The Post In Which I More Rationally Respond To Erica Jong's Mother Madness

The other day, I briefly responded to Erica Jong's Wall Street Journal article Mother Madness, in which she equates modern motherhood (and attachment parenting in particular) with prison.  The piece has caused quite the stir in the world of social media, and in case you couldn't tell from my previous post, I didn't like it.

In her article, Jong reiterates the same basic controversial premise that has brought notoriety to writers like Hannah Rosin and Elisabeth Badinter: that nurturing our babies and children by responding to their needs is the wrong way to mother because it's making us miserable.

That motherhood itself, or more specifically a particular kind of motherhood -- the kind where we are willing to devote much of our time and energy to our children -- is what is holding women back.

Jong goes on the attack against attachment parenting from the beginning, calling out Bill and Martha Sears and their popular Baby Book as one of the primary reasons women become sacrificial lambs on the altar of motherhood (as I imagine she might put it). 

What is so frustrating about her article, though, is that she clearly doesn't understand attachment parenting, and confuses a responsive style of mothering with an obsessive desire to raise the "perfect" child. 

She clearly doesn't realize that you can parent by attachment while working outside the home, or that attachment parenting does leave room for caregivers other than mom or dad in a child's life.  She also seems to think that attachment parenting means making your own baby food and using cloth diapers, and while many attachment parents may do these things, one has nothing to do with the other. 

I for one did neither, and my style of parenting is fairly attachment-oriented.

Erica Jong's Mother Madness is perfectly defined by writer and attachment parenting guru Katie Allison Granju in her response on The New York Times Motherlode blog as a "messy amalgam of multiple parenting cliches."  Granju debunks many of the attachment parenting myths promoted in Jong's article, and articulates the flaws in Jong's irrational assertions far better than I can.

Granju's is an article worth reading.  

Erica Jong is apparently a long-time feminist activist, but she is clearly out of her element when it comes to writing about a style of motherhood that she never embraced.  Her own daughter, Molly Jong-Fast wrote a response piece, in which she describes her childhood and her relationship with her mother, and very astutely concludes that her mother worked hard so that she as the daughter could have choices. 

Her defense of her mother is touching, and I wholeheartedly agree that there are a million different ways to be a good mother to your child.  I may not agree with Jong's choices, and they clearly wouldn't work for me, but I'm not going to deride it and publish an essay in a national publication telling her how she's done everything wrong. 

That's Erica Jong's style.  Not mine.

Lost in the mish-mosh of Mother Madness are some valid points.  Jong is correct that the media focuses on images of smiling celebrities with their children, but never shows the nannies.  She is correct that there are parents who get so caught up in the desire to do everything "right" who are overly susceptible to ideas and theories of what constitutes "good" parenting.

While I practice many of the principles of attachment parenting, I have long been frustrated by the label, because I don't believe that parents or parenting styles need to be categorized.  I agree that it's dangerous to give new mothers the idea that "this is what you should be doing." 

In fact, I also agree with Ms. Jong on one other very important point:  that modern motherhood desperately needs to be redefined.

Modern mothers are struggling under the weight of tremendous pressure, but the pressure to be an excellent mother is no greater than the pressure to function in society (and more importantly in the work place) as if you weren't a mother.  Yes, there are women who stay home to raise children for the wrong reasons and probably feel imprisoned.  But there are also women who leave their children and go to work because it is what is expected of them or because they must to provide for their family, and feel just as imprisoned there.

Attachment parenting may be a convenient scapegoat, but we have far greater cultural problems than arguing about whether moms should make their own baby food.  We need longer maternity leaves and an increased acceptance of leave for fathers as well.  We need laws protecting women's rights to pump at work and breastfeed in public.  We need fellow mothers who are willing to accept that there are ways of raising children that are different from their own.  We need far more support, and far fewer critics.

Motherhood isn't holding us back. 

But so-called feminists who insist on blaming motherhood for the undone work of the women's movement instead of fighting for the social change that mothers deserve just might be.

Who The %$#&% Is Erica Jong?

I just have one question today.

Who the hell is Erica Jong and why should anybody care what she has to say?

This article from The Wall Street Journal is positively one of the most disturbing pieces of writing that I've ever read.  Not because I disagree with what she says (which I do), but because her thinking is completely illogical and the audacity with which she presumes to know what other women are feeling and experiencing is absolutely astounding.

Who is Erica Jong again?

Clearly not anybody I need to waste my time finding out about.

Mary Fallin and More Mommy Wars: Does Motherhood Make You A Better Political Candidate?

I'm watching The View right now.  Yes, that's pretty much how I keep up with current events these days . . .

And a discussion of how sad it is that these contentious ladies are considered a credible news source by so many aside, they do have a habit of talking about topics that interest me.

Today, the topic up for discussion is Mary Fallin, the Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma.  Fallin's Democratic opponent, Jari Askins, is also a woman, so the state of Oklahoma is poised to elect the first female governor in it's history in next Tuesday's election.

Usually, voters would be casting their votes based on their preferred political party, their conservative or liberal leanings, their understanding and assessment of the candidates' qualifications and experience. 

Unfortunately, this race seems to have been reduced to yet another battle in the mommy wars.

In a debate last Tuesday, Mary Fallin stated that her experience as a mother of six (four of whom are stepchildren) makes her more qualified to lead the state of Oklahoma than her unmarried, childless opponent.

It's a pretty simple statement.  I think that many women who have raised families or who are in the midst of caring for young children would agree that it is an exercise in patience, leadership, and compassion, and that you learn all sorts of things about time management, how to motivate people, how to handle delicate situations, how to broker peace agreements. etc. 

I could go on and on about the skills acquired in motherhood, and yes, I do personally believe that experience as a mother can be a valuable asset for a woman in other aspects of her life.   

But . . .

The fact that you learn a lot as a mother isn't really the issue here, nor is it the reason why Ms. Fallin's statement has received so much publicity.  By playing the "mom" card, and more specifically by saying that a woman who hasn't had children is less qualified, the Republican candidate has really put her foot in her mouth. 

Feminists are up in arms over the notion that in the year 2010 a woman's worth can still be defined in terms of her marital and reproductive status.  And even people who agree that motherhood provides her with valuable experience have trouble with her assertion that this experience is more valid than the outstanding (albeit childless) resume of her opponent Ms. Askins.

For me, I believe that bearing and raising children is an integral part of many women's identities.  Motherhood alters your life and changes your perspective.  It grounds you and knocks you on your ass simultaneously.  And unfortunately, it is often dismissed in our culture as less important and less valuable than so many of the other (most often paid) endeavors that women pursue.

Motherhood should be a valid point on a resume.  Raising and caring for our next generation is important work with the potential for huge long-term impact.  But just as women shouldn't be penalized for being mothers, we also shouldn't be penalized for not being a mother.  One isn't better than the other. 

Women are a diverse group, with different strengths, passions, and interests.  We are united by our ability to have children, but we don't need to be defined by it.

Ms. Fallin should be welcome to cite her experience raising her family as one small part of who she is and why she is a better candidate.  I disagree with feminists who claim that motherhood doesn't or shouldn't impact your professional identity at all.

But suggesting that Ms. Askins is lacking simply because she has never had children is taking it too far.  Life is full of choices and trade-offs, and women have come a long way in the past few decades in ensuring that we have the right to make our own choices and choose our own trade-offs. 

Fighting amongst ourselves over who has made the right or the best ones isn't going to help women anywhere. 

Fortunately, getting elected as Governor just might.  My best wishes for each of the two women, mother or not, as she heads into election night. 

Sunday Surf 9/6-9/11

Once again, it's been a busy week on the web.  Here are some of the highlights that I think are worth checking out:

• In an article for The Huffington Post, Assistant Professor of medical anthropology and reproductive health Melissa Cheyney questions why doctors and midwives can't seem to work together in order to improve birth outcomes for American women.  Did you know that the United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country?  Read Cheyney's article Why Home Births Are Worth Considering in order to find out more. 
• Visit a peek inside the fishbowl to get the recipe for what appear to be the most famous granola bars on the web.  I'll be adding a healthy dose of semi-sweet chocolate chips to mine - because in our house we firmly believe that everything is better with chocolate!
• The New York Times has officially announced that it will stop printing it's paper edition "someday."  As someone who absolutely hates her digital subscriptions and would much rather curl up in a cozy chair with a real magazine or newspaper and not a laptop, I'm disappointed.  Though I suppose it would be worse if I actually read The New York Times . . . 
• Jake at Sustainable Mothering alerted me to an interesting post over at the blog Owning Pink entitled Want A Raise? Wash Your Vagina.  I'm not going to comment on this one -- I'll let you check it out for yourself and form your own opinions . . .    

Surf away - I'm off to watch a football game!

My First Sunday Surf: Real Food, Religion, Babble, and A Guest Post

It's been a busy week, complete with a toddler smashing his face in at Super Wal-Mart, a sister headed back to college, and, finally, today, the big move into our new home.

I had already forgotten how much work it is to unpack all your stuff and turn an empty house into a place that feels like home.

So I decided to take a break from deep thinking and just post some stuff that's already been posted.  Call me a slacker, I guess . . .

One of my favorite posts of the week came from Jenny at The Nourished Kitchen.  I've recently discovered Jenny's popular blog where she writes about real food and shares wholesome, traditional recipes, and her food philosophy intrigues me.  Probably because she believes that eating things like meat and butter, which I could never do without, can be part of a healthy diet. 

I don't know what my own food philosophy is right now, but Jenny's post 10 Tips For Real Food Newbies has me thinking that real food may be the way to go.

The story about the mother who revived her premature baby through physical touch after he had been declared dead has also made the rounds in the news this week, and Amy at Crunchy Domestic Goddess has a great post explaining both the story and the meaning and benefits of the term "kangaroo care."

I also really enjoyed the post Religion, The Things That Define Us, and Goodness over at Breastfeeding Moms Unite.  It's always impressive to me when bloggers share their personal thoughts and feelings because it automatically seems to make them more vulnerable to criticism and unsubscribing fans. 

Be sure to read the comments, too -- I was amazed by the intensity of the religious conviction held by so many of the people who responded, and also found the back-and-forth discussion of religious issues to be quite fascinating.

PhD in Parenting has a disappointing post at the moment -- not that I'm disappointed by the post itself, but I am disappointed that it had to be written.  In Similac and Babble Team Up To Dupe Breastfeeding Moms, Annie writes about the new Similac Breastfeeding Guide that is prominently displayed on the popuar parenting website. 

I realize that not all moms breastfeed, but don't those who do deserve to find reliable and accurate resources on any parenting website or in any parenting magazine that wants to be considered credible?  Formula companies aren't reliable breastfeeding resources.  They're just not.       

And if you're interested in birth stuff or have ever considered having a baby at home, check out my guest post over at Birth Activist on the subject of Husbands and Home Birth.  I talk about my own personal experience convicing my husband that home birth was a good choice for us, and offer my own personal theories -- which of course hold absolutely no scientific validity --  about why birth at home (and often birth in general) can be so terrifying for the men in our lives. 

Happy surfing!!!

Getting Sappy: Reflections of Motherhood Video From Nummies.com

Okay, maybe the following video is a little sappy, but I still like it and think it's worth sharing.  Since I find that I tend to get a little snarky on my here sometimes, it can't hurt to have something a little more positive and uplifting once in a while . . .

Nummies.com asked moms what they would tell they're pre-baby selves if they could go back in time. 

These are their answers.

My personal favorite:

Google doesn't have children.



Which ones were your favorites?  What would you tell your pre-baby self if you had the opportunity?

Spreading the Word: Postpartum Depression, AOL, and Mothers Who Harm Their Children

I've never experienced postpartum depression. 

I've experienced some pretty dark moments as a mother, moments when sleep deprivation and anger and frustration and exhaustion and despair and the stresses of everyday life seem overwhelming. 

Moments when I've wished to be anywhere but here with this screaming, endlessly needy infant.

But I've never come close to experiencing postpartum depression.  I can't even imagine how truly terrifying it must be for a mother to endure.

And, like Annie at PhD in Parenting wrote, there are other women, women who have been there, whose voices need to be heard.

An article appeared on AOL today about the recent murder of two young South Carolina boys by their mother.  It included a comment made by a criminal profiler, a woman named Pat Brown who stated that postpartum depression is a "crock." 

And there are some very smart, very strong women who have been very pissed off by this blanket statement about what is a very real illness.

I don't know the specifics of the case in South Carolina, but, in this situation, they don't seem to matter.  Pat Brown wasn't just speaking specifically about this one case.  She was making a blanket statement about women everywhere.

If you're interested in this story, you can read the AOL article here.  Keep in mind, however, that it has already been edited to remove the controversial comments. 

If you're interested in some smart, serious discussions from women who have battled depression first-hand,  then here are the links that you really need to read.

Read this post from Postpartum Progress.

Or visit Catherine at Her Bad Mother and read her post The Monster In the Closet.

You can also read An Open Letter to Pat Brown (the profiler who made the offensive statement) at the Pretty Babies blog.  And the post has been updated to include Pat Brown's response.

These women, and women like them, are the experts.  They may not be professionals, and they may not  have all the answers, but they've been there.

They've been there.  In my mind, that gives them a very real right to a very valid opinion.

The criminal profiler?  Maybe, and that's a big maybe, she has a valid opinion in the specific case that she has been working on. 

But an opinion on postpartum depression in women everywhere?

No way in hell.

And AOL should know that.        

Why I Find The Stir Annoying As Hell -- or My Response to the Giselle/Breastfeeding-Should-Be-A-Law Controversy

Giselle.

Supermodel extraordinaire.

Once-upon-a-time girlfriend to Leo, wife to NFL superstar Tom Brady. 

New mother.

And a member of the breastfeeding police force.

Okay, not exactly.

I used to dislike Giselle, for no other reason than that she's married to Tom Brady.  And I hated Tom Brady, because if you're from St. Louis you might remember that thing called a Super Bowl that he singlehandedly stole from the Rams and Kurt Warner back when he was a nobody. 

And then he quickly became a somebody and the Patriots went on to dominate the NFL while the St. Louis Rams marched into oblivion.

Okay, that may not be quite how it happened, and it's probably not be a good reason to dislike the woman, but in my mind, that's how it went.  Throw in the whole Bridget Moynahan debacle, and Tom and Giselle just didn't seem like people I should like. 

But then she went and had that natural home birth in a bathtub.  Which is something that I did too.  You can call me crazy -- lots of people have.

So, in my eyes, Giselle's stock went way up.  And I started to hate Tom Brady a little less.  It isn't every man who is secure enough and smart enough to see the benefits of home birth, or to support his wife in her desire to have one. 

For some reason, moms seem to bond with celebrities who are vocally supportive of their own parenting choices.  Or even with celebrity moms who are simply pregnant at the same time.  I could say something witty and insightful here about our country's national obsession with celebrity culture, but, hey, it is what is.  I didn't say that it's right.

So now, Giselle is in the news again, for stating that mandatory breastfeeding for six months should be a "worldwide law."  Now to be fair, I'm not sure exactly what her words were.  It was said during an interview, when words can be taken out of context.  But, man, has she been flamed. 

The Stir published a blog post entitled Why I Find Giselle Bundchen Annoying As Hell, which I hated and which tempted me to write my own blog post entitled Why I Find The Stir Annoying As Hell.  You can't criticize someone for being judgemental when you're in the midst of judging them yourself.  Giselle may not have expressed herself very well, but playing the "empty-headed supermodel" card is just lame. 

And, no, Linda Sharps, it was not Giselle's ATTITUDE that got her a complication-free birth.  Preparation and knowledge do, in fact, make a big difference in birth outcome, and Giselle's decision to labor at home went a long way in getting her the birth she wanted. 

Hers was not the decision of an empty-headed supermodel, thank you very much.

Okay, so now we know that I'm annoyed by the The Stir . . .

I'll be the first to admit that Giselle needs to choose her words more carefully.   I can completely understand why so many people have been offended by some of the things she has said; she doesn't appear to have a lot of tact.  And while I support breastfeeding to 6 months and beyond, I absolutely do not believe that women need any more pressure than they are already under. 

A breastfeeding law would do nothing but create more stress for new moms who are constantly told that "breast is best" but rarely given the support and information that they need to breastfeed successfully.  Women in our culture are caught in a catch-22, and silly statements from celebrities, even celebrities I like or agree with, don't help the situation.

Although I also don't understand the thinking of one commenter who said that after hearing Giselle, it "makes her want to formula-feed."  Come on, trying to stick it to a celebrity who doesn't even know you exist is not a good enough reason to use formula.  It's just not.   

In response to all the controversy, Giselle has issued a statement on her blog, clarifying what she meant.  Giselle writes:

"My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with a law.  Becoming a new mom has brought a lot of questions, I feel like I am in a constant search for answers on what might be best for my child."      

So I'm conflicted as to what my ultimate response to this whole situation should be.  I agree with most of what I think Giselle has meant to say, though I don't think that she has articulated herself very well.  She has come across as judgemental in many situations.  I don't like that. 

But I do like hearing from celebrity moms who parent in a less than mainstream way.  And I do think that she should be allowed her opinion.

Because, in the end, it's just that.  An opinion.  From a woman who is new to motherhood and still trying to figure it out.  A woman whose thoughts and feelings really have no bearing on my life or yours. 

As moms, we get opinions from everybody -- our mother-in-law, the busybody neigbour down the street, and, yes, celebrities.  But I stopped listening to my mother-in-law years ago.

And if you don't like what a celebrity says, you can stop listening to her too.

Do Parents Really Hate Parenting?

Ask just about any parent you know, and they'll tell you that they're happy that they have kids.  If it's a casual acquaintance, they will probably smile and tell you all about the adorable qualities their offspring possess.  If it's someone you know a little better, they might share some colorful anecdotes about their more "challenging" parenting moments. 

Neither one, however, is very likely to tell you that sometimes parenting makes them very unhappy, even though chances are pretty good that it does.

But with the explosion of blogging in the past few years has come a new breed of parents who are willing to open up and share some of the uglier truths of their lives with their children.  Heather Armstrong of Dooce has built an entire brand around her willingness to talk openly and honestly about some of the harsher realities of her life as a mom.  Many other mom and dad bloggers have followed her lead, and you can now find all sorts of complaints and rants all over the internet bemoaning just how hard parenthood can be.

I think this is a good thing.  Because parenting is hard, and it isn't always going to make you happy.  If we don't talk about the difficuties and the dark moments and share our experiences, we can be left feeling like we're the only ones, and that things would be easier if only we could get our act together and be more like everyone else.  That doesn't do anyone any good. 

So I'm a big fan of the brave parents and bloggers who are willing to talk about the unhappy moments that their children bring to their lives.

And they are brave.  Because when these men and particularly women write about feeling depressed or dare to complain about the difficulties they face, the public backlash can be brutal.   When writer and mom Jennifer Senior wrote a piece entitled All Joy and No Fun: Why Parents Hate Parenting, over 600 comments flooded into New York Magazine in response.

Many were less than sympathetic to the plight of the modern parent, saying things like:   

"Why do some parents insist on making parenting harder

than it really is? Get some help and get some therapy, fast"

"don't have them and don't regret it"

"The immaturity and selfishiness of today's mothers is deeply disturbing"

Yeah, lots of support for parents over there (insert eye roll here).

In fact, the article goes a lot deeper than it's title implies.  Senior explores the nature of what truly constitutes happiness, and questions what it is that compels parents to find joy in parenthood, even when they feel like they're struggling through on a daily basis.  She finds that in general, parents seem to be less happy overall than non-parents, but also that parents experience moments of greater joy. 

And most importantly, that despite their diminished happiness, most parents still wouldn't change their decision to have kids.  Senior writes:  

"Children may provide unrivaled moments of joy.  But they also provide unrivaled moments of frustration, tedium, anxiety and heartbreak . . .  Loving one's children and loving the act of parenting are not the same thing."

Which I think sums up parenthood beautifully and accurately. 

We can proclaim our love for our children and complain about how hard it is to raise them in the same breath.  We can love certain aspects of parenthood and loathe other ones.  We don't always have to be happy, and we don't have to listen to the haters who claim that we made our bed and now have to lie in it.

I don't think that most parents hate parenting.  I know that I certainly would have made the decision to be a stay-at-home mom if the act of parenting my children was something I didn't enjoy at least most of the time.

But I do think that it's perfectly legitimate to dislike, or even sometimes hate, certain aspects of parenting.  It doesn't make you a bad parent, or mean that you love your children any less.

"Loving one's children and loving the act of parenting are not the same thing."

Thank you, Jennifer Senior.  I'm taping this to my refrigerator.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I'll be repeating this phrase to myself many, many times a day. 

What's Wrong With My Kids? Epidurals, Judgements, and Those Damned Mommy Wars

When I was pregnant with my first child, I made the decision that I wanted to give birth without an epidural.  I decided to have a natural birth for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was my irrational fear of needles and my horor at the thought of having a giant one shoved into my spine.

And, yes, I had a lot of other really good, well-researched and medically valid reasons for avoiding an epidural as well.  I'll write about that sometime, but it's not really relevant to this post.

What is relevant are the reactions that I got when I shared my plan for a drug-free birth with other people.

My obstetrician smiled supportively, but made it pretty clear that he thought I was a naive, first-time mom who was in for a rude awakening and would be begging for an epidural once I actually experienced the pain of labor.

Whatever.  I was twenty-four years old and I still looked like a teenager.  I was used to people underestimating me and not giving me credit for knowing what I was talking about.  I knew that it was the obstetrician who was in for a rude awakening, because in the end I gave him a run for his money and did get the natural birth I was planning.     

What really bothered me, though, was the reaction I got from another mom, a close family member with two babies of her own.  Her first birth had been an induction, followed by an epidural, followed by a c-section, and her second a scheduled cesarean.

"Wait," she said when she heard my plan.  "You don't want to get an epidural?"

"What's wrong with my kids?" 

And there it was.  Five little words.  Without even realizing it, she had cut straight to the heart of the mommy wars. 

Oh, and also left me speechless, by the way.  'Cause I had no idea how to even begin to respond to what she had just said.

How the hell did my decision to skip the epidural instantaneously translate in her mind into an indictment of her decision to get one?  And more than that, a conclusion that I thought that her decision had permanently fucked up her kids???

I might have understood her response a little better if I had been up on my high horse preaching about how natural birth is the only way and epidurals ruin children for life.  But I wasn't.  Number one, I'm not that kind of person, and number two, I don't believe those things are true.  And most significantly, I hadn't even had a chance to say anything at all.  I didn't utter one word to defend or explain the benefits of unmedicated birth before she jumped to the assumption that I was judging her for making a different choice from my own.

I think I escaped the conversation that day by mumbling something about not liking needles and quickly changing the subject.  But her words have stayed with me.  So much so that here I am writing about it over six years later.

Why do we as mothers so often assume that if another mother has made a choice different from our own, she must automatically think that our own choice is wrong?  Is it so hard to accept that, just because the choice was wrong for her, doesn't mean that she thinks it's also wrong for us? 

Are other mothers really judging us all the time, or are we the ones judging ourselves?

There are benefits to unmedicated childbirth -- an easier start to breastfeeding, a lowered risk of a vacuum or forceps delivery, as well as a lowered risk of an episiotomy or cesarean, just to name a few.  There are also drawbacks, the fact that it fucking hurts being at the top of my list.  I'm not one of those birth is beautiful, embrace the pain and let's light candles and burn incense types.  I understand why so many women opt for pain relief, and I don't judge them for making that choice.  But I think I should have the right to stand firm in my choice to skip it for a myriad of reasons, and to talk about the benefits that caused me to reach my decision without other moms assuming that I'm judging them just by virtue of thinking differently.     

I read somewhere recently that the mommy wars are fought more in the heads of individual women than they are between women who have made different choices in their lives, and that idea has really resonated with me.  We're all so sensitive to perceived criticism of how we raise our kids that maybe we're not catching on to the fact that sometimes we're not really being criticized at all. 

Maybe, sometimes, we really are fighting the mommy wars in our own heads. 

Maybe we're the ones questioning our own choices.

Maybe we are our own worst enemy.

You think?

************************************

Do you feel judged by other mothers for your choices?  Or are you sometimes afraid to talk about or advocate for them for fear offending other moms who have done things differently?  What's your take on the so-called mommy wars? 

Photo credit: jordy clarke / Flickr

Alfie Kohn Takes On the Myth of the Spoiled Child

I love Alfie Kohn. 

I love that he sees kids in a positive light.

I love that he is passionately outspoken abut his belief that parenting should never be treated as a battle, and children should never be treated as opponents.  

I love that he thinks homework in American schools is way out of control and that standardized testing is unnecessary and unhelpful. 

I love that he writes like he would probably talk. 

I love that he gets the way I want to parent, and that his books are there to help me and force me to think critically along the way. 

And now I love him for taking on the mainstream media. 

In a July 18 article for the Washington Post, Kohn counters all the bloggers and magazine and newspaper columnists who churn out story after story about how kids today are spoiled and parents have gone soft and lost control.  Usually, the main point of one of these articles is that parents today coddle children and don't set enough limits or provide enough discipline.  Often, there's a bit of nostalgia thrown in for good measure -- you know, a nice "back in the day when kids were kids and grown-ups were grown-ups and everybody knew their place" sentiment. 

It makes for good media, because it usually provokes a reaction.  Which is the entire point of media these days, right?  Get a reaction, get good numbers, get good advertising, get good money . . .

Digression, I know.  Back to my point.

In his typical succinct, easy-to-follow style, Kohn blows this stale argument about spoiled kids to bits.  He points to the fact that this argument has been around for over a century, and that it is not likely that the current generation is any worse than any of the previous ones. 

In his opinion, there is neither science nor logic to back up the claim that we're spoiling our kids.

In my opinion, his opinion is one worth listening to.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians

Last month, Kim Kardashian made headlines when she tweeted about her discomfort with public breastfeeding.  And then Kim tweeted again, this time referencing her breastfeeding sister Kourtney and saying that women should cover up.

(For an excellent take on the situation, far more nuanced than my own, check out this post from Her Bad Mother). 

A few weeks later, Kourtney wrote a post on her own blog about her experience breastfeeding her son Mason.  And then last Wednesday, Kourtney added a blog entry about co-sleeping with her son.

It's no wonder the title of their show is Keeping Up With the Kardashians.  They're a busy bunch . . .

So why am I writing about this? 

I'm not a big fan of reality shows or silly celebrities.  I tend to not watch people like the Kardashians.  But I have a lot of respect for many of the things that Kourtney writes about in her recent blog posts.  She's open and honest about how much he loves breastfeeding her son Mason.  She talks about the benefits of nursing exclusively for 6 months before starting solid foods, and is open about the fact that she doesn't plan to stop any time soon.  She even writes about nursing Mason on an airplane during takeoff and landing -- which can be hugely helpful when flying with an infant because the jaw motion helps with ear popping as the air pressure changes.  It's like the baby equivalent of gum chewing.  And not something that a lot of moms know about.

In her post about co-sleeping, Kourtney writes about how at first she thought the idea was crazy.  And about how she reached the decision that it was something she wanted to try.  She says that she loves the time snuggling up with him at night when she's had a long, busy day.  I share many of her feelings, and I think it's really neat to see a celebrity who is willing to open up about making parenting choices that are not exactly mainstream.  I imagine that many of Kourtney's fans are young women who don't know anything about breastfeeding, and didn't even know that co-sleeping is an option. 

No matter what your opinion of the Kardashians, I think that Kourtney is having a tremendously positive impact by bringing these ideas to her mainstream audience.  Any time we see a more complex image of motherhood in the media, it's a good thing. 

So why again am I writing about this?

The dates. 

Her first post was dated 6/22/10.  Her second post was dated 6/29/10.  Both appeared right on the heels her sister's tweet and the ensuing anti-Kim controversy among the natural parenting community.  Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems like a little more than a coincidence that the Kardashian's need for positive parenting press just happened to coincide with Kourtney's desire to share details of her own experiences. 

You know, these people are skilled at PR.  I mean getting publicity is pretty much all that the Kardashians are skilled at, right?

Tell me that it doesn't look like Kourtney wrote these posts to take the heat off of her sister and draw in a whole new audience of mamas who may not have followed the Kardashians before . . .

I would like to believe it's not true.  For some strange reason I can't fully understand, I like the Kardashians.  I particularly like Kourtney.  I like that she's talked openly about aspects of motherhood that most celebrities don't share, and I like that she's been candid about the fact that she's had doubts as to whether what she's doing is right.  It all just seems so honest.

Except that maybe, it's not.

**********

What do you think?  Are Kourtney's blog posts genuine?  Or are they just part of a larger PR stunt within the family?

News Flash: Celebrities Say Stupid Things - In Defense of Kim Kardashian

Another day, another celebrity making stupid remarks.  This time it's Kim Kardashian backpedaling as fast as her thick thighs will carry her about a tweet she made regarding public breastfeeding.

Her exact tweet: on 6/18/10:

EWW Im at lunch,the woman at the table next 2 me is

breast feeding her baby w no cover up

then puts baby on table and changes her diaper

After receiving a storm of criticism, she followed by it with this tweet on 6/19/10:

My sister breast feeds!  Its a natural beautiful thing.

there's nothing wrong w it, but she covers herself, not w her boobs exposed

I'm fairly certain that tweet #2, which appears designed to appease some majorly pissed-off breastfeeding moms, only made her situation worse.  By explicitly saying what she implied in tweet #1, that moms should cover up when nursing in public, Kim became an instant hypocrite in the eyes of many.  The irony of a Playboy model who is famous for appearing scantily clad complaining about women showing their boobs is hard to miss. 

But . . .

I still don't quite think she deserved what she got.  I mean, she really made some people angry, and they made some really nasty comments, on Twitter and all over the Internet.  Lactivists in particular were fired up, and blog post after blog post rolled out on the subject.  References to the sex tape she's got floating around out there came up repeatedly.

Now, I'm a mom who has logged a lot of years breastfeeding.  I believe that babies need to eat, and that people in our culture do need to get over the notion that there should be any restrictions on when and where this can happen.  In other words, I'm all for women nursing in public, and I don't think that they should have to cover up just to make other people comfortable.  I also believe that anyone who has never actually nursed a baby has no concept of how difficult it can be to "cover up."  Most babies don't like blankets over their heads.  They may be small, but they're people, and they have opinions just like anybody else. 

Kim Kardashian obviously doesn't get all this. 

But is she supposed to?

What is she?  A model?  A playmate?  A woman who is famous for being famous?  She's not a rocket scientist people!!!  If all she has ever been exposed to is the idea that you're supposed to cover up when you nurse, has she ever given any thought to the idea that maybe you don't need to or that sometimes it isn't feasible?  I'm guessing that the irony of her telling women to cover their tits never even dawned on her, and I'm seriously wondering if she even understands the term irony.

I agree with most of what's been said, and particularly loved this post over at Code Name: Mama comparing pictures of Kim "fully dressed" with pictures of moms who are nursing.  You can probably guess who was showing more boob . . .

But celebrities aren't known for being the smartest of the bunch.  (I'm guessing that all those Hollywood publicists are really loving Twitter and all the stupid things that their celebrity clients tweet).

Is it really fair to blame Kim Kardashian or any other celebrity for making an ill-informed comment when it's really a problem that exists in society at large?

If anything, such comments present an opportunity to start conversations about the issue at hand -- for example, nursing in public and when and if women ever should cover up.  Yes, somebody needs to make sure that Kim understands why these comments are unnecessary, and why she in particular should not be making them. 

But is it fair to vilify her when she didn't know any better?  Is it really her fault?  Going off on a woman who is practically a porn star might feel good, but it isn't going to solve the greater problem of our culture's fear of lactating breasts. 

Don't get angry at Kim Kardashian.  Get angry at the culture that made her famous.  Get angry at the culture that rewards her for looking like a porn star.  Get angry at the culture that gave her the idea that what she does with her breasts is acceptable, but that feeding a hungry child with them is not.

She's a celebrity.  She said something stupid.  So what?  She's not the issue. 

I say we leave Kim Kardashian alone.  We have bigger battles to fight.   

'Cause God Forbid We Teach Kids the REAL Reason Why Women Have Boobies

The issue of public breastfeeding is once again in the news, thanks to one breastfeeding mother in Tampa, FL who refused to move when a school principal offered her "a more private place" to nurse her child.  Apparently, the No Food and Drink sign posted in the elementary school lobby also applies to breast milk . . .

The controversy over whether women should be allowed to nurse in public isn't new.  According to Babytalk magazine, 57% of Americans still disapprove of a mother feeding her child in public.  But in many states, incuding Florida, there are laws that protect a woman's right to nurse her child in any public place where she is authorized to be.

Except, apparently, the law is open to interpretation.

When Melissa Taylor approached Hillsborough School District with her frustration at being told not to breastfeed in one of their Tampa Schools, she thought she had the law on her side.  But, instead, the school board stood behind the principal involved and made no effort to protect what Taylor thought were her legal rights.

Why?  Because they found an impenetrable argument:  there are children involved.  Young children.  Young boys.  And God forbid if a little boy sees a woman nursing her child and puts two and two together and realize that THAT'S why mommy has those boobies.  The cultural message at play here couldn't be any clearer.  


It's okay to nurse in public, unless young children, and specifically young boys, might see you.


Okay, I get it that breastfeeding makes a lot of people uncomfortable.  I get that breasts are highly sexualized in our culture, and tend to evoke thoughts of strip clubs instead of lunch or dinner.  I get that the school district in Tampa was walking a fine line, trying to figure out how to respect a breastfeeding mother's rights and "protect" students whose parents didn't want to have to explain basic biology. 

I agree that sometimes common courtesy and respect for the discomfort of others might be motivation for a breastfeeding mother to choose some place more private.     

But I also have to ask what we're doing as a society when we accept the premise that children shouldn't know the basic facts about how babies eat. 

I don't quite get how we're going to normalize breastfeeding if we aren't teaching our children that it's normal.  And I don't quite understand why we're making the children the issue when it's obvious that it's the adults who have a problem with it.

Check out this video clip from Sesame Street, where Maria nurses her baby, in front of a young girl.




Food for thought, no boobies exposed.

It Pays To Be Outrageous (Or Why I Will Not Drop My Kids Off at the Park and Leave Them There)

Apparently, if you want to get noticed, all you have to do these days is be outrageous.  Do something controversial or say something that gets people up in arms, and you can pretty much write your own ticket.

You'll probably get booked as a guest on the Today show.  Or get your own reality series.  Or your own parenting column.  Or, if you're lucky, your own parenting movement.

All you have to do is let your child ride the subway alone in New York City.

Lenore Skenazy made headlines when the columnist at the New York Sun wrote about how she let her nine year-old son take the New York City subway by himself.  Skenazy was instantly dubbed "America's worst mom," and while that might seem like a bad title, it seems to have served her pretty well.

She now writes a column at AOL's ParentDish, warning other parents about the dangers of holding your kids too close.  She's also the force behind the Free Range Parenting movement and has written a book entitled Free Range Kids: How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children (Without Going Nuts With Worry).  And, if she hasn't been busy enough, she's also the woman who brought you 'Take Your Kid's To the Park . . . And Leave them There Day."

That's right.  Leave.  Them.  There.

Alone.

Okay, call me a co-dependent mom.  Call me a helicopter parent.  Call me crazy.
I just don't like it.

I understand where Skenazy is going with the idea that parents today are paranoid and totally freaked out by a 24/7 media cycle that makes the world seem a lot scarier and more dangerous than it actually is.  I think that somewhere beneath all the insanity, she actually makes a valid point about the way our own irrational fears can hamper our kid's independence and development.

Yes, Lenore, American children do need to spend more time outside playing with other kids instead of inside playing games on the computer.  

But I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole "Free Range" kids thing.  It feels too much like a gimmicky slogan designed for getting media hype.  To be fair, I haven't yet read the book, and when I do, I'll revise my opinion if necessary.

And, by the way, if you're interested in participating in this little experiment, "Take Your Kid's To the Park . . . And Leave Them There Day" is today.  May 22nd.  (Yes, a date has been set, and it has been well broadcast.  You know, for the full benefit of all the sickos and perverts out there who might be interested.)

But if you happen to see my kids at the park today, you'll see me there too, in full helicopter mode.  Free range?

Thanks for the idea, but I'm raising children, not chickens.

Organic Produce: Does It Matter?

In case you haven't been able to tell, I'm a fairly big advocate for healthy food.  My kids eat whole-grain bread and brown rice and natural peanut butter without complaint.  They know not to ask for things like Kool-Aid at the grocery store.  Fruits and vegetables are a large part of their diet.  But for all my interest in healthy eating, I haven't made one crucial switch:  I haven't started buying organic.

I'm starting to rethink this one. 

A new study released yesterday links pesticide exposure to ADHD in children, and while I question our national obsession with labeling kids with these kinds of "disorders," I can't argue with the study's finding that 94% of children tested showed compounds from pesticides in their urine.  And it's hard to keep telling myself that buying organic isn't really that important when a 2008 study proved that, when children switch to organically grown fruits and vegetables, the pesticide compounds in their urine drop to undetectable levels.  Wow.

So why haven't I switched to organic before now?  In a word, cost.  I've always known that organic produce is better for my kids (and myself), even if I've also insisted on burying my head in the sand and purposely NOT reading the articles that remind me why organic is a better choice.  But when you're standing in the grocery store, looking at one pint of strawberries that costs $2 and another that costs $6 and your grocery budget is only so much, it seems like a no-brainer.  I would love to buy the organic, I tell myself, but I just can't afford to right now.    

Or maybe I can't afford not to.  Maybe I'm irreparably damaging my children every time I feel like a good mom and serve them fresh fruits and vegetables.  Maybe they would be better off if I just handed them a box of ding-dongs.  Are there pesticides in processed foods?  Isn't anything good for you anymore? 

(Ignore this last paragraph or simply take it for what it is -- the stream-of-consciousness ramblings that go through my head every time I try to make a decision about any complicated issue that relates to my children.  I'm guessing other moms can relate.)

Anyway, next time I'm shopping, I'm going to take a second look at the organic produce.  I'll pay particularly close attention to the strawberries, apples, and spinach that are a family favorite, but also sit on the list of Top 12 Fruits and Vegetables You Should Buy Organic.  And before you panic too much, rest assured that there is also a "Clean 15" list of fruits and vegetables that are the least likely to be contaminated by pesticides, and therefore considered "safer" to buy in the non-organic variety.

Okay, so I've officially decided that I should be buying at least some organic produce.  My next mission:  to figure out how I'm going to pay for it.