My daughter Annie, who is 5, was waving the bag at me excitedly when I arrived to pick her up from camp yesterday. "Look! Look! Look what I got!" she said, beaming.
Then she opened the bag, and I saw a pile of hard candies.
The day before, she had left with a lollipop.
I understand giving them an ice cream pop--it's hot and humid, kids are running around, and it is the summer. But it seems to me that my kids are being showered with sweets everywhere they go--at camp, at school, at extracurricular activities even. My 10-year-old daughter Emily gets a sucking candy from her piano teacher at the end of every lesson. Of course, she is an absolute sweet hound and is constantly angling for more sweets.
Call me a sugar Scrooge, but in this age of childhood obesity, is it really wise for summer camps to be plying kids--ages 3-6-- with junky treats?
Now both my kids are thin, so it's not like I'm watching their weights, but I do think that this constant doling out of sweets is sending kids a bad lesson about what constitutes fun. And, it's just poor nutrition. Not to mention that giving kids who are 4 and 5 years old sucking candies could be a health hazard (ie. they could choke).
However, I am reluctant to call the camp to complain. I don't want to be one of those meddling moms who is overly involved in the details. I know that giving my daughter candy two days in a row is not such a big deal (the fact is my daughter ate only one of the candies, then was happily sharing them with her sister and her sister's friend.)
But....I see it as part of a larger problem, which, of course, isn't the camp's fault.


Stumble It!

Then my web site went up and the emails from readers started trickling in, many in response to essays I'd written. Smart, thoughtful, literate mail, which often made me think. Do not feel comfortable reprinting the correspondence, but one mom followed up her email to me with a lovely posting on her own blog. Thanks Tracey--you made my day.


Stumble It!

After spending a week in Vermont with my family, I'm once again fantasizing about moving to Vermont permanently.

It's not just that it is beautiful there and that the people are committed to preserving the environment. Or that even small towns are cultured and progressive (there are bookstores in some of the most remote locations, whereas the New Jersey town I live in--just 30 minutes from Manhattan--doesn't have a single bookstore on its Main Street.)

It's the fact that when I'm in Vermont, I can literally feel the stress leave my body. No place we visited felt overrun. There was no traffic anywhere. No crowds to fight. And every town seemed to have a real sense of community, as well as gorgous scenery.

I know that whenever we come home from a vacation, I always feel this post-vacation blues. It's hard to come back to "real life." My husband thinks I have the "grass is always greener" syndrome. But I really do feel like Vermont would offer me with what I've always wanted--to live in a town that has a real sense of community, values books and ideas, but also offers lots of space. But I do wonder: Would Vermont with chores, car pools, deadlines, and work be as stressful as my life now? And, how could my husband and I make living in Vermont feasible?


Stumble It!

We're finishing up a week's vacation in Vermont. What a blissful place. During the summer, it is incredibly quiet and peaceful. You won't encounter the throngs you find at beach towns; and virtually every town has exquisite scenery.

One of the highlights was a day we spent in Woodstock. Our first stop was at the village green where we had a picnic lunch while we listened to a local band perform. The music was so-so, but sitting in the grass in the middle of this picture perfect New England town, on a beautiful summer day, we all enjoyed ourselves.

Our next stop was the Billings Farm, a working dairy farm and a museum about agricultural life in Woodstock. It has an interesting history: George Marsh, the original owner of the farm in the 1800s, is considered one of the first environmentalists in the U.S. Frederick Billings, who bought the farm from Marsh, set out to turn the farm into a model of responsible stewardship.

His granddaughter, Mary, married a Rockefeller, and together they turned the farm into a national historical park of which the Billings Farm is one part. (The park is billed as the only national park that tells the story of conservation history.)

When we visited, the farm had all sorts of activities for families. There was a demonstration of how cows are milked. There was an art project in which kids learned how to make dolls out of corn husks. And there was a tour of the 1890 farm house, the highlight of which was the fresh ice cream sold right outside.

We only skimmed the surface of this wonderful place. I'm told that the tour of the mansion is terrific.

But we wanted to spend the rest of the day swimming. We drove to Woodstock's Farmer's Market to pick up a picnic dinner. The gourmet market, just on the outskirts of town, had a selection that rivalled our local Whole Foods. Then we drove to Plymouth to the lake inside the state park.

This lake has a large beach, with boat rentals, a concession stand, a playground, and lots of trees and picnic tables. We arrived there late afternoon, just when it was clearing out. We stayed until past 7 p.m., swimming, eating, playing frisbee, and generally enjoying ourselves.

My husband and I pulled our chairs up to the water's edge. Staring up at the mountains, while our kids happily splashed around in the water, we knew we were having one of those perfect family experiences.

"Can we do this again?" our 10-year-old said, as we loaded up the car to leave later. "That was so much fun!"


Stumble It!

This past weekend, we picked up my 10-year-old daughter, Emily, from sleep away camp, and once again we were a family of 4. I'd written in an earlier post about how I'd noticed that my younger daughter, Annie, behaved quite differently--more gregarious, more fun-loving-- when her big sister was away.
Now that Emily is home, I see she has moved a little back into her sister's shadow. I don't want to overstate the differences. Annie is hardly a wall flower around her sister, and as the younger child, she gets plenty of attention . But I know that Emily more often takes center stage just by virtue of the fact that she is older and speaks more eloquently (Annie is only five years old). We have lots of extended conversations with her. With Annie, not as much, at least not when her sister is around.
During a car ride this morning, Emily was chatting away about her camp experience, and my husband and I were asking lots of questions. When I realized that Annie was just sitting quietly in the backseat, I tried to turn the conversation to her and began asking her to tell us about her camp. She clammed up.
I know that I acted (and still behave) a little differently around my siblings, and it was hardly a tragedy. And I don't want to be overly dramatic here--she is only five years old and probably will grow into the person she is, regardless of her sister. But I don't want her to feel she is pigeonholed in the family or that she can't be the person she wants to be at home. So, I'm working on sorting through this dynamic I see.
Which means every once in a while saying, "Emily, be quiet. Let your sister talk!"
Stumble It!

The other day I read a press release that caught my eye: Cartoon Network is giving out generous grants of thousands of dollars to schools whose kids write letters about why recess should be preserved, or as the network put it, "rescued." Turns out it's part of a larger campaign against childhood obesity called "Get Animated," which the Cartoon Network launched a few years back. That program promotes kids making healthy food choices, getting physically active, and becoming involved in their communities.

I was curious. Why would a children's network, which makes its money by creating programming that keeps kids glued to the TV and is filled with ads exhorting viewers to eat all kinds of sugary, nutritionally deficient treats, launch a campaign that tells kids to do the opposite?

So I put in a call to Dennis Adamovich, senior vice president of marketing at the Cartoon Network. "There is much more pressure around childhood obesity these days. There is a lot of awareness. We wanted to be responsible. We didn't jump into this. We tried to really think about how we could make an impact," he says, noting that the Cartoon Network formed an advisory board which includes representatives from the National PTA. "We're trying to be responsible. We're not saying, 'Don't watch TV.' It's all about striking the right balance."

Seems to me that this is part of a larger trend. In the midst of record oil prices (and profits), one of the oil companies, BP, is preaching energy conservation and alternative sources of energy; and wasn't Philip Morris doing public service campaigns against smoking? And has't Ronald McDonald also been urging kids to exercise?

So are these do-good campaigns really just a cynical attempt to clean up their image? And should we care?

After all, if the Cartoon Network's "Get Animated" public service announcements actually inspires some kids to exercise and eat fruits and veggies, isn't that a good thing? And if this latest effort actually convinces some school districts not to cut back or eliminate recess (as many are now doing, as the demands of preparing for standardized tests have kicked in), should we, as parents, support it?
Stumble It!

USA Today ran a big story today about research by the National Marriage Project, which found that American culture is becoming more adult-focused "after being child-centered for decades."
According to the USA today report, the "non-partisan" National Marriage Project found that "longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness" are making child-rearing a minor aspect of society. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's codirector, was quoted as saying "it's almost as if raising children which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life."

Sounds unsettling, raising the spectre of Vulgaria....That grim little town in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," the fictitional city that banned children and employed a creepy-looking Child Catcher to imprison them.

Except the report by The Marriage Project was entirely misleading.

What's happening is our society is aging and life expectancies have increase....so there are many more households of elderly people with no kids at home...Doesn't mean they didn't raise kids or are not still devoted to them.

In fact, all you have to do is look around and you see a culture far more dedicated to making life pleasant for children. Movie theatres now offer showings just for moms and infant. Pediatric dentists (did they even exist in the 1970s??) now offer games, videos, and all kinds of toys and rewards for their patients. Even high priced restaurants and hotels (the kind that parents wouldn't have brought their kids to decades ago) have kids' menus. It's not unusual to see parents bring their darlings to spas, Hollywood premieres, and art openings.

So what's going on with this National Marriage Project? Well google this organization, and you'll find they are far from "non-partisan," despite being housed at Rutgers University. They are squarely in the pro-marriage camp, you know the ones who said that kids would be much better off if the federal government put policies in place to encourage those moms on welfare to get married. As if single mothers were just being selfish and rejecting perfectly decent men. Stumble It!

Sometimes, as a journalist who frequently writes about parenting issues, I get a big dose of guilt, feeling that I'm contributing to parents' anxieties and confusion. Today was one of those days. I woke up this morning to find an email from a parent, who had read an interview I had conducted with a reading expert about what the latest research tells us about how children learn to read. (Ran in August 2006 issue of Child; unfortunately, no online link available to the article.)

A big focus of the article was why literacy rates in this country have barely budged in forty years, and the expert I interviewed--Reid Lyons, who until recently was the top literacy expert in federal government-- argued it was because so many schools teach reading poorly.

He argued that instead of focusing on social skills, preschools should be teaching kids basic literacy skills--phonemic awareness (which sounds letters make), letter recognition, etc.

Well, this parent confessed to me that after reading the article, she had dashed home and tried to play an ABC game with her 3 year old, who refused to focus. "It was a miserable failure," she said.

That's when I really felt guilty. I've read those articles ], which told me all the things I needed to be doing to make sure my kid didn't develop emotional problems, dangerously low self esteem, or poor academic habits. I never wanted towrite one of those stories that sensationalized, or made parents fret and worry.

Here's the problem: The parents who are neglecting their kids and are failing to give them a nurturing, enriching home environment probably aren't reading my articles in Child magazine. And the parents who are reading them probably aren the ones who don't need to. Does this make sense?

Not too long ago, I also interviewed Kathy Hirsh Pasek about her book, Einstein Doesn't Use Flashcards (think that was the title). Her basic argument: Parents need to just encourage their kids to play---and stop force feeding children "educational" toys, like those dreaded flash cards. This cult of achievement is driving parents, and kids, crazy.

And today I apologize for inadvertently contributing to that.


Stumble It!

So New York magazine's cover story is all about the latest research on happiness. A lot of the data in the article was already known--married people, overall, are happier, so are people who are religious and church goers, but having young kids makes people less happy. Yawn.

But buried in the story is the nugget that lots of choices are making people really miserable, leading to self-doubt, angst, even depression.

NY mag played up the fact that New Yorkers live in a city that offers more of everything, speculating that's why people are more neurotic there. Well, a surplus of choices is what defines our entire American culture and the economy. Our supermarkets, department stores, our media, our banks, all offer endless choices. And it is driving us crazy.

I also think the article failed to explore how choices weigh heavily on parents, especially mothers. I truly believe one of the reasons why so many of us are unhappy is because of this gnawing sense that we've made the wrong choices. Whether we're working part-time, full time, from home, or taking time off to raise kids, we worry that we should have been doing something else.
Stumble It!

This month's Child magazine published an essay of mine in which I wrote about the unexpected rewards of traveling alone with my older daughter, Emily. (Sorry, not available online yet.)

What I'd realized was that kids, unlike adults, are constantly evolving, so spending time alone with my daughter--without the distractions of work, another child, a household to run, etc--enabled me to see who she was becoming.

This summer I've had an almost mirror experience with my five year old daughter, Annie--though for different reasons. Emily has been away at sleep away camp, and I've noticed that Annie can behave quite differently when her big sister is not around.

Annie openly adores Emily and wants to do everything she does. No shock there. But when her sister isn't around to take the lead, Annie makes very different choices. She marches on to the dance floor at a huge wedding and insists that Daddy dance with her. She runs up to even distant relatives to say hello.

Just two months earlier, when we were at a wedding, Annie slinked around with her reserved sister during the cocktail hour. When the music started, Emily, who hates to dance and abhors big crowds, refused to budge from her chair, and so did Annie. She sulked and said she wanted to go home. Then Annie did too.

At the wedding we just attended, Annie was like another child --more like herself.

The challenge is, how do we encourage Annie to show more of Annie when her big sister returns?

Stumble It!

Reading about the decision by New York's highest court, rejecting gay and lesbian couples' right to marry, I have to say I am mystified by the court's arguments. The gist of it was that marriage is based on societal goals to protect children.

How does prohibiting two men who love each other from marrying protect kids? Even if you buy the argument that it's always better for a child to be raised by a man and a woman (a notion that is disproven by quite a few studies and by my own eyes, which sees plenty of great gay parents and lousy hetero ones), how does it help a child to prevent his parents from marrying?

Unless the court also intends to prohibit gay and lesbian couples from adopting. Which happens in some states and is an outright disgrace, considering how many kids languish in foster care. And I just do not understand why anyone would think that legalizing gay marriage would weaken hetero unions, or somehow discourage straights from marrying and having kids.

Stumble It!

A couple of days ago, my husband and I took our five-year-old daughter Annie to Sesame Place, a theme park devoted to all things Sesame Street-related.

I'm not a lover of theme parks, and huge crowds can cause me to break out in a sweat, but we'd been feeling that so many of the outings we plan are geared to our older daughter, Emily, 10. When Emily was 4, we'd taken her to Raffi. When she was 2, we even shlepped to Radio City Music Hall to see Barney. But with Annie, we'd skipped those dreaded events, feeling we'd been there, done that.

So Guilt took us, and our daughter, to Sesame Hell on July 3.

What a misery it was for us (me and my husband, not our daughter, who was happy as could be). Crowds galore, jammed into sweaty, long lines for rides. Lots of people crammed into little wading pools, with their babies and toddlers wailing. And for this privilege, we had to empty our pockets. All told we spent more than $200, despite the fact that we bought our daughte rjust one little souvenir (which she adored for all of 20 minutes and hasn't looked at since.)

Looking around at the families, who brought 3, 4, kids with them, spending a small fortune in the process, I had to wonder: Do our kids really need this? Isn't this part of the myth that if we drop a load of money on an overcrowded, overhyped theme park that our kids will somehow be happier for it? Or am I the only person who finds these "child-friendly" experiences grim misery?



I
Stumble It!