Mother Talkers

Celebrity News Break

by lilianna28

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:48:50 AM PDT

Celebrity parents aren't having a good week. Miley Cyrus got the Leibovitz treatment in Vanity Fair. The photos were more adult than not, and the parental pearl-clutching screeching predictably followed.

The sad thing? She and her parents have decided to take the "OMG! I had no IDEA it would be like this!" route, with Disney signing back-up:

In its own statement about the Vanity Fair story, the Disney Channel, which broadcasts Cyrus's series Hannah Montana, said: "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

Also in the gossip news, Leah Remini (King of Queens) appeared on the Rachel Ray Show last Thursday to talk about issues she's been having with her 4-year old daughter Sofia.

"I'm very consistent; I give in," says Leah. "My daughter runs the house." Although Leah is conflicted about taking a stance that leaves her daughter in hysterics, she'd like to try getting Sofia off the bottle. "The problem I'm having with bottle-feeding is basically that Sofia drinks six or more bottles a night," she explains, a situation that leaves her and her husband Angelo exhausted from handing over new bottles and changing diapers at all hours.

Yowza. If anything, it's a reminder that being famous doesn't equate being a model mom (or even a good one re: Britney).

Also in the news

If I was gonna pick one of these stories to get up in arms about, it'd be the four year old on a bottle, but that's just me. Every time I see a picture of Suri Cruise with that bottle in her hands my eye twitches. Then again, talk to me after this summer if the bink-weaning works out. Any other good gossip you've heard about?

  • ::

PS: I totally missed when Rachel Ray started having a talk show? Really? Cooking and stuff wasn't enough?

Tags: hannah montana, leah remini (all tags)

Permalink | 96 comments

  • unbelievable (0 / 0)

    The Miley Cyrus thing is so unbelievable.  How could her parents think those pictures were ok for a 15 year old? I don't care who took them.  The sheet and the lipstick smeared all over her face?  Now they are acting like they were taken advantage of?

    Leah Rimini, six bottles a night?  I hope they are filled with water.  The thought of drinking six bottles of milk all night, ugh.  How does the kid even sleep if she's drinking six bottles a night?

    Suri doesn't bother me with the bottle.  She's barely two.

    by NJmom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:58:42 AM PDT

    • I have a 10 year old daughter (0 / 0)

      who is totally into Miley Cyrus and I have to admit that doing provocative photographs makes me less likely to buy anything she makes.  

      I kind of thought they had their heads on straight since her father had been in the business but apparently not.  

      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"

      by lonestar canuck on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:36:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I dunno. I'm a huge Annie L. Fan and I really (0 / 0)

        don't see the big hoo hah.  I thought the photos were more artistic than skanky.

        I also think we need to give our kids a little credit. the other night Liza was watching Zoey 101 on Nick and I said "hey Liza I didn't think you like Jamie Lyn spears any more" (she was mortified when she found out she was pregnant) and Liza gave me that "my mom's an idiot' look and said " ZOEY is the CHARACTEr she plays. I like ZOEY.  that doesn't mean I think Jamie Lyn being pregnant in real life is ok."  

        sometimes they're smarter than we think.

        by MKatherine1966 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:21:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • My daughter is wicked smart. (0 / 0)

          But apparently the adults around Miley Cyrus are dumber than a box of rocks.   The point is that she's 15 years old and I'm sure she's totally aware of her blossoming sexuality and the power that it holds - I'm not so ancient that I don't remember being 15.  

          It's up to the adults around her to let her know that it's not okay - Annie L (I'm not going to try to spell her last name) is in the business of photography and that means that she's going to take whatever pictures she can.   She'll go for provocative because as a photographer it benefits her - her interest in this isn't the subject but the photograph.   It wasn't up to her to say "this is too much" and I don't expect her to do that.   It was up to MC's dumbass parents to tell her to keep her danged shirt on.  

          My daughter has a beautiful voice and wants to be a singer - images like this piss me off.   I want her to look up to artists who keep their shirts on - well, and the Dixie Chicks...

          "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"

          by lonestar canuck on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    • I agree (0 / 0)

      The Mile Cyrus thing bothers me more.  How is that even legal?  What if the exact same pictures were taken by some skeezy nobody?  

      I don't know what her parents were thinking, but I don't think it matters.  Unfortunately, laws should be there to protect kids who's parents don't protect them.  Vanity Fair shouldn't run them.  

      by Erin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:02:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I don't know (0 / 0)

        I do think that the source of the photography has bearing on the appropriateness/ skeeze factor. There IS something to be said for an artistic approach to photography, even of someone as young as 15. She isn't exposed, I'm not sure I see the lipstick as "smeared"- I just thought those were her lips, since they always seem to look that way.

        Anyway, from Leibovitz:

        In a statement released on Monday, Leibovitz says, "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted.

        "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."

        by lilianna28 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • a photographer's view (0 / 0)

          of artful is one thing, but the image suggested is what it is. i think it is a bit puzzling that they all viewed the picture beforehand and now are regretful.  sounds to me like arse covering.  if this "star" was trying to break out of kid mold then great.  if she is still polishing her current young teen/tween idol status,then it was a dumb move.

          by parentalunit1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • other than an exposed back (0 / 0)

            there isn't much there that says "hot and sexy" to me?

            by lilianna28 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:37:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • many seem to see it differently.. (0 / 0)

              while not in your face hot and sexy, and we have all seen worse on My Space, it is suggestive. i wouldn't want to have had a portrait hanging in my home of my 15 year old dd portrayed this way...artistic or not.

              who knows if this really was a line crossed? but i do feel strongly about discussing the sexualization of girls in the media. personally i am not that invested in this particular idol or how her parents parent.  but i think it is fair to question how this all plays out in what we accept or condemn in the discussion of how the media exploits young girls.

              btw, i am a big big fan of annie l. i suspect this one may be causing her a bit of angst.

              by parentalunit1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          • Brit (0 / 0)

            It so reminiscent of Britney to me.

            by NJmom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • all I can think of is the Brooke Shields Calvin (0 / 0)

            Klein ads that caused sucha bruhaha when I was in junior high --  remember "nothing comes between me and my calvins" and she was topless in them....

            now she's the freaking poster woman for motherhood.... I think it's all a matter of perspective and not getting too hyped up about it and using it to say to your kids "hey...posing topless is not so much appropriate but this is a choice she made and her parents were there and it really has nothing to do with whether you like her music or her show"

            by MKatherine1966 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        • I don't know (0 / 0)

          That picture, to me, isn't appropriate.  Hair all tousled, lipstick and even her eye makeup looks smeared.  I don't want to say what I think it looks like, but you get the idea.

          Just because Annie Leibovitz took it, doesn't mean it's appropriate, or even artistic to me.  You win some, you lose some.  Annie's not perfect.

          by NJmom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:41:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • All of this strikes me as such (0 / 0)

            a coincidence of timing.  JUST the other day I saw a shot of Miley on the cover of some magazine and I said to my 17 year old daughter how much older she appeared than 15 and how her "handlers" are changing her image it seemed to me to begin to be something other than a little girl.  We talked about it, my dd disagreed with me, explaining that she didn't view the pic of Miley as that much different than others...clearly to me her hair was done in a much more sophisticated way and her makeup too very grown-up looking.

            Anyway, the next thing I know here is this huge flap about these new photos.  I was less surprised by them because I had just been thinking about how much I suspected that media/marketers whomever were going to start exploiting this new stage of Miley.  Did I hear right that she brings in a billion dollars a year off her persona?  Good grief.  I mean, she's cute and entertaining, but she's not a country with people in need of food.  

            I think the photos are so in line with the times and exactly what would be expected - which makes it even more pathetic than if it were some true mistake or misinterpretation. .... I have nothing against Annie L., but whoever decided to make these promotional of Miley has done her a disservice for sure.  It breaks my heart that she feels the need to apologize to her fans --- she's FIFTEEN --- where are the people that are there to protect her?  Talk about being emotionally confused and having WAY too much feeling of responsibility for a 15 year old.  Jaysus.

            karen

            by karen m on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • I've changed my mind (0 / 0)

              I read what you had to say, Karen, and went away to think about it. In the two hours since then, I've changed my mind on the Miley-backless-photo. I was kinda cool with it, feeling "I wouldn't if it was my daughter, but hey, no worse than X, Y or Z lately."

              Then I read this entry on Defamer (part of the Gawker empire.) I've asterisked out the words myself; the original entry has language NSFW, if you've got a conservative workplace.

              It's simpler than any of that; this whole thing comes down to picture of a 15-year-old looking like she just got the sh*t f*cked out of her.

              Oh. My. God. What have we come to that this is an acceptable way of referring to a 15-year-old? It's along the lines of that MSNBC reporter talking about Hillary "pimping out" Chelsea. When has it become acceptable to talk about women this way?

              later, the entry says this:

              Also, teenagers f*cking is a billion-dollar industry. Juno, for example, would not have been a lucrative, laureled darling of both the Christian right and the hipster left had she and Paulie Bleeker not A) f*cked and B) kept the baby they conceived. Superbad was a more pointed argument for the appeal of teenagers not only f*cking, but f*cking well. Then there's Gossip Girl and the cult of Britney, the latter of whose teen sexuality only spiked as a cultural commodity after she became a mother in her 20s. Crazy! But as the previous generation's iconic teenager f*cking — with a partner like Justin Timberlake, natch (yes, guys are also teenagers f*cking) — that's part of her brand.

              And you know what? The entry is both right and maddening. There are a lot of people getting rich over showing images of young girls in provocative poses like Miley Cyrus, and it permits an acceptance of language like that entry.

              I still say, though, that the Cyrus family bears more responsibilty than VF. VF exists to sell copies. What are the Cyruses trying to sell?

              by Rachel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • This is an area (0 / 0)

                that truly makes my stomach churn.  The way females are perceived in our culture is extremely scary imo.  Daily - minute by minute - females are scorned, violated, physically harmed, and emotionally abused in our country.  Thinking deeply about it often takes me to places that are overwhelming.  Mentally for me to get through each day with a daughter of my own, daughters-in-law and granddaughters who are still just babies, I just. can't. dwell. on. it.  BUT, in my heart I believe there is and  has been an insidious war against females having any power or place in our society - at least in the last several hundred years.

                The ways I can take some individual control over the tsunami of media trash is to not allow it around my family as much as possible.  When it does make it through our doors via TV or other commercial enterprise, I do my best to call it out for what it is.  I think my kids are a bit sick of hearing my soap box talks, but I'll keep saying them until I lose the ability to talk.  

                I feel deeply saddened for the generations that are still coming up because I think this is getting worse by the year instead of better.   I find it one of the biggest flaws of humanity and extremely troubling.

                Thankfully there are many groups and individuals sounding an alarm over such exploitation, but often it seems the numbers are against that tide of concern for the well-being of all women.

                karen

                by karen m on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • immunity has set it... (0 / 0)

                  is my biggest fear in this arena. i do the same karen and my dd has a good sense of this issue.  for example she would NEVER step foot into an Abercrombie store.  but it is an ever ending assault which i think has numbed our society and many others as well.

                  i keep pointing out bob herbert as it seems at least every 6 weeks or so he brings this up in his column.  i don't see any other MSM journalist discussing this issue.  it brings me back to the IMUS incident where he again the African American community expressed outrage, but not so much the feminist community from what I could see...although a tad later I think Pelosi and HC weighed in.  

                  by parentalunit1 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          • asdf (0 / 0)

            That's EXACTLY what it looks like to me.  I think that such pictures can be beautiful and very suggestive at the same time.  I just don't see the reason for them.  She's a pretty girl, Annie Leibovitz is a good photographer.  Miley Cyrus being pretty isn't a strength or weakness, it just is.  She could have looked just as striking in a high fashion dress.

            by Erin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • ITA (0 / 0)

            I'm an artist.  I don't believe in censorship.  But, there is a fine line between art what's considered inappropriate.  Art is subjective.  One person's art is another persons offensive piece.  

            Topless and 15 is inappropriate IMO.  If the photo was taken by someone on their camera phone, they'd be in big trouble.  In fact, there's a new trend around here of teen girls sending nude photos of themselves via their cell phones.  And... it's considered to be child pornography since they are under 18.  These kids are getting suspended from school.  

            Though Miley's breasts aren't showing, the photos are suggestive.  I'm an Leibovitz fan myself and I'm really surprised she didn't use some sound judgement here.  If she were 18 or even close to it, I don't think there would be such an uproar.  But 15?  Yeah...that's nuts.  

            "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

            by 1plain1peanut on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • Rachael Ray, love her! 4-yr-old with bottle? (0 / 0)

    First, omg, yes, Rachael has a talk show. I didn't know it existed, either, until I suddenly was watching daytime TV when I was home on maternity leave. And I got addicted to Rachael's talk show. Seriously, I knew what time it was by which show was on TV ... it was so bad. :)

    And HELLO, a 4-yr-old with a bottle ... and diapers?! And I thought I was lame for still letting Mia have her bottle in the evenings/night (and she's only 16 months). She's drinking from cups during the day, and I think I've weaned her from her morning bottle ... but those night-time ones are killers.

    by Kay on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:11:33 AM PDT

    • DD 4 is still in diapers (0 / 0)

      and she's nearly 5.  It's just at night, but she just can't seem to stay dry (though she does during the day) and I'm not willing to fight with her about a wet bed.  (I just keep imagining those episodes of Criminal Minds where they describe the serial killer as someone who was mocked for bed wetting...)  By the same token, I have a hard time getting all judgey about the choices other folks make.  Let me re-phrase that- I have a hard time when I get judgey.  'Cause of course I do...

      by Laura on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I had a couple kids who were still (0 / 0)

        in diapers at night at four years old.  Ofcourse, after the first two, I never even attempted to potty train again until after three.  

        I try not to be judgmental...we all do what works best in our own homes.  And really, in the long run, what difference does it make?  My kids all appear to be perfectly "normal", whatever that is, despite my sometimes less than orthodox methods.

        by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • You're right (0 / 0)

          I truly did not think about her 4-yr-old wearing diapers only at night. I can understand doing that. It's all the time that would seem odd to me ... but hey, like you say, whatever works for your family is what you should do. When I sleep with Mia at night, just so we all can get SOME sleep, I tell myself the same thing. :)

          However, in my family, I would feel freaked out about a kid still drinking bottles and wearing diapers regularly (during the day) at age 4 ... and now I'm crossing my fingers and knocking on wood that I don't have to face that in a few years. :) I've probably jinxed myself now.

          by Kay on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • But . . . (0 / 0)

            It's fine if an older child needs to wear diapers or pullups to bed - bladder maturation varies a lot.  But you don't CHANGE a 4 year old's diapers!  At that age it is the child's responsibility.  Sure, a 3 year old who wakes up groggy and crying needs assistance but it's very much a 'mommy will help you change your pullup' situation.  

            by lyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    • the 4 year old (0 / 0)

      with a bottle didn't bother me as much as the statements that she "runs the house" and that the mom consistently gives in to her.

      by Lisa in Austin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • yeah (0 / 0)

        I would be worried that the child is going to have a bizarre orientation to authority, when she finally does confront it.  The parents probably think they're being "nice" by not setting limits that are upsetting to their daughter, but they may be setting up for some serious rejection problems when she doesn't get her way with other kids or with teachers.  In other words, spoiling her and unintentionally making her life harder than it needs to be.

        by mamacita on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Bink weaning (0 / 0)

    Here's what worked for us.  My son called them deedees by the way so I'll just go with that.

    We started with a rule that DS could only have them at bedtime.  Then after a while we told him about the deedee fairy who would take them one night to give them to new babies.  The deedee fairy leaves a big boy or big girl present when she comes and takes away the deedee.  We had her leave a Thomas item that he had been eyeing for some time.  Whenever he asked for a deedee afterwards and that was rare we would tell him tat if he had one the deedee fairy would come and take his toy back.  He went with the toy every time.  Good luck!

    by music teacher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:53:40 AM PDT

    • Thanks :) (0 / 0)

      We've been pretty good about bedtime only. BUT Lily has recently acquired a baby cousin, and this has caused a bit of a revert in the "big girl/ baby" discussion. In fact, this morning she asked for her favorite blue shoes and says "baby's blue shoes, momma". I said, no those are big girl shoes and was told quite clearly, "no, momma, Lily's a baby!"

      This too shall pass :) But the fairy idea is pretty groovy!

      by lilianna28 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • My in-laws told their oldest kid that Santa (0 / 0)

        takes all the "fires" (baby talk for pacifier) and leaves big boy toys. He was fine on Christmas morning and all day and then right before bed he found one LAST "fire" under his bed and screamed, "Santa wanted me to have just one!" He was so happy!

        So the fairy/santa/easter bunny...make sure you get them ALL! Lol!

        by Suzanne77 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Leah Rimini (0 / 0)

    allowing a four-year-old to make her life miserable?  That's her problem, I guess.  I think the bottles and diapers are weird, but not the worst thing ever.  The only thing is, having a child the same age, I have to say that if we were in that situation I would feel so resentful of her.   That makes me feel sorry for the child, who's only doing what she's allowed to do.  Maybe it's a Scientologist thing.

    by Erin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:21 AM PDT

  • Maybe it is just my mood today (0 / 0)

    But it seems to be that if they want to let a 4 year-old rule the house- they deserve what they get.

    by happy clam on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM PDT

  • Bottles (0 / 0)

    I'm not too troubled by a two-year-old with a bottle, although I do think by then you should be making some effort to curtail it, like not letting the child walk around in public with it hanging from her mouth.  My neighbor (the Annoying One) complains that her son won't use a sippy.  I tell her what my ped told me when I was trying to transition DS to milk: keep offering it, make it the only option, and he'll figure it out quickly.  A four-year-old is not going to thirst to death.  A few nights of only water in a cup before bed and I think she'll fall in line, even if you have to put up with the screaming for awhile.  I always wonder with parents like this when they will decide it's not OK - at six? at ten?

    As for Miley, I think, at 15, she's seen way more of the world than I had at her age.  I was living in a small town on the prairie, 75 miles from the nearest mall, we'd only had cable TV for about four years and I'd never even eaten Chinese food.  Yet if someone had asked me to take my top off and hold a sheet up to my chest for a photo, I'm sure I would've thought that seemed weird and maybe not quite right.  

    With Miley's life experiences, I think she's fairly sophisticated for her age.  Yes, she still needs her parents to step in, but I don't buy that she's just so innocent she didn't know what was happening when she was manipulated by the big bad photo lady.  I think she knows that if she wants her career to progress, she'll have to leave the kiddie fans eventually.  But going the Lindsey Lohan route looks to me like a path to disaster, as well as a non-career.  I think I'd respect Miley and her parents more if they were just honest about this, instead of taking the chance on the public opinion, seeing it turn, and trying to backtrack.  Then again, I'd like it if politicians would do that as well.  

    by cynmill on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:36 AM PDT

    • I'm not too bugged about Miley. (0 / 0)

      It was a poor judgment call.  I think I'd just admit it if I had to.  A small picture can seem totally different once blown up and put on a magazine cover.  Just say it...that it didn't seem so much at the time, but hey, the end result was a bit more than what was expected.  And it is very difficult for young performers to transition to adulthood...be prepared.  Fans often don't want kid stars to ever grow up.  They want them frozen in time.  The ones who've done well with this took themselves out of the spotlight for awhile.  Think Jody Foster or Brooke Shields...both of whom did pieces far more risque as teenagers than this photo.

      We had a neighbor who allowed their son to carry around a bottle until he was almost 6.  Totally gross.  I didn't mind bottles until two or so, if necessary, but I drew the line at kids carrying them around, dropping them on the ground and then putting them back in their mouths after the cats had licked them.

      by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Um (0 / 0)

    my 3 1/2 yo DS has a bottle overnight because its the only time he'll drink. Yes, he has medical issues, but still, I get a little unhappy when people start judging what others do. Yes, the mom is complaining about it but that really doesn't give us the right to judge her.

    My DS also still goes in the stroller and uses a paci and people have the nerve? audacity? to comment. I love to tell them, "well, if he didn't have his paci he'd be well on his way to developing oral aversion" or "yes, he's in a stroller because he's hooked up to life-saving nutritional support and can't be running around lest he pull out his tube and die."

    I guess what I'm saying is lets just go easy on folks (and the hyperbole). She must be struggling because she brought it up on T.V., but that doesn't mean she is endangering her child or letting her child make her life miserable. She's a mom just like the rest of us.

    by GiGi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:29 AM PDT

    • And ten years from now, (0 / 0)

      Now one will give a rat's ass.  Truly.  I know.

      by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • no big deal (0 / 0)

      I don't see the big deal with bottles either.  I don't even try to get my kids off of them until they are 2 or 2 1/2.  They get their three cups of milk that way and they would usually just sit with it for a few minutes, three times a day, a well-needed break.  They never carry them around though, because they are messy.  I always made sure they drank some water out of a cup too.    

      I've seen kids with them until 4 or 5 too, along with pacifiers, and I don't see the big deal at all.  Same for strollers.

      Honestly, I don't even see how a sippy is much of a difference.  I read somewhere Playtex just invented those to expand how long babies and kids used their products.

      by NJmom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • In the end, (0 / 0)

        its always about marketing, isn't it?

        As long as I could keep a child in a stroller, I did so.  Same with cribs.  My kids stayed in cribs longer than most probably do.  For whatever reason, they weren't climbers, so I wasn't worried about them getting hurt.  And yes...knowing that they weren't going to be up wandering around in the middle of the night seemed like a good thing at the time.

        by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • I got flack (0 / 0)

        from the WIC office for allowing my son to have a bottle at 12 months (he weaned from the breast faster than I liked)!!  I said, "oh, I see." and went right on letting him have a bottle.  He is nearly 16 months now, he drinks from a sippy during the day, has an occasional nap time bottle, and always a bed time bottle.  I don't think it'll kill him, and my pediatrician agrees with me. We both figure if your kid is off the bottle all day and day time potty trained by the time they go to kindergarten, your golden!

        by face121 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • How true! (0 / 0)

          That was my goal.  I remember I had a great aunt who said "every child of normal intelligence will learn to go to the toilet".  This really resonated with me.

          As someone who deals with neurological issues, I believe this more firmly now.  Neurological development is very individualized.  We should take our cues from our children.  Remember, kids can't read the textbooks!

          by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • my ped was equally stern (0 / 0)

          But in our case DS was ready for a cup at around a year.  As long as he could keep his pacifier he was good to go.

          by mamacita on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:52:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • That's cute! (0 / 0)

            My DD had her pacifier until she was 2.  My DS has had no interest what-so-ever in a pacifier, unless his 2 yr old cousin has one.  Then he tries to take it, but not to put in his mouth, just to run around with.  Every kid is different, and we do need to take our cues from them.

            by face121 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    • on being judgy (0 / 0)

      I'll admit to being judge-y about the nighttime bottles at four thing, mainly because of second-hand experience through my cousin. He slept with bottles until he was almost five and has developed some pretty bad tooth and gum issues that will never work themselves out without surgery (he's 11 now and his mouth is a mess).

      That said, my judge-yness isn't in that she's a horrid mom because of a bottle, it's just that particular topic makes me more twitchy than a photo by icon Annie Leibovitz. She can do what she likes and if her daughter running the house is cool with her, then power to her.

      by lilianna28 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • No one minds the young models (0 / 0)

    This "controversy" about Cyrus is ridiculous. I see it as just another thing to distract Americans from the economic meltdown that truly affects everyone.

    The Cyrus family knew what they were doing. In LA there is no such thing as bad publicity. This sell-out take on Annie L. is insane and just shows that Disney will do anything to protect its profits.  

    Miley is getting ready to transition to more mature roles and this shot was probably a step in that direction. Her parents could have ordered an alternate shot if they were concerned about the sexual nature of the photo.  They weren't -  until the blow up by puritan Americans who want steamy sexuality from someone else's kids. The modeling industry thrives on images of teenage sexuality and no one complains.  Americans are historically prudish at home (with their kids) and voyeuristic with everyone else's.

    Wake up America and pay attention to things that really matter!

    by phree on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:11 AM PDT

    • no one complains... (0 / 0)

      sorry to keep playing devil's advocate here..but perhaps that is a problem.  the fact that young girls are sexually exploited by the media is a worthy and important discussion.

      now i have no real use for disney and i adore annie l and vanity fair.  and yes it just may be that this idol is transistioning to more adult roles.  but just because disney was part of the complaining doesn't automatically dismiss the argument.

      i agree that we need to be focused on important issues.  if this idol's photo spread ignites the overall discussion of media sexual exploitation of girls, then i don't see it as unimportant.

      by parentalunit1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I totally agree (0 / 0)

        Exploitation -- and not only by the media -- of women in our country is outrageous.  And I dare say a very important and current topic.   And I would also  go so far as to say if women had a more equal footing in our society, many of the ills we are seeing run rampant in today's world perhaps wouldn't exist, or would exist to a much lesser degree.

        karen

        by karen m on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:56:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Amen sister! (0 / 0)

          n/t

          by parentalunit1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • I agree, too (0 / 0)

          in media, this kind of male gaze is harmful to all women, even if a tiny minority do make a good profit off of it.  I do mind pictures of half naked underage models, too, except that I don't automatically know exactly how old they are by looking at them.  

          I don't think that underage kids should take their clothes off for pictures that will run in magazines.  There are laws that allow for flexibility in teens' sexual activity because sexual activity is natural, but we don't all get to the sexy photo shoot age.  

          I think Miley Cyrus will be absolutely fine and I don't think her fans will be harmed, either.  However, this is just a symptom that subtly hurts us all every day.  Have you seen "Killing Us Softly"?

          by Erin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Is that a movie? (0 / 0)

            I think you're somewhat right in the sense of Miley Cyrus being "fine" and her fans being unharmed....but none of this stuff happens in a vacuum and is highly symbolic (imo) of  how women/girls are characterized in our culture.

            Sexuality is wonderful -- each person to their own...that's great - but when sexuality is turned on its head (no pun intended LOL) into a money machine, I think it is perverted and corrupted and it isn't any longer about pure sexuality and  normal human desire for sensual experiences - it is about greed and perhaps power, and exploitation of a "thing" for money.

            So, I would disagree when put into a larger framework that Miley or her fans, or our human population and the  exploitation of women and objectifying them does hurt us all and is insidious.   When anyone calls out the process, that is sometimes ridiculed as being prudish, or against freedom of the press etc., which I think is an easy way to shut out discussion of what I think is a huge cultural problem.

            One only has to read about violence that takes place against women every single day to realize we live in a very dangerous culture regarding women's safety and right to live free of bodily and emotional harm.

            karen

            by karen m on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • absolutely... (0 / 0)

              i agree it does harm to everyone.  i also agree that the  "puritanical" legacy of our country argument obscures the point about violence and the exploitation of women in our culture.  there is a difference between being prudish and concern about how violence against women is inoculated into our culture.

              i go back time and time again to susan faludi's backlash and every day i see evidence of how on target she was.  her examples of how women were being commerically exploited were spot on and unfortunately it has only festered and spread.  i also salute bob herbert of the NY Times as being one of the leading journalist in raising this issue.  his outcry over how everyone seemed to miss the horror of the amish school tragedy was one of his first attempts that i noticed.  his point? no one seem to be talking about the fact that this incident along with another colorado singled out just girls.  he noted that if it had been african american boys or latinos that certainly there would have been a large hue and cry over the racist overtones.  but somehow no one pointed out the wretched violence against girls.  why is that?

              again i believe this is a very important issue and one that gets easily obscured as we become increasingly bombarded and immune.

              by parentalunit1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Objectification and Backlash (0 / 0)

                 First, I never said that the topic of objectification was unimportant. It is quite important, but I believe the modeling industry contributes to this trend far more than a singular  celeb photo shoot.  I too loved Backlash because it explained why my X-er generation was being forced into Repug models of femininity, the "mommy track" (e.g. the anti-choice politics of late 80s when this text appeared) if we did not play male dominated corporate games. That said, Miley Cyrus is not a victim.

                Nevertheless, I still contend that the Miley flap is  ridiculous in that this photo was done to promote more crass materialism and teenage sexuality. All publicity is welcome publicity in the celeb machine.  When people started reacting to the shots negatively, then Disney and VF sold Annie down the river. The reality is that Miley is a pampered little celebrity who stars on a show that glorifies the most negative sorts of materialism and crass consumerism. Her parents knew exactly what they were doing and there are no exploited victims here.  

                My take on this inane controversy: Miley's show will continue to be wildly popular. Parents will still buy their daughters clothing that promotes the very objectification they rail against in forums like this.  Finally we adult women who could set the agenda continue to buy into the beauty systems that promote the creation of new victims. Is Dove the only company that can address "real women?" Thus, our possibility for thwarting the Backlash is hampered every time we celebrate shows like Desperate Housewives and Real Housewives of Orange County.  We buy in to our own objectification through our support of designers who promote negative sexual stereotypes in the diet and fashion industries.  Every woman wants to be a size 0 and wear clothes appropriate for hot 20 somethings. We are our worst enemies.  

                Now will someone please address the possible Backlash from a McCain presidency and appointments to the Supreme Court?!?!?  

                by phree on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • in agreement.. (0 / 0)

                  and see your original point more clearly. i think where i got started was with the following in your post:

                  "The modeling industry thrives on images of teenage sexuality and no one complains.  Americans are historically prudish at home (with their kids) and voyeuristic with everyone else's."

                  the part about no one complains was what got to me.  i do complain and we should boycott those who push objectification onto us.  backlash brought this to the fore for me and i try to pay close attention to those media messages.

                  looks like we are on the same page, yes?

                  by parentalunit1 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:28:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      • exploitation (0 / 0)

        I found it so strange. Yesterday, I was reading about the Miley Cyrus flap. Then I read an article about the FLDS cult and the presumption that half of all the teenage girls were either pregnant or had already had children.

        I found the MC photos borderline creepy, but the responsibiilty is on the parents, not VF. VF is trying to make a buck; the parents are supposed to be the ones questioning whether they're appropriate, what the impact could be on their daughter, if she's being exploited, etc. The scandal to me is that they went along with it and were totally relaxed about it.

        And is it me, or is the photo of Miley and Billy Ray draped over each other creepier than the bare back photo?

        by Rachel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • I mind the young models (0 / 0)

      and just walking past freaking Abercrombie and What'shisname in the mall gives me the willies.  

      But I'm not American.  So what do I know.

      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"

      by lonestar canuck on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I scold myself (0 / 0)

        whenever I go past the Abercrombie store. Isn't that the one that always has those humongous pictures on the entrance wall of some hunky model, half naked?! I've never gone inside the store, mostly because I am too busy drooling over the male model in the picture ... and then SCOLDING myself for it, because really, that guy is probably near my OWN KID'S age!!! Eeeewwwwwww, gross. :)

        Oh, and yes, there's also my concern about the early sexualization of teens and all of that. But mostly, I'm concerned about my own reaction ... which then makes me realize what the kids are thinking about all the time, and then I get blushy and worried all over again.

        by Kay on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Bottles and such (0 / 0)

    I don't see how it makes a difference how long a kid is in bottles or diapers, but there needs to a balance of power in the household.  Like, your kid shouldn't be in diapers because that's easier or more comforting for you.  (I don't think it would be easier, at all, but my sister in-law's parents had her oldest daughter back in diapers when they took her for a summer.  There was something skeevy about it, since she was already completely potty trained before.)  And, you also shouldn't be giving in to everything the kid asks for because you can't handle imposing discipline.

    Obviously the majority of us don't end up in grade school with binkies and diapers, so peer pressure or development or whatever usually takes care of it.

    My dad was telling me that several of our Vietnamese family friends had a very permissive approach to raising young children (up through preschool age, I think).  They could eat and drink whatever they wanted, and they were resistant to enforcing a lot of things, including sitting in car seats.  Then at a certain point, (maybe after they could talk?) they were expected to be very polite and obediant.  I guess it's just a different approach, that's mostly fine, although car seats and dental health are important.  Is anyone else familiar with this kind of parenting?  

    by lonespark on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:46 AM PDT

    • When my kids were younger, (0 / 0)

      we had neighbors/friends who were Indian/Pakistani.  While strict in some regards, they took a very laid back approach to things like toilet training.  Really, they didn't "toilet train"...rather, they took the diapers off their kids and let nature take its course.  In very short order, their children were what we would consider "potty trained".  

      by tjb22 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • cultural differences (0 / 0)

      My first month of motherhood was spent in Guatemala under the sceptical eye of women who I'm sure are convinced that anglos don't have a clue about babies.  I got tons of helpful advice from strangers I encountered on the streets, none of whom seemed to mind that I don't speak spanish.  :-)  Some of the cultural differences definitely influenced my parenting style.  (Though I did wean from the bottle on the American schedule - dental problems are common among older Guatemalan adoptees.)  

      There's a really interesting book, "Our Babies, Ourselves", by Meredith Small, that was for me a real eye opener.  It compares parenting differences among 6 very different cultures.  One part that really stuck with me was how the Kenyan women were shocked by videos of American mothers - they never ever let their babies cry even for a minute, so to them we appear cold and uncaring.  The book really helped me to see how many right ways there are to raise a child, and I hope made me a little less judgmental.  

      by lyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • no more bottles (0 / 0)

    Here is how you wean a child off the bottle.  Dont give it to them.  So they cry a bit for 10 minutes.  So what.  They wont die and it is for their own good.  The longer you wait the harder it is.  Both my daughter were off bottles totally by 12 months.  Neither used a pacifier so I got lucky.  Be the parent.  Sometimes kids cry but that does not mean you are cruel.  They cry when you dont let them eat dishwashing detergent or scold them for running in the street.  They are just mad for the moment, not traumatized.  Bottles are bad for the teeth.  Just throw them out.  Besides, the less BPA our kids get the better.  Oh and sippy cups.  Don tuse them at all.  Go straight to cups with straws.  

    by summer day on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:22:41 PM PDT

  • The bottle/bink thing (0 / 0)

    doesn't bother me one bit.  Hell... Madeline just weaned at over 5 LOL.  (Now who's the weirdo hahaha?)  One of these days I'll post a diary about her weaning party.  You all would get a kick out of that. ;-)

    I agree w/Lisa though... it's more disturbing that she "runs the house".  Yikes.

    "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

    by 1plain1peanut on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:10:40 PM PDT

  • suri bothers me too! (0 / 0)

    i thought i was the only one...
    is scientology anti-sippy cup?

    by stellasmomma on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:57:22 PM PDT

Permalink | 96 comments