I was thinking the same thing when I started watching it but after a few episodes now, it's apparent that it's her studio and she's a choreographer not an instructor. So the girls learn their dance techniques from the ballet, tap, and jazz instructors at the studio but they go to her for choreography and since the kids learn the actual terminology for the dance moves (and she's adamant about this), she just tells them what moves to do and they know to do them.

As a former child dancer myself (without the stage mom thing, it wasn't that serious) I can relate to the show but yeah I don't get why she wouldn't want to get fit and be able to demonstrate her choreography; she has to yell so much because she can't SHOW them the moves. I've seen choreographers and instructors that weren't stick figure thin but never like her. I'm guessing that at one time she was a fit dancer (not necessarily thin) since she said she was a child dancer and I think she said her mom was a dancer also and owned a studio.

Also I just wanted to mention that for the dance studio and the moms, this is not a hobby. They want the girls to get into schools like Juilliard and/or go on to broadway. They want them to be professional dancers. The question is do the girls want this? The little ones don't know yet but the lead dancer (can't think of her name) does I think; she's really good. The ones that end up being professionals have definitely been working at it since they were very young. I also think some of the moms want to live vicariously through their girls since they quit dance when they were young.

As a mom, this is where I struggle. I would love to get my kids into something that they could translate into something (professional dancer, Olympic gymnast, concert pianist, professional baseball player, etc), but how do you know what to put them in without overloading them to figure out what that thing would be? I know a few things are out: My daughter likes dancing, but she doesn't have the natural grace and she's probably going to be quite tall (which also kicks out gymnastics). She likes music, but one minute thinks she'd like to play the harp, flute the next, piano the next. As a musician, I realize that many skills transfer, but the focus is obviously not there. My son has actually shown some aptitude for gymnastics, but is not great at following instructions (he's 4, so he still has time to grow out of that). I feel like if I'm going to get them into something NOW is the time, but I don't want to shove them into something just for the sake of it.:confused:

I genuinely did not believe I could be shocked anymore but the Las Vegas episode had me silent (a rare moment).

Colored contacts on a child to make them more attractive??? :eek:

Lots more to say on this episode but I'll recap (and vent) after I return from my dr. appt.

:eek:

I've been watching the commercial with the mother who put a hot pink "tits and ass" outfit on her child. One of the children touched the stuffed breasts and said "what is that." One of the judges (or whatever he is) said he didn't like the fake breasts on the child. DUH...what the hell was this mother thinking?! :mad:

While ya bullshittin', I don't think the mother who is all over the news for putting hot sauce in her adopted son's mouth and making him take a cold shower was treated fairly. We have shows like "Toddlers and Tiaras" that show parents doing some dumb things that could potentially be emotionally damaging and sexualizing kids. Where are the boundaries? Does nothing matter unless it is potentially physically harmful (according to those who consider certain forms of child punishment harmful)?

I didn't see that episode, but what was she hoping to accomplish with that?

That is not from an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras. I will edit my post to clarify.

Oh Holy Shit! :eek: Just when I think it couldn't get any worse, one mom proves me wrong. She dresses her little girl as Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman complete with thigh high black boots, platinum blonde wig & tight blue/white PROSTITUTE dress. WTF!?!

Preview of the next episode of T&T.

What if they were interested in something that doesn't necessarily translate into fame or notoriety?

Watching this episode right now...what a trainwreck! Paisley (the one in the Julia Roberts outfit) won Grand Supreme!

And WTH is Chloe's little brother drinking out of his bottle (near the end of the episode)? It's brown and dark...Coke?...Coffee?...Tea? :eek:

This last episode was tame compared to some of the ones shown in the past but of course, there are some things to be mentioned.

1. The little girl Paige looked decidedly uncomfortable and unhappy to be in the pageant. She looked so awkward, I actually felt bad for her yet her mom kept insisting she LOVES pageants. :rolleyes: Yeah right.

2. Marlo (Sydney's mom) is a lunatic. Messing around with people by having a lifelike doll that she purposefully leaves in a car just for attention? WTH?!? She seriously thinks she's funny by making the offensive remarks in a really offensive accent while doing her daughters nails, by saying she's insane (which I don't doubt) and by claiming the doctor said she'd be fine w/meds & therapy.

3. Sydney is a pretty girl with lots of natural talent for gymnastics & cheer. I hope she goes far in those endeavors b/c she seems fairly normal despite having a psycho for a mother.

4. Maddie annoyed me for no other reason than b/c I can't stand know-it-all kids who don't listen.

5. I learned yet another new term thanks to T&T. Facially gifted. LOL! So if your daughter isn't "Facially Gifted", that's pageant code for your daughter is UGLY!

http://blog.music.aol.com/2011/09/28...c3_lnk2|100040


HAHAHA!!! Classic!

I missed opening this thread after this response...

Can you name something that falls into this category? The best in every field achieve fame/notoriety to some extent. From MVP athletes to Grammy winning musicians to Nobel Prize winning scientist to best-selling authors. Different types and levels of course. And saying I'd like to set my kids up to be Olympians or Tony winners or the next Michelangelo doesn't mean I EXPECT that of them, it means I'm like every parent who wants their child to achieve their best. If they happen to be good enough to take that talent to the next level, I want to help them nurture it. I would hate for them to find something they love and are good at when they're too old to just be starting out and be competitive. Most of the time when someone does achieve "the next level", you hear stories of how they've been at it since they were 3.

If they grow up and decide they want to be teachers or lawyers or carpenters or stay-at-home parents, that's perfectly fine, and I didn't mean to sound like I was implying otherwise. I just want to give them the opportunities they deserve.

Which means that they sacrifice a very large number of normal childhood experiences to be the best. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about 10,000 hours being the standard for becoming an "expert" at something. That's an awful lot of time.

This isn't to say there aren't people for whom it isn't a sacrifice, but they are their own kind of particular genius, I think (Glenn Gould comes to mind). Rare is the child who really wants to give up normal kid stuff to be a concert virtuoso.

I didn't see this until now.

I guess I initially read that sentence as sort of contradictory, but I can see how you are meaning it. How this ties into the T&T discussion - and I am not being snarky, read on.

If you are "setting up" your children to be world-recognized athletes or performers, how can you not have that expectation? In other words (and I am not saying that you do it, but we see it all the time on T&T), what is the expected result of hours upon hours of preparation and lots of money on equipment/training - at a level beyond what most children do as a hobby? And what if that doesn't "pay off"?

Have you seen Micky Wood (mother of Eden Wood, a popular kiddie pageant girl) interviewed? She talks about the "big two million dollar contract" that is going to get her and Eden out of Arkansas and to Hollywood. Sure, her kid can strut around and smile like a trained monkey, but how that will translate into "success" is unclear. Unless simply having a name that people recognize for no real contribution to the world (a la the Kardashians or the Jersey Shore people) is the goal.

These parents on the pageant shows honestly believe that they are setting their kids up for "ultimate success," a.k.a, FAME!! and FORTUNE!!, and proclaim that they'd do anything for their kid to "win." Two points to that - what if the kid isn't as talented as they expect or want them to be, in a particular area, second, what if the kid with talent and all that training and money spent, doesn't "win"?

It's a fine line, but I think "stage momism" is easy to spot when I see it. (Not saying you do it, because honestly, I only know what you share on your links there, but these crazy parents on T&T are on par with the Hockey dads that beat up the dads of the opposing team.)