My daughter had her first period recently, and I thought, "Wow! She's grown up so quickly."
Then I realised my little girl had turned into a woman. In scientific terms, she is now a "fertile female".
To me, she's still just a little kid who spends her free time watching the Cartoon Network and playing computer games, has no interest in boys and refuses to sleep alone. But she is also becoming a woman, and it leaves me in a dilemma about when to tell her about boys.
I can't recall what my own mother had to say to me back then. Sex was not part of the essential parenting agenda of that time, and in fact it's still not a priority. And if there had been anything said at all, it would be like what my friend in her 50s told me:
"I remember discussing periods with my grandma, and she told me, 'When you have a period, don't sit near a man on the bus; otherwise, you'll get pregnant like chickens - with a 'khai lom' [literally, an 'air egg', or unfertilised egg]. So one day I told my mum I'd not had my period for two months and that I thought I was pregnant. Mum was horrified! She asked how it happened. I said I sat near a man on the bus. My mother knew it must be my grandma's tale."
Such a trick was quite handy in the old days, but it's obsolete for today's teens. Our children's lifestyle is not the one we knew. They grow up faster now and seem to start everything sooner.
Parents like me find it easier to pretend that sex has nothing to do with children than to talk about it. Because sex in Thailand, even in the 21st century, is still a dirty word. We hardly ever talk openly about it among adults, let alone with kids.
But we know there's a chance our children will have problems without a basic knowledge of sex. And it's heartbreaking to learn that so many girls facing an unwanted pregnancy are as young as the ones running around in your own home or neighbourhood.
One study showed that 43 per cent of young mothers in "emergency homes" were 14-20 years old, with another 34.7 per cent were under 14 and in secondary school. We tend to view victims of inadequate sex education as only "kids", but under the rules of science, once you have your first period, you can conceive.
The sooner the better in preventing children from falling victim to their own immature acts, I guess. We have to do it ourselves, because our education system still considers sex taboo as a topic. It was not until secondary school that I studied sexual organs and why we girls menstruated and only then because I took science. The students in the arts programme hardly learned anything about the facts of life.
And things haven't changed much today; this rather delicate subject rests solely on the parents' shoulders. Not to my surprise, the Family Network Foundation reports that most parents are uncomfortable teaching sex education themselves. Worse still, schoolteachers who teach health-related subjects tend to lack the confidence to teach about sex. That means every child relies solely on parents like me for their sex education. But coming to our rescue is a parental guide to children's sex education to be released by the foundation and based on the results of a pilot project they conducted with participating parents and their teenagers. It is like a drop of water in the desert and probably a good start for someone like me who is still lost. Where and how to start with a daughter as young as 11?
I'd like to extend my compliments to the foundation on its practical approach, especially its criticism towards policy-makers who are still fighting a "rearguard action". I couldn't have agreed more when the foundation pinpointed what is perhaps the heart of the problem: policy-makers don't take sexual education seriously. Remember that controversial "Khu Mue Wai Sai" - a sex guide for teenagers - that was cancelled because critics said it contained inappropriate content? Many believed it encouraged children to have sex instead of protecting them. There's been no similar project since.
As usual, the Education Ministry responded quickly to the sad facts of the research results cited above but still kept firmly to its rearguard action. Its so-called "aggressive measures", emphasising the prevention of sexual assault against schoolchildren, are far from impressive. Nothing has been said about how to avoid premature sex among students. In brief, the ministry doesn't believe sex education is really needed.
Policy-makers are a rather nostalgic lot, and they may not quite understand that society as they knew it in their youth has changed. We grew up with black-and-white television and watched Thai and Bollywood films, while our kids are bombarded with Hollywood flicks and sensational soap operas. We had only public telephones and no inkling that phones would ever be mobile. We learned from textbooks, while our children can search for anything they're interested in on the Net. Any policy or action plan based on the old school of thought would not be practical in this new media age.
At 11, my girl is, of course, closely monitored, and I always know what she's up to. But in a few years, I'm not certain if I'll still know what she does after school, whom she chats with on MSN or which websites she visits. Since it will be impossible for me to follow her every step, I'd rather make her knowledgeable about sex. At the very least, I can demonstrate how premature sex and an unwanted pregnancies ruin young girls' lives. I'll try my best to tell her that sex is not dirty or taboo, but rather something she can enjoy once she's a grown-up and mature enough.
I am, however, faced with a dilemma about whether to teach my little girl about condoms and birth-control pills or trust to my luck and pray she'll be a smart kid. As for you parents with sons, I think it would not cost anything for them to learn how to use a condom, as well as that they could ruin more than one life by fathering a child before the proper time.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Violent youths spring from poor parenting
The tragic story of the murder and suicide involving a Trium Udom Suksa Pattanakarn student has sparked off a bitter debate across the country about violence among Thai children.
The incident really serves as a wake-up call for the whole society. The message is clear: young people are becoming increasingly violent in their behaviour and thinking. And before anyone can put the blame on young people, they have already voiced their opinions. They are hitting back by blaming society and their own families for the violent behaviour of some of their friends.
If you don't quite understand their statements, just take a look at the findings from a study that is part of Chulalongkorn University's Child Watch Project. Conducted by Amornwich Nakhornthap, the study polled 1,000 children in each of 12 provinces (no sampling representation in Bangkok) before coming up with the following interesting conclusions:
l About 10 per cent of teenagers are addicted to computer games. Some 25 per cent of them play computer games regularly.
l Some 45 per cent of Thai children have never given food to monks. And some 65 per cent have never listened to a religious sermon.
l About 40 per cent have not gone out with their parents or sisters and brothers in a month. They are left to face the world by themselves.
l There are about 220 places of sin (brothels or night clubs) in each province on average. On the contrary, there are only 26 public parks and playgrounds. Lampang has the least of all: only seven public parks for the young people to spend their leisure time.
The conclusion? The study shows that young people are physically surrounded by places of vice more than places of morality. A teenage forum held recently at Chulalongkorn University brands Thailand now as a "sick and violent" society.
Nowadays, our young children tend to live their lives in a violent world without parental guidance. Verbal abuse from their parents and other forms of domestic violence have also combined to create a sense of insecurity, leading to violent behaviour.
On the psychological side, the children are either raised protectively or negligently. By now, we realise that the two extremes bring about the same tragic results. The fact is nothing new: we have been told that a spoiled child is never happy. It's a universal truth but somehow the parents tend to forget this truth.
Teen psychologist Dr Prasert Palittapolkarnpim has a very good point. He observes that parents neglect children not only because of economic factors. Parents of all socio-economic levels share the same behaviour: they are striving for a higher standard of living. At the same time, they have become "low-quality" parents and have little time to pay attention to their children.
Supawadee Hanmethi, publisher of a wide range of family magazines including Life &Family, has been advocating the strengthening of family ties for years. The mother of two sons, Supawadee repeatedly writes that family members must be close to each other and every family should create an atmosphere of open discussion that allows children an equal chance to voice their opinions.
She also points that "children with good grades are not always good children". By now, enough examples show that not every good student is a successful or happy child. Recall the case of a top student at Thammasat University who jumped from a building just because she got a B in one subject, destroying her chance to get a gold medal.
Too much love can prompt parents to pressure their children for academic success which, in turn, can kill them. At a forum of young people at Satri Witthaya School, student Wimwipa Pumee noted that "parents are cruel for they always tell us that our destiny is to secure a seat in a prestigious university."
That's why Supawadee warns parents: "Never ask a child, 'Did you get a good grade?'" Smart parents should not narrowly define a child's success by only academic reports.
Parents tend to think that a good academic record shows their success in child raising. But many people no longer agree with that idea. The education system forces students to compete fiercely, producing selfish children who aim at nothing but climbing to upper status in grades. No need to mention what kind of adults they will become when they enter the workplace.
There is a saying that "Children are like white cloth. It depends on what the artists will draw or paint on them." The parents are no doubt the artists of this great project of child rearing. Or if the kid were a building, the parents would be the architects. It's time we rethink what kind of design we want for the building.
If we excuse ourselves and insist that we have no time, our building will only become a rotten concrete structure with no character. The parents, not the kids, must take the credit or blame for their creation.
Chanachai Srichaphan showed us that when he put his life into his son, the result was a state-of-the-art work. Paradon may be an exceptional case in Thai society but let that be our inspiration to make every parent realise that their child can be successful in many ways apart from acting like a robot to produce good grades.
If we can't do anything about our education system (is education reform still on track?), all parents can start by giving time to their children, staying close to them, and give them love.
Perhaps that is the simplest solution and the good thing about it is that you don't need to pay for it. It's God-given. Don't let evil take it away.
Published on Jun 21, 2003
The incident really serves as a wake-up call for the whole society. The message is clear: young people are becoming increasingly violent in their behaviour and thinking. And before anyone can put the blame on young people, they have already voiced their opinions. They are hitting back by blaming society and their own families for the violent behaviour of some of their friends.
If you don't quite understand their statements, just take a look at the findings from a study that is part of Chulalongkorn University's Child Watch Project. Conducted by Amornwich Nakhornthap, the study polled 1,000 children in each of 12 provinces (no sampling representation in Bangkok) before coming up with the following interesting conclusions:
l About 10 per cent of teenagers are addicted to computer games. Some 25 per cent of them play computer games regularly.
l Some 45 per cent of Thai children have never given food to monks. And some 65 per cent have never listened to a religious sermon.
l About 40 per cent have not gone out with their parents or sisters and brothers in a month. They are left to face the world by themselves.
l There are about 220 places of sin (brothels or night clubs) in each province on average. On the contrary, there are only 26 public parks and playgrounds. Lampang has the least of all: only seven public parks for the young people to spend their leisure time.
The conclusion? The study shows that young people are physically surrounded by places of vice more than places of morality. A teenage forum held recently at Chulalongkorn University brands Thailand now as a "sick and violent" society.
Nowadays, our young children tend to live their lives in a violent world without parental guidance. Verbal abuse from their parents and other forms of domestic violence have also combined to create a sense of insecurity, leading to violent behaviour.
On the psychological side, the children are either raised protectively or negligently. By now, we realise that the two extremes bring about the same tragic results. The fact is nothing new: we have been told that a spoiled child is never happy. It's a universal truth but somehow the parents tend to forget this truth.
Teen psychologist Dr Prasert Palittapolkarnpim has a very good point. He observes that parents neglect children not only because of economic factors. Parents of all socio-economic levels share the same behaviour: they are striving for a higher standard of living. At the same time, they have become "low-quality" parents and have little time to pay attention to their children.
Supawadee Hanmethi, publisher of a wide range of family magazines including Life &Family, has been advocating the strengthening of family ties for years. The mother of two sons, Supawadee repeatedly writes that family members must be close to each other and every family should create an atmosphere of open discussion that allows children an equal chance to voice their opinions.
She also points that "children with good grades are not always good children". By now, enough examples show that not every good student is a successful or happy child. Recall the case of a top student at Thammasat University who jumped from a building just because she got a B in one subject, destroying her chance to get a gold medal.
Too much love can prompt parents to pressure their children for academic success which, in turn, can kill them. At a forum of young people at Satri Witthaya School, student Wimwipa Pumee noted that "parents are cruel for they always tell us that our destiny is to secure a seat in a prestigious university."
That's why Supawadee warns parents: "Never ask a child, 'Did you get a good grade?'" Smart parents should not narrowly define a child's success by only academic reports.
Parents tend to think that a good academic record shows their success in child raising. But many people no longer agree with that idea. The education system forces students to compete fiercely, producing selfish children who aim at nothing but climbing to upper status in grades. No need to mention what kind of adults they will become when they enter the workplace.
There is a saying that "Children are like white cloth. It depends on what the artists will draw or paint on them." The parents are no doubt the artists of this great project of child rearing. Or if the kid were a building, the parents would be the architects. It's time we rethink what kind of design we want for the building.
If we excuse ourselves and insist that we have no time, our building will only become a rotten concrete structure with no character. The parents, not the kids, must take the credit or blame for their creation.
Chanachai Srichaphan showed us that when he put his life into his son, the result was a state-of-the-art work. Paradon may be an exceptional case in Thai society but let that be our inspiration to make every parent realise that their child can be successful in many ways apart from acting like a robot to produce good grades.
If we can't do anything about our education system (is education reform still on track?), all parents can start by giving time to their children, staying close to them, and give them love.
Perhaps that is the simplest solution and the good thing about it is that you don't need to pay for it. It's God-given. Don't let evil take it away.
Published on Jun 21, 2003
Thaksin the father fails to impress
It took me by surprise when I saw Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra make his humble, almost tearful plea to the media, urging them to stop dragging his youngest daughter Paetongtarn into the national entrance-exam leak scandal. No, it wasn't the apparently "straightforward" and "sincere" manner of a heartbroken father that struck me. It was the timing of his official response to the explosive issue. The loving father's rise to his child's defence came far too late, not to mention how little it did to heal her deep wounds.
A wise man like Thaksin should have known that the damage had been done and asking people to stop talking about it could well have the reverse effect. Although he singled out the media, he must have been informed that gossip and contempt had gone far beyond what was written in news reports.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students, have expressed their anger and frustration on websites. Should he check relevant webboards, Thaksin would learn that his daughter had been a target of social punishment long before her father came out to respond to the public.
Thaksin was probably busy familiarising himself with the lives of people in the Northeast, so busy he hardly found time to properly protect his beloved daughter. He won some sympathy, yes, but whether he has done enough as a father, considering the magnitude of rumours and allegations, I have my doubts.
He told the public how his heart was broken to see his daughter weeping when he peeked into her bedroom and how his daughter studied so hard to improve her grades. Some people were moved, but others remained unconvinced. There are parents who have seen their children work equally hard or even harder. There are other mums and dads who have seen their children's tears. The difference is they can't go on television and seek nationwide sympathy.
In the case of Thaksin, some view him as a father struggling to protect his daughter while others took it as another great "act" of our leader. I'm in the latter group. And if anyone asks, I can explain it. As a mother, I'd probably launch into a similar speech, but my protective instincts wouldn't take me on a tour of the Northeast, posing in my Fendi towel, before I opened my mouth to defend my child.
My evaluation: Thaksin did fairly poorly in this see-if-you-are-a-good-father test.
And what about his chief-executive responsibilities? He flunked. Again, the timing was very late and out of proportion. To show the public that he was serious about the investigation, he could have done a lot more. He left the entrance-exam leak controversy develop from a tiny wound into a large, festering sore. This is unlike the decisive man who launched the war on drugs that led to over than 1,000 deaths.
In this entrance-exam episode, Thaksin would have won the public's praise if he had chosen to react soon enough both as a father and as "CEO" of Thailand.
As the leader of the government, he should have at least put more pressure on two men, Education Minister Adisai Bodharamik and former secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission Voradej Chandarasorn. A credible and swift investigation would have overshadowed the rumours and hearsay, thus limiting the damage to innocent people, including those he loves.
Sad to say, he failed to exercise either of the roles when the public needed him to do so.
I ask myself whether, if I were in his shoes, I would do a better job. I'm not sure in the capacity of PM or CEO. But as a mother, I am positive that my instincts would drive in the right direction to defend my child. More importantly, I wouldn't let a political road show become a bigger priority than my daughter, but having said that, I know why I could never be prime minister and why some politicians can't be good fathers.
Published on May 8, 2004
A wise man like Thaksin should have known that the damage had been done and asking people to stop talking about it could well have the reverse effect. Although he singled out the media, he must have been informed that gossip and contempt had gone far beyond what was written in news reports.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of students, have expressed their anger and frustration on websites. Should he check relevant webboards, Thaksin would learn that his daughter had been a target of social punishment long before her father came out to respond to the public.
Thaksin was probably busy familiarising himself with the lives of people in the Northeast, so busy he hardly found time to properly protect his beloved daughter. He won some sympathy, yes, but whether he has done enough as a father, considering the magnitude of rumours and allegations, I have my doubts.
He told the public how his heart was broken to see his daughter weeping when he peeked into her bedroom and how his daughter studied so hard to improve her grades. Some people were moved, but others remained unconvinced. There are parents who have seen their children work equally hard or even harder. There are other mums and dads who have seen their children's tears. The difference is they can't go on television and seek nationwide sympathy.
In the case of Thaksin, some view him as a father struggling to protect his daughter while others took it as another great "act" of our leader. I'm in the latter group. And if anyone asks, I can explain it. As a mother, I'd probably launch into a similar speech, but my protective instincts wouldn't take me on a tour of the Northeast, posing in my Fendi towel, before I opened my mouth to defend my child.
My evaluation: Thaksin did fairly poorly in this see-if-you-are-a-good-father test.
And what about his chief-executive responsibilities? He flunked. Again, the timing was very late and out of proportion. To show the public that he was serious about the investigation, he could have done a lot more. He left the entrance-exam leak controversy develop from a tiny wound into a large, festering sore. This is unlike the decisive man who launched the war on drugs that led to over than 1,000 deaths.
In this entrance-exam episode, Thaksin would have won the public's praise if he had chosen to react soon enough both as a father and as "CEO" of Thailand.
As the leader of the government, he should have at least put more pressure on two men, Education Minister Adisai Bodharamik and former secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission Voradej Chandarasorn. A credible and swift investigation would have overshadowed the rumours and hearsay, thus limiting the damage to innocent people, including those he loves.
Sad to say, he failed to exercise either of the roles when the public needed him to do so.
I ask myself whether, if I were in his shoes, I would do a better job. I'm not sure in the capacity of PM or CEO. But as a mother, I am positive that my instincts would drive in the right direction to defend my child. More importantly, I wouldn't let a political road show become a bigger priority than my daughter, but having said that, I know why I could never be prime minister and why some politicians can't be good fathers.
Published on May 8, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)