tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9 2008-05-16T15:19:17Z Movable Type 3.33 tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1088 2008-05-16T14:17:46Z 2008-05-16T15:19:17Z

This week’s column comes courtesy of Liz Gumbinner, author of Mom-101. This past Sunday, if you had nothing better to do like say alphabetize your underwear by color or roll around in the rose petals strewn about your bed for...

Catherine http://alphamom.com This week’s column comes courtesy of Liz Gumbinner, author of Mom-101. This past Sunday, if you had nothing better to do like say alphabetize your underwear by color or roll around in the rose petals strewn about your bed for Mother’s Day, you might have tuned into a show on NBC called America’s Top Mom. While watching, you may have very well gasped audibly as they paraded out the nominees in a category called “non-moms”- the moniker given to those parents who had adopted their children. You know, non-moms; the ones who non-feed their children and non-clothe them and non-kiss their non-boo-boos with non-love, which may in fact be a laboratory-created chemical substitution for actual love. It boggles the mind that not one of the writers, producers, hosts, sponsors, or network suits ever considered for two seconds how asinine the description was. (“Jennifer has one of her own children and SIX ADOPTED METH BABIES! Let’s give her a hand!”) Yet they didn’t. And so a slew of "non-moms" were introduced on network television to millions of households as just that. I am amazed that with adoption on the front pages of even the entertainment rags of late, that families who come together this way are still perceived as such an oddity; an “alternative” family situation that needs description as such. The myth of the mom and dad with their 2.3 biologically conceived children is so long past, that when I think of it, the only imagery in my head is in black and white. Granted I live in NYC, but my own relatively small circle of mom friends includes women who are single by choice, lesbian and single by choice, parents who have adopted, or simply those in committed domestic partnerships sans ring, as I am. Even for me, it’s getting harder to answer the question, what makes a family? Now here’s where things really start getting fun. Yesterday the state supreme court upheld the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The California ruling is fantastic news for committed gay couples of course, but also for their loved ones who no longer have to trek out to ceremonies in Massachusetts where you can’t even buy champagne after 11 if you run out. Most of all, I’m excited about the benefits for all the children of same-sex parents who will be impacted. These kids will be finally reaping both the legal and emotional benefits of parents whose relationship is now equal to any other under law. Families are changing faster than we know how to define them. Faster than the board books, the Yo Gabba Gabba! segments, the third grade lesson plans can keep up with them. At times I’m at a loss to answer even the most basic questions from my almost three year-old about relationships. I can’t fall back on answers like “A marriage is when a man and a woman…” or “Mommies are people who had babies…” I can’t even say “One day, when you get married, you might want to have a baby too.” Because maybe one day, she might want to have a baby and not get married. And provided she’s 36, that would be just fine with me. So my question is this: How do you talk to your children about what constitutes a family? If you’ve got the basic mom-dad-kids combo in your own household do you still talk about it in terms of what other people do? Do issues like adoption, same-sex marriage or single parenting factor into the discussion? And if so, can you swing by my house and help me out a little? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1078 2008-05-09T16:38:52Z 2008-05-15T17:41:05Z

This week's Wonderland is brought to you by Eden Kennedy (aka Mrs. Kennedy) of Fussy. Are you a mother? Even if you're not, you have one somewhere. And what did she do for you, did she cuddle you or change...

Catherine http://alphamom.com This week's Wonderland is brought to you by Eden Kennedy (aka Mrs. Kennedy) of Fussy. Are you a mother? Even if you're not, you have one somewhere. And what did she do for you, did she cuddle you or change your diaper or breast-feed you for a minute two? Mine nursed me for two months and then we switched to formula, our kindly old family doctor told her two months was plenty of time for me to get all the benefits of breast milk. And maybe two months is enough, but would I have had an extra three or four IQ points if my mom hadn't made the switch so soon? A new study (my god, when isn't there a new study?) seems to think so. What researchers can't pinpoint, however, is what causes the (admittedly small) uptick they see in verbal intelligence in the six- year-olds who had been fed breast milk exclusively for at least their first six months. Was it the milk, the big brains wondered, or was it the interaction between mother and infant? I'm not sure what could possibly make breast-feeding interaction different from bottle-feeding interaction, unless skin-to-skin contact is more miraculously vital than anyone knows or has tried to measure. I suppose plugging a bottle into little Jaden's mouth while you make your other three kids tuna sandwiches isn't the most nurturing experience a baby could have -- we all do what we must in order to cope, and my, Jaden's becoming so independent! -- but the idea that doing so is slowing down his brain development? Uh-oh, that siren you hear coming toward you is the Guilt Police and they have a warrant for your arrest! So that's today's question: how much parental involvement does it take to help a child succeed? This question certainly dogs parents of older children, who as they grow older may become less inclined to cuddle up with mom and dad and talk about their day at school. Fortunately for those parents with early symptoms of separation anxiety, or those who simply want to keep track of what's going on, many schools are now putting childrens' grades online using programs like Edline and ParentConnect. The New York Times recently published a story about what can happen to families who get obsessed with following the daily rise and fall of their kids' GPAs. Constant access to information that used to have to be pried out of your kid, or only heard during a parent-teacher conference, has its pros and its cons. On the pro side: You know which subjects your child is struggling in and can make arrangements to get them help if you can't provide it yourself; you can see a failing grade and help your kid turn it around before it's burned into her record and hurts her chances to get into the college of her choice; and it can "open up communication between parents and teachers,” said Ron Jones, the principal at Huth Middle School in suburban Chicago. “It helps keep the children minding their p’s and q’s.” Indeed, many kids really like being able to check in and see where they stand. But just like any tool, it can be abused. Like a dieter who checks the bathroom scale every time he eats a peanut, if a parent has even a hint of the obsessive-compulsive about them, every update can turn life into one long anxiety attack. “It speaks to all your neuroses as a parent, all this need to control, that pressure to make sure everything is perfect," said one parent who has weaned herself from the system and now checks ParentConnect only a few times a week. Says another parent, “I’d be waking her up, shouting: ‘Claire! What did you fail? What is wrong with you?’ She’d pull the pillow over her head and say, ‘Leave me alone!’" “When the focus is on the grade so much," says Denise Pope, a Stanford lecturer and consultant, "you’re saying to kids, ‘It’s more important to get the grade, by hook or by crook, than learn the material. And that leads to the rise in rampant cheating.” I was never much of a cheater but I clearly remember being a high school junior and bristling when my mother suggested that a little more work would raise that B in English to an A. I got the B just to show her who was in control. *cringe* Obviously there's a line between parental involvement and parental over-involvement when it comes to helping kids succeed, and it starts at day one. I find that a little frightening, because that line is different for every child and it can shift from day to day -- hell, from minute to minute. Most of the time I'm one of those inherently lazy parents who by sheer good fortune manages to look like I'm paying attention. I breastfed my son, sure, but only until I couldn't take it anymore. Granted, I made it to nine months, and that's pretty good, but I fell short of my goal of one year, I was all, "Eh, good enough." I did teach him sign language but only because I was unemployed and found it fascinating. The fact that he briefly ended up more verbal than some of his peers was an interesting side-effect, but was never the goal. Now he's in first grade and already I'm starting to look lazy again. We have a TV (many at our school don't); we let our son drink Coke (several kids are only allowed of water and organic milk); we let him sleep in our bed when he wants to (what is this, an African village?), and he now has thirty-two Webkinz, leading me to think that he's controlling me more than I control him. Where does that line fall for you? How do your children respond to you efforts to help them? When does help and guidance turn into pressure and control? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1054 2008-04-25T18:00:20Z 2008-04-25T18:01:14Z

Did you know that this week is National Turnoff Week? Neither did I. And did you know that it's not a week to describe your turnoffs to your partner? ("Ear nibbling. The word 'creamy.' And, oh, that shirt that you...

Catherine http://alphamom.com National Turnoff Week? Neither did I. And did you know that it's not a week to describe your turnoffs to your partner? ("Ear nibbling. The word 'creamy.' And, oh, that shirt that you think looks good on you.") The things you learn! No, National Turnoff Week is a campaign to get people everywhere, kids and adults alike, to reduce their time in front of the television and related screens (yes, watching videos on Youtube counts). The idea is, you renounce your television-watching ways for one week, and then at the end of the week you realize how much quality time you've spent with your kids, and presto--fewer mind-numbing television hours for your family in the future. I like this idea, but sadly (or fortunately, depending on what time of day you catch me) Henry is at his grandparents' house this week, so we couldn't put it into effect (at least not with Henry around, which I believe is sort of the point) and also, I didn't find out about National Turnoff Week until, um, today. Anyway, I don't view our television watching as any kind of problem that needs fixing. Mostly, barring illness or snow day (or if he wake up insanely early on a Saturday morning), we've got it under control. The rule is one show after school, and we (mostly) stick to that. Hey, sometimes he finds out THE BEST SHOW EVER is on next, and I'm still making dinner, and am in fact a human and not an android. But nine times out of ten, he will cheerfully turn the television off after his allotted time is up, and join me in the kitchen to criticize my dinner choices. Ah, quality time. I will say that what he wants to watch these days gives me pause. Currently my son is besotted with a show called Ben10. In case you're unfamiliar (and thank your lucky stars if you are), Ben 10 is the story of a young boy who comes across an alien watch-like device that will allow him to turn into different aliens. The aliens, natch, all have superhero-like abilities. Most of them sport ripped abs. That's just how it is in galaxies far, far away. Like most entertainment options of which I have disapproved, this show was discovered early one Saturday morning while Henry watched television with Scott, who is much more willing to stray from educational programming than I (especially on Saturday mornings, when I am luxuriating in sleeping late and really can't criticize his choices). (Except I still do. Hi, Scott!) So what do I dislike about Ben-10? Hmm, let's see. It's chock full of cartoony violence, for one: freakish mesomorphs pummeling each other without any apparent lasting ill effect. Number two, Ben is a whiny jerk and if Henry ever imitated his behavior even a little I would sell him. Three, Ben and his cousin Gwen (see how everything rhymes!) are jerks to each other. Four, that theme song will NEVER LEAVE MY HEAD. But then, I can definitely see why Henry loves the show. I mean, come on. A little boy has the power to turn into multiple superheroes, and destroy the bad guys. What, exactly, is not to love? And I like the way Henry watches the show—he immediately has to reenact the episode, as soon as it's over. With embellishments, of course. Since discovering Ben 10, Henry draws alien after alien, both ones from the show and his own creations, and they're truly impressive. He's also written and illustrated his own Ben 10 stories, and he has plans for us to write a script and send it to the show. Would he have expressed his creativity in other, probably more original ways, without Ben 10? Probably. (He does, by the way. Sometimes.) I'm not saying that television has helped him become a better person, but that it hasn't wreaked the damage the doomsayers all say it does. He's not violent. He doesn't model the behavior I dislike seeing on the show. Not once has he called us any of the names that Ben and Gwen like to toss at one another. Nor has he blown us away with a reverse ion beam or scrambled our DNA. I wonder what I would do if I did see negative behavior that I felt was related to his watching this one particular show. It's hard to say, because of course it would depend on what that behavior was, and how pervasive it had become. Is it him calling me an idiot, or knocking out a kid on the playground? Could I be sure it was closely related to Ben 10? It's hard to say. Small children, as we know, are not necessarily known for their impulse control, television shows or no. What's your take on your kids and television? Did you turn off your TV for the week? If you didn't, do you think you should? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1047 2008-04-18T15:56:07Z 2008-04-18T16:02:51Z

"The Easter Bunny's not real, right?" Henry asked me one night. We had just finished reading a bedtime story, and had moved on to the bedtime deep philosophical discussion. Without thinking, I replied, "Nah." He didn't say anything. Crap, I...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ Santa Claus back in December, and how we had chosen the myth over the reality. I'm more comfortable with that decision now that I've seen him make the same choice regarding the Easter Bunny, but still, I don't feel entirely great about it. If he asked me directly about Santa, I don't know what I'd say. I started thinking about lies again when I read the post "Lies I've Told My 3-Year-Old", in the blog "Heading East." The lies Raul shares involve such fantastic claims as "trees talk to each other at night" and "we are all held together by invisible threads." I don't think these are lies, exactly, just fable-like tidbits. I'm not sure I would go so far as to insist these were true, but if they were conveyed in a playful way, if my kid wanted to play along and create his own wild ideas, I think they're lovely. (Although I wouldn't ever suggest to any child ever that any human has the ability to fly. I'm paranoid that way.) The response to his post (magnified by a link from Metafilter) was huge, with reactions ranging from admiration to abject horror. Divorced from context, these "lies" could be seen as either affectionate and harmless or permanently scarring. Doesn't it all depend on what your child is getting out of it? I tried to think about what other lies I've told my son. A few months back Henry's friend approached me during a playdate with two stubborn Lego pieces that wouldn't come apart. I did as he asked, and for no apparent reason other than my love of warping children, I stated, "I did that so easily because I have powers." "Yeah, right," said Henry's friend, and then joined Henry in the playroom and whispered, "Does your mother really have powers?" "I don't think so," said Henry, and then they were both quiet for a minute. I could hear them thinking, does she? Now, of course, if they had pressed the issue, I would have confessed that my powers are limited to pulling apart tiny Lego pieces. But it didn't come up again, so I left it. Then a few days later Henry told me that he has powers. One of them, he said, is that he can see any event that happened in the past. "I just shut my eyes, and I can see it right there," he told me. I don't know if I can take credit for this idea of his, but I love that he can entertain these thoughts, that he feels like he has special abilities above and beyond the average mortal. If my ridiculous claim nudged him in that direction, I have no problem with it. There are lies I wouldn’t tell him. If I were crying I wouldn't pretend I wasn't. (P.S. this scenario has occurred more times than I wish to count.) If he overheard some grim statistic on the radio, I wouldn't tell him it was all a funny joke. ("3,000 dead, get it? Ha! Haaaa?") I wouldn't lie just out of laziness, to make my life easier. Part of my job is to help him learn that he can weather disappointments, and if that means telling a more difficult truth ("No, we can't buy that toy right now") instead of sidestepping the issue with a lie ("Oops, the store's closed!"), I'll choose the truth. Still, though, in telling these truths, I'm almost certainly lying by omission. I wouldn’t tell him specifically why I was upset, if the truth was too much for him. I wouldn’t provide him with specifics on the war. I would provide him with the information he can handle and no more than that. Those are lies I can live with. So, your turn. Do you lie to your children? Tell the truth, now. ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1038 2008-04-11T16:08:57Z 2008-04-11T16:11:31Z

In September of 2006, Randy Pausch, a professor of computer sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is, plainly speaking, the worst kind to get: survival rates are extremely low, and the end usually comes...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ Youtube, where it was viewed kabillions (technical term) of times. So popular did the lecture become that Pausch gave an abridged version on a show hosted by a certain Oprah person; the lecture is also now available in print. The topic of Randy Pausch's lecture was "Really Achieving your Childhood Dreams." It's a topic he would know something about, as he is in the enviable position, even at the relatively young age of 46, of having achieved his. In the lecture, he talks about how he achieved his dreams, from becoming a Disney Imagineer to experiencing zero gravity. During his talk, he dispenses nuggets of wisdom: Show gratitude. Don't complain. Work hard. Find the best in everybody. Have fun. At the end of his lecture, he reveals the true purpose of his talk. It wasn't meant for the 400-something people in the audience that day (nor the thousands who have watched it since); the lecture was meant for his three young children, whose memories of him will be dim at best. His lecture is a wonderful gift to his family, and it left me wondering: what would I leave my son, if I knew I was on my out? I didn't think I had much in me, advice-wise, but then I sat down and thought about it (without crying, which is unusual for me when it comes to pondering my own death and thinking about Henry), and here's what I came up with. 1. Pay attention. Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, in that moment, there's something to be learned. Find out what it is. 2. Notice what makes you curious. If you want to learn more, that's a sign. Keep moving toward that thing. If the topic doesn't interest you, don't force it. 3. Withhold judgment. You never know the whole story about a person. No matter what you think, remember, there's always more you couldn't possibly know. 4. Respect your feelings. If someone makes you feel bad, you have the right to keep away from that person, even if they seem to be "nice. "Especially if they seem to be nice. 5. It's okay to be angry. Just don't take it out on other people. Or yourself. Let yourself feel your anger. Write it out. Yell into a pillow. Whatever you need to do. 6. Same goes for feeling sad, by the way. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. 7. Find people who you feel good around, smart and funny and kind, and don't let them go. Aim to be like them. 8. Tell the people you love how much they mean to you. Use specifics. 9. Take care of yourself. You can't give all you were meant to if you're not 100%. 10. Notice how good helping others can make you feel. Don't be ashamed to ask for help, if you need it. We need to help each other, in this world. Let your friends take care of you sometimes. I could probably think of 100 more, now that I've started. It's a good feeling, because I was about 90% sure I had nothing to say except OH GOD DON'T LET ME DIE. So that's a relief. Now it's your turn. What would you want your children to know about life, if your time was running short? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1027 2008-04-04T15:35:26Z 2008-04-04T15:46:06Z

The other day, my husband expressed his concern that Henry is, at the tender age of 5 and a few months, a computer semi-illiterate. Surprising as this may be for the child of two parents who are on the computer...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ PBS.org or other children's educational sites. He owns a Webkinz, but the few times we explored the Webkinz universe he made me perform the necessary transactions, and then promptly forgot about it. (Poor little Meow-Meow is probably drawing her last breath, abandoned in her virtual Webkinz world.) His computer use is limited mostly to watching short videos on the web, which he commands us to find for him. He can manipulate the trackpad to hit play, but that's about all he can or wants to do. This is fine by me. I'm confident that he will grow up far more versed in computer technology than either of us, and I don't see the rush to get him into it. Besides, at his level, the games and videos are just another version of screen entertainment. (Or, in the case of Webkinz, another method of encouraging mindless consumerism.) We limit him to one or two TV shows a day; why would we then push him to get online and be bombarded with more stimuli? Even if the online world he discovered was, let's say, rich with interactivity and skill-building and all those good things, isn't there time for that later? As he grows he'll have plenty of opportunity to explore the Fabulous World of Computers, but the time for playing with blocks and imagining that our sunroom is a galactic space port is now. Scott, on the other hand, frets because many of Henry's peers can log on to the computer themselves, find their favorite websites, and immerse themselves in interactive environments, all with minimal assistance. Henry, on the other hand, will sit at the computer and shout SOMEONE GET ME LEGOS DOT COM. Computers will play an important role in his life, and Scott thinks we're not giving him the head start he needs. We had a fairly intense discussion about this for a while. I expressed my points clearly and calmly, and Scott shrieked like a prepubescent girl. Between you and me, this is the way most of our arguments go. It seems that Scott's not the only parent wondering if their children need more computer time to survive in this plugged-in world. In his Wall Street Journal blog, Jason Fry talks about his own little computer naïf, and wonders if he's doing him a disservice."The worry I can't shake," writes Jason." is this: that in trying to protect what I see as simpler, sweeter days for Joshua, I'm really trying to preserve a museum of my own childhood. It's my job to prepare him for the world he'll inherit -- and since computers and the Net will be part of that world, I'm neglecting a key portion of that task." I see his point, but I maintain that there's world enough and time for all that, down the road. But am I wrong? It would be the first time. I checked online to see if I could find the experts' opinion. I found that the general consensus out there seems to be… well, there's no general consensus. Computers are either a useful tool or another entertainment crutch, depending on who you read. Most agree that three and under is too young for the computer. (But at the age of three, you strap them to the computer until they've mastered CSS programming! Is that what you'd like, SCOTT?) After three, the experts diverge. The primary argument against encouraging early computer use is that the more time you spend in front of the computer, the less time you have for unstructured play. Kids are already overscheduled and overstimulated; what they need is not computer literacy but open stretches of time to create, to dream, to imagine. The importance of creative play was discussed in a recent NPR segment, in which a cognitive skill called "executive function" was described as being developed during unstructured play. An important element of executive function is self-regulation, or "the ability for kids to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline … Good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ." On the other hand, a study performed a few years ago showed that students with early exposure to computers excelled compared to their computer-unsavvy peers. "Those exposed to a home or school computer either alone or with someone else three to four times a week scored higher on tests that gauge school readiness and cognitive development than non-users." Other studies have found that computer use in children can improve their fine motor skills as well as their recognition of numbers and letters. So, if we're to believe the research, if your child is computer-savvy, she'll have no impulse control and few social skills; on the other hand, if you don't encourage computer use in your preschooler, he'll end up way behind all those socially unskilled kids. In other words, I don't think there's a right answer. It's not worth freaking out about if your kid isn't into the computer (ahem, Scott); nor are you depriving your kid of childhood if he's computer-literate at the age of four. What do you think, dear audience? Scott's wrong and I'm right, right? I thought so. ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.1017 2008-03-28T16:36:18Z 2008-03-28T16:41:27Z

The New York Times this week profiled Billy Wolfe, a high school sophomore who has been the target of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of his classmates. Three years ago, for whatever mysterious, cruel reason, the school bullies...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ Billy Wolfe, a high school sophomore who has been the target of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of his classmates. Three years ago, for whatever mysterious, cruel reason, the school bullies determined that he was unacceptable. Since then he has been beaten and terrorized, again and again. The parents have documented the assaults, kept careful records, and complained repeatedly to school officials, but still they continue. After Billy was beaten in shop class, a school official refused to call the police, because "it looked like Billy got what he deserved." In an MP3 that goes along with this story, Billy recounts another time he was beaten and threatened and the assistant principal told Billy's mother there was nothing he could do. This sort of thing, the assistant principal explained, happens "all the time." "I guess death threats are normal," Billy says quietly. Sadly, Billy Wolfe is hardly alone. There's an epidemic of bullying, and it's only getting worse. It's estimated that 160,000 children in the United States miss school each day as a result of being bullied. Parents who dismiss bullying as part of childhood are playing a dangerous game. Children who are bullied suffer long-term physical and emotional damage; they're at risk for suicide as well as violent acts. (The perpetrator of the Virgina Tech massacre was a bullying victim, as were many other school shooters.) Adding to the emotional and physical abuse that can occur in real life, there's now cyberbullying. (Even adults—hello, fellow bloggers!—are all too aware of how much easier it is to be cruel when you're not face-to-face with your victim.) According to author and psychologist Dr. Michele Borba, bullying these days is "far more intense, far more relentless and occurs at younger ages," than before. The bullies, meanwhile, need help just as much as the bullied. It's easy to demonize them, but we should all realize that 1) they're troubled, and 2) they may just be our kids. A recent study showed that most children bully others at some point. Over a third of kids surveyed said they bullied at a moderate level throughout school. And bullies suffer from their misdeeds: just like their victims, they have an increased risk of depression and suicide; in addition, they are more likely to be convicted of crimes in adulthood. The problem of bullying doesn’t end with graduation, either: a recent survey showed that 37% of American workers reported being bullied on the job. These adult bullies' assaults may be more subtle, but being terrorized emotionally can wreak even more long-term havoc than being punched. Workplace bullying has been found to be more emotionally damaging than sexual harassment, possibly because sexual-harassment victims have more recourse. Verbal and psychological abuse can cause workers to spiral into depression and even leave their jobs. Some states are pursuing anti-bullying legislation to protect workers, but just as in schools, a bullying environment is often seen as part of the workplace culture. It's how things are, and if you can't take the heat, you know where to go. It's this acceptance of bullying that leads to its pervasiveness. The bullying expert Dr. Warren Blumenfeld observes in one article that "the culture has to see bullying as a problem of society, not just a youthful problem that will go away…We need to look at systemic reasons why people are perpetrating violence." The increasing problem of workplace bullying shows how true this is. Bullying doesn't go away: it changes. And no matter when it occurs, it can have a devastating effect on all parties. It's clear that bullying has to be addressed early and aggressively; there are several anti-bullying campaigns and programs being used in schools, but no real studies yet on their effectiveness. Meanwhile, what can the parents of bullied children do? In Billy's case, The parents are pursuing what they believe is their only recourse: suing the bullies. In addition, they're considering suing the district. To my mind, the school should have been the sole focus of their lawsuit: under Title IX, schools are legally obligated to create a non-hostile environment for all children. It's obvious from the response of Billy's school administration that they failed utterly in that task. And in doing so, they've harmed both the bullied and the bullies. As always, please share your thoughts and personal experiences. ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.982 2008-03-14T16:03:26Z 2008-03-14T16:27:33Z

A California appellate judge ruled that according to state law, homeschooling is illegal. Californian homeschoolers everywhere are surprised to hear that they've been flouting the law since the 1950s, but that, at least according to Judge H. Walter Croskey, is...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ homeschooling is illegal. Californian homeschoolers everywhere are surprised to hear that they've been flouting the law since the 1950s, but that, at least according to Judge H. Walter Croskey, is the case. Needless to say, this news is unnerving to homeschoolers in California—as well as the rest of the country's homeschooling community, who fear that some kind of weird precedent is being set. The news began with a single case of alleged child abuse. At least one of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, residents of Los Angeles, filed an abuse complaint with the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services. (I read elsewhere that two or more of their children claimed emotional and physical abuse by the father, but I'm not 100% on those sources.) DCFS found out that the kids were being homeschooled by their mother, who apparently does not have even a high school diploma, and was not able to educate her children at the appropriate level. So DCFS asked the courts to rule that the children must be enrolled in a public or private school. After the lower court denied the ruling, the case was appealed. And thus it found its way to Judge Croskey, in appellate court. Judge Croskey took a close look at state law, and found that, by law, parents have to enroll their kids in a school or be state-credentialed teachers themselves. So in his finding, he took an isolated claim of abuse and turned it into a sweeping condemnation of homeschoolers. That's the most galling part in all this: that instead of focusing on what's best for this family, the judge has used the case to bring down an entire institution. And for what purpose? Forcing school on families won't necessarily protect children. As Leslie Buchanan, president of the HomeSchool Association of California, states, "Public schools are not a solution to the problem of child abuse." Certainly abused children can be found in every demographic and in any kind of educational set-up. I'm sure there are many cases of abuse where the child was a public-school student. Abusers have a way of isolating even the kids who aren't kept at home to learn. Most of all, I feel pity for Judge Croskey. You poor man. Of all the people to take on, you had to choose homeschoolers. Around 200,000 children are currently homeschooled in California. That means there are many many homeschooling parents angry with you right now, Judge Closkey, and you are making the wrong people mad. These parents have powers you couldn't even fathom. Most average humans can't teach their kids to operate a zipper, and these people are preparing their kids for college. The average parent falls to pieces at the end of a long weekend with the kids, yet these homeschooling super-beings have the intestinal fortitude to spend all day, every day with their (often numerous) children. And they're organized. They have, like, associations, and leagues, and whatnot. Think they won't start a letter-writing campaign? That's their idea of recreation. You messed with the wrong people. And don't get me started on those homeschooled kids. You think the parents are trouble? The kids, they're self-motivated. And they will get you. They will make the biggest marshmallow catapult you could imagine, and launch it right at your office. They will construct a Rube Goldberg device that can boil noodles, overturn your court decision, and give you an unflattering haircut before you even know what hit you. They will compose devastating Spenserian sonnets about your nonsensical ruling. Then they will construct a new court made entirely of popsicle sticks! And, hmm, insert another thing here that I imagine homeschoolers do! So what's next for California homeschoolers? With Schwarzenegger denouncing the decision and most state officials echoing his sentiments, the ruling seems unlikely to hold up. And even if it isn't overturned, how are they going to regulate it? Who's going to check on those hundreds of thousands of parents whose kids are being taught at home? Will they need to hire thousands of truant officers to deal with the logistical nightmare this decision seems to propose? As always, your thoughts on this ruling, whether or not you're a homeschooler, are welcome. ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.964 2008-03-07T17:16:27Z 2008-03-07T17:41:12Z

The New York Times magazine this week covered the single-sex public education movement. Of course single-sex education is nothing new—just ask parochial and private school students. But as stories crop up of how our school system fails boys and girls,...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ single-sex public education movement. Of course single-sex education is nothing new—just ask parochial and private school students. But as stories crop up of how our school system fails boys and girls, the idea of segregating students in public schools by sex is gaining credibility. In the story, Weil describes single-sex education advocates as falling into two camps: those who think boys and girls have different social needs, and those who believe boys and girls' brains develop differently. Into the latter category she places Leonard Sax, head of NASSPE, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education. Sax has posted an interesting rebuttal of Weil's article, in which he argues that the "two camps" idea is simplistic and not representative of his beliefs. According to Sax, the NYT story is rife with this sort of mischaracterization, He has compelling enough arguments that I hesitate to provide Weil's version of his movement. Her story doesn’t seem to provide a balanced view of his research. On the other hand, I can't be sure that a truly impartial account would award Sax any more credit. Weil clearly favors the social arguments for single-sex education, and I can see the appeal. By removing the opposite sex, these schools create a haven from the increasing pressure to be sexual at a younger and younger age. This pressure is even more intense on low-income minority students, who, not surprisingly, are often the targets of single-sex public education. The Young Women's Leadership School of East Harlem is one such school, and it boasts impressive statistics: 97% of their students graduate, and 100% of their graduates are accepted to college. One teacher from the school is quoted as saying, "It’s my subversive mission to create all these strong girls who will then go out into the world and be astonished when people try to oppress them." Who wouldn’t want to cheer for that? The danger with this new movement is that failing schools sometimes grab on to the single-sex concept without considering the other reasons such schools might work. In Georgia, Greene County will soon change all their schools to single-sex classrooms—a move borne of desperation, as test scores plummet and dropout and pregnancy rates soar. This seems to be missing the point: just separating the boys from the girls doesn't go far enough. After all, the single-sex schools that flourish do so not just because boys and girls have been separated, but because their students are held to exceptionally high standards. In concluding her story, Weil argues that single-sex environments deprive students of the whole point of public education: "commonality, tolerance, and what it means to be American." What do you think? Is the co-ed experience so valuable for girls and boys? Personal experiences as well as opinions are welcome, so comment away! ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.923 2008-02-29T17:15:25Z 2008-02-29T17:23:36Z

The New York Times, that bastion of meaningful news, published a story yesterday on how cosmetic companies and retailers are targeting six- to nine-year-old girls. Salons for little girls are springing up around the country, apparently, with parents hosting "beauty...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ cosmetic companies and retailers are targeting six- to nine-year-old girls. Salons for little girls are springing up around the country, apparently, with parents hosting "beauty primping parties" for daughters and their friends. The demographic the Times targets with this type of story is obviously quite small—a privileged minority, usually urban. One gets the feeling that the reporter saw a bunch of young girls piling into the elevator in her building, admiring their manicures, and thought, now there's a story. I doubt that the majority of parents out there would be able or want to pay $150 for "pink limo service," so that their daughters can arrive at the salon in style. I'm not saying there's no cause for concern: the very existence of kiddie salons, however prevalent they may be, is fairly disturbing. Girls have always been more than a little fascinated with makeup and the other rituals they associate with womanhood. This is nothing new, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. (It's not just the girls, by the way—Henry will often grill me about what I'm doing to my face, ask to check out my lipstick or have a swipe of powder. Of course he calls it "disguise paint," but then, isn't it? Last summer he asked for blue toenails—which, he decided, made him look like a rock star. (He was going through a glam-rock phase.) ) The problem is not the makeup or nail polish per se, but that the products and services are now being targeted to little girls. Once the message is sent out that it's legitimate for little girls to concern themselves in these matters, beauty and upkeep leave the realm of playacting and become a real area of concern for girls. The message: this isn't just fun—it's necessary. Rosalind Wiseman, author of Queen Bees and Wannabes, is quoted in the story, and she sums it up perfectly: "It’s one thing to have them play around with makeup at home within the bubble of the family. But once it shifts to another context, you are taking away the play and creating a consumer, and frankly, you run the risk of having one more person who feels she’s not good enough if she’s not buying the stuff." Just the idea of letting your kid go to a nail salon is, in my opinion, a tad horrifying. I think what bothered me most about this article was the picture accompanying it: the little girls having their toes worked on, looking completely at ease with adult women kneeling before them. The first time I had a pedicure I was in college, and I found it to be disconcerting, to say the least. I like the way the pedicure looks, but lord I hate getting them, and not just because I'm incredibly ticklish (although that's certainly part of it). Having someone literally kneeling at my feet or hunched over my hands and serving me makes me squirm. Especially when it's something I could do at home. Not as well, mind you, but I could do it. And I don't think the experience would have seemed to strange to me if I had started getting them at a young age. I think if I had been six the first time I had my nails done, I might not have accepted the imbalance of the exchange; I might have assumed this was acceptable because the grown-ups were doing it, and I wouldn't have taken a step back to look at what was really going on. I would hesitate to introduce an activity into my child's life that acclimates her to being waited on in such a manner. Not to mention, nail salon workers are typically underpaid, overworked, and risking their health through constant exposure to dangerous chemicals. That's not a practice I wish to support. The sanitary practices at most nail salons are often questionable, and the risk of infection is too high. Given all that, if my kid wants to wear nail polish, I don't see why it has to be applied by anyone but me. And you, dear readers? What do you think? Is taking your kid for a pedicure a harmless afternoon of fun, or a dangerous message? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.904 2008-02-22T17:58:05Z 2008-02-22T17:59:23Z

Well! Hey! You sure do have some, you know, opinions about circumcision! Don't you! Wow! And there's nothing wrong with that. Please don't hurt me. And now, let's back away slowly from all controversial parenting topics, shall we? New topic...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ so many people praying for me, you guys. I'm totally going to heaven! The good heaven, too, where you get to watch 30 Rock and eat all the Snickers bars you want.) Back to the topic at hand, which I see I haven't yet mentioned: the hidden dangers. Of what, you may ask? Of everything. It appears that our children are surrounded by toxins. Steeped in carcinogens. Soaking in chemicals. Which I guess means that we are, too, only we don't matter as much because our brains are already full grown, and let's face it, we're not getting any smarter. Let's worry about the children, who I believe are our future. For instance, have you heard of Bisphenol A? Here's a chemical that's found in water bottles, food and beverage can linings, and dental sealants—and it doesn't stay there. No, Bisphenol A, or BPA, tends to migrate out of the bottles or cans and into the water or food contained therein. But once it's ingested—which apparently it is, regularly—is it harmful? That's the topic being debated. Not surprisingly, manufacturers of plastic bottles and canned foods argue that the levels of BPA that can be ingested are safe. Studies, however, show otherwise. BPA levels have been linked to ovarian dysfunction and increased miscarriage rates, as well as significant risks to infants and unborn children. More studies need to be performed; we don't know enough, but what we do know doesn’t bode well. So in the meantime, here's an excellent guide to BPA-free baby bottles and sippy cups. Speaking of sippy cups: they're not just for chemical-leaching anymore! No, sippy cups also cause speech problems. Thumb sucking can cause similar problems, with the presence of either the thumb or the sippy cup spout putting the child's tongue in an unnatural position. As a result, your child might have speech problems such as slurring or lisping. The expert's recommendation? Encourage the use of a straw, and prevent thumb sucking by putting mittens on your infant. (Good luck on that last one.) Okay, maybe that item wasn’t as scary, but this next one will terrify you. Your baby's baby shampoo is DEADLY! Yes! Let me explain. Your baby's shampoo or lotion or powder probably contains phthalates, which are bad. More specifically, some of them, but not all, have been linked to endocrine disruption in animals. And after all, babies are small animals! So phthalates are bad bad BAD. And the fragrances in your baby products may contain phthalates, but you'll never know because they're not listed in the ingredients, because specific components of fragrances don't have to be listed. Incidentally, we have no real clue if phthalates are bad for you, or not. The levels found in babies appear to be far lower than should warrant any kind of concern. But we are concerned. And you should be, too! BoooOOOOOooooo! Phthalates! In conclusion: BPAs are bad; straws are good; mittens are silly; phthalates are something we can worry about later. I think we can all agree on these points, yes? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.867 2008-02-15T16:42:31Z 2008-02-22T23:15:10Z

It's the day after Valentine's Day, and I'm thinking about circumcision. I assure you this is a coincidence. So! Those of us who have birthed baby boys are faced with the inevitable question: to snip or leave intact? In most...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ complete moron, but I had only a vague sense of how heated the debated had become. The arguments against circumcision run the gamut from it being an unnecessary removal of part of a healthy organ, to the idea that it can cause significant disfigurement and impairment of sensation. Mothers Against Circumcision argues that circumcision does far more harm than good, with complications being vastly underreported. What to believe? Recent studies have shown that AIDS HIV transmission is much less likely among circumcised males. (The risk of infection, however, is actually increased if recently circumcised men don't wait until the wound is healed to resume sexual activity. Ow.) Other studies have shown circumcision is associated with lower rates of other sexually transmitted diseases and infections; the risk of penile cancer is reported as three times higher for uncircumcised men. Circumcision opponents, however, believe these studies are nothing more than scare tactics. In fact, the organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision implies that circumcision makes transmission of AIDS HIV more likely. The American Academy of Pediatrics is of little help in the matter, having taken a more-or-less neutral stance on the matter. Their conclusion is that although there may be benefits to circumcision, it should be a personal decision and not a routine procedure. By no means do they characterize circumcision as abusive or damaging. So, dear readers, what's your take on the issue? Did you have to make this decision, and if so, which way did you go? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.856 2008-02-08T18:26:19Z 2008-02-08T18:45:55Z

I've been thinking about the practice of redshirting: postponing your child's entrance into kindergarten to give him or her an academic or social edge. I'm not considering it for my son, mind you: we were spared that decision, because Henry...

Isabel redshirting: postponing your child's entrance into kindergarten to give him or her an academic or social edge. I'm not considering it for my son, mind you: we were spared that decision, because Henry just missed the cut-off date in New Jersey; we're paying for another year of preschool and that's why we can't afford food or socks. I'm thinking about it because whenever I complain about all this tuition we're forced to pay and all the great socks we're missing out on, everyone congratulates me—because giving your child an extra year—especially if your child is a boy child—is seen as the smartest way to go. Usually when people tell me it's for the best, boys need that extra year, I like to respond by shouting, YOU CALLING MY BOY AN IDIOT? And I wonder why people run from me at the playground. Now, If we had stayed in Brooklyn, he would have been well within the cut-off date and he would have attended kindergarten. Am I disappointed that he had an extra year of preschool? A little. Financially, I'm disappointed, of course. But also I'm not sure the extra year has done him a service. He's expressed a great deal of impatience with preschool. It is, according to Henry, a baby school with baby activities. For the first time, he doesn't want to go to school because it's boring. I was excited for him to be the oldest-- he was the youngest for two years in preschool, and I watched the older kids leaving him out of their games and it broke my heart—but he doesn't actually get that much out of it. The thrill of having all the younger kids look up to him has worn off, and now he just thinks they're, well, boring. (Sorry for being redundant, but it's a word I hear all too frequently.) On the other hand, I wonder whether the extra year will pay off in the long run. I must admit that I'm glad Henry won't be the smallest boy in the class when he enters public school. I mean, he'll be able to handle his switchblade so much better next year. (Ha! Heeerrgh. Ahem.) Let's face it, kindergarten isn't what it was when we were youngsters. Here's what I remember from kindergarten: we ate paste while the teacher wasn't looking. I got into trouble for blowing bubbles in my milk. We played follow the leader, and I got distracted and wandered off. Is it any wonder I almost failed? My kindergarten report card is still a topic of amusement in my family. Knows full name and number? NOPE. Can tie shoes? NUH-UH. Follows directions? ALMOST NEVER. Calls the teacher Mommy? WHY, SURE! If kindergarten were still like that, hell, Henry could have entered at age 3 and blown my record right out of the water. But these days the children are expected to learn, you know, things. They're learning how to read and write, they're getting started on foreign languages, they're expected to sit at desks, and I'm fairly certain that they learn how to drive. Henry's getting an extra year of running around, and given his energy level, that's a good thing. I'm especially glad we switched him to a preschool that's a little more sedate and rigid (and, well, boring) than his last one, which was an action-figure-strewn free-for-all. Had we not had this extra year, kindergarten might have come as a terrible shock. What do you mean, there are no Power Rangers here? What circle of hell have I descended to? So yeah, the extra year might do him good. And I know plenty of parents whose kids just made the cut-off date, but were smaller statured or shy or just needed more time to mature, and in that case waiting does make more sense. But it's when parents use redshirting as some kind of strategic move for their child's future greatness that I start to wonder where they're coming from. Your kid was ready, but you want him to be readier? Or you just want him to win? Why don't you wait four years? Five? THEN he'll have the real advantage. He'll kick those five-year-olds to the curb! Literally! And according to some experts, leaving your kid behind a year doesn't put them at a long-term advantage. Beth Graue, a professor in the UW-Madison Department of Curriculum and Instruction, says that the advantages the older children enjoy disappear after a couple of years. "Meanwhile, 'redshirts' have higher-than-expected placement in special education and more social, emotional, and disciplinary problems." In other words, they become the understimulated, oversized bullies. Then there are the larger ramifications, which are summed up neatly on this site. First of all, people who hold their children back are more like to be well-off. What does that mean for the poorer families, who can't afford not to send their kids to public school for an entire year? It means that children who are already at risk face a further disadvantage. Also, the older the children entering kindergarten become, the more the curriculum will alter to serve them, leaving five-year-olds in the dust. The long-term result: "The kindergarten program will become developmentally inappropriate for the very young children it is meant to serve." But then, it's hard to factor in what's good for Society when your child's well-being is at stake. So what did you do think? Do you leave your kid back, or throw him in when the district says he's ready? ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.849 2008-02-01T17:01:11Z 2008-02-01T17:22:19Z

Ladies! Has your monthly time been a period of shame and hiding? Well! It turns out that menstrual blood is much more than womanly offscourings. Hide no longer, and rejoice in that precious Red Gold spilling forth from your parts....

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ C'elle, a service that will collect your menstrual fluid and extract stem cells from them. Calling menses "your monthly miracle," the site exults, "… menstrual stem cells are unique because they have many properties and characteristics similar to both bone marrow and embryonic stem cells; they multiply rapidly and can differentiate into many other types of stem cells such as neural, cardiac, bone, fat, cartilage and possibly others…" When you subscribe to the C'elle service, you receive menstrual cups and collection tubes; you gather your monthly winnings and then deposit them in the Cryo-Cell bank. (By the way, check out the introductory video on this site. Then tell me that British accent is real.) For this privilege, you will pay $499 per specimen, plus $99 for each year of storage. Okay, the idea seems snicker-worthy, but is it as silly as it sounds? First, let's take a step back and talk about stem cells. If you've been wondering, what's a stem cell again? Why's everyone want them so bad and stuff?, here's a brief explanation. Feel free to write this on your hand, if you need to. Stem cells serve as a kind of repair system for the body. They are the only type of cell that can proliferate, or replicate many times over. They're unspecialized, which means that they don't exist for any single purpose. It's like they're unemployed, but multitalented. Because of their many talents and their ability to replicate like crazy, they can fill in for other cells that have been damaged or destroyed. Although they are by nature unspecialized, they can actually become specialized. No one is precisely sure how this process (called differentiation) occurs. Scientists have been able to create differentiation, but that particular art is still in its preliminary stages. If the process were to get nailed down, all types of cell therapies could be created. AND WE WOULD LIVE FOREVER. Now, there's a difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. (Cord blood, incidentally, would be considered "adult." "Non-embryonic" is more accurate, but it's a mouthful.) Adult stem cells are more limited in what kind of cell types they can become. The different types of stem cells and their varying degrees of "potency," or ability to differentiate, is where I get a little woozy, so I'm going to glide right over that. Some cells are more flexible than others, is the basic point. Although, as I said, it may be possible to manipulate cells beyond their natural capability. So let's go back to the above quote, where C'Elle tells us that menstrual stem cells can differentiate like crazy, blar de blar. This is something that adult stem cells do not typically do, remember? Cryo-Cell is basing their enthusiastic claims (and for-profit venture) on a single study coming from Medistem, another biotechnology firm. In November, Medistem reported the discovery of these new stem cells, which reportedly behave like embryonic cells. Now: November, you may think, isn't such a long time ago, and you would be right. You may also think that one study (which, by the way, was performed using the menstrual blood of one woman) may not tell us all we need to know before we start collecting our periods in little cups and shipping them off along with big chunks of our bank accounts. I would agree with you on this. The New York Times reported on these new stem cells, and not surprisingly, experts greeted the news with a dose of skepticism. One of them observed that if the cells from menstrual blood are the ones that are dying, and if you want healthy endometrial cells, you could always get them from a biopsy. So why wouldn't you? The menstrual-blood brouhaha (try saying that three times fast) brings up a larger question: is stem-cell collection this century's snake oil? There are all kinds of companies offering to house our stem cells: cells gathered from cord blood, from your child's baby teeth, from bone marrow. The chances of your needing those stem cells are slim, but according to these companies, they may just save your (or your child's) life. Is it worth it? When private cord-blood banks and the like are profit-driven, can we trust their claims? On the other hand, if you can afford to collect your baby's cord blood (or, okay, your menstrual fluid) and you want that peace of mind, what's the harm? Provide your thoughts in the appropriate spaces below. Or, whoops, above. ]]> tag:www.alphamom.com,2008:/wonderland//9.839 2008-01-25T19:41:40Z 2008-01-25T19:43:48Z

Women's Day magazine and AOL Body (is that a thing, AOL Body? A place people go?) conducted a poll, you guys! A poll! It was on the Inarnet, I think it's called, and women were asked, would they rather have...

Alice http://alphamom.com/wonderland/ broke this story, wasting absolutely no one's time with the shocking news that most women prefer the prospect of financial security over a tight bod. Women would not really do anything for Jennifer Aniston's body. Shocking! We say we're superficial but when push comes to shove, we cave. More shocking still is that women chose the money over the body even though most women described themselves as less than happy with their own physical attributes. Specifically, 30 percent rated themselves "uncomfortable and ashamed." (That's a choice the poll gave. Ashamed. As you should be, if you don't have Jennifer Aniston's body or didn't choose to receive it in some magical fairyland transaction.) 30 percent were ashamed, and yet only 22 percent of women wanted the body. Hmm. All 22 percent, we can only hope, were those ashamed women. And the other eight percent of The Ashamed suffered a blow to the head and forgot what they were supposed to answer. According to The Early Show, some health care professionals are "concerned" about what this says about our priorities. And by "some" they mean the two health-care professionals willing to provide sound bites for the segment. "This survey maybe does suggest that women may be choosing health over wealth," observes clinical psyhcologist [sic] Rene Zweig." Actually if you watch the segment (as, sadly, I did), she actually says, "This survey maybe DOES suggest that women may be choosing health over wealth." So I'm guessing the producer said to her, "Would you say that this survey suggests that women may be choosing health over wealth? And you say…?" while nodding at her. And the psychumoncology lady was all, "Uh, okay, I would say that! It maybe DOES suggest that, sure! Hey, when will this be on?" I don't mean to pick on this one person. Hey, some of us here have been put through the morning-show ringer, found ourselves spitting out exactly what the corporate machine wants us to say, woken up the next morning feeling sick and used. As for the other professional in this piece, dietitian Keri Glass, she tell us, "I think this survey absolutely points to the fact that our values are a little off." I wonder if someone asked her, "Do you think this survey points to the fact that our values are a little off?" I suppose I'll never know for sure. Except I do know, deep in my million-dollar-wanting heart. I realize this isn't the most important news item that's come out this week, but this one stuck in my craw. It's such a perfect, horrifying example of the worst sort of fake news. The fake morning news that's designed to make women feel defensive and awful before they've even finished their breakfasts. (Hope that milk in your bran cereal is fat free, ladies!) There's not a single moment in the segment that isn't insulting to women. The poll itself is insulting, assuming as it does that 1) all women consider Jennifer Aniston's body to be the only one worth having; 2) women are comfortable enough financially that turning down a million dollars for a good body would be even a remote option, 3) the idea of having someone else's body (as opposed to being given an improved version of one's self, or perhaps being given the time and resources to get into shape) isn't inherently creepy. So, Woman's Day and AOL Body, did you find out what the income level of your poll responders were? Whether they're married? Have kids? How old they are? If so, CBS news took no note of it. Given no real information of any value, they chose to conclude from this worthless poll that women wanting money over tautness means they're wrong. The message behind the poll is that having a perfect body is more important than anything else. More important than your future. Than your family's well-being. Not a single word in this segment mentioned any of these possibilities. (Then there's the obvious point that if you have a million dollars, I bet you could afford, you know, a gym membership.) Or that money represents power and freedom, and that women, it turns out, value those more than Anistonal (new word!) perfection. And thank God for that. One wonders (or, okay, I wonder) if CBS wasn't seriously annoyed that they couldn't tell the world that ALL WOMEN WANT TO LOOK LIKE A MOVIE STAR, so they decided to teach us all a little lesson. At the end of the segment, CBS took to the street to ask women what they thought of the poll. I think it's telling that they showed a young woman who concluded that women are "very materialistic." I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe several woman told them just where they could shove their poll, but that wouldn't have fit their message, would it? ]]>