That’s why I like to think of myself as a pacifist in the midst of the latest iteration of the Mommy Wars. As a nursing mom who is (trying to) work three to four days a week, I understand both how hard it is to stay-at-home and how hard it is to work. As with anything in life, it’s hard to find a balance. That’s why the most recent saga in the Mommy Wars seems to vex so many: it doesn’t appear to provide much balance, especially for mothers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“So you want to know the sex?”

Well, let’s be honest: If you can tell that early, you’ve got a boy.

Later that day I sent the above captioned picture to some friends. I was officially growing a penis.

The news rocked my world. How could I be having a boy? Me- the girl raised by a single mother (a former Miss America who made her living in the beauty business), who attended an all-girls’ school for eight years, who writes about femininity, who is a girly-girl who always has her nails done and hates to leave the house without a “face on”- a mother to a son? I immediately panicked because I hate dirt and have no interest in things with big engines. Of course, I know this is totally stereotypical, and not always an accurate assessment of boys’ preferences (I confess to hoping that playing Broadway music while pregnant would shape those preferences)… Yet I couldn’t help but mourn the loss of a manicure buddy.

Of course, like every new mom, I wouldn’t change a thing about Little Man.

My adorable, and styling, Little Man

I’ve joked from the beginning that we’ve saved a lot of money on clothes and jewelry by having a boy (and when I read articles like this recent piece in the NYT on kindergarten style I *know* this is true– though I do admit to having a particular weakness when it comes to the boys’ clothes at Janie and Jack). But lately I’ve started thinking about this in a much deeper way and I’m grateful to have a boy, and even a bit jealous of his future life. I often think about how much time, and money, he will save. This morning I put on a facial masque before taking a shower, where I then took the time to shave.  After showering I moisturized (face, body, hair), though today I skipped drying my hair (rainy day in Boston), a process that usually adds 15-30 minutes to my getting ready routine (though less now that I am losing hair in clumps at four months postpartum). Add to that the application of mascara, a hint of blush, gloss, and tinted moisturized– de rigeur for leaving the house. I’m hoping to sneak in a manicure and an eyebrow wax later in the day. Clearly, being a woman is expensive, and it can hurt.

Of course I understand that it is not a necessity that I do all of these things all of the time, but nothing that I do is unusual for the vast majority of American women. And, sure, being a man is sometimes painful as well (the day he was circumcised has undoubtedly been Little Man’s worst day– and probably mine as well!), but over a lifetime it’s more painful, more time-consuming, and more costly to be a woman.

For much of the 1990s parenting experts and the popular press fretted over girls and their costly futures (think Reviving Ophelia), but the new century brought a new concern about boys as the “fairer sex” began surpassing them in the classroom.  Books like Raising Cain helped solidify the worry, showing that there are higher rates of violence for young men today and a more uncertain job market in their futures.  As a sociologist who has studied gender I always was aware of these issues and concerns, but I never took them personally.

Until I started to grow a penis.

My Amazon cart began to change a bit as I expanded. Instead of orders dominated by titles on girls and athletics and beauty pageants, books like Michael Thompson’s It’s a Boy! Your Son’s Development from Birth to Age 18 began to sneak in.

In many ways I found myself in familiar territory.  For instance, his quote from Thompson’s book really resonates with some of my research:

So much of life in our competitive culture is required to be strategic and performance- or outcome-based, it is tempting to apply the same approach to parenting. With hopes of producing the best boy ever, we might set out to cultivate the best of traditional male attributes (smart, strong, steady, and uncomplaining), but then perfect him by adding the quality of emotional literacy and subtracting violence and excessive aggression so he can be successful in life. Many parents speak about parenting as if it were a giant school project: if you just start soon enough, read the right research, and do the right things, you can get the particular end product you have in mind. (Page 25)

In other ways, I had a lot to learn. I learned the hard way to put a wipe over aforementioned penis during changes (I’ve been told that this area is easier to clean for boys, but having no basis for comparison I can’t really say). I fretted over autism (the rates are higher among boys) until I consistently got a social smile. I will continue to worry a bit about ADHD, which is more often diagnosed among boys than girls (notice I say “diagnosed” because it’s unclear if the actual incidence is higher among boys as well– or at least that’s how I understand the literature).

That’s one of the reasons I was excited to receive a copy of the new book Raising Boys with ADHD: Secrets for Parenting Healthy, Happy Sons.  One of the lines in the Introduction really spoke to me: “It’s your job as a parent to help your son identify his purpose, develop his talents, and learn how to get along with people.” (x)  Books like this help parents by providing concrete, practical advice on raising children, especially those who may have particular needs. For instance, I loved the idea of writing a letter to your child’s teacher each year to tell him/her about your child and how they best learn (examples are even provided on pages 19-21)– a suggestion that may appeal to many (so long as you limit your letter-writing to the beginning of the year and not make it a weekly occurrence, of course).

Like many mothers out there unfamiliar with the terrain of boyhood I expect I will turn not just to books but also to my husband, who knows a lot more about having a penis than I do, despite the fact that I so successfully managed to grow one (even now when Carston gets a bath I often leave the cleansing “down there” to John, explaining that he knows how hard you can actually scrub before it hurts).  While I am doing my beautifying rituals and listening to showtunes Daddy can teach Little Man about dirt and engines, along with probabilities and marginal tax rates.

The Little Tax Man Cometh (he can't wait to be in Daddy's dataset)

In the meantime, when I put my books and worries aside, our house is filled with the mingled laughter of baby belly laughs, Mommy screeches, and Daddy giggles. I only have to watch this video (especially around the nine-second mark) to know that my son has a wonderful role model.

But you don’t just have to be a bookworm to be a phenom, as this month’s group of kids prove.  In fact, with an athlete, a chef, and an innovative businessman in this group, they prove that all you need is an entrepreneurial spirit.

1) Winter Vinecki- This 13-year-old is a well-rounded phenom; she’s a stellar athlete, student, and entrepreneur.  This Sunday Winter will embark on an amazing journey: Trying to be the youngest person to ever complete a full marathon on all seven continents.  Why is she doing this (other than, like her fellow Pint-Sized Phenoms, to presumably stand out when it comes time for her college application)? It’s for a great cause. Winter is running to help raise awareness for prostate cancer, which took her father’s life three years ago. Her nonprofit, Team Winter, has already raised $300,000 for prostate cancer research! While I’m not sure it is always safe for a pre-pubescent girl to run seven marathons, I applaud her willingness and drive to help others, borne out of her own tragedy.

2)Flynn McGarry- Another 13-year-old pint-sized phenom with a memorable name, Flynn was recently profiled in The New Yorker (you can’t read the print version online, but you can read the extra about him by clicking on his name). Flynn started cooking seriously at age ten (working his way through The French Laundry Cookbook).  Now that he hosts a monthly pop-up dinner for 17-ish at his home (dubbed “Eureka”) for $100 a head he’s being homeschooled. Two days a week he interns at a high end restaurant in LA.  One chef declares that his pure palate (untouched by tobacco and alcohol) helps make him so great, but it’s clearly a lot of hard work and sacrifice, too. I wonder how long it will be before we all get a taste of Eureka either through a high-end restaurant, a cookbook, or a reality show (or all of the above)?

3) Caine Monroy- In the past few weeks nine-year-old Caine has become an Internet sensation thanks to this short film, Caine’s Aracde. Trust me, it’s worth taking the ten minutes to watch!

What can you say about Caine except that he is an exceptionally imaginative, innovative, inventive, handy, and entrepreneurial kid?  Can’t wait to see what he thinks up next– beyond cardboard.

Caine, and all of the pint-sized phenoms, will have great stories to tell when it does come time for higher education (both the campus kind and the life kind). Luckily, based on his recent exploits, Caine will also have some money saved away to help afford the best, which he surely deserves.

Earlier this month TLC’s Toddlers & Tiaras returned with new episodes in Season 5. And last week Toddlers & Tiaras “superstar” Eden Wood premiered her own show on Logo; Eden’s World follows Eden into her post-pageant retirement life (which still involves pageants– as she and her mom serve as child beauty pageant mentors to pageant hopefuls– but also includes Eden and her warring managers pursuing modeling and music opportunities in NYC).

Lest you think Eden and her pageant pals are the only pre-pubescent kids being pushed by their parents on television you should have tuned into Nightline on April 13th.  The episode featured families with preschoolers studying for the standardized tests to get them into a gifted classroom in NYC’s public school system. Not only were these kids studying, but their parents were paying big bucks to help them prepare. Think thousands and thousands of dollars, hours of time, and untold stress. One mom suspects her daughter is purposely sabotaging herself and ultimately doesn’t allow her daughter to take the test.

Why are stressed out families so willing to spend so much time and money to get their children into these classrooms (the question of why they are also willing to announce their children’s standardized test scores on national television is a discussion for another time)? In the ever increasing educational arms race the pressure to perform starts younger than ever, especially if the goal is an Ivy-like education. This spring we’ve heard that Ivy League colleges had their lowest acceptance rates ever (a truly frightening 5.9% at Harvard and 6.8% at Yale).  These single-digit numbers create intense cultural anxiety even among those who don’t yet have kids.

But it’s not just the numbers “at the top” that are scary. The stats are just as bad when it comes to kindergarten– at least in NYC. According to The New York Times this year nearly 5000 children qualified for only 400 slots in talented and gifted kindergarten classrooms. That’s an 8% acceptance rate. But note that is only for qualified kids, not for the hundreds, likely thousands, more who took the test. People like to criticize these parents for pushing their kids too young, but with numbers like these at four, and then at age 18, can you blame them?  Moreover, it’s not just kindergarten.  Middle school testing matters a lot too, and perhaps more so, if you think high school is the real entryway to higher education.

Many stories focus on the test prep companies that have sprung up to make a buck off of these anxiety-ridden parents (though note that many test prep entrepreneurs have their own kids facing the same issues– one of the three families in the Nightline piece was a woman who started the “top” kindergarten test company, and even her own tot son had issues with the test, which he eventually overcame). And, it is true that test prep, especially at such young ages, likely exacerbates existing inequality, as I’ve written about before. But, at the same time, these companies are thriving because of a real demand. This demand is fueled partly by them, but it is also a result of demographic shifts in cities, like New York City, and cultural anxiety about class position.

When you really think about it, how different are the moms on Toddlers & Tiaras and the test-prep preschool parents?  They may be going about it in different ways, but most of these parents seem to want the best for their children– helping them pursue particular hopes and dreams and goals (whether it be to get into Harvard and run for president someday, or get a Disney contract and become the new Britney Spears/Miley Cyrus) and willing to spend lots of money to help them pursue those dreams at a young age.  Amounts of money that others find ludicrous and distasteful.  While testing and tiara parents might find each other foreign in many ways they are cut from the same cloth of our ultra-competitive society, which now targets children in myriad ways.  And given the media’s reach, their stories and issues impact, and inspire, families across the country and not just in NYC or the South.

Last week four-year-old Heidi Hankins made headlines around the world for joining Mensa with an IQ of 159 (though, shockingly she’s not the youngest– Oscar Quigley claimed that prize in 2009 when he joined at age two-and-a-half with an IQ of 160).  Based on her picture I’m not quite sure if she’s right for Toddlers & Tiaras or shows like Nightline. Perhaps, in a true sign of the times, she’s qualified for both?

The picture is much different 40 years on thanks to Title IX and changing societal attitudes. Women are bona fide sports stars. By the end of the NCAA tournament the names Skylar Diggins and Brittney Griner were well known. Boys now lobby to play with girls and not the other way around (as I’ve written about before, co-ed high school swimming in Massachusetts has stirred great debate– though they have finally decided to have separate male and female tournaments each fall).

Of course, problems remain.  A huge pay differential still exists between male and female athletes, and male and female coaches. While some felt it was offensive when Notre Dame’s female head coach said of Griner, “She’s like a guy playing with women,” I thought this showed how far we have come.  Yes it is terrible that some taunt Griner for her voice and physique, and that should not happen. At the same time it’s seen as a huge insult to say to a man that he “plays like a girl.” Now a woman is insulted for being told she plays like a man. Eventually everyone will hopefully just be complimented for skills and great playing on its own.

And things are not nearly as rosy in the rest of the world. Last month I wrote how wonderful it was that it seemed as if all nations would send a female athlete  to this summer’s Olympics.  Now, unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has decided not to put forward any female competitors.

We can only hope that someday a female sports star in the Middle East will be told she plays as well as a man.

As a sociologist my work has focused primarily on the family and the educational system, two powerful institutions in childhood socialization.

But during the course of my previous research on competitive childhood activities as a PhD candidate at Princeton University, I learned about the ways in which a third institution, the health care system, also shapes the lives of children. This led me to pursue a post-doctoral fellowship in health policy, which I completed in 2011 as a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar at Harvard University.

With 52 million American children participating in organized youth sports, more and more kids are dealing with sports-related injuries. Recently, media attention has focused on the common injuries among youth athletes, especially overuse injuries and concussions.  I have studied activities in which children get injured, such as soccer and dance, so I have seen first-hand how these injuries impact the children, alter their friendships, and often disrupt their families.

Because I am a social scientist, I come at the subject of youth sports injuries from a societal and institutional perspective. In other words, I’m curious how social structures shape the environment that leads to youth sports injuries.  For instance, I write about how we got to a state of hyper-competition that leads to year-round seasons, which can lead to overuse injuries.

As a post-doctoral fellow, and now as a research affiliate at Harvard University’s Malcolm Wiener Center and Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, I have been especially interested in how children’s activities are organized by age, and how this might impact youth sports injuries. There have always been scandals in youth activities in which an athlete has lied about their true age, a subject which I not only find fascinating, but which I think might have some impact on youth sports injuries as well.

I am currently working on research about the relative-age effect and youth sports injuries.  What is the relative-age effect? In his 2008 bestseller, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell made popular a phenomenon long known to academics: the relative-age effect, whereby children born during certain months of the year have a developmental advantage over children born in other months, because of the way that schools and athletic clubs choose their age cutoffs.

Gladwell focused on NHL players, 60% of whom were born in January, February, and March. He believed that those born earlier in the calendar year have an advantage over those born in December who are almost a full year younger because they are developmentally more advanced, both mentally and physically.  Hence the relative-age effect.

Older kids who excel early because of their strength are selected for All-Star teams and receive more attention from coaches. This means that younger players often self-select out, leaving the athletic realms to their older peers, never giving themselves – or being given – a chance to physically catch up (e.g. late bloomers).

The relative-age effect is real: both in sports and in academics. Just how much do I believe it? Well, when I gave birth to my first child, a boy, earlier this year I did my best to carry him until after New Year’s, just in case the cut-off for any future activity in which he participates is January 1.  He was born on January 4th, so only time will tell how much I influenced my future/budding athlete.

But the relative-age effect may also mean that those athletes born earlier in a calendar year, who tend to be larger and stronger, are less likely to be injured, and perhaps more likely to injure their smaller opponents and teammates.  So the hypothesis we are testing is whether children born later in the year (for example, June-September, if the participation cutoff date is January 1) are more likely to be injured.

The results of our research so far are promising, but are preliminary, so it is too early to draw definite conclusions.  But if the data shows a link between relative age and sports injuries, it may prompt youth sports programs to group kids by size, rather than age, not only reducing the advantage some kids have simply by the accident of when in the year they are born but reducing the number of injuries that result from bigger, stronger and more skilled players colliding with smaller, weaker, less skilled players.

Bullying is a major issue for kids today, and the new documentary Bully was the impetus for the below conversation (I personally find it interesting, horrifying, and heartening that the filmmakers intervened when the bullying of one boy became too dangerous [imagine how bad it must have been when cameras weren't present...]).

Prom is supposed to be a fun occasion, but it can also be problematic thanks to bullying and conflict with adults over proper attire. Some schools have started to clearly spell out rules on proper attire for males and females. In the below segment I talk about some of the sources of “sexy” dress trends for girls, and what parents can do.

And, just so you know I wasn’t exaggerating about kicking off my high heels to dance and have fun, here’s proof. I actually encouraged guests to do the same! You see, I try to be a fun academic and not a fuddy-duddy complaining about “cut-outs” in dresses. I really do like sequins just as much as the next girl…

Another girl who likes sequins? Jenna Talackova. Talackova, a 23-year-old beauty pageant contestant, made international headlines recently when she was denied a spot in the upcoming Miss Canada Universe pageant. Why? Talackova was born a boy and pageant organizers intimated she lied about this– though she is a female on all official legal documents and she has undergo sexual reassignment surgery. When I spoke with French-Canadian reporter Catherine Lalonde last week for her story (for a rough English translation from the French, click here), I predicted that Trump would ultimately allow Talackova to compete because he loves publicity (as does Gloria Allred, of course, who is now involved).

I was right. Trump announced this week that Jenna was welcome to compete. I’m now predicting the biggest ratings for Miss Canada Universe. Ever.

This would never happen if Talackova was trying to compete in the Miss America Pageant. As I explain in the article, Miss Universe/USA split from Miss America when Miss America refused to be crowned in a bathing suit. Ever since then Miss Universe has had a sexier image. Miss America has tried to project a “girl-next-door” image that is reinforced by its famous morality clause, started by pageant legend Lenora Slaughter. This morality clause got a work-out, and an expansion, after Vanessa Williams was famously dethroned for posing in pictures with another woman in sexual positions. So, yeah, I don’t think Miss America will *ever* have a transgender contestant. They have had contestants who were openly gay, but never any major state winners (that is not to say there haven’t potentially been lesbian title holders, just that they were/are not open about their sexuality).

I hope Jenna Talackova wasn’t too bullied when she was growing up– and I bet she wore a pretty amazing dress to her prom. I just hope it passed muster with her school’s dress code!

As the NCAA women’s basketball tournament winds down, we are left with the stories and legacies of serious athletic stars like Elena Delle Donne (with her interesting and brave back story) and Stanford’s Ogwumike sisters. Notre Dame’s Skylar Diggins has emerged as a star who transcends the impressive boundaries of her sport.

Just as basketball concludes Olympic athletes in various fields gear up. For the first time ever it appears that every nation participating in the 2012 Games will send at least one female athlete to London. That includes Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and Qatar. This is a significant development to be celebrated– as is the fact that certain sports are loosening restrictions on female athletic attire.  To the applause (and, I suppose, disappointment to some) women’s beach volleyball players no longer have to compete in bikinis. Given how much grief we give beauty pageants for the swimsuit portion of the competition, it’s amazing this rule change took so long and hasn’t previously met with more resistance.

Just because women won’t be playing in bikinis and skirts doesn’t mean that they are any less tough– or less girly for that matter. I absolutely loved this article on 22-year-old weight lifter Holley Mangold. Mangold, a 374-pound weightlifter (and brother to NFL star Nick Mangold), just qualified to represent the US at the Olympics this summer. While at the Trials earlier this month she rocked a “girly” hair-do and painted her nails using OPI color “It’s All Greek to Me.”

Given her Olympic-sized goal this seems a most appropriate choice. Holley, who describes herself as “extremely manly,” says she can also be girly, which she chooses to demonstrate through small fashion choices like her hairstyle and nails (not dissimilar to Skylar Diggins’ approach to her hair).

Female athletes clearly have some sartorial flexibility to demonstrate a range of femininities. But it seems that they may also have more flexibility to demonstrate a range of athletic skills as well.  This article on superstar two-sport athlete Melanie Baskind– who plays on and co-captains both the varsity lacrosse and soccer teams at Harvard– mentions that: “There may be a nascent drift at Harvard toward two-letter women. Four of Baskind’s lacrosse teammates also play field hockey, and a soccer cohort swims for the water-polo squad. Ivy League rules, which limit practices and off-season play days, make dual citizenship more manageable.”  This at a time when two-letter men are becoming less common.  Is this a good or a bad thing for women? The cross-training would seem to be helpful in preventing burn-out in a particular sport (note that Elena Delle Donne, mentioned above, briefly gave up basketball to play college volleyball– though never at the same time), along with injuries.  Or perhaps as more and more female athletes rise up through the ranks two-sport collegiate females will go the way of two-sport collegiate males?

One school where collegiate female athletes haven’t made a big enough dent is Texas A&M. Would you believe that they have never had a female cheerleader?  It’s true– though their definition of cheerleader is a bit different. “Yell leaders” are all men who cheer from the sidelines (and, yes, Rick Perry was one as an undergraduate). They are voted on by the student body, so junior Samantha Ketcham waged a very public, vocal campaign, which received a lot of press.  Despite her loud voice, she didn’t win. Perhaps next year there will be even more candidates… rocking some OPI red nail polish.

French Senator Chantal Jouanno (former Sport Minister, karate champion, and [I couldn't resist this oh-so-French tidbit] rumored recent mistress of President Sarkozy) wrote a parliamentary report on the precocious sexualization of girls in France.  Apparently, as in the US, French tweens are seeking out padded bras, high heels, and make-up.  The report targets both the pornography and beauty industries and offers some concrete suggestions for change.  I’ll only talk about two aspects of the beauty-industrial complex here– beauty pageants and modelling– but the porn industry is indicted in the report, a point not getting much coverage in the American press coverage of the story (I mainly learned about it from this UK article).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My life has been one big audition.”

This is the first line of Elizabeth Eulberg’s latest young adult novel, Take a Bow [Scholastic, April 1, 2012]. Take a Bow follows four young performers–two songwriters, one singer, and an actor–through their senior year at the fictional New York City High School of the Creative and Performing Arts (seemingly modeled off of Manhattan’s Fame high school, the Fiorello H. La Guardia High School of Music and the Arts) as they strive, perform, and chart their futures. The book reads quickly and it will appeal to various young readers thanks to its range of characters, romantic storylines, and behind-the-scenes look at what is required of talented teens (though some may find the intermittent insertion of flashbacks and backstory confusing).

While we readers may feel exhilarated by the success and talent of the story’s stars, it’s clear that they are quite exhausted by their daily lives. Female songwriter, Emme, declares herself to be “tired of the auditions we have to do to be accepted each semester, tired of the extra classes and studios, tired of the concerts, the pressure, the competition. The constant competition.” On top of regular auditions there are also pre-auditions for the most prestigious college music programs, like Julliard. These kids never get a break.

Television shows, like Glee, make it seem like musical numbers–complete with choreography and costumes–are simple to throw together. But teens spend hours honing their creative crafts whether they are singing and acting, like the characters in Take a Bow, or dancing and film-making, like the characters in Carol Tanzman’s latest dancergirl.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING AT THE HUFFINGTON POST BOOKS!

dancergirl features high school student Alicia, a contemporary dancer who works at her dance studio to help afford extra dance and choreography classes. While she hopes to become a professional dancer, fame comes to her sooner than she expected when a classmate features her and her dancing in a series of short docu-style movies that he posts to online website Zube (a fictional version of YouTube). Suddenly strangers recognize Alicia and think they know her. And one person starts stalking her (though the careful reader will figure out who the stalker is before the big reveal it doesn’t take away from the suspense of the story). The unwanted attention, including anonymous online comments, impacts Alicia’s dancing, sense of self, and her physical safety.

Like Alicia many young girls today are constantly performing for others, even if they aren’t dancers. Recently t(w)een girls have used YouTube to ask strangers if they are pretty or not. Technological innovations like YouTube and Facebook mean that kids today are constantly performing for others–and there will be a record of their achievements and failures, good deeds and misdeeds.

Clearly it’s not just high school students who feel the pressure of the constant audition and performance of daily life. Children’s literature reflects pressures for the elementary school-set as well. As an indication of how ubiquitous competitive activities are in young girls’ lives, American Girl’s “Girl of the Year” for 2012 is McKenna.

McKenna is a fourth-grader hoping to make the competitive gymnastics team. The first two books in the series, McKenna and McKenna, Ready to Fly!, detail her struggling to balance school, friends, and gymnastics as she deals with injuries and competition. The books reveal that one has to receive a letter to be invited to qualify for the “preteam,” that certain elements are required in each routine to even be considered for that preteam, and that placing in the top two at a competition is what it takes to actually make the team.

Overall these four young adult/children’s books reflect what is going on in many kids’ lives today. The constant competition and evaluation–both by peers and by judging adults–are accepted by youth. While some parents fight against demanding, competitive activities and stressful schoolwork, (for example, documentaries like Race to Nowhere), others seem to accept that this is what is required if they want to help their children achieve and get into college. A whole afterschool industry exists around competitive performance activities like gymnastics and dance for kids that reinforces how important these activities are for parents.

While Take a Bow, dancergirl, and the McKenna books don’t explicitly offer coping strategies for kids dealing with the constant auditions they must navigate, all the novels highlight the importance of friends in coping with competitive pressure. If one of the reasons why we read fiction is to see, and better understand, our own lives, these books will be welcome reads for children and teens struggling to get a callback every day.