High-heeled leather boots for toddlers

Last November, I posted my highly critical views about the fad for high heels for babies. I sincerely hoped it was just a passing fad and people would be sensible and refuse to buy the inappropriate shoes but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, the American company, Heelarious is still doing business and even worse than the high heeled shoes, has launched a new range of knee-high leather boots for toddlers. (link via telegraph.co.uk) I'm appalled at the very idea. In my opinion this trend is not only very inappropriate but quite offensive. Babies and young children should not be sexualised. What do you think about the high heeled shoes and the leather boots for toddlers? Do you agree with my views or do you think I'm overreacting and that this fashion is just harmless fun?

Parents complain about disabled host on tv show for children

I am very surprised and saddened to read that some parents have complained to the BBC about a presenter with a disability on the programme, CBeebies: How do you explain a missing hand to a child? Parents have complained that a children's TV presenter with one hand is prompting awkward questions from young children. (link via BBC News Magazine) I seriously doubt any children are frightened or bothered at all by the sight of the presenter's disability. I bet most children don't even notice her disability! And if they did, they might be curious and ask about it which would be a perfect opportunity to talk about how some people have disabilities and about how everyone is different. I think that the parents who complained are only showing their own insecurities and ignorance about disabled people. And sadly they are probably passing on their biased attitudes to their children which perpetuates the same insecurities and negative attitudes toward disabled people. What do you think? If you have young children, do you think they would be disturbed or scared by the sight of a presenter with a disability?

Children offered vouchers to quit smoking

Children as young as ten are being offered WHSmith and Body Shop shopping vouchers on the NHS to give up smoking. The £15 rewards are available to young people under 18 who can prove that they have gone without cigarettes for a month, even though they are under the legal age for buying tobacco. Vouchers for Argos, Boots, Asda and the Co-op are also available. (link via telegraph.co.uk) I think this is scheme is very wrong! The children are being rewarded for doing something they shouldn't be doing. What about all the children who don't smoke? What sort of message does this send to them? Couldn't this actually encourage children to start smoking - in order to take advantage of the programme? What about the parents of these children? Shouldn't they be held responsible? I think the NHS should find other ways to help get children to stop smoking rather than giving them vouchers to spend money in shops. Thoughts?

High Heels for Babies?

I think this new trend is very disturbing: A new collection of high-heeled shoes has been launched - for babies. I don't consider the shoes cute or fun and the play on words for the name of the company, Heelarious, makes me see red! They are not hilarious - they are hideous. I think the shoes are deliberately suggestive and help to sexualize a baby. Why on earth would any parent want that? What are your thoughts?

British columnist critical of American parenting style

An article in The Times today by the columnist Janice Turner, is guaranteed to provoke lots of attention and response. Granted she is writing it with a deliberate slant and a title designed to grab attention but her focus on American parenting style is so negative and filled with hate that it makes my blood boil. How American motherhood ruined my life We've been set impossibly high standards when it comes to raising children. What's wrong with benign British neglect? I have news for Janice Turner. Despite what she may think, not all American parents are emulating Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow! We don't want to be like them, nor do we expect everyone else to. Their (rich) lifestyle certainly does not represent the parenting style of all American parents! We are not all movie stars, or wealthy or obsessed with 'supercharged motherhood' and I take offense with her very anti-American view that, 'Of all the nationalities in London, none provokes such domestic irritation.' Charming! (not) And I think she is really going too far with this view: Visiting children can't eat what I've cooked because they're “'lergic”. Maybe we've bred a generation of lactose-intolerant ninnies or maybe we've fallen for an American tendency to hyper- medicalise the slightest ailment. There are a lot of children (of all nationalities) with genuine allergies and food sensitivities which are real health issues, and not to be sneered at. Anyway, the British are not such perfect parents. The serious problem with binge drinking and anti-social behavior from teenagers and even younger children has to be seen to be believed. Where are their parents? Oh yeah, that's what she means by 'benign British neglect' - which isn't actually so benign is it? My (English) husband read the article and he was disgusted too. We both think the columnist had to come up with an article and she obviously thought ranting about the American parenting style was a good topic. It's controversial enough to stir things up and get attention but "safe" because it's easier to pick on the Americans rather than other nationalities. I am so sick of this ranting against Americans, especially in the British press. Enough, already! Oh, and before someone suggests it was probably meant to be funny with tongue-in-cheek British humour, I don't buy it. That's just a convenient excuse to get away with mocking Americans. Are you an American parent in Britain? What are your thoughts about the article?

Petition for review of the compulsory Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)

Thanks to an informative post - Want a happy, healthy child? Then sign this petition - on Little Green Blog, I've been reminded about legislation for Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) that is due to take effect soon that involves a set of Learning and Development Requirements which must be followed by providers of care for children below 5 years old. You read that right - learning and development requirements for children under five years old! I support the campaign (Open EYE, the campaign for an open Early Years Education) that is opposing this new law and agree with their views that it's: overly prescriptive; potentially harmful to the development of children; and a breach of the human right of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their own philosophies. The petition states that: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to commission an urgent independent review of the compulsory Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) policy framework, and to reduce the status of its learning and development requirements to ‘professional guidelines’. More details from petition creator We recognise the government’s good intentions in its early-years policy-making, but are concerned about the EYFS legislation, which comes into force in England next September. Our concerns focus on the learning and development requirements, as follows: 1. They may harm children’s development 2. They will restrict parents’ freedom of choice in childcare and education 3. Their assessment profile requirements may place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on those who care for young children 4. Recent evidence suggests that government interventions in education generally may not be driving standards up and may be putting too much pressure on children Read more on the blog, Open EYE, the campaign for an open Early Years Education. And please sign the petition via this link: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/OpenEYE/

Parents of fat children to get official letters - Government campaign on childhood obesity

Government bans the word 'obese' to describe overweight children Parents of primary school children will start getting letters in September telling them how fat their children are. But however much they weigh, no child will ever be described as obese. The Department of Health has found in surveys that the term obese is a turn-off, so instead will use the term “very overweight” for those children whose body mass index exceeds 30, in an attempt to enlist parents’ support. (link via timesonline.co.uk) The National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP)- operated jointly by the Department of Health (DH) and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). What do you think of this campaign? Do you think it will help the fight against childhood obesity? Sadly, I have my doubts that the programme will work since the parents of the children with the most serious weight issues are likely to ignore the letter, especially if the letters won't be using the word, obese.

The Great Big Vegetable Challenge

If you've ever struggled to get your children to eat their vegetables, you should start reading the excellent blog called The Great Big Vegetable Challenge where the author of the blog , Charlotte Hume, has worked her way through the A to Z of vegetables, by posting recipes and photos of her seven-year-old son ('Vegetable-Phobic') Freddie as he tastes each new concoction and also rates them. The blog is now published as a book too! What a fantastic idea for a blog and good on her for getting a book deal out of it too! You can listen to Charlotte Hume speak about her book in the latest Woman's Hour programme on BBC Radio 4.

Should secondary pupils under the age of 16 be locked in school grounds?

Minister calls for lunchtime lock-in at schools to stop rush for chippie (link via guardian.co.uk) The proposal comes as damning new research reveals the extent to which children pass through school gates to buy large quantities of food that is high in fat and sugar. Some pupils left school to buy junk food more than 11 times a week. With soaring numbers of children now dangerously overweight, Brennan said one answer was to keep millions of pupils inside the gates. 'Some schools have a stay-on-site policy for 11- to 16-year-olds but lets the sixth form go off-site. I'm very strongly supportive of that approach. I would like to see more schools operating some sort of stay-on-site policy because its advantages are shown not just in improved uptake [of healthy school lunches], but also improved behaviour and community relationships.' But any plans to lock children in were attacked as Orwellian by parents yesterday, while headteachers argued that it was not possible to police pupil movement Personally, I agree with keeping pupils inside the gates during the school day. That was the rule when I went to (an American) High school and that's the rule at the secondary school my eldest son attended and my youngest son is still a pupil at. The sixth-formers are allowed to go off-site and that makes sense to me - they are treated as adults and deserve the right to leave the school grounds when they want to. I'm not sure about literally locking the school gates though. It should simply be a rule and enforced. If kids sneak away, they should be punished. It's not just about their diet, but their safety. They are children (11- to 16-year-olds) so they need to be obeying the school rules and certainly not roaming around away from the school during the lunch hour. What do you think? Do you think kids in secondary schools should be allowed to go off the school grounds during their lunch time? Or is it too much of a nanny-state idea?

Beauty salons for little girls (as young as two!)

I just read a news article titled, Salons boom as girls yearn to grow up fast about a new trend that I find very disturbing. The article is about "Tantrum, a luxurious child-only salon" in London (and similar ones appearing outside London) but mentions that these beauty salons that cater to very young girls are already popular in the USA: Tantrum, which opened as a hairdressers six months ago, has just started offering manicures and pedicures in response to demand. 'We're getting customers who come in and ask more and more whether we offer these other services,' said co-owner Latasha Malik. 'Manicures are very popular. [Parents] ask about pedicures, they ask whether we can style and blow-dry hair for young girls, have a bit of make-up put on.' Malik said British parents were still 'conservative' compared to Americans. So far his youngest customer for a manicure or pedicure has been six, whereas salons in Los Angeles and New York regularly treat children as young as two. (link via guardian.co.uk) This kind of trend makes me feel extremely sad for all those innocent little girls. I can't believe anyone would condone this, apart from very greedy salon owners (and apparently without any moral conscience) who came up with the idea to cater to children. The fact that there is "a demand" for this kind of service doesn't mean that it should be happening. I think parents should have been told there is a minimum age and that would be that. I would really like to know how on earth parents can believe that taking their little girls to be transformed to look much older and womanly is acceptable. These parents are deluding themselves if they think it's just a bit of fun. Their little girls are being encouraged to look much older than they are, and behave that way too. I'm not an expert but I am certain that this is a very unhealthy trend. Shame on the parents and (especially) shame on the salon owners. Would you consider taking your (very young) daughter to a salon? I sincerely hope not. Please don't give in to pressure from your children. You are the parent. Just say NO!