Maybe She Should Sue Her Gynecologist, Too
For not holding her down and implanting her with Depo-Provera, because this woman, Monet Parham, is clearly unfit for the most minor rigors of parenting: saying no, and saying no, and saying no again, until it's clear that the answer is no.
My mother, on the other hand, had no problem saying no to us. In fact, she was so good at drawing the line at what we could and couldn't have and where we could and couldn't go that it seemed ridiculous to even ask. For example, as kids, we didn't beg my mom to take us to McDonald's. It would have made about as much sense as asking to grow a second head or take LSD.
The times, oh, they have a-changed. Overlawyered's Walter Olson has a piece in the New York Daily News about a mother, represented by the advocacy group, The Center for Science In The Public Interest (or as Walter calls it, "Busybody Central"), who's suing McDonald's:
What's Parham's (so to speak) beef? "Because of McDonald's marketing, [her daughter] Maya has frequently pestered Parham into purchasing Happy Meals, thereby spending money on a product she would not otherwise have purchased."You're probably wondering: How is this grounds for a lawsuit? No one forced Parham to take her daughters to McDonald's, buy them that particular menu item, and sit by as they ate every last French fry in the bag (if they did).
No, she's suing because when she said no, her kids became disagreeable and "pouted" - for which she wants class action status. If she gets it, McDonald's isn't the only company that should worry. Other kids pout because parents won't get them 800-piece Lego sets, Madame Alexander dolls and Disney World vacations. Are those companies going to be liable too?
The center's longtime shtick is to complain that businesses like McDonald's, rather than our own choices, are to blame for rising obesity. So let's take Happy Meals as an example. When you buy one, you get a string of choices. Milk or soda? (Is that really a hard choice for a parent worried about nutrition?) You can swap out the fattening French fries for "apple dippers" with caramel sauce and plenty of kid appeal. But your choices do not end there. If you think the scoop of fries is too big for a kid serving, you can tell the kid to share it with the grownup on hand, namely you. (You're the grownup. You make the rules.) You can even, shocking as this sounds, toss the surplus French fries into the disposal bin.
Ah, the lost art of parenting!
The truth is, per what the science (as opposed to the "science") says, if you want your kid to be healthy, just give them the cheeseburger and throw out the bun. No fries, no apples with caramel dipping sauce, no shake. Or those things only on very special occasions (because denying kids everything probably makes them want to binge on them when they're out of your sight).
For the actual science on how to eat, and why cutting carbs will likely have you dropping pounds like rocks off a truck (sans exercise, sans starvation), read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories, and his excellent (and far easier reading) new book, which I'm halfway through, Why We Get Fat. Dr. Michael Eades, a friend of Taubes and mine, is also an excellent source, blogging frequently on evidence-based eating. Follow Eades on Twitter at @DrEades, and Gary Taubes at @GaryTaubes. Taubes' brand new blog, which I'll soon be posting an excerpt from, is here.
I eat bacon-cheese Angus burgers, no bun, from time to time, although I prefer In-N-Out burgers (protein-style, with cheese), which I eat at least once or twice a week. Clearly, just as "Busybody Central" contends, eating such junk has made me wildly obese!
This is another group that wants the government as substitute parent, that further erodes our rights as thinking adults/parents. What next, a law that mandates everyone has to eat broccoli with every meal, as it is good for you?
Funny, isn't it, how they always go for the companies with the deepest pockets? /sarcasm off
Steve at December 17, 2010 4:59 AM
McDonald's should feel obligated to change their entire business model, nay, their whole corporate culture, because Ms. Parham can't manage a simple "no," without being distraught over her child's pouting? I wonder what Ms. Parham thinks she's going to get out of letting CSPI put her up to this shenanigan.
Hint to Ms. Parham -- after saying "no" a few times, the kids will get a general idea of what they can profitably pester you about and what they can't. It might get a little easier after that.
Also, I wonder how McDonald's should react to all this. I hope they don't get all defensive. I think the opposite tack might be best: "Happy Meals, now with deep-fried donuts! Happy Meals, now with toy guns! Happy Meals, now with exclusive 'F--k CSPI' stickers!"
Old RPM Daddy at December 17, 2010 5:01 AM
The government is already in the process of acting as a substitute parent with the new Healthy Lunch Food Act. Michelle Obama specifically said that food available in schools should be regulated (even vending machines) and that the food choices in schools shouldn't be left up to parents.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michelle-obama-45-billion-child-nutritio
Point of the article quoted by Amy is that some people who have popped out progeny can't figure out the rest and don't want to actually parent (set limits, etc.) so they are willing to abrogate that responsibility to the state, to the detriment of the country as a whole.
Midwest Chick at December 17, 2010 5:20 AM
RPM Daddy,
I would go and order one if they had those bumper stickers. From what I have been able to find out, McDonalds isn't going to roll over on this one (right now). They are going to fight it. How California ever got to the point that this kind of crap even gets filed with the courts, is beyond me. The judge should look Ms. Parham square in the eyes, and tell her:
Get the hell out of my courtroom, and grow a spine. You're the parent. Act like one.
Steve at December 17, 2010 5:21 AM
She is following some sort of weird strategy. Please note this paragraph in the article:
Much of the interviewing press was happy to treat Monet Parham as a random (if oddly well-informed) California mom, but it didn’t take the blogosphere long to discover that she is apparently anything but random. Ira Stoll is in fact the same person as Monet Parham-Lee, who is a “regional program manager” on the state of California payroll for child nutrition matters.
So: what is she really up to? Seems like a clear-cut case where the court should fine her for "abuse of process".
a_random_guy at December 17, 2010 5:25 AM
This woman is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. Pass the buck and take zero responsibility for own actions. When someone attempts to get you to be responsible, call an attorney and force society and/or the government to be responsible for you.
I guess when her kids see a well thought out marketing scheme for alcohol she just runs out buys it for them and lets them get wasted as all hell because of her crippling fear of them pouting and being upset with her. Shouldn't child welfare sevices be investigating her? The welfare of her children are clearly in peril with her as their mother.
The most frightening thing about this, is it wasn't rejected out of hand for lack of merit. Simply outrageous.....
Ed at December 17, 2010 5:29 AM
YOu really do have a great ass, Amy. Motivates me to keep on this low-carb thing I'm trying. I've lost 8 lbs, and I wasn't overweight according to BMI's.
momof4 at December 17, 2010 5:53 AM
I used to take my daughters to McD's when they were little, sometimes more than I care to admit. They are all grown now but guess what? They all know how to make healthy food choices, they rarely eat McD's, or fast food for that matter, and none of them are over weight. I'm so sick of parents abdicating the responsibility of making choices for their children to the gov't nannies.
I agree with Steve and Random Guy...I hope the judge rips her a new one. Unfortunately, since this is California, that's not likely to happen.
sara at December 17, 2010 5:53 AM
OH, and my kids rarely bother to pout anymore when told no. Ignoring it once you've said no once, does wonders. It's called being the adult. Too bad this woman's too lazy and pathetic to try it.
I think we'll be having McD's for lunch today, just because. And almost all of our happy meal toys go right into the donate bag-either to the children's home near us or the classroom treasure box at school.
momof4 at December 17, 2010 5:58 AM
I'm pretty sure (based on no real evidence) that busybodies like Ms. Parham-Lee and the CSPI aren't out to promote healthy lifestyles or anything like that. I know we've all met people who's entire worldview dictates erasing every bit of joy from peoples' lives. That's who Ms. Parham-Lee and CSPI are. If McDonald's replaced the toys with Famine Victim trading cards, and called the products Guilt Meals, this lawsuit never would have been filed.
Of course I may be wrong. One of the comments in the Daily News editorial (oldcubron, 15 Dec 10, 4:52 PM) says, "These are the same people who champion legal drugs. They'll allow McDonalds to replace the toys in a happy meal with joints." Probably sell a lot more burgers that way.
Old RPM Daddy at December 17, 2010 6:14 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to sue her kids for harassment?
Patrick at December 17, 2010 6:22 AM
What next, a law that mandates everyone has to eat broccoli with every meal, as it is good for you?
God, I hope not. Broccoli gives me gas like you wouldnt believe.
Although, now that I think about it such a law would be a good thing, becuase then I could sue under the fact that my particual genetic and intestinal makeup doenst handle broccoli like the majority of people.
Just imagine all the various laws and myrid exemptions that would arise, it would create such a giant fucking grid lock that nothing could ever really been mandeted about food ever again.
lujlp at December 17, 2010 6:23 AM
Another good use for the leftover French fries (depending on where you live): toss 'em in the yard. Birds love them, and the fat content is something they can really use this time of year.
silverpie at December 17, 2010 6:24 AM
McDonald's lawyers should ask the judge to remove the children from her care and put them in foster homes. She has admitted she is an incompetent parent. The remedy she is seeking is clearly inadequate to protect the children.
It's for the children, right?
MarkD at December 17, 2010 6:43 AM
@Lujlp: "... I could sue under the fact that my particual genetic and intestinal makeup doenst handle broccoli like the majority of people."
At least it's not asparagus they're trying to shove down our throats...
Old RPM Daddy at December 17, 2010 6:54 AM
Even the better parents seem to have forgotten that it's OK to punish kids for WHINING!!
Within reason, of course. See here for a short thread that made me think of one or two things I hadn't before:
http://tinyurl.com/362ep9w
lenona at December 17, 2010 7:07 AM
Don't want your kids eating McDonald's all the time? Have them work there, or live right next door. I lived behind McDonald's most of my life. I worked there when I was 14. We had the perk of being able to eat as much McD's as we could pack away while on the job. I usually went home for lunch.
MonicaP at December 17, 2010 7:10 AM
OH. DEER. LORD.
The party is truely over...I'm gonna go sob quietly in the corner for a while.
Then I'm gonna work on being amoral.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 17, 2010 7:13 AM
The only time my girls have McD's is when they're with their father. And even then, they'll ask him to take them elsewhere. I haven't had a roadburger in ages. I just don't care for them. I'd rather stay home and have venison!
Flynne at December 17, 2010 7:27 AM
Thanks, momof4. I do think it's genetic! And, I feel so much better not eating carbs that it keeps me motivated.
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 7:39 AM
If the judge doesn't throw this out of court and fine the lawyer for being a moron, I think we can safetly say the end of the world has come.
YOU had the kids, lady. YOU parent them. The state is not their mommy, YOU are.
Excuse me while I go wipe my brain off my keyboard now.
Ann at December 17, 2010 7:49 AM
I'm a little disturbed that this woman "is a “regional program manager” on the state of California payroll for child nutrition matters." and yet has to sue because she can't keep her kids out of McDonalds. Hopefully the state of California will see the irony.
K.T. Keene at December 17, 2010 8:01 AM
If her kids are such brats, maybe she should sue her kids.
Pirate Jo at December 17, 2010 8:07 AM
"Maya has frequently pestered Parham into purchasing Happy Meals, thereby spending money on a product she would not otherwise have purchased."
So sue your fucking kid. Jesus Christ.
Kevin at December 17, 2010 8:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802517">comment from K.T. KeeneThe state of California is extremely irony-impaired on such matters.
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 8:09 AM
I'm a little disturbed that this woman "is a “regional program manager” on the state of California payroll for child nutrition matters." and yet has to sue because she can't keep her kids out of McDonalds.
I would surmise that these are not unrelated. I suspect that this suit is less about her kids whining than about trying to generate leverage to force McDonald's to change its business practices. I assume that's the reason she's seeking class certification.
Christopher at December 17, 2010 8:31 AM
Oh, my God! Do something about your weight, Amy. You're so slovenly disgustingly fat. I'm surprised you haven't made California slide into the ocean, you're so obese. I'll never visit you in California! I'd be sucked in by your gravitational pull. I bet when you get near a scale, your shadow weighs 212 pounds. I'd suggest jogging, but you'd leave potholes!
How did they make your dress for that picture? Sew sixty of them together? I mean, I know the camera adds ten pounds, but you must have had at least 20 cameras on you to look like that!
Gross, gross, gross!
Patrick at December 17, 2010 9:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802551">comment from PatrickI think I'll have another piece of bacon!
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 9:12 AM
I get the impression that in the coming weeks, we will discover that her kids have not in fact ever eaten there, and there is the non-zero possibility that she actually doesn't have any.
the fact that she works for the state of Cali. in an area related to nutrition and is being co-opted by a lobby group, should DQ her on the ethics violation alone. Much less bringing a suit like this. McD's lawyers are wolves, and she is going to find out how bad this could be. If she didn't start this straight and true, they will find out.
OTOH, the yammering of people who don't have control of their children is real enough.
If they don't behave at McD's, do us all a favor and DON'T take them there.
YOU are the parent, you are the person who controls... and if you don't establish that, you end up with unruly teenagers. Sometimes you end up with them anyway, but you certainly will if you never get them to listen when they are little.
SwissArmyD at December 17, 2010 9:18 AM
Tom Naughton does an amusing parody of this suit on his Fat Head Blog.
I'm jealous that you already have a copy of "Why We Get Fat." It's not out to the public until the end of December. I've got my order in. What do you think of it compared to "Good Calories Bad Calories?"
AllenS at December 17, 2010 9:23 AM
The local paper carried the story and quoted Parham as saying, "For the sake of other parents and their children, I want McDonald's to stop interfering with my family."
Not today.
Conan the Grammarian at December 17, 2010 9:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802569">comment from AllenS"Why We Get Fat" is a super easy read compared to "Good Calories, Bad Calories." I've been breezing through it. I'm only not done with it because I've had a very busy couple of weeks, no evenings free lately to read (other than my just before bedtime reading of a chapter or two from a wonderful book Gregg picked out for me at the airport, The Book Thief).
What I wish he'd covered in the book but doesn't seem to (again, not through it yet) is whether to take calcium or not. (I take 5,000 iu of D and 400 whatever the unit is of magnesium, plus krill oil, but eating very low carb, I may not need calcium, and there's some chance it may be one of those things that turns out to be damaging. Haven't researched it yet, except in a cursory way...haven't had time.)
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 9:49 AM
Tossing the bun is a good idea for adults who want to eat at McDonalds, not for kids. Kids don't need to be on any kind of diet that restricts food groups and/or widely separates them from the eating habits of their peers. Just practice moderation and model healthy eating habits and when they're older they can decide if they want to do the low-carb thing (or be a vegetarian, or never eat processed food, or junk food, or whatever your dietary preference is).
My mom didn't let my sister and I to eat Happy Meals because she didn't want us eating junk food just for the toy. So for years she had us convinced that all Happy Meals came with onions, which we didn't like, and we never asked for them. It must have worked because I haven't eaten at McDonalds in ten years.
Shannon at December 17, 2010 9:55 AM
Also, where are Parham's kids seeing these McDonalds ads? On TV, I'd guess, meaning that she's letting her kids watch too much TV. Again, parenting fail. Or will she be suing television manufacturers now?
Shannon at December 17, 2010 9:58 AM
Here is the link to her contact info for The networks for health. Notice the .gov at the end of the email address. She does indeed work for the government.
http://www.networkforahealthycalifornia.net/2008conference/agenda_full.php
Steve at December 17, 2010 10:12 AM
Monet Parham = Parenting Fail
lsomber at December 17, 2010 10:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802590">comment from ShannonHealthy eating habits is not eating bread, sorry. And it's especially not eating sugar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Because you've been told that, for example, whole wheat bread is good for you does not mean that it is.
Read Dr. Michael Eades who I link above, and Dr. William Davis, a midwest-based cardiologist:
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 10:38 AM
Question: If these people KNEW how stupid and incompetent they looked to the rest of the world...would they still be suing?
Feebie at December 17, 2010 10:58 AM
What Monet (count de lawsuit money) Parham-Lee's daughter may look like as an adult:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHGEBPM7Y_I&feature=player_embedded
Sio at December 17, 2010 11:11 AM
Dr William Davis has a few good posts on Calcium and Vitamin D.
AllenS at December 17, 2010 11:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802612">comment from AllenSThanks, AllenS. I've read some of those (maybe all of those) and they further contribute to my wondering whether I should be taking calcium or whether it's perhaps harmful.
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 11:45 AM
Alkon, When are you going to do the manners book for kids? (Damn shame you couldn't get Edward Gorey to do the illustrations!) But seriously, you might be just the gal to let younger kids know what behavior is lame and what isn't.
But, I digress (what else is new?)
I do support efforts to improve the nutritional value of school lunches, and also restricting sales of soda and junk food from school vending machines. (If students miss soft drinks and candy bars that much, they can hit the nearest 7-11 or IGA).
BUT, this smacks to me of a publicity stunt - or, more genteelly "an action designed to spark a public discussion on the effects of advertising fast/junk/unhealthy food to minors and using toys to oh, I dunno, lure them into a life of bad eating habits or sex trafficking" or whatever. And it's misguided and fatuous, in my opinion.
Your larger point, however, is one even I (yes, me, the Pandering Progressive) has been harping on for DECADES! What the hell happened to parents parenting? I mean, hell, it doesn't have to be my parents version of "because I said so!" followed up with "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about." But what is wrong with "You know, when food is really good, they don't need to give you a toy, too," or "No. We're not going to eat that because it's not really good" or "That kind of food isn't good every day food, it's only for once in awhile."
And if an explanation doesn't do the job, then last word: "We're not going there, doing that, buying that whatever, let's move on to a new topic." And if they want to pout, let 'em!
My own parents hated throwing down boundaries and rules and punishing us when we misbehaved, but they saw that as part of their job and so they did it. I hate seeing kids growing up with absolutely no idea where they end and other people begin, no social graces, no ability to relate to others - all because their parents aren't able to understand that if their kids don't loathe them once in awhile, they aren't doing their job.
mcQuaidLA at December 17, 2010 11:57 AM
For those of you who think wheat is good for you (for no good evidentiary reason -- simply because you're of that mind after hearing it for so many years):
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-does-wheat-cause-arthritis.html
An excerpt, but read the whole thing at the link:
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 11:59 AM
I love low carbing! I lost 10lbs in one week thanks to counting every carb. If it wasn't for amy's recommendation of loosing weight by eating low carb I would have never discovered I'm allergic to gluten. Everytime I would get sick docs would say eat a piece of wheat bread or saltine crackers. Ugh.
Oh and Amy my cholesterol is back to normal! Before I low carbed it was a little high and the doc told me to go on a low fat diet. Went low carb and all tests came back normal.
If you are on powerful anti psychotics go low carb. The pills can make you crazy hungry and the advice of docs is to ignore the hunger despite it feeling like you haven't eaten in weeks. With low carb you never have to go hungry.
Ppen at December 17, 2010 12:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802630">comment from mcQuaidLAAlkon, When are you going to do the manners book for kids? (Damn shame you couldn't get Edward Gorey to do the illustrations!) But seriously, you might be just the gal to let younger kids know what behavior is lame and what isn't.
Actually, I have to sell more of my current book to be able to sell the next one. 15K more. Hope you'll consider buying one! I'm working on the next one, though -- manners book for 20-40 audience...and beyond. Would do a kids one if I can sell it.
To buy my current one (only $11.53 for a new one w/Amazon's discount, and only new copies "count," ie, go against my advance/earn me money eventually):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071600213?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0071600213
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 12:43 PM
Guys,
In their capacity as busybodies the CSPI likes to do things like sue Mc Donald's; it's good publicity whether they win or lose.
However the CSPI does not have standing to sue as it is not a parent and does not live in California. So, they have to find a shill with standing, and Parham fits the bill.
As I said, I doubt this is about winning the suit, it's about getting publicity and maybe picking up a few contributions along the way.
Verimius at December 17, 2010 1:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1802684">comment from PpenThanks so much for telling me, Ppen...means a lot!
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2010 2:05 PM
So is she an SEIU member? Who's paying for her lawyers?
This case is a waste of time and money. If the State of CA wants to ban fast food joints from doing business in the state, then let's have a referendum. But using the courts to harass a legitimate business is just insane.
KateC at December 17, 2010 2:37 PM
I hope mcdonald's counter sues the shit out of this org and it's members
ron at December 17, 2010 3:33 PM
The only reason ancient man planted grain is because it was easier than planting orcards which would have taken years to pproduce the first crop. In some parts of the world you can get to harvests on certain grains in the same year.
That and to make beer.
lujlp at December 17, 2010 4:14 PM
I often wonder how much of the low carb diet making people feel so much better is because we have a lot of people in this country with mild cases of celiacs disease. I have done a lot better with my diet by cutting way down on the bread while still consuming some starchy vegtables. Flour in any form gives me gas as does exceding a low threshold of lactose.
isabel1130 at December 17, 2010 8:31 PM
after saying "no" a few times, the kids will get a general idea of what they can profitably pester you about and what they can't.
Exactly. Kids push boundaries. Actually, I should say that kids establish their own boundaries by experimenting and discovering what they are and are not allowed to do. Giving them no boundaries at all will only end up making them feel insecure, which will manifest itself an a variety of horrifying ways. Kids feel safe with (reasonable) boundaries in place, because that means you are looking out for them. Kids are smarter than their dumbass parents give them credit for: they know on some level that if you never tell them what they can and can't do, then it means you aren't out there deciding what's safe for them. It must be hell to be raised by that kind of parent. Like momof4 said, you're the adult and it's your job to provide a stable environment for your children. Never saying no does not give stability.
The only reason ancient man planted grain is because it was easier than planting orcards which would have taken years to pproduce the first crop.
Also because of observation: they noticed that where they were pooping, a plant would later spring up. We owe a lot to that poop: without agriculture, there can be no civilization.
On the food subject, I wonder how many of those "we should go back to hunter-gatherer societies" types realize that a full eighty percent of the calories in that diet (with the exception of the hunter-gatherer-fisher model) is from the gathering, i.e. grains and starches. Because a stalk of corn isn't going to tear out your throat or stomp on you. Also, those grains and starches are obtained by the women and children, who must work all day to keep everyone fed, just like the men. The people in the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies aren't in the best of health, comparatively speaking (protein-energy malnutrition is a concern), and tend to die younger than the rest of the world.
NumberSix at December 17, 2010 11:38 PM
> using the courts to harass a legitimate
> business is just insane.
Isn't that how things are done nowadays? In failure, isn't the ERA the counter-model for social change for the rest of American history? Did anyone, anyone ever suggest that gay marriage would be had by persuasion through the halls of Congress? Of course not; straight to the courts.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 18, 2010 5:53 AM
I think the only appropriate response the courts can give her would be to "Rule 11" her self-righteous ass. The message needs to be sent that the courts don't exist for someone's political agenda.
She has remedy is boycotting McDonald's, pressuring them into acquiescing, which has proven successful, since they now offer milk with Happy Meals, and apple slices in place of fries. But this is totally wrong and an abuse of the court system.
Rule 11. Nothing else.
Patrick at December 18, 2010 5:54 AM
Question: If these people KNEW how stupid and incompetent they looked to the rest of the world...would they still be suing?
Posted by: Feebie at December 17, 2010 10:58 AM
________________________________
They know. They just don't care - or they're convinced the rest of the world is stupid not to agree with their beliefs. Sound familiar?
And, from "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (as told by self-centered brat Eustace Scrubb):
September 3. "The first day for ages when I have been able to write. We had been driven before a hurricane for thirteen days and nights. I know that because I kept a careful count, though the others all say it was only twelve. Pleasant to be embarked on a dangerous voyage with people who can't even count right!"
(I have to admit, as a child reader, Eustace's passionate stubborness and arrogance were so easy to get swept into that I honestly thought he was right and the others were wrong. After all, when you think about it, he's probably the best-written human character in the entire series.)
lenona at December 18, 2010 10:24 AM
Alkon, When are you going to do the manners book for kids? (Damn shame you couldn't get Edward Gorey to do the illustrations!) But seriously, you might be just the gal to let younger kids know what behavior is lame and what isn't.
___________________________
Well, there's already Delia Ephron's great book for kids "Do I Have to Say Hello?." It's illustrated by Edward Koren. I remember one critic's pointing out that Ephron and Koren clearly sympathize with little kids and their lament, which is similar to that of the housewife; people never notice when your house is clean, they only notice when it's not. In the same vein, little kids think that having to chew with your mouth closed is just a useless rule that makes chewing difficult and don't understand why they don't get thanked for doing it right.
________________________________
"No. We're not going to eat that because it's not really good" or "That kind of food isn't good every day food, it's only for once in awhile."
And if an explanation doesn't do the job, then last word: "We're not going there, doing that, buying that whatever, let's move on to a new topic." And if they want to pout, let 'em!
____________________________
And note what I said above: It's OK - repeat, OK - to punish kids for WHINING! But again, see the link I posted on the 17th, 7:07 AM.
BTW, columnist Betsy Hart (conservative divorced mother of four) can be pretty sentimental (one of her sayings is that her goal for her kids "is Heaven, not Harvard") but she's harsh on bad parents. She also tells her own kids things that would seem shocking to many parents, such as "it's not OK to be mad at Mommy" when her child is quietly sulking. Her point, IIRC, was that small kids, especially, should not be allowed to seethe with rage/hate when Mommy HASN'T done anything cruel, unfair, or uncivilized, but the kid's convinced that Mommy has. Otherwise, the kid's being allowed to stray to the wrong conclusion, even if she's not old enough to understand Mommy's decision. (Hart doesn't recommend explaining every little rule, of course - just enforcing authority.)
______________________________
if their kids don't loathe them once in awhile, they aren't doing their job.
________________________________
Great line. Now, if only more parents could be convinced of it........
lenona at December 18, 2010 10:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1803323">comment from lenonaMy little neighbors are sometimes naughty, and push the envelope, but they are well-raised, kind kids, who mostly will behave respectfully, and, for example, not play in the area by my living room when I'm writing if I ask them not to (it makes Lucy bark).
Telling kids not to feel something seems ridiculous. Explaining why Mommy has to be "mean" sometimes, and not give you exactly what you want, is useful. My neighbor does this -- explains to kids why they can't have or do something. She sometimes has to do this a few times. This is parenting, and this is why I'm not a parent. One reason, anyway. Sometimes she lets the kids do the wrong thing and learn from it. But, she does that knowingly. She's not a perfect parent, of course, but she's pretty wise, and has raised some great kids that I adore.
Amy Alkon at December 18, 2010 11:04 AM
Telling kids not to feel something seems ridiculous.
_____________________
Hart didn't tell them not to FEEL it, just that it was wrong to feel that way. Much in the same way kids have to be ordered to stop whining over something that is, in the big picture, trivial, like a lost toy.
BTW, Dr. Rosemond likes to say: "Should you give your kids reasons? Absolutely. Should you try TO reason with them? Never!"
lenona at December 18, 2010 12:23 PM
I can't agree with Hart-and your seemingly direct quote from her is "It's not okay to BE mad at mommy". Feelings are feelings, and telling a kid (or anyone else) to change them is dumb. You CAN tell them it's not okay to ACT-ie; it's not okay to roll your eyes, slam the door, etc. But what's in their mind is their business. Best a parent learn that sooner then later. Drill sargeant parents are no better than helicopter ones.
I am a passionate fan of Love and Logic. It's all about consequences of decisions while they're little. It's one of two books I would recommend every parent read. The other is Healthy Sleep Habits Happy Child, FWIW.
momof4 at December 18, 2010 7:15 PM
I can't agree with Hart-and your seemingly direct quote from her is "It's not okay to BE mad at mommy". Feelings are feelings, and telling a kid (or anyone else) to change them is dumb.
_____________________
As I was trying to say (not very well), she wisely DIDN'T tell them to change them - just that it's WRONG to feel that way. Gentle persuasion, not force. As a wise man said: "Prejudice is like a cactus; it flourishes without any discernible source of nourishment." All the more reason to remind small kids gently that hatred of one's (reasonable) parents is wrong before such hatred starts taking root.
lenona at December 19, 2010 11:34 AM
Hart's book, BTW, is called "It Takes a Parent: How the Culture of Pushover Parenting Is Hurting Our Kids--and What to Do About It."
From one of 23 reviews (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it):
......I especially enjoyed the topics about self-esteem, being your child's advocate, saying "no," and the culture wars. But my favorite one was her explanation of how the popular notion "criticize the action, not the child" is just plain wrong. Once you read this book, you'll never look at `expert' advice the same way......
(end)
I admit, I generally prefer Dr. Rosemond, just because he's a more solid writer in general.
lenona at December 19, 2010 11:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1804170">comment from lenonaI still think "it's not okay to BE mad at mommy" seems like an utterly ridiculous statement. What makes sense is explaining to your kid why something that they think is unfair or stupid makes sense, is fair, isn't fair but needs to be. Life isn't fair. Best that they're prepared for it.
Amy Alkon at December 19, 2010 11:48 AM
I think being mad at your parents is a major part of learning how to be a person. Not outright hating them, but being pissed that they won't let you do whatever it is you want to do. Because, if they aren't uber-stringent or random in their rules, that means they're looking out for you. They're setting those boundaries and the kid learns he can't do whatever the hell he wants with no consequences. He learns that his mom and dad aren't just being mean. He learns that he can't whine his way out of a situation (whining was not tolerated at my house--I was ignored until I could speak reasonably about whatever it was, and I can count on one hand the number of times I whined that I remember).
A big thing for me was realizing that my parents were okay with me being mad at them for something. They weren't going to stop loving me because I was pissed I couldn't sleep over at a friend's house with ten minutes warning. I din't have to be a Stepford child for them to love me. Also, if kids push and the parents cave, they learn that it actually is okay to be mad at mommy, because that way you get what you wanted in the first place. And I agree that it's ridiculous to tell a kid how he can feel. Not to sound too touchy-feely here, but it's not really about what you feel, but how you deal with it. So you tell your kid he can be mad at mommy but mommy isn't going to budge, so throwing a tantrum won't get him what he wants. He'll have to figure out another way.
NumberSix at December 19, 2010 9:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/17/maybe_she_shoul.html#comment-1804506">comment from NumberSixNumberSix, so wise. My parents, if/when told that we thought they were awful for some particular decision reacted something like, "Hmm, that's too bad."
Amy Alkon at December 19, 2010 9:07 PM
What makes sense is explaining to your kid why something that they think is unfair or stupid makes sense, is fair, isn't fair but needs to be. Life isn't fair. Best that they're prepared for it.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
__________________________
And all too often, the kid is going to be too young to understand the explanation. Or, at least, the kid will think the explanation is stupid, no matter how it's phrased.
Of course you don't let kids throw tantrums after the age of three. However, Hart was talking about kids who have finished crying and screaming but are now QUIETLY sulking for hours or even days. That's still rude.
lenona at December 20, 2010 8:41 AM
A way to deal with whining is to tell the kid that if he or she
whines for it, that you the parent will see to it that he doesn't get
whatever it is until he gets old enough to pay for it himself. Of
course, getting the child to believe this will take a few
confrontations. We went thru 5 or 6, but twins can double-team
you and give each other courage. I took away whatever it was
they were trying get me to buy and told them that because they
were whining, they would NOT get it. The most extreme sit-
uation was leaving a full basket of groceries in a market, picking
up both of them, who were nearly screaming for a bag of candy
bars, going out to the car, where we all sat until they quieted
down, and then went home. I did hear some negative comments
about leaving the groceries, but I felt that training the kids was
more important. ( Oh, I asked one of the neighbors to sit the kids the next day so I could go to the market. ) All the effort was well worth it to have kids who learned how to make reasonable requests and to not get bratty when the answer is no.
(Yes, I explained WHY the answer was NO.)
Beverly at December 20, 2010 9:55 AM
Beverly, I would have stood up and applauded if I'd seen you do that. You usually only have to take a kid out of a store once or twice before he figures out that he's not going to get his way. Yeah, someone has to put the groceries back but frankly if it were my job, I'd be happy to do it, knowing I didn't have to listen to two screaming kids all through the damn store.
You should come out to my town and teach people how to do this. 99% of them have no idea.
Daghain at December 20, 2010 12:22 PM
Earlier in the thread I wasn't making the point that low carb diets aren't a good diet (I think they are), but rather that it doesn't seem like a good idea to put your kids on one. You can encourage low carb eating without making a big deal out of it (like serving steak and veggies for dinner instead of spaghetti), but making your kids pull the buns off McDonald's hamburgers seems a little extreme. You only have control over what your kid eats for maybe the first 10 or 12 years of their life, and your goal shouldn't be to make sure their diet is perfect but to empower them with skills that will allow them to make good food choices for the rest of their lives. Banning anything outright (whether it's fast food, candy, or hamburger buns) will only serve to turn that item into forbidden fruit which they will then jump all over as soon as they're out of your sight. And never letting your kid eat sugar means that they can't go trick-or-treating, decorate Christmas cookies, eat cake at a birthday party, have dinner at a friend's house...the list goes on. It will isolate your child from their peers and position them as a target for bullying, not to mention set them up for some major food issues down the line. I'd say it's tantamount to child abuse.
Not to mention that most of us grew up eating some amount of carbs and turned out fine. Restricting your kid's diet seems like the next thing in heliocopter parenting-Junior won't get into Harvard unless he's enrolled in 57 afterschool activities, and he won't be a non-fatty unless you monitor every bite that goes in his mouth. Adults can decide for themselves how to eat, kids don't need to be subjected to this.
Shannon at December 20, 2010 7:01 PM
My son is mildly hypoglycemic. This was learned fairly early on. From that point on I never went in the car with snacks and minimeals for him. He rarely asked to go to Mickey D's and it was more for the play place than the food.
He also learned very early on what whining got him. Exactly nothing except a quick ride home but NEVER what he asked for.
He also learned to never say the words "I'm bored" lest he be saddled with more chores.
I will tell you that a thick milkshake and a narrow straw is a true parental blessing. The kid will be quiet in the back of the car for ages trying to slurp up that frozen concoction. Aaahh. Silence.
LauraGr at December 21, 2010 11:41 AM
Leave a comment