The war on food continues with new ammo! I just found an advertisement in my Sunday paper for Whuno Cookies (http://www.whonucookies.com/) and they appear to be the latest thing since sliced bread.
These cookies, which suspiciously resemble Oreos and Chips Ahoy, are packed with fiber, calcium and vitamin C. The ad, in fact, tells us three cookies can provide "as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal, as much calcium and vitamin D as an 8 oz glass of milk and as much vitamin C as a cup of blueberries." Isn't that fantastic?
Now, rather than eat oatmeal and blueberries and drink a glass of milk, you can scarf down three delicious cookies and be good to go, because we all know eating nutrition packed cookies is better for you than eating real food. It's so much easier to grab a couple of cookies than to sit down to a bowl of oatmeal and blueberries.
Of course, these nutritious cookies are aimed at kids, or parents of kids who want better nurtition for their children. We all know kids prefer cookies to spinach or oatmeal, in fact I know a lot of adults who prefer cookies to spinach and oatmeal, but does it really make sense to replace those foods with specially designed cookies?
The ingredients list for the cookies is suspiciously missing from the website, so I can't be sure, but I have an inkling there will be a lot of things in the cookies you won't find in the natural foods they replace.
The food industry constantly bombards us with replacements, things we can consume instead of real food that will supposedly act like real food where it counts [nutrition, taste] and not act like real food in the areas we fear [calories, fat]. I understand the concept of wanting to replace some of the junk kids like to eat with better choices - hey, if your kids are going to be eating cookies anyway, why not give them more nutirtious cookies, right? The only down side is, you're fostering a taste for cookies when learning to like real food will serve them better in the long run.
Have the milk and the oatmeal and the blueberries instead of a designer cookie. Who knows, maybe you'll be better off.
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Professional Parenting 101
There’s a reason I don’t read women’s magazines. Most of the articles, meant to give women helpful hints on how to better run their lives, make me want to slap someone.
Case in point [and it’s my own fault for borrowing my mother’s copy of the September issue of Family Circle] an article called 'Head of the Class' by Gary Norton Edelman. The article is set up as an advice column for parents who are worried about issues facing their teen and tween age children.
It sounds great in theory. As a parent of a teen and a tween, I am, on occasion, at my wits end. Life was often simpler when the worry of the day was whether or not I had the right flavor of yogurt on hand to stave off a tantrum or if they could figure out how to open their own juice boxes. I think the parents whose questions are addressed in this article, though, have much bigger problems than I ever did, chief among them that they have entirely too much time on their hands and are buying into the idea that every single thing that happens in a child’s life has the potential to scar them for life.
In the first question, a parent asked what she can do to help her child adjust to middle school. This might be a legitimate question if the kid had actually started middle school already and was having problems adjusting, but he hasn’t. So why worry about something that might not be an issue? The parent is fretting that her son will be lost and intimidated, when the possibility exists that the kid will do just great. Nevertheless, she needs professional intervention to deal with his ‘problem.’
Another parent worries because her son doesn’t like to wear a coat. Hmm…I never met a kid who did like to wear a coat. The struggle is age old. What will happen if my child catches a chill? How can I make him dress appropriately? The answer? [Well, my answer anyway,] don’t try. If the kid is older than four, let him go. When he realizes he’s freezing, he’ll start wearing a coat. He’ll never know what being cold feels like if you have a hissy fit and bundle him up in a parka every time he leaves the house.
Yet another parent laments that her children who enjoyed a great summer together will be going to different schools in the fall and won’t get to spend so much time together. What can she possibly do to preserve the closeness they had for those three glorious months? My answer: get a life, sweetheart. Your kids won’t always be close to one another, then again they might be. The older they get, the less it’s up to you how they spend their time, who they spend it with and if they actually like hanging out with their siblings. Deal with it.
My favorite question is from a concerned mom whose son ‘almost missed his bus because he didn’t speak up.’ She needs professional help on how to deal with his passive nature. I have a feeling the kid didn’t speak up because he’s too used to having Mom do it for him.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone survives to adulthood these days. If you can’t ask a parenting expert how to deal with every hiccup your child encounters, how on earth do you raise them properly?
I think what we need are less experts in parenting and more parents who are experts in how to raise their own kids.
Case in point [and it’s my own fault for borrowing my mother’s copy of the September issue of Family Circle] an article called 'Head of the Class' by Gary Norton Edelman. The article is set up as an advice column for parents who are worried about issues facing their teen and tween age children.
It sounds great in theory. As a parent of a teen and a tween, I am, on occasion, at my wits end. Life was often simpler when the worry of the day was whether or not I had the right flavor of yogurt on hand to stave off a tantrum or if they could figure out how to open their own juice boxes. I think the parents whose questions are addressed in this article, though, have much bigger problems than I ever did, chief among them that they have entirely too much time on their hands and are buying into the idea that every single thing that happens in a child’s life has the potential to scar them for life.
In the first question, a parent asked what she can do to help her child adjust to middle school. This might be a legitimate question if the kid had actually started middle school already and was having problems adjusting, but he hasn’t. So why worry about something that might not be an issue? The parent is fretting that her son will be lost and intimidated, when the possibility exists that the kid will do just great. Nevertheless, she needs professional intervention to deal with his ‘problem.’
Another parent worries because her son doesn’t like to wear a coat. Hmm…I never met a kid who did like to wear a coat. The struggle is age old. What will happen if my child catches a chill? How can I make him dress appropriately? The answer? [Well, my answer anyway,] don’t try. If the kid is older than four, let him go. When he realizes he’s freezing, he’ll start wearing a coat. He’ll never know what being cold feels like if you have a hissy fit and bundle him up in a parka every time he leaves the house.
Yet another parent laments that her children who enjoyed a great summer together will be going to different schools in the fall and won’t get to spend so much time together. What can she possibly do to preserve the closeness they had for those three glorious months? My answer: get a life, sweetheart. Your kids won’t always be close to one another, then again they might be. The older they get, the less it’s up to you how they spend their time, who they spend it with and if they actually like hanging out with their siblings. Deal with it.
My favorite question is from a concerned mom whose son ‘almost missed his bus because he didn’t speak up.’ She needs professional help on how to deal with his passive nature. I have a feeling the kid didn’t speak up because he’s too used to having Mom do it for him.
Stuff like this makes me wonder how anyone survives to adulthood these days. If you can’t ask a parenting expert how to deal with every hiccup your child encounters, how on earth do you raise them properly?
I think what we need are less experts in parenting and more parents who are experts in how to raise their own kids.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Soon there will be a drug for that
Today I was helping my son with his health homework. His teacher wants the students to bring in articles having to do with health topics and then to write short summaries of the articles. Since I'm always reading about health topcis, I sort of enjoy the fact-finding part of the assignment, I just have to remember not to get too controversial. I don't want to end up being hauled into health class to explain my radical ideas about doctors, drugs and food.
Today's assignment was fairly easy. My son and I went searching on line and found this no-brainer [pun intended] which I thought would make an excellent topic for a junior high school health class.
Apparently researchers have finally discovered what parents have known for centuries. Teenagers are dumb. {Or more accurately, they don't have the same capacity to learn that younger children do.}
Something happens when children hit their teenage years, {let's call it 'puberty'} that seriously impacts their ability to learn.
Well. Duh.
What do we do? We shove a driver's license in their hands and try to teach them to operate 2,000-pound vehicles on overcrowded roads at a time in their lives when they'd be hard pressed to find the cheese at the end of a wooden maze. So who's really dumber, I ask you?
I digress. The real issue with the article isn't the big surprise that the distractions of puberty make learning more difficult during the teen years but the closing sentence:
...and scientists could develop drugs to manipulate how easily kids learn.
That's the ticket right there. The take home message of this study isn't something sensible, like let's redesign the type of things we teach adolscents and play to their strengths or accept that they can't learn too much between the ages of 13 and 19 and concentrate on reinforcing things they learned before that. No. The take home message is: let's make some new drugs! Then being adolescent can be classed as a disease that requires treatment. I'm sure the pharmacutical companies are already salivating over how much money they can make on 'the learning pill.'
Today's assignment was fairly easy. My son and I went searching on line and found this no-brainer [pun intended] which I thought would make an excellent topic for a junior high school health class.
Apparently researchers have finally discovered what parents have known for centuries. Teenagers are dumb. {Or more accurately, they don't have the same capacity to learn that younger children do.}
Something happens when children hit their teenage years, {let's call it 'puberty'} that seriously impacts their ability to learn.
Well. Duh.
What do we do? We shove a driver's license in their hands and try to teach them to operate 2,000-pound vehicles on overcrowded roads at a time in their lives when they'd be hard pressed to find the cheese at the end of a wooden maze. So who's really dumber, I ask you?
I digress. The real issue with the article isn't the big surprise that the distractions of puberty make learning more difficult during the teen years but the closing sentence:
...and scientists could develop drugs to manipulate how easily kids learn.
That's the ticket right there. The take home message of this study isn't something sensible, like let's redesign the type of things we teach adolscents and play to their strengths or accept that they can't learn too much between the ages of 13 and 19 and concentrate on reinforcing things they learned before that. No. The take home message is: let's make some new drugs! Then being adolescent can be classed as a disease that requires treatment. I'm sure the pharmacutical companies are already salivating over how much money they can make on 'the learning pill.'
Monday, March 15, 2010
A better lesson in eating
The Sunday newspaper had a small sidebar article about how studies have shown that kids who brown bag lunch to school have a lower incidence of obesity than those who eat school lunch.
I can't say this is really a surprise - considering the average school still offers grease soaked pizza squares and chicken nuggets with french fries as a typical meal choice. The salads are tiny, the fresh fruit is usually bruised and unappetizing and cookies and sugary juices can be purchased on the snack line which is often a lot shorter than the queue to get the day's hot meal. Is it any wonder the kids who eat cafeteria food are heavier than those toting balogna sandwiches from home?
It's another failure of a well-meaning system that can't get out of its own way. I recently read about how some school systems are banning home made treats from bake sales - partly to limit their own legal exposure in cases of allergic reactions, and partly [and more publicly] to make a stand for healthier snacks. Pop-tarts and bagged Doritos made the list of 'approved' items to be sold at bake sales while Mom's cupcakes and brownies are out.
It makes a sick kind of sense, not because kids are better off eating Pop-tarts and Doritos, but because an angry parent can sue Kelloggs or Frito-Lay if their child has a bad reaction to a pre-packaged snack, but if their child doesn't know any better than to scarf down Mrs. Johnson's walnut brownies when they have a severe nut allergy, the school coffers are at risk. I imagine this is why a lot more school food is also prepackaged. Mrs. Field's cookies and Domino's Pizza have built-in liabitility insurance, don't they?
I wonder how these studies fit into the national past time of blaming parents for their kids' obesity? If it becomes widely known that school lunch makes kids fat, will Boards of Education all over the country start making bottled water less expensive than whole milk and cutting off the endless cookie supply at the snack line or will they simply brow beat parents to go back to packing lunches so they can't be sued for contributing to Junior's weight problem?
I can't say this is really a surprise - considering the average school still offers grease soaked pizza squares and chicken nuggets with french fries as a typical meal choice. The salads are tiny, the fresh fruit is usually bruised and unappetizing and cookies and sugary juices can be purchased on the snack line which is often a lot shorter than the queue to get the day's hot meal. Is it any wonder the kids who eat cafeteria food are heavier than those toting balogna sandwiches from home?
It's another failure of a well-meaning system that can't get out of its own way. I recently read about how some school systems are banning home made treats from bake sales - partly to limit their own legal exposure in cases of allergic reactions, and partly [and more publicly] to make a stand for healthier snacks. Pop-tarts and bagged Doritos made the list of 'approved' items to be sold at bake sales while Mom's cupcakes and brownies are out.
It makes a sick kind of sense, not because kids are better off eating Pop-tarts and Doritos, but because an angry parent can sue Kelloggs or Frito-Lay if their child has a bad reaction to a pre-packaged snack, but if their child doesn't know any better than to scarf down Mrs. Johnson's walnut brownies when they have a severe nut allergy, the school coffers are at risk. I imagine this is why a lot more school food is also prepackaged. Mrs. Field's cookies and Domino's Pizza have built-in liabitility insurance, don't they?
I wonder how these studies fit into the national past time of blaming parents for their kids' obesity? If it becomes widely known that school lunch makes kids fat, will Boards of Education all over the country start making bottled water less expensive than whole milk and cutting off the endless cookie supply at the snack line or will they simply brow beat parents to go back to packing lunches so they can't be sued for contributing to Junior's weight problem?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Eating may be hazardous to your health
I came across this article put out by the Associated Press discussing the need for more warnings on food labels. Pediatricians are apparently spearheading the movement in response to the alarming number of choking deaths of children.
As a mother of children who were once small, I’m all about fear of choking. I can vividly recall several incidents of having to jam my finger into a tiny mouth and pull out something dangerous that should not have gone in there in the first place and I can also recall those missed heartbeats any time one of my kids got that ‘I can’t swallow this’ look in their eyes.
It’s terrifying to say the least and it’s one of the hundreds of job hazards that come with being a parent. Constant vigilance over what goes in your child’s mouth is…well…constant.
However, I have to ask myself how many warning labels are really necessary before we can deem our children completely safe. When does it end? The article cites hot dogs as a particularly dangerous food and mentions a parent by name who lost her child in this horrible way. Just like hot dogs, grapes, raisins, lollipops, beans, berries, even peanut butter can pose a risk – not only for children but adults as well. Bread, bagels, hard candy, meat of any kind, apples, carrots…anything that doesn’t melt quickly at body temperature has the potential to cause a choking hazard. Do all these foods really need labels stating that?
I have no desire to blame the victim or cast aspersions on a grieving parent, but the line in the first paragraph of article that states his anguished mother never dreamed that the popular kids' food could be so dangerous is a head/desk moment for me. Kids are born knowing how to swallow, but they’re not born knowing how to chew. Any food you put in your kid’s mouth has the potential to be dangerous. If you’ve never dreamed something could choke your child, you’re sleeping a little too soundly to be a parent.
It occurs to me also that putting these warnings on foods, though they’re meant to spare parents the agony of losing a child, may in fact cause more problems than they solve. If, after reading the warning label on a package of hot dogs, a parent gives their child a hot dog anyway and the child does choke, is that parent now guilty of child abuse or even worse, negligent homicide? After all, a family services agent could certainly ask – ‘If you knew this food posed a choking hazard, why did you give it to your child?’ Imagine the horror of having your child choke to death being compounded by guilt that you didn’t heed a warning label.
Instead of putting warnings on every single food product on the market, since they all could potentially cause a choking hazard if you have to put them in your mouth, maybe children should now come stamped with a universal warning: Small objects, if inserted into an orifice, can cause damage. This includes ALL foods. Proceed with caution.
As a mother of children who were once small, I’m all about fear of choking. I can vividly recall several incidents of having to jam my finger into a tiny mouth and pull out something dangerous that should not have gone in there in the first place and I can also recall those missed heartbeats any time one of my kids got that ‘I can’t swallow this’ look in their eyes.
It’s terrifying to say the least and it’s one of the hundreds of job hazards that come with being a parent. Constant vigilance over what goes in your child’s mouth is…well…constant.
However, I have to ask myself how many warning labels are really necessary before we can deem our children completely safe. When does it end? The article cites hot dogs as a particularly dangerous food and mentions a parent by name who lost her child in this horrible way. Just like hot dogs, grapes, raisins, lollipops, beans, berries, even peanut butter can pose a risk – not only for children but adults as well. Bread, bagels, hard candy, meat of any kind, apples, carrots…anything that doesn’t melt quickly at body temperature has the potential to cause a choking hazard. Do all these foods really need labels stating that?
I have no desire to blame the victim or cast aspersions on a grieving parent, but the line in the first paragraph of article that states his anguished mother never dreamed that the popular kids' food could be so dangerous is a head/desk moment for me. Kids are born knowing how to swallow, but they’re not born knowing how to chew. Any food you put in your kid’s mouth has the potential to be dangerous. If you’ve never dreamed something could choke your child, you’re sleeping a little too soundly to be a parent.
It occurs to me also that putting these warnings on foods, though they’re meant to spare parents the agony of losing a child, may in fact cause more problems than they solve. If, after reading the warning label on a package of hot dogs, a parent gives their child a hot dog anyway and the child does choke, is that parent now guilty of child abuse or even worse, negligent homicide? After all, a family services agent could certainly ask – ‘If you knew this food posed a choking hazard, why did you give it to your child?’ Imagine the horror of having your child choke to death being compounded by guilt that you didn’t heed a warning label.
Instead of putting warnings on every single food product on the market, since they all could potentially cause a choking hazard if you have to put them in your mouth, maybe children should now come stamped with a universal warning: Small objects, if inserted into an orifice, can cause damage. This includes ALL foods. Proceed with caution.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Lead us not into cheap jewelry
As if parents don’t have enough to worry about, now we have to fear the cute little necklace or charm bracelet we bought at Wal*Mart will give our kids brain damage.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Perfectionist Parenting
I’m a big fan of The World’s Worst Mom. Lenore Skenazy received this dubious title after letting her nine-year-old son ride the NY subway alone. She’s a believer in free-range parenting, letting kids have a little more freedom than the average parent today can handle, and this radical belief launched her blog and her book on the same subject.
I try my best to be a free-range parent. My kids are 12 and 15. Little by little I’m loosening the apron strings, but it’s not easy. I give Lenore a lot of credit for her ability to give her son all the freedom he needs to learn true independence. And I read her blog every day.
One of the themes she talks about a lot is perfect parenting – not really to be confused with helicopter parenting, this is the idea that parents can and must do every little thing to ensure their child’s needs [and wants] are met 24/7. A recent blog post talked about this new item, to help crazed, perfection seeking new parents keep track of baby care responsibilities, like those easily forgotten chores of feeding, changing and bathing a newborn. You know how that is if you ever had kids, right? Hmmm...the baby doesn’t smell bad and isn’t crying...I wonder what I should be doing right now? Oh, ding...the timer says I need to put Baby Einstein on TV for him.
Let’s take a reality check. If you’ve ever had an infant, you know they come with a built in timer that tells you when to snap into action. One end smells bad when they need changing. The other end makes noise when they need feeding, burping, holding or sleep. Bathing usually causes that end to make noise too, so you do it at your own discretion. You don’t pay extra for this service, it’s all included in the purchase price – a mere $18 to $21 years of your life. Eventually they learn to take care of the smelly end themselves, but the noisy end never stops needing attention. They’re always telling you what they need and want and when you need to get it for them.
This product is just another example of the need to relieve ourselves of personal responsibility. You no longer have to keep your head about you while caring for your baby. This device will tell you exactly what to do and when to do it so you can relax. Because parenting is all about relaxing...or it should be, right?
I see this conversation happening:
Mom: I feel like I should be doing something for the baby.
Dad: The timer hasn’t gone off, so you’re golden. Relax.
Mom: Don’t you think it’s been a while since the timer went off?
Dad: No.
Mom: Maybe we should check on the timer.
Dad: Trust the timer.
Mom: I can’t. I’m worried about the timer. Did you set it the last time you changed the baby?
Dad: I didn’t change the baby last. You did.
Timer: Ding!
Mom [smiling]: Good, so that means it’s your turn now!
Dad [tossing timer in the diaper pail]. This thing sucks.
I’m all for trusting the timer. The one that comes with the baby. And trusting your instincts when it comes to parenting. I’m not sure I’d let my kid ride the NY subway alone – in fact, I wouldn’t even let my husband ride the NY subway alone, but I check out Free Range Kids for my daily dose of reality.
I try my best to be a free-range parent. My kids are 12 and 15. Little by little I’m loosening the apron strings, but it’s not easy. I give Lenore a lot of credit for her ability to give her son all the freedom he needs to learn true independence. And I read her blog every day.
One of the themes she talks about a lot is perfect parenting – not really to be confused with helicopter parenting, this is the idea that parents can and must do every little thing to ensure their child’s needs [and wants] are met 24/7. A recent blog post talked about this new item, to help crazed, perfection seeking new parents keep track of baby care responsibilities, like those easily forgotten chores of feeding, changing and bathing a newborn. You know how that is if you ever had kids, right? Hmmm...the baby doesn’t smell bad and isn’t crying...I wonder what I should be doing right now? Oh, ding...the timer says I need to put Baby Einstein on TV for him.
Let’s take a reality check. If you’ve ever had an infant, you know they come with a built in timer that tells you when to snap into action. One end smells bad when they need changing. The other end makes noise when they need feeding, burping, holding or sleep. Bathing usually causes that end to make noise too, so you do it at your own discretion. You don’t pay extra for this service, it’s all included in the purchase price – a mere $18 to $21 years of your life. Eventually they learn to take care of the smelly end themselves, but the noisy end never stops needing attention. They’re always telling you what they need and want and when you need to get it for them.
This product is just another example of the need to relieve ourselves of personal responsibility. You no longer have to keep your head about you while caring for your baby. This device will tell you exactly what to do and when to do it so you can relax. Because parenting is all about relaxing...or it should be, right?
I see this conversation happening:
Mom: I feel like I should be doing something for the baby.
Dad: The timer hasn’t gone off, so you’re golden. Relax.
Mom: Don’t you think it’s been a while since the timer went off?
Dad: No.
Mom: Maybe we should check on the timer.
Dad: Trust the timer.
Mom: I can’t. I’m worried about the timer. Did you set it the last time you changed the baby?
Dad: I didn’t change the baby last. You did.
Timer: Ding!
Mom [smiling]: Good, so that means it’s your turn now!
Dad [tossing timer in the diaper pail]. This thing sucks.
I’m all for trusting the timer. The one that comes with the baby. And trusting your instincts when it comes to parenting. I’m not sure I’d let my kid ride the NY subway alone – in fact, I wouldn’t even let my husband ride the NY subway alone, but I check out Free Range Kids for my daily dose of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
