Kids and Facebook

How old should a child be to be on social media? This is a hot question today. Michelle Obama made some comments lately that provoked a lot of debate among parents. Speaking of her daughters, she said, “I’m not a big fan of children having FB, it’s not something they need.” Social media like Facebook have a policy requiring kids to be at least 13 years old. But is this too young? Here is what a study, the Internet and American Life Project funded by the Pew Foundation, recently discovered. This study found that 93% of children 12 to 17 are online.
73% of them are on one or more social media. This means that a lot of 12 and 13 year olds are using social media.
In a recent survey conducted by ABC News, most parents feel that age 15 is the youngest for social media. Even more striking, 43% of parents felt that social media are not appropriate for anyone under 18 years of age. Obviously, there is a disconnect between what parents said in the ABC survey and the amount of kids who are using social media according to the Pew study.
So what is a parent to do? Here are some things to consider:
The maturity level of your child.
Your child's school performance.
How social is your child?
What real activities is your child involved in?
How much are you willing and able to monitor your child's activity?
Regardless of the age which you select for your child's participation in social media, you want to impress upon your child some important safeguards:
Only allow selected friends to see your child's information and posts.
Never provide address and home or cell phone numbers.
Make sure your child understands that inappropriate photographs, posts, and comments can cause great harm, impact future job prospects, etc.
Have all passwords and make sure you can access all of their accounts. Go on their social media on a regular basis to monitor your child's activity.
Blessings,
Dr. Paul

Why Does a Couple Break Up After So Many Years?

Today Governor Rendell and his wife announced that they are separating after 40 years of marriage. Wow, 40 years, that is a long time. Some Hollywood marriages only last 40 days. I don't know the governor and his wife, they seem nice enough, even if you don't agree with their politics or public policy. I can give some reasons why a couple may chose to separate or divorce after 2o or more years. If there is no infidelity, physical or emotional abuse, or substance abuse, it often involves a gradual erosion of the relationship. The couple may have fallen for the common myth that marriage problems will just work themselves out over time. Actually, problems get worse over time, not better. As these problems get worse, and others are added, the couple finds themselves drifting further apart.
Another reason I see is reflected in the words of this man who was married for 25 years, “We never had a very close relationship, but the kids kept us together, they were our connecting point. When they left home, it was just the two of us, with no buffers. We had nothing in common and decided it was crazy to waste the rest of our lives. So we divorced." One or both of the spouses pour themselves into their children, or their career, or a hobby, or some other pursuit. Now there is nothing wrong with being a good parent, or seeking to do well in your job, or having a hobby. The problem is when any of these pursuits overtakes investing time and effort in your marriage.
Marriage takes work, and that work continues for the life of the husband and wife. James Dobson of Focus on the Family notes that “Married life offers no panacea, if it is going to reach its potential, it will require an all out investment by both husband and wife.” Are you making your marriage an all out investment? Take some time to think about how much effort you are putting into your marriage. Then ask your spouse how he/she thinks you are doing in making your marriage the most important relationship you have, next to your relationship to God.
Blessings,
Dr. Paul