Alan Kercinik has been a Chicagoan his whole life and a dad since 2009. He finds it easy to relate to his two boys, since he still likes most things from his childhood. All opinions here are his own, to the relief of his wife, employer, family and majority of his friends.
Loading tweets...
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column on Sunday, detailing the findings of an upcoming study about the effects of stress on kids. The short version: toxic stress is not good for them.
This is hardly surprising. All of us, at one time or another, have probably felt the effects of a toxic relationship, environment or situation. Spend some time in any of those and you feel run down and defeated. And we have considerably more means to cope than a child.
What struck me was this:
Toxic stress might arise from parental abuse of alcohol or drugs. It could occur in a home where children are threatened and beaten. It might derive from chronic neglect — a child cries without being cuddled. Affection seems to defuse toxic stress — keep those hugs and lullabies coming! — suggesting that the stress emerges when a child senses persistent threats but no protector.
The kids the American Academy of Pediatrics are concerned with are really young, pre pre-school. While the study is concerned with children in bad situations that spring from a host of sources, I don’t think that limited affection happens only on certain rungs of the societal ladder. And the sources for toxic stress while the baby is still cooking — smoking, drinking, drug abuse — are certainly not limited to certain neighborhoods, either.
Whose heart is so hardened, whose troubles so large, that they can’t get past that and not feel compelled to hug their babies or show their kids some affection or make them feel safe? I thought that was instinctual.
And it also sounds like a stereotypical man problem, with our centuries-long problem of showing affection. Sometimes we withhold, it’s true. But maybe this will give us all a reminder not to.
And to not prove out the wisdom of Keanu Reeves.