In my daily trolling of NPR, I ran across an article about a consumer group that is suing the McDonald’s corporation on behalf of parents whose kids whine incessantly in order to obtain the crappy toy that comes with a Happy Meal. I almost didn’t read the article, because the title was innocuous enough (Consumer Group Sues McDonald’s Over Happy Meal Toys), but the tagline grabbed me:
"A well-known consumer group says McDonald's toy advertising is deceptive and makes kids pester their parents to buy Happy Meals full of too much salt, sugar, fat and calories."
My first reaction was, Really? We get to sue people now because our kids pester us? Because that’s exactly what this lawsuit is about. It’s not about scalding-hot coffee, or the erroneous idea that one can eat three daily meals at Mickey D’s and thrive.
This lawsuit is about the fact that kids annoy their parents to get what they want. In many houses, this is a normal--and expected--daily occurrence. In California, it is apparently a legitimate parental grievance and grounds for legal action.
So the Center for Science in the Public Interest has decided to go knuckle deep into the legal system on behalf of harried moms and dads who are spread too thin to endure another moment of what every kid on the planet does a million times a day.
You know, as opposed to telling these so-called parents to put on their big kid undies and take charge of their children.
In my opinion, that’s just what the problem is. McDonald’s has been selling Happy Meals for decades and guess what--it IS a marketing gimmick, and kids DO only care about the toy. So what? Unless they’re old enough to drive, children can’t get there on their own. This means that the parents control the situation; the parents can choose to decline a trip to an unfavorable place, and can decline to pay for anything said place sells.
A woman featured in the article, Sacramento native and mother of two Monet Parham, is the main plaintiff in the case, and she advocates the lawsuit by explaining that she is “really concerned about the health of [her] children,” and that she doesn’t “think it’s OK to entice children to get Happy Meals with a toy.”
Excuse me, Ms. Parham? If you’re concerned about the health of your children, don’t take them to McDonald’s. It really is that simple. That way, your kids’ health is protected and the legal system isn’t jammed up with the sticky, pernicious molasses of frivolous lawsuits.
Wait, what? You say you’re “fed up with the pestering?” Get in line, sweetheart, behind all the other moms and dads who aren’t suing because being a parent requires adamantine nerves and backbone.
And while you’re on your way, think about this: who’s in charge in your house, ma’am? That’s right. You are. Say no, and mean it. Back it up with appropriate body language and consequences for continued pestering. Get used to repeating yourself.
Oh, if it were only that easy. The gravity of Parham’s argument comes mostly from the fact that she is a busy, working mother whose difficulty and guilt are increased exponentially by altercations with her children that are ignited by a desired trip to McDonald’s, and she really plays the shit out of this card.
It’s not that I have no sympathy--I work too, two part-time jobs and a volunteer teaching gig in fact, and my husband’s job requires that he travel extensively. Often I am parenting by myself for several days in a row, and I can certainly sympathize with the desire to avoid confrontation with the kids and make dinner ‘easy.’
But I’m also a gigantic food sheriff. I limit my children’s food choices to what I deem acceptable, and endure the whining and complaining that naturally follow the refusal of an unacceptable food request. They can have Food A or Food B, and neither are ever McDonald's. I do this because it is the only way I can get my kids to accept the burden of making good choices. I also believe that no one can make a kid eat, if the kid refuses, and no one can make a kid like food that they think tastes awful. Conversely, no one can convince another person that deep-fried potatoes taste awful, if that person likes french fries.
These beliefs of mine are why I find fault with Parham’s maligning of McDonald’s. Yes, the food is crap, and no one should eat it. But she claims that, because of the insidious lure of an iCarly toy, “McDonald’s is getting into [her] kids’ heads without [her] permission and actually changing what [her] kids want to eat.”
McDonald’s does not have that power, unless it’s been trained by a certified Sith Lord, which I doubt. What likely happened, is what I think of as the one-way door effect: Parham’s kids tasted once of the fruit of the Golden Arches--which includes delight in ownership of a new toy--and decided it was delicious. It then became worthwhile for her kids to pitch a fit for McDonald’s because a) they like the food and the toy, and b) they know their mother will give in to them. This is a winning combination, and one that has to have both components to work.
The only way to break the cycle is to remove one of the components; either the children have to decide that they no longer like the food or toy (ha!), or the children have to understand that pestering Mom for McDonald’s will not be met with success. Unfortunately, this does mean saying “no” to the children, which is what Parham is trying to avoid by initiating the lawsuit through the Center for Science.
What she and others may not realize, sadly, is that by saying “no” to our children’s demands for unhealthy fast food, no matter how difficult it is, we are actually saying “yes” to myriad other, better things: our children’s health, our own sanity in the long run, and the irreplaceable satisfaction that comes with knowing that we have had a direct, positive effect on the well-being of our children without the help of the legal system.
Image from speakwell.
0 comments:
Post a Comment