Too Fat to Love?

(Published on Dad-O-Matic, 13 January 2009)

The Government are frequently heard to proclaim that 'families' are the most important thing in life. We all know that a stable family environment is good for the development of happy children.

We also know the statistics - that children in Local Authority Care tend to perform less well in school, garner fewer qualifications and have lower chances in life than those from a family environment.

The importance of adoption cannot be overestimated. Adopted children are rescued from the State care system and, if the system is implemented properly, placed in loving environments where they can flourish. That, surely, is better than the alternative stagnant future for a child in care.

Yet it would seem that to Leeds City Council, the future well-being of a child is less important than whether the parents eat All-Bran.

Parents banned from giving a child the loving home all children need. Not because they're alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts or benefits sponges - but because the prospective Dad is overweight. It's revolting. Do the worthies at Leeds City Council really think that the love of a child is dependent upon the body shape of the parent?

Or is it just that their Nannying imperative is now so strong, their need to ensure that the lost kids of Britain, already abandoned (for whatever reason) by one set of parents, deserve only the unfeeling bureaucracy of the State as a future?

The Righteous of Leeds City Council should hang their heads in shame for the child they have just condemned.

Stop With the Sanitising!

I've had all I can stand, I can't stand no more....

I am sick, sick SICK of hearing that for my surfaces to be 'clean' I need to have killed all the bacteria as well, for the sake of my children. What utter, pointless, dishonest, health-&-safety crap.

Firstly, the bloody Dettol advert is in itself misleading. It states quite clearly that "1 bacteria can become 2 million overnight", so you should use Dettol to be clean and safe. It then tells you it kills 99.9% of bacteria - thus ensuring that when you use it after dinner you're going to leave 1% remaining. Which means you'll be well past that 2 million count by breakfast anyway.

Bacteria Maths 101:
99.9% of 2 million = 1,998,000. Leaving 2000. So if 1 can get to 2 million overnight, that means even if you start with 2 million then use this, the next morning you'll have two billion of the hardy little buggers, all of which come from the original stock that survived your chemical attack. Futile, innit?

Secondly - who the hell says that every surface in the house needs to be sanitised to within an inch of its life? I don't plan to eat sushi out of my sink, nor have a quick snack of steak tartare on my kitchen floor. For that matter, neither will my 3yo. And I'll be making my son scrambled eggs, not performing an appendectomy on him (though if he wakes me up at 0530 again, I may feel some temptation. . . .)

For the same reason, why on earth do I need to kill off every single bacteria present on the *inside* of my toilet? I want it looking clean, sure - but let's face it, if I wake up thirsty in the night I'm probably going to grab a glass of water from the tap, not dip a glass into the lavatory bowl. Even if I'm pretty drunk.

I believe - I truly, absolutely believe - that it's hugely important for children to be *exposed* to bacteria. Pretty much all of us grew up playing outside, making (and probably eating) mud pies, splashing in puddles and $DEITY knows what else. Sure, some of us got sick. But the really cool bit is that our bodies defended us from the illness when we got sick, and in doing so developed in us a resistance for the next time some nasties came along.

I know the 'health and safety, protect kids at all costs' would dearly love us to keep our offspring in sterile oxygen tents, breathing HEPA-filtered air scrubbed of any and all airborne pathogens - and they do their level best to guilt-trip us into doing so. But that's not how we started, not how we evolved. We didn't even have antibiotics until the 1940's - we certainly lacked 'anti-bacterial multi-surface biological cleany-sterilisy fluid stuff.

Maybe I'm wrong - but if we already have a plethora of antibiotic-resistant pathogens because of historical over-prescribing of antibiotics, aren't we increasing the risk to our children by reducing their exposure to the bacteria that surround us every day? Aren't we forcing our kids back into the shallow end of the gene pool, and increasing their risk of contracting something really nasty at some unspecified future point?

These adverts attempt to guilt-trip us into using their product to protect our children. I personally think that by their use, we're doing the exact opposite.

(Published on Dad-O-Matic, 9 Nov 2008)

'Weekend Dads' Should Still be Parents

(Published on Dad-O-Matic 14/10/2008.)

So The Darling G and I were in Yo! Sushi on Saturday, and sat opposite us was a father with a somewhat uncooperative teenager. A bit of eavesdropping over our makis indicated that what we were seeing was a Weekend Dad.

They finished lunch quickly - Dad trying (and failing) to communicate, and in doing so showing a woeful lack of understanding of his son's life and activities. They then rolled off, with Dad asking directions to the cinema. I suppose the cinema made it easier for him - after all, one doesn't have to talk when watching a movie.

This is, I would imagine, a scene repeated in burger bars and tourist attractions across the country every weekend. And it got me thinking - does it really have to be like that?

I am one of the many Weekend Dads in this country. But I don't believe that being a dad at weekends means you have to be a Weekend Dad.

I see my son every Thursday evening to do bedtime stories, and we have him overnight for three weekends in every four. Additionally, we also take my former stepson, as his father only visits once every five weeks (if he's not doing anything else) and let's face it - every boy needs a regular male influence. Both The Darling G and I (and, I'm proud to say, the rest of my family) make a point of ensuring that Josh and Jay are treated absolutely equally, and both are referred to and treated as my sons. (But that's another post).

I think it's important, though, that weekend visits and the like don't descend into the 'easy stuff' - cinema, wildlife park, McDonalds and so on - because in doing so, the Weekend Dad is making it easy for himself, not his child.

Rather, I believe that it's better to take the harder route - involve the children in the normal minutae of weekends, with the normal treats that would come to a child in a normal relationship. For us, this can mean taking the boys to Argos to choose some new bedding for their bunks, then to buy some new shoes for Joshua, and stopping for a drink in Mostly Books in Abingdon rather than a fat-laden snack at Burger King. We do Jason's homework together and in the evening we eat together at the table, with no TV (and no multiple-choice dining either, there's only one choice). They get a joint bedtime story, with Jason helping me read to Josh, and they don't get outlandish bedtimes.

We keep to the same rules and discipline as anyone else would, with the same consequences.

Instead of the guilt-trip overload of expensive substitutes, the boys get regular love and affection as a child should. They get stability, a degree of routine and the ability to talk about things normally rather than, as Mr Weekend Dad was doing, an interrogation on what's happening devoid of emotional understanding.

Being a Weekend Dad is not an easy thing to do (it's even harder when one of the children has no biological link to either of you at all). I wouldn't profess to have all the answers. But I do think that by creating a family unit for the times you see the kids, rather than making every time a special occasion, you get to know your children better and establish a more stable, lasting and positive relationship.

Being A Story-Teller

When you take a look inside a book Who knows what you might see? A story or rhyme - so take the time And read along with me!

The job of Storyteller has a long and worthy history in this country and is, I'm happy to say, an old tradition that in recent years has been resurrected - and rightly so.

However, I don't think it's just the role of an official storyteller, or that of teachers, to introduce children to the wonders of the written word.

To me, teaching our kids to read and instilling them with a love of books and literature is, quite simply, one of the best gifts of love a parent can bestow.

We have the chance to show them whole new worlds inhabiting the pages; to enhance their imaginations and creative skills by showing them how characters can come to life inside their minds; to instil in them a love of the knowledge they can find within books; and to teach them that they need never be bored while there's a library nearby.

We're blessed in that we have such a vast range of authors and genres which we can use to do this. From Dr Seuss to Roald Dahl, from AA Milne to JK Rowling. It's all there for us to read to, and with, our children.

I'm not fortunate enough to be with my two boys 24/7, but I'm luckier than many in that I have plenty of access and I make time to spend with them as well. And for me, the best part of that time is reading with them, which I do every Thursday evening as well as at weekends.

With Josh, who's just three, it's mostly bedtime stories and Dr Seuss - but to see his eyes light up when we read 'The Cat in the Hat' together is just amazing. I've also started introducing him to poetry - today, for example, we were walking around the living room to AA Milne's 'Lines and Squares', stepping in time to the rhythm of the verse, both of us shouting, "Bears!" at the appropriate moment.

Then there was the wonderful moment of reciting 'Jabberwocky' - chasing a screaming Josh around the room, being 'the jaws that bite, the claws that catch'. He loves it, and he doesn't even know he's learning.

Jay, at 10, is more difficult, however Roald Dahl is always a winner. His characters are so vibrant and rounded, his goodies so good and his villians so vile, that it gains and holds the attention of even an older boy. And of course, the graphic descriptions of baddies meeting sticky ends is always popular. We're doing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - and we share the reading, so he both learns and is entertained at the same time.

I've also started bringing poetry to Jay - he needs a little help with his reading at the moment, and the cadence and structure of simple poems seems to aid both his concentration on the words and also on his expressiveness when reading. The choice of subject matter also helps - I find that snot-related verse seems to have the desired effect!

My best friend Loudmouthman recently wrote an excellent piece on the Duty and Responsibility of being a Dad, which I urge you to read. However, I believe that a big part of that responsibility is very simple.

Read with your kids.

You never know - it might even be fun.

(This piece is published on Dad-o-Matic. There's good stuff there. Go and read it.)