By P Getty
Recently, an uproar in the media erupted after J. Crew put out an online ad featuring Jenna Lyons and her young son. The picture portrays a loving mother and son smiling and caring on—they seem like a lovely pair. Some however, like Fox News contributor and hack psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, only saw the Devil in the details. Rather than seeing it for what it is—a warm expression of a happy family—all he could see is that the young lad has neon pink nail polish. Ablow, in his reaction to the piece stated that “it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affect by your ‘innocent’ pleasure.”
Boggling my mind the most is the fact that this ignorant statement comes from a psychiatrist, a professional who should be up on the literature of gender-role and LGBT socialization and their outcomes. Rather than getting in to the nuts and bolts of gender development (this is not an undergraduate development course), I do what to tackle his suggestion that a lack of strict adherence to sexual and gender roles lead to negative psychological outcomes. What he seems to have forgotten is that any negative outcomes associated with LGBT folks is not because of who they are, it is because of the lack of acceptance from their families and other ignorant fools who cannot seems to realize that their own beliefs are not shared by others. In fact, recent evidence presented by Doctors Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz and Sanchez (2010) in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatirc Nursing, suggests that when LGBT youths are respected and accepted by their families, positive outcomes are predicted. They can expect to have higher self-esteem and general health. They are also less likely to experience depression, substance abuse and thoughts of suicide.
What is ironic about this whole thing is that the outcomes Dr. Ablow predicts come about because of intolerant behavior like Dr. Ablow’s. God save the child that comes from Dr. Ablow’s loins that happens to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered—hopefully he will have set aside money for their psychotherapy to un-warp any damage his intolerant behavior might cause.
Follow link to Ryan et al.’s (2010) article on acceptance and positive outcomes for LGBT youth
Follow link to Dr. Ablow’s Hackery!
by P. Getty
I want to begin this entry with a short apology to my loyal readers—all ten of you—for taking some time away from the blog. I understand if you are upset, what with being without your biweekly fix of weird thoughts and rants that I proudly contribute to the psychological community. I understand that I have slacked in this charge. I will, unless environmental influences shift even more drastically than they already have, continue to provide that service. Still, I feel that I owe you, my loyal reader, an explanation for my absence. Well, if the picture that accompanies this entry and the title above doesn’t give it away, the reason for my absence was that my son, Lucas Kinan (which means danger in Japanese if you are interested) was born on February 2nd, 2011, at 21:20 hrs. So I was away becoming baby daddy! Strangely, since then, my demeanor has shifted slightly to that of a sleep-deprived zombie. Despite this, however, I’m confident in my new role as baby daddy and look forward to this new adventure while getting back to the blogin’. Weirdly, my positive attitude seems to be in contrast to what is expected from a person in my shoes, according to the relevant literature.
In a resent review of the literature on men transitioning to fatherhood, Genesoni and Tallandini (2009) identified three phases in this transition that coincide with the stages of their pregnant partners (i.e., prenatal, labor and birth; finally, postnatal). Each stage is accompanied by its own set of challenges and obstacles for the transitioning male. While I don’t want to give away the ending, I will point out that the authors suggest that the postnatal stage (the stage I’m in) has the potential to be the most inter- and intra-personally challenging in the sense of dealing with their our new identity as the baby daddy. Not me! I’m lovin’ it! Of course, it could be the significant increase in caffeine I’ve consumed daily in order to combat the lack of Zs. Nevertheless, I’m sure this new caffeinated adventure will be full of the strange and the weird, like the rest of my life. With that, there should be interesting tales and experiences that will no doubt find their way into this blog.
With that, I would like to congratulate myself and the rest of the newly named baby daddies out their, and wish us good luck, we are going to need it.
Genesoni & Tallandini (2009)
By Kevin R. Betts
I stumbled across an interesting news story this weekend that detailed a 13 year old Korean American’s ambitious goal to restore peace between North and South Korea. His name is Jonathan Lee, and he is the founder of I.C.E.Y. H.O.P.E., a youth humanitarian environmental group that seeks to convince North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-il to plant a children’s peace force in the demilitarized zone that separates the two Koreas. Lee says, “What I would really like, if possible, like maybe the children from both countries could be able to meet and play with each other. Like a big playground.”
The contact hypothesis predicts that Lee’s efforts should result in at least some success. In general, the contact hypothesis suggests that interpersonal contact is the most effective way of reducing biases among conflicting groups (Wagner, Tropp, Finchilescu, & Tredoux, 2008). And although Lee’s efforts are geared toward children who may not yet have developed these biases, positive benefits may be seen in the unprejudiced views of these children as they age, as well as the views of watchful Korean nationals who observe this contact. However, for contact to truly be effective, research tells us that it must occur amid certain conditions. First, contact must be between equal status groups. If one country’s children are treated as subordinate to those of the other country, contact is unlikely to yield positive outcomes. Second, the two groups must share common goals. For children, one common goal may be as simple as having fun. For adults, these goals may revolve around reducing tensions among North and South Koreans in later generations. Third, intergroup cooperation must be present. For efforts at peace to be effective, cooperation on both sides of the Koreas is necessary. Fourth, authorities, law, or custom must support this intergroup contact. For Lee’s ambitious goals to stand a chance, both North and South Korean leaders must support his attempts.
The results of Lee’s efforts remain to be seen. Yet, the consistency of these efforts with the contact hypothesis gives us reason to be hopeful. Peace between North and South Korea still remains possible.
Korean-American teenager shares ambitious peace plan
Wagner, U., Tropp, L.R., Finchilescu, G. & Tredoux, C. (Eds.). (2008). Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
View other posts by Kevin R. Betts
Posted in Culture and Diversity, Group/Intergroup Processes
Tagged children, conflict, contact hypothesis, humanitarian, I.C.E.Y. H.O.P.E., International, Jonathan Lee, Kevin R. Betts, Kim Jong-il, North Korea, peace, Peace force, South Korea