A glimpse into 1950s parenting: The A-ha Moment

When we think of typical 1950s parenting, we picture dad coming home from work, belt in hand; mom is perfectly made up and ready for bridge club, remote, distant, and oblivious. But when I came across an article from 1957
in an old magazine I bought at an antique store, it made me smile to think there were parents even then who "got it."

"I wish I had stopped a little oftener to think, "Does this really matter? Is it more
important to them than to me?"

There were the Dr. Spocks and other experts who warned you about the dangers of spoiling your babies, how to introduce solids by four weeks and all kinds of other "advice" that is truly horrifying to think of today. Sometimes you wonder if these "experts" even had children themselves. Even Dr. Spock, in his twilight years, regretted the advice he dispensed and backpedaled on his own message. It's sad that for some, it took a lifetime to realize; for others, like the author of this article, thankfully we stopped to realize a bit sooner that maybe there is more to life than spanking, yelling and rigid, unbending schedules. Hopefully we can all find a happy medium.

Why my child will never have a cell phone

I feel kind of sorry for my children. Because surely I must be the meanest mom ever.

My oldest is at the ripe old age of 10, and already is asking when he can have an iPhone. I basically tell him "never." Well, maybe not never - but I first emphasize to him that he is, after all, only 10. Then I remind him that I pay over $1,000 a year to have that phone. So far that seems to deter him, but I don't know how long it will last.

Why not? Everyone else is doing it! 

I somehow managed to go about well into adulthood without having one. I was already married before we purchased our first cell phone, a dinosaur of a Nokia that was functional but beyond that, mostly a pain in the butt to use. That was probably ten years ago.

Obviously technology has improved greatly and most of us are a long way from that old flip phone. As a mom, writer and whatever else I do I cannot imagine living without my smartphone, that honks a reminder to me when I need to be somewhere or sounds the alarm for the kids when it's time to head out the door. It's been great planning directions en route, not getting lost at crucial moments, calling ahead for pizza or sending a quick text to tell relatives we made it home from our long trip.

Call me old fashioned, though, because I just can't see how those applications that make the lives of adults easier can be applied to a kid who still sucks his thumb or watches cartoons on Saturday mornings. Why complicate things that just don't need to be complicated?

I can see how some parents would find them useful for certain things, probably for things I cannot relate to. For instance, we live in the country, so my child isn't around town by himself taking the subway. He's not at after school programs without me, or at any of that stuff that some other families might do. Don't get me wrong, we do have a life.

Several times my son has told me about the basket on his teacher's desk: it holds over half a dozen phones each day while he and his classmates are in school. Why they bring them, I don't know. I see one child's mother every day in the parking lot, without fail, so it's not like there are complicated pick ups and drop offs that mean mom and daughter won't see each other much. In fact, it seems like quite the opposite when I see them together, as if apart from school, they never leave each other's side. Even if her mother forgot about her, the school would take her back inside for shelter and wait with her until her mother showed up. And guess what: they'd let her use their phone to call home, just in case.

He has told me that several kids have shown him games on their phones, which leads me to ask about what else is on their phones:  can they access the internet? He says yes - that sometimes they watch YouTube videos. I want to make sure he's not exaggerating, that perhaps there are some parental controls on their phones because hey, they are kids, after all. But then I think to myself, don't count on it. I remember the days when VCR's and DVD's first came onto the market - and hearing how the preschool-aged kids could operate and manipulate them better than their own parents.

Aside from bullying through social media, the latest concern are photo apps like SnapChat, whose novelty seems to be that it can take photos and share them with others and then quickly delete them. Only the problem is that it doesn't really delete them, especially if you know how to do a screenshot. Supposedly the sender will be alerted if a screenshot is taken of their photo, but who cares - the damage can still be done. Some are worried that the supposed disposability of these photos will make users think they can send photos without consequence. It seems, though, that when it comes to the Internet and it's possibilities, both positive and negative, that nothing can be sent without some consequence.

(And guess what, folks - there's a new app that can bypass the screenshot notification - as well as a few new tutorials on line about how to take secret screenshots of SnapChat pictures. Wonderful!)

And the makers of SnapChat, as well as other popular brands like FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube ultimately care little about the content that might be visible to your pre-teen, but rather seem them as a marketing tool and little else. How hard is it to just lie about your age when you get an Instagram account? (By the way, there are literally millions of FaceBook users under the age of 13, which is probably a conservative estimate.) How hard is it to even find the privacy settings, much less fully understand them, before blasting your photos to the entire universe? As many have said of sites like FaceBook, it's like they want you to "overshare," and you realize little just how much info you're giving away over a given period of time.

Images: marketingland.com
At least 20 percent of teen users have 600 or more FaceBook friends.
How many of those 600 people do they actually know?
Thankfully the vast majority of them make their settings private, but a good portion do not. 

Again, when you consider the minimum required age to use FaceBook (wink wink, nudge nudge) is 13, and how utterly ridiculously hard it can be to keep on top of all the changes, settings and everything else the website throws at us (hey, did you know we can use your photos for public use in ads on our site? Thanks!) I imagine some people either fail to see the scope of what they're sharing and with whom or just throw up their hands and say screw it because it's so overwhelming.

We can also see trends in what kinds of information teens are sharing, perhaps without even thinking (and let's face it, adults do it too).

Image: marketingland.com
We make it pretty easy for people to find us
when we share this kind of information. 

I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't just call out teens for this potentially risky behavior; adults do it, too, sometimes unintentionally. And if I hear one more sanctimonious adult say, "Who cares, I have nothing to hide" one more time, I'm going to slap them. 

How many times have we seen inspirational or uplifting photos that say "If such and such a photo gets one million likes, X will happen." Within mere days or even hours of posting, they've already reached half that goal or more. That can be great if you want to share something, and can be devastating if you don't. Like the gossip grapevine, word travels fast - even faster if it's spread through Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, or through whatever flavor of the month app people are using. It was noted that among one recently publicized teen suicide for social network bullying, the perpetrator obtained nude photos of the victim through an online chatroom, only to send them to just about everyone in her school. When she moved to another district - guess what, he continued to send them to students at her new school. 

Because of the advent of social media, it also means that all those typical teenage habits can be instantly photographed and shared with everyone. Gone are the days of "remember when we toilet papered our teacher's house and then got drunk? Good thing no one took pictures." Unfortunately sophisticated camera phones, coupled with instantaneous access to the internet, mean those memories are documented in real time and then, moments later, can be broadcast everywhere, many times with disastrous consequences. 

As technology changes and our boundaries concerning it are bent, shaped and sometimes broken, it's increasingly important to educate not only our children, but ourselves, in all the new ways it can be used and abused. Respecting not only yourself, but other people's boundaries, even if it seems harmless and in good fun, are becoming more and more important as well. I once had some strange creep blatantly take my picture in the grocery store check out line. Who knows where and how that ended up? 

As more and more stories of teen cyber bullying hit the internet, one thing I cannot understand is why people consider it a form of punishment to take away the cell phone of someone who is being bullied. Sure, if my kid were the one bullying someone, you can bet their phone would probably end up under the tires of my vehicle in a dramatic display of just what I thought of their behavior. But I'm beginning to think it's equally important to take a stance when your child is on the receiving end, if not for one important reason: your child's mental health. Receiving hundreds of text bombs a day, scanning updates on FaceBook from people you once thought were your friends who are now gossiping about you, seeing constant reminders in your face all the time, can have their lasting effects. Limiting that contact, and then redirecting into a more positive interaction, can potentially help them to see the negative, detrimental effects that it can have on their lives if left unchecked. Deleting the account, deactivating it, or putting the phone away for awhile might be worthwhile as you focus on something else that is more productive. As adults, we see our FaceBook friends do this all the time: announce they're taking a leave of absence to get away from toxic environments, or just to get work done or pursue other things that are more important and then poof, they're gone for months. Maybe forever. Why can't we encourage our children to do the same? 

I like the idea that this teacher came up with: show a picture of herself illustrating how fast something can be shared on social media. It's important to remember this is just one fan page that may have shared the image, at any given point in time. There could be many, many others - including this blog and whoever reads this post! 

Image: FaceBook/Time 4 Learning Timeline photos

The above photo received over 600 shares and nearly 8,000 people liked it -
this particular time it was shared. How many times was it shared on FaceBook
in total? Huffington Post estimates this photo was shared at least 16,000 times
and liked by more than 600,000 people. That's like the size of a small city.
Or, a large college campus…. 

Aside from the lesson learned in the example above, this article highlights how manipulating this photo - sometimes with funny results, sometimes not so much - can further lead to trouble. 

Have your kids had a bad experience with social network bullying or experienced negative consequences from cell phone use? 

More reading: 

Teacher very successfully teaches students about internet safety - Huffington Post

FaceBook dominates teen social networking, but enthusiasm waning over drama, stress and oversharing - marketingland.com

Snapchat nudes are being screenshot and secretly posted on FaceBook - Huffington Post

Snapchat's expired snaps are not deleted, just hidden - The Guardian

Does public education earn an F?

It's not much of a secret that American public schools are in the proverbial toilet. That's not to say that all districts are bad or fail their kids, but let's not kid ourselves: it seems that somewhere in the equation, we have screwed up. Badly.

My apologies to those who like this guy (I've never heard of him - does that make me uneducated?), but after seeing this meme on FaceBook I just kind of shook my head.

Hmm...did he really say this? Something didn't sound quite right here. His disclaimer: "Even though I don't personally have a kid in school" made me wonder if he was even old enough to have kids. Apparently he does, but I don't know if they're old enough to be in school yet. Even if they are, do you think with his wealth and fame he's going to put them in public school? And even if he is, again - with that wealth and fame he can pretty much move right in to one of the best, wealthiest districts in his area, I'm sure.

Because I didn't know who this person was, I looked him up. He was educated in a boarding/country day school and then moved on to the rural but prestigious Kenyon College, a private liberal arts college in Ohio (that is not that far from where I spent my formative years). I have lived as a faculty spouse in the boarding school culture for over a decade, and am quite familiar with its demographics: mostly made up of either parents who are scraping everything together to help their kids where the public school failed them, or parents who could literally write a check for the $50,000 tuition without batting an eyelash.

Either way, because we're a school that specializes in teaching kids with learning "differences," they're here because their former public school failed them. They're here because their public school either could not, or would not, give them what they needed to succeed.

As a product of the public school system myself, I caught on quickly to their schemes: tracking and grouping "smarter" students and sending them to the brighter, more engaged and dynamic teachers, while the rest of us were going in the other direction. I quickly noticed how the TAG (talented and gifted) program primarily consisted of the smartest kids in my class. I was there when, as we stood in the hallway looking at the class roster for the coming year, a fellow student who's mother was a substitute teacher was horrified to learn that she'd been placed in the teacher's room that ended up making my life a living hell for much of fourth grade. (It wasn't long before her mother protested and changed her to the other teacher's class, and I wondered to myself, What's wrong with this teacher? What does her mother know that mine doesn't? Why doesn't my mom move me, too? 

As it turned out, that fourth grade teacher would chastise me for my problems in math, calling me to the board to be embarrassed in front of the entire class time and time again. Meanwhile, in my head I was silently criticizing her for her professed inability to say the word 'aluminum.' Years later my mom told me told that classmates of mine asked her, "Why is the teacher so mean to Carrie?" Therein began my absolute hatred for math.

Fast forward a couple grades - after we stopped being separated by "smart kids, dumb kids" - and I was distinctly told by at least one of my teachers, "Oh, I've heard about your struggles in math." I thought to myself, Yes, and what are you going to do about it? I was again horrified and embarrassed. My high school algebra teacher separated me from the class, making the rest wait in silence as he went over negative numbers and integers with me. At one point during that year, I left the room in tears.

It was only when my chemistry teacher took the time to teach me a different way, to help me outside of class and away from the stares of my peers, that I really got it - and actually started to enjoy math. Somehow I can function just fine in my world, despite not having taken higher-level math - a reality that became crystal clear to me as I took one standardized test after another to assess what I knew and what I should know. The math questions always stumped me and I basically just started guessing. It occurred to me: This is an assessment of what the state thinks I should know. But what if I don't? How can I answer questions on a test when I've never even seen this material before?

I think of the learning-disabled kids who went to my school - stuck in the resource room, which translated into "party time!" They were kids with behavioral problems and bad grades, and it's hard to tell which came first. It's obvious when reading their status updates on FaceBook that they still clearly struggle with reading and writing skills, and I feel badly for them. They were just shuffled around, probably never made to think they could succeed. What if they had untapped potential and could've been helped in a different way? Even though this was during the 80s and 90s, don't think it still doesn't happen in schools today, despite all the legislation, funding and government intervention that tries to tell us differently.

I took "advanced placement" English in high school, which was nothing more than a year-long session of glorified spelling tests. We read one book the entire time. I got mad about it, admittedly disrespectfully arguing with the teacher in front of the entire class about how when I got to college, my English professor was going to laugh in my face. I asked the school's librarian about it, and she knew full well the problem, puzzled because that teacher's house was "full of books."

We are fortunate to have the opportunity to send our children to a private parochial school that has the cheapest tuition I've ever seen. But we're hoping to move closer to family, which makes me wonder if we're not crazy for giving up such a good deal (too bad it's only K-8). When I compared private education costs elsewhere, I was literally blown away. One school charges $6,000 a year for full-day kindergarten alone. How can we possibly afford to educate three kids there? Couple that with housing costs, and just in order to find a house reasonably within our budget, we're looking at sketchy, poorly-rated districts, if not some of the worst in the area. What do really poor, low-income people do? Just give up?

I think back to my conversation with a private school administrator currently facing low enrollment (because no one wants to shell out the big bucks for private schools) and a number of questionable students who are there on the voucher program. While it ideally should give bright students trapped in a crappy district the power to seek out better schools, in reality, she said that those A's they got in public school now translate into D's once in the private setting. That particular district was riddled with corruption scandals that included a heavy-handed principal that used his influence to hire friends who were incompetent and lied about their credentials during interviews. They tore down the completely ramshackle building and built a fancy new one, which now has empty classrooms that they cannot fill. The local police department also has an office within the building,  if that tells you anything.

Why should we be happy to shell out hard-earned tax dollars to a district that is underperforming? That has had state funds put on hold because they aren't churning out students that meet their expectations? Districts that are obsessed with raising those all-important test scores, at any cost? If all they care about is the scores, they're not caring whether or not the kids really know the information - all it does is teach you how to be a good test-taker. If you're not, then it's a poor reflection of what you really know, and how you can apply that knowledge.

I also think of the public school teachers I know who post multiple updates about how they hate their jobs, are getting out of teaching, because the students don't care, don't do any work, the administration gives them a pass and doesn't punish them, the parents are uninvolved and couldn't be bothered. It's endless. One person I actually had to unfriend because that's all she did, in every post. Is this the new "social order?"

One thing I've noticed that is rampant in the educational subculture is the use of big words, stock phrases and jargon that basically says absolutely nothing. We can speak this way all day long, to convince people we care, that we "get it," to make ourselves look puffed up and educated. When really, it's quite the contrary. Book smarts and fancy language are impressive, but can only go so far. I saw a great interview with old-school economist Thomas Sowell, who was public-schooled in Harlem, dropped out of high school and went on to become a veritable genius in his field, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard. He said that people are always coming up to him and bemoaning his experience in the inner-city public schools, but he doesn't know what they're talking about - he said he received a good education, and those in the neighborhood around him did, too. What happened? He now thinks there are none of those channels out of poverty and the very system in place to help is actually keeping these students from succeeding.

I don't like to use the phrase 'stupid people,' perhaps just "under smart." Not as smart as they could be, maybe because they're expecting and allowing the public school to fully educate their children? Trusting them to do a good job and pick up where the parent left off? What if the parent never started to begin with? I'm sure it's a combination of things - parents that don't care or can't care, students who don't care or fall between the cracks, teachers who don't have the time and mental fortitude to work on every single kid who comes from a household where education doesn't mean squat. And the more people who don't become their "child's first teacher," who don't give a rip, the more the district - and the state - decides to step in for "the social order" and the common good and start making decisions on the child's behalf. That includes in cases where the parents most definitely educate their kids and have a high stake in their learning. What gives the district and the state the right to undermine and override the parents' authority in their child's life, especially in the presence of very aware, intelligent and involved parents? If you have a district that's primarily made up of parents who don't care, are they doing more harm than good in acting on the child's behalf, just further making them victims of the system?

I think so.

More reading:
California 12-year-olds to get HPV vaccine without parental consent
Teen gets abortion with help from her high school

The return of Ruby, the "Anti-Barbie"

My three-year-old saw this picture and asked,
"Is that a real Barbie? Is that a real doll? She is
cutting her hair." LOL No traumatizing here...

Remember Ruby?

A few years ago I posted a picture of Ruby, The "Anti-Barbie" and compared her with the current bizarre Mattel brainchild, Bratz dolls. A little backstory: a dad and his daughter were at the mall somewhere, caught a glimpse of The Body Shop's Ruby ad, and he basically flipped out and said his daughter was "traumatized." (I'm curious how many Victoria's Secret mannequins they had passed during that shopping trip.) Mattel then stepped in and took over.

After filing a cease and desist order to The Body Shop, the ad got pulled.

What I didn't realize was that this ad campaign originally debuted over a decade ago in 1998, before Twitter and Facebook, and as one writer put it, "If something went viral, it usually required a trip to the doctor's office." Now with the virtual explosion of social media, Ruby made somewhat of a comeback.

Since I first saw that ad two years ago, and I really haven't thought much about Ruby since, until I started making Barbie clothes for my daughter's dolls. As I studied patterns and then the mass-manufactured clothes, I remembered that ad and the freak out episode Mattel had surrounding it.

It seems that Mattel's energy is misdirected in their efforts to get the Body Shop to cease and desist: she looks, really, nothing like the "real" Barbie, and is merely a representation of a doll, any doll, not just Barbie. There are copycat Barbies everywhere, so why not go after those people, too?

Strangely enough, it didn't appear as though Mattel were going after the manufacturer of the doll, just the people who are showing us the image. So in other words, they can't stop someone from actually making a doll like this, but they can just try their hardest to keep us from seeing it.

Ironically, in the late 1950s, Barbie's creator had been to Germany and saw a similar doll, called Bild Lili, taking it back to the US to her husband, the co-founder of Mattel. The irony of Barbie's debut smacks of theft, in some ways. Later, Mattel acquired the rights to the German company, and Barbie's European cousin was no longer produced.

If Ruby were to really be created as a doll for the public market, it seems like she would threaten Barbie's livelihood about as much as Barbie moved in on Bild Lili's territory back in 1959.

There are countless styles of fashion dolls out there, many re-tooled and redesigned by adult collectors whose vast collections of Barbie-like dolls, clothing, shoes and furniture would make any kid envious. They are often produced in Japan, and can be made to look like celebrities, rugged men, glamourous women with excessively large breasts - just about anything you can think of - except overweight. And we know that even with two body redesigns (which may have been prompted by the Ruby ad, along with cries of protest by concerned parents), Barbie and her gorgeous body is still not really what the average American woman looks like, a size 14 - which is more like what Ruby looks like (as the ad truthfully suggests).

Because we all know that nurses everywhere
wear satin scrubs and sky-high heels. It was
either this or the astronaut costume.

As far as wardrobe choices, it seems like Barbie is devolving somewhat. Decades ago when she first came out, there were beautifully-styled dresses, jackets with linings and real tags, tennis outfits, all kinds of clothing - all of which looked very realistic. While it's true that changing times and hemlines are probably what Barbie's wardrobe reflects upon most, it's still not that true-to-life. The career dolls are still around, and I recently bought an astronaut suit (with matching helmet and boots!) for my daughter's birthday. But I made a pact with myself when I started buying those dolls for her - I'd rather see them naked all the time than with the barely-there clothing she often comes with. I contest that while ball gowns are very pretty and glamourous (I think girls prefer the long, flowing ones over the often tight-fitting, super short ones Mattel seems to be churning out), Barbie needs a good dose of reality in her wardrobe. Most of us do not wear negligee-type dresses out in public, or silk scrubs and platform shoes to our nursing jobs. If you want Barbie to have a realistic wardrobe that looks like a pint-sized version of your own, you have to make it yourself.

So Mattel was upset by the image of Ruby, yet condones the sexed-up, almost prostitute-ish look of Bratz dolls in their skimpy, barely-there clothing, platform shoes and heavy makeup. Barbie's own wardrobe generally consists of unrealistic, often revealing clothing, a complete departure from the original designs that were miniature versions of clothing real people would wear. Much like today, when the doll was first introduced, parents protested her unrealistic chest size. Despite the protests of parents now about the appearance of the Bratz doll, they still continue to be top sellers.

I want my husband to come home. Now.

Why yes, honey, when your
father comes home I am going
to run away and then go
commit myself. 

As many of you know from my Facebook posts, my husband left Thursday for a week-long trip. To the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As in, 24 hours of travel, three flights and five hours time difference. Things are getting interesting around here, and I can't help but think of all those moms who raise children while their significant others are on their third business trip of the month or deployed for months on end. How on earth do you do it?!


So far we've had lots of treats. Popcorn before bed, ice cream and Wendy's, basically things that I wouldn't normally do if dad were around. As much as I knew I would miss him, I wanted this to be like an extended slumber party type fun time for us as we wait for him to come back. I planned on staying up late, working on projects, bachelorette-type stuff. "Cereal for dinner? Surrrrre!" So far, though, I'm too freaking exhausted at the end of the day to make any of those plans happen, and have done laundry most of the time. Lots of it.

My dear son... what can I say. He has apparently regressed in toilet training or just is missing his dad, I don't know - but he has literally spent most of the time since daddy left pooping. In his pants. Oh, the joy.

For some reason, it seems to happen at the most inopportune times. Like when I'm on the phone. Last night I saw him emerging from the darkness, coming upstairs to meet me, a wipe in hand and underwear missing. Panic. What were you doing down there? Is there more? How did you manage to find the wipes in the dark? I thought. I went downstairs to check and flipped on the hallway light - at which point the bulb blew out. Lovely. 

I've realized how much I need my husband around. Not just to help out with the children (although that's an integral part of it) but other things - like to motivate me to keep up with laundry. And not eat pints of ice cream for breakfast, lunch and dinner. To hold me accountable. And moving. The first day was kind of like a party, but now the fun has worn off and we're going postal. I mean, I cleaned the toilet this morning. I think he's rubbing off on me to the point where I actually clean when he isn't here. Wow.

In the meantime, there's always laundry. And after I did my third load, I came to the horrifying conclusion that there were indeed poop chunks in my washer. Great, now what?

And that's just day two.

Don't fear the fever

*Cue the Blue Oyster Cult soundtrack...*


A few days ago my daughter went to bed with a stomachache (nothing highly unusual for her, since without her bran flakes, she gets kind of constipated). Anyway, by Saturday afternoon we were running a high fever (103.5) and a mystery rash appeared that night. Panic! No, wait, don't panic. I love Dr. Sears - not only because he's a dad of a small army - but because that's the first thing he says: "Don't panic!"

Due to an earlier outbreak of something mysterious when my oldest was about her age, I knew a little bit about fevers - enough to know, in my copious reading, that fever is not always a bad thing. After all, it's the body's natural defense mechanism against invading germs, and therefore I only give fever reducers sparingly now - like only if they're horribly miserable. Even then, fluids and an early bedtime usually does wonders.

Anyway, I was beginning to freak out, because yes, that does seem high. She started throwing up Sunday, and while it wasn't every 20 minutes or anything, it was concerning. And there was that rash. I wondered: she had strep throat last fall, could it be scarlet fever? Hand-Foot-And-Mouth Disease? Chicken pox? I jumped with glee a little inside at the thought of that, because she's only had one shot - and after all, chicken pox is a "normal childhood illness." (Depending on who you ask, anyway... more on that later.)

Of course, being the dummy that I am, I posted a message on Facebook: something about misery, a high fever and prayers (perhaps not so much for her, but for my sanity, as I had concurrently had a three-year-old regressing in toilet habits all day long thanks to one too many bran muffins. Never again.) Anyway, it wasn't long before my mom called. All in a tizzy, of course.

I reassured her we were fine, we were dealing with it, keeping an eye on her, and that was it. We exchanged mutters and disgust over the chicken pox vaccine and how really, it's better to just get the actual illness, stuff like that. Then we hung up.

I had done my research, was confident that yes, I was doing the right thing. My husband encouraged me to stop worrying and get out of the house. I took a nap. I went swimming. I even enjoyed it.

Later, she called me back. In an even bigger tizzy. This time she'd talked to my well-meaning but totally drinking the KoolAid nurse relatives who thought, along with the bombastic, condescending, interrupting fill-in on-call pediatrician, that she should be taken in. I started to feel the panic rise up again, the second-guessing: Was I doing the right thing? Was I being stupid? She had done her share of Google searches, as I had, and came up with even stranger results: all I remember was something about typhoid fever. Seriously? I pictured in my mind a quick visual of Typhoid Mary cooking over a hot stove, shedding her virus into everyone's food, then snapped back to reality. "Mom, it's not typhoid."

"Well, it's 104. What about those bugs you have?"

"Mom, it is not 104. And those bugs are Mayflies. They're dead now - they go away at the end of May. And don't you remember when Oldest Kid had a fever of 104 for a few days? Afterwards I talked to the pediatrician and he thought maybe it was swine flu - and I didn't even know to be freaked out and panic, we just treated it!"

We've had conversations before, interestingly, about how my close relative who happens to be a nurse thinks medicating for everything is necessary and always a good idea; sort of "if it's there, you might as well use it" approach. I don't disagree that sometimes it is a good idea, but when people are overdosing their children on Tylenol, you come to realize that our medical culture definitely has a "more is better" approach, which is probably more dangerous in the long run than just monitoring and caring for the child in the first place.

I still remember some movie - not even sure what it was - where a mom is worriedly hovering over her young child, who is running a very high fever. Fast forward to the hospital - she's in an ice bath (the last thing you want to do, apparently), there's an angel coming to take her away kind of deal, and that's all I remember. I don't think I was even a mom yet, but of course it freaked me out - kids are sick, no one knows what's wrong, kids are dying, I can't watch this anymore. Of course, that scene is the first thing I think of when my child's fever gets high. Wonderful.

When you think about it, what is a fever, exactly? The medical community thinks that it's the body's response to get rid of an invading bacteria or virus. In some ways, fevers are kind of misunderstood and much maligned, which causes us to run around and panic more than anything else. So if it's the body natural response to fighting illness, which is just built right in (in most people, that is, unless your immune system is compromised), what does constantly throwing a fever reducer do to it? It lowers the body's natural defenses, letting more invaders in!

Doubling up on Motrin and Tylenol? Even worse. If a fever doesn't respond to either, then perhaps it's some cause for a call to the doctor - but when you douse it with both at one time, those "stubborn fevers" are just going to get even more stubborn - in fact, they may actually prolong the illness. Just what you always wanted, right?

Now we're seeing more variant strains of chicken pox (yes, even with vaccination!), scarlet fever and Coxsackie virus - that produce unusual symptoms. Could this be from gradual overuse of fever reducers? Who knows. But every time your child runs a fever, you could be thwarting the body's own natural defenses by not giving them half a chance to do their job, which leaves a child perhaps even more vulnerable to these new strains that keep showing up.

And with regards to Coxsackie virus, look for signs, be vigilant about watching temps and all that stuff - but please! Do yourself a favor and do not go all crazy with media reports - because they are going to make you psychotic with worry. There have been deaths from things like chicken pox, coxsackie virus, H1N1, etc. - and I wonder: were they using fever reducers? In the case of Swine Flu, it can actually increase the risk of death if you use it, which sounds contrary to what our government and health professionals tell us.

Even the American Academy of Pediatrics (FTW this time!) says "fever is good for you" and that the media (and just about everyone, it seems) has a "fever phobia." You'll probably notice this quickly - that stupid movie I watched didn't even treat it correctly. An ice bath is not recommended, because it can cause shivering, which actually raises the body's core temperature. And as far as brain damage is concerned, that generally happens around 107.6 degrees. What a difference a few degrees makes, huh?

More reading:
Scarlet fever on the rise
H1N1 and Fever Reducers: A Deadly Combination
Atypical strain of coxsackievirus caused outbreak of HFMD in four states
Pediatric Parenting Myths: Fever is Bad for You
Fighting Fever Phobia: The AAP

The anti-bully bullies

Bullying is the hot topic on everyone's lips lately. Most people seem to connect it only with teens - mostly homosexual teens who are struggling to find their place in society and gain acceptance. While this is true, it's to a point: I've said before that it's a teen issue, a girl issue, a boy issue - an everyone issue. Probably everyone has been bullied, and I dare say probably everyone, in some way, bullies other people. They just don't realize it.

Speaking of gay bullying, there's this one:

Wait a minute. We're countering bullying with... more bullying? And when it comes to bullying gay people, I've noticed something, especially when it concerns celebrity homosexuals (or rumored homosexuals) - they are bullied. By people in the gay community. I feel sorry for gay people who feel forced to come out of the closet (if they really even are in it in the first place) by someone - maybe an entire group of someones - who just can't handle it if someone isn't ready to talk about it openly, isn't ready to make an announcement for the entire world to hear, or are endlessly pressured to view their gayness the same way everyone else does. And then, those bullies justify it - because, really, everyone being out and open about it is almost perceived as a greater good kind of thing. If you are quietly leading your life, happily gay behind the scenes, how dare you?! 

Have you ever noticed that?

Then there's this one:

Seriously? This is basically saying, "I am going to say and do whatever I want. If you don't like it, you are the one with the problem."

I'm not saying I never swear, but mostly it's not within earshot of my grandmother, children or anyone else. I've heard young people spout out every curse word known to man in the middle of the checkout line at a convenience store, for no reason other than it's just a thought in their heads that they think needs to be expressed right now, and honestly - they sounded like idiots. We've gone from a culture who (mostly) uses profanity sparingly - and at one point would face strict fines and punishment because of obscenity laws - to one who drops the F bomb at every turn. Mild profanity has long been part of our regular television viewing, and every few years you'll hear an increasing arsenal of words that get past the censors.

A few years ago we went to a local farm to pick out pumpkins for Halloween. While sipping our cider and enjoying our family time, another family - with kids in tow- was openly using the F word in public, in front of their kids (and within earshot of mine). What do you do? What do you say? Surely someone is going to get ticked because their "freedom of speech" has been infringed upon. Surely you stand a good chance of getting into a fist fight because some idiot decides his right to say whatever he wants, whenever, is more important than your right to not hear it.

Oh yeah, speaking of the First Amendment and your "right" to "free" speech: there are exceptions to that free speech. They include:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

In other words, you are not within your rights to assume that you can speak freely - obscenely - wherever you please. But somehow, I am the one that's wrong because I'm offended. Say what? And I'm sure few people will challenge you on it, because that's just how far down the toilet bowl our culture has sunk. If Grandma Betty doesn't want to hear you use the F word every other sentence, then Grandma Betty can just @(%&* (!&. Right? Because she is the one with the problem, not you (and your total lack of respect for others).

A few years ago my husband stopped at a gas station and after we left, he thought the cashier had mistakenly given him the wrong change. He went back and told the guy what he thought had happened, in a polite, non-confrontational manner, because he wasn't completely certain it wasn't his error. We walked in together, and the cashier - a young man - opened up with both barrels on us: I'm fairly certain the F word was used no fewer than half a dozen times, I was called a 'fat cow,' and we were told to "Get the f--k out of 'his' store," or something to that effect. I was beyond shocked, for two reasons: that a simple inquiry could be met with such fury, and that no one - not one single person - spoke up in our defense. I remember looking around, seeing several customers who barely registered a reaction, and wondered, "Surely they are going to hear him - that's really unprofessional!" When I wrote a letter to Exxon, they offered little, if any, response, and the store owner basically denied the incident.

Surely not everyone in that store that day used profanity like this guy did - but, because hey, it's your "freedom of speech!" I guess it's perfectly okay for your "rights" to run right over mine, 'kay?

Another thing I've noticed are the peaceful, loving memes about respect, tolerance, acceptance, and the usual sunny happy daisies stuff. Usually there's a quote that's got Gandhi's name on it, which somehow elevates it to near-holy status and must mean that it's unquestionably good, right and true. That's great - everyone should feel love for one another. But I think the love only extends so far - and usually stops at the first person who expresses an opinion different than yours. Suddenly that 'peace, love, and tolerance' flies out the window. And usually when there's a disagreement, the word 'hate' is used: because we all know people who disagree are "haters," right?

Here's another one that kind of grates on me, even though it's from everyone's favorite author, Dr. Seuss:

I'm guessing this one is often taken out of context, especially considering Dr. Seuss' equally famous line, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Somehow the meaning has been derailed: "No one else matters but me and those people who agree with me." I don't think that's where Dr. Seuss was going with this. The next time you get pulled over for speeding, try using this one on the officer.

Who "matters," exactly? And who are you to determine this? How can we teach our children not to expect everyone to agree with them, and how to get along with those who don't? How to learn from them, perhaps even change our perspective, because they have something to offer - despite disagreeing? Children are "color blind," so to speak, in that their rose-colored glasses are often tainted with age, experience, and the complete ass-hattery of adults in the world around them. And as much as adults like to say they think bullying is horrible and we should accept everyone, they don't seem to realize they're part of the problem.

Another thing we often hear is "If you don't like it, don't look/listen," etc. As if it's your fault for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the fact that you've actually had the audacity to let something offend you. But if the shoe is on the other foot - if you're the minority in the group who expresses an unpopular opinion - well, then there should be Congressional hearings on it to get you banned, right? How is that not bullying someone to see your point of view, to agree with you even though they don't want to, and to just get over it already? I wish that street ran both ways.

The reality is, that more often it turns into something like this:

Everyone that disagrees with me is a "hater" and "stupid." Problem solved! I don't think Dr. Seuss would approve...

In looking back over these images, there is one thing they seem to say: that we are a selfish society that thinks the opinions of certain people matter more than others. That because it's your idea and it came from you, that you should put it - and yourself - above everything else. If we teach our children anything, the first thing we should learn ourselves is humility. Be humble enough to realize that you're not always right, no matter what side of the fence you're on, and if you know you are (as opposed to only thinking you are), approach others with love and respect - it's a lot more effective than harsh words, criticism and hateful talk. If that doesn't work, at least you'll have taught your children an important lesson about truly loving others, instead of demonstrating hypocrisy. As the saying goes, 'be the change you wish to see in the world,' instead of doing more to perpetuate it, only through a different lens.

Are you mom enough?

"The strength of
motherhood is greater
than natural laws."
- Barbara Kingsolver. 

Time magazine's latest cover - as one other blogger put it, "I was going to write a post about Time's cover and then realized everyone and her sister already had." True that. I don't have much to add except my disgust over their screaming headline, more than anything, and how my version of "Are you mom enough?" has little if anything to do with extended breastfeeding and attachment parenting.

My version came to me in a vision the other night when I was clipping my son's toenails, of all things: thinking, I am mom enough because I can do this without throwing up into the trashcan. I'm sure Time wasn't thinking about how gross and sometimes downright odd 8-year-old boys can be.

If only their article read something like this instead: "You'll know you're mom enough when you can..."

• hold a vomiting toddler whose poor little body is so tired and sick he falls asleep the minute his head hits the pillow...

• you've long traded in your fancy sweaters for the ones that are covered in spit-up and boogers, and you like it...

• you can withstand hearing all of your children whining, crying, screaming and yelling "Mom mom mom mom mom" 800 times in a row without losing your mind...

• you keep your cool despite your toddler going into full-blown meltdown mode in the grocery store over a single grape...

• you aren't phased when your child comes to you and says, "Mom, I found this booger," extending a finger for you to see the evidence...

• still return to church even after your newborn had a noisy blowout during a silent part of the service...

• endure watching the same Thomas the Train episode on auto play for an entire 800-mile car ride...

• and, as one person put it, "Get a baby out of your uterus and then take care of it." Yep, pretty much!

We need to remember that we can be friends with people who think differently than we do, that we should be friends with people who have a different mindset, instead of sealing ourselves inside a bubble. We can learn from each other, from our mistakes, and get - and receive - support from people who have been there. As moms, we will probably always judge each other's choices, but Time's headline doesn't help - and only adds gasoline to the blaze. Don't buy into it, ladies - don't let them, or anyone else, polarize us like that - because in the end, no matter what our choices are or how much they differ, ultimately some things will always be the same.

State nutrition regulations are out of control

Photo: Jason Antony.

Yet another article is circulating on how public schools are banning bake sales during school hours and even birthday treats because of nutrition concerns. This comes on the heels of an alarming story of a preschooler who, when confronted by state health officials about the contents of her lunch - turkey sandwich, banana, apple juice and potato chips - was offered another alternative instead: chicken nuggets.

On what planet are chicken nuggets healthy? (unless you make them yourself) I'm sure food service outlets who provide this stuff to schools aren't using all natural, vegan ingredients. Heck, they might not even be using real chicken for all we know. And the school thinks her turkey sandwich is a threat? I'm guessing they took one look at the potato chips and that was the end of it.

And now, in the same school, a second mom has come forward to say that her four-year-old was also approached by officials because of her cheese and salami sandwich - on wheat! - with apple juice. She was sent to the cafeteria and given the ubiquitous chicken nuggets again.

I'm not sure which is more alarming: that health officials think chicken nuggets are an acceptable alternative, or that they take such a stance on the matter to the point of overriding a parent's authority. It's becoming an alarming trend in schools - we've been hearing more stories about California schools introducing "age-appropriate" sex education to students regardless of the parent's objections, and vaccinating kids without parental consent. There is a growing presence in the private lives of families by school entities who say they have your child's best interests at heart - but are they taking it too far?

In cases of true neglect, I would hope someone would intervene. Moldy sandwiches (or no lunch at all), bruises and other forms of negligent parenting should raise flags with school officials. But I think this is going to extremes, and makes you wonder what kinds of guidelines the state uses to determine what's healthy and what isn't.

And now on to the birthday treats - this one is kind of sad. Right up there with "holiday" celebrations instead of "Christmas," it sounds like they're trying to take every last ounce of fun out of elementary school and turn it into some kind of boot camp.

Thankfully my son's school hasn't gone this far yet, and I would argue that for the most part parents can exercise common sense in this department. It's hard, though, when so many kids have peanut allergies - peanut products are banned in the classroom because they have snack there, but allergic kids are at their own lunchtime table, which makes things a bit easier. It's also hard, though, when one kid will eat something and the other won't, and you begin to run out of healthy ideas after awhile that comply with everyone's needs. If the state were coming in to complain I'm not sure what I'd do - tell them to do the grocery shopping, maybe...

Although I will say this: because my children's school doesn't have regular cafeteria staff, they serve a "hot lunch" to the kids once a month - with parent volunteers making and serving the food. The person that coordinates the menu does a great job, but when it comes to the dessert portion that parents bring in themselves, it's pretty disgusting. Again, it's hard to find something that is reasonable and yet something they will actually eat - my banana muffins usually go untouched, I'm sure. But cupcakes laden with frosting three inches high is not my idea of healthy. On one hand, you have to let them have their fun, and figure it's one cupcake - it won't kill them. If they eat like that all the time at home, though, that's their business - what are you going to do about it? Surely the school could make suggestions and guidelines - reasonable ones - that help everyone without making it sound like the Food Police is going to show up and arrest you.

One friend has said her daughter's school has already banned birthday treats in favor of toys - which could get ridiculously expensive depending on how many kids are in your child's class. In order to cut costs, the Dollar Store is a great option - for cheap, frustrating toys that break before the bell rings and thus are a complete waste of money. Wonderful - more crap they don't need that breaks easily. I'd rather they have the cupcake!

What next? Will they decide you're an unfit parent because of the lunch you pack, following you home and inspecting your residence? What if you refuse vaccines - will they report you to CPS? You may think home schooling is an option, which many people do in response to things like this - but what if it no longer is? In a handful of countries around the globe, homeschooling is illegal - with "rare exceptions." Can you see how we could be heading down a slippery slope? Are we simply going where they've already been?

Some parents don't know any better - some don't care, and some think that in moderation, it's perfectly acceptable. And it's hard to know what to buy when things that are labeled "healthy" and "natural" are anything but. What do you do?

Another scary trend is to ban recess - which sounds unreal to me. Trapped in a classroom all day, with no chance for exercise - even adult employees are entitled to two 15-minute breaks during the day, depending on the length of their shift. Why not kids? Do we really expect them to sit quietly all day and diligently perform with no breaks, just so we can improve test scores? Or because we're afraid of lawsuits when kids get hurt on the playground?

Running at recess was banned last year in Broward County, Fla. In October, officials at an elementary school south of Boston banned tag and touch football. Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Spokane banned tag during recess. And this past summer, Portland public schools eliminated swings from their playgrounds, along with merry-go-rounds, tube slides, track rides, arch climbers and teeter-totters.

How else are you going to work off all those chicken nuggets the school is serving?

Frederick's of Hollywood meets Prom 2012

It's been about twenty years since I attended my first prom. I looked over the (now gaggy) pictures in magazines, drooling over which one I wished I could get. The strapless blue sequined one was my favorite, even though I would probably never dare (even then) to be seen in anything strapless. A pipe dream - considering I looked in several stores and never saw anything close, not that my mom would have bought it anyway. In other words, it just wasn't happening.

AquaNet reigns supreme

This was what my fantasy prom world looked like in 1992. Kind of short, strapless, yes; but I can't really remember any of the girls at any of the proms I went to looking even remotely like this. Maybe their moms wouldn't let them out of the house, either?

Even so, you'll notice that scalloped-edge neckline is going up, not down. No cleavage here, still managing to be fairly tasteful, even by 1992 standards.

I guess we've come a long way. All I can say is, based on these photos I'm glad my daughter is only in kindergarten.

Marketed as prom gowns, I'm sure they'll draw every eye in the
room, all right; for all the wrong reasons. 

The majority of these "designs" come from someone called Sherri Hill, who looks like she has serious issues. Either that, or no one on the design team has teenaged daughters.

We frequently bemoan the overt "hypersexuality" of teen girls and marketing them to look like they work for an escort service. Parents wring their hands and ponder teen pregnancy rates, birth control pills and abortions while watching the train wreck that is 16 and Pregnant and vowing that their daughters "would never do something like that! My child is an absolute paragon of virtue!" Or, they see nothing wrong with the fact that their daughter is showing the same amount of cleavage as someone well beyond her years and cannot logistically sit down wearing a dress that looks like a glorified band-aid.

Slightly reminiscent of my blue sequined prom
dress dream days, I'm wondering what
happened to half the dress here. 

The company makes dresses for all occasions, but I made sure that the ones I included were, indeed, marketed as "prom dresses." They were nothing short of eye-opening, on many levels. One thing that did not go over my head was the fact that many of these would probably get you sent home to fetch something more appropriate. The "girls" featured in many, if not all of these photos, were provocatively posed and looked well beyond the age of anyone attending a prom. 

While still as strapless as the dresses in 1992 were,
something about these seems different. The plunging
necklines, the deliberate attempts to flash
as much cleavage as possible, and a
bodice (the top part) that gets
smaller and smaller.... and smaller.... 

I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't exactly tiny in high school. The pressure to be thin and look like models has always existed, and takes root in our teenage years. What do you do if you're not a svelte size 2 with DD breasts? Stay home and cry? Show up in sackcloth? Does Sherri have a dress for you?

I'm sure she only *looks* 25 instead of 16...

And speaking of which, yes, how do you sit down in a dress like this? Should you just hang out in the back, standing the entire time in killer heels? I wonder if Sherri has thought of that. On her website, she has many beautiful designs - but I think even she knows she's pushing it, as many models are hiding their excessive cleavage and skin under mounds of long hair, styled just so.

This looks like something from
Mean Girls: "Can you believe
that b!tch showed up in
something not from Sherri Hill's
collection? Oh look at how
pathetic she is! Hahahahaha...."

Again with the ubiquitous hiking up
the dress thing. What's up with that?

"Eww, breastfeeding in public
is so gross! But doesn't this dress
make my boobs look great?!"

If you have trouble sitting down,
your date could always unzip you
a little from the back...

Some of the dresses are decidedly beautiful, but I doubt there's much room for debate that they're a little racy for the younger set. And just because you can wear it doesn't always mean you should. I wonder what prom fashions will look like in ten years when my daughter is old enough to go? Topless? Nudist? 

And while we're at it - why do all the guys' fashions look so clean cut, proper, and fully clothed? Why must women be exposed in order to look attractive, or sexy, or be worthy of attention? I'd like to hear what Sherri has to say about that...

More reading:
Kendall Jenner's Glamourous Prom Night! featuring Sherri Hill's design
A video featuring her children's pageant dress line 

Stay-at-home-moms: Would you send your kid to daycare?

Before we even get started on this one, I'm going to say one thing: If someone says "Don't judge," just remember: we all judge. At one point in time you have judged someone, and if you say you haven't, you're probably not telling the truth. I'm sure we've all judged moms who circumcise their sons, who formula-feed their babies, who fully (or don't) vaccinate, women with large families, those who have epidurals;  the hot-button issues run the gamut and everyone has an opinion. Just keep that in mind.

I couldn't help but notice the new trend among some mothers I know - sending the kids to daycare. That in an of itself isn't revolutionary; one of them is a working mom who just had her second baby. She's a teacher, gets summers and breaks off, and sends her 2 1/2 year old to day care. So what?

The other mom does, too. But she's a stay-at-home-mom. In fact, her three-year-old has been in daycare a few days a week since her youngest was born almost a year ago.

So yeah, I guess I'm judging.

Wouldn't it be nice to drop so and so off so I could actually do something for a change? Yeah. That would be nice.

Then I think back - I put my oldest two in preschool 2 1/2 hours a day, three days a week, but is that the same?

I do think in some ways that preschool and daycare are different: most preschools are only a few hours a week, whereas daycare time tends to be several hours every day or at least several days a week. I felt that sure, all those great things like socialization, blah blah blah were important, and my kids were enrolled in a great program with fantastic teachers. I wanted them to experiences a "rules" setting much like the classroom with similar expectations that they would have in school, and admittedly, it was also good for me, too. So yeah, I can admit that I partly did it because I wanted a break.

But what I found was that much of the time, I admittedly didn't do shit during that break. Sometimes grocery shopping, but certainly not every day. Working out? Yeah, whatever. I don't know about other people; I'm sure some are super-diligent about their time, but I bet more often than not that others fritter away their time much like I did. Now that I have two full time in school, I'm home alone with my youngest, who just turned three. And you know what? I don't want to send him to preschool next year, because we're rather enjoying ourselves at home, doing our thing. And I realized, I can teach him just about as much, maybe more, as he could be learning in preschool.

I don't begrudge any mom who does need to send her kids to daycare because she's single, struggling financially, can't afford not to - but then there are those moms who agree that whatever money spent on daycare sucks up all their income and they have to ask themselves, is it really worth it? Don't get me wrong: I think there are some situations where sending the kids to daycare when you stay at home might be good for a mom's mental health. Someone mentioned taking care of a child with long-term illness, which is probably above and beyond what most of us go through in a typical day. Dealing with depression is another, which might give someone a much-needed break.

But does it become a crutch?

The moms I'm talking about are people I know, and rather intimately. One stays at home during the day and works occasionally in the evenings while her husband watches the kids. She's well-adjusted, watches a lot of Ellen, and sheepishly admits to sending her daughter a few days a week - presumably so she can run errands and make her life easier with the youngest (and watch more Ellen). The other has expressed her interest in keeping up her tenure and seniority at her teaching job, and I think therefore feels that she "must" work. Neither are depressed, and we're all living pretty much within the same economic sphere. (Although with two incomes I know they can well afford the house and two cars they bought this past year.) Judge much? Hell yeah.

Because I know that even as a stay-at-home mom, there were times I spent more time focusing on things that were way less important than my children. And they were even at home with me. And suddenly it hits me like a smack in the face: I can't get that time back. And neither can they. That time that they sent their kids off to daycare so they could keep their fantastic (and totally unnecessary) job, run errands or have coffee with the girls and errands, is totally gone and can never be reclaimed.

I judge because I see her tooling around with her husband while neither of them are working, knowing their kid is in daycare. If I were a working parent, I'd absolutely take a hit on the daycare bill to be with my child, even if I'd already paid up. And since I know they pay by the month, it means there are literally weeks at a time - like Christmas and spring break - where they know they'll be off work. And guess what? She's still often in daycare.

I judge because I see how freaking sick that kid is, every time I see her. She hacks and coughs endlessly and always sounds like she's miserable, to the point where others have noticed and expressed concern. And she's already been hospitalized at least once.

Both used daycare as an option when they had their second children, which must be nice - and yet makes me wonder: how are you ever going to get used to the full workload of two kids when they're not together all the time? How unrealistic. I'd love to send them off to my mom's so I can go into town for 20 freaking minutes, go on a date with my husband, or just whatever. But my mom lives six hours away, all my friends have kids of their own to deal with, and my two most reliable babysitters are moving half a dozen states away this summer. So I guess I'll just have to find another way. Because I signed up for this when I decided to have children. Isn't that what motherhood is ultimately all about?

Years ago, moms stayed home and dads worked full time, often detached from their children and the child-rearing responsibilities. Heavy-handed discipline was often the norm, leaving physical bruises and emotional scars. Now with generations of kids practically raised by someone else in a daycare setting, is it any different? No physical scars, but perhaps an emotional void that should, if possible, be filled by a parent? (Stay-at-home dads are the shiznit!) In cases like this, is it mothers who are now detaching themselves, if not only partially?

I know it's not always possible. And I'm sure I'll come off as a hating, judgmental fill in the blank. That's not really my intent to hurt someone, but ... well, there's not really anywhere else to go with that. If you are probably going to be home anyway, then what is the point? Are we really letting ourselves be told - or telling ourselves, maybe - that motherhood is too much, or that we can't do it? Then why did we assume this role?

All those doddering old people that come up to us in stores and smile at our sweet children, telling us "Enjoy it - it'll go so fast!" have a point. They're freaking right.

Kids' Choice Awards - not for kids anymore?

It's that time of year again: the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, my absolute favorite show ever! 

I only had to see the aftermath of photos from this event to realize that there is an incredible dearth of appropriate role models for kids these days. The cleavage, the thighs, they're all out in full force for this event that is supposed to be geared for children. What the heck is going on?!

I'm still reeling, apparently, from the Teen Choice Awards of three years ago where Miley Cyrus pole danced. Nice one. This year, Katy Perry and Selena Gomez made headlines because of their midriff-bearing outfits rather than anything they really contributed to the program. That didn't bother me so much as the skimpy tops and skirt? that Katy was wearing - the one that looked like she was either intentionally hiking it up in front to give us a free show (no, never!) or that she had visited the ladies room recently and half of it got stuck in her waistband.

Kids Choice Awards 2005. Come on,
Paula, put your boobs away already.

I have nothing against Katy Perry as far as adult listeners go, but I can't understand why the children's entertainment industry continues to practically tout her as a role model. Virtually everything she's done professionally is inappropriate in some way, shape or form for the younger audience she undoubtedly reaches - and she earns her living talking and acting like none of us would want our children to act. If you love her music, hey, that's great - but I can't stand people justifying her as being "appropriate" for young kids to watch.

Because of the increasing use of technology, especially the ease in accessing it that kids have, it's increasingly difficult to separate what these people do in their professional lives from what they do in venues like this. People can say all they want that a child is "not going to understand" that a former porn star is in their school reading books to them, but our children today are way more aware than we ever were about these realities - I just don't think they always understand how to appropriately process that information and make sense of it.

When I was in grade school, Madonna's career really took off. I specifically remember when the Like A Virgin album came out - I was probably 10 or 11 years old. I remember the album cover and being embarrassed, kind of grossed out, even, over what she was wearing. I also remember the lyrics - only slightly understanding what it meant to be a virgin - or even like one - and connecting the meaning to the album cover.

The grosser and more outrageous she got, the less I liked her music, thank God. But what if it hadn't been that way? And why was my mother letting me listen to this crap?

Anymore it seems that there is nothing embarrassing about dressing that way, or implicating something sexual in the lyrics. We barely register a reaction, then, when we see Katy Perry on TV one moment endorsing a kid's program, and then later on see her half- (three quarters?) naked in a video.

The lyrics of "Teenage Dream" talk about getting drunk and having sex - but as one writer put it when referring to a group of her fans awaiting her arrival in Denver,

a sea of teenagers, mostly young ladies — not quite the hyper-sexual "Teenage Dream" Katy Perry sings about in her hit songs.

Really? Says who? Does this guy have kids, or even know what the current rate of teen pregnancy and abortion are these days? Totally clueless.

He went on to add that her "simplistic lyrics" were fun for the kids, and "adults can relate to her fun sexuality." Yeah, completely clueless. You cannot separate the two: because kids, like most people, can both see and hear at the same time.

When someone complains about these women and their status as role models, others immediately pipe up with one or two very predictable responses: "Have you seen how kids dress these days?" is usually one of them. Judging from the way people dress for the Kids' Choice Awards, is it any wonder why children dress like they do?

That is usually followed up with, "You're just jealous!" Considering I'm about ten years and three kids older than Katy Perry, no, I don't have her figure. That doesn't really bother me - I'd rather my daughter see what a normal body looks like, not something manufactured and unrealistic. What is there to be jealous of? I'm in a normal, stable relationship, I can go out in public without fear of someone recognizing me, and I'm doing pretty well despite that I'm not loaded. Works for me.

As far as Selena Gomez, I really don't know much about her other than what I see on supermarket stands. And honestly, I'm glad my daughter is too young to know who she is, either. I do know that she's Justin Beiber's girlfriend, and recently posed on the cover of Cosmo. And if Beiber's still professing to be a virgin, he won't be for long if Selena decides to follow the advice on the cover:

Interestingly, what appears to be a teen fan site covered the questionable blaring headlines, presumably for their younger audiences:

Commenters on the Huffington Post weighed in on the show and it's questionable guests, with one guy calling it 'kiddie porn, or more like porn for kids.' Several agreed that while Selena's age makes her a legal adult, "she's not really a woman yet," and because 'still looks like she's 15,' it creeped several out to see her dressed so provocatively.

One mom of a 10-year-old said her daughter was confused and sad to see the cover because it had such a grown-up image. I don't begrudge Selena for wanting to have more of a 'grown-up' career and escape her Disney image, but I think posing for Cosmo is probably the wrong way to do it - as the mother said, it's a 'smut magazine' that sends the wrong message to young women about the way they should look and act. And I don't doubt that some girls probably did buy a copy of this magazine because she was on it - and probably got a handful of other 'useful information' at the same time.

More reading:
Study: Low-income kids starting sex on average at 12
Miley Cyrus voted worst role model for young girls (by teenage girls themselves)