Parenting: Three alternatives to "No"

Whenever I feel unmotivated to blog for a long time, it usually "reader demand" that gets me to come back.

I recently received an e-mail that said, among other things:

I follow your blog and LOVE reading your posts and really like your outlook on parenting.

Well, thank you Niki.

Because of you, I am now back, and this post is just for you.

************************************************************************************
I recently heard good things about Barbara Coloroso's book Kids Are Worth It! and I got a copy from the library ILL (which means I didn't get to keep it for too long. God forbid I should actually buy it, you know.)


I didn't finish it in time, but there was a lot I liked. As you may know, I have never liked the idea of "traditional punishment" (for example, I never ever gave a detention when I worked in the public schools), but I often have a hard time finding a suitable alternative. This book seemed to suit my style -- or attempted style, anyway.

Here are Barbara Coloroso's
Three Alternatives to No.

1) "Yes, later."
I've been using this a lot. I even told the kids about it! I like this better than either barking, "Not now!" or "Not until whatever!" at them. She makes a sort of funny point about this too: If for some reason you change your mind or "give in" after two minutes, you still didn't lie or waffle on them. It is later. Two minutes later.

2) "Give a minute."
I looove this one.

I don't know about you, but kids often ask me something while I'm on the phone, someone(s) is screaming about something, and/or I'm trying to get food on the table. I have a tendency to simply snap, "NO!" because I can't deal with it, and frankly I just want them to shut up. I like this a lot better.

She points out that if a kid insists they need to know now, you should say, "If you need an answer right now, it's No. Otherwise, give me a minute to think about it.

3) "Convince me."
I haven't used this one yet. She says it's more useful with older kids. I do like the idea of putting the burden back on the kids.

Okay, now I'm back in the groove. More posts to come this week ...

A turn in the tide ...

Two little things have happened recently that are Big Deals.

First, about a month ago we convinced Benjamin that wearing underwear wasn't such a bad thing, and now is using the potty regularly, not just when he's home and naked. (He wears diapers at night only.) This is really nice. I'm sure we are saving money every month, too.

Second, a couple weeks ago he started buckling and unbuckling his car seat by himself.

This is really striking, if you think about it. For over eight and a half years now, I've been buckling one (or more!) kids. Now that's over. Forever.

So that's really something.

I'd better appreciate this while it lasts ...

This weekend Rachael (who is 8 years old) came up to me while I was playing the piano and said, "When I grow up, I want to be just like you!"

For a moment I thought she meant that she wanted to play the piano as well as me. (She is learning to play the piano herself, and is quite good at it.)

But then I realized that she had just been eating a cake I made, and I have heard her say in the past that "Mom bakes really good cakes." [Further evidence that I might actually be a good cook.]

So I asked her, "Do you mean that you want to play the piano like I do? Or that you want to bake cakes like I do? Or something else?"

She said happily, "All of it. You're such a good mom."

But wait!

It didn't stop there!

Later that day, she asked me, "How did you get to be such a good mom when you were the youngest in your family?"

And the next day we were reading Happy Birthday Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle together. I couldn't help muttering, mostly to myself, "Well, if this girl is having trouble being messy and unorganized, why don't the parents help her learn what to do with her stuff? That's what I would do."

"Yes," said Rachael quickly, "but you're not like other moms."

Rebecca agreed.

So I'm not sure exactly what I was doing this weekend ... but it's nice to know I was probably doing something right!

Sweet Failure (not written by me)

I just found this blog entry and really liked it, so I thought I'd share it.

All the stuff I read in her "Parenting" archive was Really Good.

Seventy kids in the classroom?

This will sound ridiculous if you've read this, but last week I was watching some John Rosemond videos I had purchased years ago.

Why, you ask? Well, I wanted something to cross-stitch to ... plus, it's making another good blog post, isn't it?

I think this story he told is very very interesting, and I'm curious what other people have to say about this, especially former teachers. (Or people who were students in the fifties.)

An audience member who I'll call Mary came up to John Rosemond and told him this story about herself:

*****************************************************

In 1952, Mary had been teaching first grade for a few years in a parochial school.

The day before school was about to start, the other first grade teacher in Mary's school had to leave town suddenly and wouldn't be back. Mary was informed that they would have to combine the classes until they found a new first grade teacher.

So ... they combined Mary's 35 students with the absent teacher's 35 students, and Mary had a first grade classroom with exactly 70 first graders and no teacher's aide.

After six weeks, the school observed that Mary (and her students) were having "absolutely no trouble," so they decided to save money and let her keep the 70 students for the entire year.

"And," Mary told John Rosemond years later, "not only did I have no problems, but all 70 students were reading and writing well enough by the end of the year to be successfully promoted to the second grade."

*****************************************************************
Rosemond then pointed out that, even though this was an unusual story, it was not that unusual. He claims that in his own first grade class picture, there were 54 students, and one teacher with no aide. That was the norm in the fifties, he claimed.

He used this story to springboard into the idea that today's children are not disciplined enough at home, or respectful enough of teachers, for that to be possible.

Now.

Here are my thoughts and questions:

1) Does that sound even remotely possible? Let's assume all 70 children are complete angels. Could you imagine 70 kids having a bathroom break? What if even half the kids had a single question about their math assignment on a single day? How could a single teacher possibly know -- really know -- how well 70 different kids are reading.

2) Was it, in fact, true that classrooms were huge back then, that there were no aides, that there were almost no discipline or academic problems

3) If so (or if not), what do you think is going on here?
Do you think the woman is lying?
Do you think she thought the kids were all doing well, but was mistaken because she couldn't keep track of them?
Were kids smarter then? Better behaved? Was there a different attitude toward school?
Are we deluding outselves today (as Rosemond seems to insinuate) by claiming some kids aren't developmentally ready to read at age six? Or that some kids have ADD or Learning Disabilities?

Looking forward to any comments on this one ...

Money in the bank

I'm learning it's a good idea to note the good moments, positive traits, helpful deeds, kind words, etc, and "store them in the mental bank."

Then, when you're tempted to think that someone is a jerk, or they never do anything nice or helpful, you can make a withdrawal from it and save everybody's sanity.

I've found it helpful to keep a mental bank account for a spouse as well as for children. But hey, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe it's a good idea to keep one going for everybody you know.

***************************************************************

This morning I had a bit of a slow start. By the time I got up, showered, got dressed, and showed up in the kitchen, it was almost 8:45 am.

Rachael was up and dressed, and had already eaten breakfast with her Dad. [This, of course, earns money in the accounts for both of them.]

Her bed was made, she had unloaded the utensils from the dishwasher, and unloaded and stacked the clean dishes and plates.

She had read a book to Rebecca, done two pages in her Explode the Code phonics book, and was doing some copywork. No one asked her specifically to do any of this.

I was very impressed.

What I did with my picky eaters

[Warning: This is going to strike some people as harsh, cruel, and maybe even somewhat abusive. If any of my unschooling buddies still read here, you are not going to like this.]


I hate the idea of forcing a kid to clean his plate.

I hate it when parents spend the entire meal harassing their kid about what he does or doesn't eat.

I hate it when parents say, "If you don't finish that, you'll eat it for breakfast!"

And I don't like the idea of using food as a reward or punishment.

However ....

I knew something was wrong around here when we all stayed at my in-law's house for the weekend a few months ago:

The girls were going to have a sleepover at their Aunt Carol's, so my MIL made some macaroni and cheese and a couple other simple things for the girls' dinner before they went. The girls wouldn't eat it.

Robert, fearing they would get Cranky and Difficult with no dinner, asked Aunt Carol if she could get the girls some dinner.

So Aunt Carol took the girls went through the McDonald's drive-thru. Rachael, age seven, cried when she saw her hamburger had "stuff" on it, and refused to eat it.

And I thought, This is not right.

So I started implementing an idea I think I read in a book, believe it or not, way back when I was pregnant with Rachel. Something like "How to Cope with a Picky Eater."

Here it is:

At mealtime, try to serve at least one food you know your kid likes. Serve them very small servings (about two or three bites) of everything.

They can eat, or not eat, whatever they like. But they can't have seconds of anything until they've finished everything on their plate.

And that's it.

I'm not militant about it. For breakfast, Rebecca still gets her waffles every day, and Rachael gets her oatmeal. But I usually do it at dinnertime, and it has helped. They are trying more foods and having a slightly more balanced diet.

BTW, I don't remember what the book says, but I personally wouldn't do something like that until about age four, which means Benjamin gets a break. Actually, right now he eats almost anything anyway.

My rant against John Rosemond

I used to like "parenting expert" John Rosemond a lot, before I had children -- HA!!

I still sometimes read his stuff, for a few reasons:

1) I think he's a good writer and speaker;

2) It keeps me on my toes;

3) I do agree with him, at least partiall, about some things


I was checking into his website the other day and saw this column, which basically states that the number one problem facing today's families is that parents are too involved with their kids.

Yes, you read that write. I almost couldn't type it without laughing. Is he serious??

Here's an excerpt:

Symptomatic of this ubiquitous state of bad mental health is mother-to-mother conversation, which will almost invariably be all about their children: what they’re doing for their children, their children’s latest magnificent accomplishments, and so on. That today’s mothers cannot seem to think of anything else to talk about is rather, well, sad. My mother once told me that when mothers got together in the 1950s, they talked about everything but their children. “We talked about interesting things,” was the way she put it.

I have a few thoughts about this:

1) If a group of teachers got together and talked about their students, their classroom activities, and so on, would that also be "sad" and "not interesting"? What about a group of college professors discussing their job and their students?

2) Rosemond always talks about how women in the 50's, and earlier, always did this, or that. Really? How could he possibly know what "most women" did over fifty years ago? How could that possibly be the same for almost everybody? Anyone have clues about this one, based on conversations with your grandmothers or something? Is this really accurate?

3) Why in the world would you bother to have children if you don't want to be involved with them or spend time with them? Oh wait .... maybe these wonderful women from the 50's didn't choose to have children.

4) Is it really "sad" that I find my children and my life with my children interesting? I would think it's sad if you didn't! We have interesting conversations. They have interesting observations. We read interesting books, watch interesting TV shows, play and sing and listen to interesting music together, go to interesting plays together, hang out with other interesting people, do interesting projects, and go to interesting places together.

The more I think about it, the more this is a perfect example of the totally condescending, "What you do doesn't matter because you only stay home with kids. We, on the other hand, are intelligent and interesting people."

I guess a lot of people questioned this article, because he has a follow-up to it here.

Yes, you read my audacity correctly: I am the contrarian of parent involvement. I think it’s bad for parents, bad for children, bad for families (obviously), and for all those reasons, bad for America.

Wow. Don't even know what to say to that.

Parenting is a form of leadership. In order for a leader, in any context, to be effective, he or she must command (as opposed to demand) the respect of the people being led. This requires a boundary between the leader and the led, the permeability of which is controlled by the former. “Get involved with your children” puts relationship before leadership, the cart before the horse.

This made me think of Jesus, the Ultimate and Perfect Leader. Did he get involved with his disciples? Didn't he spend plenty of time with them on a regular basis?? Please do chime in on this if you can, because I really would like to learn something here and not just be critical.

... the child’s primary challenge was to keep his parents from getting involved.

Bwaa-ha-haa!! Well, maybe if he liked his parents more, he wouldn't desperately want them to stay the hell away from him! Give me a break!! I'm supposed to feel like a terrible parent because my kids like my company?

[I should point out here than you can never win a "Rosemond" argument, because he always says that if this ideas sound crazy, or cruel, it's just proof of how upside-down our society and current culture is. Okay.]

It's interesting that I know from other writings that Rosemond thinks that having an at-home parent -- as well as homeschooling -- are good things.

He said in one book that "a mother should be home for her children, in case they need her, but not be home with her children."

Uh-huh. In other words, she should quit her job and hang around at home all the time, just in case her kid breaks a bone or something, I guess, but stay away from all her kids. Just be home doing "interesting" things (whatever they would be) in another room while her kids basically fend for themselves -- because, apparently, they don't want to be around her either!

And how in the hell does that work with homeschooling? Yes, homeschooling is good, but you shouldn't actually be around your children, or involved in what they're doing, or talking about it with other parents?? Huh? What, is his idea of homeschooling to stick the kids in another room with "assignments" and then go in another room and do your own [interesting] thing?

I guess so.

It bothers me that this bothers me. It makes me feel like he must have hit a nerve. But, really, I find it very insulting. I am an intelligent, well-educated, yes, interesting person (even though I kid that I'm not), and the fact that I spend time with my children and do things with them, and know them well, does not make me less so.

Long and controversial post about Sunday School yesterday

I haven't been to Sunday School for a looong time, mostly because our church does not have a nursery or classes for children under the age of three.

Well yesterday I finally made an appearance, and went to a parenting class, taught by a woman in my church who has five children and the oldest is in high school. She is using materials called "Effective Parenting in a Defective World."

Yesterday's session was "Punishment versus Discipline."

First an overview of the lesson and video, from the notes:

Punishment is about inflicting penalty for an offense; it's focus is past misdeeds; the attitude of the parent is hostility and frustration; and it results in fear and guilt

Discipline is about training for correction and maturity; the focus is future correct acts; the attitude of the parent is love and concern; and it results and security

He said there is no reason to ever punish because Jesus already past for all our offenses. No punishment is needed.

He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently - Proverbs 13:24

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him - Proverbs 22:15

He said that spanking is "so strongly taught in scripture" and is "God's answer to eliminate a lot of your stress and frustration." The problem is not spanking itself, but the way it's implemented. It should be done with a wooden spoon, so they don't associate pain with your hand. You should "flick your wrist" when you do it, and it should "sting and hurt a lot, but produce absolutely no damage." Then you should pray together and prompt your child to ask God for forgiveness, where he is restored to God, and then you can have a loving time together, child and parent.

************************************************************************************

Now, here are some of my thoughts. Keep in mind they are just thoughts, I'm not an authority, and my kids are still young. I understand that I may be off-base, and I also may change my mind in a few years. But this is what went through my mind during the class.

Please feel free to add your thoughts to the mix:

- Isn't it a rather large leap to say that "the rod of discpline" means spanking? Are we to believe that God thinks spanking is a requirement for discipline? How can spanking (or any single act) be the only way to teach or disciple someone?

- I have never understood the idea about using a tool to whack your kid, as opposed to your hand, because the hand should always be loving. What kid is so dumb to not realize that it's the parent's hand who is making the paddle/spoon/whatever whack them?

- It felt really really weird to be sitting in church among people I know and be given instructions for exactly how to go about whacking our kids.

- The point was made that discipline was about teaching and training. How does someone learn by being hit? The example made in his talk was about a child going to a neighbor's house when you told him never to go in that particular person's house. It seems like there would be a whole host of things you could instruct your child about -- ways to decline an invitation, how some people or situations are not safe, what to do if you sense a threat, etc etc. Yet his idea of "training" in this situation is to take the child into the bedroom and hit him.

- Similarly, he used the phrase of "being restored to God." I don't understand this theology at all; how is a person "restored to God" by being hit by another person? If he is talking about the prayer afterwards, okay, but how does the spanking fit in with that? The implication seems to be that you can't talk to God, or won't be forgiven, unless a third party has deliberately inflicted pain on you first. How is that Biblical? And how is that not a punishment?

- The point was also made that punishment is about anger and vengeance, and discipline is about love. I would agree that spanking when you're angry should not be recommended ... but does anyone else think it seems totally creepy to smack your own child when you're perfectly calm and happy? Hitting them when you're mad at least makes sense.

Anyone care to jump in?

God's calling me ... well, maybe ... hmm ...

This probably sounds pretty obnoxious, but I often wonder if God is calling me to give some sort of parenting and/or homeschooling seminars or talks, or to write a book or something someday when my kids are older.

Would anyone listen to someone whose oldest kid is not quite seven? Would I even have the perspective to say anything Wise and Wonderful anyway?

Anyway, I've felt this way on and off for a couple years, and a couple things just happened this week that made me start thinking about it again.

I was at the park and sitting in the gazebo, where there were two other women who knew each other. I made a little small talk with them. Then one turned to the other and said, "Billy was so bad yesterday at church. We were walking back from communion and he actually started to grab onto and pull at my leg! I mean, come one, he's three years old! We sent him straight to his room when we got home, and we took away two of his toys. I don't know why he acts like that ... I guess we don't punish him often enough."

Stuff like that almost literally gives me a stomach ache. That's just the "common" type of wisdom out there, especially in the Christian community. If that kind of stuff doesn't seem right to you, or doesn't work for your family, you're out of luck. Actually, no, what you need to do is rev it up a notch: take away four toys next time instead of two.

So I would love to speak to young mothers someday and be able to throw all that stuff over on its head.

The problems, though, are:

1) Do people really want to have that stuff thrown on its head, or do they prefer to do things that way, even when they complain about it?

2) Would anyone listen to anythiing I have to say? Who am I?

3) Where would I go to start giving and marketing these supposed speeches that I haven't even written yet? What do I do, just hang up a sign somewhere they I'm going to talking about how to be a good parent in my living room, and please show up if you're interested?

Well, if you have any ideas, please let me know. Oh yeah, and if you happen to be reading this and have a "parenting issue" you would like my advice/experience about, hey, let me give it a whirl! (Although most of the eight people who read this have the same parenting approach I do, so I don't know if I should expect to hear from anybody.)

Hmm, maybe this could be a grass-roots Bizarro John Rosemond column ...

My favorite children's author

If I had to be on a desert island with my kids and all the books of only one author (which makes no sense, really), the author would definitely be Tomie dePaula.

You gotta like somebody who appeared on Barney, along with his sister Maureen, to read his book The Baby Sister, about when Maureen was born.

The books in his "Tommy" series are all really neat: true stories of his childhood and family. In addition to The Baby Sister, they include:

The Art Lesson
Stagestruck
Nana Upstairs, Nana Downstairs
Tom
and lots more!

Then he has several really cool stories ... legends, I guess, or tales from different countries, like:

Tony's Bread
Jamie O'Rourke and the Big Potato
Adelita (a Mexican Cinderella story)
and others!

Then there's the Strega Nona series, which we haven't gotten into much yet, but probably will someday.

And that's not all!

There's the series about The Barkers, the Welsh Terriers (I think) family with twins Morgan and Moffat. (I believe Mr. dePaola has two Welsh Terriers by those names. Like I said, you gotta love this guy.)

And the Bill and Pete series!

Oh, and there's a really clever Christmas book about all of Santa's crazy relatives, called Guess Who's Coming to Santa's for Dinner?

And that's not all!

I'm looking at Amazon now and there are several books on top of all those that I've never heard of ... plus I see some biographies ... oh, I would like that, even if the kids wouldn't ...

I guess I'm headed back to the library -- as usual! :)

The latest Mean Parent sighting

The other day we were at McDonald's. Two women and their respective kids were at the next table.

I'm not sure what was going on, but at point one of the women said to her little girl, "Yes, you asked to eat it and he said yes and gave it to you, now either chew it right now or spit it out, or else you get a spanking!"

The poor girl (who looked to be about two and a half) looked very distraught.

I couldn't tell what the actual problem was supposed to be ... it looked like maybe she had a piece of a tomato from her brother's salad, and I guess the girl asked for it but then didn't like it ...? I have no idea. From all outside appearances the girl wasn't doing a thing wrong or weird or rude or even noticeable.

Anyway, the woman said this at least three times. The third time, she said, "Either chew it right now or spit it out, or else you will get a spanking and have to sit in the high chair for the rest of the time here!"

I guess the girl finally complied, because there was no spanking and no high chair.

Whenever I see something like that, I literally get a stomach ache.

Later the two women came left the PlayPlace for a moment and then came back in, each with a chocolate-covered ice cream cone. A few minutes later their kids came over to the table. One of the women said to the boy, "No, we're not getting you ice cream here, but you can have mine when I'm done with it, if you eat your apples."

Then I didn't even hear the kid say anything, but the other woman snapped at him, "Hey! Any of that, and you get nothing!"

Then a few minutes later both women handed their mostly-eaten ice cream cones to the two kids, who, admittedly, seemed to enjoy eating them.

Yeah, I know most of you reading are thinking, "So what? Is that the end of the world? They got to eat ice cream!" but it just seemed so Yucky:

Here, yum, let me and my friend eat these treats right in front of you, but you don't get one, but if you do what I say, you can eat my slurped-over leftovers and feel grateful for them.

It occured to me that maybe I should give these women the benefit of a doubt. Maybe they were having a rough day, or maybe they're still struggling with the best way to handle certain situations.

Possibly. But that didn't appear to be the case. It looked more like it was their usual MO to bully their kids around and think nothing of it.

How many toys?

A parenting author I liked years ago, but am starting to disagree with more and more over the years, is John Rosemond:

He claims that when he was five years old, he had exactly five toys (which he wasn't even allowed to play with unless it was raining or dark outside.)

I believe he recommends that kids have less than five toys -- or perhaps it's less than ten, but you get the idea.

A few years ago, I actually thought this sounded like a good idea. For one thing, I'm not a fan of clutter. And also, I bought into the idea that "too many" toys kills creativity and resourcesfulness. (By the way, is there any evidence of this, or is it just a convenient excuse?)

He also says that children should watch no television and not play any computer games.

Which leads me to wonder ... what in the world did he (and children in families that follow his advice) spend their days doing???

I kept track of what toys my girls (ages 4 and 6) played with in a 48-hour period, and it included the following:

- toy farm with animals
- wooden xylophone
- big indoor slide
- Playful Patterns (from Discovery Toys)
- Play-do
- Tea Set
- Aqua Doodle
- Blocks
- Hi-Ho-Cherrio
- Barney floor puzzle
- Air hockey table
- Toy jewelry
- Various stuffed animals
- Ball and bat
- Scooters and bikes
- Swing set

And yes, they were also read to, and they watched TV and they played on the computer. And no, they were not even home all this time.

Five toys??

Playing outside is great -- in fact, we're all outside as I type this -- but for eight or nine hours a day?? Every day?? And not by choice, but because they're "not allowed" to play with toys until after dark?

And why would I want that for my kids anyway?

Parenting According to Baby Blues - Boredom

And this one:




I think a lot of parents get too easily annoyed when their kids say they're bored.

Some parents almost get angry: "What?!? How can you say you're bored when you have a roomful of toys?"

We've probably all heard the classic: "You're bored? You'd better find something to do, or I'll find something for you ... like mopping this floor!"

I actually overheard a woman at the park (yes, I guess I was eavesdropping) saying that she tells her kids, "When you say 'I'm bored' what you're really saying is 'I'm boring.'" Well isn't that a sweet way to kick a kid when he's down.

In the first cartoon, I don't think it's at all odd that the kids feel like there's nothing to do around there. Maybe they just want to get out of the house! Maybe they just want an adult's company and attention. Maybe both.

If I were that mom (and in one of my better moods), I would sit down on the floor with them and look at one of those toys with them. Maybe I'd pop in a video they'd never seen before. Maybe we'd bake something together. If I had a lot of energy and the baby was awake, maybe I'd take them driving somewhere. A different park. A different grocery store. The dollar store. Whatever.

If I were the mom in the second strip (and in one of my better moods) I would assume that my child wanted more of my company. I'd probably stop cleaning (which isn't hard for me anyway!) and read to them. Or see if they want to do a puzzle. Or anything.

At the very least, I'd ask them to talk with me about something special to them while I continued my housework.

Rachael has started making my bed with me almost every morning. She often initiates it herself. This morning she walked over to the bed, smiled sweetly at me, and said, "Let's do our chore!" She's very meticulous about getting her side of the bed nice and smooth.

This woman says it better than I do:

http://sandradodd.com/BoredNoMore

Parenting According to Baby Blues

Yup. I've always really liked comic strip books.

Some of my earliest memories were buying cheap paperback Peanuts books at the book fair in my elementary school in New Jersey.

In college, I often spent Saturday nights alone in my dorm room with a package of cookies and a Cathy book. (Yes, I know, how sad is that?)

Big big fan of Bloom County when I was teenager. Calvin and Hobbes. Early Dilbert! More recently, Baby Blues.

Well about an hour ago I suddenly had an interesting idea ...

Back in the 60's a minister named Robert L. Short traveled around doing seminars of Bible lessons using Peanuts strips as the basis. He is Very Cool. He also wrote at least two books:

The Gospel According to Peanuts
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Peanuts/dp/0664222226/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4314719-3811812?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188758949&sr=1-2

The Parables of Peanuts
http://www.amazon.com/Parables-Peanuts-Robert-L-Short/dp/0060011610/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4314719-3811812?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188759005&sr=1-1

Well.

It ocurred to me that, often when I read Baby Blues, I'll actually analyze it and think, "See, the parents should have done this differently ..." or "That's not the right attitude, because ..."

So later this week I am going to try a little column here called "Parenting According to Baby Blues," where I post a strip and then make a Deep (or not-so-deep) point about it.

Stay tuned ...