Strollerderby : Facebook

Katie Roiphe Doesn't Like You Or Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:00:00 GMT

If you use a photo of your child on your Facebook profile, Katie Roiphe thinks you are not a good woman.

(For some background on who Katie Roiphe is, read this Wikipedia page. One of her claims to fame is a book called "The Morning After" in which she argues that women are partially to blame in cases of date rape. She is now a professor at NYU and a respected writer.)

I usually hate arguing with academics. One reason is that they know how to do it better than I do, because that's a big part of their lives. I have but one degree, and it isn't from an Ivy League school. I've never taken a Philosophy class. I can spell Socrates but couldn't tell you much about the Socratic method.

So taking on a respected writer like Katie Roiphe is a bit daunting. I don't have the level of education that she has. I'm not a professor at NYU. (Although I did once guest-lecture at Yale. Take that!) For that matter, I'm not a woman, and Roiphe's article is about feminism. So why did this article at DoubleX.com get me so fired up?

One reason is because I firmly believe that when it comes to feminism, a lot of women attack their own gender in the name of defending them. That's what I see in Roiphe's article, which is titled "Get Your Kid Off Your Facebook Page" and asks "Why do women hide behind their children?" Roiphe seems to think that Facebook is an incredibly important part of a woman's personal identity, and that if a woman uses a photo of her children instead of herself, she is "hiding".

There are so many things about the piece that rub me the wrong way. I think I could literally go over it line by line, like The Iliad, and find something annoying every couple of sentences. Here are a few thoughts; let me know what you think.

Roiphe has a habit of putting herself next to great and important writers, such as Edith Wharton (in a 2007 New Yorker article), and this time Betty Friedan. I have no idea what Ms. Friedan would say about women putting photos of their kids on their Facebook pages. But I think there's a chance that she would say that it was far more important to worry about the gap between men's and women's wages. Or, to take an extreme example, women in third-world countries being raped. It's even possible that Ms. Friedan wouldn't give a hoot about Facebook.

Roiphe is also inconsistent. In the DoubleX piece she all but attacks women who have the nerve to talk about their children at a party. But in a 2007 New York Magazine article about her divorce, she writes the following about her daughter:
"Others will be quick to point out—others have been quick to point out—that this kind of closeness is unhealthy, that she and I are too connected. And to that I offer only that if you take out the unhealthy closeness, the pathological intimacies, you will have taken out many of life’s wilder joys."

So which is it? Are we not allowed to talk about our children? Are you the only one who can?

Roiphe very arrogantly writes: "The mystery here is that the woman with the baby on her Facebook page has surely read "The Feminine Mystique" in college, and "The Second Sex", and "The Beauty Myth". She is no stranger to the smart talk of whatever wave of feminism we are on, and yet this style of effacement, this voluntary loss of self, comes naturally to her. Here is my pretty family, she seems to be saying, I don’t matter anymore."

Or maybe she doesn't define herself the way that you do. Is it possible for a woman to actually make a choice to not read these books, or to read them and not think they are as important as you seem to? Or perhaps -- perish the thought -- she went to a community college! Or even -- I hope you're sitting down -- she didn't go to college at all. Does that make her less of a woman?

Roiphe's idea of a "brilliant, accomplished woman" is very specific -- a woman "who wrote her senior thesis in college on Proust, who used to stay out drinking till five in the morning in her twenties." Wow. Someone who wrote a college paper? Someone who used to drink a lot? That's very impressive. Much more impressive than raising a child.

And that's not all:
"Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes. But this is how they choose to represent themselves."

First of all -- book clubs? Really? Isn't that a huge stereotype? Why not add "many of them watch 'Oprah' and read romance novels?" Frankly, if a woman's identity were wrapped up in her book club, I would think that was much worse than being consumed by her child. And what if they do work? Or if they don't? How does that factor in to the equation? Maybe for some women, Facebook isn't about work. (That's what LinkedIn is for. Ha ha.) Maybe they use the site specifically to show off their children. It doesn't mean that they are "hiding behind" them. The idea that anyone's identity is based exclusively on what photo they post on a social networking site is asinine.

Again, I'm no academic. But I see a huge flaw in Roiphe's argument. Focusing exclusively on women who use their kids' pics on Facebook profiles allows her to make a point about feminism. But fathers do the same thing. What then? Did they read "Iron John" and participate in drum circles in the early 90's, but are now "hiding behind their children"?

If Roiphe wanted to talk about parents who choose to create their identities around their children, that would be one thing. Instead she picks a trendy topic -- Facebook -- and incorporates it into what she usually talks about, which is feminism. Bully for her. Emphasis on the word "bully" because that's what she's doing to the women she's talking to.

To sum up: In general, Roiphe seems to have a very immature view of the world (she calls herself "Katie" for Pete's sake) and feminism in general. You don't have to be an Ivy League professor to know that there are many different kinds of women, and that they express themselves in different ways. It's not about what you did in college, or how often you read Proust, or how much you used to drink. And it certainly isn't about your Facebook page.

So. What do you think?

Source: DoubleX.com

Babble Talk Radio Live - Friday May 29 - Listen Here

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

What's More Embarrassing: Pics of You or Your Kids?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:27:00 GMT

Apparently, the way I use Facebook embarrasses my kids. Yes, I did the 25 Things. Yes, I was tagged in a photo from high school (nice asymmetrical, there, Madeline). Yes, I update with my life's minutae, like the fact that my in-laws percolate their coffee and that sometimes I'm tired and want ice-cream.

According to this "Facebook Survival Guide for Awkward Adults" on MSNBC, however, my biggest FB-user/parenting fail is this:

I use my kids' photos (and, yes, the dog's) for my profile pic.

Here's what Daniel Harrison has to say about that:

Listen, your kids are adorable, and while we're at it, let's extend the fiction to say we're glad you finally got someone to marry you.

Nevertheless, those crowning achievements do not belong in your profile picture. Nor, by the way, does a picture of a dog (unless, that is, you really are a dog, in which case, congrats on getting online. That's impressive! Good dog!

Problem is, Mr. Harrison, there are no pictures of me to post.

I don't know how things are in your family, but I'm the one who picks up the camera to record the actions and travels and daily life of our family. If you were to dig through the gigabytes of our digital images or thumb through our few family photo albums, you would think my husband was some kind of heroic single dad -- frolicking with his kids on the beach! Making goofy faces while eating donuts! Dozing off on the sofa with a tiny, sleeping newborn in his arms. How does this guy do it, you would ask, all by himself and without the soothing touch of a mother's hand?

Where am I? Oh, see that ant-sized woman in the red shirt surrounded by lots and lots and lots of background? The tangled mass of wind-blown hair with six chins and a pissy glare? That person, indelicately bent over, petting a goat and unaware that everything under her shirt is fully exposed? Me! All of them, me!

See?

In fact, it's so rare to see me in a nicely composed photo with my kids or, hell, the entire family -- much less, by myself -- I almost don't recognize me when I do happen upon one. What other choice do I have but fill Facebook's weird TinTin-esque default silhouette with mugs of my crowning achievements?

For those of you partnered with crappy picture takers, how do you squeeze into your family photos? Single parents -- real ones -- how do you get pictures of you and your kids? While I'm at it, what's filling your profile pic?

12 Baby Names That Really Won't Make a Comeback

Growing up on Facebook

Strollerderby's on Facebook!

Photo: MSNBC.com

Strollerderby's Gone Facebook

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Can't live without your Facebook OR your Strollerderby?

We've got good news for you!

The new Facebook is driving us all a little crazy, so we figured we'd get some relief by merging our two favorite things. Strollerderby has now hit Facebook! We've got a group for you to join, where you can add to the discussion plus a page where you can become a fan (please, oh pretty please?) and get updates on what we're talking about.

While you're at it, did you know Babble has a Facebook page? Our editors keep you updated there on some other Babble news - like our Babble Playground contests and the other news outlets who are showing Babble some love.

So why don't you come join us?

Click here to become a fan of Strollerderby on Facebook.

And click here to become a member of the Facebook group!

Image: Facebook

Can Facebook Cut the Apron Strings?

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:28:00 GMT

While we adults are caught up in catching up on our past on Facebook, there's a possibility our kids are going to miss out on one of the great joys of late teenagehood. Escaping.

An interesting piece by Peggy Orenstein in the New York Times this week ponders whether kids will be able "to get busy with the embarrassing, exciting, muddy, wonderful work of creating an adult identity" with four hundred of their old high school buddies watching over a T-1 line.

She's got a point. While I kept up with several of my high school friends when I left for college, it was mostly via e-mail and AOL's Instant Messenger, maybe the sporadic phone call. Although more technologically advanced than Orenstein (who admits she grew up in the "postage stamp" age of college communication), the advantages to all these forms of communication were clear - I could start . . . and stop . . . them at my will.

Facebook is non-stop action. Change your relationship status, and everyone knows . . . now (and trust me, those shockwaves can resonate - ask the cousin who accidentally erased her husband when she was trying to update her favorite books list.). As long as they're your "friend," anyone can and will see - and can and will comment.

Orenstein posits kids will remain tethered to home much longer via technological apron strings, tied to the kids they were forced to spend time with in high school and might otherwise naturally distance themselves from come college. Except, thanks to Facebook (and to be fair, Myspace), now they're tied . . . for good.

I think she might be crediting Facebook with a little more power than is warranted, however. Surveys have found that even users with a friends list in the thousands traditionally only interact with a solid core of "friends." I'd hazard a guess that's the same core today's kids will take to college with them - like the high school friends we kept contact with back in the day. She's also overestimating kids' fidelity. The teenagers I know "friend" and "un-friend" one another with the speed of an eyeroll, to an extent I doubt will change much in the early days of college.

The truth is that old saying, "you can never go home again," will never die. Because leaving your parents' house, even if your friends follow, changes you. Often for the good, sometimes for the bad. But kids grow up - even kids with a Facebook.

Liar, Liar - iPod Sets Kid's Pants on Fire

Amber Alert Now an iPhone App

Mamas Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up to Drink and Party

Yet Another "Kid-Safe" Version of Facebook Launched

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:32:00 GMT

Now entering the growing market of social networking sites aimed at making parents feel like their kids are safe, safe, safe: Kidswirl. Clearly modeled on Facebook, Kidswirl won't fool your older child but might help you keep your younger kids (say, under 11) from figuring out about the real thing. It's hard to figure out, though, what the real differences are. The interface is a complete lift from Facebook -- unless they have prior legal permission, I'd bet it's likely they'll be sued soon. But the site's PR wants to assure you that it's, like, a zillion times less potentially offensive and dangerous:

The number one priority of the site is KID SAFETY! As a result, we have blocked all bad language, inappropriate and suggestive phrases, and any other word usage that is requested by the parents and users.

So, what if some parents request that word usage like "trans-kid" or "gay teen" is blocked? How "safe" is the space then? Is profanity itself dangerous to kids, and if so, how? I'm pretty sure bullying and harrassment (the main sources of danger to kids online as well as offline) don't require profanity to work.

And what about the other danger so frequently cited in pleas for more kid-safe online spaces -- that of creepy adults who would want to interact with kids online? As much as the research I've read indicates this is a tiny, tiny problem, I actually can't tell whether Kidswirl provides real safety from it -- I just signed up and got an account and all of a sudden my newsfeed features updates from dozens of real live kids who I don't know! And I can see their entire profiles! As a mother who actually doesn't find the online world any more dangerous than the offline one, even I find this a bit troubling.

Bottom line: if you think protecting your kids from "bad words" is among your highest parental duties, Kidswirl is for you. Otherwise, maybe you should do what the experts suggest: talk to your kids about how to manage their online relationships, make sure you understand what they're doing and set appropriate limits, and more than anything, listen to them. It's kids themselves, not grownup marketing types, who can really educate parents about what's going on in their worlds, virtual and real.

More by this author:

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

More Than 2,000 NC Sex Offenders Found on MySpace

KeriF — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:01:00 GMT

Do your kids use MySpace? Do they share photos with "friends" they make online? Do they know that some of those friends may be convicted sex offenders?

The North Carolina attorney general's office announced that MySpace had turned over the names of 2,116 registered sex offenders that also happened to be registered on MySpace. Or rather, were registered on MySpace. The offenders have since been removed from the site.

The state said it also requested similar information from Facebook. Last year Facebook removed 5,585 convicted sex offenders from its site and MySpace announced it removed 90,000 sex offenders in the past two years.

In a statement, Attorney General Roy Cooper said, "It's no secret that child predators are on these Web sites. Turning over information about these predators to law enforcement helps, but MySpace, Facebook and other social networks need to do much more to protect kids online."

Cooper leads a group of attorneys general who are working to ensure that social networking sites are safer, by urging them to use technology such as age and identity verification.

I'm not sure how these technologies work, but it seems easy enough to lie about your age; the only surefire way to find out who a user really is is to get his or her Social Security number, and I don't see people lining up to give up their numbers to MySpace or Facebook.

I think simply expecting that our kids will be safe online is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that. No matter what these sites do to protect our kids, it won't be enough; there will always be cracks in the system. It's up to us, the parents, to keep track of what our kids are doing online, and most importantly, who they're meeting. Of course I want MySpace and Facebook and their ilk to be as safe as they can be for our kids. But I also think our kids need to learn how to use those sites safely.

When I was 5 and my sister 7, we used to walk a mile-and-a-half to school and back each day. Today, I'd love to give my kids the freedom I had, but I'm too nervous about who or what might be lurking around the corner. The same holds true for the Internet. Just because we want to give our kids the freedom to explore the Internet on their own, doesn't mean it's safe for them to do it.

Photo: TechDigest

I'm Not a Brat, I'm Autistic

A Safer Space for Kids Online: Hope or Hype?

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Concerned about the dangers of online predators, mom-of-five Mary Kay Hoal launched a social networking site that she hopes will provide a safe space for kids aged 9 to 18 to interact. But can places like Yoursphere -- which charges a monthly access fee and checks to make sure nobody on it is a registered sex offender -- really serve as alternatives to Facebook (or to MySpace, the Sodom and Gomorrah of Hoal's press release, although nobody really uses MySpace anymore)? And is an alternative even needed?

If you read Hoal's site or her press release (or watch the Nancy Grace Show), you are probably pretty worried about your child's Internet safety. You know that there are sex offenders on MySpace (even though that number, widely disputed, is only about half what you would expect, given the general population on MySpace), you know that "sexting" and other technologically-enhanced forms of teenaged sexual expression can get you killed, and you know that you want to protect your kids.

Well, I agree with you about the last one. As for the other two, it's fairly clear that the dangers of sexual predation online are vastly overstated and exagerated, both by shows like Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" segments and by the marketing for alternative sites like Hoal's. And when it comes to teenaged cruelty around issues of sex and reputation, technology hasn't changed things one whit: girls have been harrassed for sexual activity for centuries in our culture, which continues to both demonize and deny teen sexuality. The medium makes very little difference (except that now, if your teen is engaged in thoroughly consensual sexual flirting using cellphone pictures, she could get charged with child pornography).

As a new study out of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society points out, worried parents are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not Facebook, MySpace (does anyone still use MySpace, seriously?), or the Internet at large that hurts kids; the dangers kids face online are the same as they face offline -- dating violence, sexual harrasment, social ostracism, bullying, and yes, sometimes (but very rarely) sexual predation by adult strangers. How to protect them? Funny enough, it's not from banning them from the Internet, or stealing their passwords, or spying on them. Just as in the offline world, kids are protected by having caring adults who talk to them, who make it their business to know where their kids are and what they're doing, who know their friends and are involved in their activities, and who let them know every day that their kids can always come and talk to them about anything. Those of us who have babies, toddlers, and preschoolers right now have no way of knowing what kind of technological advances and devices will flavor their world. All we can do is try to keep up, understand what they're up to, and remember that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It turns out that trust and respect -- not spying, forbidding, or trying to scare them (or their parents) to death -- is what really keeps kids safe.

More by this author:

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Teen Girls Fight to Take "Toddlers and Tiaras" Off the Air

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:50:00 GMT

A couple of smart, engaged teenage girls from Niagara Falls have gotten some media attention through their efforts to ban the TLC reality TV show, Toddlers and Tiaras—better known to some as, “Scarring Your Children for Life on National TV.”

The high school seniors started a Facebook campaign to ban the show, arguing that it sexualizes children as young as two and encourages pedophilia. The group quickly attracted close to 5,000 members.

TLC has defended the show, saying they are simply depicting—“from an objective and unfiltered perspective”—something that 100,000 kids take place in each year. For someone like me, the show may appear objective in that it succeeds only in making me even more disturbed by parents who are willing to dress their toddlers up like sexy dolls.

But any time a trend gets major press, there are bound to be people who jump on the bandwagon—plus, the young people whom we’re watching being tortured with hair curlers, fake tans, and fake teeth are real children. Tuning in to watch them paraded around like fashion accessories is implicitly supporting their treatment. As long as there is money to be gained by exploiting young kids in this fashion, it will continue to happen.

If I sound melodramatic in my depiction of what these poor children are made to go through, you probably haven’t had the joy watching the show. So, in a paradoxical effort to support the Niagara girls’ Facebook campaign to ban the show, I present you with a short clip of two-year-old Marleigh (pictured), which you can watch here via Jezebel. On the off chance that you then want to add your voice to the call to take the toddler torture off the air, go here.

Photo: Jezebel

Is Facebook Rewiring Our Kid’s Brains?

SunnyChanel — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Facebook, and other social networking sites, are certainly getting a bad rap lately. There have been criticisms that Facebook can make you a bad parent, your kids won’t add you, can get your busted, won’t let you put up your breastfeeding photos and now a respected scientist is saying that social networking sites can harm our kid’s brains.

According to the Daily Mail Online, the neuroscientist Susan Greenfield claims that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are said to “shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centered.” Hmm, sounds a lot like some Facebook addicts I know…who just happen to be over the age of 30.

An Oxford University neuroscientist, Baroness Greenfield, “believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain.” They said that “'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.'”

A teacher cited in the piece said that she has seen a great decline in how kids communicate and that they have trouble understanding each other in the real world. “It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations” she said.

Will you let you kids get their own Facebook page? And at what age (that is if they don’t already have one)?

Source

How To Catch a Teenage Crook: Use Facebook

JeanneSager — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:47:00 GMT

If you thought the only risk your kids had in going on Facebook was from child predators, guess again. It turns out when they royally screw up in the real world, Facebook can get society the help it needs.

Police officers in Maine took surveillance photos of some teenage hoodlums and posted them on Facebook - so users could identify the crooks and send them to jail.

The pictures went up on Facebook on Jan. 29, and already the three fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds responsible for breaking into a spa and wreaking havoc were identified - ostensibly by other teens - and arrested.

Considering law enforcement and social networking sites have had to develop relationships thanks to dumb kids posting photos of their misdeeds online, it's high time there was a little quid pro quo. It's also a good reminder for kids who think they're safe from their crimes that the more widespread big brother's reaches, the more likely their pranks will land them in jail. Good ammunition for parents who are at the end of their rope and looking to cash in on the scared straight program.

If nothing else, the parents of the kids who IDed the perps can feel a little better about how much time their kids are wasting online. At least they performed a public service.

Image: Mediabistro

Users Face-Off with Facebook

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:30:00 GMT

If you're like millions of people, you post the occasional--or perhaps the frequent--baby photo, family portrait, newsy bit--or 25--on Facebook for the appreciation of your "friends."

Since its new terms of service came online a few weeks ago, Facebook has been dodging and ducking accusations of stealing users' data. The new terms stated that not only does Facebook own and control anything you put on the site, it owns and controls anything you ever put on the site, even after you've taken it down.

After listening to the outcry, Facebook has responded by temporarily returning to its original terms (in which they only own what you've actually posted while it's posted), and has opened a page for taking users' suggestions for what the terms of service should be.

I am a Facebook user, as are many of the people I know. I'm also a personal blogger as well as a Babble blogger and I have an additional website on which I've published writing and photography.

With that in mind, here's my philosophy on web privacy and ownership: if you put it on the Internet, it's out of your hands. I have copyright statements on my web pages and I would be properly annoyed if I found my work used somewhere without permission, but I have come to accept that it may be, and there's precious little I can do about it.

While I appreciate the attempts of sites like Facebook to try and please their users (or appease them, as the case may be), I am fairly cynical about the whole thing. I assume that everything from email to blog posts to photo albums will end up in places I never imagined or intended them to and I edit myself accordingly.

What's your strategy for web privacy?

Parents Just Don't Understand (Facebook); Stanford Aims to Help

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:01:00 GMT

Everyone knows that all American teenagers – save those being raised on religious compounds or in hippie treehouses – are on Facebook. They go there to talk, laugh, share their intimate feelings – all the things they once did with us, their parents, and now do with 928 "friends" instead. For parents who consider themselves close to their kids, it can be a little hard to take, this feeling that while you're the one paying the bills and making their dinner and washing their socks, their true emotional lives are happening somewhere else, or nowhere at all. So, remembering the old adage "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," thousands of middle-aged parents of teenagers now find themselves on Facebook, stalking their own children.

In a first of its kind, Stanford University now offers an evening class to help these befuddled, yearning parents understand the new medium that plays such an important role in their children's lives. If along the way they become fans of beer, sleep, or Aretha Franklin's inauguration hat, so be it. And hey, knock yourself out with the "25 Things" meme (I wonder how many Stanford parents' "things" include an item about how badly the stock market has decimated their 401Ks). But don't try to friend your kids – or your kids' friends – or if you do, don't be surprised if all the kids leave Facebook for something the old folks haven't found out about yet. According to an article in the San Jose Mercury News, adults over 35 represent the fastest-growing segment of the Facebook population, but the backlash can be extreme:

Some kids say that a "friend" request from parent is like discovering Dad at your beer pong game. Or bumping into Mom in the dressing room of Forever 21.

When Facebook first opened itself to the public in 2007, students circulated an online petition called "Don't Let My Parents Onto Facebook!" to founder Mark Zuckerberg pleading for a reversal of the decision. Since then, there has been a proliferation of no parent groups, such as "For The Love of God — Don't Let Parents Join Facebook." One group is hosted by "The Bureau of Endangered Generation Gaps."

Offered free to all parents but particularly aimed at those with kids under 18, the course is intended to help parents learn about the world their kids navigate so that they can offer guidance and boundaries, enforce good etiquette and promote online safety. At the same time, the class tells parents what their kids want them to know -- don't push the boundaries, allow your teenager some space that's for her own friends, not your prying eyes. Above all, both sides say, a little balance goes a long way. As one recent college grad put it, when your mother joins Facebook, it's an opportunity for a teenager or young adult to include her in a new kind of grown-up relationship. Here's how she asked her friends to respond to her mother's presence on Facebook:

"Please make her feel welcome. Friend request her (she has no idea what that is though "... so be patient if it takes a while), and in true Facebook fashion get drunk and write on her wall."

More By This Author:

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Announcing Pregnancy Via Facebook Status Update: Tech Savvy or Totally Impersonal?

Jen Chaney — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:58:00 GMT

In a world where Erykah Badu Twitters her home birth, a single mother gets hired and fired on Facebook and a guy can propose marriage in Tweet form, the notion of announcing a pregnancy via Facebook status update seems kind of, well, quaint.

I mean, already plenty of people offer running commentaries on every mundane thing they do via status updates: "Decided to have soup for dinner. 5 minutes ago." "I am now opening the can. 2 minutes ago." "I am trying to pour contents of can into a pot, but having trouble. Perhaps it's because I am incessantly updating status while cooking. 30 seconds ago." It only seems natural to share a major announcement in the same way, right? Well, maybe...

A Facebook status update (or, yes, a Tweet) is probably the fastest way to disseminate information. But shouldn't really special, a few-times-in-a-lifetime news be shared in a more personal way? Should we say, "Hey, we're having a baby!" in the same space that we announced we had a headache at 2:07 p.m. on Jan. 18, or proclaimed at 10:37 p.m. on Jan. 30 that the new U2 song is "catchy but also kinda stupid"?

Here's my view on this: I think a Facebook-pregnancy-announcement is perfectly appropriate IF close family and friends already have been told. Imagine finding out that your best friend -- the one who tried unsuccessfully for years to conceive -- has finally gotten pregnant, simply by happening upon a congratulatory post on her Facebook Wall. Would sting a bit, right?

As for the more distant friends and acquaintances -- all those former co-workers and random old buddies from junior high -- it's totally fine for them to hear the news on Facebook, I think. (Just don't stick this Baby Ticker app on your page before updating aforementioned status accordingly. I mean, that's just jumping the gun. Assuming, of course, you can get the app to work.)

We're all living our lives in glass, WiFi-ready houses these days. But that doesn't mean that etiquette -- or old-fashioned things like phone calls and big announcements made at the dinner table -- are dead. We just have to work harder to keep them alive.

Think I'm totally offbase? Write a comment and keep this dialogue going. Or better yet: Update your Facebook status to say that Jen Chaney's opinions about pregnancy and Facebook updates are completely idiotic.

Related Links:

Are Facebook Breastfeeding Advocates Being Too Prudish?

Is Facebook Making You A Bad Parent?

Kid Won't Friend You on Facebook? Get a Life

Morning News: Obama Says 'I Screwed Up'

Madeline Holler — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:30:00 GMT

President Barack Obama took full responsiblity for the latest embarrassment to his new and still forming administration. He told CNN's Anderson Cooper last night that though he thinks Tom Daschle was the man for the job, ignoring the former senator's tax mistakes would send the wrong message to Americans.

Politico has a whole list of Plan Bs (not that Obama had a Health and Human Services secretary Plan B). But the good president is right: none seem quite the perfect fit that Daschle was (except for that damn tax thing ... is it really so hard?) In case you're out of the loop, Daschle surprised everybody by withdrawing his nomination for the top HHS job yesterday.

Sending the right message to many Americans, Obama set a salary cap for executives of the banks and companies getting bailed out by taxpayers. Sure, you hear that there are loopholes galore. But there shouldn't be. The cap is set at $500,000 a year. Come on, people, live with it!

Be careful what you reveal in your 25 Random Things About Me note on Facebook. MySpace deleted some 90,000 known sex offenders' accounts and word on the virtual street is that they're all moving over to Facebook. Of course the entity putting that word on the street is the company that was hired to clear MySpace of the perverts. Still. Maybe it's also time to change your Flickr settings to friends and family only.

Here's an uplifting-yet-makes-you-hate-the-world story: the world's youngest divorcee through a snowball and did other childish things in Paris last week. The 10-year-old (!) Yemeni managed an escape from her husband (who is three times her age) and found a judge who granted her the divorce almost immediately. She's now back in school and getting to be a girl. Not sure why the Time interviewer took her to a dimly lit bar in Paris to do the interview. The first line kind of creeps us out.

Have you ever thought about why organ recipients might reject a transplanted kidney, but pregnant women's bodies don't reject a fetus (which is not genetically identical to the mother)? Us either, but it's a great question! And researchers may have found a reason. Maternal cells seep into the fetus at a very young age, boosting the baby's regulatory T cells, which in turn tell mom's body to not reject the baby. Kinda sweet.

The latest in octuplets news: their mom has filed two worker's compensation claims in the past -- one in 1999 and another in 2001. What does this tell us? Not sure. But since her oldest child is 7, at least one of the claims was filed before she had been pregnant with him.

The publicist for Elizabeth Edwards's forthcoming book, Resilience, tells us that the wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards will make reference to her husband's affair and the woman who says he is her daughter's father. The book comes out in May.

Let's leave on a high note: Obama will sign into legislation this very minute an SCHIP bill, which will extend healthcare benefits to low- and moderate-income worker's children. Now, lawmakers of yore, was that really so hard?

Video: CNN

Morning News: Beating the Odds, Beating it Back to Work, Beating the Clock

Madeline Holler — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Unemployment rose in every single state in December and another group of big corporations announced huge, huge layoffs. Nobody's buying anything anymore. Does anybody else feel a little manic-depressive after all the excitement of last week's inauguration and all of this week's depressing economic news?

No, no, we haven't lost hope. We're just settling in for the long haul and looking for some happier news. Especially in light of this tragic story:

A Los Angeles-area man killed his wife and six kids -- and then himself yesterday -- in what looks like a response to having been laid off from his job at Kaiser Permanente. His wife had also lost her job there.

This next story might make some educators and college students out there happy: the economic stimulus plan that Congress is scheduled to vote on today includes gobs of money for K-12 schools and also colleges and universities. This kind of federal cash infusion is unusual, since paying for educational institutions is mostly left up to the states (who, by the way, are pretty broke).

Speaking if education, Dr. Jill Biden, VP Joe Biden's wife, is back in the classroom. (There she is in the pic.) She's teaching ESL and developmental English at Northern Virginia Community College. Love that.

SCHIP, the children's health insurance plan for low and middle-income children, is stalled again. Legislators are quibbling over income requirements and whether the children of immigrants qualify. Meanwhile, some diabetic third-grader is wondering whether she'll get another batch of insulin this month. Pathetic.

Let's talk about sex. Newsweek is reporting on a new fertility ad campaign coming to your favorite social networking website. Expect to see dire warnings about shriveling eggs when you're updating your status on Facebook. Yes, the brains beind this campaign know they're going to offend, but they're willing to suffer the criticism since they're certain reminding women of their biological clocks is for a girl's own good.

This one is for the guys: frequent sex and masturbation increases your risk for prostate cancer. This comes as cringey news for anybody who had a grandfather treated for prostate cancer. Oh, and no word on whether caring professionals will be hitting the social networking circuit with this life or death news for men.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is kind of grossing a lot of people out with their new ad. Acted and shot as porn, lots of hot sexy women in lingerie lick and fondle vegetables. NBC is refusing to run the ad during the Superbowl. Which is great because that leaves more time to run lots of hot sexy women in lingerie licking and fondling beer bottles.

We'll follow porn with a little Dick Van Dyke Q&A that takes us behind the scenes of Mary Poppins (hey! We're a family website.) Turns out, DVD got the part not because he could sing and walk like a penguin, but because he had been outspoken about how unfamily-friendly entertainment had become (in 1964? Was it all that moppy hair?). Oh, oh, scroll to the bottom of the interview. He said he's glad Michelle Obama liked the Dick Van Dyke Show (which he did with Mary Tyler Moore). He calls the Obama's "the black Rob and Laura." Bad news, Dick. We think the president and his wife share a bed.

Photo: eplay.com

Are Facebook Breastfeeding Advocates Being Too Prudish?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:35:00 GMT

I participated in the whole "Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene" event. And I'll admit that even though I tend to think it's a good sign when people who disagree on other things can unite around some common ground, I was still deeply creeped out by the supporters who posted things like "I mean, I wouldn't want my kids to see those icky Facebook ads where two girls kiss, but breastfeeding is natural and God-approved so that should be OK."

Marty Klein takes that a step further, arguing that the Facebook campaign organizers are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to position breastfeeding pictures as "good nudity" as opposed to those pictures that really are obscene, rather than taking a more broad anti-censorship stance. He writes: "Your right to watch South Park ultimately depends on someone else’s right to go to a strip club. Your right to breast-feed in public ultimately depends on someone else’s right to buy a vibrator. MILC [Mothers International Lactation Campaign] may be willing to sacrifice 'real' obscenity like CSI or swing clubs to keep its own photos acceptable, but this short-sighted strategy has never worked."

I have a mixed reaction to this. In a general way, I understand and support Klein's philosophy. I believe freedom of speech for those I disagree with so we all have it and all that. I don't find nudity to be dangerous and while there's plenty of stuff out there I have no interest in seeing or having my kids see, I don't like anyone else drawing the line about what is "obscene" for me. Far too much of that goes on. And unless you're going to limit your cause to fully-latched-on photos (which they weren't), it does start to be a little silly to say "That same breast would be obscene if there weren't an infant somewhere in the shot."

On the other hand, I think there is a value in fighting against the ideas that breastfeeding is somehow sexual and that it ought to be kept private, and I think that's not entirely the same discussion as who should get to draw lines about the publicness of things that many/most find to be sexual.

And, as even Klein notes, Facebook is a private company that can do what it wants to do. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a group of consumers to call it on its hypocritical set of standards about what it considers acceptable in its pictures, without deciding to engage in a larger free-speech fight.

I also note that on the group's official petition, while they do refer to there being photos on Facebook that are "really obscene," they don't explicitly call on Facebook to step up policing them instead, as Klein implies (even if plenty of the commenters do).

What do you think? Should breastfeeding advocates set themselves up as "special case" nudity or fight for our right to bare our chests?

Photo from the Journal de Montréal.

Facebook Mothers Fight Breastfeeding Ban

More by this author:

Is Facebook Making You A Bad Parent?

SunnyChanel — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:30:00 GMT

Do you find yourself checking your Facebook account three, four or even twelve times a day? Do you sneak away during kiddie play time to update your “What Are You Doing Right Now” status with “I’m doing kiddie play time”? Do you let the kids run wild while you scour for news on what your friends are doing in life right now instead of doing some living your self? If you answered yes to any of those questions, do you feel guilty about it?

Erica Noonan of the Boston Globe explored the mommy guilt of online social networking after her two year old insisted on her attention while she was in a “pleasant Facebook haze” recently. She was worried that her daughter may have become a “Facebook orphan.”

Although computer time may take away from the precious family play time, the social connection that is found on Facebook is, she stated in an interview on ABC News, crucial to the well being of parents. Back in the day, parents had more family around and a neighborhood of other parents. But in this day and age, when families are more isolated, this social connection that is created by online social networks helps to keep us sane and not feeling so alone.

Through the comments and feedback that she received, that about 70% of people thought it was a powerful and meaningful social tool and that the key was to find a balance. Yes, it easy to get sucked into a Facebook wormhole but it may be best done in off parenting times, after the kids have gone to bed, or when they are occupied with other activities like a wee bit of Sesame Street or coloring away. Like champagne and cupcakes, it’s best in moderation.

So you feel guilty about how much time you spend on Facebook?

Kid Won't Friend You on Facebook? Get a Life

JeanneSager — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:23:00 GMT

We all want our kids to love us even a smidge as much as we love them. But needing our kids to verify we're cool enough to be their "friends" on Facebook? Maybe it's time you get off the internet and MEET your kid.

I laughed at Lisa Belkin's essay a few months back in the Times about her kid refusing to friend her online. She even joined a group of moms whose kids are embarrased to find them on Facebook. Now the kids are getting back - with a group that's five thousand strong and growing, dubbed "For the love of god -- don't let parents join Facebook."

I've got news for you kids, not every mom wants her kid sending her a friend request. If they do, there's a fair amount of us who wouldn't hesitate to hit "deny."

I have always been one of the big proponents of kids getting on social networks, especially kids who need to reach outside of the limited social group in their own schools. Remember middle and high school anyone? It sucked. So why shouldn't our kids get a chance at something a little bit better - you know, like finding friends who share their interests, goals, secrets . . . and know nothing about the day they pissed their pants in the first grade?

But there's Facebook for kids. Then there's Facebook for the rest of us. (or Myspace or Twitter . . . or whatever social media you kids are using these days). Those of us who have opted for a "private" page, wherein we allow only those we've "confirmed" to see status updates and goofy pictures, have done so to keep out anyone who would judge what we have to say on there. For smart folks, that includes their bosses. For parents, it can also include their kids.

The flippant comment in the office becomes permanent when typed up and left on Facebook - by one of your "friends." But where you can earmuff the kids when your sloshed best friend starts talking about the good ol' days at a family party, the cat's out of the bag online. So who wants their kids to see that?

I'm a fully-grown, responsible adult and mother. OK, according to my mortgage coupon book, I am. According to Facebook, where I just wrapped up a discussion with a friend about Pillow Pants, the vagina troll (Clerks ringing a bell for you Kevin Smith fans?), well. . . you be the judge. What my kid doesn't know won't hurt her.

Image:

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Why Do Pacifiers Piss So Many People Off?

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

How About Some Placenta in that IV Drip?

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

JeanneSager — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:23:00 GMT

You can see it on Main Street, but breastfeeding moms are not allowed on Facebook. The social networking company has been deleting photos of women with their babies at their breast because it says it violates the decency standards set up for posting pictures on the site.

But moms are fighting back - with a Facebook group and plans for a "nurse in" at the Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif.

Already the group, "Hey, Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!," has attracted almost fifty-four thousand members, and a Facebook "event" page has been built for the Mothers International Lactation Campaign (MILC), a virtual protest to coincide with the nurse in. Members are being asked to change their profile picture to that of a nursing mother for the entirety of Dec. 27, the day women will protest in person in Palo Alto at 11 a.m. The picture need not be that of a human mother, the event creators say, but simply that of a mammal and her young in the act of feeding.

The company told a Daily News reporter that it has not actually banned breastfeeding on the site - photos that do not show an entire breast are allowed. That's technically true - the profile picture for the Hey, Facebook group is that of a breast almost entirely covered by a mother's blue t-shirt, the nipple encased in her baby's mouth. Approximately an inch of skin can be seen between the baby's cheek and the mom's shirt.

I've got to tell you, I've seen plenty of freaky photos on Facebook - from the teenager I babysat when he was 3 looking so blitzed he might well have had alcohol poisoning (not indecent, I suppose, but definitely making me feel old) to the old tea bagging trick (why do guys do this to one another?). I could see removing this kind of thing - you know, underage drinking is against the law guys.

But a mom breastfeeding? Give me a break. I'm one of those people who prefers to give a mom her privacy, and I look away - I probably would avoid commenting on a friend's photo if it was of her breastfeeding. But, in the end, it's a mother and her child. It's not a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Women can walk down the street wearing nothing on her boobs but a pasty and be violating nothing more than the laws of taste (and fashion). Meanwhile, she's showing more of her breast than a breastfeeding mom, and with no real reason for it.

Image: Facebook

Are Facebook Breastfeeding Advocates Being Too Prudish?

Coming to Facebook: Fetal Baby Kick Report

One in Five Teens Having Tech Sex

Baby Born With a Mouth Full of Teeth

Can a Mom Pumping Breastmilk Really be Sexy?

Five Easiest - and Cheesiest - Christmas Gifts to Make With the Kids

Hey Obama, Give This Kid an Interview!

Coming to Facebook: Fetal Baby Kick Report

JeanneSager — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:31:00 GMT

Hey pregnant chicks, want to walk around with an ugly, bulky belt wrapped 'round your middle just so the rest of the world (because the rest of the world is on Facebook, of course) can keep track of your baby's every movement?

An NYU doctoral student seems to think you would. He's created the Kickbee, a big ol' belt not unlike the monitor's they wrap around you in the hospital when inducing labor to track the fetal heartbeat. Only where the slightest movement of the monitor for the heartbeat will cause Nazi nurse to come running in to yell at you for not keeping the belt on "just so" (because mid-contraction you really have control over these things?), this belt is just there to track a little kicking action.

The sensors on the belt use Bluetooth technology to then transmit a message to Facebook or Twitter, letting someone out there who might pretend to care at the moment that baby is kicking.

I give Corey Menscher props for trying to be involved in every step of his wife's pregnancy. But something makes me think his wife might have just appreciated a hand placed on her abdomen once in awhile to feel the little Menscher kicking away.The Kickbee could potentially have medical uses; I'll grant him that too. Instead of depending on Mom to hit a button every time the baby kicks during a non-stress test, this could do the whole thing for her (especially when she's incapacitated).

But if this is the new maternity couture, I've got to say - I've never been so glad to be "one and done."

Image/Source: The Daily Mail

Mom Sells Newborn Twins to Fund Liposuction

One in Five Teens Having Tech Sex

Kids: The World's Best Form of Birth Control

A Girl's Take: Announce Your New Edition With Panties

When Your Kid's is the Puny Gift to the Teacher

Blogging Moms Find a Kidney For Teen on Dialysis

JeanneSager — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:02:00 GMT

If you've ever doubted the power of the Internet, just imagine the motivation of helping a kid in need thrown in. This is one of those happy holiday stories to make up for all the bad stuff we ended up writing about here on the 'Derby, but I warn you. Get out the tissues.

"Domestic Diva" mom blogger Lisa posted in early November that she could barely keep posting as she watched her teen daughter, Marielle, suffer through her kidneys shutting down. The family was making a drastic move. They were pulling Marielle out of a Philadelphia hospital and heading to New York's Columbia Presbyterian in hopes that the living kidney donor program there could save her life.

Two weeks to the day later, yesterday, Lisa was back online. Blogging mothers across the country had picked up her story and blogged about it, tweeted it on Twitter and shared it on Facebook. Calls poured into Columbia Presbyterian from every state in the U.S., from Africa, from Saudi Arabia. Marielle now has a donor. A friend her mom met through Ebay called the hospital, went through the process and has come up as a match. The teenager is home, still on dialysis, but home for the holiday as doctors work to bring her body to a state of health that will enable them to proceed with surgery.

Yesterday, the day before Thanksgiving, the family released this announcement to the world:

"Thank you to EVERYONE who sent in donor forms, called, blogged, twittered and help spread the word…BUT WE DO NOT NEED ANY ADDITIONAL DONORS AT THIS TIME. I am amazed by the power of the web and the hearts of those who helped make a difference."

Now wipe your tears and get back to that turkey.

Image: Domestic Diva

Girl Diagnoses Herself With Autism

The Shape of a Mother: The Real Us In All Our Unglorious Glory

Grandma Serves as Surrogate, Gives Birth to Triplet Granddaughters

Facebook Kicks Teddy Bear Offline

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:01:00 GMT

Christopher Robin wouldn't fit in at Facebook. Winnie the Pooh's best friend treated his stuffed teddy bear like he was a real live bear. Facebook, meanwhile, has kicked a British teddy bear offline, stranding his growing friend list without a bear buddy.

Bartie Bristle's creator Amanda Middleditch put up the page as a "bit of fun." But the English bear shop worker says she got "a very abrupt e-mail saying they felt Barty could be somebody masquerading as somebody else and it could be dangerous." The page was deleted, and calls to Facebook by the British newspaper the Daily Mail were met only with reference to the social networking site's terms of use which cite a user must be at least 13 years old. Bartie is only 2.

Before you start creating a site for your daughter's favorite dolly or your son's beloved bear, take heed: the terms also warn against impersonating "any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent yourself, your age or your affiliation with any person or entity."

If your kids want to be friends with Bartie, they still can. He's found a new home at the Ning site, McBears, and his fan base is thumbing its collective noses at Facebook.

Image: McBears.com

News from Darkest Peru: Paddington Turns 50

Do You Play With Your Kids' Toys?

Attack of the Clowns!

Mom Plans to Burn Book her Son's Library Book - Really

Cloudy With a Chance of GI Joe? Hunt's On for Man Who Threw Action Figure

Is Your Daughter a Princess?

Social Networking, the Next Hurdle to Getting Them Into College?

JeanneSager — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:58:00 GMT

As if getting them into the right pre-school, making sure they tie their shoes on time, and packing their adolescent days with just the right balance of after-school activities and opportunities to "give back" wasn't enough to stress about for the next 18 years. If you want to get your kids into a good college, you might want to make sure they keep those Myspace pages private.

One in 10 college admissions offers surveyed by Kaplan Test Prep admitted they browse prospective students' social networking profiles before deciding whether to toss an application into the "yes" pile or toss it out the door. Although my 3-year-old won't be posting online anytime soon, what's limited to a few hundred sites right now will be virtual minefield for the Google-savvy admissions staff 15 years down the line. And I don't see myself keeping her off-line.

Unlike parents I've heard who have actually set up systems on the family computer to log every keystroke their child makes (essentially allowing them carte blanche to their child's instant messages, Myspace blogs, e-mails and even their random Google searches), I'm crossing my fingers that the answer to keeping her safe will be in arming with her with the right information. Want to go online? Don't tell anyone anything. Want a Myspace page? Keep it private.

That's what confuses me about the chief Myspace complainers. They're logging on, searching, and finding their kids' Myspace pages - left wide open to everyone, including snooping college administrators. Instead of telling their kids' to button up, they're shutting down their entire world. And what do we all remember from our high school days was the best way to for our parents to get us to do something? Tell us we couldn't. Myspace, Facebook and the like have become kids' alternative to the good old-fashioned pen and a journal. In a world where they spend the day with fingers glued to a Crackberry or a laptop, it's no wonder. And it's just as cathartic.

But for a college admissions officer who doesn't know your kid, who's looking for any reason to throw one more application in the rejection pile to satisfy the college's limited availability, a social networking page written by a silly kid, a goofy kid, isn't going to come off as someone being silly or goofy or just getting things off their chest. In fact, 38 percent of officers said a page view put a child's application firmly in the rejection pile.

So what's a parent to do? Remind your kids, big brother is watching - so keep the blinds closed.

Image: Nick Halstead

Did Bristol and Levi Tie the Knot?

Madeline Holler — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:46:00 GMT

And, more importantly, do their parents know? (Hey, it's a fair question ... this family loves its secrets!)

A blogger has uncovered a Facebook page that lists the VP candidate's daughter as Bristol Palin-Johnston, which would imply that she and her boyfriend Levi Johnston have made the Palin family whole again.

Only, I'm a little suspicious.

Why would her Facebook picture be one from the RNC? Holding her brother? Wouldn't it be of her in her natural setting? And a hyphenated name? I think maybe someone went ahead and signed up with her name. Which isn't very nice.

Plus, that means she's holding out for a proper wedding on the White House lawn!

Morning News: Tina and Sarah and Cindy -- Oh My!

Morning News: Sarah P. Soothes Some, Induces Spit-Takes in Others

Sarah Palin's Teen Daughter is Pregnant! We've Got Pics!

Are Shotgun Weddings the Best Answer to Teen Pregnancy?

[via Wonkette]

Photo: theimproper.com

Girl Talk May Fuel Anxiety

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:30:00 GMT

Naturally you want your children to have strong friendships, people they can trust to help them navigate social and emotional concerns. But there may be such a thing as too much talking.

Psychologists call it “co-rumination:” the tendency to dwell on a personal problem with a friend, seeking empathy and validation of your feelings. Anyone who’s responsible for paying a teenage girl's phone bill is probably more than a little familiar with this type of conversation: do you think he likes me? Is so-and-so mad at me? Should I break up with him?

As this tendency has started to figure more heavily into female friendships with the advent of MySpace, Facebook, cell phones, and email—which mean that the majority of friendships can be based on chatting or gossip, rather than activities—researchers have started to wonder if it’s such a healthy way for friends to relate with one another.

Indeed, several studies of third, fifth, seventh, and ninth graders have shown that co-rumination can lead to increased anxiety and depression in girls, at least in the short term. Obsessing about a problem with a friend can make that problem seem bigger than it is—and worries can be contagious: if my best friend is so concerned about how many times a week her boyfriend calls her, maybe I should be, too.

Researchers found that emotional conversations did not affect boys negatively, perhaps because they occur less often or because the tone is different. Boys may be more likely to focus on solutions to problems instead of just venting them, which psychologists say is the most effective way to converse.

One way parents can help their daughters avoid this self-perpetuating cycle of anxiety, obsession and validation, and hence more anxiety is to encourage your children to come to you for advice, so they get the perspective of age at least some of the time. Any other tips for parents to help their daughters most effectively deal with emotional upsets?

Photo: New York Times