Marcia Sirota's Blog, page 32

Harvey Weinstein is Addicted to Power, Not Sex

Harvey Weinstein has entered a treatment facility in Arizona to deal with what he describes as a “sex addiction.” I call BS, and so do many, many others.

In reading numerous articles about Mr. Weinstein and about the way the notion of “sex addiction” is used to justify certain wealthy, connected men’s compulsion to violate consent, one thing has become clear: the only thing Harvey Weinsten is addicted to is power.

In an article by James Hamblin for The Atlantic, the author writes that “some people go to prison” for crimes like rape and sexual assault, while “others go to rehab,” and he adds that “the ability to even sell this narrative [that the acts were due to a “sex addiction,”] is a luxury disproportionately afforded to powerful men.”

Mr. Hamblin goes on to say that “the more glaring problem with the narrative is the mischaracterization of the incidents [by Weinstein] as “sexual” – and [driven by] an addiction to that sex.”

He states that “these [incidents] are… problems of power and status that manifest as a violent disregard for others – a failure to acknowledge the autonomy of women… and a compulsion to revoke it by force.”

Mr. Hamblin finds it “especially jarring to hear… [Weinstein] professing a lack of agency in these acts.” In Mr. Hamblin’s opinion, the only compulsion Mr. Weinstein and other men like him could be diagnosed with is “an inability to hold oneself accountable.”

In a Huffington Post article by Lindsay Holmes, she writes that “compulsive sexual conduct is separate from violating consent in sexual relations.”

She quotes Chris Samuels, director of the Sexual Addiction Treatment and Training Institute in New York, who explained that “the perpetrator (of sexual misconduct) is opportunistic… motivated by power dynamics… self-justifying and remorseless.”

Ms. Samuels adds that “the sex addict, by contrast, is… dealing with compulsive urges to act out as a coping modality, [and] is seeking emotional relief from stress rather than seeking to exercise power over another, and is rarely without shame or guilt about his or her behavior.”

Ms. Holmes quotes another expert, Kathryn Stamoulis, a licensed mental health counselor, who says that “sexual assault is not the same as sex. The consent piece is crucial.”

Ms. Stamoulis adds that “if someone has repeatedly harassed, chased [or] masturbated in front of someone who is clearly uncomfortable or saying no, there may be another diagnosis more appropriate, such as… sexual sadism disorder.”

In an article by Sophie Roberts for The Sun UK, the author quotes Dr. Mark Griffiths, a professor of behavioural addiction who says that “in my view high profile celebrities use ‘sex addiction’ as an excuse for being sexually unfaithful to their partners… [and] Harvey Weinstein appears to fall into this group.”

Dr. Griffiths adds that “saying that you have a sex addiction is used to justify the individual’s serial infidelity.” He’s convinced that men only use this excuse, like Tiger Woods did, when they get caught with their pants down.

In an article by Susan Matthews for Slate, the author writes that “the idea that Weinstein’s “punishment” would be hours and hours of “counseling” was simply another frustrating manifestation of the extreme privilege given to powerful men like him.”

She quotes Douglas Braun-Harvey, a sex educator and counselor, who says that the sex addiction excuse “provides the person something outside of themselves [upon which] to initially place responsibility. It’s very common.”

Ms. Matthews also quotes psychologist and sex therapist David Lee, who stresses that “sex addiction is a moralistic pseudoscience that is used to excuse the selfish behaviors of those who hold sexual privilege, in order to protect them from the consequences of their choices.”

Ms. Matthews writes that “there is no formal diagnosis for “sex addiction” and that the sex therapists she spoke with call this pseudo-diagnosis “a get-out-of-jail-free card for behavior that is harmful to others.”

In the same article, the author quotes Samantha Manewitz, a certified sex therapist, who says that “this type of sexual violence isn’t about sex. It’s about power.”

Braun-Harvey is quoted as saying that “it is possible for people who have participated in nonconsensual behavior to seek counseling,” but that it’s a different treatment than “sex-addiction rehab,” and he adds that “there’s no way of knowing” who will or won’t respond to treatment.

In referring to Weinstein, Ms. Matthews writes that “when it comes to reform, there’s only one type of accountability that matters: his honesty with himself. And he doesn’t seem to even be trying. He’s just looking for somewhere else to place the blame,” and in my opinion as a psychiatrist, this is the only reason why men like Weinstein claim “sex addiction.”

In an article by Maggie Fox for NBC News, the author writes that with regard to Mr. Weinstein’s behaviour, “experts contacted by NBC News said that whatever he may have done, he’s not a sex addict. And most say there’s no such thing as sex addiction.”

Ms. Fox quotes David J. Ley, a clinical psychologist, who says that “sex addiction” “is a concept that has been used to explain selfish, powerful, wealthy men engaging in irresponsible impulsive sexual behavior for a long time.”

Ley adds that with regard to centers such as the one Mr. Weinstein has entered, “after 40 years of sex addiction treatment, there is still no published evidence that this treatment works,” and that “this is an [exploitative] industry that loves to capitalize on these celebrity sex addiction scandals so they can get referrals.”

From all of the above, as well as my own professional experience, it’s obvious that the “diagnosis” of sex addiction is nothing less than what powerful men claim when they want to continue escaping responsibility for their crimes involving the abuse of their power and the violation of other people’s consent.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. November is all about growing self-compassion.

The Enablers Who Support Men Like Harvey Weinstein Are Just as Guilty

It appears that Harvey Weinstein may face prosecution for decades of alleged sexual crimes against women, ranging from sexual bullying to rape.

It must be pointed out, however, that a man like Harvey Weinstein doesn’t operate in a vacuum. For him to be able to continue his egregious pattern of sexual predation over a period of decades, there had to be enablers making it possible for him to carry on, unchecked.

In a previous article in the Huffington Post, I wrote about how the victims of sexual assault most often feel hopeless about speaking out, given the near-impossibility of obtaining justice.

It’s only now, since the New York Times story by Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor was published on October 5th, followed by Ronan Farrow’s October 10th article in The New Yorker, that over 32 women have felt empowered to come forward and describe their experiences with Mr. Weinstein.

I’m convinced that it’s taken this long for the truth to emerge because of the numerous enablers around Weinstein. In my opinion, here are just a few of these enablers.

First enabler, his company. According to several news sources, including The Telegraph, Mr. Weinstein’s 2015 contract stipulated that the board of his film company “could not terminate his employment over sexual harassment claims if he paid off women to silence them – as long as he paid out the money himself.”

According to the article in the Telegraph, Mr. Weinstein was  expected to pay fines to his company: “$250,000 for the first payout, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third, and $1  million for each additional instance,” and he’d only be at risk of termination “if he failed to notify the board of any settlements that were reached.”

If this is indeed true, then his company would have had to know all about Mr. Weinstein’s behavior and the board’s statement that they were shocked by his actions would be disingenuous.

Second enabler, his brother, Bob Weinstein, who’s been in business with Harvey since 1979. In her article for eonline.com, Natalie Finn describes how Bob worked closely with his brother over several decades, during which at least eight financial settlements were made to women over alleged sexual misconduct.

Ms. Finn goes on to say that Bob knew of “a 2015 memo written by TWC employee Lauren Connor that detailed allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against Harvey and called the company ‘a toxic environment for women’.”  One wonders why it’s only now that Bob Weinstein is speaking up.

Third enabler, NBC News. This Comcast-owned company seems to have done everything in its power to quash the report on Weinstein that Ronan Farrow had been preparing.

In a HuffPost Media article by Yashar Ali and Lydia Polgreen, the writers state that NBC executives rejected Ronan Farrow’s story about Harvey Weinstein as “not reportable,” even though Farrow had a taped interview with actress Rose McGowan, in which she accused Mr. Weinstein of sexually assaulting her when she was 23, as well as an audio recording of  Weinstein admitting to having sexually assaulted an Italian model, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez.

In an article for The Daily Beast, Farrow is quoted as saying, “I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been made public earlier. And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that. And it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

The Daily Beast article goes on to say, “According to a television industry insider familiar with Farrow’s NBC News project… ‘Farrow and his producer had been working this for 10 months. They had eight interviews on camera…They had an NYPD audio tape, and they had enough for a story. And NBC did everything they could to delay it, complicate it, and ultimately Noah [Oppenheim] killed it. NBC shut it down’.”

Fourth enabler, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. In an article by Rebecca Rosenberg and Bruce Golding for the New York Post,  the authors report that Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer gave the DA over $26,000 in campaign donations shortly after Vance let Weinstein off the hook over charges of groping a model in 2015.

In a New York Times opinion piece by Jane Manning, the director of advocacy for the National Organization for Women – NYC, she writes that in the above case, “There was more than “legally sufficient” evidence [to pursue a case]. Yet Mr. Vance, who received large campaign contributions from an attorney who has represented Mr. Weinstein, declined to prosecute.”

In a Vanity Fair article by Chris Smith, the author also notes that Vance had “dropped a 2012 criminal investigation of Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. over their misleading statements to prospective condo-buyers – after a conversation with Trump family lawyer Marc Kasowitz, one of the largest donors to Vance’s political campaigns.”

In referring to Weinstein’s case, Smith quotes Alice Vachss, the former chief of the Special Victims Bureau in Queens, who says, “There’s no one who could listen to this tape and think that it’s an isolated incident. He [Weinstein] says, ‘I’m used to that!’ And you can’t say, ‘This is a guy passing through, we’ll never see him again, he’ll never commit another crime in our jurisdiction.’ You’re looking for the pattern guys, and this is clearly a pattern guy. This is enough to start a big investigation.” And yet, Vance neglected to pursue the case.

Harvey Weinstein appears to be the worst type of sexual predator. One can only hope that he’ll now face more serious consequences, including prosecution for at least some of his alleged crimes.

What’s equally horrifying to me is that Weinstein, and many men like him, are enabled in their predations by those around them. Until this type of enabling stops, men like Weinstein will continue to do whatever they want, for as long as they want to.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. November is all about growing self-compassion.

The Harvey Weinstein Allegations Point to a Culture of Misogyny

I find myself saddened, angry and disgusted that once again, the news is filled with stories about a powerful man of influence – in this case, film producer Harvey Weinstein – who has allegedly used his position to systematically harass and sexually abuse women over a period of decades.

What makes this situation so bad is that yet again, many people around him knew what Mr. Weinstein was doing but allowed his behaviour to continue unchecked. It’s not just the fact that Weinstein has purportedly been abusing women for decades that offends me; it’s the fact that at least some part of his behaviour was a well-known “secret” in Hollywood.

Many questions come to my mind. For example, “Why did Mr. Weinstein think that he could behave so badly toward women and get away with it?”

I wonder, “Why can a man spend years sexually harassing and abusing women and all his colleagues allow it to go on?”

Another question I have is “Why did his victims remain silent until now?”

Interestingly, the answer I’ve come up with is the same for all three questions.

I believe that the reason why Mr. Weinstein thought he could get away with his egregious behaviour, why those around him turned a blind eye to it and why his victims remained silent is this: the decks are totally stacked against women when it comes to sexual harassment, abuse and assault.

I think that we live in a culture that’s fundamentally misogynistic, in which women continue to be objectified, sexualized and harassed with little said or done about such things.

You only have to look at side-by-side visual representations of men and women in the media to note the glaring discrepancies. Men are portrayed as exciting, adventurous, strong, bold, or intelligent. Women are almost exclusively portrayed as sexy and alluring.

Even female doctors, lawyers and scientists who appear in the media to comment on various topics more often than not show up for their interviews in low-necked tops and high-heeled shoes.

Women are routinely fired as news anchors when they’re deemed no longer sexually attractive, and female stars are required to pose in magazine spreads in their underwear, while their male counterparts get to be photographed in jeans.

For far too long, women haven’t been treated fairly at the workplace, by the police or in the courts when trying to obtain justice around experiences of sexual harassment or assault. It’s almost impossible for a woman to be taken seriously when she comes forward with such a complaint. As a result, far too many women simply give up and don’t bother.

Things have barely changed since the times not too long ago when a woman’s entire sexual history was dragged in front of the court during the trial of her rapist. Her alleged assailant had more rights, and certainly more rights to privacy, than his victim(s) ever did.

It’s no wonder that Mr. Weinstein’s alleged victims remained silent and his colleagues failed to address his behaviour. The helplessness we all feel when dealing with issues of sexual abuse is overwhelming.

In an article by Anna Mehler Paperny for Global News, she writes that according to an Ipsos Reid poll, only 18% of women who’ve experienced sexual assault have gone to the police.

According to this poll, 71% of the women who did report the assault to the police had an overall negative experience, with almost 80% of this group feeling either “abandoned” or “devastated” as a result.

In fact, “some survivors report that the detailed investigation by law enforcement can make them feel further violated and not believed, a situation researchers have termed the ‘second rape’ or ‘secondary victimization’.”

In terms of cases going to court, only a small fraction of the reports of sexual assault see the inside of a courtroom, with an even tinier number of convictions, and even then, sentences are more like slaps on the wrist than meaningful consequences for the nature of the crimes.

A study from the UK Center for Research on Violence Against Women found that only 37% of reported rape cases and only 14-18% of reported sexual assaults of any kind were prosecuted. The study also found that the rate of conviction was only around 18%.

The biggest bombshell of this study is that “if the total number of rapes based on victimization surveys instead of only those reported to police are considered, only 3-4% of rape incidents lead to a conviction.”

In an article by Janette Gagnon for CNN,  she discussed the case of college athlete Brock Turner who received a six-month sentence for the sexual assault of a sleeping woman. She explains in her article how common it is for young athletes to get off with a light sentence.

In her article, Ms. Gagnon quotes Philadelphia prosecutor Jennifer Long, who says that “far too often we look at perpetrators in a less blameworthy way and minimize what happened to the victim.”

According to recent US Bureau of Justice statistics, “for each convicted offender in a prison or jail there are… 3 offenders under probation or parole supervision in the community.”

These statistics note that for convicted rapists “the average sentence they…received (was) about 6 1/2 years, while the average time served (was)… just under 3 years.”

This seems awfully short when we consider that Federal felony drug offenders received average sentences of over 7 years and those convicted of robbery had sentences equal to those convicted of rape.

We live in a culture of misogyny, where lip service is paid to women’s rights. We are still seen in the media as sex objects to be displayed for the delectation of male audiences and we are still viewed by the workplace, the police and in the courts as not sufficiently valuable that our complaints of sexual abuse be seriously addressed.

Until things start to change – and I don’t see this happening anytime soon under the current US administration – men like Mr. Weinstein will continue to have carte blanche around sexually harassing and assaulting the innocent women they come into contact with.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. November is all about growing self-compassion.

Is President Trump Doing His Best to Bring Out the Worst in Us?

When I was a kid, there was this cartoon trope in which a little angel and a little devil would be seen occupying each of the shoulders of a person who was trying to make a choice.

The angel was encouraging the fellow to do the right thing and the devil was insisting that he follow his basest impulses and indulge in greed, aggression, or whichever of the deadly sins happened to be on the table.

Even in cartoon land, it was understood that human beings have the potential to follow their “angelic,” or good side or their “devilish,” dark side.

They could be kind, caring, responsible individuals or they could be selfish, greedy and aggressive. Even in cartoon land, it was clear that whichever side of ourselves we end up expressing always comes down to a choice.

Some people naturally gravitate to one side or to the other. The Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King – all of these people seemed to naturally gravitate toward the good.

Idi Amin, Hitler, the Duvaliers, Osama Bin Laden, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson – all of these individuals seemed to naturally gravitate toward the dark side of their personality.

Many of us learn from our parents, our society, our religion or our culture which part of our psyche to draw from. We look to the people around us for guidance and encouragement.

Some people inspire us to choose the good side of our psyche, acting like the angel on our shoulder. They make us want to care about humanity and the planet and be the best versions of ourselves.

Other people act like the devil on our shoulder, encouraging us to be our worst selves. They make us want to sink into greed, aggression, hatred, jealousy, depravity.

We all have had experiences of being inspired to be our best selves or our worst selves by the people we look up to. Examples of love and generosity very often will inspire acts of kindness and caring; examples of hatred and aggression often inspire more of the same.

It’s great for humanity and the world when people in positions of power and influence are encouraging the good side of human nature. When these people are sharing their messages of compassion, tolerance and inclusiveness, people are happier and the world is a much better place.

Conversely, it’s extremely bad for humanity and for the world when people in positions of power and influence are encouraging us to act out the dark side of our personality. This promotes hatred, divisiveness, intolerance, marginalization, criminal acts, selfishness, cruelty, greed and war.

Sadly, today, the supposed leader of the free world seems to be doing just that.

With his constant vitriolic tweeting, his outrageous, hateful statements and his repugnant behaviour, especially toward women and non-white, non-Christians, Donald Trump appears to be encouraging all of his followers to be their very worst selves; to be hateful, spiteful, petty, selfish, greedy and extremely aggressive.

I suggest that the results of this could be seen in the upsurge of Nazi violence, attacks on ethnic minorities, hate crimes and home-grown terrorism.

Is Mr. Trump responsible for all of the bad things happening today? Of course not, but as the supposed leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, he sets the tone. As a statesman, he’s responsible for being an example to others, and it’s quite clear to everyone what this example is.

When my patients have grown up with parents who are terrible role models, I suggest that they look elsewhere for people to emulate. There are plenty of kind, caring, helpful people in the world today who can inspire us to be our best selves.

I suggest that those who are looking to Mr. Trump for their guidance ought to perhaps start looking elsewhere. They’re listening to the devil perched on their shoulder and he’s leading them astray. The fate of the United States, North America and even the world, might well depend on their making a better choice.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. October is all about letting go of people-pleasing.

Check out my latest podcast. Julie Lythcott-Haims discusses how we became helicopter parents and how to switch gears and give kids what they need to grow up into high-functioning adults.

 

 

Why You Need to Stop Being Nice and Start Being Kind

A lot of people are attached to the idea of being “nice.” It’s not so easy for these individuals to let go of their need to be nice, or to appreciate how different it is from being kind.

This distinction is important, however, because these two ways of being lead to very different outcomes in one’s personal and professional life.

It will be easier to understand the difference between “nice” and “kind” if we focus on the opposing motivations behind each way of being.

The nice person is externally motivated. He’s driven by the need for other people’s approval and validation; he craves acceptance and is fearful of rejection.

The kind person is internally motivated. She has good self-esteem and isn’t looking for approval. She’s less concerned about what others might think of her and more interested in doing the right thing. Her compassion comes from an overflowing of her positive self-regard and not from the need to please.

The kind person respects herself as much as she respects others. She’s naturally helpful and generous, except when doing so might cause her harm. She lives in a state of balance, being as kind to herself as she is to others. She makes a positive contribution to her family, company and community, but never at her own expense.

The nice person is out of balance in his quest for external validation. Thinking that this is how he’ll find what he wants, he puts the needs of others ahead of his own needs. He keeps trying to please until he becomes exhausted and aggravated.

The nice person avoids confrontation for fear of upsetting anyone. He has trouble saying “No,” and rarely asks directly for what he wants. Fearing rejection, he can’t express any angry feelings that arise.

The kind person, on the other hand, isn’t afraid of confrontation. She’s able to speak her mind clearly, directly and respectfully, so people know where she stands but aren’t likely to take offense.

If someone gets angry at her because she’s asserted herself or rejects her because she’s setting a limit, she doesn’t take it personally.

The nice person can’t be authentic, because he’s too preoccupied with being a pleaser. The longer he continues to be “nice,” however, the more alienated he becomes from himself and others. He can lose touch with his true needs, feelings and opinions, and his relationships lack intimacy or fulfillment.

Even if he does win some degree of approval, the nice person knows, deep down, that the other person doesn’t see or accept him for who he really is. He can never make a real connection.

The kind person is genuine and sincere. She doesn’t need to pretend to be anyone else. If someone dislikes her or disapproves of her, she doesn’t feel diminished in any way.

The kind person welcomes constructive criticism. Her good self-regard motivates her to constantly be learning and evolving. Her ability to accept feedback means that her performance at work is always improving, and that she’s able to grow as a friend and a spouse.

The nice person is uncomfortable with feedback. His low self-esteem makes external criticism feel particularly hurtful. He has a harder time taking in valuable information about how he might improve his performance at work or how he could be a better spouse or friend.

The kind person sets good limits with others, and because she doesn’t allow herself to be mistreated, she’s cheerful, easy-going and approachable. She trusts herself to take care of herself in her personal and professional relationships, so she feels at ease with other people and her heart is open.

The nice person can’t set good limits. In his attempt to gain approval and avoid rejection, he allows people to exploit and mistreat him. This makes him angry, bitter, and cynical toward others.

The nice person’s attempts to please often result in his feeling hurt. His mistrust toward others grows, as does his shame for putting up with disrespect. His heart becomes closed, so while his behaviour is outwardly “nice,” he actually feels disappointed and resentful.

The truth is that people admire the kind person and look down on the nice person. We look up to those who have confidence and good self-esteem and tend to dismiss as “weak,” or “needy,” those who appear to be trying too hard to please.

When things don’t go the way he’d hoped, the nice person doesn’t know what to do with his growing anger. He might stuff down his resentment with alcohol, drugs or food, or it could leak out as passive-aggressive behaviour. Sometimes he’ll have an angry outburst, which embarrasses him so much that he represses his anger even more.

So, while the kind person can be relaxed and loving, authentic and meaningfully connected to others, the nice person is often anxious, angry, alienated and isolated; possibly even suffering from an addiction.

The solution for the nice person is simple: he must stop looking outside himself for love and approval.

Once he takes responsibility for his own self-worth, he’ll start working on developing his own positive self-regard. When he begins to love and accept himself, he’ll be able to let go of needing to please, and he’ll notice that interestingly, others are responding to him better.

A positive spiral is created, whereby he’s in charge of his self-worth, he’s treated with more respect, his anger diminishes, his feelings of trust and connection with others increase and his self-esteem improves even more.

Eventually, without even thinking about it, he’ll shift from being nice to being kind.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. November is all about growing self-compassion.

Check out my latest podcast. Julie Lythcott-Haims discusses how we became helicopter parents and how to switch gears and give kids what they need to grow up into high-functioning adults.

The Mental Health Crisis Facing Our Youth Comes Down to Helicopter Parenting

There has been a glut of alarming articles coming out lately about the mental health crisis facing young people today. According to the stats the authors are quoting, these young people seem to have very little resilience and few abilities to cope with the ordinary stresses of their lives.

According to a document called the National College Health Assessment from 2016, there’s a lot to be concerned about, and people in the know have been raising the alarm.

A September 8, 2016 article by Simonia Chiose in the Globe and Mail, lays out some of the shocking details about today’s young people. Of the 44,000 students who completed the survey, “8 percent fewer students than in 2013 felt their health was very good or excellent,” and “the number of students saying they seriously considered suicide in the prior year was 13 per cent, up 3.5 per cent from 2013.”

In an October 18, 2016 article by Paul Attfield in the Globe and Mail, the writer quotes Tayyab Rashid, a psychologist at the University of Toronto Scarborough and co-chair of postsecondary student mental health with the Canadian Association of Colleges and Universities Student Services, who says that “trends I’ve seen is more severe cases, more chronic cases and more crises.”

Mr. Attfield goes on to quote Stanley Kutcher, a psychiatry professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who says that “the level of expectations, both from the students themselves and their families, has become a greater factor adding to stress in the past 15 years.” “The expectation is that everybody gets an A,” Kutcher says. “It’s a real issue. We’ve had grade inflation [in high school] for two decades.”

In an article for CBC News, dated September 26, 2017, the author, Amanda Pfeffer writes that a 2016 study by the Ontario University and College Health Association (OUCHA) shows terrifying results.

Pfeffer quotes Meg Houghton, the president of this association, who says, “I don’t want to be too hyperbolic, but the truth is, lives are at stake.”

This recent study demonstrates that “rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as suicide attempts are up from [the] first survey in 2013,” and Pfeffer highlights some major findings:

65 per cent of students reported experiencing overwhelming anxiety in the previous year (up from 57 per cent in 2013).
46 per cent reported feeling so depressed in the previous year it was difficult to function (up from 40 per cent in 2013).
13 per cent had seriously considered suicide in the previous year (up from 10 per cent in 2013).
2.2 per cent reported attempting suicide in the last year (up from 1.5 per cent in 2013).
Nine per cent reported attempting suicide sometime in the past (not restricted to last year).

Houghton says, “we’ve got a major crisis on our hands,” and that “many of us who oversee counseling services describe our day as using a finger to stop a flood and the demand for our services far outstrips our capacity to support students.”

In an May 2017 article for thestar.com, entitled “Demand for youth mental health services is exploding. How universities and business are scrambling to react,”the authors point out that not only colleges and universities are having to increase their mental health budgets, but that “a growing number of major Canadian corporations that employ young people, including Starbucks and Manulife, have dramatically increased mental health benefits in response to growing demand.”

The article also cites a new study from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which “reported emergency department visits by children and youth from 5 to 24 seeking mental health or substance abuse treatment rose 63 per cent and hospitalizations jumped 67 per cent between 2006 and 2016.”

This same article quotes Dr. Glenda MacQueen, a professor of psychiatry and vice-dean of the University of Calgary’s medical school. She states that, “youth today are under more pressure than ever before.”

What’s not mentioned in any of the above articles or studies is the underlying reason for the alarming increase of mental health problems in today’s young people. I suggest that it’s the epidemic of helicopter parenting that’s to blame.

Too many parents these days are inadvertently undermining the mental health of their growing kids, and we’re seeing the results reflected in the above statistics.

When parents mistake coddling and bubble-wrapping their children for giving them love, they cause their kids unintended harm.

Kids need to learn how to think for themselves. They need to learn how to solve their own problems, cope with stress and bounce back from adversity. The coping and problem-solving skills that they’re taught in childhood are meant to equip them for a healthy and successful adult life.

Unfortunately, when parents are so anxious that they catch their child every time he or she is about to fall, the child never learns how to break their own fall or prevent him/herself from falling in the first place. When parents take over doing tasks that the child finds too difficult, the child never develops confidence and later on, becomes overwhelmed by the simplest of problems.

These anxious helicopter parents hover over their children, protecting them from every possible challenge and every possible thing that might go wrong, and this debilitates the young people.

When parents fight their child’s battles, even when the child is well into their twenties, these young people never develop the strength to cope with normal life.

From everything I’ve observed, it seems clear to me that the underlying cause of the current mental health crisis is the type of well-intentioned but deeply detrimental parenting that is crippling our kids and leaving them incapable of functioning in their post-secondary education and in the workplace.

Helicopter parenting has become so frighteningly common that now schools at all levels have jumped on the bandwagon, demanding less and less of their students, passing them even if they haven’t learned the required material and failing to guide them and discipline them appropriately.

Even our government bodies have taken on this wrong-headed approach, with the recent case of a single dad, Adrian Crook, who was forbidden from sending his four children to school on public transportation without supervision.

Mr. Crook has launched a GoFundMe campaign to fight this ruling, stating that the government is depriving his children of the opportunity to develop much-needed autonomy and skills for functioning well in life as adults.

The solution to this mental health crisis is not simply to increase the number of services offered to young people today.

Society won’t be able to afford the costs of this crisis, both in the growing levels of care required for these young people and in the devastating degree of disability that results from it.

Any type of bandaid solution misses the point. As with any health crisis, we must focus squarely on prevention.

We have to educate parents about the pitfalls of helicopter parenting and show them how important it is for them to step back and allow their children to develop the skills, attitudes and habits necessary for their future well-being and success.

If we only address the problem on the surface level without looking at the root cause, the mental health crisis we’re facing will only get worse, and that’s an outcome we simply can’t afford to let happen.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. October is all about letting go of people-pleasing.

Check out my latest podcast. Julie Lythcott-Haims discusses how we became helicopter parents and how to switch gears and give kids what they need to grow up into high-functioning adults.

If You Love Your Kids, Let Them Learn to Live Without You

When I was a kid, there was no such thing as helicopter parenting. My folks loved me but they didn’t hover over me, bubble-wrap me or micro-manage me. They only learned my marks on report card day and they only spoke to my teachers or coaches when it was absolutely necessary for them to do so.

My parents expected me to do my own homework and to participate in the household chores. At the same time, I was given the freedom to run around, explore, develop skills and gain independence.

Whatever confidence I have today began with my parents allowing me to take risks, do things on my own, and learn  from my successes and from my failures.

Unfortunately, helicopter parenting has become the new normal and the way today’s parents seem to be showing their love, but it has dire consequences for college-aged kids.

When I went to university at the age of nineteen I dealt with the ups and downs of being away from home for the first time without having to lean on my parents. It would never have occurred to me to involve them in my academic or social life.

Today, parental over-involvement is commonplace. Helicopter parents are in constant communication with their kids and are frequently in touch with teachers and school administrators. Many of them are plugged into apps that check their kids’ grades on an hourly basis.

And this is in addition to the years of having done their kid’s homework for them, having brought them their lunch at school, having constantly negotiated with their teachers, coaches and tutors and having involved themselves in almost every aspect of their kid’s life. Parents think that this is loving but in fact, it’s crippling their kids.

I’ve been closely following what the experts are saying about helicopter parenting. One of these experts is Julie Lythcott-Haims, the former dean of students at Stanford University and the author of the best-selling book on parenting, How to Raise an Adult. She’ll be speaking about this topic at a free event in Toronto on September 26th.

Lythcott-Haims observed how the students at her university were struggling to cope, both personally and academically, because their parents had been doing too much for them. She also saw how she herself was at risk of becoming a helicopter parent, and her book came out of these two realizations.

From my experiences both personally and professionally, I’ve seen how over-parenting is damaging to kids. On the other hand, I’ve identified two types of parental interventions that are extremely beneficial to kids, because they’ll teach them to think and fend for themselves.

The first intervention is giving kids more responsibilities, such as expecting them to do their own homework, make their own lunch and actively participate in the household chores. The second is taking a step back and allowing kids to figure things out on their own.

Many people believe that helicopter parenting is a good thing because at first glance, it seems to confer some benefits. Lythcott-Haims describes how “all hovering behaviours have short-term wins.”

While it’s true that helicopter parents might be able to catch a kid before he falls,  how does this kid ever learn to take care of himself as an adult?

Over-involved parents might get a difficult teacher or coach to cooperate in the moment, but then how will the young person on the receiving end ever learn to speak up for herself?

The long-term problem with helicopter parenting is that it turns kids into helpless young adults who can’t function in the real world.

Over-protecting and under-expecting creates young adults who begin to fall apart as soon as they step out of the nest. These individuals become overwhelmed when dealing with the simplest challenges at school or at work and they expect their parents to come to their rescue, whether they’re nineteen or twenty-nine.

A local hiring director I know was astounded when a twenty-something candidate showed up for a job interview with one of her parents in tow. Needless to say, the candidate didn’t get the job.

A colleague of mine was shocked when a new employee’s mother showed up with his lunch on his first day at work. This young person didn’t make it through his probation period.

An employment lawyer described having met with a young man in his late twenties who brought his parents along to discuss a case of wrongful dismissal. If a young adult needs his parents to hold his hand in this way, it makes me wonder if there was a good reason for his dismissal.

One of the most serious consequences of helicopter parenting is the sky-rocketing rate of anxiety and depression in college-aged youth. In a future article, I’ll go into depth about this current mental health crisis.

I was lucky to have grown up in a time when helicopter parenting didn’t exist, but parents today can unlearn their bad habits. They can see that what their kids really need is for them to step back from coddling and micro-managing.

Lythcott-Haims reminds parents that “our job… is to put ourselves out of a job,” and I’d add that it’s the best way for us to show our kids love.

Parents need to recognize that teaching kids how to learn to live without them is what will enable these kids to become independent, self-sufficient, successful adults and and what will guarantee them a happy and successful future.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. October is all about letting go of people-pleasing.

Check out my latest podcast. Julie Lythcott-Haims discusses how we became helicopter parents and how to switch gears and give kids what they need to grow up into high-functioning adults.

Parents: Don’t Deprive Your Kids of the Freedom and Opportunities You Had

I’ve been thinking about the consequences of helicopter parenting on college-aged kids. From everyone I’ve spoken to and everything I’ve read, it’s clear that over-protecting and coddling our kids is doing these young people a lot of unintended harm.

I’ve been closely following what the experts have been saying. One of these experts is Julie Lythcott-Haims, the former dean of students at Stanford University and the author of the best-selling book on parenting, How to Raise an Adult.

Recently, Ms. Lythcott-Haims appeared on my Ruthless Compassion podcast. We had a lively discussion about why parents today are so prone to over-protecting and micro-managing their kids. She also had some excellent ideas for how to improve the situation, starting right now.

One important call to action that Lythcott-Haims has for parents is to think about their own childhood and ask themselves if they really want to give their kids less freedom and fewer opportunities than they themselves had. This led me to think about my own childhood and the way that I was raised.

Although my parents were far from perfect, I have a new-found perspective on the things they did right. For example, as soon as I learned how to cross the street at age five, I was walking to school on my own. I was biking and skate-boarding around the neighbourhood at age seven and that was also the last time I remember my parents helping me with my homework.

At age twelve, my parents put me on a Greyhound bus to go visit family friends in New York City. When I was nineteen, my parents reluctantly agreed to my plans to hitchhike to the west coast. They didn’t like it, but they respected my decision and trusted me to take care of myself.

When I came down with a case of amoebic dysentery from swimming in a dirty creek in New Mexico, my parents bought me a plane ticket home. I survived both these trips intact, with a combination of the skills and self-sufficiency I’d learned while growing up as well as some timely parental intervention.

My mother worked full-time, so I was responsible for cleaning the house and cooking the family dinner by age fifteen. I had full-time summer jobs starting at sixteen and this continued through University.

My parents certainly knew when to back off but they were there for me when I needed them. Not hovering, over-protecting, or micro-managing your kids doesn’t mean not loving or caring for them.

I had a good deal of freedom while growing up – freedom to explore, develop skills, gain independence and build character. Sometimes things went well, sometimes they didn’t, but it was all part of the process of learning and growing into the adult I am today.

I count myself lucky that my parents didn’t overprotect or over-manage me. I learned from a young age to stand on my own two feet and figure things out for myself, and any confidence I have today comes from having been allowed to try things, succeed or fail on my own, and learn both from my mistakes and from my successes.

Actually, I’m not that different from the majority of kids of my generation. We all benefited from parents who helped to guide and protect us but who also knew when and how to back off.

Lythcott-Haims explains how parenting took a dramatic turn in the early 1980’s with the advent of the self-esteem movement, in which kids began being rewarded simply for showing up. At the same time, play-dates came about and parents began taking charge of their kids’ schedules, leading to excessive planning and hovering.

Simultaneously, the increased awareness of “stranger-danger” and a new notion that teens needed more standardized testing in order to compete on an international level led to parents being more anxious about their kids’ safety as well as their school performance. All of these events contributed to the trend of over-protecting and micro-managing kids.

This new style of parenting had its immediate advantages, which only served to reinforce it. Lythcott-Haims describes how “all hovering behaviours have short-term wins. They prevent bumps and scrapes. They get the coach to cooperate. If the parents do their kid’s homework, the kid gets into a better school.” However, she adds that “there’s “a long-term cost.”

She explains that when parents do too much, “kids have no skills and no sense of self because they haven’t done enough in life to get a sense of agency.” She cites research demonstrating how over-parenting causes “increased rates of anxiety and depression.” These facts are borne out by several recent articles published in Ontario.

Lythcott-Haims quotes the psychologist, Dr. Madeline Levine, the author of Teach Your Children Well, who admonishes parents not to do for their kids what the kids can already do for themselves – because this leads to the child feeling incompetent, and not do what the child is almost able to do – because it interferes with the child’s process of learning to do it on their own.

Lythcott-Haims wants parents to remember that “our job… is to put ourselves out of a job.” She offers a way for parents to see if they’re over-involved and shows them how they can take a few steps back. She asks them to:

1: Check your language. She says that if you’re saying “we” when you’re discussing your kids; for example, “we’re in advanced math,” you’re “intertwined with them” in a way that’s not good for them.

2: Examine your interactions with adults in your child’s life. Constantly arguing with teachers, principals and coaches is a sign of being overly-invested in your kid’s life. Lythcott-Haims says that “when we’re doing all the arguing, we are not teaching our kids to advocate for themselves.”

3: Stop doing their homework. Kids need to learn how to do their own tasks and rise and fall on their own merit. This is how they develop skills, confidence and autonomy.

Instead of doing too much for our kids, Lythcott-Haims recommends that parents teach their kids new skills in the same way as her neighbour Stacy Ashland does. This simple four-step process applies to making a meal, talking to a coach or crossing the street:

1: Do it for the child, while explaining the steps as you go;

2: Do it with the child, while continuing to explain the process;

3: Watch the child do it without interfering;

4: Step back and allow the child to do it independently.

I was lucky to have grown up in a time when parents instinctively did these things, but parents today can just as easily learn to do the same for their kids.

They must realize that what kids really need is for parents to step back from coddling and micro-managing them, and that teaching kids how to stand on their own two feet is the best way to show them love and guarantee them a happy and successful future.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. October is all about letting go of people-pleasing.

See Julie Lythcott-Haims speak at a free event in Toronto on September 26th about how to give up helicopter parenting and develop practical strategies to help children develop the resilience, resourcefulness, and inner determination necessary for success.

 

 

Helicopter Parents Need to Back Off Now

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the consequences of helicopter parenting on young people currently graduating from college and university. From everything I’ve observed, everyone I’ve spoken to and everything I’ve read, it’s clear that over-protecting and coddling our kids is not doing these young people any favours.

In a 2015 interview in the LA Times, Julie Lythcott-Haims, the author of “How to Raise an Adult,” discusses the helicopter parenting that she’s witnessed first-hand as the former first dean of freshmen at Stanford University. She sees this phenomenon most often in “middle-to upper-middle-class families and beyond, with disposable time and money. Working-class, blue-collar, poor families — parents there don’t have the wherewithal to be cultivating their kids’ childhood. They’re worried about fundamental things like food and shelter.”

Lythcott-Haims says, “our job as parents is to put ourselves out of a job. Period. We’re not meant to parent them for the duration of their lives or ours. Our job is to ensure they have the skills, the confidence to fend for themselves. We will always love them, but the most loving thing is to prepare them for adulthood rather than pretend that we will always be there to resolve things for them.”

It’s essential to nurture our kids but these days, too many children are being coddled. Lythcott-Haims complains that parents “are often so concerned about academic performance and enrichment that we absolve kids of things like [doing] dishes and garbage and laundry. They end up not knowing how to take responsibility. This undercuts their ability to be the kind of worker a boss wants: somebody who pitches in, who rolls up their sleeves and says, “How can I be useful here,” instead of, “Why isn’t everyone applauding my every move?” Childhood has not prepared them for what the working world will need them to do.”

She goes on to talk about parents’ exaggerated fears for their kids. She says, “we act as if child abduction could happen on every street corner,” and that “parents are on watch, on guard; we feel if we don’t, [our children]… will be snatched by a mythological stranger,” and that because of the ubiquity of technology, “our ability to know where they are at all times has only amped up the terror.”

She clarifies, adding that “where your child is in a situation potentially damaging to life and limb, of course you’re going to protect them. The trouble is we’re acting like everything is life or death,” and this is turning kids into fearful young adults who can’t cope with any type of adversity and who constantly run to their parents for advice and protection around challenges they should be solving on their own.

Parents are undermining their kids’ confidence by praising them excessively for doing unremarkable things. As Lythcott-Haims says, “a kid slides down a slide and we say, “Perfect!” A kid draws on a piece of paper and we say, “Perfect!”… Kids come away with this overblown sense of their own capability, and they think they have to be perfect all the time, [then] wither under the expectation when they realize they’re not.”

Lythcott-Haims decries the tendency of parents to shelter their children from opposing points of view at college or university, or from teachers or classmates who might want to talk about challenging material.

She says, “the essential purpose of higher education is under assault if professors can’t teach and have students talk about difficult subjects. We should just fold up our tents and go home if that’s the way higher education is going. If childhood has been about soothing your feelings, preventing the mean person from being mean, instead of encouraging you to cope with it yourself, then you end up as a young adult who’s bewildered that the world includes people with mind-sets and ideologies that upset you.”

Parents and educators these days are obsessed with kids’ self-esteem. As a psychiatrist, I’ve observed how empty praise and empty rewards do nothing to build up a child’s sense of self. Children need to be praised for putting in their best effort, for playing fair and collaborating well with others. They should be praised for persevering when the going gets rough and for doing their very best. That’s how we help build their self-esteem.

Kids will only develop self-worth by engaging in meaningful activities and positive relationships where they learn and grow and occasionally fail. They’ll learn resilience, good study habits and they’ll be able to use their errors and failures as life lessons. When kids work hard at a goal or put in time and effort to build skills and relationships, they’ll feel better about themselves, regardless of what awards they receive.

Helicopter parenting comes from love, but it’s a misguided approach that leaves children ill-prepared for the challenges of adult life. Children need parents who raise them to be strong and resilient. Parents must encourage their kids to face challenges and cope with failure, loss and disappointment. Parents must let go and allow their kids to figure things out on their own and become confident in their abilities to solve their own problems.

As Lythcott-Haims says, the best way to raise confident kids who can stand on their own two feet and think for themselves is, “you back off. When children experience a setback… that’s not your problem to solve. The best way for a kid to learn is to have that uncomfortable feeling, [to experience] consequences that are tiny in the grand scheme of things.” The more these kids are encouraged to do things for themselves and to connect their actions and choices to real-world outcomes, the more resilient and successful they’ll be.

Sign up here for my free monthly wellness newsletter. October is all about letting go of people-pleasing.

Listen here to my latest podcast. Nicholas Lovell, author of The Curve, talks about making money in the free economy.

See Julie Lythcott-Haims speak at a free event in Toronto on September 26th about how to give up helicopter parenting and develop practical strategies to help children develop the resilience, resourcefulness, and inner determination necessary for success.

 

How to Make the Best of the Rest of Your Kid’s Summer

Summer is winding down and we’re soaking up the last little bit of it before we send the kids back to school and gear ourselves up for the new academic year.

In the meantime, parents have the option to maximize the benefit of the last few weeks of summer by instilling into their kids some positive attitudes and skills.

In this era of helicopter parenting, children are not getting the opportunity to develop strong social and academic skills. Kids aren’t getting a chance to learn emotional intelligence or resilience.

Parents can choose to use these last few weeks of summer to work on developing these attitudes and attributes in their kids.

According to Julie Lythcott-Haim, former dean of freshmen at Stanford University and author of How to Raise an Adult: Break Free of the Overparenting Trap and Prepare Your Kid for Success, children need help from their parents and teachers in growing up to be confident, competent and productive members of society.

In an LA Times article by Patt Morrison, Lythcott-Haims describes how middle-to upper-middle-class parents have so much fear about all the bad things that could happen to their kids that they overprotect them and deprive them of the opportunity to build self-reliance.

She says that working-class families are too busy trying to pay the bills and put food on the table, so kids from these families aren’t overprotected in the same way and as a result, grow up more capable of functioning at school and in their future jobs.

If you’re a parent who finds yourself guilty of doing too much for your kids and overprotecting them, you can start repairing the situation right now. You can decide to take the month of August and teach your kids some things that will help them to succeed in the coming school year.

Give your child an August project. Whatever this is, make sure that your kid sticks with it and completes it, so that they have the experience of agency, persistence and confidence.

Give your child regular chores to do. Whether it’s mowing the lawn, cleaning out the closets or re-varnishing the deck at the cottage, these chores will build a sense of responsibility and empowerment.

Have your older kids baby-sit the younger ones. This will teach them responsibility, cooperation and empathy. Have the younger ones participate in household chores, showing them that they’re important, integral parts of the family.

Also, stop rewarding kids for just showing up. Don’t give them a prize for attendance. That’s an expectation they ought to meet. Don’t reward kids for doing their summer school homework or their chores. Again, these are things they should be doing which ought not be seen as special or meriting an award.

Raise your expectations for your kids socially, athletically and academically. Let them know that you respect them and believe them and that this is why you expect more from them.

Also, leave your kids be. Don’t take on the responsibility for entertaining them. If they’re bored, tell them to figure out what they can do for fun. Provide them with art supplies, books and sports equipment and let them use all this however they decide.

Let your kids run around, fall down and skin their knees. Don’t rush over with the first aid kit every time they get a bump or a scrape. Teach them to develop some toughness, both physically and mentally.

By taking the next month to push your kids in the ways they need to be pushed and to back off from them in the ways you need to back off, you’ll be giving your kids a huge advantage in the year to come.

Your kids will be more self-sufficient, confident, competent and resilient. Instead of struggling with insecurity, inadequacy, feelings of being overwhelmed and social difficulties, they’ll meet the new school year with the skills and attitudes guaranteed to see them thrive.

Sign up here for my monthly wellness newsletter. September is all about creating success at school.

Listen here to my latest podcast. Former award-winning gamer Nicholas Cole discusses the writer’s life today.

Take my short survey on Helicopter Parenting here and be eligible to win an ebook of Be Kind, Not Nice, the latest book in my Short and Sweet Guides to Life series.