Actor Mark Wahlberg has vowed not to sell the baby pictures of his new child-to-be. Marky Mark is putting a stop to any offers from magazines before they even get started, insisting he will not be selling his baby photos like so many other celebrity parents have of late.
The actor is expecting his third child with girlfriend (and perhaps soon to be wife) Rhea Durham, who is due in September. He is already father to two other children with Durham, Ella, who is four and Michael, who is two. I don't recall Mark pimping out pictures of either of them to the tabloids either!
Wahlberg wants to keep the birth and his family private, which is a welcome refreshment to the baby picture overload we've been experiencing lately, our fascination with which is borderline disgusting! Rumor also had it that new mom Nicole Kidman and her husband Keith Urban would not be selling pictures of their new daughter, Sunday Rose. Perhaps there is a new celebrity parenting trend afoot?
If there's one thing that's controversial among parents who blog, it's whether or not it's appropriate to post pictures of your children online. Some parents worry that it isn't safe, while others are concerned that their children will view it as an invasion of privacy when they get older. Still, there are plenty of parents out there (including Dooce, arguably the most famous parenting blogger) who have no problem using photos and/or real names.
Seventeen years ago, these kinds of issues hadn't ever been discussed. So when photographer Kirk Weddie called his friend Rick Elden to see if he could take some shots of Elden's young son Spencer in the pool, Rick didn't think much of it. A few months later, the Elden's were surprised when their infant son showed up on the side of Tower Record's building on Sunset Boulevard, in all his naked glory. A shot of Spencer in the swimming pool had become the cover for Nirvana's 1991 album Nevermind.
Nevermind was no small album -- 26 million copies sold -- and Spencer is now a 17-year-old. Spencer says that it's "kind of cool" being the Nirvana baby. Though he's spent some time in military school for bad behavior, Spencer will likely be graduating high school a year early this summer. I'm curious what his parents thought when they first saw that billboard for the first time. Were they mad? Did they wish that they had had a chance to give permission? Maybe they were excited about their young son's fame, or concerned about his privacy. It's hard to say, things being so much different then.
If you're a parenting blogger, do you take measures to protect your child's privacy?
Here's the good news: Disney is finally creating their first African-American princess. Here's the bad news: They just can't seem to get it right. The first version, The Frog Princess, was scrapped due to complaints that it was too stereotypical. The princess, named Maddy, was to be a chambermaid who worked for a spoiled white woman. Maddy is saved from a voodoo magician by a white prince, with help from her voodoo fairy godmother.
Disney's second version -- The Princess and the Frog --is still a musical set in New Orleans, but the company is keeping mum on most of the details. The heroine will be a 19-year-old named Tiana, and the film will be set in the Jazz Age. Disney says, "Princess Tiana will be a heroine in the great tradition of Disney's rich animated fairy tale legacy, and all other characters and aspects of the story will be treated with the greatest respect and sensitivity." Let's all hope they do exactly that.
%Gallery-28376%
Though my girls have gone in and out of the Disney princess phase, because one arm of our family is Ojibwe, we've never let them see Pocahontas. Unlike Cinderella, Ariel, and Sleeping Beauty, for example, Pocahontas was a real person, and Disney didn't do history any favors when they fictionalized the events that took place. Though Tiana isn't a historical figure, I really do hope that Disney pays attention to the opportunity they have in front of them, and turn out a movie that's sensitive, appropriate, and fun, all a the same time.
A new small study has found that television, even when only on as background noise, has a "small but real" affect on the way young children play. Researchers found that when playing in a room with a TV on -- they used Jeopardy, a program they thought the children would have little interest in -- children tended to stop playing and watch the TV now and then, shortening the intensity and length of their play. This finding is in conflict with former studies that found that young children don't pay attention to TV that they don't understand.
When my older daughter was only a toddler, she used to ask us to turn off the TV while she played. She said once, "It makes me watch it," meaning that she couldn't take her eyes off of the TV when it was on. It surprised me, because, like those old studies, I figured if she didn't understand it she wouldn't watch. Now we have a no-TV rule during the day, unless we're sitting down to specifically watch a program. A lot of parents really like to have television on as background noise during the day, however, to listen to as they go about their activities.
So will TV's influence on your child's play affect them long term? This study isn't broad enough to prove that, but plenty of research has gone into how TV affects children. KidsHealth does a good job of rounding up some of that research, and offers tips to parents who want to limit TV time in their home.
Every generation thinks they have it tougher than the one before. And, you know what? They probably do. Like the new iphone, every generation is expected to be smarter, faster, better, and thinner than the last. So it is with teenagers, teenage girls to be exact. It's no newsflash to anyone who's ever been a teenager that being one is full of pressure. I remember an ad I saw in a women's magazine when I was a teen that resonates with me to this day: You can never be too rich or too thin (bonus points to any of you who remember what product that ad was selling).
Current research shows that not only such magazines but now too the wonderful world wide web are contributing to making girls feel miserable with regard to being, well, as rich and as thin as possible. In the Generation Under Stress Report, two out of five teenage girls felt more poorly about themselves after looking at pictures of models, music stars and actresses in magazines. And the pressure doesn't end there. Girls also reported feeling pressure to act and dress more like adults, to be sexually active before they were ready and to invest in expensive material items like Ipods, cell phones and brand-name clothing and accessories (what teenager NEEDS a Prada bag?). Add that to the eating disorders and bullying and you have a recipe for disaster.
So what do we do? Send our teenage girls off to the convent? If you have the answer, please let me know--I am about to have a daughter and am feeling the pressure before she's even been born. Not too long ago I saw a onesie that said, "Does this outfit make my butt look big?" HELP!
A road trip without tantrums or losing feeling in your arm from handing back treats and toys non-stop is nearly impossible for most moms to imagine, but life on the road sans small fry has been the reality all week for a select group of mommy bloggers.
Four members of the Silicon Valley Mom Groups living across the country from each otherr will be meeting up as they drive coast-to-coast to their final destination, the BlogHer conference in San Francisco. Corporate sponsors have donated the vehicle as well as cutting-edge technology (wireless internet IN THE CAR!) that enables the woman to keep readers of their blog updated on their adventures as well as to organize last minute meet ups with bloggers in the area they are stopping.
We're often inundated by stories of the dark side of the internet, but the good that can come from this medium should be noted as well. Safe travels and remember to stop and stretch, ladies!
A recent letter from the Vice President of Communications at Nike, which was perhaps inappropriately shared, has controversy brewing. Apparently, one Amanda Miller contacted one New York Times writer Joe Nocera in an attempt to pitch him some sort of stroller. Nike Communications is a public relations firm that sells expensive stuff. Joe, and everyone else who responded in the comments section of his blog about the letter, was offended, or at least annoyed. You see, Ms. Miller referred to children as accessories. This is nothing new--people have worn their babies since, well, since they've been having them. What we carry them in, as opposed to on us, has changed, but little else.
Oh, perhaps there was a time not so long ago when women didn't really leave the house and therefore, when with child (in or out of the womb) they didn't leave either, which meant no one really saw much of children until they were working age. But now, all that has changed. Now celebrities can be seen with their spawn doing whatever it is they do when they're not busy making the millions required to purchase the kind of stroller Ms. Miller is suggesting to the tune of $1,000.
Celebrities procreate--many of them doing so two at a time--and then they show them off to the world. The question is no longer what those celebrity moms are wearing, but what their babies are IN. That's right--out with Halston, and in with the Phil & Ted's chic stroller, and their new Traveller, which is actually just a playpen. Clearly Ms. Miller should be fired. Not for attempting to sell people stuff they don't need at a ridiculous price--after all, it's a PR firm, that's what they get paid to do!--but because Joe Nocera is clearly not her target audience. I can think about at least ten people, all of them women, who would eat up the letter from Ms. Miller and barely wash it down with an iced decaf skim latte before immediately setting out to purchase one. Did I mention I live in New York City? Joe Nocera? Clearly not interested.
According to the retailing giant, Wal-Mart, moms have a dedicated following of helpers -- family members, teachers, neighbors and baby sitters -- to make sure that raising a family doesn't interfere too much with their ability to go shopping. This "momtourage," as its being called, might even include Dad, notes the New York Times.
Wal-Mart has signed a deal with a new unit of NBC Universal called Women@NBCU that offers access to the more female-oriented side of the business, including cable networks Bravo and Oxygen and television shows like "Lipstick Jungle." Lauren Zalaznick, president for the women and lifestyle entertainment networks at NBC Universal, sees moms as "identifiable consumer targets" for advertising. The agreement with Wal-Mart covers the last half of the year when moms are buying back-to-school and holiday items.
I'm not sure what we're doing wrong -- while we do get a lot of help from my wife's mother, I definitely wouldn't say Rachel has a "momtourage". I also have to say it gets a little tiring having society assume that we dads are nothing more than incompetent buffoons who sit around guzzling beer and, at best, trying not to get in Mom's way. Wal-Mart and NBC, I guess, think that women change every diaper and take the kids to school every day and we guys don't do anything. That would be all fine and dandy if we could actually get away with it, but it doesn't work that way outside of the marketing team's imagination.
Nicole Kidman may be debuting pics of her new baby soon, but if she does so, it won't be for cash. The Oscar winner and her country music star husband, Keith Urban, recently welcomed Sunday Rose into the world. According to reports, they've been debating about whether to share their joy in picture format.
According to The Sydney Morning Herald, if they do release pics, it won't be for a lot of money. In fact, the Australian paper is reporting, if pictures are released it will be for free.
As we all know, the Jolie-Pitt twins pictures will be worth between $15 and $20 million. The money has reportedly been earmarked for charity. Hollywood stars have had a long tradition of selling pictures of their children to publications like People and OK Magazine for hefty sums. Nice to see the Kidman Urban tribe isn't willing to share their joy only if there's payment involved.
I think some people are convinced that I had kids only so I could justify a top-of-the-line camera, but it's not true -- I also needed someone to take pictures of. Taking pictures of people -- especially kids -- can be challenging, however. Making them look better than the standard kid-in-a-frame shot is even more difficult.
To help with this, the Digital Photography School has put together ten ways to kick your photos up a notch. Some of these techniques we see a lot in the Images of the Day here on ParentDish, but I know I don't always stop and think about what makes these images so special. Now DPS has spelled it out for you, with stunning examples of each.
One tip I can offer -- hold your camera sideways next to your knee, with your finger on the trigger. Pretend to be looking straight ahead, even though the camera is actually pointed at your subject on your right. Make sure you're far enough away that your subject will be in the picture even if your aim is off. For kids, this not only catches them off guard, it also puts the camera down at their level.
So there you go -- ten tips plus a bonus one (don't ever say we don't go the extra mile -- or extra tip, anyway -- for you here at ParentDish!) Now, go forth and photograph!
About a month ago my husband was playing around with one of our son's toys and realized it was censored. The toy in question is a Leap Frog brand caterpillar called an Alphabet Pal with letters on each of its twenty-six legs. Among the things you can do with the caterpillar are set it to play different kinds of music (each leg plays a different song) and say the letters on the legs. You can also set it to pronounce the sound the letter makes when it is spoken. So, if you hit the leg with the letter "B" on it, you hear "Buh." As a joke my husband tried to sound out a dirty word. The caterpillar denied him! Instead, if you, say, try to sound out "fff" then "ugh" you get a "heh heh, that tickles!" before the caterpillar will pronounce the "kuh."
Now, I can assume my kiddo isn't going to be using this caterpillar to sound out dirty words. Most children who are the age the caterpillar is designed for--between one and two years of age--don't even know what those are. But it still brings up an interesting point: Isn't that censorship? I mean, whoever designed this toy, which is a lot of fun and a great educational tool (it also says the colors of each letter on each leg in another setting), had to think that someone like my husband would try some funny business and came up with a plan to avoid the caterpillar saying bad things.
I'm starting to wonder if this was a one-time thing or if all toys of this nature are set to ensure they don't spell or say dirty words. Also, who decides such things? And does that person get to decide what constitutes a dirty word and what doesn't? At home with television and the Internet, for example, parents can set their own standards for what their children are allowed to watch and read or look at. The maker of this toy did that for us. Thoughts??? Should companies be censoring toys for us or are they doing the job of the parents?
When we last left the Friends crew, Rachel and Ross had reunited, and Monica and Chandler had just learned they were about to become adoptive parents -- to twins. Phoebe got married, and Joey was... well... still being Joey. It seemed like a good ending to the decade long series, but with the recent success of Sex and the City's big screen debut, rumors are swirling that the Friends cast may be reuniting.
When we met them, they were all 20-something singles trying to get a handle on life and love. But by the time the finale came along, though, there were marriages and babies and a focus on a more domesticated life. I'm curious what angle they will take. Will they pick up where they left off? Or will it be a Friends: Four Years Later sort of thing?
While I had my issues with WALL-E, I wouldn't have considered leftist brain-washing to be one of them (although, I suppose some might argue that I'm so far gone I wouldn't notice it in the first place). It seems, however, that some of the more conservative members of the audience did pick up on it and are visibly upset.
Think Progress (admittedly, it was voted "Best Liberal Blog" in 2006) has a round-up of some of the commentary coming out about the movie from the right side of the theatre. "From the first moment of the film," wrote Shannen Coffin, former general counsel to Vice President Cheney, "my kids were bombarded with leftist propaganda about the evils of mankind."
Another writer described the movie as "a 90-minute lecture on the dangers of over consumption, big corporations, and the destruction of the environment." He goes on to explain that he will be doing his part to save the world by "by boycotting any and all WALL-E merchandise" and calling for others to "join my crusade."
I'm sure that these reviewers do not speak for all conservatives, representing, instead, an extreme, but it is still amusing that they are getting so upset over a movie that they aren't being forced to see. I could get similarly incensed about the VeggieTales series -- or just not watch them.
I've never been much of a fan of reality TV. Putting ordinary people (who are always prettier or meaner or whinier than anyone person I've ever met) in weird circumstances to show what happens just isn't entertaining to me. I've got kids, I deal with weird circumstances ALL DAY LONG!
Apparently, I'm not the only one who isn't crazy about at least one reality TV show. The Washington D.C. based nonprofit group Zero to Three is upset with the new NBC television series "Baby Borrowers". The group's spokesperson told Page Six, "We're concerned about the fact that these babies are being separated from their parents and placed with strangers. On the first episode, the babies were separated for about 12 hours and were clearly in distress. Typically they will cry and cling and search for their parents, which they were doing. They should be with someone they've had the opportunity to get to know."
I'm all for educating teens on child care getting rid of the notion that parenting is one big ball of baby powdery fun, but there ARE better ways than dumping a baby off with complete strangers for a television show. Working at a childcare center, volunteering at a church nursery or preschool, or even babysitting are all good ways to get a small idea of what life as a parent is like.
There is no way I'd ever, ever, ever have agreed to let my babies be on a television show like this, even with a nanny stationed nearby in case she's needed. What exactly is going on with our society that makes babies fair game for a reality series, anyway?
A lot of people love Pixar. The amazing animation studio, with incredible artists like John Lasseter and Pete Docter, has a knack for infusing life and soul into normally inanimate objects. With hits like the Toy Story movies, Monsters, Inc, Finding Nemo, Cars, and now WALL-E (which I got to see last week), the company has much to be proud of.
So are you one of their fans? Have you seen all nine of their full-length films? Can you name them all? (They are: Toy Story (1995), A Bug's Life (1998), Toy Story 2 (1999), Monsters, Inc (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004), Cars (2006), Ratatouille (2007), and WALL-E (2008).)
Well, if you fancy yourself to be as big a fan as I am, you might want to try your hand at this Pixar-related quiz over at Moviefone. I got nine out of fourteen correct (I missed a few actors and cultural references) -- how will you do?
If there's one thing that's controversial among parents who blog, it's whether or not it's appropriate to post pictures of your children online. Some parents worry that it isn't safe, while others are concerned that their children will view it as an invasion of privacy when they get older. Still, there are plenty of parents out there (including 
Here's the good news: 
A road trip without tantrums or losing feeling in your arm from handing back treats and toys non-stop is nearly impossible for most moms to imagine, but life on the road sans small fry has been the reality all week for a select group of mommy bloggers. 
According to the retailing giant, Wal-Mart, moms have a dedicated following of helpers -- family members, teachers, neighbors and baby sitters -- to make sure that raising a family doesn't interfere too much with their ability to go shopping. This "momtourage," as its being called, might even include Dad, 
I think some people are convinced that I had kids only so I could justify a top-of-the-line camera, but it's not true -- I also needed someone to take pictures of. Taking pictures of people -- especially kids -- can be challenging, however. Making them look better than the standard kid-in-a-frame shot is even more difficult.
When we last left the Friends crew, Rachel and Ross had reunited, and Monica and Chandler had just learned they were about to become adoptive parents -- to twins. Phoebe got married, and Joey was... well... still being Joey. It seemed like a good ending to the decade long series, but with the recent success of Sex and the City's big screen debut, rumors are swirling that the 
While I had 
I've never been much of a fan of reality TV. Putting ordinary people (who are always prettier or meaner or whinier than anyone person I've ever met) in weird circumstances to show what happens just isn't entertaining to me. I've got kids, I deal with weird circumstances ALL DAY LONG!
