize the existence of the question and if science is to do that, then it must put aside everything that is known about human development and begin thinking the unthinkable. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 2002. All rights reserved.