Week six’s readings and articles covered tons and tons of
information! Although I feel as though I gained knowledge on many topics
regarding adolescents, I ended this week with many questions. Thus far I have
really enjoyed taking on online class. Weeks like this week though I do long for
a classroom setting. It would be nice to able to discuss different theories and
to hear everyone’s opinions and experiences. Pre-teen and teen years are such
an interesting, event filled time. I am still stumped on how we all made it
through them, lol.
I was really shocked at the links of the onset of menstruation and environmental and social emotional factors. I had no clue that so many possibilities were linked to menstruation. Genetics, environment, nutrition and health all play an effect on when young woman may start her period. What surprised me the most was paternal investment theory (Ellis & Garber, 200; Ellis et al., 2003), which is the role that fathers plays in determining the timing of puberty that their daughters experience. The book stated that girls who have negative or infrequent relationships with their fathers enter puberty earlier than girls who have positive and frequent interactions with their fathers. I found this odd and still can’t quite wrap my head around it all. It makes sense in some ways, environment and stress are said to be factors linked to onset of menarche. Unhealthy relationships with one’s father could lead to stress or a negative environment. Still, with that being said why though would a father have an effect and not the parents or the family as a whole? I found the text that was meant to explain this theory a bit confusing. Did anyone else get a better understanding of it?
I was really shocked at the links of the onset of menstruation and environmental and social emotional factors. I had no clue that so many possibilities were linked to menstruation. Genetics, environment, nutrition and health all play an effect on when young woman may start her period. What surprised me the most was paternal investment theory (Ellis & Garber, 200; Ellis et al., 2003), which is the role that fathers plays in determining the timing of puberty that their daughters experience. The book stated that girls who have negative or infrequent relationships with their fathers enter puberty earlier than girls who have positive and frequent interactions with their fathers. I found this odd and still can’t quite wrap my head around it all. It makes sense in some ways, environment and stress are said to be factors linked to onset of menarche. Unhealthy relationships with one’s father could lead to stress or a negative environment. Still, with that being said why though would a father have an effect and not the parents or the family as a whole? I found the text that was meant to explain this theory a bit confusing. Did anyone else get a better understanding of it?
I to am confused about how its just the father that effects when girls start menarche. And your right how it does make some sense, as far as having a good relationship decreases stress. But how does the mom or siblings effect when menarche starts?
ReplyDeleteThere was a paragraph that said girls enter puberty at an earlier age when their mothers' romantic relationships were stressful or if their mothers used harsh punishment with them as preschoolers or young children. I wonder how they define harsh. It's a little intense how much so many different factors play into a natural occurrence. So many things are going on in a child's life before puberty begins, how could they isolate specific causes?
ReplyDeleteI think what could explain that is pheromones. In an article it says "chemical cues from fathers may be delaying the onset of sexual maturity in daughters, as part of an evolutionary strategy to prevent inbreeding (children born among family members)". http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914154031.htm.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the added stress could enhance the problem and cause the early maturation.
woops. I mean, born from the intercourse between family members. This kind of relation is not beneficial in evolution terms as it decreases the chances of genetic variability.
ReplyDelete