“South Africa: What would you risk to get an education?” from “Why Poverty” by Nadine Cloete

Education: The Only Way Out Of Poverty

According to the United Nations, about 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes [1]. One can ask how can it happen although there is enough food for everyone in our world? The answer is clear: in the world ruled with capitalism, while the riches grow richer, poor become poorer. It is a vicious cycle that poverty makes is harder to get an education, and thereby lack of a quality education makes more likely an individual become poor.

In many countries education is considered as the only way out of poverty. However, families with low income and from rural areas have low access to education. In the short documentary of “South Africa: What would you risk to get an education?” from “Why Poverty” by Nadine Cloete, Kelina, aged 12, travelling a road full of dangers to go to school and get education. While some children get to the school with their parents by car, a child can get killed or raped on the way to the school in South Africa. Furthermore, nearly ¾ of the people who live in rural areas even don’t have drinkable water, food or health care. Many families in poverty must choose between food and electricity. People live in such conditions prioritize their basic needs before education and we can’t blame this effort.

There is a common 21st century belief that: “Studying not only broadens our knowledge, but also gives us a good job and a better quality of life”. In the documentary of “Education, Education: What does an education get you?” from “Why Poverty?” by Weijun Chen, families would sell their cows, pigs and even their houses in order to provide a good education and therefore a better life for their children. Students with the highest marks are invited to top universities with low fees, while the rest of the students must pay higher fees, often borrowing money or soliciting neighborhood support, and don’t find jobs at the end of their course of education that pay them a wage above the poverty level.

Likewise in the short documentary, many children encounter in problems that they need to give priority before getting a good education. School is not a main focus for children who face with the problems of food and safety. Simple comparisons between children in poor families and children in non-poor families using national datasets indicate that poor children are more likely to do worse on indices of school achievement than non-poor children are. Poor children are twice as likely as non-poor children to have repeated a grade, to have been expelled or suspended from school, or to have dropped out of high school. They are also 1.4 times as likely to be identified as having a learning disability in elementary or high school than their non-poor counterparts [2]. Furthermore another study published in JAMA Pediatrics, have shown that children who were living in poverty and whose parents lacked nurturing skills were likely to have less gray (associated with intelligence) and white (linked to the brain’s ability to transmit signals between cells and structures) matter in their brains. Also MRI scans showed that two key brain structures were smaller in poor children, compared with wealthier children, which are, amygdala - a structure linked to emotional health - and the hippocampus - an area of the brain linked to memory and learning [3].

Children born in low socio-economic-status families are starting to life with lower chances even from birth. Is that the way in which it should work? Children from wealthier families will get a good education anyways and children from poor families barely will bridge the gap with the other kids even they are the top students. Every child has the right to grow up in a safe environment and access education. As Nelson Mandela said: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” education will be the answer to many problems raised by globalization. It is here that education will break this vicious cycle through becoming a human right.

References:

[1] Hunger and World Poverty, Retrieved from

http://www.poverty.com/

[2] Gale Encyclopedia of Education: Overview of Poverty and Education

[3] The Effects of Poverty on Childhood Brain Development: The Mediating Effect of Caregiving and Stressful Life Events. Joan Luby, Andy Belden, Kelly Botteron, Natasha Marrus,MichaelP. Harms, Casey Babb, Tomoyuki Nishino, Deanna Barch. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(12):1135-1142.

Pink Boys

By the age of 2 most children are aware of their own gender and by the age of 3 or 4 children have a notion of their expected sex roles (Campbell, Shirley, & Caygill, 2002) [2]. Around the ages 3 or 4, children start to prefer gender typical toys and same-sex playmates. Even from infancy parents raise their children in a gender-stereotyped environment. If their child is a boy they prefer to decorate the room with blue furniture and if it is a girl they decorate the room with pink furniture. Pink is the only color that is divided along gender lines. Though, what is the reason for this distinction? Why we create gender-stereotyped roles for women and men?

The picture of a boy who is wearing a pink dress and holding a whip is made in 1840s. At that time pink was a color for boys. In 19th century England, small boys often wore pink ribbons or decorations; boys were simply considered small men, and while men in England wore red uniforms, boys wore pink [1]. So, what happened then? Which event had contributed to the notion of pink is for girls? In 1930s and 1940s in Nazi Germany, people who are accused with homosexuality forced to wear a pink triangle. It was a shame to be a homosexual and it perceived as a mental illness. However, there is nothing wrong about being a “pink boy”. It is just a natural variation of human being. Reasons for gender a-typicality have been studied in many researches and usually two reasons have suggested as a cause to the gender non-conformity: hormonal or genetic and environmental factors.

The largest study was a 2006 Dutch survey of twins, 14,000 at age 7 and 8,500 at age 10. The study concluded that genes account for 70 percent of gender-atypical behavior in both sexes. However, what is inherited still remains unclear [3]. When we look back through history, we can see the development of perception of gender a-typicality. By the mid-20th century, doctors were trying corrective therapies, such as using hormonal medicines to block pubertal development. However, therapeutic approach made people perceive atypical gender as a mental illness that needed to be cured. In fact, it is crucial for people to understand that gender identity isn’t something that we can impose to our kids and expect them to show the gender-stereotyped roles. Instead, we have to admit that, it is who they are and they are not individuals who trapped in the wrong body. They don’t need any therapy and becoming a transgender just because of the social pressure and to avoid from bullies.  If they are happy with their body and also the way they feel themselves, then it is pointless to make them feel as a person who they are not.

There is an on-going assumption that women are nurturing and emotional while men are aggressive and dominant. Gender stereotypes are all over the media, advertisements and even in cartoons and fairy tales. Social media puts much more pressure on to the gender roles and creates certain images for women and men. Feminine traits are generally devalued across cultures and while masculine girls gain more status by moving to the boy space, feminine boys mostly humiliated and bullied by their society.

Although there is still a lack of acceptance for the individuals who are gender atypical, perceptions of some people have started to change in a good manner. Gender identity must be perceived as, “much less a matter of choice and much more a matter of biology” (Coolidge et al., 2002) [4]. We have to remember that gender a-typicality is part of core identity and not an inappropriate behavior that people should get rid of.

References:

[1] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Pink 19^th Century, Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink

[2] Campbell, A. Shirley, & Caygill L., 2002, Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do two-year-olds need cognitive variables?, British Journal of Psychology, 92, 203-217

[3] Ruth Padawer, What’s so bad about a boy who wants to wear a dress?, The New York Times

[4] Coolidge, F.L., Theda, L.L., and Young, S.E. (2002). The Heritability of Gender Identity Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Sample. Behavior Genetics 32, 251-257.

Beyond Diathesis Stress: Vulnerability or Plasticity?

Why one person become depressed, while the other does not, even when they exposed to the same stressors? [1]. Furthermore, why one person who has a genetic predisposition for OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and get through a normal life and never actually develops it, while the other may suffer from some events and end up with OCD. Those situations can be explained by diathesis-stress model. The common explanation for the phenomena is: in order to develop some illness or disorders, you need to have an inherited risk factor, but also environmental risk factor. That means, non-biological or genetic traits (diathesis), interacts with environmental influences (stressors) to produce disorders such as, depression, anxiety or schizophrenia [2].

Individuals vary in their responses to environmental factors. Some individuals, due to their biological, temperamental and/or behavioral characteristics are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of negative experiences whereas others are relatively resilient with respect to them (an adaptation of Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn’s, 2007). Thus, it can be understand that, both nature and nurture can have a significant effect on the emergence of the illness or the disorder. These traits make individuals more susceptible to environmental influences.

Afterwards the prevailing ideas of diathesis-stress model, some researchers such as, Jay Belsky and Michael Pluess, indicated that vulnerability might be more accurately though as plasticity and they come up with the hypothesis of “differential susceptibility”. It has been branched from diathesis-stress model and constructed upon it. Plasticity generally means, being susceptible to positive environmental factors as well as negative environmental factors and stressors. A person could have a biological vulnerability that when combined with a stressor could lead to psychopathology (diathesis – stress model); but that same person with a biological vulnerability, if exposed to a particularly positive environment, could have better outcomes than a person without the vulnerability [3]. Being more sensitive to favorable environmental factors helps individuals more likely to develop beneficial psychological characteristics.

Many researches have shown that, parenting, child-care quality, life events, rural- versus-urban residence, and even birth season are related to the differential susceptibility theory [3]. Children who have difficult temperament, insecure attachment, childhood adversity, childhood maltreatment or abuse are much more likely to show externalizing and internalizing problems, such as, depression, nonsocial activity, anxiety and criminal behaviors. Therefore, intervention programs are essential for vulnerable individuals, in order to make them benefit more from the positive outcomes of the favorable circumstances. Protective factors can mitigate or provide a buffer against the effects of major stressors by providing an individual with developmentally adaptive outlets to deal with stress [4]. Examples of protective factors include a positive parent-child attachment relationship, a supportive peer network, and individual social and emotional competence [4].

Development is shaped by both biology and experience coactively to promote specific abilities over others. Therefore, diathesis-stress model is a plausible theory, specifically for studying the development of psychopathology. However, although a number of studies have supported the idea of differential susceptibility, it has still some patterns that are not clear as much as the diathesis-stress model. Many researchers wonder, whether it comes mostly from nature or nurture. Though, it is optimistic to think that individuals who are vulnerable to adverse effects of environment are also more sensitive to the positive circumstances.

References:

[1] Sigelman, C. K. & Rider, E. A. (2009). Developmental psychopathology. Life-span human development (6th ed.) (pp. 468-495). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

[2] Prevention Action, Diathesis-stress models Retrieved from http://www.preventionaction.org/reference/diathesis-stress-models

[3] Belsky, J. & Pluess, M. (2009). "Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences." Psychological Bulletin 2009, (Vol:135, No:6) 885-908.

[4] Administration for Children and Families (2012). Preventing child maltreatment and promoting well-being: A network for action. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2012/guide.pdf#page=9