Why I asked you a question on Facebook...
A very generous colleague of mine who
directs a research center has years of data indicating that children, mostly
very poor children, who have assets like 529 college savings, experience
improved health and wellness outcomes.
Although his distractors say that the
child’s parents, more specifically, the child’s mother will spend the child’s
savings, his research indicates parents leave that money alone as it is viewed
as helping their children get an education and out of poverty.
The problem is that although there is
sound, historical data supporting efforts to provide saving accounts for new
born children, this idea does not sit well with policy makers. There are states
that provide modest saving accounts for children and this was accomplished by
framing this effort as – “job readiness.”
We began to discuss how to develop a
different framing in order to better connect with folks.
I think to reach and get the attention
of a large audience the approach has to tap into something that is deep,
personal and equally shared across gender, age, politics, etc. For instance,
consider the statement, “No child left behind.” This was the work of Ted
Kennedy (D) and George W. Bush (R).
In reality, the general American public
cares little about child welfare. However, the general American public does
“support our troops.” Americans hold the idea/value that on the battle field;
we will leave no soldier behind. It is un-American to abandon anyone in war. It
is a crime to “abandon your post.” Our most valued heroes are those individuals
who were willing to sacrifice themselves to save others.
The framing of No Child Left Behind,
hits deep with us. We are all in favor of not leaving anyone behind –
especially children.
Think about the recent events where our
government used its resources to return one American hostage held in
Afghanistan for several years after he left his Army unit (NOTE: After rescuing him, he is now being charged for abandoning his post and could go to prison). Where ever Americans go in the world, they are protected and valued by
our idea of what it means to be an American. President Carter failed when
attempting to go after hostages in Iran. Americans were upset not at the attempt
– but the failure.
It is a deep seated American value that
we leave no American behind.
Our “academic” framing of helping
children in poverty has to tap into that same broad American value.
The above link is a story about a man
who entered a school bus, killed the bus driver and took a child hostage. The
dead bus driver was an instant hero. The child is the victim and the man who took
the child was the villain.
Every American – every human – values
the safe return of that child. Every American agrees with the framing of that
story and the players involved.
If Al-Qaida, ISIS or any “outsider” took
a group of American children hostage and forced them to live in a rundown
shack, feed them just enough to survive, did not provide them with medical care
when sick, and blamed them for their own situation – Americans would demand, at
any cost, to bring them home.
However, there are about 16 million
children “held hostage by poverty.” Poverty forces children to live in
inadequate structures. Poverty forces malnourishment. Poverty forces children to live without proper medical care.
If poverty was a foreign government,
Americans would not allow this treatment to our children.
Unfortunately the idea of defending
children or declaring a “war on poverty” carries a military framing. Also, the
war on poverty was declared in the Johnson administration and ended in the
Clinton administration with the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act.
War or defending framing is powerful and
Americans are strongly connected to warriors. Below is the ending of the recent
“American Sniper” movie. This sniper had 160 confirmed kills in Iraq and
Afghanistan – killing men, women and children.
A war or military framing widely
connects with folks and is a deep value. However, these are played out.
Declaring war on anything has been a mess.
Considering a different framing
There is however an American value that
is also deep rooted and baked into our DNA. Whenever there is a crisis or
life-threatening situation people value who gets protected first. This has beginnings
with a sinking boat, in the novel Harrington:
A Story of True Love, 1860.
Women and children first!
It was later widely expected and
popularized during the sinking of the Titanic.
The “captain going down with the ship”
was also expected during the same time. This is a very powerful value.
Americans love heroes and would love
better to be one.
Above is a story where Captains did not
go down with the ship. They saved themselves – being one of the first off the
ship. People were furious with these self-seeking captains and one will most
likely go to prison.
The value that women and children are first
is very powerful and cuts across all types of Americans. And those adults who save themselves first, is out of step with that value.
A greater and deeply seated
value is the idea of “women with children go first.”
Females with children in many cultures
are treasured. In the animal world, such as wolf packs, females and pups are
the highest priority. Wolf packs are structured just like human families.
The mother and pups remain in a den and
are protected by the other wolves. All the adult wolves take care of the pups.
Adults bring food to the mother so she can care for her young. When the pups
begin to eat meat, all adult wolves brings food to the pups, play with them,
and make sure they are safe.
Wolves will fight to the death in order
to protect their pups. Their system and survival depends on the health of their
females and pups. These behaviors are directed by Mother Nature (DNA). When
faced with the choice to protect themselves or their young – there is no
choice. They do not stop and consider things. They don’t evaluate or plan the
outcomes. Behaviors and nature are interwoven.
American families hold similar DNA.
Often times we focus on new policies
without ever looking at or debating our current policies.
So, to play out our current policies: if
a group of Americans were face with a crisis, like being inside a burning
building, the natural, innate act would be to ensure women with children get
out first.
This is why I asked that question on
Facebook. Most responses were in favor of the woman holding the child being
first out of a burning building. We value – in our behaviors – protecting
mothers and their children. Honestly, who could be against this? This is cooked within our DNAs.
I asked on my Facebook post:
Question: If you were in a burning
building with a group of other folks, who would you pick to be FIRST out the
door? Assume they are all healthy.
Middle aged man
Teenage female
Female holding her baby
Retirement aged female
Teenage male
Middle aged female
Teenage male
Who is FIRST to safety? – pick only 1
Thanks
Female holding her baby.
Why?
Female holding her baby
Male not make
Is this a trick? You
have teenage make twice?
Female holding Baby
Ditto,Professor
Female holding her baby
Female w baby
Female holding the baby
Female w/baby - not because there's
anything special about women & children but because it's two for one.
Female holding baby
because all would let her go first
Female holding the baby, although may not
be my choice to choose who goes first. Teenagers would be last. Haha
Female holding baby
wondering why "self " is not on
the list? baby is first....
The first person I came to. They all hold
unique value.
Why are they standing around waiting to be
dismissed from a burning building? They are all healthy and can make the
decision to run or perish.
female w baby
(Please note that this Facebook question is not scientific as I pick my friends because they most likely have similar values. I may need to de-friend a few folks as the result of this question though!).
From our current policies, if
older people were in a burning building along with other community members, these
older folks would be allowed to push aside or basically run over women with
children. Older people get out of the building first.
Now, we value our elders and should.
When I asked my youngest son, who is 13 ¾, he picked women with children to get
out first. His second pick were elders. I asked a follow up question: Son, if
you were the elder in a burning building would you pick yourself to leave
before others, like getting out before teenagers or anybody else? He quickly responded – no.
Under our current policies, if the
Titanic happened today, life boats would be filled first with older folks.
In the good ole US of A
The elderly, by law, get: $1.2 trillion.
Our children, get: $444.7 billion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jan/28/federal-spending-old-young-numbers/
The largest category for children's spending is tax credits.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jan/28/federal-spending-old-young-numbers/
The largest category for children's spending is tax credits.
These behaviors (policies) go against
our DNA and are also Un-American.
Our American heroes/elders would not
allow this to happen. And people want the opportunity to be a hero.
New Framing: WOMEN WITH CHILDREN FIRST!
This framing taps into an old,
established value that women with children are precious members who must be
protected and respected.
If potential danger approaches, we
sacrifice ourselves for women with children. If we are in a burning home,
adults should not run over a woman holding her child. If that happened,
Americans would be infuriated at such self-seeking behavior.
We want older folks to get off the
sinking boat or out of the burning house safely. However, it should not be
our policy that they lawfully get to stampede over women holding their
children.
Thanks for your help and Peace, DAP
No comments:
Post a Comment