Strollerderby : Time Magazine

Exploited and Discarded? Seeking Protection for Egg Donors

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:01:00 GMT

The new parents beam, the babies gurgle and coo, and People magazine takes a picture of yet another family made possible by egg donation (you don't think all those 45-year-old actresses are just having twins by some crazy coincidence, do you?). But what happens to the woman whose biological material helped make it all possible? Her job done, the egg donor typically recedes into the background, a check for $5,000 (or more, or less) in her hand, gone without a trace.

Now some former donors and other advocates for women's health want that to change. While the Centers for Disease Control keeps track of the number of eggs donated to women facing infertility -- it was more than 15,000 in 2006 -- the donors of those eggs, and information about their health after serving as donors, is not followed in any way. Given that egg donation involves treatment with powerful hormones, many of which carry at least some cancer risk, the lack of follow-up and systematic tracking bothers many.

"Right now egg donors are treated like vendors, not as patients. Patients need to be followed up," Jennifer Schneider told Time magazine. Schneider, a doctor, has become a critic of the way donors are treated ever since losing her own daughter, who donated three times and died of colon cancer at 31.

Even worse, many egg donors appear to lack basic information about even the short-term health risks they're taking on when they agree to donate. From the Time article:

In an article published in Fertility and Sterility in November 2008, researchers found, for example, that 34% of former egg donors didn't recall being aware at the time of donation of the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, the most common side effect. The majority of donors experience at least the mild or moderate form of this syndrome, which involves discomfort, bloating or nausea and usually resolves itself on its own. The severe version of this syndrome is rare - only 100 to 200 for every 100,000 women - but its consequences can include kidney failure and death. And then there are other side effects, such as bleeding, infection and death, which are associated with any surgery performed under general anesthesia. But fully 20% of the 80 donors interviewed said they didn't know there were any physical risks to egg donation at all.

With a growing number of families seeking advanced reproductive technology, and an increasing number of willing donors (motivated at least in part by economic woes, some clinics are reporting a jump of over 50% in the number of prospective donors over last year's numbers), egg donation isn't going away. But it's time to stop treating it as a simple exchange of money for risk, or even money for genetic material. Donors need more information, and clinics need to not only make sure they understand the risks but provide follow-up healthcare, as well as tracking outcomes so that future medical professionals -- and donors -- can understand the actual long-term risks. Right now there are no credible studies that can assess those risks -- the most frightening aspect of which is uterine cancer -- because no registry has ever existed.

Currently the American Society for Reproductive Medicine is consulting with fertility docs on a nonprofit, voluntary registry of both egg and sperm donors, but as recent controversies have made all too clear, self-regulation isn't a strength of the fertility industry (really, of any industry). One hopes that the parents who benefit from the technology that brought them babies will also remember the generosity and courage of the women who provided their eggs and push their clinics for better care and research -- and contact their political representatives to ask for the same from our government.

More by this author:

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

From Playboy to Medical School: Jenny McCarthy Now a Doctor

JeanneSager — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Love her or hate her, former Playboy Bunny and Singled Out host Jenny McCarthy is donning a white coat for her new role: doctor. Her voice for the fight to cure autism has earned McCarthy her medical degree from Harvard Med.

The announcement comes just as McCarthy's fifth book, co-authored with autism specialist Dr. Jerry Kartzinel, hits shelves. The work behind Healing and Preventing Autism and McCarthy's extensive research of the subject was subject of a face-off with science editor Jeffrey Kluger this week in TIME Magazine.

But it's that work that has earned McCarthy the attention of Harvard Med, one of the most respected institutions in America. They've decided to grant McCarthy the degree not as an honorary title but with full credentials. She will still have to pass the boards in order to actually practice medicine.

Does the Harvard Med. seal of approval change your opinions of McCarthy?

Image: Amazon

The Trouble With Wanting a VBAC

Madeline Holler — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:54:00 GMT

With first babies, you have all the choices in the world how to give birth -- drug-free, with a doula, in a hospital surrounded by the family, c-section. Not that the plan always works out, but a mom-to-be can dream.

With subsequent babies, however, the options narrow quickly for a group of women who, for whatever reason, wound up giving birth to the first via cesarean section.

Pamela Paul's article in this week's Time, "The Trouble With Repeat Cesareans," would more accurately be titled "Hey, Good Luck With That VBAC."

Paul doesn't set out to argue whether women should be allowed to choose to give birth via c-section. Rather, she illustrates how, for an alarmingly large number of women, the choice to give birth vaginally isn't even there -- c-section is the only apparent option.

She writes that although VBAC is a safe option, nine out of 10 women with a prior cesarean undergo repeat cesareans for subsequent births. Of course repeat cesarean might be the woman's choice, but vast numbers of are basically forced into the operating room.

From Time:

...the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN), a grass-roots group, recently called 2,850 hospitals that have labor and delivery wards and found that 28% of them don't allow VBACs, up from 10% in its previous survey, in 2004. ICAN's latest findings note that another 21% of hospitals have what it calls "de facto bans," i.e., the hospitals have no official policies against VBAC, but no obstetricians will perform them.

These bans left one California woman to drive 100 miles to a hospital where she would be allowed to attempt a VBAC.

This is interesting because the National Institutes for Health, recognizing the tremendous cost and associated risks of surgical birth, has set a goal of decreasing the number of cesareans by, in part, upping the VBAC rate to 37 percent by 2010. In 2006, VBACs only accounted for 8 percent of all births in the U.S.

Paul counters the studies and VBAC safety fears many women, doctors and -- probably most importantly -- insurance companies operate under. And explains how we got to where we are today, even though just over 10 years ago, attempting VBAC was quite common. Several high profile lawsuits sent malpractice insurance through the roof. She qoutes a doctor who admits the "once a cesarean, always a cesarean" is an issue of money, not patient safety.

Paul also writes on Huffington Post her own experience when she wanted a VBAC. She found who she thought was a VBAC friendly doctor, only when she was six months pregnant he wanted to talk c-section scheduling. She balked and when she went in to give birth, the on-call doc at her supposedly VBAC-friendly hospital wouldn't talk to her while she was in labor and didn't answer his pager when it was time for her to push. Lovely!

I'm curious whether what hoops you had to jump through to get support for a VBAC or if you had to through in the towel. If you had a repeat c-section, was that your choice? Avoiding the battle?

McCain Takes Aim at Obama's Fancy 'Copter

Round 1: Baby Food Taste-Off

Preemie to Pediatrician

How the Recession Will Mess With Your Marriage

Photo: Time

They say: Drinking with your kids makes them less drunk

Brett Singer — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:30:00 GMT

Now we've all gotten drunk. Fall down, sloppy, mess-making drunk. My first bad drinking experience involved vodka, straight up, in a garage during a thunderstorm. It ended badly. I had a couple of others, but not too many that included me puking my guts out. But it happens.

According to this article from Time magazine, it might happen less if you drink with your kids. But that's illegal, you say. The drinking age is 21. Well, yes, but not exactly. According to Time, "When Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, it explicitly allowed kids to drink at home or in 'private clubs or establishments.' Similarly, under most state laws, it's legal for those under 21 to consume alcohol under certain conditions. Only six states, mostly rural ones, ban underage alcohol consumption completely."

This "have a drink with your kids" thing isn't a new idea. A recent Babble Bad Parent essay by Gretchen Roberts titled Booze Clues talks about the idea of making alcohol something commonplace rather than this big taboo thing, which only makes it more interesting. The Time Magazine article backs up this notion, quoting a paper from the 2004 Journal of Adolescent Health as saying, "Drinking with parents appears to have a protective effect on general drinking trends."

The problem, of course, is when "not uptight about alcohol" translates into "letting the kids get wasted in the basement with their friends." Drinking a glass of wine with dinner is very different from getting drunk. When I sat in that garage, swilling vodka straight from the bottle, it was partly about the alcohol but also partly about being young and stupid. (I'm not condoning it or calling it a "right of passage", nor am I saying it was a sin worthy of caning. Just being honest.) Drinking until you, ahem, hurl, is something that you should only do when you're young and stupid. The other time I got sick from drinking was in college and again, I drank too much and I paid the price. There were other people that I went to school with who got that wasted on a regular basis.

So should you drink with your kids? I don't know. Personally, I don't think kids need wine any more than they need soda. That doesn't mean that we present alcohol (or soda) as something off-limits and exciting. Neither is a particularly big deal in our house, and different people have different rules. As with so many things, behavior that a reasonable person can handle (letting kids have a sip of wine every now and then) can become something else entirely in the hands of an irresponsible moron (hosting a kegger at home.)

Do you think that letting your kids in on the drinking at home will make them more or less likely to overdo it with liquor someday?

image: Addiction Inbox

They Say: Limit Kids Screen Time

Substitute teacher shows up drunk

Baby Born Drunk

Child Gets Drunk Off Hand Sanitizer

Drunk Mom Lets One-Year-Old Drive

Mommy Got Drunk - Jordan Embarrasses Her Husband

Christina Aguilera Slightly Drunk?

What We Do Wrong at Bedtime

Jen Chaney — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:04:00 GMT

My son is destined to become obese, anxious, wracked with low self-esteem and beset with emotional problems. At least this article in Time -- entitled "How Not to Get Baby to Sleep" -- certainly makes it seem that way.

The story, based on recent research on sleep patterns in infants and children, says that kids who develop poor slumber habits at an early age can expect to encounter health and wellness issues later in life, including the ones I describe above. Part of the problem is that we parents apparently do all the wrong things when our little ones can't fall asleep. Among our top offenses: Picking up the baby when he's crying, bringing him into the family bed or feeding him in the middle of the night. The key, apparently, is to teach our kids to self-soothe and find their own paths back to dreamland.

I agree with the concept in theory. My problem is adapting it to the real world. My son used to sleep fine until a couple of weeks ago, a change that may have come about due to the double-whammy of simultaneous ear infections. Now he wakes up in the middle of the night, every night, so he can present his latest performance of "Screamfest 2008: Get the Frak Up, Mom and Dad. And Please Hold Me." I know I should not pick him up or rock him or bring him into bed with us. But I have resorted to any and all of these options lately because, at 3 a.m., when you know you have to get up in three hours and go to work, Ferberization can pretty much shove it.

I was really hoping the Time article would offer some useful tidbits about other methods moms and dads can use instead of the "bad" ones. But all Dr. Elsie Tavares of Harvard Medical School suggests is, "Go to sleep at the same time every night. Remove things that will create a lot of stimulation before sleep — don't put a TV in the child's room." Um, thanks. I kinda figured that if my son is up watching "Letterman" he probably won't be able to get to sleep.

I take comfort in the fact that I can't possibly be the only parent who is "Night, night"-challenged. Assuming that's so, I look forward to introducing my poor, fat, neurotic, sleep-deprived child to yours' in a few short years.

Photo: Halosleep.com

Breastfeeding: Cross-Nursing and the Return of the Wet Nurse

Patti — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:31:00 GMT

Breastfeeding's renaissance over the last several years is starting to play out in an interesting way. As parents are bombarded by information that indicates that breastmilk has magical powers, some of them are taking it to a more extreme level and cross-nursing with the babies of family and friends. As the popularity and availability of milk banks rise, so too has the availability of one of the worlds' oldest professions: the wet nurse.

Time Magazine covers this issue in a pretty non-judgmental way, though I suspect their photo of a woman breastfeeding her toddler (shown at right) will probably generate a shitstorm all by itself, never mind how the idea of women breastfeeding other people's babies is going to play out in middle America.

I'd have done it. It never came up in my circle of friends, but if it had, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. I can think of five or six people whose babies I'd have cheerfully nursed, and who I'd have allowed to feed my babies without any compunction. And now those five or six women are out there reading this and either thinking "Ew!" or "Aw!", and I couldn't begin to tell you who's thinking which. But I'm not particularly brainwashed by the idea that breastmilk is the end-all, be-all of nutrition. I just really liked breastfeeding, and I particularly enjoyed the feeling of connection it brought my children and I. Cross-nursing a friend's child wouldn't have brought me any closer to their family, but it would have been a totally appropriate symbol of a closeness that already existed. And seriously, I was good enough at it that if I'd realized there was a possibility to do it for a living, only the restrictions on my cocktail intake would have stopped me.

If you missed it, check out Jennifer Baumgardner's sweet essay about cross-nursing published recently in Babble.

¿Can You Say Parodia? SNL Skewers "Dora"

Patti — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:31:00 GMT

I know in my heart that SNL animator Robert Smigel's take on "Dora The Explorer" would have been funnier to me if Dora and her friends weren't such a serious and integral part of my children's ~~education~~ entertainment. But as it was, I watched this clip with just a little more discomfort than I would have a few years ago when the sum total of my Dora experience was limited to a few moments here and there while babysitting.

After reviewing it for questionable content, I let my four-year-old watch it with me. She took it straight, only noting that "that's not the usual Boots". And for her money, that's a girl in the picture FauxDora holds up.

I'm going to watch it again later tonight after I come home from Mama's Night Out, and I suspect with a couple of mojitos under my belt, it'll be hilarious.

Via Time's Tuned In blog

Slings and Arrows Finale: Time Mag v. Babble

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:03:00 GMT

Our discussion concludes as James Poniewozik responds to Babble's contention that "we are nothing more or less than parents who, in some fashion, defy the traditional image of uptight cardigan-wearing Donna Reed clones who are perpetually alienated from modern culture."

Stroller Derby: How do you respond to Babble / Stroller Derby's claim that we're not "just" about hip urban parenting?

James P: I'll respond in three parts:

A. Yesterday, I visited Babble.com. The number-one story in the homepage box was, "The Hippest Babysitter in America." Babble's tagline is: "A magazine and community for the new urban parent." "New" urban, hip urban. Tomato, tomahto. It probably is a generalization to say that Babble is all about hip urbanites; however, Babble doesn't seem to have a problem creating that impression to market itself. It's only when somebody makes a criticism that "hip" is suddenly reductive. And while I'm not privy to Babble's business plan, I doubt the whole "hip" perception harms it with advertisers.

B. I do understand the charge that "hipster" is a generalization. (Just as "new urban parent" is.) Here's another generalization in my column: "Gen X." In reality, some parent-memoirists, including some of Babble's, I believe, are Baby Boomers; conversely, some are probably young enough to be considered Gen Y. Gen X seems like a fair median, though.

C. Come on, "Donna Reed clones"? How self-serving. (Anyone who criticizes us is a '50s sexist who wants to enslave women!) That's a 60-year-old image. It hasn't been "defiant" to oppose the Donna Reed stereotype since "Maude." I would bet good money that most Babble writers' mothers weren't Donna Reed types, much less any contemporary you could find without calling a casting agency.

Stroller Derby: What do you think about Stroller Derby's statement that "...if there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now. As relatively new parents, we learn a great deal by reading the writings of others in similar straits. And if our kids listen to the Ramones and wear Baby Gap, it doesn't mean being cool is our primary objective. On the contrary, any parent with a heart, no matter what they wear, where they live, or what is on their iPod, understands the tectonic shift that must occur when one is the guardian of little innocent people."

James P: Again, I think this is someone believing that I'm telling them they're a bad parent. Sure, you care more about your child than you do about being cool. Of course. Because you're human, and not a monster. But in the writing that I'm responding to, there's this constant sense of the writer assuring him/herself, "Hey, just because I have a kid, I'm not like
all those other horrible robots, right?" Well, yes, in a sense you are, because your priority in life is now the preservation and welfare of another human, and kids' basic needs are more or less universal. In another sense you're not, because you don't stop being who an individual when you have a child. But guess what? That was always true! We didn't invent that! That's not a new concept that just emerged around the time Nirvana released Nevermind! And that refrain--"We're doing it differently; we aren't losing our individuality to parenthood like people used to"--that's so terribly smug and self-congratulatory. But a great way to market to people.

But the first sentence also interests me: "If there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now." What does "now" mean? When you've just had a kid? Well, sure. As it has been for 2 million years' worth of humans, who managed to handle the anxiety without quite such a lengthy journey into their navels. Or does it mean, "Now, when parenting is so hard, and the culture is so hostile to parents, and the schools are in such crisis, and the world
is so screwed up, and everything is so expensive, and nothing is as safe or as easy as when I was a kid." *That* is an attitude I hear a lot in the real world, and I confess I am very skeptical of it. We grew up having our parents tell us how much harder they had it when they were kids. We will be the first generation to bore our own kids with stories of how much easier we had it when we were kids.

To read the first part of the interview, go here, and you can also read JP's blog and blog on the topic.

Interview with James Poniewozik, Time Magazine Reporter: "Hipster Parents" WANT Him to Judge Them

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:14:00 GMT

James Poniewozik, author of the much Babbled about "Too Cool for Preschool" piece in this week's Time Magazine, kindly agreed to answer some of our questions about his problem with hip parent bloggers and writers.

Strollerderby: You seem concerned that Gen X parents are so busy being cool and inserting themselves into the story of their kid's lives that they aren't putting their kids first as they should. Is this based only on the books and the blogs or also on your observations of parents in action?

James P: I'm responding to the books and the blogs. In fact, this is the most important point I want to make: my article was about--to use the hated term--"hipster parent" *writing*, not about hipster *parenting*. I'm not trying to judge anyone's parenting.

I feel like the Babble bloggers, et al., kind of want me to be judging their parenting, because that allows them to frame the debate as though they're being socially oppressed: Time magazine is trying to force us conform to their parenting norms! We're just too free-thinking for them! We're too threatening to The Man! I would argue if, anything, there's an implicit tone of judgment that suffuses Babble--if you're not on board with them, you're some kid of brainwashed Stepford robot.

My objections are to the writing. Or specifically, to a set of attitudes I see in the writing (which is not to say this applies equally, or at all, to every parent-blogger-author-etc. in the world). This notion that I have just experienced this thing that a hundred billion people in history have, but because I am so offbeat, because I am so distinctive, because I feel so deeply, my experience of it is different. And terribly interesting. And look what it says about me that I made this and this choice with my child.

The idea of one's child, a distinct, separate person, as proof of one's uniqueness and alterity. It's not about failing to put your child first in private life--I'm sure all these writers take fine care of their kids, feed them well, look out for their interests. (The other knock on Gen X urban parents is that we dote too much and parent obsessively, right?) It's using a child as a sort of third-person vehicle through which to write one's autobiography.

Part 2 of our conversation with James coming soon...

Time Magazine's Hipster Parenting Article: The Blogosphere Reacts

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:01:00 GMT

First, I know, I used the word "blogosphere." I apologize. Second, in case you haven't heard, James Poniewozick wrote an article for Time Magazine last week essentially saying that so-called "hipster parents" are, as Aidin Vaziri of The Poop puts it: "douche bags."

Because Poniewozick singled out Babble as "part of the problem," as it were, you best believe that we here at Strollerderby had something to say about it. Those of us connected with Babble/Strollerderby also chose to address the article on our personal blogs.

But other bloggers chimed in as well. Mo Comedy called Poniewozick out for failing to see the irony of being a ~~douche bag~~ hipster parent writing about how lame hipster parents are. CrunchyCarpets writes a blog post which I think supports Poniewozick's position, but I couldn't quite tell because she makes a big to-do about her husband bonding with her kid while playing XBox. (Isn't that a hipster parent rite of passage?) She claims that the ripe old age of 37, she's an "old fart Gen Xer/old nerd" who thinks sites like Babble aren't geared for her. (CrunchyCarpets, as a fellow 37-year-old "old fart Gen Xer," please accept my apologies for failing you.) Brian is kinda ambivalent. And, of course, the child free sites are having a field day with such an easy target. "Hardcore!"

If you've read the article and have something to say about it please let us know by commenting and/or linking your posts below. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take my kids to get new leg warmers right after they get their faux-hawks trimmed. Otherwise they'll look like complete fools at the Franz Ferdinand concert we're going to later. After we stop for sushi and colonics, of course.

The Parenting Conversation: Why Time Magazine Piece on "Hip Parents" Gets It Wrong

thezeroboss — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:09:00 GMT

I know that my fellow Derby-ers have already run roughshod over Time magazine's hit piece on Babble and so-called "hip parenting". Goddess knows that the damn "hip parenting" and "grup" memes perpetuated by monolithic media are wearing thin on my soul. I guess I'm too much of a narcissist to let the story go by without chipping in my own two cents.

Near the middle of his piece, author James Poniewozik states: "The Howl of this movement is Neal Pollack's new memoir Alternadad." That comment is so fallacious as to border on dishonesty. Is Poniewozik unaware that Pollack's book sparked something of a mini-riot among Babble's readers and editorial staff? Or is he aware of it, but fears that pointing it up will spoil his narrative about the hipper-than-thou parent?

In branding his piece "Too Cool for Pre-school," Poniewozik wants his readers to believe that all "hip parents" are cut from the same cloth. And that's the problem with that absurd label. Few of us are trying to be "hip." What we are is "offbeat". Nontraditional. Postmodern. We are urban parents. We are crunchy granola parents, attachment parenting parents, environmentalist parents. We are rock 'n roll parents. We are stay at home or work at home parents. We are gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered parents. We are nothing more or less than parents who, in some fashion, defy the traditional image of uptight cardigan-wearing Donna Reed clones who are perpetually alienated from modern culture.

And you wanna know something? We all - gasp! - like to talk to each other.

We enjoy sharing our experiences online. Why? Simple: because big media properties like Poniewozik's employer have ignored us for years. With the explosion of the Internet and the blogosphere, we found a way to bypass the sugary sweetness and commercial plasticity of crap publications like Parents magazine, and directly connect with one another. For the first time, we were part of the parenting conversation; we had an outlet; we were no longer marginalized.

Does that make parental blogging "about us," and not about our kids? Of course. But all narrative writing is about the author, and his or her unique window on the world. The same can be said about the work of David Sedaris. Or Augusten Burroughs. (And I would hope that the irony of Poniewozik writing an opinion piece dissing on other people's narcissism is not lost on him.)

Poniewozik is right on one score: some of the worst writing and blogging in this genre is so much navel-gazing. I've decried that trend myself. But therein lies the value of community. We all keep one another in check. The best parenting bloggers don't simply tell stories about their kids: like this recent posting by Dooce, they tell stories that serve as flash-points for conversation. And damn, do we conversate. We bicker; we debate; we call each other on our bullshit. We do more - much more - than marvel at the precious miracle of our little Boopsie's first steps. We debate hot-topic issues like cervical cancer vaccines for teens, whether vaccinations cause autism, sex education, the grief of parents with stillborn children, and the merits and demerits of the family bed. We share tips on how to save money, spend more time together, and be better parents in general.

Pollack's book was a noticeable flash-point in our recent history. But such debates happen on Babble and around the blogosphere every week, if not every day. And that's what gets lost in one-dimensional, buzzword-heavy pieces like the Time article. Offbeat parenting on the Internet isn't a monologue, as Poniewozik depicts it. It's a conversation - a conversation that bequeaths upon us an embarrassment of riches. Move over, Dr. Spock: we have more information about good parenting at our fingertips than our own parents ever hoped to possess.

Why so many in the mainstream news media are so het up about that is beyond me. Then again, people react in bizarre ways when you threaten their monopoly on dialogue.

Shut Up & Parent: Why Time Magazine Hates Babble

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:31:00 GMT

Hip Generation X parents have once again come under heavy fire for doing things differently than our predecessors and peers. Time Magazine reporter James Poniewozik writes a gentlemanly but scathing piece about the depths of narcissism to which our craven parenting souls have fallen.

Like someone straight from a 1950s parenting book he gently reminds us, "Once, it was understood that raising kids was about subordinating yourself, recognizing that, at least as far as Darwin and the gene pool were concerned, you were no longer the star."

He assumes that the raft of parenting memoirs and blogs, as well as on-line magazines like Babble prove our unwillingness to put our kids first. By turning parenting into an intellectual, social, and critical exercise we fail to see that we are no longer the center of the universe. In this analysis, parents are to be seen and not heard.

But if there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now. As relatively new parents, we learn a great deal by reading the writings of others in similar straits. And if our kids listen to the Ramones and wear Baby Gap, it doesn't mean being cool is our primary objective. On the contrary, any parent with a heart, no matter what they wear, where they live, or what is on their iPod, understands the tectonic shift that must occur when one is the guardian of little innocent people.

Parents no longer look only toward the experts for advice and direction. We look within and to each other. Through our parenting magazines, blogs, books, and podcasts, we are providing more support and real information than Dr. Spock ever could. The democratization of parenting information is at hand. Move over Dr. Sears, we are the new experts.