Seeznak

Babytalk, PCtalk

Babytalk is the sort of magazine that one reads while sitting in a pediatrician’s office waiting for the two-week-old appointment of one’s two-week-old. That is to say, it is a magazine distractedly and flippantly read by thousands of average people every day. Or: That is to say, it is a potential outlet for winds-of-the-day indoctrination for thousands of average people every day. So a minor note should be made for the August 2008 issue’s surprisingly honest article (at least for these peecey days) by Anita Sethi, Ph.D, concerning gender differences in babies:

As a good postfeminist-era mom, I certainly didn’t push my son toward trucks and my daughter toward tutus. If anything, I went out of my way to avoid giving them gender-stereotyped toys, offering glittery finger paint to my son and trains to my daughter. But it didn’t matter: My son turned his doll’s crib into a race car and my daughter was obsessed with shoes.

It turns out, as Dr. Sethi discovered, that there appears to be a surprising amount of scientific evidence pointing to what may seem fairly obvious to many of us: boys and girls are different.

Boys like action, Dr. Sethi says, and lots of it. They are more adept at tracking motion than girls, hit the major motor skills before girls, would rather look at a mobile than a human face, and express fear less than their feminine counterparts. Girls, on the other hand, learn to mimic far faster than the little guys, manipulate small objects sooner, are more attuned to the sound of the human voice and may actually prefer it to other sounds, are more likely to establish eye contact (especially with other women!) and talk sooner than boys of the same developmental stages.

Man’s condition without Woman, according to God Himself in Genesis 2:18, was an eternally resounding “Not Good.” Man needed an Other, a Compliment, the missing Bone and Flesh in order to be complete, and thus, Woman was created. As Christians, we celebrate the brilliance of God’s plan in bringing opposites together to make a whole (Genesis 2:24), and we celebrate God’s glory displayed in males along with the incredible reality that males have no glory apart from females (I Corinthians 11:7).

The article in Babytalk touched the surface of this, briefly exulting in the abilities and inclinations (what we Christians often call ‘gifts’) unique to each sex, and I commend Dr. Sethi for it. But the editors of Babytalk felt the need to ensure that no one mistook this little article for a cloud, and added their own silver lining in an additional box that (thankfully) is only seen in the printed version, titled, “It’s Not All Pink and Blue”:

Before you run out and buy a Tonka for your son, recognize that this research is about the average baby, not your little guy or gal. Here are some key points to keep in mind about the wide range of normal behaviors:

All is well thus far, and most of their subsequent points aren’t too bad (but neither are they too great; do our TV’s not preach well enough about how individual everybody is?). The first point, however, flatly contradicts the preceding article while offering no grounds for its assumption:

A baby is herself first, and a girl second. Your child’s individuality plays a much more influential role than sex. So encourage all of your baby’s interests, even if they seem stereotyped or at odds with what’s “normal.”

It’s a funny brand of logic- the article consistently points to the differences between male and female, yet the editors feel the need to immediately play the trump card ensuring that every child is defined by their “individuality” (”preference”? “orientation”? “choice”?) rather than how they have been made. Every child has the potential to incline towards gender confusion, and the editors have made sure that the reader’s mind is assured that this is what is truly normal.

Normal was identified in the article: boys behave in certain ways, girls behave in certain differing ways. Yet the point is made to ensure a new kind of normalcy, apart from any law or code or morals: the parent must encourage all their child’s interests, while refraining from altering that child’s behavior to fit any stereotyped mould.

If this is what many-a-parent who waits in a pediatrician’s office nonchalantly soaks in, it is a frightening prospect for the future of this generation.

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. - Proverbs 22:15

Whose Right?

Ten-year old Ashley, born with cerebral palsy, is 4′5″, and 63 pounds- and she’s done growing. Her parents made the decision two years ago to submit her to a treatment which included a hystorectomy, breast surgery, and drugs to stop her growth into adulthood. Today, the “Ashley treatment” is considered by her parents to be a success. Her height and weight will remain the same, and she will never experience menstrual cramps or develop sexually. The treatment neither fixes her condition, nor physically does anything to improve it; and whether this will benefit her or her caretakers the most is debatable.

Never mind that the treatment was (and is) illegal; CNN.com reports that Ashley’s parents have stated, “If parents of children like Ashley believe this treatment will improve their children’s quality of life, then they should be diligent and tenacious in providing it for them. We have a sacred duty to do what we believe is right for our children.”

Ashley, and other children like her, are incapable of making their own decisions, and depend entirely on the assistance of others to accomplish even the most basic functions. Children like Ashley do not talk, walk, or consume any food that doesn’t come through a tube. So they are, as they must and should be, completely under the authority of their parents. But when it comes to making individual decisions, what makes a decision the right one?

For Ashley’s parents, the standard for “rightness” was their belief that their decision improved their child’s quality of life.

But is it right to deprive a human being of the ability to experience growth into adulthood, as different as that adulthood might be from what is considered ‘normal’? “We have a sacred duty to do what we believe is right for our children.” From what source does this ‘sacred duty’ stem? Is it the same source as (what some might claim to be) Ashley’s sacred right to experience the natural course of her life?

Such bioethical questions are far from being black and white, and even the gray shades are turning into a very tempting rainbow of alluring choices. Should we clone humans or harvest embryos for spare body parts? My answer is an emphatic no. But how about Ashley? Her “worst enemies” are height and weight, and, as she will retain the physical and mental capacities of a six-month-old, she will have no need to experience the menstrual cycle. Does this make it right for parents and doctors to toy with her God-given body? What about tampering with the DNA of an unborn child to remove a tendency for cancer? How about electronic implants? Chemical altering pills? Aspirin?

The parents’ defense of their decision, and unfortunately many of my own, echo the assessment of the author of the book of Judges on the state of rebellious Israel: “Everyone did what right in his own eyes.”