Strollerderby : newsweek

Turns Out Men Can Get Postpartum Depression, Too

Jen Chaney — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:02:00 GMT

Women obviously suffer from the more severe hormonal changes after their children are born. But that doesn't mean dads are immune to postpartum depression.

According to this story from Newsweek, plenty of men experience the baby blues even if we don't always recognize it as such. Dr. Will Courtenay, a psychotherapist quoted extensively in the article, says that some studies indicate that as many as one in four new fathers wind up with PPD.

Honestly, this probably isn't a huge surprise to anyone. Having a child causes tectonic shifts in the ground beneath anyone's feet, regardless of their gender. The sleeplessness, the additional demands on our time, the sense that we're not living up to our spouse's or partner's expectations -- it can cause anyone to break, as father and one-time PPD sufferer Joel Schwartzberg writes in this essay, also in Newsweek.

The symptons he describes -- sadness, lack of communication with his spouse, a desire to flee from the situation -- are emotions I am sure many of us have felt at one point or another. In case there was any doubt, I think it's perfectly legitimate for guys to feel this way and to call it PPD.

What strikes me as a little strange, though, is this comment from Dr. Courtenay, in response to a reporter's question about whether postpartum depression manifests itself differently in men than in women. "When we think of a depressed person, we usually picture someone who's sad and crying," he says. "But if we picture instead a guy who's working 60 hours a week, is a little short-tempered, drinks a couple of beers at lunch, slips out of the office to have an affair, then speeds home to his wife, that's not what we picture when we think of depression, but those are some of the signs of men's depression, which can often look different."

Drinking on the job? Leaving the office to have an affair? That sounds a little extreme and perhaps like evidence of even more complex problems, doesn't it? I realize men and women are different -- I learned this primarily from years of hilarious stand-up comedy routines --and that the issues they confront as new parents vary in many ways, but I suspect that the feelings they struggle with have more in common than that statement suggests. Based on Schwartzberg's essay, which really resonated with me even though my chromosomes are definitely of the XX variety, that certainly seems true.

But you tell me. Are you a dad who has suffered from PPD, or do you suspect your husband/partner may have? What were the symptoms that reared their heads? And what advice can you offer to other parents in the same challenging situation?

Image: guardian.co.uk

Not Another Tween Beauty Crisis

JeanneSager — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:26:00 GMT

Want to know if another generation of kids is headed for holy hellfire? According to Salon's Broadsheet, just check out Newsweek.

Broadsheet's Amy Benfer has pulled Newsweek articles from now, the late nineties, early nineties and the eighties that all say the same thing: today's tween girls are growing up too fast, they're skankier than the previous generation of tween girls, they know too much about naughty things, aaaack. Avert your eyes!

What prompted the rant? A Newsweek article on Generation Diva, a comment on the trainwreck that is TLC's Toddlers and Tiaras that attempts to define the new normal as "a generation that primps and dyes and pulls and shapes, younger and with more vigor."

Author Jessica Bennett says, "Girls today are salon vets before they enter elementary school. Forget having mom trim your bangs, fourth graders are in the market for lush $50 haircuts; by the time they hit high school, $150 highlights are standard. Five-year-olds have spa days and pedicure parties. And instead of shaving their legs the old-fashioned way—with a 99-cent drugstore razor—teens get laser hair removal, the most common cosmetic procedure of that age group."

First thing Broadsheet's Benfer points out is exactly what I thought when reading the article - how many parents have the money for $50 haircuts for themselves, not to mention their kids? Granted, I'm now bald, but even before that, my haircuts have always been under $20. Throw in an occasional eyebrow wax (which, yes, is a luxury that I have clung to more as a mom who needs SOMETHING of my own), and we're still under $30 - with tip. My daughter, meanwhile, has had two haircuts in her three, almost four, years of life: one when she was under a year to cut the dark colored newborn tips off the ingrowing blonde baby hair, the second to clean up her own "fix it" job to her hair.

Frankly - I don't see a problem with having taken her to a salon.Technically, neither cut cost us a dime because the hairdresser was a close friend, but I would have paid (tried to pay) to have my daughter's hair cut by a professional - in part so I could do the mom thing and take pictures of her first cut and in part so I didn't have to hold her still, concentrate on cutting in straight lines, make something out of the mess she'd made. It was WORTH IT to me to take her to a salon instead of doing it myself. Does that mean I've set her up to put beauty above brains or made her vain? Nonsense!

She gets her toenails painted too - usually by my mother, who delights in their at home girls night bonding sessions. I guess that's technically a pedicure party, but is that really that bad either? I loved having my toenails painted when I was her age too - by my babysitter, who ironically now owns her own nail salon - and if you'll remember, I'm the mom who shaved her head . . . I'm hardly your beauty-obsessed airhead.

Which is the real issue here - how a mother looks at beauty. If she's struggling in this economy and pulling out $150 for highlights, she's the monster creating a monster. If she's putting her kid on Toddlers and Tiaras, she's just a plain old monster.

But if she's letting her three-year-old wear nail polish because it's sparkly, and she just wants to sparkle . . . she's letting kids be kids.

Image: Amazon (read it - it's hilarious)

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:31:00 GMT

Jenny McCarthy as an activist, "Green Vaccines," death threats against pro-vaccine doctors, deadly measles outbreaks: all sprang from one source, a flawed medical study with a tiny sample size, a lead author willing to fudge the facts, and a story the media found too fascinating to fully examine.

Writing in this week's Newsweek magazine, Sharon Begley lays out the timeline of what would become one of the biggest medical fairy tales of the past decade -- a narrative of corrupt pharamaceutical companies, poisoned children, and devoted parents. Too bad it wasn't, you know, true.

As is now clear, the study published in the Lancet medical journal back in 1998 linking the MMR vaccine to autism (via intestinal problems) was just plain bad science. The study looked at only twelve children, for one thing. Worse yet, the lead doctor, Andrew Wakefield, fudged the facts. A decade later, ten of the twelve co-authors have disavowed the research they published, but as Begley's story made clear, at the time the media and public found Wakefield and his findings not only trustworthy, but revolutionary. And he wasn't alone; in 2000 U.S. Representative Dan Burton chaired a congressional hearing to look into the connection, and TV's 60 Minutes gave it the old expose treatment. It wasn't hard to paint parents as heroes (because so frequently they are, even when their facts are wrong), nor to deride the drug companies as villains (because, again, they often are). A story so delicious has a tendency to rob the media of its hallowed skepticism -- how else to explain the major coverage of a study of 12 kids, when subsequent studies (such as one at Boston University that looked at two million children) showed zero relationship between the MMR and autism.

The story rode a wave of parental anxiety and media hype so big that it caused actual changes in behavior around vaccination -- and here's where, I think, Wakefield and his ilk bear some major culpability. As vaccination rates went down and outbreaks broke out, children died of easily preventable diseases. And despite the frequent exhortation from anti-vaccine crusaders to "follow the money" in looking at relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, I'd love to see more digging into Wakefield's financial stake in the autism industry (he was officially sanctioned for misconduct in having hidden the financial support he had received from parents of children with autism before undertaking the 1998 study, and now makes his living running a center that claims to cure autism).

The recent ruling by a special court that declared no connection between autism and vaccines has settled the legal question, for now. As for what happens in the court of public opinion, it's clear that's a far more complicated matter. The anguish felt by parens of autistic kids is real, as is the desire of every parent to protect her child. Let's hope that getting past the vaccine witch-hunt will free up more energy toward finding causes, cures and treatments for peope with autism.

Resercher Fabricated Autism Link in Vaccine

Florida Dad Pushing to Ban All Thimerosal in Vaccines

More By This Author:

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

Alllllvin! Everyone's Favorite Chipmunk is Fifty

JeanneSager — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:31:00 GMT

Who ever thought a trio of orphaned chipmunks with high-pitched squeaks would be the next boy band to make it big? Thanks to that (now very rich) somebody, we're about to spend a fiftieth year listening to Alvin, Simon and Theadore butcher, er, sing our favorite tunes. They've given up on the hula hoop. This year the iPod's the thing.

Ross Bagdasarian was having a hard time making the mortgage payments (and this is different because?) fifty years ago when he used a tape recorder to speed up the vocals on a song he'd just written and gave birth to pint-sized rodents with a knack for chirping out hits. I was too busy with a toddler to make it to the theater when Alvin and the Chipmunks hit the big screen last year, but it grossed $217 million in the states alone. Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakuel is expected to hit theaters next Christmas.

So what has given the little squeakers staying power for half a century? Ramin Setodeh compares the Alvin appeal to American Idol in a post on the online version of Newsweek. "Both trade in the allure of rags-to-riches insta-stardom," he says. And " Both acts are squeaky clean, family friendly and, to be honest, not very original."

That last little dig aside, I've got to agree. With their extra-long t-shirts and their boys will be boys get-into-trouble streak, they remind me of my little brother as a toddler tooling around the house and belting out the select words he could remember from the latest radio hit. They're short, fuzzy and they haven't lost that impish streak that makes every little kid want to be their friend. Fifty's been kind to the chipmunks, but the new version of their Christmas classic is packing the years on me - what's this about Alvin dumping his hula hoop hopes?

Image: Amazon

Boy Tells 'Your Mom' Joke, Boy Goes to Jail

Ten Songs You Never Want to Hear A Little Kid Singing

Happy Birthday Cookie Monster: C is Still For Cookie Thirty-Nine Years Later

Adoptive Parents Say: Boys Are Too Much Trouble

The Smurfs Turn 50

Morning News: McCain's Camp Starts Dishing On Palin

Madeline Holler — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Reason No. 136 to celebrate Obama's win: the inner-workings of McCain's campaign are now free to be exposed. And they're starting with Sarah Palin.

An intrepid Fox News reporter told Bill O'Reilly last night (reason No. 137 to celebrate: Obama's win has taken the edge off O'Reilly for now) about what really went on after Sarah Palin joined the Maverick back in August.

Some highlights [plus video clip on HuffPo]: Daily Palin

Aides had to explain that South Africa was a country on the continent of Africa (as opposed to a region of the country of Africa ... major cringe!).

She didn't know the countries of North America (nor which countries were part of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement).

She refused help in preparing for her interview with Katie Couric ... and then blamed her staff when it became a laughingstock.

She read press clippings and threw huge tantrums that made her staff cry.

Of course, Palin does not want to be blamed for McCain's loss.

Some more dishy highlights on Palin [from Newsweek]

The $150K shopping spree, that we defended here, carried an even higher price tag -- tens of thousands of dollars more. And to think, we defended her right here! As a part of the spree, she bought $20K to $40 K in clothes for Todd. She made her staff put some of the purchases on their personal credit cards.

Palin wanted to speak on election night. But McCain's campaign strategist wouldn't let her.

Palin started in with the Ayers stuff before McCain had signed off on it.

Palin greeted campaign aides in her hotel room while she was wearing only a towel.

One McCain aide, who had gotten close to Palin during debate prep, got fired a week before the election for trashing the McCain campaign.

Other dishy stuff in either campaign [again, Newsweek]:

As long ago as the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain campaign insiders were deciding whether to tell McCain he didn't have a chance in hell of winning. They decided not to.

Obama was never going to choose Hillary Clinton as a running mate because of one main reason: Bill.

McCain was relieved Obama didn't pick Hillary Clinton.

On the night she lost the Democratic nomination, Hillary had a long, long phone conversation with ... John McCain. The two thought Obama was flashy and callow.

Neither of the two presidential candidates looked forward to the debates. Obama was recorded as saying this about them:

"I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

We hope Obama knows that that is EXACTLY what viewers are thinking when those questions get asked. Exactly.

Here's a nice little round-up of the McCain loss blame-game. Turns out, it's not all Sarah Palin's fault. But we knew that already.

Morning News: Yes, He Did!

McCain's Mom's Morale Super Low

Girl Power in the White House

The Obama Kids Get a New Puppy

Morning News: Election Day

Photo: HuffPo

They Say: Here's Why Your Kid's a Bully Magnet

Madeline Holler — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:02:00 GMT

Think your tough and aggressive kid will be safe from bullying in school? Actually, s/he might be more at risk for it.

A new study shows what educators and researchers have long suspected. Children who are aggressive in their toddler years often wind up the target of bullies. Experts in the field have known for a long time that there is a link between being aggressive and being tormented.

From Newsweek:

When volatile and angry children act out on their frustrations—smashing a toy after someone takes their ball away—they aren't exactly beloved by their peers. "They're easy marks," says Kenneth Dodge, a psychology professor at Duke University. "You know you can get a rise out of them, you can push their buttons."

And, parents, it's not just a matter of personality.

... Aggression in toddlers was, again, associated with harassment in first grade and the researchers found two other risk factors for peer victimization as well: harsh or reactive parenting—anger, shouting and spanking when the kids were fussy—and lower income families.

Does any of this give you more perspective on the school bully? Or is this just blaming the bully's victim?

Photo: Newsweek.com

They Say: Dads Cheat, but Not for Sex

JeanneSager — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:03:00 GMT

Ladies, I've got good news . . . and bad news.

A combined AOL Health and Cookie Magazine poll says 32 percent of dads have cheated. Yes, that's the bad news. So what's the good news? It's not the sex. Researcher Gary Neuman, author of the new book The Truth About Cheating: Why Men Stray and What You Can Do To Prevent It, told Newsweek it's about an emotional disconnect. Explains it all, doesn't it? You have kids, and you disconnect . . . sound about right to me.

The fact that new parents aren't having a heck of a lot of sex isn't new news. I wrote about it myself for Babble a few months ago - and my husband got a good chuckle out of comments about the article over on AOL that pretty much gave him the green light to visit greener pastures. FYI: he's still here, but he appreciates your concern.

Remember, Neuman says, it ain't about sex. "The No. 1 reason was feeling underappreciated. It was a lack of thoughtful and kind gestures," he claims. He spent two years studying 200 guys - 100 who cheated, 100 who kept it in their pants. Almost half - 48 percent - said they won't cheat if they feel appreciated. Another 12 percent said they're going to cheat no matter what (how nice of them).

By comparison, Cookie and AOL chatted up 60,000 guys with at least one child - all online. And, yup, they all want sex. A quarter whined they're getting it as little as once a month, and 79 percent said they'd like it a whole lot more. But the number who would be willing to cheat, even if they could hide it from their wives, is still well above half at 69 percent. Which jives with what Neuman found - they might be unhappy about their sex lives, but they're keeping both their pants and emotions zipped up.

So what's the secret to keeping him at home? That's up to you - and him. If he's one of that 12 percent (see above), I say good riddance to bad rubbish. But if he's like most guys out there, he's going to get a handle on the fact that you just don't feel like it after a long day of velcroing shoes, mopping up milk and finding Blue's clues. So go ahead, tell him you don't feel like it - but at least tell him you're sorry.

Image: eHow

So He Delivered His Own Kid, Should We Give Him a Quarter?

La. Legislator Says: Let's Pay the Poor to Stop Making Babies

Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Nanny 911 - Back On Our Side of the Pond

Judge Raps Palin for Child Abuse? This Is Getting Ugly

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:01:00 GMT

Picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a vice presidential nominee is the gift that keeps on giving. First it's heading back to the office just days after the birth of her fifth child. Then it's every infant's dream: a trip to prison. Then it's all about the obvious success of abstinence sex education. And now, now it's about child abuse.

Say what?

Newsweek is reporting this morning that Palin and her family were ordered to stop disparaging her former brother-in-law, an Alaska state trooper who was divorcing her sister. Continuing to do so amounted to "child abuse," according to the judge.

Reports Newsweek:

"Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

Reached for comment, Palin's running mate, Sen. John McCain grumbled, "Shit. More? How many skeletons does one person have?"

So what say you: Does disparaging a relative during a divorce amount to emotional child abuse?

(The answer: Of course it does. A child doesn't have the ability to casually dismiss criticism of dad as "oh, mom's just pissed right now." It can forever alter a child's view of a parent, and a grown-up should know better.)

[Image: Newsweek]

Honey, Why Don't You Ever Write?

Kelly Mills — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:23:00 GMT

One of the best things about becoming a mom is that you get to mess with your kids in many of the same ways your mom messed with you. It's often unintentional of course, but when I'm singing along with the radio in the car and my kid begs me to stop, I know I've entered that special club. Someday my driving, the way I talk to waitstaff, and my bitter complaints about the price of things nowadays will all fill my child with the exasperation only a kid can feel towards their mother.

Now I have one more thing to add to the list: I can't wait to send her e-mail. And I'm totally in love with Postcards From Yo Mama, a site where readers can submit the choicest correspondence from their mothers. Right away the one about Jessica Simpson's salad caught my eye, perhaps because the line "I think it would be kinda fun to make my own croutons. What do u think?" slayed me. Here's to the day when I make the site. Happy Mother's Day, xoxoxo darling, I luv you.

Do Your Kids Need a Coach?

Jen Chaney — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:02:00 GMT

Apparently more and more of us are willing to pay $75 and up to have someone tell us how to raise our kids.

This Newsweek item, which comes a few weeks after this story ran in The Washington Post, notes that parent coaches have become more common, as moms and dads often seek outside counsel on how to handle child-rearing dilemmas. Why is this becoming a trend? Among other reasons, because many families don't live near relatives and can't call on them for help. Or because, as one mom says, friends are so competitive about parenting that they can't turn to each other for objective advice.

There's also another factor, which the Post piece alludes to but the Newsweek one glosses over: It's because parents are so busy. If you have two full-time working parents and multiple children, then you don't have time to do the research required to figure out how to get Dylan to eat his green beans. It's easier to throw some green money at someone and have them solve the problem for you.

Am I sounding like Queen Negative, Her Royal Highness of Cynicism? Maybe it's because I'm a little skeptical of the whole coach concept. Whenever someone says he has a life coach, I always picture him being followed around by some guy who keeps yelling, "Live! Live! Live! Rah! Rah! Rah!" I know, I know, life coaches and parent coaches can be invaluable, as worthwhile as a good therapist. Stil, It's hard for me not to wonder why we have invented these professions when, a decade ago, they didn't need to exist.

Our parents raised us without calling in any consultants. And we Gen Xers turned out okay, didn't we?

On the other hand, I understand the mom in the Post article who sought a professional to help her son, who suffers from acid reflux, sleep for longer than two hours. In those situations, sometimes you really do need someone other than the pediatrician, your best friend or your mother-in-law to put you on the right path. It's a question of knowing when you need the help and when you're just being lazy.

Anna Kuchment, the author of the Newsweek piece, said she had a great experience with a parent coach. The "small amount of validation made the visit worthwhile," she says. She also notes that the "supernanny" outlined a detailed plan designed to prevent her daughter from having temper tantrums when Dad wants to put her to bed instead of Mom. But, Kuchment says, she has "yet to muster the courage to try this."

And there's yet another problem: If you can't get up the gumption to do what Coach says, seems like you're destined to lose the game. Or at least $75.

Pregcellent: Vacant Womb For Rent

Kelly Mills — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:33:00 GMT

First off, I'd like to say that anyone who goes into being a surrogate strictly for the money has chosen a very challenging way to make a buck, because being pregnant is no picnic. But as this Newsweek article on the lives of surrogates points out, many women are also motivated by a desire to help others and to contribute something meaningful to the lives of couples who want kids. And the stereotype of the rich woman who wants a baby but not the stretch marks and thus hires a surrogate is strange also, since I can't imagine what would be more challenging than entrusting another person with your offspring before they are even born. So I doubt that one is founded much in reality either.

The article, which chronicles the stories of a number of women who became surrogates, touches on the controversies surrounding the practice, and there are many. There's the issue of maternal rights, and the fact that most surrogacy contracts aren't binding in many ways. There's the issues that come with one person in essence renting out their body, and the questions around what makes someone a parent, DNA or gestation or actual childrearing. Surrogacy is banned in much of Europe, and stereotypes about surrogates abound. Interestingly, many surrogates are military wives with husbands overseas. The article is worth checking out, if only because it makes you think hard about what it means to be a mother.

Should All Kids Go To Preschool?

Kelly Mills — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:38:00 GMT

Newsweek has an interview with David Kirp, author of "The Sandbox Investment: The Preschool Movement and Kids-First Politics" about the benefits of high-quality preschool. Some lawmakers have been advocating for more state-funded programs, but Kirp is concerned that politicians may set up preschools on the cheap that provide less benefit for kids. He believes there's a gap between the research, which "shows that if a child goes to preschool they will have a higher income, are less likely to be involved in crime, more likely to graduate from college and have happier lives" and the kinds of programs available to folks.

So what kind of preschool should you look for? Play-based with a good amount of creative chaos. In other words, steer clear of the preschools that focus on rote memorization or hitting certain literacy targets, as well as the ones where someone plunks eight kids in front of the TV all day. Kirp says that pre-K should help kids with social and emotional development, not just academic readiness for school. Word. No discussion in this article on whether preschool is better in the long term than being home with a parent who provides outside activities with peers.

Colorado Mom Found Guilty of Child Neglect in Son's Death

Kelly Mills — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:43:00 GMT

In a high-profile case, Molly Midyette was quickly found guilty of child neglect by a Boulder jury following the 2006 death of her 10-week-old son. Her husband, Alex Midyette, son of a rich Colorado property holder, will go to trial next month for inflicting injuries that resulted in the death of Jason Midyette. When Jason was rushed to the hospital with severe brain injuries, physicians found evidence of older injuries and even healing broken bones. However, over the course of six well-baby visits the baby's pediatrician had never documented any broken bones, injuries, or even bruises, and Molly says she had no idea her infant was hurt at all.

While the well-known defense team argued that Molly had no knowledge of any injuries and had simply relied on the advice of her child's doctor, who never found anything amiss, the prosecution called witnesses to show that Jason's injuries were "as severe as one can get and still be alive" and that many were classic child abuse injuries, such as a torn frenulum, which can be caused by jamming a bottle too hard into an infant's mouth, and broken ribs from possible violent shaking. His death, however, was likely caused by a blow to the head. The prosecution also brought testimony that doctors miss up to a third of child abuse injuries in regular check-ups, and that Molly was ambivalent about motherhood, even leaving out any mention of her baby in an e-mail to an ex-boyfriend, and saying that her c-section scar was due to a car accident. She also refused to agree to testify against her husband.

It's in many ways a big-deal case because the folks involved have money and connections, and of course I wouldn't put money on Alex Midyette's odds of walking when he goes to trial. But it's an interesting case, in that Midyette was convicted of failing to protect her son from his own father. Was she completely in the dark about any abuse? Trapped and afraid in her marriage? Complicit and with mixed feelings about being a mom at all? The jury seems to have found the latter to be the most likely explanation of all.

Photo: Joshua Lawton/AP pool

"Fertility Diet" Recommends Foods for Baby-Makin'

Amy Kuras — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:25:00 GMT

This week's Newsweek cover story on "the Fertility Diet" had me intrigued. As somebody who struggled for years with infertility I tend to roll my eyes at all the craptacular advice out there and the implication that if you were not just such a trainwreck you'd probably be pregnant already – see "Just relax!"
On the other hand, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about my particular cause, polycystic ovarian syndrome or PCOS, being more a metabolic disorder than a reproductive one, pointing to increased insulin resistance as the culprit behind the weight gain, acne, hair growth and other lovelies associated with it. Most women with PCOS swear by a low-carb diet as the only non-medical way to lose weight and manage symptoms. While the authors don’t advocate lower carb dieting, they do recommend lower glycemic-index carbs, which are generally less refined and slower to digest. Not surprising, but interesting that what PCOS women have talked about for years is being validated by the medical establishment.
The article's authors based their recommendations on data from the long-running Nurses' Health Study, which has tracked thousands of nurses longitudinally. They looked at diet and exercise as they influenced the participants' attempts to have a baby.
One big surprise – they found full-fat dairy products such as whole milk and ice cream were actually beneficial to fertility. Guess those red-wine-and-Haagen-Daz binges after each failed cycle were not so horrible after all.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese Fights Sexual Abuse With a Coloring Book

Kelly Mills — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:31:00 GMT

The Catholic Church has not exactly done a stellar job when it comes to preventing sexual abuse of children by priests, as the numerous and horrifying scandals of past years have demonstrated. Now the Archdiocese of New York is using a new method to show they won't tolerate pedophile priests--they are, um, sending out coloring books to kids. Excuse me? As Amy, our resident practicing Catholic said, "A coloring book? Instead of, oh, STOP ORDAINING PEDOPHILES?" Or transferring them to different churches when they get caught, or sending them to unproven treatment programs and then releasing them back to lead a new flock, or...yeah, I'm a little skeptical on this one.

But I was actually really surprised to see what the coloring books say: In addition to messages about how every one of us is special and we should be nice to others, the angel narrator warns kids, "For safety's sake, a child and an adult shouldn't be alone in a closed room together. If a child and an adult happen to be alone, someone should know where they are and the door should be open or have a big window in it." There's a picture of what could be a priest and an altar boy below. Oh my, well, that's direct. David Clohessy, the national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, says about the books, "We welcome any innovation, especially from an institution that has such a horrific track record."

Now that's an excellent strategy, and one I use in my own life--when you do a really, really crappy job at something, any effort, no matter how pathetic, looks great by contrast. But I just have to say, I know this isn't all the Church is doing to combat child abuse, but this education effort feels like it puts the onus on children to avoid being abused by someone they trust, when in fact the Church needs to do some serious work on its own clergy. I mean, how many kids are gonna make sure to check to make sure the door is open if they are in a room with a priest? Priests are authority figures and in positions of trust. It shouldn't be on kids to keep them in line. Maybe that angel narrator ought to be talking to the priests for a change.

Single Moms By Choice Get Flack

Kelly Mills — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:30:00 GMT

Someone I know recently told me she's decided to try and have a baby. She's single and nearing the end of her fertility window, and she has always wanted children. She came to the realization that at this point, it's unlikely she's going to meet the right guy, fall in love, get married, and get knocked up in enough time to still be physically able to have kids, and that's important to her. My reaction was total delight because I think she's gonna be a great mom. So when I saw that Louise Sloan wrote a funny guide to becoming a single mom, I thought, "Great! It's about time someone did." But apparently many other folks don't feel the same way.

When Sloan was interviewed by Salon a couple weeks ago, many commenters criticized her decision to procreate solo. I'd be leery of saying comments on any site represent prevailing opinions, but I suppose there are people out there who think this is a bad thing, and maybe some of you are in that number. I have to tell you I don't really understand most of the criticisms. Some folks say Sloan is having a kid for selfish reasons, because she "wants" one. Um, you mean, unlike us two-parent households? Right, we had kids to keep the gene pool fresh or something. Others responded that kids need two parents. You know, I actually think kids probably need a whole network of people, and families need social support. My child is being raised by three adults (my sister lives with us) and it's a sweet set up. But that doesn't mean I believe y'all should have to move in with your siblings. It is possible to create social networks (thank god) and I know some isolated two-parent families that get less in the way of help than some of the single parents I know.

Sloan was also criticized because her child will someday wonder about his biological father. Yeah, I know plenty of people who are well-acquainted with their biological parents and kind of wish they weren't. Maybe if we don't treat single moms as pariahs, these kids won't have to feel like their situation is somehow abnormal or lacking. Oh, and I don't think kids need a dad (many lesbian moms doing just fine, thanks) or a mom (same goes for male gay couples raising kids); I think they need good grown-ups who love them and care for them. That's more than many people get, and with that love and protection and care, the kids will be just fine.

What do you think?

Who's Afraid of the Mommy Wars?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:49:00 GMT

Had enough of the mommy wars? Despite the fact that many of us claim to be all done with the slings and arrows, there is no way around the fact that motherhood is incendiary. Newsweek's article "Enough with the Mommy Wars" is case in point.

Mojo Mom takes author Kathleen Deveny to task for neglecting the deeper issues and sticking to the shallow end of mom-theory typified by mommy lit lite. Expecting Executive demands an apology and encourages Newsweek to turn to better sources for the real story on motherhood, including BlogHer. Last week, Kelly wondered if we've become narcissist mommies.

But really, what is the big deal? Ms. Deveny commits heresy by claiming she's bored to death of the mommy wars and the snobbiness on message boards ( the Internet makes mommy mean) as well as the tiresome taxonomy of motherhood represented by mom lit (rocker mamas, MILFs, momzillas, slummy mummies...). I say go ahead and be bored and oversimplify as much as you like. Write about how dull it all is in Times, Newsweek and the New York Times. You're missing the point.

That the Mommy Wars exist primarily online and in print doesn't mean they aren't real. They provide a safer (and less confrontational) outlet for people to yell about childrearing. Just take a look over at the comments generated on Babble by the hospital formula ban and one easily sees what all the fuss is about.

These debates serve a real useful purpose. They help us parent better. They help us articulate and define our positions. They help us understand different approaches and viewpoints more effectively. And yes, they are also silly and catty and petty. But the Mommy Wars are also empowering and enlightening. And that is why I hope they continue for a long long time.

Have We Become Narcissist Mommies?

Kelly Mills — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:09:00 GMT

It's a cultural law of physics: for every trend, there's a backlash, and maybe deservedly so. This may be the latest, a response to the wave of news magazine articles and parenting books and mommy lit and message boards and (gasp) maybe even parenting blogs. Kathleen Deveny says our obsession with the tribulations of motherhood and our intense need to defend every parenting choice has led us to become narcissist mommies. There's too much whining and it's time to buck up. She's over it.

Deveny believes some of the overwrought overwriting about diapers and sleeping and how haaard it all is comes from a reaction to the feminist focus of the last generation on professional lives. She cites Camille Paglia: "Younger women today, Paglia says, are simply rebelling against the legacy of women who prized their professional roles at the expense of family. They want to talk about how to balance work and home. A lot."

Personally, I don't care if you whine, as long as you make it funny. But I have sympathy for this point of view: even I get a little tired of reading righteous and earnest treatises on co-sleeping and lactation and mean old husbands who never help out. I also think part of our obsession with being good parents comes from the fact that with therapy and talk shows, we now get to blame our parents for lots of stuff. But that, in turn, amps up the pressure to be good parents ourselves. Parents who nurse and soothe and nurture and encourage and protect. And yeah, parents who whine a little too much. So whaddya think? Are we narcissists?