No Skin Showing

As far as Fathers with Daughters are concerned, one of the scariest times of the year is upon us.

Prom season.

Dads never get asked to go on the shopping trip when the daughter obtains the Prom dress. They never get asked to go to the hair appointment (which seems to last for days) nor to the nail salon. Hopefully there's no trips to the indoor tanning spa, and if there is, seriously, Dads need to knock that crap off. It's extremely unhealthy. Believe me, I've got four women with Irish and German blood in them, so I've heard the screams about pasty, white skin. Tough nuts. You're not supposed to be tanned in April or May, and you're not supposed to get artificial tans, indoors, from machines. It's scientifically proven to be bad for your long-term health.

I've often thought that the reason Dads don't get invited to the dress shopping spree, whether it be for Homecoming or Prom or whatever is because Dads most likely wouldn't let their daughters wear some of the things that Moms let them wear. Moms don't think showing some skin is a bad thing. Some crazy Moms think showing TOO much skin is okay. Responsible fathers have a different point of view on this.

It's more appropriate for my daughter to be covered from throat to ankle, and if that means she's a little bit warm on the dance floor, so be it. You could argue, however, that if she's warm, she might be more likely to 'loosen' up something to cool off. I'm not talking about dressing her in a parka for Prom (although anything that makes it difficult for the male date to get his arms around her to dance is fine in my book). But really, is there any need for a 17- or 18-year old girl to be showing off any skin?

Call me old-fashioned, but I vote NO. What's the point? The kids are going to be stuffed in a gymnasium or a ballroom in a third-rate motel, with bargain basement snacks and beverages, hopefully decent music, and, hopefully, MANY adult chaperons. In my opinion, the ratio of adult chaperons to teenage kids should be 2 to 1. Call me excessive, but when it comes to the well-being of my daughter and her girlfriends, many of whom are like adopted daughters to me, I'm not trusting it to some bundle of hormones in a monkey suit who wears his baseball cap sideways and his pants down to his butt crack.

Course, that kind if young man would never get very far in my hemisphere lest he be subjected to my staple gun and Louisville slugger.

The most important thing on prom night, Dads, is that our daughters are safe. We need to let them know that they aren't to get into a vehicle with someone who's been drinking. They need to know that we'll come and pick them up wherever they are at whatever time they need us, with no questions asked. If we need to, we can talk about it later... like the next day. Teenage driving fatalities will increase, across the country, over the next month because of the Prom and high school and college graduations.

As a father, and as a parent in general, we all hope we've had 'The Talk" about alcohol and substance abuse, and its impact on driving. We all hope it's sunk into our teenage daughter's (and son's) head. But teenagers are teenagers.

So make sure that after you compliment your daughter on how awesome she looks in her prom dress, and you wish her a good time (and after you let the boyfriend know that those camouflaged eyes in his rear view mirror are yours) whisper in your daughter's ear to remind her that if she needs you, if she needs a ride, it doesn't matter where she is or who's she's with. You only care about her returning to you in the same manner that she left.

P.S. Don't forget to tell your daughter that you love her.

McDonald's Could Damage Your Kids Future

I've admitted a number of times before that I'm not a rocket scientist, and there are days that, by evening, I can't remember what I ate for breakfast. Having spent nearly 20 years as an administrator in higher education, I will, however, challenge reports and studies by lazy scientists who come up with bogus 'discoveries' that don't make any sense. Honestly, some days I wonder why I've never been able to land one of these 'research' jobs.

A team of researchers from the University of Washington, University of Virginia and Temple University recently published a report in the journal Child Development, that indicates that if high school students work more than 20 hours a week at a part-time job, it could have a number of negative consequences.

Huh? The study claims that if high school teens work more than 20 hours a week at a part-time job they are at greater risk for bad behavior and they are less engaged in their school and the school's activities. So, if kids work more than 20 hours a week at a part-time job, if I read the study correctly, they are more likely to be involved with substance abuse, risky behavior, bad grades, and hole up in their bedrooms, emerging only for meals and showers.

Like I said, I'm not going to be selected for the next space shuttle mission, but this just doesn't jive. I can't speak on a national basis, but my personal experience is pretty good. I've got my second oldest daughter about to graduate from high school, so I've seen my share of teenagers who've had part-time jobs.  A number of my good friends have teenagers who work part-time jobs. They flip burgers at McDonald's, buff automobiles at car washes and wait tables at restaurants. These kids are active in the school choir, the school theatrical group, varsity sports, and numerous clubs like SADD, Students Against Destructive Decisions. Most important is, all of these kids that I know, are super kids. Teenagers you're happy to be around, and kids that you root for to do well in whatever it is that they do.

I can't believe that my sample is that much different from the so-called 1,800 kids that were interviewed for this study. But here's some other reasons why I think this study is bunk.

This new study did not conduct any interviews with teenagers in 2011. The study is based upon research that was done for a similar study in the late 1980's. Kathryn Monahan, the leader of the study, justified not conducting any new research by saying in a USA Today article, "Not much has changed over the last 30 years."

Yeah, right. Thirty years ago I had hair. Thirty years ago I was playing my music on a cassette player, watching three network channels on television, and putting money into a pay phone if I was away from the land line in the house. There were no iPods, cell phones, Facebook, text messaging, or Housewives of Beverly Hills. Come to think of it, there still aren't housewives in Beverly Hills.

Do our teenagers still flip burgers at McDonald's and collect tips waiting tables at local restaurants? Yes. But everything else about the life of a teenager has been altered. We can debate whether or not the changes are good or bad. But to put out a research study based on 30-year old data doesn't work for me.

After all, 30 years ago I was flipping burgers at McDonald's, and once I figured out the "one-bounce" rule everything worked out all right. I'm still alive and I've yet to spend any time in prison.

P.S. Don't forget to tell your daughter that you love her.

Gorillas in our Midst

Having worked in higher education for the better part of 19 years, I know that research can be manipulated to show whatever it is that the scientist set out to demonstrate in the first place.

So when I came across this article by Carmen Chai in Postmedia News, my first thought was 'who in the heck would pay for that research study?' My second thought was how ludicrous it is and my third thought was, 'I've got to share this with my Dads.'

According to this study done by a team of researchers at the University of Miami, it was determined that females between the ages of 18-22 avoid talking on the phone to their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, et al about half as much during high fertility days as they would on normal days. Huh?

Now, the fact that it took a 'team' of researchers to review the cell phone records of 48 women might explain why most student-athletes coming out of 'The U' can't spell 'cat' if you spot them the 'C' and the 'T.' But I digress. It might also explain why I feel the way I do about alleged scientific research.

Another curiosity for me is how the researchers can determine from studying cell phone records when these 48 women were ovulating each month. I was not aware that cell phone records had that much detail. Again sorry for sidetracking, and apologies for using the 'o' word in the first sentence of this paragraph. Gives me the willies, too.

So, again, these researchers claim that our daughters will only talk to us on their cell phones half as long on certain days each month. The research team also states that this jives with other animal species where the females avoid the males during high fertility periods in order to avoid inbreeding. Okay.

The final nugget of astounding information from this study is that the scientists also suggest that women in the high fertility period (no pun intended) also avoid their fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, et al because we are examining their boyfriends and fiances and possibly scaring off the men they might want to share their high fertility with.

Duh!!! Like they needed to study cell phone records to determine that my primary goal in life every time a male comes to the door for my daughter is to scare the living daylights out of him. Really? I didn't know that. What good father doesn't try to bring potential suitors to tears, send him fleeing back to his crappy used car, or better yet, have him drive off before you daughter even comes down the stairs to meet him?

So the good news is that the University of Miami spent a bunch of money for a team of researchers to study cell phone records of 48 women to inform us that there are certain days each month when our daughters might not talk to us very long on our cell phones.

The bad news is they can't tell us which days each month this is going to occur.