ChambanaMoms.com » Sound Off!

Sound Off: Sometimes A Snack Isn’t Just A Snack

Amy L. Hatch — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:41:48 +0000

A bunch of bananas? Or a political manifesto? Credit: Morguefile

By Amy L. Hatch

I’m getting to be an old hand at the “classroom snack” game.

Every month for the past, oh, five years, I’ve been purchasing cheese goldfish crackers in bulk and sending them to school with one or both of my kids. And–brace yourselves–sometimes I send juice, too.

I know! Right? Juice! What a terrible mom I am, terrible parent, for allowing her kid to drink completely undiluted JUICE!

Because as we all know, classroom snacks are not just snacks. Oh, NO. Classroom snacks are political statements.

Juice/no juice. Gluten-free/loaded with carbs. Stuffed with GMOs/totally-organic-and-grown-within-50-miles-and-hand-tended-by-farmers-who-wear-only-homespun-garments.

What you send to that classroom for your child and his or her classmates to consume in between reading lessons and play-dough sessions tells the other moms and dads who you are and (UGH) what your “parenting philosophy” is.

Now, don’t think I’m taking the holier-than-thou stance. I’m not going to tell you that I haven’t been the parent casting a judgmental eye every now and then. Pop Tarts? Doritos? Yeah, I’ve judged those snacks.

“What kind of parent sends (fill-in-the-blank) for snack?!”

And then I slink down the All Carbs aisle at Meijer and grab 30 packs of “fruit snacks” packed with high fructose corn syrup. Hey, my back yard is a corporate-owned corn field, so high fructose corn syrup is, technically, a local food. Right?

Judge not lest ye be judged, Judgy McJudgerson.

Of course we all want what’s best for our kids, especially when it comes to what they consume. With one out of every three American kids suffering from obesity, the food they eat is no small concern. But what about the parents who can’t afford to provide free-range goat cheese and organic sliced red peppers for 30 4-year-olds? I’ve bought 30 bananas before. It ain’t cheap, folks.

And just when does this snack train end, anyways? I don’t think I ever had a snack in school, unless you count the warm carton of milk we had with a graham cracker just before my afternoon kindergarten class was dismissed for the day.

Nowadays, kids have snack time up until high school, it seems. And why do kids need water bottles on their desks? I’ve seen that in some classrooms, too. So they can stay “hydrated.”

I had a water bottle, too — it was also known as “the water fountain.”

If only we were as concerned with the way our schools are being run as we are with the whole-grain ratio in the peanut-free oatmeal granola bars Johnny’s mom dropped off for the second-graders.

I recently received a memo outlining a potential change in the snack policy at the school my children attend, and I had to shake my head when I read all the bullet points that made up the rationale for the change. It read a little bit like a strategy document for the CIA justifying covert actions.

It stressed me out. So I had an inorganic snack, and yelled at some kids to get off my lawn.

Sound Off: Facebook Faux Pas

Amy L. Hatch — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:53:06 +0000

Credit: P i c t u r e Y o u t h, Flickr

By Amy L. Hatch

It’s big news this week–parents are letting their underage kids sign up for Facebook in droves.

The largest social network (its membership clocks in at a healthy 800 million users) has about 7.5 million members under the age of 13, according to a survey from Consumer Reports.

So what, you might ask. Well, here’s the scoop: Facebook rules prohibit children younger than 13 from creating their own accounts. But the numbers tell a very different story.

The survey shows that 84 percent of the 1,000 parents surveyed know about their child’s account (which means almost 20 percent don’t) and 64 percent helped their kid falsify their age.

This is troubling on two levels. First, there are kids out there providing the website with false information on their own and secondly, parents are helping kids lie. Why is this such a big deal? Because Facebook’s 13-and-under rule actually conforms to a Federal law designed to protect kids from online predators.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act was ratified in 2000 and limits the amount of personal information any online service can collect from a child under the age of 13.

And we all know Facebook isn’t mining our personal data or anything, right?

The fact that both parents and kids are breaking the law–or, really, helping Facebook to unknowingly break the law–is troubling. And let’s not overlook the fact that parents are deliberately assisting their children in a subterfuge designed to subvert the rules. And those self-same parents also report being extremely concerned with the online privacy issues that COPPA was designed to address.

Say what? Hmm, I think that’s what they meant when they taught us the word “paradox” for the SAT.

But the question I’m really left asking is why does a kid under 13 need his or her own Facebook account, anyway?

I’m not one of those helicopter parents who fears that every creep in the world is targeting my kid. But are there legitimate reasons for preventing my 6-year-old (or even a 10-year-old) from having her own Facebook account?

You betcha.

It opens the door to a world of information kids just don’t need. They are already flooded–bombarded even–by media. My daughter can navigate Google better than I can and my 3-year-old is a whiz on the iPad.

Now consider this statistic: There are more than 900 million “objects,” defined as pages, groups, community pages and events, available to the Facebook user. Why open another floodgate of potentially questionable content that I couldn’t close even if I threw my entire post-pregnancy weight against it?

Yesterday on WILL-FM, I caught a soundbite about kids and media that took me aback. The guest was talking about children and social interactions, and how it imprints their brains at a young age. Compared to our youth, children have fewer face-to-face social interactions and more digital encounters. Over time, this could change the way our brains mature.

So yeah, I’m gonna pick the real-life play date over a Facebook chat every time.

Barring children from the computer and the Internet isn’t the answer, but striking a balance is a good start–and that may mean respecting Facebook’s terms of use and the Federal law with which those terms comply.

Sound Off: The Brat Ban?

Amy L. Hatch — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:28:32 +0000

Credit: mdanys, Flickr

by Amy L. Hatch

Children should be seen and not heard–at the grocery store, in restaurants, on airplanes or anywhere else the childless might want to go.

That’s the gist of a recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune, which outlines the growing resentment of adults for children in just about any public space. Over the summer a Pennsylvania restaurant banned kids, sparking a debate over how others’ parenting skills (or lack thereof) interfered with the enjoyment of the childless.

The editorial points out that the demographics bear out this new attitude, and that one out of every five women is choosing not to have children. To top it off, the number of empty-nesters is also growing, along with the number of childless couples.

So, we’re back to the Victorian era, when kids should be trotted out for inspection by assorted relatives and important guests and then relegated to dining out solely at McDonald’s and watching movies on Netflix so as never to impose their loathsome selves on the general public?

Look, I get that some places are for adults only. I don’t want to go see an R-rated movie with a two-year-old kicking my seat. I don’t want to spend $150 on a dinner for two while I listen to someone’s 5-year-old moaning about the fact that the menu doesn’t include grilled cheese.

However, that does not give me the right to tell those parents what to do.

Banning kids from public places like planes or grocery stores (I mean, really? I should have to pay a babysitter so I can go buy milk and sliced turkey? REALLY?) isn’t just ridiculous, it’s bad business. While the childless may be on their way to outnumbering us annoying breeders, it seems stupid to eliminate an entire segment of the population that will give you money for your services.

And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–no one feels worse about that misbehaving kid than his or her parent. And this movement seems to condemn all parents before their offspring even has a chance to offend. I’ve boarded many a plane with my kids in tow, and disembarked an hour later with the surprised praise of my fellow passengers.

“Wow, your kids are so well-behaved!” they say, as if it’s a complete shock that anyone is capable of controlling the litte savages.

Yes, there are parents who are over-indulgent. Yes, there are parents who make bad calls about when it’s appropriate to bring their kids to a particular place or event. But the vast majority of us are just doing what the rest of the world is doing–buying food, eating out and getting from one place to another via pubic transportation.

Maybe the brats in this scenario aren’t those in the preschool set.

What do you think about the growing resentment of children in public places?

There Is Such A Thing As A Stupid Question

Amy L. Hatch — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:03:45 +0000

Credit: takomabibelot, Flickr

by Amy L. Hatch

The minute a women gets pregnant, she instantly becomes community property.

Complete strangers feel perfectly comfortable touching your belly. They offer completely unsolicited advice. They share their utterly horrifying, terrifying birth stories – “You wouldn’t believe the size of that tear!” or “And then, I almost died!”

And they ask an awful lot of stupid questions. That doesn’t stop after you give birth, either. I know this from first-hand experience, like the time my mother’s real estate agent asked me why I chose not to breastfeed.

Um, what? I’m sorry, did you just ask me an extremely personal, totally loaded question about the way I provide my newborn child with the sustenance she requires to live?

Of course you did!

I’ve even had people ask me how I “feel about not having a real birth experience” after my c-section. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I did actually give birth.

We heard some doozies this week when we spent some time with Kevin and Sarah at Mix 94.5. Laura’s been asked if her children belong to her because her girls have light hair and hers is dark. She’s also been asked if she’s expecting twins, when she certainly was not.

Were they planned? Oh, she’s adopted? How much did that cost? Are you the nanny? How old were you when you got pregnant?

The list goes on and on. It makes us crazy, and it reflects a deep disrespect not only for our privacy and our feelings, but for women in general. Ever hear anyone ask a dad why he decided to go back to work after the baby came? Nope, didn’t think so.

The best response to an inappropriate comment or question is a snappy response. So we’re asking you to tell us the most annoying or rude question you’ve been asked as a mother — and give us your best come-backs.

Ready, set … GO!

Diet Book For Kids Is A Big Fat Bad Idea

Amy L. Hatch — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:52:02 +0000

Credit: Amazon.com

by Amy L. Hatch

As a writer, a former journalist and an American citizen, I find the idea of censorship to be completely vile. It goes against every belief I’ve ever held dear.

When I was a cocky college student, I’d obnoxiously tell my family members that I was “the personification” of their First Amendment rights.

Today, however, I’d gladly call for a community-wide book-burning ceremony.

What has me so riled, you ask? Oh, just a new diet book.

A DIET BOOK FOR LITTLE GIRLS.

Author Paul Kramer wrote a little ditty about a girl who is too fat. Her classmates tease her. So what does she do? She goes on a diet, of course.

“Maggie Goes On A Diet” hasn’t even been published yet and people with good sense everywhere are calling for a ban on this tome that is expressly geared toward girls ages 4-8. Yes, you heard me, girls who haven’t even passed puberty in the hallway are being sold a bill of goods about how if people tease you for being fat, you shouldn’t turn them in for bullying you — instead you should STOP EATING SO MUCH.

As if being constantly bombarded with the deification of stick-thin models who won the genetic lottery and airbrushed images of women with all of their imperfections erased aren’t enough, now we’re priming our little girls to believe that bullies are perfectly justified when you’re just too fat to be popular.

A woman posting on the Amazon discussion board about this yet-to-be release book said exactly that:

“… as a formerly obese woman, the plot described in recent news articles disturbs me. A children’s book about the benefits of losing weight is a great idea, but the message should focus on health,” she writes. “Kids will still tease other kids, even if they lose weight. Losing weight will not automatically transform an unpopular child into one who is popular or skilled in areas where they have no previous experience.”

Childhood obesity is, without a doubt, a major public-health concern. The data can’t be denied: The Centers for Disease Control reports that childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years. Obesity among kids ages 6 to 11 more than doubled between 1980 and 2008, and right now, 18 percent of children ages 12 to 19 qualify as obese.

This is bad news. We need our kids to be healthy. But you know what? Maggie doesn’t need to go on a diet. Maggie probably needs to go outside and play, but maybe her parents are too scared to let her run around without their supervision but are too busy to watch her. Maybe her father got laid off in the recession and her family can’t afford fresh fruit and produce, which cost a lot more than a meal at a fast-food restaurant.

Maybe Maggie needs the attention of a doctor, but maybe she doesn’t have health insurance.

But the very last thing Maggie needs is to go on a diet.

Kids should have healthy bodies, that much is true and yes, children who qualify as obese should lose weight. But they should do so under medical supervision and with loving, tender care. They should lose weight because that is what is best for their health — not because society thinks it’s OK to make fun of fat people.

Even the cover of this book is offensive: It depicts a frumpy-looking young girl holding up against her body a pretty dress that clearly is too small for her while she gazes into a looking glass.

Maybe Paul Kramer and the insanely deluded team of agents, editors and publishers who helped him get this book on the market are the ones who should spend some time looking in the mirror.

Sound Off: Do You Feel Like A ‘Married Single Mom?’

Amy L. Hatch — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:45:40 +0000

Moms bring home the bacon...and cook it, and then, they clean up, too. Credit: puuikibeach

by Amy L. Hatch

While the playing field may be more even than it was for our mothers, our generation of women are still feeling the pinch when it comes to equality.

A new survey of 1,259 women between the ages of 25 and 40 conducted by ForbesWoman and TheBump.com shows that while 80 percent of those respondents work outside the home, most mothers reported that they are still responsible for the majority of housework and child care.

A majority of working women surveyed (63 percent) said they identified with the statement: “Sometimes I feel like a married single mom.” A whopping 66 percent of stay-at-home moms also agreed.

In addition, 47 percent of working moms said they almost never get a break, but 93 percent reported that their partners do. One out of every five stay-at-home moms said they need a break “all the time” but 50 percent of them say they “never” get one.

Working moms are swamped, that much is clear: 92 percent say they are overwhelmed with workplace, home and parenting responsibilities. Their stay-at-home counterparts report feeling that way, as well, with 89 percent agreeing with that statement.

Partners of working moms should beware, if this survey is any indication of the resentment brewing in their homes. One out of three women say their partners could definitely be more helpful at home and 44 percent of those women are bringing in the majority of their household income.

So, we want to know: Do these results reflect your feelings or are they totally off-base?

The Midwest – Epicenter of Hipster Parents?

Amy L. Hatch — Tue, 17 May 2011 00:45:04 +0000

Credit: patrickreza., Flickr

When you think “hipster,” what state comes to mind?

New York, right? Brooklyn, to be precise. After all, isn’t that the borough that almost had to ban strollers from neighborhood bars? When indie movie stars want to settle down and raise kids, they always pick Park Slope, right?

Or maybe California? Venice Beach probably has its share of hipsters. Maybe Malibu? Or San Francisco? Yeah, totally San Francisco, dude.

But do you ever think hipsters … live in Minnesota?

Well, they do. At least according to Chris Menning over at BuzzFeed, who tucked his tongue squarely in his cheek and did some quick, clever searching on Google to discover that the epicenter of the Hipster Movement sits squarely in our Midwestern neighbor. New York ranks pretty high on the list, coming in a robust No. 2 to top dog Minnesota, and our own home state of Illinois also makes an excellent showing, ranking No. 5 on the list of the top 10 hipster places in the good old U.S. of A.

And even hipsters have kids. In fact, aren’t they kind of the ultimate ironic accessory?

So what do you think? Does Chambana qualify as a Midwestern hipster outpost? What makes Illinois so hip?

Would You Reveal Your Baby’s Gender … With Baked Goods?

Amy L. Hatch — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:00:56 +0000

by Amy L. Hatch

There are lots and lots of opinions out there about revealing your baby’s gender — or even finding out whether you’re having a boy or girl — when you’re pregnant.

Some people are purists, and they wait for that moment when the doctor takes a peek at the goods and announces to one and all present, “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!”

Some people are secret-keepers. They find out the gender with the 20-week sonogram, but they don’t tell anyone. They play it close to the vest and surprise everyone — except themselves — on the big day.

Then there are the blabbers. They can’t wait to find out what flavor they’re getting and they announce it to one and all (and maybe Twitter) the minute that kid lets the tech get the money shot.

We were blabbers. We couldn’t help it, we were so excited. Especially when we found out that our first was going to be a girl. My dad was in the final stages of cancer, and I am so glad we told him he was having a granddaughter and what her name was going to be, because he never met her.

Everyone has their reasons for how they deal with this modern pregnancy dilemma, be they emotional, sentimental, practical (so much easier to shop!) or even religious.

But even I have to draw the line at revealing your kid’s gender with … wait for it … a cake.

I saw this latest trend (fad? craze? sign of the apocalypse?) on Twitter, and I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Yes, my friends, if you weren’t sure how to break the big news to your family and friends, you can have a Baby Gender Reveal Cake Party!

Here’s how they do it: Parents-to-be ask their sono tech to hand them an envelope with the baby’s gender inside. The parents, in turn, hand the envelope to their neighborhood baker. The baker looks in the envelope and bakes a cake, which is tinted either pink or blue.

When mom and dad cut into the confection, all is revealed for one and all to see. Like this:

Seriously, who does this?

Not to judge (oh, hell, I’m judging, whatever), but this takes the current cult of parenting narcissism to a whole new level. Gathering 50 of your closest pals to find out what color you should paint the nursery strikes me as a pretty big leap to make about how many people really give a hoot about your kid’s gender.

I mean, I get that grandma might be pretty psyched. But your neighbor? Not so much.

And let’s examine for a moment, shall we, what happens when that food coloring isn’t the tint you’d hoped for. When we had our second child, I was convinced we were having another girl. That initial shock of seeing boy parts on that screen isn’t something I’d want to share with anyone besides my husband.

And I definitely would not want it recorded and posted on YouTube for posterity.

There are so many private moments that we already share. The lure of posting exciting news — no matter how personal — on Facebook or Twitter can be irrestistible. Pregnancy and birth are custom-made for social media. I mean, we all feel like we’re the first people to ever do it, right? Even when we do it more than once.

It’s fun. It feels good to be the center of attention sometimes. We love our babies and we’re beyond excited about introducing them to the world.

Their big entrance deserves a to be a little more dignified, don’t you think?

Amy L. Hatch is a co-founder and editor of chambanamoms.com, and she does really love cake. She can be reached at amy@chambanamoms.com.

Easy Weeknight Cooking: Low-Fat Baked Beans

How Old Is Too Old For A Pacifier?

Amy L. Hatch — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:37:52 +0000

Credit: sovgunga, Flickr

by Amy L. Hatch

Not too long ago, Suri Cruise, daughter of the (in)famous Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was seen sporting a pacifier.

And, of course, the world exploded.

Because she’s almost 5 years old! And her parents are famous! And maybe a little weird! And they are Scientologists! And rich! And OMIGOD, did we mention that she’s almost 5 YEARS OLD!? And that her parents are weird?

Personally, I think it’s an improvement, considering that not too long ago she was seen hanging on to a bottle — and no, not a bottle of booze. A baby bottle.

But it got us thinking — just when should kids kiss the binky bye-bye? Bottles and pacifiers are soothing mechanisms for so many kids, and plenty of us parents train them to use them as such. Some of the expert opinions vary: According to one expert on BabyCenter, the age of 2 is not too old, but its isn’t “ideal” for kids that age to be using a paci.

BabyCenter’s expert asserts that parents of children who depend on a binky to meet their emotional needs (boredom, sadness, fear) are less tuned into their kids:

The very efficiency with which a pacifier smothers most signs of distress can lessen your inclination to listen to your child. This, in turn, hinders his confidence in his ability to express his needs. What’s more, a child who’s overly dependent on his pacifier may talk less than one whose mouth isn’t always plugged.

I dunno. I don’t buy that, really. Maybe that’s because I had kids who refused to take a pacifier, and who make their needs, wants and desires crrrrrrrrrystal clear at all times. All kids have comfort objects, be it a bottle, a blanket or yes, a binky. My personal opinion is that these objects help them understand how to self-soothe, but I’m no expert … just, you know, a mother.

There can be some physical reasons to quit the pacifier, including dental problems, according to the Mayo Clinic — prolonged pacifier use may cause a child’s top front teeth to slant outward or not come in properly. That institution also asserts that binkies could increase the number of middle-ear infections your babe will come down with, and that it could interfere with breastfeeding.

On the other hand, pacifiers may also prevent the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

So, you’re damned if you do and, maybe, you’re damned if you don’t.

In the end, though, like so many other parenting decisions, how long your kid uses a pacifier is really a personal decision.

Suri Cruise is a little girl who is in the public eye an awful lot, and none of us can really imagine what her life is like. Maybe she needs a little more comfort than most 5 year olds. Maybe her parents pick their battles, like so many of us do.

Maybe they are weird.

Maybe it’s really none of our business.

How long did your kid(s) use a pacifier? Did they give it up on their own? If not, how did you get them to give it up?

No related posts.

In Defense of Natalie Portman

Amy L. Hatch — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:21:48 +0000

by Amy L. Hatch

Credit: jfrancis, Flickr

In case you haven’t heard, Natalie Portman is pregnant.

It really, really makes Mike Huckabee mad. He’s greatly displeased with the new Oscar winner, who stood on stage at this year’s Academy Awards in her purple gown, resplendent with child.

Huckabee finds her single motherhood disturbing. Some say he’s really peeved at someone else entirely, but he chose to take his issues up with the Harvard-educated actress, instead.

Huckabee isn’t the only one who finds Portman’s pride in her belly bump disturbing. Not only is she tearing at the moral fiber of the country, she’s also single-handedly destroying the feminism movement.

Yes, when Portman thanked her partner and fiance Benjamin Millepied during her acceptance speech, she also said he gave her “the most important role of her life — motherhood.”

Hoowee, did that get everyone’s knickers in a bunch!

How dare she imply that motherhood is her ultimate role! How dare she imply that motherhood is in some way sacred!

This is where feminism falls on it’s face.

As far as -isms go, it’s not a bad one. It’s about equality for women, about making sure we’re not treated like chattel, abused or misused, either at home or in the workplace. It’s about fighting for what should be ours by birthright, and, frankly, what was withheld from us for far too long.

But when those who champion women’s rights start attacking their own for being excited by and – gasp! – devoted to motherhood, that’s where things start to fall apart.

Being equal to men doesn’t mean women must eschew their femininity. At it’s heart, the movement is really about giving women freedom and choice — whether that means working out of the home, choosing not to have children, or even embracing motherhood and childbearing wholly and completely.

It’s a sad day, indeed, when a prominent, talented young mother-to-be is pilloried for expressing her heartfelt excitement about having a baby. We can’t even take her remarks at face value — we have to make them into fighting words.

We have to use them as a way to grind an ax — against each other. Here’s what Mary Elizabeth Williams said, over at Salon:

“But is motherhood really a greater role than being secretary of state or a justice on the Supreme Court?”

Creating and then raising a human being is a pretty important gig. So yeah, it is at least as important as being secretary of state. Not to mention that pesky problem of perpetuating the species — if we all stopped bearing children, there would be no one left to be secretary of state.

Seriously? We have to spell this stuff out? It’s silly, it’s stupid and it makes women look foolish.

When will we learn that in order to fight against the machine, we have to be united?

Motherhood and success are not mutually exclusive. We all know that. It seems pretty clear that Natalie Portman knows that, too. It’s doubtful this talented young person will shelve her career to run around Hollywood barefoot, mindlessly popping out babies.

Portman deserves to be happy about being pregnant and becoming a mother. She should see it as one of the most meaningful experiences of her life — simply because it is. I challenge any woman who has experienced childbirth to say otherwise.

Feminism should be about women empowering other women to make the kind of life choices that make them happy, strong and successful – not about tearing down those with whom we might disagree.

Amy L. Hatch is a founder and editor of chambanamoms.com, and she freely admits that she never burned her bra. She can be reached at amy@chambanamoms.com.

No related posts.