This routine took place during a “World of Dance” competition and the internet is abuzz with outrage over the bawdy moves and risqué costumes. While talented, the dancers do sort of look like…well, women who dance for a living--and I’m not talking about at the Met. Two of the parents made an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America to defend the video. They say it was taken out of context and never meant to be viewed by millions of strangers. Apparently, this type of routine is normal, according to the parents.

What bothers me, other than this lame explanation, is the crowd reaction. The bumping and grinding get the biggest cheer from the crowd, which surely is made up of kids, parents and other adults. It’s all just so weird to watch. But, are we overreacting?

Yes, the girls dance in a sexually suggestive manner, but they won’t automatically become promiscuous later in life. That assumption would be ridiculous. I took a lot of dance classes as a young girl and we had recitals and performances. The costumes probably were a little more bathing suit-like than burlesque, but still pretty form fitting. Still, I don’t remember doing moves like this. Not because I couldn’t do them (I couldn’t) but because I shouldn’t. Like Chris Rock said, just because you CAN drive with your feet doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Just because an 8-year old can shake her moneymaker doesn’t mean she should.

So, I don’t fault the girls. The song is catchy and they are clearly great dancers. Long-term harm? Most likely none. But, I’m wondering what kind of parents think this is normal? What world these parents have immersed themselves in where this is age appropriate?

Or, am I just out of touch with what “age appropriate” means?

Let’s hear it, moms and dads out there. Weigh in on what your reaction was….

Atheism is not this cold, arbitrary, removed thought process or ideology that promotes immortality or unethical behavior, as so many people think. In fact, atheism generally includes quite an extensive set of rational beliefs that just about everyone can agree with (or at least not disagree with); the general public just doesn’t know enough about it, and they have a lot of disinformation and misinformation to sort through in order to come to some sort of a conclusion that’s based on fact.

And I am worried a bit about how to explain to my now-16-month-old daughter, as she gets older, exactly what Mom and Dad believe, why we believe it, and why we so often seem to disregard the beliefs of other people she encounters, especially the beliefs repeated by their children.

Children are amazingly insightful and intuitive. I’ve met very few children who couldn’t sense discontent when adults around them were trying to mask it. And I’ve met very few children who aren’t really listening to every little thing you say even when you think they’re not. (Perhaps this is evolution in one of its finer moments.) So when my daughter, Lulu, comes into contact with someone who tells her that a god is real and if she doesn’t believe she’ll go to hell, or when one of the kids in her class says to her that her kitty may have died but is in heaven, I know I have to say more than just “Oh, we don’t believe that, sweetie. Here, finish your dinner.”

Because that’s not true! Who is the “we” here? Your dad and I? No, we don’t, but you might. Really. Does it make sense to you? Do you think it’s possible? What evidence do you have? Do you think you need evidence to come to a conclusion about something like this? And if not, why not?

We’re rational people. We’re not closed-minded, but we’re also not so open-minded that our brains fall out. We encourage critical thinking. In fact, I want nothing more than to encourage critical thinking in my child, because regardless of where it leads her, it will always guide her.

For just as the parents who teach faith as fact to their children acknowledge that the child will most likely repeat it to other children, our children will repeat, in some form, our responses. Civility is key here, but misunderstanding in this kind of situation can so easily happen, especially with such vested interests in these kinds of beliefs.

So I ask the rational parents out there—all of you: atheists, theists, nontheists, and anyone in between—how have you handled a situation in which your child was confronted with faith as fact? What do you do? How do you explain it? What advice can you give other parents who really need some guidance on how to confront this problem?

I danced with several girls who had their PhD’s, Masters etc and it’s our obligation to share this duality with the public in an effort to help young girls feel comfortable following all of their dreams (and to help them understand how important education is and frankly how much fun science can be).

I couldn’t agree more.

Many people are shocked when sexy women are also smart. In fact, the woman in the article said she almost didn’t get hired at a science job because of the NFL cheerleader line on her resume.

It’s a pervasive stereotype in our country. Admit it–you laughed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist in The World is Not Enough. (Well, her character’s name of “Dr. Christmas Jones” didn’t help.) So it’s nice to see some non-Hollywood examples of real brains and beauty.

[Via BlagHag]

Hmm, I thought, what about sign language? I’d heard a little about babies who had learned signs, so I looked it up on the internet. I bought a DVD of introductory signs for babies, and in a few short days, 18-month-old LSG knew about 10 signs. Suddenly, she could tell me if she wanted food or milk, she could let me know if she wanted more, and she could use her manners by signing “please” and “thank you”. I was elated, and very relieved. She didn’t communicate quite like the other babies in playgroup, but she could communicate! Suddenly there was hope that she would learn to talk someday. Six months later, Little Skeptic Girl, at 24 months, had about 15 words, but she had many, many signs. Then, by the time she was 26 months old, she suddenly could talk in long, complicated sentences, and had given the signs up. The doctor was right, she did catch up with her peers. But in the meantime she could sign to me, and we could understand one another.

(Signing Time DVD: $21.99 plus shipping and handling. Ability to understand your toddler: Priceless.)

So, what’s the science behind this baby sign language stuff? Should you teach the average hearing child sign language? When should you start? Is it important to say the word as you sign? How do you get started?

All these questions (and more!) are answered in a recent article by Gwen Dewar over at the excellent Parenting Science website. She points out that what I taught LSG wasn’t actually a full-blown language, it was more a handful of symbolic gestures. These types of gestures come naturally to babies, and can be acquired quite easily:

For example, most babies will spontaneously begin pointing between 9 and 12 months. This is a major breakthrough in communication. The baby learns that she can make her wishes known by making eye contact and then shifting the direction of your gaze. By pointing, babies can make requests (i.e., “Give me that toy.”) They can also ask questions (“What is that?”) and make comments (“Look at that!”)

So pointing–and symbolic gestures, too–can help babies communicate without words. This has obvious, immediate benefits: It’s easier to figure out what your baby wants.

She goes on to say that, in addition to reducing the level of frustration in the household, teaching a baby sign language may actually be beneficial:

Babies who are encouraged to use gestures may find it easier to learn new words. The evidence? Some is circumstantial. Meredith Rowe and her colleagues tracked a group of American babies from the age of 14 months. They found that the more a baby used gestures at 14 months, the bigger his spoken vocabulary was at 36 months (Rowe et al 2008).

Dewar adds that babies as young as six months can begin to learn gestures, and the best way to start is to mimic gestures you see your baby make:

After reading the scientific literature, I suspect that the best way is to pay close attention to your baby and discover what signs he might invent on his own. Your baby may be gesturing and signing already.

In fact, Linda Acredolo’s research on baby sign language was inspired by the spontaneous signing of her baby daughter. Acredolo and her baby were visiting a doctor’s office where there was a fish tank. When the baby saw the fish, she began puffing air out of her cheeks. Acredolo couldn’t figure out the connection until later that night, when she and the baby were engaged in their regular bedtime ritual of blowing on the fish toys that hung from a mobile above the crib (Acredolo and Goodwyn 1998).

So I think it makes sense to build on what your baby is already doing naturally. And then you can add your own gestures and signs. You might invent these yourself, or borrow ideas from somebody else’s baby sign language lexicon.

And she stresses that you should always say the word that coincides with the sign:

And keep in mind: Whenever you use a sign, be sure to speak the word(s) that go with it. The idea isn’t to replace spoken language, but rather to supplement it.

This article, like all the articles on Parenting Science, has a long list of references so you can check out the science behind the subject.

Try it for yourself. Use the sign for milk every time you nurse your baby. Pinch pretend whiskers every time the cat goes by. Or watch your baby’s gestures carefully, maybe she can teach you something.

Skepticism isn’t something you are born understanding; you really have to learn it. Unfortunately they don’t teach this stuff in school! So let’s take Skepticism 101. Today’s lesson is courtesy of my seven-year-old daughter, Little Skeptic Girl:

Me: Do you know what Big Foot is?

LSG: Yes, I know of two Big Foots.

Me: Two?

LSG: Yes, one that is a monster truck, and one that is make-believe.

Me: You think it is make-believe? How do you know?

LSG: Because Joe Nickell says there is no evidence for Big Foot.

Me: What evidence would it take to make you believe Big Foot is real?

LSG: Well, you could be walking in the woods and looking at a tree, then a Big Foot could be standing there. But then you couldn’t run away, or later you might think, “Oh, it was just my imagination!”

Me: So if you could actually see – and examine – a Big Foot in person, then you’d believe?

LSG: Yeah.

Me: Can you think of any other evidence that would make you believe?

LSG: No, can’t think of any. Because if someone told you they saw one, they might be wrong. And movies are usually not true, and magazines might not be true, and if someone video taped it and showed it to me, I might say they made it from the computer, and if they showed me a picture of it, they might have just drawn it.

Me: Would you like there to be a real Big Foot?

LSG: I don’t know. If it were mean and scary, then no. But if it were nice and a lot like a monkey, then yes!