Since my six daughters are aged 26 to 13, maybe I’m truly not aware of just how bad things are now in the world of little girls, which a British mum declares is suffering a “pink plague.”

I bristled at the headline, thinking the author was overreacting. So what? I raised my daughters to know they could play with Matchbox cars as well as their Bratz dolls. Despite the peer pressure from her older sisters, one daughter declared that “pink is my enemy” and refused to wear it.

But the author documents the onslaught of All Things Pink that her daughter faces, and complains that it is becoming more and more difficult to level the playing field.

I’m concerned the pink message will affect my daughter. I don’t want her to think she is ‘supposed’ to be interested in jewellery, clothes and shopping if she doesn’t want to be. As pressure group PinkStinks explains: “Pink and its many facets currently represents an overarching social concept of ‘girl’ that is strongly limiting, reinforces stereotypes and has further ramifications.”

That may sound a tad too serious, but it’s not just about the color. The story goes on to explain, for example, that toy stores have been found placing science-related toys in the boys’ section. Thankfully the stores are responding to pressure from activist groups and consumers to change.

While the author is also more hopeful thanks to the response by merchandising giant Disney to the campaign to restore Brave’s Merida to her original appearance, I found another article showing that the male-dominated world of advertising and marketing continues pushing pink even to grown women.

Billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones didn’t intend for his comments to leave the room, but leave they have, creating a maelstrom. As indelicate as he may have been, I say we forgive his old school vernacular and look at the bigger picture. In answer to a written question — labeled by its author as “the elephant in the room” — about how to get more diversity in the world of trading, the Washington Post reports:

[Jones said] that it is difficult for mothers to be successful traders because connecting with a child is a focus “killer.” As long as women continue having children, he said, the industry is likely to be dominated by men.

“As soon as that baby’s lips touched that girl’s bosom, forget it,” Jones said, motioning to his chest during an April symposium. He was talking about two women who worked with him at a stock brokerage in the late 1970s – two women who married, had children and, according to his account, no longer had the laser focus needed for the intense world of macro trading. 

Yeah, Jones could have worded that much, much better. But he also said that it was about focus, not about gender. He said any personal obstacle could cause a trader to lose his or her edge. He gave the example of a male trader who was going through a divorce who could not perform his job very well because of the distraction. He never said women couldn’t ever do the job, just that women who were focused on motherhood would find it too difficult. He did say that “the reason why is not because they are not capable. They are very capable.”

Some feminists (no surprise) have responded like Lost’s John Locke with a “don’t tell me what I can’t do.” WaPo reports that the University of Virginia, which sponsored the symposium, had to send out a lengthy explanation which included this quote from an e-mail it had received from an alumna.

“There are many people who agree with the alumnus’s comments,” the graduate wrote. “When you come across those people, go the other way. Life is hard enough. You don’t need negative perspectives or people who tell you what is not possible in your life. Go around them and then prove them wrong. Do well, and come back to tell the next generation of women what is possible.” 

At least she was more civil than many of the hundreds of comments that popped up within an hour of the story being released online. And I’m not saying she’s completely wrong. But why are Jones’s comments immediately labeled as negative? Did she not hear how he encouraged his daughters to follow their hearts’ desires — that they could be successful in any field, including macro trading? Did she not understand that Jones was basically saying that predicting stock variations is mundane compared to caring for your own child?

“Every single investment idea . . . every desire to understand what is going to make this go up or go down is going to be overwhelmed by the most beautiful experience . . . which a man will never share, about a mode of connection between that mother and that baby,” Jones said. 

Yes, he said that perfectly. The most beautiful experience. Why won’t we just own that? There is nothing wrong with saying that nothing compares to motherhood, and if it makes it too difficult to focus on something as ephemeral as success at a desk job — who cares? Only mothers can know motherhood, that priceless vocation. I’ll take it.

And will they then make their way here? The writer of this story is highly skeptical.

Mermaid Maternity Retreat charges roughly £500 a night for new mums who can enjoy acupuncture, reflexology, massage, nutritional meals, facials and post natal yoga. There will be 14 en suite rooms (priority is given to those who have ‘booked in’, although some will be kept aside for ‘last minute’ requests).

. . . it seems a fascinating but bizarre business model. Most women want to be surrounded by home comforts after a baby; to return to the nursery they have excitedly put together and to be there when friends stop by for a cuddle and a cuppa.

. . . I’m laughing at the way [the developer] depicts birth as a perilous pursuit after which women must be rescued.

She believes that this hotel will serve a small niche, perhaps mostly foreigners looking to have their babies born in London. It will be interesting to see if this venture succeeds and if it then jumps the pond for American moms.

Full story here.

Meet Sabrina Brady, a high-schooler from Sparta, Wisc., whose logo design won the 2013 “Doodle 4 Google” contest. This year’s theme was “My best day ever. . .”

Sabrina’s drawing titled ”Coming Home” shows her reunion with her father after his 18-month tour in Iraq. Great job Sabrina!

When I was pregnant with my twins, my sweet elderly obstetrician asked me every time I saw him, “Drink much milk?” I was pleased to answer in the affirmative each time. Little did I know that my love of dairy was not only building strong bones and teeth, but also potentially boosting my babies’ IQs.

A study of more than 1,000 pregnant women found those who consumed lower amounts of iodine, which is absorbed from food and found in milk, dairy products and fish, were more likely to have children with lower IQs and reading abilities.

Iodine is essential for producing hormones made by the thyroid gland, which has a direct effect on the development of the foetal brain.

Previous research has shown that conventional milk is better for pregnant women than organic milk. A study published in the British Journal of Nutrition discovered that organic milk contains 42 per cent less iodine than the regular variety.

The article adds that eating fish is another good source of iodine, but that kelp supplements have too much.

In other pregnancy news, a blood test has been developed that seems to predict with 85-percent accuracy if a new mom will develop postpartum depression.

The test spots two genes in DNA that may signal the onset of the condition, and could provide early warnings of the debilitating sadness, irritability, depression and loss of appetite that affect almost one in five new mothers within weeks of giving birth.

Women could then be given treatments to reduce the severity of the condition or even prevent it developing at all, the researchers hope.

Women who have the two genes are thought to be particularly susceptible to the effects of pregnancy hormones on the brain, which could leave them more vulnerable to stress and less able to adapt to the demands of motherhood.

When interviews are conducted along with the blood tests, the prediction success rate is even higher. The downside is that it may take two years before the test is widely available.

More here.

I just may have to get me one of these as I struggle here at home with all the new media being used. Dawn Siff writes about the need for a younger, tech-savvy mentor upon returning to the workforce:

As I made my way back into the world of media, I saw a chasm between the management and journalistic skills I’d developed before leaving the workforce and the evolving digital world. I wanted to be part of what was new and next. 

It was clearly time for me to seek out a mentor. I checked in with more senior women who had crashed through professional ceilings. They had advice on leadership quandaries and on striking that elusive work/family balance. But I observed that many struggled to find their own digital footing. What I needed was someone like the fresh-faced editors I used to supervise: A younger mentor, a so-called ‘digital native,’ to show me the world through her eyes.

I also knew I would need more than a few technical tutorials. I wanted to learn the tone and nuance of online media culture, where entertainment, information, news, commerce, and soul-baring mingle seamlessly.

Well, it appears to have worked as she is credited as the first to post a resume on Vine — it went viral. 

Full story here.

My oldest was born in 1987 when the advice was still to place your baby on her stomach to sleep. When her little sister was born over seven years later, it had switched to placing her on her back and using only tight-fitting sheets in the bed without any excess blankets, pillows, or crib bumpers.

Now swaddling is being revamped in further efforts to prevent potential suffocation, as well as hip dysplasia.

Swaddling infants in a blanket is an age-old practice that can help comfort a fussy baby. But incorrect swaddling can be a health threat: Too loose, and a blanket can unwind and hinder breathing; too tight, and it can cause serious hip problems. The International Hip Dysplasia Institute recommends that infants’ legs should be able to bend up and out at the hips, not tightly wrapped straight down and pressed together.

Infant sleep sacks, with fabric flaps that swaddle the baby’s arms to the body and close securely, are meant to make swaddling safer and easier by giving babies a secure feeling and freedom of leg movement without danger of loose fabric around the head. As part of safe-sleep education programs, 1,000 hospitals are receiving free annual allotments of SleepSack-branded wearable blankets.

The new blankets come from Halo Innovations whose founder, Bill Schmid, lost a daughter to SIDS in 1991.

Definitely time to update baby-shower registries.

Full story here.

I was a little surprised to learn there weren’t already federal standards like these in place, but I wonder if becoming compliant with these standards will pose a problem for child-care centers, and leave a lot of parents in the lurch.

“…the Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday morning that it will for the first time impose tough national health and safety standards on all child-care facilities that accept government subsidies.

The proposed regulations will require workers in all subsidized child-care centers and homes to be trained in first-aid procedures, such as CPR, and safe sleeping practices. They call for quality-rating systems that parents can have easy access to and universal background and fingerprint checks of child-care workers. And they impose tough standards for monitoring and unannounced inspections to ensure that the regulations are being followed.

The new regulations would supersede the current patchwork of health and safety standards that each state now sets and that critics have long argued are too low in many states and endanger too many children. As many as one in five children who receive the child-care subsidy are in unlicensed and unregulated child-care settings with no health and safety requirements at all.”

Full story here.

Though the Washington Post reported this under the headline “Home visiting programs are preschool in its earliest form” — the real story is that these programs teach parents how to be active participants in their children’s education from infancy.

One 2012 study in New York found that children who participated in a home visiting program operated by Chicago-based Healthy Families America were less likely than a control group to repeat first grade and more likely to excel at skills such as following instructions and working well with others.

Other studies have shown a wide rage of social and health benefits, all of which are also related to later school performance, including fewer low-birth-weight babies, less isolation and depression for new moms, and fewer cases of child abuse and neglect. Many programs also help parents pursue additional education or better jobs.

Advocates feel that the personalized approach — seeing the exact environment a child is in and working to improve it – makes all the difference. Some programs even start while the mother is still pregnant, encouraging her to eat better and to read books to her preborn child.

More here. 

In an article entitled “Are Vouchers Dead?,” author Abby Rapoport tells us that even Republican-controlled state legislatures are opposing most voucher programs and opting instead for charter schools.

Leslie Hiner, the vice president of programs and state relations at the pro-voucher Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, concedes that legislatures don’t warm to voucher policies as easily as they do to charters. While “vouchers have always been the heart of the school choice movement,” she says, in more recent years groups pushing for charter schools have had the ears of lawmakers. The messaging is easier. When you talk about charters “you’re talking about schools,” she says. “When you talk about vouchers you talking about funding an individual child to go to a school chosen by their parents.”

Among the existing voucher programs, most aren’t for the general population. Of the 12 states with voucher plans, only four states and the District of Columbia offer voucher programs to low-income students or students in failing schools. The rest offer programs specifically designed for special needs students or kids living in rural areas that lack a nearby public school. This year, Mississippi and Utah have passed bills amending their voucher programs, but both remain strictly for children with special needs.

Public polling on the issue is difficult because each side often complains about skewing because of how the questions are asked. Those opposed to vouchers have sometimes succeeded in blocking programs by claiming that some schools that would benefit have “anti-science curriculums.”

As someone who has been in favor of school choice since I was in the fourth grade and realized how unfair it was that my parents paid taxes to support public schools as well as tuition for my Catholic grammar school, I am quite disheartened. Seems we must educate the public — and apparently certain Republican office holders.

Full article here. 

Perhaps as many as one in five children suffer from a mental-health disorder each year in our nation – and the number is rising, according to a new report which the CDC is calling the first comprehensive look.

“Childhood mental disorders that alter the way children learn, behave and cope with their emotions affect 13 percent to 20 percent of youths under age 18, the CDC said Thursday. They also cost families and society at large an estimated $247 billion a year in treatment, special education, juvenile justice and decreased productivity, it stated.

Although the prevalence, early onset and effect on society make childhood mental problems a major public health issue, only 21 percent of affected children get treatment because of a shortage of pediatric sub-specialists and child and adolescent psychiatrists, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.”

And apparently, fewer med students are opting to enter the field.

Full story here.

Sic the lawyers on them!

Groups like Live Action have gone undercover to reveal how workers at Planned Parenthood instruct underage girls not to reveal how old their sexual partners are and ignore potentially abusive situations.

Now Jill Stanek is reporting that another prolife organization, Life Dynamics – upon conducting research of their own, and discovering that in many cases of convicted sexual abuse the victim had been taken to a Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic at some point — is trying a new tactic.

After contacting more than 800 clinics and finding that 91 percent were willing to conceal the age of a sexual partner for an underage girl, Life Dynamics then contacted 53,000 personal-injury lawyers to apprise them of this illegal activity.

Life Dynamics’s president Mark Crutcher told Stanek that his phone has been ringing off the hook. He said, “I’m spending night and day talking to these people, and they’re catching the vision about what this is about and the hundreds of thousands of potential clients.” 

More here.

I love Kristin Wartman, the New York Times writer who thinks that the government should pay me to feed my children.

Heck, yeah! That’s my reaction to that idea. I mean, who knows where the money’s going to come from. That’s not my concern. I’m way too busy feeding little Timmy and Susie to worry about such super complicated things as the nation’s already ballooning debt, high corporate taxes, sustained unemployment, consumer insecurity, struggling small businesses, and the market’s uncertainty due to fears of Obamacare and other regulatory burdens. What’s another government program?

Wartman suggests we pay for this new program by “taxing harmful foods, like sugary beverages, highly caloric, processed snack foods and nutritionally poor options at fast food and other restaurants.”

Yeah, let’s do that. I mean, I thought taxes on “harmful food” were supposed to pay for all those “anti-obesity” programs. At least that’s what the politicians say when they start talking about taxing sodas, snack foods, and other things that taste really good. Another potential kink in Wartman’s idea to pay people to feed their own children is that her “tax this to pay for that” scheme relies on people actually eating the food she thinks is bad. If they don’t buy this unhealthy stuff, where’s the money for my kids’ food?

Oh, no bother. I’m sure they’ll just print more money. So, where do I sign up to get my due compensation for my hellish existence making grilled cheese sandwiches, pouring applesauce into small bowls, filling sippy cup after sippy cup, boiling noodles, unwrapping cheese sticks, handing out gold fish, making jello, slicing apples, unsheathing popsicles, and opening cans of beans and soup?

Wartman explains in her piece that it’s nearly impossible for working parents to cook every meal from scratch and to plan things ahead of time. Boy, is she right about that! The headache I get when I finally decide to boil some rice and fry a chicken breast is so terrible; I sometimes have to lie down for a bit.

Wartman’s really worried about poor people — especially the domestic helpers of rich ladies. She explains that the rich working lady demographic generally employs housekeepers to help make sandwiches and clean up after the kids. Her concern is that “if we put this work on women of lower socioeconomic status (as is almost always the case), what about their children? Who cooks and cleans up for them?”

I’m sure Wartman is just as confused as I am that a recent poll shows low-income Americans do manage to cook at home quite regularly, that they don’t eat out that much, and don’t rely on processed food. Huh . . . wonder why I can’t do that?

You know what? That’s too complicated a subject for a mom like me. I’m going to wait for Wartman to explain it all to me. In the meantime, I’ll keep checking my mailbox for my government paycheck. 

— Julie Gunlock writes for the Independent Women’s Forum.

After its first major update in 20 years, the new guide for psychiatry will impact the diagnosis of ADHD, autism, depression, etc:

“The highly controversial decisions involved in producing the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5, have a potentially broad impact: They can affect which services children receive in schools, what treatments patients receive from doctors and even how people are viewed by society.

Experts involved in the guidebook say the changes will give clinicians greater precision in diagnoses and treatments. Critics counter that the new language will make it too easy to turn the stresses of ordinary life into mental illnesses, resulting in some people getting too much treatment.

…The handbook plays a big role in American society. It determines which diagnostic codes medical professionals use for specific patients and can affect whether health insurance pays for treatment. The DSM’s wording also can dictate which social services people are entitled to.”

Full story here.

I want this mom on my police force:

“During the chase, the girl’s mother spoke with police on her cellphone. At the time, she was apparently not aware that her daughter had been put out of the car less than half a block from where she’d been taken, according to The Albuquerque Journal.

’Albuquerque police Chief Ray Schultz said neighbors began yelling, which is what made the suspect push the child out of his car,’ reports KOAT TV.

Fleeing from the girl’s mother on Interstate 40, the suspect “tried to fake an exit on Carlisle Boulevard,” the newspaper reports, citing police spokesman Robert Gibbs. After they left the interstate, the mother succeeded in stopping the man’s car in southeast Albuquerque.

’She essentially pitted him,’ Gibbs said, referring to a police maneuver that involves ramming a car to stop a chase, The Journal reports.”

The full story also reports that another young girl had been abducted in that neighborhood last week, and was returned after being sexually assaulted. This quick-thinking, determined mom might very well have led police to the man who committed that crime.

Two weeks ago there was a headline about a North Carolina teen who was barred from having a picture with her one-year-old son in her high-school yearbook. The students had been encouraged to bring personal items to pose with, and Caitlin Tiller felt that her son was her greatest gift.

Teachers felt the picture would “send the wrong message” to other students. But Caitlin’s message was a positive one: She felt her son had inspired her to graduate early and continue on to college. She told the local news station, “He helped me get to where I am today. I wouldn’t be the person I am today without him.”

Now we have a story out of Michigan that two teens are being told they need to retake their yearbook pictures to hide their baby bumps. Apparently the district superintendent feels it is necessary because of the state’s abstinence-based approach to sex education.

One of the girls made the point, “What’s the difference of letting me walk for graduation, letting me walk around the school? It’s the same thing.”

This all reminds me of when I was attending a Catholic all-girls high school in the 1980s and pregnant girls transferred into our school because they were kicked out of others. I remember thinking that those other Catholic institutions might actually be encouraging their students to secretly get abortions so they woudn’t have to drop out. Not very pro-life.

But of course, it is a fine line to walk: Can we prop up those who have accepted the responsibility of their actions — and are doing the best they can — without simultaneously promoting teen pregnancy?

The good news is that our nation’s efforts are working. Teen pregnancies and births are both down more than 40 percent since their peak in the early ’90s. So I don’t see how a few pictures will have that much of an effect.

As a conservative, I definitely prefer abstinence-based sex ed. And as a feminist in the traditional sense, I see nothing wrong with showing our support for those young women who are continuing to pursue their education. We can send the message that pregnancy and parenting — while not the best paths to take as a teen, and ones that are best avoided until marriage — are not a dead end. It will be a tougher journey, but we will be there to help them make their way.

From today’s New York Times:

MY MOTHER fought cancer for almost a decade and died at 56. She held out long enough to meet the first of her grandchildren and to hold them in her arms. But my other children will never have the chance to know her and experience how loving and gracious she was.

We often speak of “Mommy’s mommy,” and I find myself trying to explain the illness that took her away from us. They have asked if the same could happen to me. I have always told them not to worry, but the truth is I carry a “faulty” gene, BRCA1, which sharply increases my risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.

Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.

Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy. I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.

On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work.

But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.

The rest here.

One of the world’s most notable food malcontents, Mark Bittman, just reviewed a book by one of the world’s most self-righteous food nannies, Michael Pollan. I’ll save you the time and bottom line it for you: The food malcontent liked the book written by the food nanny.

Bittman describes Pollan’s new book, Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation, as an exploration on how food is transformed by cooking. Predictably sycophantic, Bittman begins by instructing the reader on why Pollan deserves our respect, saying that Pollen is responsible for the seven “most famous words in the movement for good food,” which are “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Most Famous? Sorry Julia, Alice, and  Mr. Beard.

Of course, Bittman is correct in characterizing Pollan as a high priest to those who follow and feel a part of the foodie movement, those unquestioning masses who burst into tears at the site of organic kale, “happy” chickens, raw milk, and poor children weeding inner-city-school garden plots. To them, Pollan is the Dear Leader of the modern foodie culture.

Bittman doesn’t try to hide his glowing approbation for the man who has, more than any other food writer, made hating conventional and reasonably priced food hip and cool. Pollan gets a gold star for urging shoppers to “shop on the perimeter of the store” and to “stay out of the middle of the supermarket” where a lot of perfectly healthy — and more important, more affordable — food is stocked. Pollan’s vilification of food found in the middle aisles coupled with his constant drumbeat that people must eat “fresh and local” food in order to stay healthy is probably one of the reasons that 98 percent of frozen food products are experiencing flat or declining sales in this country.

According to new research, frozen food’s declining sales are also partly due to consumers’ concerns about the nutrition and quality of the product. In other words, people don’t think frozen food is healthy. Such an unfortunate misunderstanding of frozen food’s good qualities is particularly distressing considering the work being done (with your tax dollars) to encourage Americans to eat healthier. While fresh vegetables are, of course, a fine option, frozen food, in many instances, is more nutritious than fresh food because produce destined to be frozen is picked at its peak — unlike food meant for the produce aisle which must be picked earlier for shipping. Food picked at its peak and then frozen locks in the nutrients. This is why frozen food is a healthy, convenient, and cost effective means of getting good food.

The other benefit of frozen food is that it’s already washed. I’m not about to suggest that washing produce is an impossible task, but I will say that it’s nice to open and microwave a bag of frozen peas some nights. Busy moms and dads understand that short cuts like this are always helpful. Yet, Pollan sees convenience as a slippery slope to a frozen-pizza lifestyle — where people rely entirely on prepackaged convenience meals provided by big bad business. In fact, Pollan all but blames rising obesity rates on big business, telling Bittman:

We know why people don’t cook: because the marketers of prepared food have taken over our kitchens. . . .

Big Food has convinced most of us: “No one has to cook! We’ve got it covered.” This began 100 years ago, but it picked up steam in the ’70s, when Big Food made it seem progressive, even “feminist,” not to cook. 

But was it really “Big Food” that made us less interested in cooking, or was it the fact that women — the primary cooks in the average household up until the 1970s — started leaving the home to go to work? For Pollan, however, this isn’t a chicken and egg question. He knows which came first — big business and its discouraging impact on American home cooks.

This absurd conclusion misses the reality that the food industry simply reacted to the demands of the growing number of working women who no longer had time to cook for their families. Hence convenience foods — frozen lasagnas, pizzas, and all sorts of things that made it easier for moms to hold down a job and put dinner on the table, too.

Naturally, Pollan’s solutions involve big government. While he does encourage the first lady to “use her bully pulpit to promote home cooking” — something I agree she should do — Pollan ultimately sees encouraging people to cook as a government responsibility. He says:

First, we need to bring back home ec, but a gender-neutral home ec. We need public health ad campaigns promoting home cooking as the single best thing you can do for your family’s health and well-being. A tax on prepared food, but not on raw ingredients, is another good idea.

I have a better solution: Michael Pollan should stop denouncing whole sections of the grocery store. He should spend a little more time perched up on his bully pulpit encouraging busy parents to purchase healthy, moderately priced items that are stocked in the middle of the store. Canned and frozen food is a good solution for many families struggling to provide their children healthy food at a good price.

Pollan will always have his followers and his fawning fans (like Bittman) but the real advice we need to give parents is to cook for your family. Do the best you can using a combination of fresh, frozen, canned, convenience, raw, and whole ingredients. What matters is making the effort to provide your child a homemade (or half-homemade) meal. After all, no one’s perfect . . . except Pollan in Bittman’s eyes.

Don’t say we weren’t warned by Ike. From the Washington Post:

On a sunny Sunday afternoon, Cinderella was on the phone with her next client. “Are you ready? Everybody there? Okay, here I come.”

The princess put away her cellphone, gave her crown a final tweak and climbed out of her Kia, ready to rock her fourth birthday party of the weekend. This Cinderella is a gown about town.

“I think I’ve done more than 800 parties now,” said Rebecca Russell, owner and principal Cinderella of Princess Parties of Virginia, as she guided her voluminous blue skirts along a Chantilly cul-de-sac. “It’s just getting busier and busier.”

It is an enchanting time to be a professional party princess. On the tails of a massive marketing blitz of all things tiara-ed, the ancient childhood appeal of the fairy-tale heroine has exploded into a modern princess-industrial complex. Amid thousands of princess products and millions of begowned little girls, it turns out there is a decent living to be made by chipper-voiced entrepreneurs ready to displace the old party clown.

“It’s just grown like crazy,” said Heidi Martin, who recently started a party princess company in Stafford and now books a stable of 25 Cinderellas, Belles and Pocahontases for gatherings all around the region.

Even in career-obsessed Washington, where legions of professional women command six-figure salaries and care more about office shoes than glass slippers, parents find themselves helpless in the face of the fierce princess passions of their 3-to-6-year-old girls.

My 6-year-old daughter is in this phase, and by far the worst part of it is the glitter. It’s everywhere. But it could be worse I guess — my daughter’s favorite princess right now is Merida from Brave, so she runs around the house with a crown, a floor-length (glitter-covered) gown and a bow. A warrior-princess maybe?

 The rest here.