Tiger Teachers: The New Stage Moms Aren't the Moms (from Huffington Post Culture)

This originally appeared in The Huffington Post's Culture Section. Write a bad mommy confessional and be rewarded with multiple weeks on bestseller lists, riches, and fame/infamy. (See: Chua, Amy [Tiger Mom]; Druckerman, Pamela [American mom, French parenting]; Weiss, Dara-Lynn [Diet Devil in Vogue]).

And then there are the television shows. In the grand tradition of stage mothers we have the women of Toddlers & Tiaras, along with Dance Moms and Dance Moms: Miami. Is it any surprise that Skating Moms is in the works? And that the mothers on these shows are getting wackier and wackier to secure appearances on TMZ and Anderson Cooper in order to claim their 15 minutes of fame? Or, better yet, the holy grail -- their own television shows (like two Toddlers & Tiaras break-out stars: Eden Wood with her Logo network show Eden's World and Alana Thompson, aka "Honey Boo Boo Child," who has just inked a deal for a family reality show on TLC)!

Despite their extreme antics at this point it's a total cliché to criticize these moms. The people who really should make us scratch our heads are the other adults involved: the teachers and coaches.

Now, Abby Lee Miller, the larger-than-life teacher of Dance Moms, helps give female coaches a bad name. While she has surely amplified some of her behavior for the cameras you still can't help but wince as she verbally berates young girls, puts them in completely age-inappropriate attire, and shows them how to "paint on" a six-pack so they look more slender on stage.

Miller's actions have impacted other teachers and coaches. Prominent, successful, competitive dance teachers are appalled by her behavior. In addition to being embarrassed by a member of their own profession, they have seen changes in their enrollments and in their students' behavior, along with that of the children's moms. Let's just say that drama and raised voices seem to be becoming normalized.

While Abby Lee Miller isn't the first teacher or coach to over-invest in her students (watch the US gymnastics championships this weekend to catch a glimpse of coaching legends like the Károlyis -- and then read Dominique Moceanu's new memoir, out next week, to discover what a negative impact coaches like that can have on a child's life), Miller certainly is popularizing the role. In many ways she's the new version of a "stage mom."


The most recent episode of Dance Moms, "The Battle Begins," has Abby shouting multiple times that her students need to do well because they are associated with her and "her name." With kids' afterschool activities becoming increasingly professionalized, more and more people (both good and bad) can make a living off of children's performances. This means they can easily become too invested both financially and emotionally.

So in many cases teachers and coaches are the new "stage moms," using kids who aren't their own to secure their own fame and fortune. Forget the Tiger Mom, now we have Tiger Teachers eager to catch the glare of the spotlight. Too bad we can't all get a Coach Taylor for ourselves and for our kids. In the meantime, beware of Tiger Teachers seeking high fees and reality television shows.

A Pacifist in the Mommy Wars

I've been studying parenting for about a decade now as a sociologist. I always strive to contextualize families and their parenting decisions by thinking about both the micro and macro structures that impact people's everyday lives.  Now that I'm a mom that hasn't changed. I know that not everyone will make the same decisions that I make, and I won't make the same decisions as others.  But just as I do in a professional context I strive not to be judgmental and instead understand where people are coming from-- and I like to start from the position that parents are making decisions with the best interests of their children in mind, even if those interests may at times be ill-informed and thus perhaps misguided. (Of course this has it limits, like if a child was being abused, but thankfully I have never been in that position.) That's why I like to think of myself as a pacifist in the midst of the latest iteration of the Mommy Wars. As a nursing mom who is (trying to) work three to four days a week, I understand both how hard it is to stay-at-home and how hard it is to work. As with anything in life, it's hard to find a balance. That's why the most recent saga in the Mommy Wars seems to vex so many: it doesn't appear to provide much balance, especially for mothers.

The latest drama is attachment parenting, which isn't really that new, but has become so talked about thanks to celebrity endorsements (like Mayim Bialik's new book, Beyond the Sling: A Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way.  Originally popularized by a physician-husband and nurse-wife team in the 1990s, William Sears' 2001 The Attachment Parenting Book spelled out the tenets of extended on-demand breastfeeding, baby-wearing, and co-sleeping. But it's the latest, highly controversial cover of Time that has really vaulted the philosophy into the popular consciousness. If you haven't yet seen it, here it is:

Last week I appeared on NECN's The Morning Show to talk about the controversy and offer common sense advice to moms.

[I couldn't miss the irony that after doing the show I raced home to feed Little Man!]

The title of online piece about my appearance, "Harvard sociologist: Time Magazine cover 'shocking,'" is a bit misleading-- though it clarifies that I state that the cover was meant to deliberately shock.  The photographer himself said that he wanted to be provocative. Martin Schoeller is quoted: "I liked the idea of having the kids standing up to underline the point that this was an uncommon situation.”

Jamie Lynne Grumet is the 26-year-old mother pictured feeding her almost four-year-old son, and even she says she knew that the magazine was going to go out of its way to be controversial and generate conversation.  Grumet has become an overnight celebrity, criticized by both breastfeeding proponents and opponents (though with a recent picture on TMZ, can a reality show be far behind?). She seemed to know what she was getting herself into and I don't think we should be blaming her.  We don't know her exact family situation, and if this works for her so be it.

We know from anthropologists that in many parts of the world toddlers are breastfed-- I'm guessing not while standing up, but you never know.  In the US we have so much (and perhaps sometimes too much) food readily available so in some ways it's less necessary for kids to rely on breastmilk to get proper nutrition to grow.  In any case breastmilk certainly is a relatively free way to nourish a child-- though extraordinarily time-consuming (eta: Yes, time is money, so ultimately it costs lot; but not out-of-pocket like formula at the moment)-- and until six months the science tells us that it does more than just give calories, it actually helps boost a child's immune system by passing on antibodies through the mother.

I tend to trust good science, based on randomized experiments and solid laboratory work. I also tend to trust my body and my baby to figure out what is healthy and good. What I don't tend to trust are labels.  When you label your behavior it just sets you up in opposition to others, as I mention in the clip.  One of the things I found most interesting about Pamela Druckerman's parenting hit from earlier this year, Bringing Up Bebe, is that in Paris parents don't "subscribe" to particular parenting philosophies. They just parent. She claims it's American parents who tend to want to clearly identify and research particular schools of thought.

The US certainly has a long tradition of producing parenting experts and philosophies. Starting about 100 years ago, roughly in the 1920s as an outgrowth of Progressive politics and baby-saving, scientific parenting became popular.  And since then various pockets of "scientific" parenting have waxed and waned. If you're interested in these historical social trends check out books like Perfect Motherhood: Science and Childrearing in America, Raising Baby by the Book: The Education of American Mothers, and Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children. My personal favorite is historian Peter Stearns' Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America.

In the end mothers need to use common sense, know themselves, their partners, and their children and find the happy balance that works for them—and not worry what the mommies around them are doing. It’s hard enough today without fighting a new type of mommy war! Although I must confess that I hope if Carston ever appears on live TV at age three or four he'll be slightly better behaved...

French Femininity: A double standard when it comes to child beauty pageants and modelling?

Being French is very au courant these days. Thus far Bringing Up Bebe is the parenting book of the year.  Paris Fashion Week just ended. And, now, a French report offers several suggestions on how to fight against the hyper-sexualization of young girls.  While those last two sentences may seem contradictory, given that France is the fashion capital of the world, perhaps we should listen. French Senator Chantal Jouanno (former Sport Minister, karate champion, and [I couldn't resist this oh-so-French tidbit] rumored recent mistress of President Sarkozy) wrote a parliamentary report on the precocious sexualization of girls in France.  Apparently, as in the US, French tweens are seeking out padded bras, high heels, and make-up.  The report targets both the pornography and beauty industries and offers some concrete suggestions for change.  I'll only talk about two aspects of the beauty-industrial complex here-- beauty pageants and modelling-- but the porn industry is indicted in the report, a point not getting much coverage in the American press coverage of the story (I mainly learned about it from this UK article).

Jouanno wants to ban child beauty pageants, or "Mini-Miss," for girls under the ages of either 16 or 18.  While I appreciate the impulse, which is similar to what was proposed in Australia last year, I don't think it is realistic for two reasons, as I mention in articles in the French press (like this one in French magazine VSD).  The first, which I first mentioned while writing about the aborted Australian ban, is that there is nothing inherently illegal about child beauty pageants. As with any childhood activity there is the potential for various forms of abuse (physical, sexual, financial), but the activities themselves aren't abusive.  Moreover it is very difficult for democratic governments to tell parents what they can or cannot do with their children. For example, if child beauty pageants are outlawed will gymnastics, dance, and figure skating follow suit?  Second, it would be easier to forbid child beauty pageants if they did not exist already.  But-- as I am told by French journalists I have spoken with about the report-- child beauty pageants are fairly popular in the north of France.  Once an activity is entrenched it is hard to completely eradicate it even in the face of tremendous pressure; in the US even after the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, which led to unprecedented amounts of media attention, the popularity of child pageants somewhat perversely increased.

That said, I hope Jouanno can promote legal restrictions and regulations when it comes to child beauty pageants.  These events should be treated like any legitimate business, with organizers following the law carefully (along with rules that anyone with any legal issues related to child endangerment not be allowed around the events).  Further, all safety concerns for children related to physical activity and work restrictions (similar to child actors) should be enforced. Finally, any health concerns related to make-up application (like who can charge for services and their level of cleanliness), hair, spray tanning, etc. should be addressed. I hope this will eventually happen in the US as well.

Age restrictions have also been proposed for models.  In fact, a child model was the impetus for the French report. In December 2010 10-year-old Thylane Loubry Blondeau appeared in a spread in French Vogue.  The images were met with little reaction in France at the time. But about 8 months later they caused a stir in the United States. This then prompted French condemnation. The back-and-forth criticisms abound, with little irony.

It seems that everyone can agree that ten is a bit young for these types of modelling gigs. But within a few years, by 14, many girls are deemed catwalk ready. While many designers at this year's New York Fashion Week tried to hire only models over 16, this proved more difficult than you might imagine.  Again, while it may not be inherently illegal to use such young models, the age appropriateness of the content of their modelling should be considered-- along with child labor laws that should apply to all child performers.

Last month another 1o-year-old model, Kaia Gerber, caused a stir stateside.  Gerber, the daughter of two models (mom is Supermodel Cindy Crawford), appeared in a Versace ad.

While Crawford was initially enthusiastic about Gerber's images, after quite a bit of negative press, she later backpedaled and said her daughter would be taking a break from modelling for several years.

Unlike Crawford model father Brad Kroenig seems to have received little to no backlash for letting his child, 3-year-old Hudson, walk in Paris Fashion Week for Chanel.

Now, of course, Hudson is a boy. So his modelling exploits are celebrated on the pages of The New York Times. Will we soon see a French report warning of the dangers of young male models as well? Somehow I don' t think so...