I could take you down a long winded path of words to tell you that, but that has never been my writing style. I'd rather be direct.

For seven years, I wrote here. I shared my thoughts about parenting, feminism, social change and the intersection between them.  I wrote 200 posts about breastfeeding and another 600 or so on other topics. Even I find that hard to believe. But I've had less and less to share as my children get older. I feel like I've written just about everything I wanted to write about parenting (and I don't like repeating myself) and I also find there are less common topics to discuss as our children get older. 

As I wrote previously:

I'm parenting inside a relationship that is many years in the making.

Within the walls of that relationship, the books, the magazines, and the experts mean a lot less than my intuition does. Every once in a while, I read an article that catches my interest or inspires me, but I spend a lot less time deep diving for ideas than I once did. I look to my children to show me how to parent them, not to some outside source of expertise and validation that knows nothing about who my children are, who I am, or what our relationship is like.

The interesting conversations about parenting, I find, are more often in one-on-one situations with people who know my children and who know me. My Internet interactions about parenting have become less about big issues and more about daily anecdotes. Those anecdotes don't often make it to the blog, because it is hard to write a full blog post on something that is easily said in 140 characters on twitter.

With each year, the number of blog posts I have written has dwindled. In 2014, I only wrote 14 blog posts. Barely more than one per month. This year, I've only written one prior to this one. I've been planning this blog's demise for a while, but needed to find the right time. Since then, numerous other bloggers have announced similar ends to their blogs. Others seem to be on their way out too.

The blog isn't going anywhere. I will keep PhD in Parenting on the Internet.  Around 2000 people still visit the blog on an average day, 86% of them for the first time.  Keeping content on the Internet isn't free. I'll still have to pay for hosting and the domain name. If you visit the site and find the content useful, I would appreciate you clicking on my Amazon links and making purchases. It is no additional cost to you, but a small percentage goes to me and helps me cover the cost of the blog.

I'm not going anywhere either. While I'm done focusing on parenting, I've been online for almost 25 years now and I don't plan to leave the Internet altogether anytime soon. If you want to know where to find me, drop me a line and I'll let you know (please do not send press releases or requests for product reviews). 

If you're new to the blog and want to dig in a bit, you're welcome to read through my archives and check out the most popular posts on the blog. Comments are still open now, but I'll likely shut them down soon so that I don't have to keep an eye on comment moderation and spam.

To those of you who have read my blog over the years: THANK YOU. I've appreciated interacting with so many of you in discussions in the comments, on facebook and twitter, and on your blogs.  Goodbye.

I realize how much he does when he is travelling for work (just as I'm sure he realizes how much I do, when I'm travelling for work). It isn't the solo parenting that I find particularly hard while he is away, it is doing all of my chores while also doing all of his chores, while also parenting and also working. For the most part, when he is away, I do the day-to-day things that need to be done (e.g. cleaning the kitchen, doing the dishes, putting out the garbage on garbage day), but I leave the things that can wait until he gets back.

Last year, I wrote about a study on parents, household chores, and the impact on their children's attitudes and aspirations. I wasn't entirely convinced or overwhelmed by the results and I'll admit, I've been waiting to see what the impact of our choices will be on our children. Or whether it will even have an impact at all, considering that societal and peer influences could outweigh anything they see in our home.

But this week, as I've been solo parenting, my 10 year old has been voicing observations. I'm not entirely sure if they are innocent observations or developing snark.

Conversation One

Son: "Did someone sneak into our house while we were sleeping?"

Me: "No. The alarm was on. Why do you ask?"

Son: "Someone cleaned the bathroom. Daddy is away, but someone cleaned the bathroom."

Yes, I cleaned the bathroom. I cleaned the countertops, the sinks, the toilet, the floors and more. No, I didn't like it. No, I don't plan on making a habit of it. But the puke fest that visited our home over the weekend unfortunately required it.

Conversation Two

Son: "I hope Daddy is back from his work trip soon"

Me: "Why? Do you miss him?"

Son: "Well, yes. But also because someone needs to do the laundry soon. I don't have very many clean socks left."

Oh dear innocent and/or snarky child. I'm glad you're learning that cleaning toilets and doing the laundry are not a woman's work. Little do you know that you may soon be learning they are a tween boy's work.

At some point in my teenage years, we got a Nintendo and a computer. Those were fun, but again limited. We could only have as many games as our birthdays, Christmas and allowance or babysitting money could buy. There weren't thousands and thousands of free apps providing constant entertainment and diversion. There weren't ways to connect with our friends online.

In fact, the first time I interacted with anyone digitally was in 1992, the year I graduated from high school. That is when I got my first 1200 baud modem and joined a few local BBSes. Even then, the number of people, the number of conversations, was limited. I would reach a point of boredom and log off.

For three of the four years that I was doing my undergraduate degree, I didn't have a television. The one year I did have a television, we got a grand total of three channels. While I had a computer in my room, it didn't connect to the Internet. I had to go to a computer lab or a library to do that. Tetris and solitaire were as good as it got.

When it came to getting my reading done and my essays written, the only distractions were the clouds floating by outside, the allure of a nap, or making myself a snack. Other diversions were possible, for sure, but required more effort. Going shopping, meeting up with friends, or watching one of my few loved televisions shows were welcome diversions to plan for. They weren't things tempting me, one click away, 24 hours per day.

I was organized. Perhaps even a bit obsessive compulsive organized. I would plan out my week in terms of the classes that I needed to attend, the reading and writing I had to get done, and the diversions that I had carefully planned (Seinfeld at 9:30pm on a Thursday, dancing with friends on Friday evening, a Sunday afternoon nap). If I didn't struggle through four chapters of Aristotle, I didn't get to laugh with Jerry.

My organization brought rewards in the form of great marks and a feeling of accomplishment.

But these days? OMG it is harder. So much harder.

It is hard for me, as someone with YEARS of practice at staying on task and on schedule and getting things done. It is hard for me, as someone who gets to put money in the bank or buy nice things as a reward for getting my shit done. Even as I write this, I also have facebook open in another tab and the little (1) in the corner is nagging at me. Can I finish this paragraph before I go and see what it is all about? Will I get this article finished before I need to go and pick up my kids at their birthday parties and play dates?

What if I don't? Meh. In this case, no one is counting on me. Maybe you like reading my blog and would enjoy this article. But if I didn't write it, would your day be ruined? Not really. Would I be uanble to feed my family? Also nope. Would I experience any negative consequences? Perhaps a little nagging feeling that it would have been nice to get an article written. But it would also be nice to see what is happening on facebook.

You get my point, right? 

Now the real reason for writing this: My kids, our children. I wonder sometimes, in this day of constant digital distractions and instant amusement at the click of a button, if they'll ever be able to develop the willpower or the skill or whatever it is to ignore the nagging of the digital distractions. Right now, as their parent, I can set limits and enforce them. Whether on a schedule or in terms of rewards dolled out for getting things done, I can impose limitations and motivation.

But what happens when I am no longer there to provide structure and rules? What happens when the school no longer has rules about no electronics at school or at least no electronics in the classroom? Will they ever come to a point of self-control? Will it be easier for them to control themselves (because they've almost always had these distractions, the way I always had clouds floating by)? Or will it be harder?

The reason I was motivated to write this article is that I decided to check in on facebook instead of unloading the dishwasher while my kids were playing minecraft and watching Netflix. When I went on facebook, I saw an article called Measuring Students' Self-Control: A 'Marshmallow Test' for the Digital Age, posted by my friend Emma Waverman who writes at Embrace the Chaos when she isn't busy being distracted by twitter (or doing her other writing jobs).

Quick Tangent: Months and months ago, Emma tagged me and asked me to write a blog post about my writing process. Another thing that I haven't done, because we finally got Netflix and I watched all of Orange is the New Black and Brooklyn Nine-Nine this summer. Sorry, Emma. But in fairness, Emma still owes me a guest blog post from YEARS ago. So perhaps, this can stand in as my blog post about my writing process. Basically, my process is:

1. Come across something that inspires me enough to write (the article Emma posted)
   
2. Find the time to write (kids at birthday party/play date)
   
3. Limit other distractions as much as possible (sitting in a coffee shop, avoiding the little (1) on the facebook tab)
   
4. Write, write, write, add links, add pics, publish.
5. Edited to add: Go back hours later and edit the typos that don't appear until after the blog post has been published.
   

Where was I?

Oh yes...the article I read. In Measuring Students' Self-Control: A 'Marshmallow Test' for the Digital Age, the article discusses a distraction test given to students. Students are given the choice between doing math problems, watching videos, or playing a video game. Here is an excerpt from the article explaining the test:

So they devised a task that uses behavioral responses to measure academic diligence, which they define as “working assiduously on academic tasks which are beneficial in the long run but tedious in the moment, especially in comparison to more enjoyable, less effortful diversions.”

The rationale behind the test is that with many subject areas or skills, such as mathematics, the basic process of building fluency and mastery involves a lot of practice. It requires “hard work that is perceived as tedious, even though people know it’s immensely important,” D’Mello said. “But that’s just the reality.”

...

To measure this skill in a scenario simulating real life, D’Mello, who is an assistant professor of computer science and psychology, designed the diligence task with a split computer-screen interface (click here for a demo). On the left side, students can choose to do a series of boring skill-building math problems — simple, single-digit subtraction. On the right side, they can play Tetris or watch short, entertaining YouTube video clips of movie trailers or sports highlights. The test is delivered online.

Overall, the teens doing the test spent about half of their time on the math problems, but some did a lot more math than others. What would motivate them to do that and what does that mean in terms of other outcomes for their lives? The students who did more math problems were more likely to graduate from high school and had higher IQs (chicken, egg?).

Some students gamified the math itself, challenging themselves to see how many math problems they could complete. That is definitely something that I employ myself in my work and in my fitness activities. I think my personal trainer has figured this out about me and is using it to push me even further and harder. But is that something that is hard wired in my genes and if so did I pass those down to my kids and if so why am I not seeing it yet? Or is it something that is learned and that I developed over time with my planning and scheduling and rewarding myself with diversions?

Some children legitimately have ADHD and are well served by pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage that. But what about the rest of the kids out there who don't have ADHD, but still experience the nagging of that digital device that wants to distract them from the things they need to get done? Are they going to figure it out on their own eventually, find that motivation, and push through? Or is there something that we should be doing as parents and educators to help them learn self-control?

I don't have the answer, but I'm certainly open to ideas and suggestions. Being a self-starter and an "I can do that" person is something that I think serves people well in life in terms of their success and their happiness. But does that fire need to be lit or does it kick in on its own?

So, I got the article written. The dishwasher will need to be unloaded when I get home while I try to motivate my children to do their French homework.

Do we need breastfeeding images in the media?

As with all breastfeeding imagery in mainstream media, this one is causing quite a fuss. I would argue that as long as they continue to create a fuss, we do need them. Until the photo of her glamorously nursing her baby causes no more fuss than the picture of her glamorously looking into her baby's face or glamorously sitting on a diner stool, then I think the photo is very much needed.

Why? Because breastfeeding is still seen by way too many people as something shameful or disgusting. Because mothers who want to breastfeed their own baby have often never seen another woman breastfeeding before they try to latch their own baby for the first time. Because breastfeeding is a part of mothering for the majority of women and there is absolutely no reason to hide it away and pretend it never happened.

But even if breastfeeding imagery is important in general, do we really need famous people breastfeeding in the pages of fashion magazines?

On facebook, my friend Rebecca asked:

Apparently, it's national breastfeeding week, which I suppose partially explains Olivia Wilde's couture-ballgown-nursing-in-a-diner "glamour shot"... I'm feeling conflicted about that. On the one hand, normalization and increased visibility of breastfeeding is great. On the other, commodification of a vestige of non-capitalist exchange by selling images of mother-child moments (and, let's be honest, cleavage) to sell magazines is something I find... troubling. Any thoughts?

Of course, I have thoughts and while I started to answer them in the comments on Rebecca's facebook post, I thought my blog might be a better place to share my thoughts. Of course I agree with Rebecca that normalization and increased visibility of breastfeeding is great.

But what about the commodification part?

In general, women's magazines are about commodifying images of women. For the most part, the images are of thin, white, young, heterosexual, able-bodied, tall, beautiful, childless women. Every time those magazines feature a woman of colour, a plus-size woman, a disabled woman, a mother, or anyone else who doesn't fit the very carefully crafted image of what the media considers to be "beautiful", then I think we've made progress. With that image, we've told a girl or a woman who identifies with that celebrity that she deserves to be seen too.

When I asked my readers last year what it means to them to support breastfeeding, I received a variety of incredibly insightful answers. Many of them touched on normalizing breastfeeding and one in particular said: "pop culture should be immersed in the normalcy of nursing to help reverse the sexualization of breasts". I would agree. Every time I see breastfeeding on a television show or in a movie, particularly if it isn't the subject of the scene, I think that helps. Every time I see a breastfeeding image in a magazine or a newspaper, I think that helps. Every time we see images of a celebrity breastfeeding her child, I think that helps (although sometimes I think it would be better if the image stood on its own without their words to go with it...take note please Gisele Bundchen).

Maybe Olivia Wilde's photo shoot will help a young expecting mother consider breastfeeding or maybe it will help mothers who never would have thought to take pictures of themselves breastfeeding to take the opportunity to document that special time with their baby through a photo session or at least a few iphone pictures. Like it or not, people try to mimic what they see in pop culture. So let's at least give them something worth mimicking.

My own breastfeeding "glamour" shot

With my son, I had a huge battle in order to be able to breastfeed him. I was proud of the way I persevered and what I had accomplished. I was thankful for those who helped me. I was grateful for the breastfeeding relationship that we were able to develop. Although I have a few pictures of me nursing him, for the most part, the hours and hours and hours of nursing went undocumented. It was a big part of mothering for me and one that is not nearly proportionally represented in the imagery of his first few years.

With my daughter, I knew that I wanted to have more breastfeeding pictures. I got others to take some, I took some myself, and we had a professional photographer (Annie Lance) come to the house to take family photos and breastfeeding pictures.

Yes, I too had my breastfeeding glamour shot. I wasn't nearly as made up or dressed to the nines as Olivia Wilde (but then again, I never really am). But we did move furniture out of the way and I was sitting in a place that I wouldn't normally nurse because we wanted to get a particular type of photo.

Capturing and sharing the real moments

My friend Jill who blogs at Baby Rabies had her third baby last year.  “Why do I always forget how miserable I am after having a baby?”, she asked her husband in a post where she writes about the difficult aspects of her postpartum recovery.

In the post, she included this picture of her sitting on the bed, nursing her baby, with laundry strewn around her, a half consumed drink and off-kilter lamp shade on the bed side table, and the breastfeeding pillow on her lap and more pillows behind her back to provide the needed support in those early days. Then there is the part the image doesn't show. The nipple pain that she said was absolutely horrible (see also: Does breastfeeding hurt?). This is reality.

Is Olivia Wilde's Photo a Slap in the Face to the Rest of Us?

Olivia Wilde's reality is not reality for most of us. In fact, the breastfeeding experience portrayed in her image it isn't even reality for her on most days. She doesn't usually nurse in a designer dress and heels and her baby isn't usually diaperless when they are nursing. I would assume this is probably true of most photo shoots with models, whether there is a baby on the breast or not. How many of them would lounge around the pool in stiletteo heels, diamond jewelry and a designer bikini on their day off?

In the LA Times, Sarah Rohwer wrote about Wilde's breastfeeding photo:

She embodies the public image that has become ubiquitous in the world of celebrity mothers: that not only can you be both a mom and a glamazon, but you can do so while effortlessly breastfeeding your infant.

It’s a fantasy and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. But when regular women are still being kicked out of public (and virtual) places for breastfeeding, or have to sue their employers for appropriate accommodations in which to pump breast milk for their infants at home, the glamorous fantasy of the publicly breastfeeding celebrity mother can be a slap in the face to the rest of us. 

She goes on to say that "We could all stand to see little less fantasy about motherhood and a little more reality."

I can't disagree with that. But I do think Wilde's photo could be a tiny step towards making mothers feel like breastfeeding is something to talk about, take photos of, and not simply hide away.  If we all feel like mothering deserves to be seen and talked about, then maybe more mothers will be willing to talk about it and maybe we won't be called "mommy" in a condescending fashion by the media when we do.

What do you think? Is Wilde's Glamour breastfeeding image the commodification of fantasy-style mother-child moments or is it a small step towards telling mothers that they deserve to be seen and that their stories matter?

Safe Kids USA shared a sad milestone three years ago in June 2011. The number of children to die from heat stroke after being left alone in a car had reached 500. In the United States, an average of 38 children die this way each year.

The Danger of Leaving Kids Alone in the Car

According to Safe Kids USA, “heat stroke (also known as hyperthermia) occurs when a body’s thermostat is overleaded with heat; children are at a great risk of this as their body heats up 3 to 5 times faster than adults.”

This Public Safety Announcement from Kids and Cars warns parents of the danger of forgetting your child.

Are Rearfacing Seats To Blame?

Car safety experts know that it is safest for babies and small children to be in a rear-facing seat in the car. In the event of a crash, they are best protected that way. In March 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) updated its car seat recommendations. The new policy recommends that children remain rear-facing until the age of 2, unless they reach the maximum height and weight of the car seat at an earlier age.

Dr. Dennis Durbin, the lead author on the AAP’s new policy statement, explains that: “A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body.” The AAP says that deaths of children in motor vehicle crashes are decreasing, but are still the leading cause of death of children ages four and older.

While experts agree that a rear-facing seat is the best place for the child to be in the case of a collision, some experts are now questioning whether that puts them at a greater risk of being forgotten in a car. According to Parent Central (article no longer available), “the last time experts pushed a new campaign to put more children in rear-facing seats — in the 1990s, to cut the chances of being killed by air bags — the number of children who died in hot cars spiked.” They go on to explain that more children died from being forgotten in cars than from air bags.

It Won’t Happen to Me

Most parents believe this could never happen to them. In a Safe Kids press release, Reggie McKinnon, a father who left his 8 month old in the car when he went to work, was quoted as saying: “Before this accident, every time I would read of a child dying in a parked car of hyperthermia, I too would ask, ‘how could they forget their child?’ I would never do that. That only happens to people who are uneducated, drunk, drug-addicts, not me.”

Parent Central (link no longer available) reported that it is often parents who are tired, distracted, stressed or who have made changes to their routine who end up forgetting a child in the car. It can be a costly mistake. These parents not only lose their baby, but they are also often perceived as monsters and sometimes even charged with manslaughter and child abuse.

What Can Parents Do?

Although the concern about rear-facing seats is understandable, I don’t think that the solution to one safety problem needs to come from ignoring another safety issue. If parents want to keep their children as safe as possible in the car, but also remember to take them out when they get to their destination, what can they do?

Parent Central also reported that there are companies developing technical solutions to help parents remember that their child is in the backseat. This includes simpler solutions like playing “Twinkle Twinkle” when the car stops as well as more technically advanced ones that would sound an alarm if a child is left in the backseat. 

Other parents have developed their own approaches, such as leaving their purse in the back seat below the car seat so that they have to look in the back to get it out.

When our children were rearfacing, we used a child mirror that allowed us to see them whenever we looked in the rear view mirror. For a driver following normal safety precautions and looking in the rear view mirror regularly, this means that there would be a constant reminder that the child is there. While we didn’t purchase the mirror specifically to ensure that we never forgot the baby, I’m sure that having it did contribute to remembering that the baby was there.

What do you do?

What do you do to help ensure that you won’t forget your baby or toddler in the car?

Research Results as a Plea or a Threat

Women across the Internet shared the study in a desperate plea for some more help around the house -- "See honey -- if you won't do it for me, at least do it for our daughter." Others were upset by the implication that the division of labour in their homes could be harmful to their daughters. As an example, Alex Durrell from I Don't Blog, But If I Did, wrote:

I’m not a stay-at-home mother because I lack ambition. It isn’t my father’s fault (since I don’t think I ever saw him once clean our house) that I’m not a doctor or engineer. My husband not cleaning up after himself won’t affect my daughter’s chances of “success”. What total garbage research it is to simplify such a complicated dynamic like this.

I am the person who spends 95% of her time in this house. It stands to reason that the majority of the household jobs fall to me. I certainly expect that my husband picks up after himself and supports me and does work, too, but he isn’t asking me to make the money we spend — we’re a partnership, each doing different jobs to make sure the machine of our family life runs smoothly. And if that feels unfair, unjust or plain frustrating at any time, we sit down and discuss it. We are equals. This is what my children see.

People who read my blog know that I'm a big proponent of equally shared parenting, of career minded women, and men who do their share in raising a family. They know that if a mother is looking for a way to share the load more fairly with her partner, that I'll provide ideas, advice and models that might work. I don't think that women need to accept that they'll do more of the housework just because that is what usually happens. But my readers also know that I support each family's right to choose what works for them, whether that is one parent (mother or father) staying home while the other works, both parents working full-time, or both parents working part-time.

Image credit: pasukaru76 on flickr

Looking Behind the Headlines

People who read my blog also know that I don't take headlines, especially ones about research studies, at face value. Headlines are written for clicks, not to educate people. So when I read the news about this study last week, I didn't jump to write about it right away. Instead, I contacted the lead researcher Alyssa Croft and asked her to send me a copy of her paper and then I read it.

I'll admit I had some questions (or possibly assumptions) going into it. The one question in my mind as I read the study was "did it control for the mother's career?". Sure, it is nice to say that girls whose fathers do more housework are more likely to want to be scientists, but is that because their father is doing housework or is that because their mother is a scientist? Isn't it possible that women who have more demanding, non-traditional, higher paying careers also need to have a partner who is willing to take on more of the household chores? That is what Sheryl Sandberg told us, after all. If we want to 'lean in', we need to make our partner a true partner.

I'll start by saying that I was glad to see a research study that looked at the impact of fathers on their children. Most studies seem to find a way to blame the mother while completely ignoring the father, so this study was a breath of fresh air from that perspective. 

What did I learn? Here are a few of the key research findings (from the paper, not the news headlines):

• Boys are always more likely to express interest in traditionally male careers, whereas girls career choices are dependent on their father's (but not necessarily their mother's) attitude toward and contribution to household tasks.

In both the mother-child and the father-child analyses, boys nominated more gender-stereotypic careers than did girls, both ps < .001 (see Table 6). Although no other effects were significant in the mother-child analysis, within the father-child analysis several effects pointed to the unique role that fathers might play in predicting daughters’ occupational aspirations. [...] In each case, only daughters’ and not sons’ aspirations were predicted by their fathers’ variables. Daughters reported aspiring toward more stereotypic future occupations to the degree that their fathers: a) explicitly endorsed a traditional division of household tasks, β = .43, p = .003, b) had stronger implicit associations of women with home and men with work, β = .30, p = .016, and c) reported contributing less to household tasks and childcare, β = -.41, p = .017.

• There are several reasons why fathers who are more involved at home could influence daughter's career aspirations.

There are several possible explanations for these findings between fathers and their daughters. Fathers could be modeling future potential mates, signaling to their daughters that they can expect men to help at home, thereby allowing women more time for work. Alternatively, those fathers who contribute more at home might have more opportunities to suggest masculine pursuits that their daughters then adopt. This enables them to be gatekeepers to their daughters’ interest in counter-stereotypic roles.

• The extent to which mothers' careers impact their daughters' career aspirations is not fully understood (This is the one that I would like to see studied further, as per my introductory comments above).

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the most relevant third variable explanation for the relationships observed among dads and their daughters are the beliefs and behaviors of mothers in these families. For example, dads who engage in more household work may be married to women who work more outside the home or who endorse more counter-stereotypical beliefs about gender roles. Although we were unable to collect enough data from both parents to properly examine these possibilities, analysis of the subsample of 68 parent dyads in our dataset, revealed only modest covariation among gender role variables (see supplementary online materials) and mothers’ variables did not strongly predict daughters’ occupational aspirations. While future research is surely needed, these aspects of our data speak against the possibility that the findings among our father sample are better explained by the beliefs or behaviors of their wives.

What Use is the Study?

At a base level, I think the study and its conclusion are interesting. The conclusion was framed as follows in the study:

If our assumed causal model is accurate, fathers likely play an important role in modeling a more egalitarian future for their daughters by their contributions at home. Our results suggest that when fathers espouse and enact a more equal distribution of domestic work, their daughters more easily envision balancing work with family and having a less gender-stereotypic career.

I do think it can be one variable that helps explain the choices people make and it is a useful data point from that perspective. I've also seen other studies that men without sisters are more likely to have done chores when they were growing up. So, if you married a man who has sisters, you've probably already got an uphill battle when it comes to getting him to share the housework. That is also an interesting finding, I think and perhaps a marker that you should talk about expectations regarding housework before you get married (or maybe even live together before you commit long term to see how things work out). But I don't think that it means you need to screen out potential love interests based on whether they have sisters or not and I don't think couples need to decide who does how much housework based on which career they hope their daughter will pursue.

Beyond simply being an interesting finding, I do think that the study has value in further confirming that you can't be what you can't see. As I wrote in a post on the under- and misrepresentation of women in the media, role models are important.

For better or for worse, most people are not trailblazers.

That doesn't mean that they have no potential. But it does mean that they need role models. They need to see other people, often people like them, succeeding at the type of thing they want to do. They need it for inspiration, leadership, paths to follow, and to help them believe that they can succeed.

If a girl's mother is a stay-at-home mom and does most of the housework and the neighbours, mom's friends, and aunts are also all stay-at-home moms, then that is what that girl's world view will be based on. Later she'll likely be exposed to teachers that are mostly women, but her exposure to women in other careers will be limited. However, if the family has a mixed group of friends and the girl has the opportunity to hear from female scientists and bankers and computer programmers on a regular basis (not just at a three hour "career day" in the ninth grade), then she'll have a different view of what is possible. Similarly, if there are men in her life who vacuum, bake, do laundry, make school lunches, and clean toilets, then she'll be more likely to envision a life where her male partner might do those things too.

Each family should do what works best for them, but parents should be mindful to expose their children to women in a variety of different careers (just as they should expose their children to people from different cultures, races, religions, sexual orientations, economic classes and more). Many feminist parents have been shocked the first time their child openly expresses gender assumptions (e.g. "girls like pretty colours like pink and purple and boys like ugly colours like brown and black"), but it is almost inevitable in our very gendered society that keeps reinforcing gender norms and roles at every turn.

Children's brains are sponges and they'll soak up what is around them, so be mindful to surround them with possibilities and variety as often as possible, especially if your home is reflective of the societal norm. 

Image Credit: Eirik Solheim on Flickr

The Nasty Trolls of the Mommy Mob

It turns out other people, however, have some awfully strong opinions about Rebecca's writing and her book, The Mommy Mob, is all about exposing the nastiness. 

"Wow. Basically she just confessed to being a manipulative cow." -- On a blog post explaining how she hadn't changed a diaper for two months.

"You're pathetic. Of course you have to pay. The bottle was defective? Come on. I know your type. I can tell by the way you blog. You think you're something special because you're a single mom. You're not. Nothing unique here. ...Get over yourself." -- On a blog post about whether she should have to pay after her toddler dropped and broke a bottle of apple juice in a store.

"This is why the government needs to start testing people prior to approving them for reproduction. Otherwise people like Rebecca Eckler will continue to reproduce, creating more Rebecca Ecklers. Dumb breeds dumb." -- On a post about how the sight of a baby penis freaked her out.

Some of those are harsh. Some of the others are even harsher. While it didn't surprise me that people had strong opinions about some of the topics that Rebecca writes about (like leaving her 10 week old to go on vacation), I was shocked that other seemingly benign topics (like signing a kid up for lessons to learn to ride a bike) attracted the same type of nastiness.

I was shocked, but not particularly surprised. After all, there forums out there that serve no purpose other than picking apart every single status update, blog post, or real life sighting of bloggers that the forum's members don't like. There is paparazzi style stalking of some bloggers, there are people who have Child Protective Services sent to bloggers homes, and there are people who have called bloggers' employers. I'm not immune to the appeal of a little gossip here and there (no one is perfect), but some of this stuff is unbelievable, pathetic and even dangerous.

After reading The Mommy Mob, I asked Rebecca whether there was something in particular that motivated her to write the book. Was it a particular blog post or situation? She replied:

No, it was more a culmination of seeing all the horrid comments that made me think, 'Something is going on in this world, with social media, unmoderated comment boards, and the Internet where people can say whatever they damn well please, even if it's a complete lie, that made me think of etiquette not only with parenting choices but how we now judge each other behind our computer screens, as opposed to the good old days when women used to bitch over coffee. Now it's out there for the world to see. In my gut, I thought it was a great idea. Just so many people on the internet, commenting, starting their own blogs, 'branding' themselves...I could not tell you when I started working on it, because I still have baby brain from ten years ago It wasn't one post - it was being beaten down (verbally) for three years that made me think, "What the heck is wrong with some people? Don't agree? Fine. But there MUST be a nice way of conversing without adult/mothers turning on each other like children...

Some of the comments on Rebecca's blog posts were harsh, for sure. Enough to fill at least half a book. But there were also other comments featured in The Mommy Mob that didn't seem nearly as nasty. Ones that did seem like a civil (if not nice) way of conversing; part of a conversation on the topic at hand. The sample comments on the "I Hate Parent-Teacher Interviews" chapter, for example, generally seemed like a normal response to Rebecca's blog post. Some people agreed with her. Others disagreed with her and stated why. But for the most part, they weren't nasty or mean. They were just expressing a differing opinion and backing it up.

Can We Cultivate Civil Online Communities?

As I read some of those less harsh comments, it made me think about the ways we bloggers give our readers cues about the type of conversation we're hoping for. On my blog, I almost always ask a question at the end. In my interactions online, if I'm not looking for advice, I make that clear as well. Sometimes all you want is a high-five or a "hell yeah" or an empathetic ear, whereas other times we may be looking for insight into a situation and may want to hear other perspectives.There are many corners of the Internet where you simply should not read the comments and perhaps Mommyish (where Rebecca writes) is one of those places. But in curated, cultivated communities, setting the tone for what is appropriate and inappropriate can help keep the trolls at bay. Most of the nasty comments listed in Rebecca's book would have been immediately deleted from my blog.

It seems as though people can't accept that Rebecca is just telling a story, not writing a universal motherhood manifesto. Each parent's experience is different. Each parent's environment is different. Each parent's frame of reference is different. The fact that she wants a Prada purse for Mother's Day isn't less valid as a story just because someone else can't even be with their child for Mother's Day. But that openess to other people's stories and realities has to go both ways. Rebecca objected (rightfully so) to commenters calling her "the most selfish woman I've ever met", but at the same time wrote in her blog post that mothers who don't care about Mother's Day are either "saints or liars". Commenters (rightfully) objected to that. For some people Prada purses on Mother's Day are important, for other people spending time with their kids is important, for others being left alone to go to the spa is important, and for others a Hallmark holiday simply isn't a better reason to get a Prada purse or a macaroni picture frame than any other day of the year. But when did we lose the ability to have a sane conversation about these things? Is it really worth getting worked up over someone else's Mother's Day plans or desires?

Sometimes I wonder if it makes someone a better writer or a worse writer if they are able to look outside of their own situation and consider how the stories they're about to tell might look to others? Will people relate or will they see immense privilege? Will people nod in agreement or will their mouth gape open? Will people emphathize or will they think you're pathetic? Being able to predict how people will react to a story may make that writer less prone to criticism, but it could also take something away from the act of story telling itself.

In my case, being able to predict how people may react also makes me significantly less likely to share anything more than the absolutely mundane or lightly comical about my personal life. Being bullied as a child, I learned quickly that the best way to avoid the wrath of the bullies is to not give them anything to talk about. Blend in with the wallpaper if you can. They say "don't feed the trolls" and for the most part, I've tried my best to starve them to death. Other bloggers, however, whether they purposely lay out the buffet or inadvertently leave candy lying around, seem to be magnets for the trolls' large appetites.

The Book

Back to The Mommy Mob. As I read through the chapters, I realized that there are many, many ways that Rebecca and I do not see eye to eye when it comes to parenting and that's fine. As a blogger, the book and its exposé of trolls and overly concerned judgmental people, was hilarious. For those outside of this strange world, it may be shocking and eye opening. If nothing else, it is a jaw dropper and offers some good laughts.

My one criticism of the book is possibly the same thing that many people criticize about Rebecca's parenting articles. It was all about her blog, her readers and her trolls. We all know that blog trolls, judgmental parents, and Internet assholes are not unique to Rebecca's blog. They exist in just about every corner of the Internet and of the so-called "mommy blogosphere". I'd love to see a book looking at the wider issue one day. But again, perhaps that isn't Rebecca's style and wasn't the intent of her book.

----

In the interest of transparency...

In my Google search to see whether I'd written anything nasty about or on Rebecca's blog posts (i.e. am I one of the Mob Mommies), here's what I found.

In my blog post called The Mommy Wars Made Me a Better Parent, I wrote:

There is a lot to be said for the "I do what is right for my family and you do what is right for your family" philosophy. I have to admit (somewhat sheepishly), however, that I don't think those types of conversations would ever have caught my eye. So when I look at all the heated and sometimes hurtful discussions that happen on the Internet, I do think it is too bad that we can't all get along, but I also hope that they at least serve the purpose of making us think.

Recently, when Rebecca Eckler wrote about leaving her 10 week old baby to go on vacation and the Internet reacted viciously, my thought was: meh, maybe it forced someone to think about it in a way they hadn't considered. In this instance (unlike some of the "mommy wars"), I do think Eckler probably knew what she was getting into when she decided to write about it and she did it anyway. I'm not sure if she was thinking about other moms when she decided to write it, but I do think the conversation that it sparked probably forced a lot of new parents to consider whether they would ever leave a 10 week old baby to go away and also to consider what their own criteria might be for deciding when the right time is to take a vacation without their kids.

There is so much that is awful and hurtful about people pointing a finger at a woman and saying that she is a bad parent. But is it awful for me to say that my parenting has benefited tremendously from those flame wars?

On Rebecca's post called Why I Chose to Have an Elective C-Section, I commented:

Where do I start?

Well, I sort of gave it away in the headline, but let's take a step back first.

ShiftCon - The Conference I've Been Waiting For

You've heard of ShiftCon, right? This is THE social media conference I've been wanting to go to for years, only it didn't exist. It's coming up in October in Los Angeles and we'll be talking about things like:

• Social Media For Change
• How to Grow Your Platforms & Manage Community
• Is Organic an Elitist Trend?
• Slowing Down Fast Food: How the Fast Food Industry Targets Kids & What You Can Do About It
• How to Get Media Attention
• Legal Implications of Blogging & Activism
• What Brands Won’t Tell You About Working With Bloggers

Did you hear about the keynote speakers? Vani Hari from FoodBabe.com and Robyn O'Brien the author of The Unhealthy Truth: One Mother's Shocking Investigation into the Dangers of America's Food Supply-- and What Every Family Can Do to Protect Itself. 

I'll be speaking too. Remember the Nestle Family event? Other than your run-of-the-mill mommy wars, that was my first experience dealing with significant conflict online. There have been many more since then, but that is the one that most often sticks in people's minds. My friend Jo White from Mediamum wrote her Masters thesis on the Nestle Family twitterstorm and she and I will speaking together on handling conflict online.

Here is an excerpt from the description of our session on How to Deal with Conflict Online:

Do we really want to live in a world where we are afraid to advocate for change because it makes us feel guilt and shame? Are you haunted by the fear of what people might do if you take greater action in advocating for change?  Do we need to fall silent on the issues that are important to us because we don’t want to deal with conflict?

Conflict may not always be avoidable, but how you handle it can make all the difference in the world in terms of how effective you are as an advocate and also how it impacts on your personal brand. Will you come out of the argument being seen as someone who is intelligent, empathetic and passionate? Or will you come out of it being seen as a bully and ultimately hurting your cause when detractors dig their heels in and further promote the things you believe are harmful?

Join Annie and Jo at ShiftCon to talk about tactics and techniques for keeping your cool and coming out on top when you’re faced with conflict online. There is more to it than having a thick skin and Annie and Jo can speak from their experience handling, observing and researching conflicts online to give you pointers that will make you a more effective advocate and keep disagreements from unravelling into a pissing match.

You can read more about it on the ShiftCon blog.

The conference sounds pretty amazing, doesn't it?

Will I see you there?

Well...that depends.

Did you buy your ticket yet? Because they are almost sold out. Less than 5 tickets left as of the time of writing this post.

But if you didn't get a ticket, I have some good news for you. I have two tickets to give away to bloggers (conference ticket only -- winners need to pay for their own travel expenses). If you really want to be there, I really want you to be there. I know that there are some amazing people out there in my network who are doing incredible work to try to make the world a better, healthier place. I want to learn from them and also give them an opportunity to learn from others.

So if you would like to attend ShiftCon in October in Los Angeles, here is what I need you to do.

• Leave a comment on the blog below (be sure to include your e-mail address and your blog URL where it asks for it) and tell me two things.
  
  • First - Which eco or wellness issue are you most passionate about online?
  • Second - What is your biggest question or what do you want to learn to help you be a better advocate on that issue? 

All comments must be received by May 30 at midnight Eastern Time to be eligible. I'll be judging the entries along with a small panel and will let the winners know in early June.

Are you already attending the conference? Then share this with your friends who may want to go. Can't make it to ShiftCon but know someone else who should be part of the conversation? Pass this opportunity along to them.

Want to stay up to date on the conference? Follow @ShiftConMedia on twitter and like the ShiftCon facebook page.

Image by rijans on wikimedia commons.

Boycotting "Made in Bangladesh" Will Do More Harm Than Good

Young woman at a job training program in Bangladesh (photo: Annie @ PhD in Parenting)After the fires and the building collapse, the initial response of many Westerners is to boycott "Made in Bangladesh" clothing, to punish the companies that source clothing there, and to seek out "Made in Canada" or "Made in USA" labels instead. There is nothing wrong with shopping locally. It has a lot of benefits, of course. But it also has its limitations (often less variety and greater cost) and ultimately doesn't do anything to help the plight of people working in poor conditions in Bangladesh.

If you boycott companies that produce goods in Bangladesh, you don't create better working conditions in Bangladesh, you put people out of a job. Instead of a dangerous job and uncertain future they have no job and no future.

Stephanie Nolen from the Globe and Mail wrote a detailed and excellent article with her thoughts on the issue and examples of the types of factories she saw while she was in Bangladesh -- I highly recommend reading it. You can also read my post from last year explaining why boycotting "Made in Bangladesh" will do more harm than good.

Not All Brands Are Equal - Who Are the Good Guys and the Bad Guys?

After the Rana Plaza factory collapse the human suffering was so great and the consumer outrage so strong that brands had to take notice. Most of them realized that they had to do something, but there was broad disagreement about what should be done, resulting in companies mostly falling into one of two camps: The signatories of the legally-binding, worker supported, Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and the members of the non-binding, arms-length, no accountability Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety led by Walmart and Gap Inc. What is the difference between these two agreements?

Adapted from International Labor Rights forum

I think that table makes it fairly clear that the companies that have signed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh are committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure worker safety, while the companies that are members of the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety are basically conducting a public relations exercise and hoping to convince consumers that they are doing something without actually making a commitment. The Accord has the potential to prevent future deaths and injuries, while the Alliance is business as usual and more tragedies are to be expected in those factories.

Which companies are on which list?

The lists are fluid as companies continue to sign on to one agreement or the other (which is one reason that I have delayed in writing this post, because it could be out of date as soon as it is posted). To get current lists of companies, go to:

• Signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (i.e. the good agreement)
• Members of the Alliance on Bangladesh Worker Safety (i.e. the worthless agreement)

It is important to remember that sometimes one company owns many brands. As an example, Gap owns Old Navy and Banana Republic. Carter's owns Osh Kosh B'gosh. VF, which I had never heard of, owns dozens of brands (including Lee, Wrangler, the North Face, JanSport, Nautica, Timberland and more). I've put together some quick reference graphics to help you identify which brands to avoid (signatories of the Walmart/Gap agreement) and which ones to support (signatories of the binding Accord). However, this is not a complete list of the brands and it is worth doing your research if you are unsure. Most of the members of the Walmart/Gap agreement are North American companies and I've tried to include as many of those as possible. In the case of the Accord, many of them are international brands that are not available in North America (the main area of my readership) and rather than trying to include all of them in the graphic, I've focused on the brands that I know are available in North America (but you can access the full list via the link).

There is one company that is a member of the Accord that I didn't include on the graphic. That is the United Colors of Benetton. Benetton signed the Accord in May 2013 under pressure, but Benetton has not disclosed all of its suppliers to the Accord and has not paid compensation to the Rana Plaza victims. It will be interesting to see if Benetton steps up or if any action is taken to remove Benetton from the Accord if they don't. Also, to give a sense of the movement on the issue, as of the writing of this post Fruit of the Loom was listed as being part of both agreements, likely because it signed the Walmart agreement earlier and then later decided to be part of the Accord (which it signed in December 2013).

What about brands that aren't on either list?

I've had friends say "What about Ann Taylor? I love their clothing, but I don't want to shop there if they are hurting people." Personally, I've always loved Roots products, even when they moved some of their production overseas. But when a company isn't on either list, it can be hard to figure out if they are doing things right or doing things wrong. Not having signed the Accord could mean that the company doesn't source products in Bangladesh and therefore has no need to sign it or it could mean that the company isn't willing to make a commitment. In the case of Roots, I did some digging and found a Toronto Star article where they (and other companies) answered some questions about how their products are sourced and they did not include Bangladesh on the list of countries that they source from. In the case of Ann Taylor, information on their website indicates that they are working on various projects in collaboration with quality organizations like the International Labor Organization and are funding projects in factories in Bangladesh to support women's health. Those are positive stories, but I wanted to get some objective information as well and couldn't find any. I do wonder why Ann Inc. wouldn't have signed onto the Accord and if I bought a lot of clothing from them, this is probably something that I would write to the company about. Patagonia is an example of a company that is well known for sustainable sourcing of clothing and they do source from a factory in Bangladesh, but are not part of either agreement. Given their track record overall, I would tend to support Patagonia despite them not being signatories of the Accord until I see some direct reason not to (i.e. a problem at one of their factories).

Does this mean that you can never shop at Target, Costco, Kohl's, Macy's or The Bay?

One of the interesting things that jumps out when looking at these two lists is that there are a lot of brands on the "good" list that are distributed via stores on the "bad" list. I know that I've bought Calvin Klein clothing at both The Bay and Costco, for example. Whether you avoid good brands in stores that have signed the toothless agreement is a personal decision. On the one hand, you should feel comfortable that those clothes were not made under unsafe conditions or at least that the supplier is committed to making the conditions as safe as possible. But on the other hand, do you want to contribute financially to a company that has said it doesn't really care about making a real commitment? It is a hard choice, especially if you are on a limited income living in an area with limited choice.

Personally, the decision that I've made is that I'll avoid buying the Kirkland brand clothing (Costco's in-house brand) at the Costco stores, but I'd still buy Calvin Klein clothing there or support other things they are doing right (e.g. helping innovative organic products reach a wider market, selling a large variety of local Quebec products, selling recycled and biodegradable products in bulk that we have trouble getting elsewhere, etc.). I'm not going to support their production of clothing in potentially unsafe environments, but I will try to encourage them in the things they are doing right by supporting those products.

With some other stores, the decision is more clean cut. I was already a Walmart avoider before the Bangladesh factory fires and collapse and now I simply do not go into their stores unless I have no other option (there have been times when they were the only store that had winter boots left in February, unfortunately). When it comes to stores that only sell clothing that is potentially made in unsafe conditions (e.g. Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic), there is absolutely no reason for me to purchase from them anymore. I used to buy a lot of clothing from those brands and I went from a big supporter to a boycotter almost overnight when I heard that Gap would not support safe working environments in Bangladesh. 

What About Victim Compensation?

I think that a lot of companies were caught off guard by the devastating tragedies in Bangladesh in the past few years. I don't think that is a good excuse for letting it happen and I don't think that consumers should accept willful ignorance as a get out of jail free card. However, I am choosing to look primarily at what companies are doing to change and to move forward. That means that I want to know that they are taking all possible steps to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again, but it also means providing compensation to the victims. A Rana Plaza Donors Trust Fund has been established to help compensate victims of the factory collapse. A list of the donor companies is available on the Rana Plaza Arrangement's website. However, the Clean Clothes Initiative points out that many companies have not paid anything at all or haven't paid their fair share.

In terms of Loblaws, a Canadian company that sources much of its Joe Fresh clothing in Bangladesh, the CBC recently did a follow-up report. On its website, CBC states:

As part of its compensation package following the collapse, Loblaw paid three months wages to survivors who were making Joe Fresh clothes, about $150 per worker.  

It also recently donated $3 million to a compensation trust fund to help injured workers and the families of deceased workers.

And the company told the fifth estate it contributed $1 million to two organizations working to help survivors, Save the Children Bangladesh and the Centre for Rehabilitation of the Paralyzed.

The fifth estate has learned that Loblaw has recently hired one person to oversee its growing operations in Bangladesh. Last year, it had no one on the ground in Bangladesh to monitor its operations there or inspect the factories it uses.

I've asked the Clean Clothes Initiative to clarify how much it is calling on companies to contribute and I will update this section with more information if I receive a reply from them. Overall, they say that 1/3 of the required funds has been collected, but they haven't indicated how much of the remaining amount they are asking each company to contribute.

Is worker safety in Bangladesh the only ethical issue when buying clothing?

No, of course worker safety in Bangladesh isn't the only ethical issue that people should consider when they are buying clothing. This is just one aspect of corporate social responsibility in the garment industry. Where their materials come from, what ingredients are in those materials, how much their workers are paid, what their environmental impact is, whether they treat their employees with respect, and many other issues can and should come into play when making purchasing decisions. But when it comes to purchasing or promoting "Made in Bangladesh" clothing, understanding a brand's status under these agreements is a life or death situation.

What else?

This is a complicated issue that is continuing to evolve on a daily basis. A year has now passed since the Rana Plaza factory collapse and there are still new developments all the time. I try to stay on top of what is happening, but I can't cover absolutely everything in one blog post.

If anyone has questions or issues that they'd like to discuss further, please drop a note in the comments and I'd be happy to follow-up.

I would also suggest that you follow the Clean Clothes Campaign and the Bangladesh Accord (their social media links are available from their websites).

"You should be on Masterchef, Mama," they say to me.

Oh, no. I shouldn't be. I love to cook and think I am a decent cook, but the pressure, the cooking of things you've never heard of without the assistance of Google, and the whole being on television thing just doesn't appeal to me. But I'll admit, there are some challenges that I look at and think...really? That's it?

In one of the early episodes this year, contestant Eric wins the first challenge and gets to choose one of three quintessentially Canadian ingredients for the rest of the contestants to cook with in the elimination challenge. They will have to use that ingredient, plus a matching beer, in their dish. The three options are apples, maple syrup and bacon. My reaction was that I could think of at least 10 dishes immediately that I could make with beer, maple syrup, apples AND bacon (nevermind "or"). But then there are challenges like the Baked Alaskan, where I would have been completely lost.

But it got me thinking, because as much as I do love cooking, there are days where it does feel like I'm in some kind of pressure test. I think that as parents, we face some of the toughest cooking conditions, some of the most discerning audiences, and some of the oddest ingredient choices. What if there were a Masterchef Mama or Masterchef Papa? What might that look like.

• No more "full access to the Masterchef Canada pantry". The challenges would involve access to a fridge with random leftovers (a slice of pizza, half a can of tuna), random produce (baby carrots and spinach), and processed foods marketed at kids (yogurt tubes, cheese strings). Just to get people's hopes up, there would be a carton of milk that turns out to be empty and a half a red pepper that has white fuzz growing on it. Half the cooking utensils would be dirty or broken or put away in the wrong place.

• Instead of talking about the dishes needing to be restaurant-worthy, they would need to be pinterest-worthy.

• A pressure test that gives you 5 minutes to prepare a soccer snack for 25 children that will be judged on taste by the kids and on nutrition by the other parents.

• The Minecraft Birthday Cake. Enough said.

• Prepare a school snack that is gluten, dairy, nut, egg and soy free and ensure all portions are exactly equal to the 1/100th of an inch to avoid any arguments over who got more.

• An elimination challenge to be completed with a toddler hanging on your leg, an infant in a sling, and a school aged child needing help with math homework. 

• Create a nutritious meal for two picky eaters who only have one thing that they both like -- cheese. One of them hates all kinds of fruit and vegetables. The other one hates all kinds of meats and grains.

• A team challenge that would involve working with other parents to plan the menu for the last-day-of-school party, incorporating the allergy and nutritional requirements of all families, while also being fun and appealing to the kids. 

• Be judged on one-upping all the other parents in terms of fun and playful presentation, without going so far over the top that you get shunned by the other parents.

• Create a casserole that effectively masks measured out portions of five vegetables that a five year old has declared that he hates.

• Forget being judged by chefs from top restaurants, it should be judged by the top family food bloggers out there. People like Ree from The Pioneer Woman, Aimee from Simple Bites or Ceri Marsh from Sweet Potato Chronicles.

What do you think? Would you be signing up to compete on Masterchef Mama or Papa?