So, to the nitwit (wish I could get to Popehat's site to comment on it, but our net-nanny software at work blocks it): (1) since when does disagreeing with your opinion constitute "hatred", and (2) since you have cited those notable scientists Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock as your authorities, I'm sure you will be able to tell us the precise chemistry names for all of those toxins that McDonald's is loading into their food.

And a thought: We all mock companies who try to engage in "reputation management". But when a company is having to constantly battle media-favored activist groups who are trying to destroy them, you can see why they do it.

While, being an Amy Dacyczyn fan, I'm all in favor of telling kids: "You want it, YOU pay for it AND you earn the money first," I have to say I suspect it would be a lot easier for parents to do that if they weren't so often surrounded by parents who would consider that to be abuse - and might even call CPS with grossly exaggerated stories to get such parents in trouble. (Sort of like the stories of free-range kids whose nasty neighbors call the police on the parents - not counting those cases where the kids were being horribly noisy. Or parents who won't have video games in the house. Or...)

In the same vein, refusing to have kids at all, in many conservative neighborhoods, can be almost as emotionally painful and frightening as breaking away from a cult/religion that you were born into - all of a sudden, you find you don't have any real friends anymore; you could even be disinheirited.

Yeah, this wasn't about Ms. Parham-Lee's kid, this was about everyone else's kids. Monet doesn't like the way you're feeding your children.

If you let your children watch television, they're going to be exposed to a lot of marketing (unless they're only watching PBS and the "junior" networks.) When it comes to both McDonalds and the cesspool known as Chuck-E-Cheese's, I just say, "No." Occasionally, I elaborate with, "because Mommy doesn't like the people who go there, and it's dirty. Now stop asking or you don't get (fill in the blank)."

It's ridiculous, these people pretending that parents can't just f*cking say no.

Whatever happened with the lawsuit, anyway?

Whenever I read something online that starts with, "Wow! Lots of hatred on this blog," I know that what follows will be the ineffectual whining of a complete ninny with a room temperature IQ.

Just turn kids loose on the Facebook sites of the guilty parties (definitely not the kid) and their backers.

Should be interesting once the Grandparents know they may not be able to buy Happy Meals for their grandbabies.

After all, it is called social media.

From the original L.A. Times story:

The organization had been threatening to sue McDonald's since last summer, claiming that the Happy Meals toys constitute a method of circumventing parental control

Only in today's Bizarro Parent World does abdicating control of your responsibilities equal someone else "circumventing" your control.

since when does disagreeing with your opinion constitute "hatred"

Since people realized it was easier to shut down an argument claiming that as opposed to doing the hard work of thinking and replying with a cogent response

Isn't there a rumor floating about a big cat roaming about in Detroit?

since when does disagreeing with your opinion constitute "hatred"

lujlp's response is correct, but brief. It comes back to a certain amount of confirmation bias, as well as thinking that right minded people agree with you and that those who disagree with you are either stupid, ignorant, or paid shills who know what they're doing is wrong, but are malevolent enough to keep doing it.

At which point one can "safely" write them off. They also have turned being ignorant into an actual sin. Ignorance shouldn't be sin unless one stays that way willingly. Stupid can only be fixed by being beaten with a clue stick.

Whatever happened to "Because I said so" in the parental aresenal?

Personally, I think even saying "because I said so" can easily sound weak and defensive, compared to simply refusing to respond at all. As Miss Manners once said "not every question deserves an answer." (She wasn't just talking about kids' questions, either.)

But here's a more positive alternative to the whiny question "WHY?!"

"Trust me."

Correction:

"more positive alternative response."

"Monet Parham-Lee is suing because, we're led to believe, her six year old daughter Maya harasses her on a daily basis for plastic Shreks."

Sheesh, all the kid wants is a Shrek? She's not asking for poison food. If the little girl wants a Shrek that bad, why not just give her one and enjoy her momentary happiness?

If one of my daughters wanted a little plastic Shrek that much, she'd have had it a long time ago. My precious little granddaughters would only have to ask, and I'd get them Shreks, and probably let them have the Happy Meal too. And an ice-cream cone. Not a Coke though. Something about giving my little ones Coke doesn't feel right to me.

The fact that little kids desire such simple, inexpensive things is a blessing. It creates many cost effective opportunities to teach them good things.

Fast food wasn't around when I was six. But, can't remember when exactly, but before turning six, no meant no. No need to be repeated. By six, I just got a look, no words required. Raised my three the same way. Must be in the genes.

Fast food wasn't around when I was six. But, can't remember when exactly, but before turning six, no meant no. No need to be repeated. By six, I just got a look, no words required. Raised my three the same way. Must be in the genes.

Posted by: Dave B at August 3, 2015 3:19 PM

And this exactly why a mom AND a dad in residence is the best way to raise kids.

More difficult to wear two people down, and when one parent has had enough, the other one can step in.

Big daddy government doesn't have to be the pinch hitter, when the single parent has a backbone of a banana,

I have seen some really whiny and difficult children. A few that nothing but constant supervision, and parental effort could keep in line. This is really really tough to deal with unless there are two or more adults available.

My daughter was always an angel at school, At home, she was the spawn of the devil.
I used to tease my husband, that if he ever wanted a divorce, I would make him take her.

Is "no" no longer in the dictionary, or is it that we have evolved to lack spines?

Turn off the TV. Then your child will not see the commercials. Problem solved.

Speaking of TV...I have to wonder why so many parents say they "need" it to keep their kids occupied while they do the chores. If all the kids are over three, they can start "helping" with the chores, if only so as to get them used to the habit, since actual skill can take a year or two while their physical coordination catches up. It also makes them realize that adults are not there to entertain them and that if they're bored, they can either work or entertain themselves and stop whining.

And if there's one kid under three and another kid who's older, the older kid can keep the toddler out of mischief. If all else fails, simply turn the playpen upside down over the toddler and put a few heavy folded blankets on top to weigh it down. How is that any worse than putting an unwilling 1-year-old in a playpen while you take a shower?

NicoleK: Turn off the TV. Then your child will not see the commercials. Problem solved."

Good idea. In 1977, about a month before my first daughter was born, the TV broke down. It was a black and white one with a round screen and a large, heavy wood cabinet. I gave it to the old man across the street who had a perpetual garage sale. I haven't had a TV since. My daughters grew up without them - no morally corrupt, brain dead TV programs or commercials for them. But they still wanted McDonalds.