Strollerderby : self-esteem

Babble Talk: When Your Kid is Always the Loser

Jen Chaney — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:02:00 GMT

Alyssa Giacobbe doesn't want her boyfriend's four-year-old son to be a winner. Well, at least not all of the time. And definitely if he hasn't earned it.

That's the subject of her Bad Parent essay, entitled "Tough Luck, Kid," in which she confesses that she never lets young Noah win at Candyland, Mario Kart, Memory or any other competitive diversion in which she and the boy may engage. What Giacobbe describes as her "firm stance on winning and losing" has ignited some heated comments on the Babble Web site, many from people who are fired up for reasons that have nothing to do with board games.

"The 'bad parent' isn't a parent at all but a live-in girlfriend who dislikes her boyfriend's child and sees their relationship as a competition," writes one commenter. "Yes, she's in a competition with a FOUR YEAR OLD, and she's going to show that kid who's the bigger, smarter, more awesome person. How impressive."

Another blames Babble for publishing the piece in the first place: "I also agree with the assessment that this woman is NOT a parent. In fact, I am deeply offended as an ACTUAL MOTHER that Babble would publish this. This woman has no idea how actual mothers feel (and hopefully never will because she is clearly too immature and cold to be a mother) and to publish this is just reckless."

Okay, all due respect: reckless is pushing it. Driving drunk is reckless. Playing Keep Away with a loaded gun is reckless. Posting an essay by a woman who frequently acts as a caregiver to a child even though she is technically not the child's mother may be questionable to some, but no one is going to die or have his or her life ruined as a result. (For the record, I think the issues Giacobbe describes relate directly to parenting, so I think it's totally valid to run this. But that's me.)

All that said, the fact that Giacobbe is not Noah's mother does raise some valid questions, namely whether she should be enforcing this "the kid stays on the losing side" policy when even she notes that his father doesn't necessarily agree with it. "Bob hasn't yet bought in, skeptical of what he calls my shameless competitive nature and minimal innate parental wisdom," she writes.

Obviously moms and dads -- or dads and live-in-girlfriend-caregivers, since everyone wants to get technical about this -- don't always agree about how best to teach their children a lesson. But the most important thing, in my mind, is to show a united front. If Dad (and perhaps his mom) often let little Noah win under false pretenses but Giacobbe doesn't, Giacobbe's effort to teach him about the importance of losing gracefully may be, well, lost. Consistency is important. Without it, she just seems like the bad guy. Or, possibly from Noah's perspective, the best Mario Kart player in the history of Wii.

Now, back to the larger point, which is really what this essay is about in the first place: Is the author right or wrong? I say yes, and no. Actually, I think I'm on Bob's side on this one. According to Giacobbe, her partner "practices a moderate halfsies approach to game-playing: Noah is guaranteed a win at least half the time." I think that at least while the child is only four, that's the right way to go.

I completely agree with Giacobbe that it's wrong to always let our kids win, or to lie to them about their failures just so they won't feel bad. It's one of the hazards of something Amy Kuras wrote about here in Strollerderby just last week: self-esteem focused parentings. Many moms and dads focus so intensely on convincing their kids that they can achieve great things that they never bother to teach them the importance of accepting disappointment with dignity. And that's just as crucial to being a success as actual success itself.

The truth is that over the course of a life, most of us win sometimes and lose sometimes. We get a sprinkling of both. And that's why I agree with Noah's dad in this case. At the age of 4, Noah deserves to know the truth: that sometimes luck isn't on your side. So you lay your head on your Thomas the Tank Engine pillowcase at the end of the day with the sobering knowledge that, yes, your father is better at Connect Four than you are. But then there are other, magical days when you reach your maximum potential, the world smiles and all those red, circular chips line up exactly right.

The Guy's Kind of a Jerk, But He's Got a Point

Amy Kuras — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:59:00 GMT

It’s weird when you consider someone an utter tool – and yet kind of agree with something he has to say. Such is the case with this John Rosemond column, where he essentially calls 1960s-style parenting the root of all ills.

He goes on to say that 1960s parents (which, let's just acknowledge, is code for liberals and I hardly think my political tribe ruined parenting) were stupid enough to believe people like him, mental health professionals, versus the wisdom of their elders. Thus, they bought, hook line and sinker, what the mental health professionals were selling: the notion that self-esteem should be the end goal for all parenting.

Okay, Mr. Rosemond, first let me just suggest that just maybe saying that all people like you are full of hooey is maybe not the best way to begin an argument. But I have to agree with you about the culture of self-esteem. What it’s turned into are kids who are so used to being celebrated for anything, for just getting out of bed, that they don’t know how to handle a world that doesn’t find them all that special. It’s the classic “everyone gets a trophy” mentality.

My first job was at a newspaper covering a small, affluent community and the worst part of the job wasn’t the boredom or the many petty intrigues of small-town politics – it was the parents, who genuinely seemed to think we should be as invested in boosting their kids’ self esteem as they were and would request – okay, demand – stories about the most insignificant things their kids did, not to mention threaten us if we reported on their little darlings being less than perfect.

And high self-esteem hardly makes for a successful person – as a matter of fact, most people in maximum security prisons have very high self-regard.

Rosemond makes the point that previous generations taught their children to respect other people and seek to serve. I would highly disagree with that assertion, as I don’t notice, say, baby boomers being an especially other-directed bunch to say the least. But I would agree that teaching children respect for others and the desire to serve might just turn them into the kind of people who actually have earned high self-esteem.

Contact Lenses Boost Kids’ Self-Esteem

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:30:00 GMT

A new study has officially proven what we all know through common sense: kids feel more confident in contact lenses than glasses. The three-year study of nearly 500 children aged 8 to 11 found that contacts significantly boost kids’ physical confidence, feelings of acceptance amongst their peers, and athletic ability (for the simple reason that kids who wear glasses are less likely to play sports).

I remember the glasses-wearer’s humiliation all too well. Every time I wore my subtle, tasteful glasses in middle school, I felt like there was an ugly monstrosity in the center of my face. Like almost any 12-year-old, I opted for a blurry world over minor embarrassment, using my glasses only when absolutely necessary. The day I got contact lenses, I felt reborn: you mean you could see all the time without being mortified? It was almost too good to be true.

It’s good to know that there’s a relatively easy (though a bit costly) way to make kids feel better about themselves. But it’s also sad that something as minor as glasses is enough to make kids feel embarrassed and excluded.

Still, if my parents had tried to explain that to me instead of caving to my desire for contacts, it would have been all-out war. And now even research shows that contacts might not be the wisest battle to pick.

Photo: Parents Overnight

Girls More Confident Since Presidential Election

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:35:00 GMT

50 percent of girls ages 12 to 17 have more confidence since the presidential election, according to a study by the Girl Scout Research Foundation. The study of 3,284 adolescent girls also found that half of young women now believe they will be able to achieve their goals, and 55 percent feel more comfortable speaking their minds.

The Girl Scout Research Foundation speculates (unsurprisingly) that the inclusion of two female candidates—Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—drastically affected young girls for the better.

I would guess that the election of the nation’s first black president has also increased girls’ confidence in their chances for success. Seeing an African-American family in the White House is a wonderfully concrete demonstration that glass ceilings can be shattered to smithereens.

Photo: Jezebel

Smackdown: I Don’t Care If My Daughter Has Sex as a Teen

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Progressive, feminist, supposedly sex-positive parents are, of course, pretty well united against the absurd excesses of abstinence-only education and the religious no-sex-until-marriage frenzy.

What continues to amaze me though, is how little the positions they do take really vary from the underlying values of the abstinence worshippers.

As a parent, I keep running into a nudge, nudge, wink, wink understanding that even though we know it’s not good to base policy on it, of course really we all want to put off our daughters’ sexual awakenings as long as possible (or at least until they’re out of the house). There are jokes about chastity belts and not letting boyfriends come over until age 30. Every once and a while I feel the urge to get out a calendar and check the year.

I confess that I don’t get it. Not a smidgen. (And neither, for the record, does her father.) I don’t think this is just a matter of my having a defective freak-out gene. I really think that this attitude is not in our daughters’ best interests.

Concerned and thoughtful parents like my colleague Shannon, argue that it’s not really about the squick factor. They think it’s important for their daughters to put off the confusion and emotional drama of sexual relationships in order to get solid in forming their own identities, to make sure that they don’t get distracted by serving other’s needs first.

It sounds good at first, but I have to disagree. It’s not sex that hampers girls’ development, sense of self, or progress toward a career. It’s negative, hysterical, sexist attitudes about sex. (And the unintended pregnancies, abusive relationships, etc. that follow.)

The self-esteem argument is really the religious right’s argument minus the God and marriage specifics. It says this: “Sex is such a god-awful big deal that it will necessarily consume you when it happens and so you must wait for some future time at which you will miraculously be able to handle it.”

I don’t buy it. Sex is a powerful force, sure, but we have a fair amount of control over how much power we really give it. Making it something dangerous to your very identity gives it just as much power as making it central to your very identity.

I think this attitude is partly to blame for teens continuing to mistake sex for love. It also still places far too much emphasis on the importance of the “first time,” leaving girls (and women) feeling attached to first lovers who don’t deserve a third glance (or feeling like failures for choosing a less-than-perfect first lover).

In its usual gender-specific form, this attitude also perpetuates the idea that girls can’t really want sex for their own reasons, that they must be succumbing to the media hype and trying to please someone else and they will automatically lose their sense of self in a sexual relationship.

(Yes, clearly, far too many girls are getting pushed into sex they don’t want. But telling them they should never say yes does not help teach them when/how to say no.)

Of course I also have to wonder why, if people think sex is such an overwhelming cognitive thing to get started at, the conclusion they draw from that is that it’s a good idea to put it off until kids leave the nest and are distanced from familial support systems and previous friends, have easier access to alcohol, are first learning to live on their own, and are facing academic and/or job pressure. Or, for that matter, until they are 30, feeling their biological clocks and suffering pressure (internal and external) to find “the one” and settle down.

Obviously I wouldn’t argue that everyone ought to start having sex in high school. “Ready” is a super complex and individual cocktail (and takes two). Not everyone over 18 or 20 is ready. Not everyone younger isn’t. But high-school does have some potential advantages: financial security, parental backup if needed, and some extra time to be processing, daydreaming (or angstfully writing in a journal). That could all actually form a safer place to experiment than newly adrift in the “real world.”

Of course we all use our own experience as a touchstone. I starting “fooling around” at 15 and having sex at 17 with someone trustworthy I’d been dating for many months and who served, as good friends and partners do, to help me learn more about myself as well as how to have a relationship. I made out with a jerk or two in there first and lived to tell the tale with my self-esteem intact. In fact, those early experiences gave me a very clear and relatively safe tutorial in the difference between attraction and love, flirtation and friendship, passion and trust that has served me well.

If my daughter has the chance to do the same—armed with the facts to protect herself and the solid knowledge that her worth doesn’t depend on her choosing one way or the other—it won’t bother me in the slightest.

Photo by Made Underground, via Flickr.

The Other Side:

Smackdown: Sex Before Twenty? Hopefully Not My Kids

More by this author:

Magazines Make Men Feel Insecure, Too

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:30:00 GMT

It's official: airbrushed images of stick thin women with large breasts make everyone feel bad, even dudes. A recent study has found that men feel more insecure about their bodies after reading men's magazines like Maxim and Stuff, just as women's self-esteem suffers from reading such journalistic treasures as Cosmo and Allure.

The problem is not, as you may have guessed, that men long to have the perfect six-packs and toned legs of male celebrities. (Let's be honest: the only magazines that have sexy pictures of men's bodies are not being read by either women or straight men.) Rather, the standard of impossible beauty portrayed in most mainstream magazines makes men feel insecure because they're worried they won't be able to get laid. How can I ever get a girl like that?, they wonder.

Answer: you can't. Just as we women will never get a body like that. So, as Salon's Kate Harding suggests, what we need to do is fill magazines with images of absurdly attractive men, since hot men don't make anyone feel bad about themselves. "Seriously,y'all," she writes. "Think of the children."

Photo: Many Bells Down

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

Should Raising a Feminist Son be The Goal?

Amy Kuras — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:00:00 GMT

If you have a son – and aren’t a raving douchebag yourself – then thinking about how to raise a boy without him being one is something you have been thinking about since you first heard the words "it's a boy."

It seems like there is a lot of information out there about raising strong, independent, feminist girls, but very little about raising boys to respect women, discourage dehumanizing attitudes among their friends and generally be guys who see women as equal to themselves and deserving of the same rights and opportunities (including the right to not be harassed walking down the street, commented on and otherwise judged).

So this post by Annabel about raising a feminist son on Feministing was thought provoking. The comments were interesting as well, with several people saying that trying to encourage her son's sensitivity will get him chewed up and spit out as he gets older, as will allowing him to indulge his love of pink.

I agree with one commenter, though, who said the best thing she can do is talk to him about how to handle it if he does get mocked for wearing a pink sweater to school for example – to give him strategies for feeling different and encourage his self-esteem and self-acceptance.

And I think almost all of the commenters missed the role of fathers here. While I wouldn’t consider my husband a "feminist" man exactly, he respects and values my independence, plays physically with our girl as much as he does with our boy at each age, and just as importantly, shows our son as much affection. You can't raise your children (of any gender) exactly the same, of course, but he comes close.

In many ways, I think that modeling of how not to be a douche, of seeing boys get treated the same way as girls, of responding to your child as an individual versus a gender, is the most important factor in raising compassionate kids. Which I would say is art and parcel of feminism, and more important than "feminism" per se.

Angelina’s Not the Only One Having Hot Pregnancy Sex

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:31:00 GMT

It probably didn’t come as a shock to anyone to learn that Angelina Jolie found her pregnancy body attractively “round and full”—and that she was, therefore, having great sex just a month before she gave birth to her twins.

But not all pregnant women are lucky enough to see their swollen feet, back pain, and huge bellies in the same light as Angelina. Many couples, particularly those who underwent fertility treatments, are apprehensive about having sex during those pre-baby nine months.

In a recent installment of MSNBC's Sexploration column, Brian Alexander addresses this pregnancy sex apprehension, and argues that one need not be Angelina Jolie to enjoy sex during pregnancy. A Polish study has found that “experiencing sexual satisfaction by pregnant women improves their self-esteem, facilitates [the] mutual relationship between partners and tightens the marital bond.” And a UCLA researcher found that women’s sexual enjoyment stays about the same during pregnancy. This average level of sexual enjoyment is, to my mind, depressingly low (18.9 on a scale of 2 to 36), but that’s a different issue.

As for fears of hitting the baby on the head, sorry to break it to you, gentlemen, but you’re just not large enough to do any damage.

If you find yourself putting off sex until after the pregnancy is over, you might want to consider this: if you think having sex with the baby inside the womb is difficult, just wait till Junior is spitting up on your shoulder.

Photo: George Doyle/Getty Images

Padded Bras for Eight-Year-Olds

Kelly Mills — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:31:00 GMT

You remember Tesco: The people who brought you the pole dancing kit for kids (later pulled following protestations from many groups,) and the onesies for babies who need to be anxious about their weight. Now Tesco is getting flack for a new item: Padded bras for kids. The plunge cup bra is being sold next to undershirts for seven- and eight-year olds, and when they say "pre-teen" they apparently mean "pre-pre-teen". After all, bras for kids that young would have to be padded because the majority of those children don't even have boobs yet. Teachers and kids' rights groups are criticizing the bra, saying it's inappropriate and adds to the pressure girls have to be sexually alluring, even in childhood. Ya think?

And how does Tesco defend the controversial bra? A spokesperson says it's actually designed for "girls at that self-conscious age when they are just developing. It is designed to cover up, not flatter... It is described as a padded bra for trade description reasons." I'm guessing they mean the bra is supposed to keep budding girl breasts from showing--this is the best design they could come up with for that? Gawd, how depressing is it that we even have to discuss this. My favorite quote though is from the fashion guy who oposes the bra, and says, "The bra is modelled on a plunge style--it has a very low bridge connecting the cups. It means the shape and position is lower to expose the breast tissue." Expose the breast tissue? Uh huh. Remind me to throw all my demi-cup bras away immediately.

A Video Game That Refuses to Acknowledge Your Sucky Dance Moves

Jen Chaney — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:32:00 GMT

Perhaps you have heard of "Dance Praise," a video game in the spirit of "Dance Dance Revolution," but with Christian music and no negative vibes. That's right -- if you mess up a step, the game won't snicker at you or boo. Do the worst version of the Cabbage Patch in the history of mankind, and "Dance Praise" will still love you.

Evidently the game, created by Christian company Digital Praise, has sold well enough to spawn a follow-up, "Dance Praise 2: The Remix." This video guide -- featuring a lot of people who make the white man's overbite look postively gangsta -- explains the whole concept, but doesn't address one important question: What's wrong with a little light-hearted negative feedback?

I understand why religious families dig on the Christian messages. If that appeals to you, that's totally fine. But the notion that the game should be celebrated because it won't damage a child's self-image, as a press release recently sent to Strollerderby suggests, seems a little goofy. Obviously we should not go up to our kids and say, "You know something? You couldn't find you way to Funkytown with a GPS system and a detailed roadmap." But I think we sometimes tiptoe too gingerly around the whole notion of self-esteem.

Sometimes hearing "You suck," again, in a non-threatening context, can actually be motivating. When I was a kid, my brother had this funny little habit. Every time the song "Lonesome Loser" by the Little River Band came on the radio, he would sing it to me and -- in a way that even now just makes me want to punch someone in the nose -- point his finger in my face every time the lyric "loser" was sung. I hated him in those moments. I also hated the Little River Band for singing the stupid song, and Q107 for playing it in the first place.

But in a way, it motivated me. It made me think: "So I'm a loser? Oh, just wait until the next time we play whiffleball. We'll see how much of a loser I am when I keep hitting shots into the neighbor's yard and forcing you to go get them. We'll just see who gets beaten by the queen of hearts every time THEN."

The folks behind "Dance Praise" undoubtedly mean well. And I'm sure many families, both Christian and non, will enjoy grooving together in front of their PCs without fear of reprisal. But I say there's nothing wrong with a kid getting a big, 'ol finger in the face every once in a while, just to keep stoking that fire inside.

Photo: Kidzonearth.com

Creepiest Story of the Day: Bikini Waxes for Eight-Year-Olds

Kelly Mills — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:33:00 GMT

Some of this is so extreme you just can't imagine it: There's a story in Philadelphia Magazine (via Jezebel) about moms who take their kids to spas for treatments. As in, bikini waxes, and we're talking about an eight-year-old. (And yes, they discuss the fact that an eight-year-old probably has no pubic hair to wax.) And teens getting botoxed. Ten-year-olds with aesthetician-created, perfectly arched brows. Six-year-olds getting weekly blowouts. Yeeeugh. Clearly something has gone horribly awry here.

The author says it's a slippery slope though. How many moms start off with the mani-pedi bonding experience with their girls? And if your ten-year-old gets teased about acne, is it so wrong to take her for weekly facials? As a mom who has been fairly permissive on the nail polish front, I thought hard about this one. Here's where I draw lines: When my kid and I lounge at home and do the nail painting thing, it's about being goofy, like playing dress-up. I let her coat my toes in blue lacquer. But when the goal is to present some bizarre idealized image of perfection to the outside world, when spa treatments become simply necessary upkeep because heaven forbid the world sees you with stray brow hairs, and that's something girls as young as ten need a mommy lesson in, then I think it has moved over into yikes.

There's some discussion of the necessity of going through the "ugly" phase of youth as crucial for learning self-acceptance. I think we have such a narrow vision of beauty if it doesn't allow full brows and necessitates some freaky pre-emptive strike against frown lines. It's not just about stealing your daughter's childhood, it's also about the imposing the most bizarre of standards--Don't get wrinkles, don't have body hair, look at all times like the boring celebrities you see in magazines. Clearly many of the moms in the story see their girls as extensions of themselves, and that's a far cry from aiding your pre-teen with a few pimples.

Your Girls Can Be "Bimbos" Online!

Kelly Mills — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:02:00 GMT

Sometimes you see stuff and think, "Is this fer real?" When I read about the Miss Bimbo game, I kept thinking, "Oh, in a minute they'll say the game is for adults." But no, in fact the majority of the 200,000 players are between the ages of 7 and 17. But let me back up: There's a virtual "fashion" game for girls where they get a "Bimbo" and have to navigate her through boob jobs and diets and so on to make her the coolest bimbo of all. Girls can dress their dolls in sexy outfits for clubbing, and are encouraged to keep them waif thin through diet pills and plastic surgery. Niiiice.

Most of the accounts I read focused on the weight and cosmetic horrors of the game, but I personally was more disturbed by the fact that the bimbos are supposed to find a rich boyfriend so they don't have to work. Like, it's one of the goals of the game. Now that is just creepy. For god's sake, we don't even read "Cinderella" without some irritable commentary about how Cinderella ought to stand up for herself instead of waiting to be rescued. So the idea of having girls finding a sugar daddy through the game is icky. It simultaneously asks them to identify with and look down on the bimbos, and frankly, it seems strangely angry to me.

Here's the best quote from the game's creator: "It is not a bad influence for young children. They learn to take care of their bimbos. The missions and goals are morally sound and teach children about the real world." Frigging excuse me? But it goes on: "The breast operations are just one part of the game and we are not encouraging young girls to have them, just reflecting real life." Well, that's a relief. For a minute there I was worried. Yeah, these are totally the lessons I want my kids to learn. Why does it smell so strongly of misogyny in here?

Girl Scout Cookies--Now With Calorie Burning Tips!

Kelly Mills — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:06:00 GMT

Hey, guess what? The Girl Scouts are going to start putting out cookies in 100 calorie packs. That's okay, right? I mean, that's like one Samoa per package... Oh, but wait: The 5 Resolutions Blog just alerted us that the packs are also going to have tips for girls to burn calories. Well, thank god, because I so want my daughter to know exactly how to obliterate the potential weight she might put on from those Thin Mints. Never to young to start counting calories, right?

Sigh. Think I'm overreacting? Well, the packages say things like, "Girls can burn calories and have fun with 30 minutes of activities like these: Ice Skating—126 calories. Gymnastics—72 calories…" Hmmm, I like gymnastics, but maybe I should take up ice skating because when you compare the caloric burn potential of each... How much would I hate it if my child thought, "Wow, skipping rope. That's worth an apple and half a pack of cookies, as long as I do it for 22 minutes." Look, I'm not against encouraging healthy eating and moderation, but good lord, we need to start doing this one differently. Do we have to turn our little girls into calorie-conscious weight-obsessed wrecks at every turn? Repeat after me: Being active and playing and participating in sports are great because they are fun and make your body feel good. Oh, and f*ck the calories. Now put that in your 100 calorie pack and eat it.

Suave Isn't Hawking Hair Products, They Just Wanna Help a Martyr Mom Out

Kelly Mills — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:00:00 GMT

First, thank you to Mom2Two for pointing me towards this ad campaign by Suave (I have Tivo, so I see nary a commercial these days.) It goes like this: Rapid shots of lady looking pretty, lady then in wedding dress, pregnant lady, harried lady-mom in assorted outfits, mom-lady looking a little haggard, mom-lady fixed up purty by Suave styling products. The campaign line is: "Motherhood Isn't Always Pretty" and the ad says "89 % of moms admit they let themselves go... 100% can get themselves back." Wow, and 100% of moms in my house got crabby when they saw this.

Can you imagine if this campaign was aimed at dads? Dads, did you let yourselves go? Would a styling product help you get "yourself" back? Because this is a theme we've seen like, a billion times: Moms are martyrs who sacrifice even their looks for their families. And so making yourself beautiful again through the latest cream or shampoo or surgery isn't a question of feeling the external pressure on women to be beautiful, or even swallowing what advertisers want us to buy, oh no--it's an act of self-love. It's getting in touch with yourself, the real you, the pre-family you, the you who can only be uncovered when you look hot.

Yeah, 100% of moms can get themselves back, just by using styling products. You tired from all that sacrifice? Well, there's this hairspray that will do what a living wage and quality childcare and affordable housing and a good educational system and real healthcare won't do. It will totally take the place of a community that raises children, saving families from the isolation that hits us hard. And on a personal level, being pretty will give you that sense of personhood and satisfaction you'd never get from a society that values motherhood and parenting in general and encourages moms to be people, not endless fountains of sacrifice. Yippee for my friggin' Suave shampoo. Now, could we get a new way of selling crap to moms? Because I can only be so strident for so long.

Dear Women's Fashion, Beauty, and Health Magazines,

Kelly Mills — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:29:00 GMT

In honor of Women's History month and my six-year-old daughter, I would like to cancel all my subscriptions. Like the magazine you send me in place of Jane magazine, which while it was not perfect, was the only women's magazine I really liked. Now, I know you aren't written for six-year-olds, but see, my kid and I wanted to make a collage, so we pulled you out and I watched my kid flip through your pages. Because I try and talk about stuff with her instead of forbidding things, I cringed as she leafed through page after page of beauty tips and diet tips and skinny, mainly white teens cavorting with poor locals in exotic places, and commented on how silly this and that was.

But while she giggled at my wry commentary and agreed with me, I also saw her eyes light up a little at the sight of women prettied up like the princesses she gets fed at every turn. And she asked me, "What does this mean about 'Angie' and 'girl crushes'?" I told her Angelina Jolie is just famous for being an actress and being pretty, and then I felt sad that I know so much about Angie. I mean, it may be every man and woman's dream to sleep with Brad Pitt, but I know more about her than I do most of the suffragettes.

As she stared at photo after photo, I saw again that your pages are devoted primarily to how I can improve my appearance, with occasional forays into what men really want and what they like and hate about me. I mean, of course I totally knew that, but even as jaded as I am, it hit me in a new way when I was glancing over my child's shoulder. I like fashion and I like to look nice, but I don't really passionately care if leggings are still hot or if a plus-sized woman should wear a boxy jacket. And of course, "normal" bodies are only featured in "figure fix" sections--again, not a newsflash, but I think I'd prefer if my kid didn't worry about what to fix in her looks because you know she's absolutely perfect the way she is, and I imagine to me, she always will be.

So thanks, and even I'm surprised by how much you got to me. I don't think everything is all your fault, but you do cater to what we already eat up, and I'm full. I may still have to read you to snark about this and that because it is my job, but I'd prefer you stayed out of my house. We'll make our collage out of something else. If my child wants to "fix" something maybe we can discuss trying your best and character and integrity and shit like that, and not worry about whether men find aggressive women attractive. Then we'll leave the house with last year's lip color (on me) and enjoy the nice weather and talk about Gertrude Stein or something.

Are Kids Today More Narcissistic?

Kelly Mills — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:01:00 GMT

There's a little debate raging among psychology researchers: Are kids today more narcissistic and self-centered than they were in the past? One side points to results from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (a test designed to measure, well, guess) as evidence that this generation is both more conceited and more unhappy than people were in the past. They point to the emphasis on self-esteem building and the new technological avenues for self-promotion (like YouTube, Facebook) as part of an epidemic of kids who collectively say, "I'm all that." In fact, psych professor Jean Twenge has a book called "Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before" that summarizes this research, and many media outlets ate it up.

On the other side of the argument, researcher Kali H. Trzesniewski and colleagues will publish an article in Psychological Science "showing there have been very few changes in the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of youth over the last 30 years." They also cite evidence from that personality test, which some social scientists say fails to capture nuances in personality and therefore doesn't measure what it tries to measure. And many have pointing out that it is a favorite pastime of adults to bemoan the self-centeredness of the next generation.

Seems to me people haven't changed that much, and every generation or so there is some decrying of the current generation's parenting, with dire predictions as to how it will ruin the children of today. I like what Jeffrey Jensen Arnett says. He's publishing a critique of the Twenge book, and he comments, "It’s like a cottage industry of putting [young Americans] down and complaining about them and whining about why they don’t grow up." Yeah, young Americans, I say, "Alllllllright."

Update on Onslaught: Do We Pay For Hypocrisy?

Kelly Mills — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:28:00 GMT

You might remember I posted the "Onslaught" video from Dove last month, and the thing got lots of attention for highlighting how much body image crap our girls get bombarded with daily. But almost as fast as the video hit the internet, there were cries of foul from many corners. See, Dove's parent company Unilever is also responsible for a bunch of cruddy ads, including the spots for Axe deoderant body spray for guys, which imply, to be blunt, that wearing Axe will get you lots of pussy.

I was thinking about this whole thing again after this great op-ed appeared in the Boston Globe. And I think its a real valid question we have to ask ourselves: Can companies highlight issues like how the beauty industry affects girls while also hawking beauty products that don't exactly send a nice message to those same girls? If the Onslaught campaign has a positive effect on people, is that enough, and should we ignore what other arms of Unilever are doing? Was this a case of social consciousness-raising or just clever marketing? Cuz I'm sure this won't be the only corporation caught sending wildly contradictory messages.

What do you think?

Time For Another "Over-Praising Kids" Piece (And My, You Do Look Lovely Today)

Kelly Mills — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:02:00 GMT

I'm losing count of how many times I've seen this story. Let me summarize in case you missed it. We praise our kids too much, which maybe makes them overconfident yet dependent on the praise reward instead of a sense of personal accomplishment and helpless in the face of difficulty. No one actually says how much praise is too much, just, you know, don't do it so much. And it turns out we might give the wrong kind of praise, and instead of saying "You are soooo smart Junior!" we should say, "You did a great job studying so hard for that spelling test." Follow?

Okay, here's my completely unscientific and slightly different take on the whole thing. I put myself in the praised position. Mmmm, feels good. Okay, so when someone is too effusive and too free with the compliments, I start taking them less seriously. And if they praise me for something patently untrue (maybe saying that I'm so wonderfully cheeful or something) I discount all future praise. So far, just like the praise-bad articles. However, I do like getting both specific compliments ("Kelly, I love your funny and insightful take on mannies") and occasionally global ones ("Kelly, you are hot.") I'm just saying that I'm not entirely convinced we should throw out the big non-specific praise altogether. I like hearing that I'm smart, or funny, or athletic. Getting that praise did make a difference to me. So I'm gonna keep handing out both kinds to my kid, just in moderation. Okay, gorgeous?

Raise Self Confident Kids in 500 Words!

Melissa Summers — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:04:00 GMT

Here's a trite little piece from the Columbia Tribune where Joyce Hulett (PhD and educational expert) explains how to raise self confident kids in such simple terms it's astounding all kids don't grow up full to the brim with self confidence. Joyce touches on some key points, such as dishonest praise we may give kids when they haven't actually accomplished anything significant. Children can easily see through that praise and it can actually make them more insecure.

The rest of the article is full of empty advice like, "Too much self confidence can be a problem. Children can annoy other children if they display too much self confidence." Or, "Parents are responsible for seeing that their children are dependable and responsible. That means they must hold their children accountable for their actions."

So pretty much tell your kids you love them, give them honest praise when they succeed, teach them the golden rule and be a good role model. Ta-Da! Self confident kids. It all seems very obvious to me, but maybe Dr Hulett's advice will change your life.

Babble Talk: Rock Camp for Girls!

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Wed, 02 May 2007 21:06:00 GMT

Ada Calhoun's Babble piece on rock camp for girls will make you salivate. Are you pondering how to counteract the Bratz and Barbie and "Sex Kitten 69" t-shirts you see young girls wearing? This rock camp is the way to go, my friend.

Calhoun interviews founder (and lawyer and a brillion other things) mama Hanna Fox, who spun off the program from a similar one in Portland back in 2004.

Fox notes that music is really only a proxy, a tool used to teach girls about empowerment and self-expression. And? they learn self-defense as well as performance (heeeYAAA).

And did you hear there's even a rock camp for mamas now? THAT would rock.

"Showgirls" Star's New Job: Self-Esteem Workshops for Teens

Alisyn — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:02:00 GMT

Showgirls star Elizabeth Berkley says she still gets recognized on the street - no, not as Nomi "I'm not a whore!" Malone, the character that will, unfortunately, define her for the rest of her life. Young girls approach the actress also known for playing cheerleader Jessie Spano on Saved By The Bell, the classic tween show that also spawned Screech and Mario Lopez - and want to talk some serious girl talk with her.

"A new generation of girls started coming up to me," says Elizabeth. "Not just wanting an autograph but wanting to talk..."

So she started Ask-Elizabeth, a 2-hour interactive self-esteem-building workshop she leads with groups of middle and high school girls nationwide. The girls get to ask questions anonymously, by writing them down on paper, on a variety of topics including sex, love, school and family, which Elizabeth, and the rest of the girls, discuss openly.

Elizabeth says the girls have been especially inspired by her own struggles to keep her career going over the years, despite setbacks like the infamous bomb she is best known for. "They love hearing I didn't let somebody stop me," she says. "This is one of the most fulfilling things I've ever done."

Wow. Sounds cool, right? Parents of tweens and teens, have you heard about this? Sounds like it's worth looking into.

[Via People]

Simon Cowell's "Bullying:" Child Advocacy Groups Don't Like It

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:03:00 GMT

British child protection groups have Simon Cowell in their sights after hearing of his plans to reduce the minimum age of contestants on his hit U.K. show The X Factor to 14-years-old.

Children's groups fear that harsh criticism from Cowell, who is known for his sharp tongue, will cause "emotional damage" in the young contestants when their dreams of fame and fortune are dashed. The groups also feel that the show sends out the wrong message about "bullying" as the much older and more powerful Cowell criticizes and berates contestants.

Representatives of these groups have asked for the show to provide proper support and counseling for their young contestants.

Show producers responded by saying, "Shyeah! As if! We're not the parents hanging our kids out to dry in front of Simon Cowell. But nice try!"

My Daughter Says She's Fat: My Daughter is 5

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:54:00 GMT

The news is filled with studies reporting that younger and younger girls are worried about being thin. Nevertheless, I was taken aback this morning when my sweet lovely daughter asked me if I thought she was "fat" to which I replied (once I recovered my composure) "Fat isn't a bad thing, honey, it just means you're growing big and strong."

When I heard I was having twin girls 'lo those many moons ago I figured one of my biggest challenges would be to teach them not to be obsessed with cultural messages about their worth measured by their looks. I knew I wanted them to be in sports, and remain free of as many main stream anti-women messages as I could muster. Girls in sports are less likely to drop out of school, more confident about their bodies, and more likely to experience business success.

But there are many elements of their lives I cannot control. They go to their Dad's house every other weekend and their older half sister is 10 going on 20. I wouldn't be surprised if she's already dieting. They head off to Kindergarten next year where they'll be around other kids with varying backgrounds. In other words, it's really only a matter of time before they are inundated with messages about weight and beauty. In the end, the most powerful message I can send my daughters is by being healthy and strong myself and by not participating in the usual self-reproach and diet discussions common around neighborhood kitchen tables everywhere.