<p>zagat: Ultimately VOD will be the true test of whether a channel makes it or not because the data is readily available as to # of viewers. AM TV has about 5 hours of programming that can be watched at any time. But, the true test is how do they make money? Comcast and other cable operators would need to pony up a subscriber fee (ex: the country’s top cable sports channel gets $2.50 to $3.00 per sub from cable companies for 24 hour programming) and they need advertisers to pay bigtime. All predicated on viewership. And bigger cable programmers (the Darth Vadars of the cable world) could easily force AM TV out because of the clout they have in “requiring” cable operators to carry their own programming. I did see that the AM website had some products for sale, so there’s a bit of revenue. Will that last? Fad for those high-powered parents, ho-hum for us lowly middle-class?</p>
<p>To proclaim oneself to be “the” Alphamom, leader of the Alphamom empire and mouthpiece for moms across the land, when one has less than 3 years experience in the field of Mom-ing, and is by one’s own admission without natural aptitude in that field, is ludicrous. Go ahead, while your kid is a toddler, and spend 100 hours a week starting a business if you want to. Give interviews in which you quantify your child’s bowel movements and scheduled activities but say nothing about his personality or interests, what you share together, or what you love about being a mother. Henpeck your executive husband and squelch his parenting instincts. I am not impressed. This is “cutting edge” mothering?</p>
<p>This is sad, very sad. More than anything, it is a marketing error. Isabel needs to read this thread to understand that while she is right in there with those she knows. she has truly lost and insulted most of America. She uttered the sentiments that her peers, in terms of education, income and outlook relate to. That’s less than 1% of American moms. Big errorr.</p>
<p>I think that we must also remain cognizant of the fact that as parents we all bring our own frames of reference to the table, which also help contribute to our parenting styles.</p>
<p>Some of us are raising our kids the same way that we were raised.
Some of us are raising kids the way we wished we were raised
Some of us are using a combination of these things alond with changing social mores, books, TV, columnist, even CC.</p>
<p>Some of us take the cowardly lion approach and sing about if we were king/queen of the forest.</p>
<p>We only know Isabel based on her here and now and where she wants to go. We don’t know anything about where’s she’s been. If she was raised in a household by nannies and hired help while her parents were wheeling, dealing and going along the social circuit, then yes, I can see how she thinks she is doing better because she is present in the house with all of her hired help. In her mind she is doing well. She feels that she is a bright, well- educated successful woman who has read the latest concepts on child rearing. She is a self -proclaimed expert on child rearing and may infact be a legend in her own mind.</p>
<p>The big kicker is going to be how many people will jump on Isabel’s band wagon?</p>
<p>So many of you have fed into the awful stereotyping promoted by this type of BS article. They wanted you to despise the woman and you did. You’ve lined up to detail how your parenting principal’s are different. Would anyone line up to say they agree with what the writer profiled? Really??? Including the woman profiled?</p>
<p>the thing is I don’t think she would necessarily see anything wrong with the article even as it is presented- she would see herself shown as an asgressive smart cookie who expects the best and gets it and is just wanting to “help” other women with the benefits of her research.
It has nothing to do with working women, it has nothing to do with Ivy league schools, wealth or even the east coast.
It does have to do with having children when you don’t “get” them, but see it as something that must be done in your race to the finish line.</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with the magazine, but is it possible that this article was parody? Here’s the writer’s last story. <a href=“http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/features/10608/[/url]”>http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/urban/features/10608/</a>
Both pieces read like the Harvard Lampoon, or The Onion.</p>
<p>The article actually reminded me of this parody:
<a href=“http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/11/blue_state_blue.html[/url]”>http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/11/blue_state_blue.html</a></p>
<p>Not a paraody. This the cover page and featured article in the June 20th edition of New York Magagine</p>
<p><a href=“http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/toc/20050620/index.html[/url]”>http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/toc/20050620/index.html</a></p>
<p>Actually, it was THIS iowahawk parody of the Newsweek “Mommy Madness” article, that reminded me of the Alpha Mom piece. What a joke.</p>
<p><a href=“http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/02/aid_pours_in_fo_1.html[/url]”>http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/02/aid_pours_in_fo_1.html</a></p>
<p>My sole observation about this is that children who are never told no, and who learn that every wish will be granted if they ask politely, are in for a rude awakening as they grow older [or those around them are in for the awakening].</p>
<p>This is true regardless of whether their mother stays home with them or not.</p>
<p>Whatever happened to “the inmates don’t run the asylum?” (See page 6 - Ryland runs the house.)</p>
<p>Whatever happened to actually spending time with your child, doing things like baking cookies? Swingsets? Playgrounds? Or am I hopelessly old-fashioned?</p>
<p>Edit after reading all the posts: This really has nothing to do with stay-at-home v. working moms. I was raised by my dad, who worked long hours. BUT - when he wasn’t working, we spent time as a family. We had every dinner together. He taught me to shoot a basketball, swing a bat, and, when I was older, went to almost every one of my track meets. THAT was good, hands-on parenting… it wasn’t a matter of the hours he worked so much as what he did when he was around. </p>
<p>This lady seems like she’s just not really <em>there</em> for her kid, period. </p>
<p>IMO, kids also benefit by having both parents involved. Geez, I think that my divorced-for-decades parentals are more supportive of each other’s efforts than this woman is of her husband’s.</p>
<p>“My sole observation about this is that children who are never told no, and who learn that every wish will be granted if they ask politely, are in for a rude awakening as they grow older [or those around them are in for the awakening].”</p>
<p>SO VERY TRUE. If they don’t get the rude awakening, they are utterly impossible to deal with as humans.</p>
<p>Oh, their house is going to be quite a place in a few, short years when Prince Ryland figures out the he’s running the show, and Isabel is going to be mighty put-out when he doesn’t respond to the “alpha mom”. That child is in great need of some consistent, loving discipline. Hopefully one of the villagers can provide it, because it doesn’t appear that his parents will be able to do so. I can’t imagine him as a teen! Ugh.</p>
<p>Obviously, this woman is intelligent. What makes you think she’s not adaptable?</p>
<p>(Also, I feel like reiterating that the notion she doesn’t love her child seems to be pulled out of thin air. What in the article gives that impression? (efficiency doesn’t necessarily imply heartlessness))</p>
<p>someone that describes themselves as Alpha in a family context doesn’t strike me as adaptable any more than a steamroller is “adaptable”
But it looks like she is going after the elphantine model of mothering
According to the elephantine model, motherhood is essential to alpha female’s humanity: she is mature and connected. Even so, she is not hampered or compromised by motherhood in any way. Nobody would accuse her of juggling, or coping: she has staff.</p>
<p>She certainly has a staff- a babysitter and a nanny- I wonder if she subcontracts out her wifely duties as well?</p>
<p>Of course she does, any woman who has the audacity to hire a nanny or babysitter does.</p>
<p>With any luck, the nanny gives her extra time for wifely fun. Duty?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thought exactly. What did Mark Twain say? Be wary of enemies who buy ink by the barrel; ie journalists? </p>
<p>Of course there were no warm fuzzy words. That would have ruined the article, muted the attack.</p>
<p>The mom is not adaptable because she said she wants to control everything, and with children that is impossible. Without children it is impossible. </p>
<p>Watch the Nanny 911 shows, the biggest problem the parents have with the unruly kids, is that the parents don’[t agree on how to raise the children. So the kids run ruffshod all over everyone. That is what is going on with this family.</p>
<p>If dad lasts, i will be impressed and he will deserve a medal.</p>
<p>Did it ever occur to you that if there is a problm, Dad is just as big a part of it? Because he was too bust being the number 2 exec at a major company to be hoodwinked by a reporter with an agenda, he looks to not be a problem? There is a lot of misunderstanding here about the lifestyle this couple and many other highly successful (on a corporate level) live. Dad really wants mom to be in charge.</p>
<p>I should have added TIC I suppose to the wifely duty- but really if she doesn’t find having a child engaging enough to put in hours herself why did she do it?
( some letters)
<a href=“http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/letters/12064/index.html[/url]”>http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/letters/12064/index.html</a></p>