Skip to content

Homemade #GoBlue Play dough for World Children’s Day!

Today, Tuesday November 20, 2018,  is World Children’s Day and there’s no better way to celebrate than by spending one-on-one time with the children in your life.

But at For Families we know that it isn’t easy to find fun, simple, and cheap activities – especially on a Tuesday night after work! – so we’re Challenging you to #GoBlue for World Children’s Day by making super simple blue play dough with your kids. It will take less than 5 minutes to set up and 6 KGS ($0.08).

Below we’ve given you two super simple play dough recipes, play ideas and tips, and how-to pictures for every step of the way. Check out our Facebook and Instagram accounts – @ForFamiliesKG – to see our family’s play dough playtime, get more ideas, and share pictures and videos from your family!

Recipe #1: Super simple blue play dough

This recipe is super simple, with only 4 ingredients that almost everyone either already has at home or is able to buy from the local corner store and pharmacy.

Cost per batch: 6 KGS                          Sabina hand and star               

Time to prepare: 3 to 5 minutes

Ingredients:
2 cups flour
½ cup salt
1 cup warm water
2 teaspoons zelyonka (зелёнка) or blue food coloring

Step 1: In a medium bowl, mix together the flour and salt.
Step 2: Separately, mix together the water and zelyonka (or blue food coloring).
Step 3: Pour the water/zelyonka mix into the flour/salt mix and start to mix together with a spoon. Tip: your kids can get involved by pouring in the liquid and mixing the ingredients together.

Semetei making playdough
Step 4: Knead the dough until the flour is fully absorbed. If the dough is sticky, keep on adding flour until it is soft and smooth. Your kids may want to help you with the kneading process too.
Step 5: Play! This play dough recipe doesn’t keep well for beyond a day. But you can cook your kids’ play dough creations so they can keep them as toys. Heat the oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit and cook for up to 15 minutes. Let your creations cool for at least 10 minutes before playing with them. Your kids may enjoy painting, drawing on, or making sculptures from their cooked toys.

Recipe #2: Stove-top blue play dough

This recipe involves a little bit more time, a few more ingredients, and a stove top. But the play dough will have a smoother texture and last longer than Recipe #1 (if you keep it stored in plastic bags or containers).

Cost per batch: 7 KGSSabina Rolling Pin

Time to prepare: 15 to 20 minutes

Ingredients:
2 cups flour
¾ cup salt
2 cups warm water
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
2 teaspoons zelyonka (зелёнка) or blue food coloring

Step 1: In a medium pot, stir together the flour and salt.
Step 2: Mix the water, vegetable oil, and zelyonka (or blue food coloring) into the pot.
Step 3: Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly.
Step 4: Once the dough has thickened and begins to form into a ball, remove it from the heat. Let it cool.
Step 5: Once the dough is cool, knead it for 2 to 3 minutes.
Step 6: Play!
Step 7: Store your playdough in airtight plastic bags or small plastic containers – it will keep for up to 3 months.
Alternatively, you can cook your kids’ playdough creations so they can keep them as toys. Heat the oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit and cook for up to 15 minutes. Cool for at least 10 minutes. Your kids may enjoy painting, drawing on, or making sculptures from their cooked toys.

Play dough playtime: activity ideas and tips

Playtime isn’t just fun, it’s also hugely important to your children’s growth and development. Here are some activities you can do to help your children have fun and learn at the same time:

Activity 1: Sensory Play (Gross motor skills)

Especially for 1, 2, and 3 year olds, simple sensory play – seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and hearing the world around them – can help them better understand the world and develop their gross motor (physical) skills.

Feel: Have them squish their hands into the playdough ball or step on it (feel). If they’re able to speak, ask them to describe how it feels (Squishy? Slimy? Wet? Cold? Warm?)

See: Ask your children what the playdough looks like – what color is it? What texture is it? If your children are counting, ask them to count how many fingers and toes they see in the playdough after they’ve put their hands and feet in it. If they’re not counting yet, you can point out the fingers and toes to them.

Hear: Hold the playdough up to your children’s ears while you squish it with your hands or pop air bubbles inside of the playdough (hear). This should make soft squishing sounds or “pops!” that your kids can hear and recreate themselves.

Smell and taste: Have the kids smell the playdough and ask them what it reminds them of (it will smell somewhat like bread) – but if you used zelyonka for the dye, don’t let them eat it! For little ones who like to put everything in their mouths, you may want to avoid the smelling altogether if you used zelyonka, as they may see this as an invitation to eat the playdough. If you used food coloring in your playdough – go ahead and let them smell and eat it, the playdough is fully edible!

Sabina Star

Activity 2: How much? How many? (Numeracy)

You can help your children develop numeracy – concepts of quantity and counting – with the playdough. For example, you can break off a small piece of playdough and ask your child which piece is bigger and which piece is smaller. If your child is too young to know the difference, you can show him or her which is bigger and smaller. You can also divide the playdough into piece of various sizes and ask your child to put them in order from smallest to largest (generally, this activity is appropriate for children starting around 3 or 4 years).

For children who can count, divide the play dough into 5, 10, or 20 pieces and ask your child to count how many there are (or count along with your child if he or she isn’t yet counting on her own). For younger children, you may want to only count up to 5 or so. For older children, you can break apart as many pieces as they can count to.

Activity 3: Let’s make letters! (Literacy)

You can help your children learn the alphabet – or spell, if they’re able to – by making letters out of the playdough, supporting their literacy learning. If you have letter-shaped cookie cutters, this is the easiest way to make playdough letters. If not, you can roll the playdough into noodles and shape them into letters. Playdough letters may be hard to maneuver while the playdough is wet, so you may want to bake a playdough alphabet and play with them and spell words after they’ve cooked and cooled (see cooking instructions in recipes 1 and 2, above).

For those who don’t yet know the alphabet, you can use these to teach them letter (you could also paste magnets to the letters and put them on your refrigerator). For those who are already spelling, make letters to spell words they’re learning like their names, colors, or animals.

Activity 4: Unstructured fun

The best part of playdough is just squishing, mashing, rolling, and getting creative with it. Give your kids a few tools – a rolling pin, cookie cutters, forks, spoons – and let them have fun with it however they want. Give them the chance to direct their own play; this helps them use their imaginations and creativity. As an added benefit, this is a time for you to get dinner ready or, even better, relax with a cup of tea while they’re having fun.

If your children are 2 or 3 years old, keep an eye on them while they play to make sure they don’t eat the playdough or put it in their mouths. You could set them up near you on the kitchen floor while you cook dinner.

Activity 5: Decorate! (Fine motor skills)

Eventually, your kids will get bored with the playdough. But the fun isn’t over yet! Take their creations, put them on a baking sheet, and bake them in the oven for 15 minutes. You’ll get hardened mini-sculptures to decorate. Once they’ve cooled, you can give them back to your kids along with markers, paint, glitter and glue, or any other craft materials your kids like and show them how to decorate their sculptures.

Our children – 2 and 3.5 years old – are learning about emotions now, so we poked holes in the playdough circles our son made, baked them, and then drew happy faces, sad faces, surprised faces, etc. on them – and then made an “emotions necklace” for them to use to express themselves. We also made stars for our daughter to hang from the ceiling and a herd of elephants for them to count.

What creative ideas did you and your kids come up with? Share pictures, ideas, and comments with us on Facebook or Instagram (@ForFamiliesKG) – be sure to include the hashtags #GoBlue and #ChoguuOinoibuz on your posts!

Semetei and Sabina

The Results Are In! Gender Equality Data for Social Norm Change

Before starting our behavior change and community mobilization work, we at For Families wanted to better understand how our community members think about gender equality, child-rearing, and violence. So we conducted a baseline survey asking community residents how they feel about these issues. Today’s, we’re exploring a sub-set of our survey results as they relate to gender equality. What do community residents believe gender equality is, and do they think it’s important? Do they have gender equality in their lives? If so, in what ways? And finally: how can we use this data to inform our behavior change and community mobilization campaign?

For those interested in learning a more about the methodology of this research, you’ll find a brief overview at the end of this article. For everyone else, here are some of the findings and themes that we’ll be using to shape our work in the coming year:

Women have less of a voice in choosing their spouse than men

Approximately 1 in 5 respondents said that they and their marriage partners did not mutually agree to marry (17% of female and 22% of male respondents). For women, the most common alternative to mutual agreement was that her husband’s family had chosen her (9% of female respondents). For men, the most common alternative was that the man had chosen his wife without her having chosen him (12.5% of male respondents). Thus when two partners had not mutually agreed to marry, it was the woman’s consent that was lacking while either the man or his family had chosen without her input. In-line with these results, 23% of marriages in this community were completed by bride-kidnapping, 11% higher than the national average.

But they tend to share decision-making once married

The majority of both men and women said that they and their spouse shared decision-making authority when it came to women’s health choices, issues related to their children, and spending on children’s clothes and food. Some 60% of women and 80% of men said that these choices were made jointly by themselves and their partners. An additional 20% of women, the majority of whom were single mothers, said they made such choices themselves. Where other family members were involved in making such decisions, it was usually the husband’s mother.

Neither men nor women seem to think women should have equal authority or voice

Overall, both female and male respondents believe that women and men should be treated equally, with 97% of women and 93% of men agreeing. At the same time – and in stark contrast – the vast majority of female and male respondents also believe that women should obey their husbands, that men should have the final say in family matters, and that women’s primary role is to take care of their home and families.

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 12.52.39 PM

What it means for women and men to be “treated equally” thus does not mean that they have equal roles, responsibilities, or authority. Further discussion with community members on these points was revealing, with one woman describing:

“Yes, we should treat women and men equally in public and private. But if a woman is smart, she knows to put her husband first. Always tell him he’s great. Even if he comes home drunk, you lay out a cushion for him and say, ‘Come, my love, lie down and rest.’ That way the family stays strong and happy.”  – Woman, July 2018

This and other similar comments gave the impression that while many respondents say that women and men “should” be equal, this is more of an aspirational comment than a prescription for current family relations.

But both women and men think men should choose their parents over their wives and children

In a result that came as a surprise even to our local research team, 75% of female respondents and 56% of male respondents thought that men should choose their parents over their wives and children. That’s not a typo: 3 out of 4 women supported the idea that men (including their own husbands) should choose their parents over their own wives and children. Fewer men than women agreed with this proposition, though still 56% of male respondents either agreed or strongly agreed. Notably, significantly more men disagreed and on stronger terms than women: 40% of men “disagreed” and 5% “strongly disagreed” while only 25% of women “disagreed” and no women “strongly disagreed” that a man should choose his parents over his wife and children.

One theory to explain these results is that female respondents think of their sons rather than their husbands when answering this question, expecting loyalty from their sons when they grow and marry. Indeed, we added this question to our survey in light of widespread socio-cultural narratives that emphasize filial duty and sons’ obligations to their mothers. Was is true, we wondered, that men believed they should choose their parents over their wives? Even more extreme – would men choose their parents over their own children? We asked using the following question: “Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: ‘If a man has to choose between his obligations to his wife and children and his obligations to his mother and father, he should choose his mother and father.'”

The result that women even more so than men think that men should put their parents first came as a surprise, particularly given the demographics of our survey population: the average age of our female respondents was 33, with a range of 19 to 48 years old. Most of these women were in their mid to late 20’s or early 30’s and had young children. Meanwhile, in-line with local customs of patrilocality (i.e. the norm than women move in with their husbands’ families after marriage), some 40% of female respondents were living with their husband’s relatives at the time of our survey (compared to less than 5% of male respondents living with their wives’ relatives). Our female respondents thus tended to be young mothers who lived with their husbands’ families. Given the extent to which they were embedded within their husbands’ families and responsible for supporting their husbands’ children, their willingness to be chosen last remains difficult to understand. Further research and observation is planned to try to understand these results, verify whether they are indeed representative of women’s and men’s beliefs, and – if so – to strengthen women’s expectations of their husbands’ loyalty to themselves and especially to their mutual children.

There are positive trends to build from for social norm change

While the results above suggest that meaningful progress needs to be made in terms of raising people’s awareness of and belief in gender equality, other results suggest a strong foundation from which to build positive social norm change messages. For example, men and women alike do not think that women should endure violence for the sake of their families – 83% of women respondents and 79% of male respondents, respectively. Similarly high numbers of women and men also believe that men should not endure violence for the sake of their families – 82% of women and 83% of men. Meanwhile, the vast majority of men and women oppose cheating and men’s having multiple marriage partners or lovers (100% of women and 93% of men), and believe that men should provide extra support and help to their wives when they are pregnant (97% of women and 98% of men). For Families will be producing norm change materials emphasizing these positive and widely held beliefs in the community, working to align people’s actions and perceptions of others’ beliefs with the positive outlooks that they already hold.

We’ll have more details on these anti-violence beliefs plus the materials we’re developing around them in the coming weeks.

A quick note on methodology: For those interested in research methodology, the above results come from a survey we conducted with men and women from 80 households in our target community. We visited these households during the last two weeks of July, 2018, with two male researchers conducting interviews with male respondents and two female researchers conducting interviews with female respondents. For ethical reasons, a single respondent was chosen per household – 44 men and 36 women took part in the survey in all. A statistically relevant random sample of our community’s 400 households had been chosen at the outset of the survey. However, during fieldwork numerous residences were found to be abandoned or empty, while many residences lacked either a female or male respondent eligible to participate. As such, our final sample is too small to reach statistical relevance though we believe the results are still informative and meaningful to shape our work.

All respondents gave their informed consent to participate in the research, including being provided with both oral and written descriptions of the research, our goals, and the opportunity to refuse to participate, choose to skip specific questions, or withdraw their consent at any time.

The two quantitative surveys that were used for this survey – one for male respondents and one for female respondents – were originally modeled on the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence and the WHO Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence: Understanding Why Some Men Use Violence Against Women and How We Can Prevent It. Further original research questions and topics were developed by the research team to explore gender beliefs specific to the Kyrgyzstani context (e.g. bride kidnapping and certain pregnancy and SRH beliefs), as well as child-rearing practices and beliefs about them. All research materials were translated from English into both Russian and Kyrgyz and piloted in both languages prior to use in this assessment.

We’ll be posting a more extensive discussion of our research process – including more details on how we devised our quantitative survey, copies of both the Russian and Kyrgyz research materials, and an exploration of the lessons we’ve learned through this research process – in the 2018 fall.

Technology and Intimate Partner Abuse in the Kyrgyz Republic

The role of technology in intimate partner abuse is gaining recognition around the world, with studies revealing that 17% and 20% of domestic violence victims in Australia and the United States, respectively, also suffered from online stalking, harassment-by-text, and other forms of technology-facilitated violence by their abusive partner. As of 2018, researchers had identified over 200 apps that were marketed in the U.S. on the basis of their capacity to secretly monitor an intimate partner’s location, track her texts, log her keystrokes, and perform other stalking functions on her mobile phone.

Technology’s role in intimate partner abuse has only started to garner attention from academic, policy, and advocacy groups in the U.S., Australia, and Europe over the past 2 or 3 years. In the Kyrgyz Republic, it is almost wholly unrecognized and undiscussed. At For Families, we’re joining sufferers, technology companies, and lawyers to raise awareness of the urgent need to address technology-facilitated IPV in the Kyrgyz Republic and take steps to prevent it.

What is “technology-facilitated intimate partner violence?”

Intimate partner violence [IPV] is “any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological, or sexual harm to those in the relationship.” It can include not only physical violence such as slapping or hitting and sexual violence such as rape, but also emotional abuse (insulting, belittling, or humiliating a partner) and controlling behaviors such as monitoring a person’s movements, isolating her from family and friends, or restricting her access to employment, education, and finances.

Technology-facilitated IPV is any of the above forms of violence committed via or made easier by information communication technology, such as mobile phones, SMS texts, the internet, and social media outlets such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and others. It can take the form of online or Spyware-facilitated stalking, threatening or abusive emails and texts, and blackmail or stalking committed on social media sites, among other forms.

What is the impact of technology-facilitated intimate partner violence in the Kyrgyz Republic?

Technology-facilitated IPV can have a devastating effect on its victim’s freedom, psychological well-being, and emotional health. This is most evident in the descriptions of those who have suffered such violence directly [note that all names have been changed to protect the speakers’ anonymity]:

My husband put an app on my phone so my camera turns on whenever he calls. It turns on even if I don’t pick up. He calls constantly to make sure I’m not meeting my friends. He won’t let me go out unless I tell him where I’m going, and then he’ll call to make sure I didn’t lie about where I am. If I’m meeting someone he doesn’t like or am somewhere I didn’t say, then there are big problems when I get home. But at least this way I’m allowed to go out. I don’t know if I’d have permission to go out if he couldn’t check on me like this.

– Rezada, Bishkek, 2017

As Rezada’s story illustrates, mobile phones provide an unparalleled opportunity for stalking and the emotional abuse that it entails. Because we carry our mobile phones wherever we go, they give stalkers minute-to-minute data on where we are, who we’re with, and what we’re doing. And while Rezada is aware of her husband’s stalking (indeed, this awareness appears to be part of his strategy to control her), other victims may not know until it’s too late.

Our tendency to carry mobile phones everywhere we go can also intensify the emotional pain caused by technology-facilitated abuse and intimidation, as described by Anara:

I left our home to visit my mother in Bishkek. Once I got there, he started texting saying never to come back, that he was taking the children. He started threatening me and swearing at me and saying if I came back he would kill me. He texts all the time – I can’t get away from it. He won’t let me speak to the kids on the phone, all he does is text these threats every day.

– Anara, talking about her husband, Bishkek, 2018

Anara’s comments point to how technology makes harassment and intimidation easier, as well as the type of stalking that Rezada suffers. Like Anara, many victims of technology-facilitated IPV note that aggressive, threatening, and harassing texts can rob them of any sense of security or freedom. And because the texts can reach them wherever they are and whatever they are doing, there feel that there are no safe spaces where they can escape from the emotional abuse. Anara described further that not only did her husband’s texts make her frightened for herself; they were also a constant reminder that she was not able to speak with her children, couldn’t ask them if they were ok, and couldn’t comfort them even though she was far away.

Despite the harm it causes, technology-facilitated intimate partner violence is often played-down by victims, authorities, and bystanders. A common refrain is that ‘because the perpetrator is physically distant from the victim, the threat is not serious’. In the Kyrgyz Republic, where young women face pressure to marry starting from the age of 20, women’s relatives, friends, and acquaintances may push them to stay in relationships even where there is technology-facilitated IPV. Indeed, these well-meaning bystanders (and the victims themselves) may believe that the harassment is ‘romantic’ – reflecting a real attachment, concern, and love – and will decrease once a couple gets married. As Baktygul describes,

He’s very controlling. He texts 8 or 9 times a day asking where I am, what I’m doing, why I don’t respond to him. [My employer] has a schedule of meetings that’s available online – he found the schedule, so he knows when I’m in meetings and when I’m not and when I should respond right away and when I can’t. I can tell this relationship isn’t good for me. But no one understands why I don’t marry him, my family thinks I’m crazy for not marrying.

– Baktygul, Bishkek, 2018

Lawyers in the Kyrgyz Republic have noted that they have seen an increase not only in the number of  divorce cases where technology-facilitated stalking, harassment, and threats are involved – similar to the cases of Rezada, Anara, and Baktygul – but also in alimony cases where women’s ex-partners threaten to post intimate pictures of and private information about their ex-wives on social media unless those women agree not to seek financial support after divorce. This technology-facilitated blackmail is but one more example of the insidious ways that communications technologies can be used to control victims and impede their access to justice.

What is the scale of technology-facilitated intimate partner violence in the Kyrgyz Republic?

Unfortunately, no studies have been conducted on technology-facilitated IPV in the Kyrgyz Republic. Extrapolating from research conducted in the US and Australia, where roughly 20% of domestic violence victims have also suffered technology-facilitated intimate partner violence, anywhere from 1,400 to 140,000 women in the Kyrgyz Republic could be expected to have suffered technology-facilitated intimate partner violence (a wide margin indeed!).

The reason that this range of potential victims of technology-facilitated IPV is so wide is that data on domestic violence in the Kyrgyz Republic is itself inconclusive and variable. In 2016, some 7,053 cases of family violence were officially registered in the Kyrgyz Republic (Women and Men Survey [hereinafter: WMS], 113), 20% of which is 1,400 potential victims of technology-facilitated IPV. However, one in four women who were ever married in the Kyrgyz Republic have reported suffering physical violence,  commonly at the hands of their spouses (in 67% of cases) or ex-spouses (26% of cases) (2012 Demographic and Health Survey [hereinafter: DHS], 245, 249). Given that 98.5% of Kyrgyzstani women have been married at least once by the time they reach 50 and the female population is roughly 3 million, some 740,000 women (or 25% of ever-married women) will have suffered physical intimate partner violence by the time they are 50. Extrapolating, some 20% of these women – or roughly 140,000 to 150,000 – will have suffered technology-facilitated intimate partner violence. Meanwhile, the vast majority of married women in the Kyrgyz Republic experience an array of controlling or abusive behaviors: 71% undergo jealousy or anger from their husbands if they talk to other men, 69% have husbands who insist on knowing where they are are all times, and 14% are not permitted by their husbands to meet with female friends (DHS, 253), all of which lend themselves to technology-facilitated intimate partner violence.

The lack of reliable information on sufferers of technology-facilitated IPV in the Kyrgyz Republic points to an urgent need to study the prevalence, forms, causes, and consequences of such violence. Such information is key to devising effective policy interventions and direct services to victims.

What can I do if I think a family member or friend is suffering from technology-facilitated intimate partner violence?

If you are worried that a loved one or friend is experiencing technology-facilitated IPV, you should strive to support and help them while respecting their agency and right to make decisions for themselves. Some concrete ways you can support them include:

  1. Ask your friend or loved one what support she or he needs, and help her or him receive that support if you can;
  2. Check in frequently and ask how she or he is doing. But be aware that her or his devices may be monitored and thus your attempts to stay in touch could elicit violence from the abusive partner. Ask how she or he prefers to be contacted when you are meeting face to face (and preferably with any potentially Spyware infected devices out of hearing range);
  3. If you are connected with this friend or loved one on social media, refrain from posting images of or information about them online or tagging them in any events or photos. This could give their abusive partner information that they do not want made public;
  4. Check the privacy settings on your own accounts and try to limit the amount of your content that the abusive partner can see.

These tips are borrowed from SmartSafe. Additional ideas and information can be accessed at their website by clicking here.

What is For Families doing about technology-facilitated intimate partner violence?

For Families is working to prevent technology-facilitated IPV in the Kyrgyz Republic. Our current work includes:

  • Gathering case studies on technology-facilitated intimate partner violence to better understand its forms, causes, and consequences;
    • These are to be the basis of a broader study we plan to better assess the prevalence of technology-facilitated IPV across the country;
  • Raising awareness among lawyers of the risks of technology-facilitated intimate partner violence, what they can do to help clients who suffer from such abuse, and sharing best practices in electronic communications to minimize the risk that they expose their clients to further abuse;
    • We are developing a toolkit for lawyers to integrate into their work with domestic violence victims, including best practices when it comes to technology-facilitated IPV. This toolkit and related online resources will be the backbone of workshop sessions for lawyers on these topics;
  • Sharing information about international best-practices in protecting mobile phones, computers, and other electronic devices from Spyware and what to do if you think your device has been infected;
  • Recommending and lobbying for concrete changes to the legal-normative framework of the Kyrgyz Republic including, for example, the passage of a criminal sanction for stalking – which is not recognized as a criminal or administrative offense in the current laws of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Do you have more ideas for how we can stop technology-facilitated intimate partner violence in the Kyrgyz Republic? Get in touch with us at info@forfamilieskg.org or share your ideas in the comments section below – we would love to hear from you!