Wall Street Journal writer Stephen Kreider Yoder has a new column co-written with his 17-year-old son Isaac, in which they debate parent/child finance issues. In their first column, Elder Yoder refuses to give his son ten dollars to buy new strings for his guitar. Yoder the Younger, who admits to having a part-time job, requests the string money on the basis that playing an instrument provides the kind of cultural enrichment his parents encourage. After all, he reasons, they pay for the guitar lessons, and wouldn't they pay for new strings for the family piano? So who do you think should pay for the strings?
My opinion in this case rests upon my theory that there are two categories of musical instruments. "Instruments for virgins," like the family piano or the band clarinet, should be subsidized by parents. "Cool instruments" like the guitar, bass, or drums, can get you laid and therefor do not have anything to do with your parents. If they don't mind parting with the cash, that's fine, take it. But they don't have a duty to contribute to your game.
"Young people with excessive use of cell phones (both talking and text messaging) have increased restlessness with more careless lifestyles, more consumption of stimulating beverages, difficulty in falling asleep and disrupted sleep, and more susceptibility to stress and fatigue," concludes a new study of a tiny number of Swedish teens. Yes, teen life is a technicolor hystero-drama, and it looks like the kids do suffer from having access to it 24/7 via their cellphones. I bet unlimited access to social networking websites has the same effect. I know a lot of oldies in their '30s who are texting in the middle of the night, too, but we are sinners and don't deserve any better! Would it benefit teens to have some rest from connection with their friends?
For those of you trying to steer girls through adolescence with the least amount of abusive girl-bullying possible, a new study from the University of Alberta: High school girls who consider themselves attractive are 35% more likely to be "indirectly victimized". As are older sexually active girls! Does this mean low self-esteem can prevent bullying--like if you put yourself down and DON'T consider yourself attractive, the other kids won't see you as a threat so they won't spread nasty rumors about you? Or is there really and truly a tendancy to try to bring down those girls who are blessed with beauty? By the way, those with attractive sons can breath a sigh of relief--boys who consider themselves good-looking are 25% less likely to be picked on.
Will you give them the down and dirty on YOUR high school days? While recounting stories of innocent high school pranks with my high school daughter, she took the opportunity to look me straight in the eye and ask "Did you party when you were my age?" I froze. Truth be told, I was a good girl with good grades, a relentless soccer player, and yes, an underage beer drinker. Thinking back now, there were moments I'm not proud of, but I came out of it relatively unscathed. And yet, I'm not one of those parents who thinks it's ok to buy the kids beer as long as they stay in the basement. My goal has always been to help my daughter become a strong, independant thinker who can make tough choices for herself, and I think honesty goes a long way toward that. I put her off with a "Let's talk about that later" and haven't brought it up again. In this case, is honesty the best poicy?
Is it a good idea to secretly monitor your kids' computer usage? According to this article, it might be a good idea to put spyware on your kid's computer. The cyber world can be dangerous and you might want to know where junior is going. Is it a good idea to spy on the kids, or no?
