Earlier today, I served as the “young woman’s voice” in a panel of local experts at a Girl Scouts speaking event. One question for the panel was something to the effect of, “Should parents read their daughter’s texts or monitor her online activity for bad language and inappropriate content?”
I was surprised when the first panelist answered the question as if it were about cyberbullying. The adult audience nodded sagely as she spoke about the importance of protecting children online.
I reached for the microphone next. I said, “As far as reading your child’s texts or logging into their social media profiles, I would say 99.9% of the time, do not do that.”
Looks of total shock answered me. I actually saw heads jerk back in surprise. Even some of my fellow panelists blinked.
Everyone stared as I explained that going behind a child’s back in such a way severs the bond of trust with the parent. When I said, “This is the most effective way to ensure that your child never tells you anything,” it was like I’d delivered a revelation.
It’s easy to talk about the disconnect between the old and the young, but I don’t think I’d ever been so slapped in the face by the reality of it. It was clear that for most of the parents I spoke to, the idea of such actions as a violation had never occurred to them at all.
It alarms me how quickly adults forget that children are people.
Apparently people are rediscovering this post somehow and I think that’s pretty cool! Having experienced similar violations of trust in my youth, this is an important issue to me, so I want to add my personal story:
Around age 13, I tried to express to my mother that I thought I might have clinical depression, and she snapped at me “not to joke about things like that.” I stopped telling my mother when I felt depressed.
Around age 15, I caught my mother reading my diary. She confessed that any time she saw me write in my diary, she would sneak into my room and read it, because I only wrote when I was upset. I stopped keeping a diary.
Around age 18, I had an emotional breakdown while on vacation because I didn’t want to go to college. I ended up seeing a therapist for - surprise surprise - depression.
Around age 21, I spoke on this panel with my mother in the audience, and afterwards I mentioned the diary incident to her with respect to this particular Q&A. Her eyes welled up, and she said, “You know I read those because I was worried you were depressed and going to hurt yourself, right?”
TL;DR: When you invade your child’s privacy, you communicate three things:
- You do not respect their rights as an individual.
- You do not trust them to navigate problems or seek help on their own.
- You probably haven’t been listening to them.
Information about almost every issue that you think you have to snoop for can probably be obtained by communicating with and listening to your child.
Part of me is really excited to see that the original post got 200 notes because holy crap 200 notes, and part of me is really saddened that something so negative has resonated with so many people.
“I tried to express to my mother that I thought I might have clinical depression, and she snapped at me ”
“’You know I read those because I was worried you were depressed and going to hurt yourself, right?’”
I found these quotes particularly interesting. OP’s mother refused to listen when she tried to talk about her depression, but snooped through her things to see if she was depressed.
It’s amazing to me that parents need to be told something that I GUARANTEE they experienced themselves. This is something that predates text messaging. You search your child’s room for drugs, and they will find a better hiding place for anything they may be worried about you finding - even if it’s as innocuous as candy. You try to snoop on their phone conversations with their boyfriend, and they will 1) Find a different way to communicate with him, and 2) Never communicate with YOU about their boyfriend.
My parents doing this shit to me didn’t make me stop doing it and didn’t make me respect them any more. All it did was make me better at sneaking around.
Earlier today, I served as the “young woman’s voice” in a panel of local experts at a Girl Scouts speaking event. One question for the panel was something to the effect of, "Should parents read their daughter’s texts or monitor her online activity for bad language and inappropriate content?"
I was surprised when the first panelist answered the question as if it were about cyberbullying. The adult audience nodded sagely as she spoke about the importance of protecting children online.
I reached for the microphone next. I said, “As far as reading your child’s texts or logging into their social media profiles, I would say 99.9% of the time, do not do that.”
Looks of total shock answered me. I actually saw heads jerk back in surprise. Even some of my fellow panelists blinked.
Everyone stared as I explained that going behind a child’s back in such a way severs the bond of trust with the parent. When I said, “This is the most effective way to ensure that your child never tells you anything,” it was like I’d delivered a revelation.
It’s easy to talk about the disconnect between the old and the young, but I don’t think I’d ever been so slapped in the face by the reality of it. It was clear that for most of the parents I spoke to, the idea of such actions as a violation had never occurred to them at all.
It alarms me how quickly adults forget that children are people.
Apparently people are rediscovering this post somehow and I think that’s pretty cool! Having experienced similar violations of trust in my youth, this is an important issue to me, so I want to add my personal story:
Around age 13, I tried to express to my mother that I thought I might have clinical depression, and she snapped at me “not to joke about things like that.” I stopped telling my mother when I felt depressed.
Around age 15, I caught my mother reading my diary. She confessed that any time she saw me write in my diary, she would sneak into my room and read it, because I only wrote when I was upset. I stopped keeping a diary.
Around age 18, I had an emotional breakdown while on vacation because I didn’t want to go to college. I ended up seeing a therapist for - surprise surprise - depression.
Around age 21, I spoke on this panel with my mother in the audience, and afterwards I mentioned the diary incident to her with respect to this particular Q&A. Her eyes welled up, and she said, “You know I read those because I was worried you were depressed and going to hurt yourself, right?”
TL;DR: When you invade your child’s privacy, you communicate three things:
- You do not respect their rights as an individual.
- You do not trust them to navigate problems or seek help on their own.
- You probably haven’t been listening to them.
Information about almost every issue that you think you have to snoop for can probably be obtained by communicating with and listening to your child.
Part of me is really excited to see that the original post got 200 notes because holy crap 200 notes, and part of me is really saddened that something so negative has resonated with so many people.
"I tried to express to my mother that I thought I might have clinical depression, and she snapped at me "
“’You know I read those because I was worried you were depressed and going to hurt yourself, right?’”
I found these quotes particularly interesting. OP’s mother refused to listen when she tried to talk about her depression, but snooped through her things to see if she was depressed.
It’s amazing to me that parents need to be told something that I GUARANTEE they experienced themselves. This is something that predates text messaging. You search your child’s room for drugs, and they will find a better hiding place for anything they may be worried about you finding - even if it’s as innocuous as candy. You try to snoop on their phone conversations with their boyfriend, and they will 1) Find a different way to communicate with him, and 2) Never communicate with YOU about their boyfriend.
My parents doing this shit to me didn’t make me stop doing it and didn’t make me respect them any more. All it did was make me better at sneaking around.
If you love Scottish fold cats, I’m going to tell you something you don’t want to hear. Please, please read on anyway. If you are considering adopting a Scottish fold, PLEASE continue reading. This information needs to be more widely known.
In 2008, the Journal of Small Animal practice released a short report on disorders associated with breeds of cats. In this report, the authors mentioned the Scottish fold:
People who own them may be “charmed” by their round faces and open expression (and they may not realise that the reason the cats do not move around too much is because they are variably crippled with arthritis).1
The gene that causes the cute fold in the Scottish fold’s ear also leads to the development of a degenerative disorder called osteochondrodysplasia. ALL Scottish folds have this disorder, whether they show symptoms or not- the fold in their ears is caused by a cartilage deformity that also affects their joints.
Osteochondrodysplasia leads to crippling osteoarthritis, which affects Scottish folds at much younger ages than other breeds of cats. In cats heterozygous for the gene, the disease’s progression can be seen in cats as young as six months. In homozygous cats, it can be seen as early as seven weeks old.
Affected cats may be grossly deformed, with short wide limbs and a short, inflexible tail. They show lameness, swollen wrist (carpal) and ankle (tarsal) joints, have an abnormal gait, and are reluctant to move and jump. Severely affected individuals become crippled and unable to walk.
…Many affected cats are euthanased earlier in life due to the profound effects of this disease.2
The breed is often described as “placid” and “calm.” This is due to the fact that they are constantly in pain due to this disorder. Even in mild, ‘asymptomatic’ cases which can occur in heterozygous cats, they may still be experiencing pain due to cats’ tendency to hide their suffering.
Many breeders of Scottish folds claim that not all heterozygous cats have the disorder, because the studies that examined the cats (which were all, heterozygous or not, shown to have it) had small sample sizes.
In 2003, Lorraine Shelton, a specialist in genetic diseases, offered to pay for 300 x-rays of healthy adult Scottish folds to prove that the disorder was not present in some heterozygous cats.
…She has asked a list of 300 Scottish Fold breeders from around the world to go to their vet to get X-rays done. She had offered to pay for these X-rays but not a single breeder had taken up that offer. You could not know whether this problem existed unless an X-ray was taken. If somebody would send her an X-ray of a healthy hind leg of a folded eared cat, she would be grateful as she wanted to see the very first one.3
To date, no one has taken her up on the offer. The breeders’ unwillingness to have their cats examined speaks volumes. The authors of all studies on these cats agree: it ethically wrong to continue breeding these cats.
It disturbs me that any breeder would knowingly continue to create animals that will be in pain throughout their lives. As a cat lover myself, I am begging you, please do not buy Scottish folds. Do not support these unethical breeding practices, or the concept that it is acceptable to intentionally breed unhealthy animals for the sake of how they look.
Citations
1 Breed-related disorders of cats (discusses issues with other breeds as well)
2 Genetic welfare problems of companion animals: osteochondrodysplasia (a thorough description of the disease and its prevalence)
3 FIFe meeting notes (leading to a decision not to recognize Scottish folds as an offical breed due to the disorder)
There was also a follow-up email about Shelton’s offer which can be read here.
Studies on osteochondrodysplasia in Scottish Folds
Osteochondrodysplasia in Scottish Fold cats
Incomplete dominant osteochondrodysplasia in heterozygous Scottish Fold cats (this is the source of the above x-ray pictures)
Before you buy ANY animal, please do your research. If a breed suffers from high incidences of genetic disorders, don’t use your money to support the creation of more animal suffering.
This is important enough to be posted to my main blog. I know I reblogged this months and months ago, but not enough people know about this.
There is absolutely no way to “cure” the Scottish folds of this. The gene that causes the ear to look so cute and floppy is because of the cartilage not forming properly, which is what causes the health problems — even in cats that are bred Fold x Non Fold.
What’s fucking worse is that they’re cross breeding Scottish folds with other cats. As soon as I saw them crossed with Sphynxes (anyone who follows me is probably aware of the three Sphynxes we have and how much I love them), my heart sank. This is called a “Skinderlop”
Breeding is supposed to be about breeding healthy cats/animals free of defects, and about examining mutations to see what the health risks are, if there are any. It is not supposed to be about creating more cats who are doomed to horrible health problems from birth. That is so cruel it’s unbelievable - and people still defend this breed’s continued existence…
If you know anyone who is looking into getting a kitten from a breeder, PLEASE let them know about the health problems associated with Scottish folds and cross breeds so that they don’t continue to support this sort of thing. It is needlessly cruel.
That person is in the right field! So many pediatricians are terrible with children; you can tell this person LOVES children and taking care of them.
So I can either bake these cookies at 400 degrees for 10 minutes or 4,000 degrees for 1 minute.
Traffic in the Chinese coastal city of Taizhou is brought to a standstill when 70-year-old Hong Minshun takes his 5,000 ducks for a walk.
Hong says that regular exercise to reach a nearby feeding pond is necessary to keep his ducks fit and healthy.
Drivers and passers by are amazed by the discipline of the ducks.
[reads short sentence in different language] [victory poses for hours]
quietly demands kishi to expand on ninja-samurai politics
how the fuck is this true. there are many people with less than a complete human skeleton. this requires that some people have more bones than an entire skeleton, or perhaps for one person to have hundreds of millions more bones than an entire skeleton. who is he? who is he??