Facebook bad for marriage says new research

Social networking phenomenon Facebook is at least partly responsible for one in five marriage breakups, if you believe the latest research from a British online divorce service.

By scanning their divorce petition database, they found that the word “Facebook” was used in 989 out of 5,000 cases sampled.

It seems that virtual infidelity, often starting with “inappropriate sexual chats”, have caused the most upset.

Of course, the research isn’t perfect by any means.

Firstly, this is from a scan of their own database, and therefore implies that their clients are technologically savvy.

Secondly, it only scans for one term, and doesn’t imply that use of such Internet services are wholly responsible for people filing for divorce.

Perhaps if there are already problems in a marriage, one or both partners may make problems worse by their online behaviour, but generally I think this would be a byproduct rather than the initial cause.

Having said that, it’s interesting that seven in ten Brits say online flirting is acceptable.

We also have interesting, albeit sensationalist, stories like that of a couple driven apart by online games.

So, I’m not surprised that Facebook and other online activity can play a part in marriage breakdowns, but it’s certainly not the sole cause in most cases.

Why simplistic PinkStinks campaign… stinks

I watched a news item today about PinkStinks, a campaign which claims to be sticking up for “real role models” by calling for the boycotting of stores that sell pink toys aimed at girls.

These days it’s so easy to pick on one particular business or a single small thing and call for an all-out boycott or ban, without looking at the bigger picture.

While I have no problem with non-violent direct action and campaigning, I really take issue with parents being coerced into avoiding struggling retailers because of a simple colour choice.

Most people know and agree that gender inequality exists (though not all is bad: we should look for and celebrate the healthy differences between male and female), but surely there’s still a place for little girls to dress as princesses and little boys as soldiers?

It’s interesting that the campaign is targeting pink (girls) despite the fact that both sexes are often stereotyped.

Take this paragraph on the campaign’s web site:

We know the ELC is not the only toy retailer involved in this practice but we believe that by styling its stores as centres of learning the company is making our children a promise it has an absolute duty to live up to.

Do you know something? Retailers are not responsible for teaching our children about the world, about respect, equality, sex, relationships, or indeed anything else.

That’s the parents job (backed up by real centres of learning — schools)

The problem with the PinkStinks campaign is that it implies an absolved responsibility by parents to educate their children with their own morals and values, and how to be independent-minded, respectful and a good citizen in the world.

Now, I am not suggesting that those who started this campaign are bad parents, but is this really worth hurting a company for?

Boycott and campaign against those who seriously exploit workers, children and others through their products or working practices, sure, but why target companies — already struggling in a bad economy — who are just trying to make the most of the Christmas season.

I have friends with young, headstrong kids (and I do mean headstrong) with their own serious opinions (aged 4 and 8 – they’re quite a match sometimes) and yet the girl still likes dressing in pretty dresses (sometimes pink, sometimes with angel/fairy wings). If she grows up to be anything like her mum I don’t believe she’s going to be stereotyped.

Maybe not all kids are like that. If you don’t want your kids to wear pink, don’t let them. Bring them up your way, and explain to them your beliefs and morals.

That’s your job.

But don’t try to harm a business for selling things that a large proportion of the population wants to buy.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the “pink” stereotype does tend to continue into adulthood. Just take a look at the range of gadgets, clothes and makeup targeted at women that’s pink.

Hurting British businesses who, on the grand scale of things, have done little (if anything) wrong, will only hurt more people in the long run.

I am certain my viewpoint won’t be popular with many, but I stand by my belief that we have to take a much more holistic view of gender stereotypes rather than picking on one small thing.

Please don’t boycott the Early Learning Centre this Christmas. They’re an excellent retailer and deserve your custom.

Update: Here’s a fantastic article from Lindsey (who left a comment here): Why every little girl should have the right to choose pink

Six tips for beating Christmas family arguments (involves conversation)

With one piece of research suggesting that even the best families will argue for seven hours over the Christmas week, or a horrendous three hours per day in the worst case, here are some tips for avoiding fallout this festive period.

Lisa Warner, inventor of FINK family conversation cards, offers these six top tips:

1. Start interesting and engaging conversation: if families simply stare at the TV all day they’re bound to get bored and irritable. Try FINK family conversation cards to get the conversation started.

2. Play family games: group activities are a great way to bond with each other and family games can bring all the generations together.

3. Don’t over stretch yourself: if the thought of cooking for 12 people worries you keep it simple and avoid the stress. Everyone will feel the pressure if you are stressed, so keep it simple and enjoy yourself.

4. Get some sleep: don’t miss out on the fun but remember we all get irritable when we don’t get enough sleep.

5. Take time out: a short break from everyone will give you a little breather and chance to recoup.

6. Ban texting at the table: if your children are texting their friends at the table then they’re not engaging with everyone else.

Rod Stewart recently made a stand with his family by completely banning mobile phones at the dinner table to preserve the art of conversation.

Lisa continued: “It may seem like a simple action but banning kids from texting at the table means they concentrate more and actually engage in the conversation. You have to be vigilant though, some kids are experts at texting without even looking at the phone!”

FinkCards.com

Informal childcare: reasons and influences to be researched

Some 3.9 million parents in the UK currently rely on informal childcare — that which is supplied by friends and relatives — rather than paid-for, formal professional services.

The Daycare Trust has now received a grant of nearly £370,000 from the Big Lottery Fund to look into the reasons and influences for this decision.

Views from parents and carers will be gathered to see how much class, locality, parental status and social disadvantage plays a role, and whether the availability of higher quality formal childcare would influence parental preference.

Chief Executives Alison Garnham and Emma Knights said: “Despite record investment in formal childcare, the number of parents using informal childcare remains higher than for formal provision and politicians are beginning to focus more attention on what it offers. Parents often say ‘trust’ is behind this choice, and this study aims to find out exactly what this means.

“No existing study offers a clear analysis of the reasons parents choose informal childcare, nor do they often consider the views of the carers. Also, the childcare market can look very different depending on where in England you live, as can attitudes towards formal childcare depending on a parent’s ethnicity and social location. We aim to fill these gaps and find out whether there is a real preference for informal care or whether other issues, such as the cost, quality and availability of suitable childcare also play a part.”