A modern lifestyle brand redefining motherhood

Debate Club: Is There a Place for Gore in Halloween Lawn Displays?


More guts, more gory 

by: Phaea Crede

While there absolutely are some Halloween decorations that go too far when it comes to graphic gore, I love décor that walks the razor edge between just “scary” and “gloriously gross.” 

Halloween is the one time of year that children are encouraged to break the rules. Instead of the normal bath-and-books routine, they’re allowed to play outside in the streets of their neighborhood long after bedtime. Instead of being polite, they get to transform into animals, heroes, and monsters. Instead of avoiding strangers, they can march right onto their porches, shamelessly ring the doorbell, and rudely demand candy. Literally, our kids get to take candy from strangers. And eating too many sweets? That’s not just tolerated; it’s a must.

Halloween is a night for kids to run wild – in a totally safe and protected way.

Fear, in its most basic form, is an emotion that keep humans alive. When something scares us, our deep-down lizard brains scream out, “run!” or, “fight!” This “threat response system,” Margee Kerr Ph. D. says in her article “Why We Love to Be Scared,” “…triggers a chemical cascade meant to help us survive: adrenaline, endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, among others, flood our bodies and brains during (and for a while after) a scary situation.”

Interestingly, a lot of these chemicals are also present when humans feel joy and excitement. It’s exhilarating to be scared! But only if we know in our hearts (and lizard brains) that we are totally and completely safe. Over-the-top Halloween displays – especially those that don’t hold back on the scares – are the perfect way to experience the thrill of fear with mom ready at any second to whisk us away if need be.

In polite society, reveling in blood, guts, and gore is seriously frowned upon (thank goodness). But we humans are also fascinated by it. Gruesome Halloween decorations give us permission to safely explore that fascination. Obviously fake but disturbingly gory lawn scenes allow adults and children alike to honor our naturally inquisitive nature: “Oh, THAT’S what happens when you decapitate someone. Huh.”

But the freaky and scientifically accurate “dude being electrocuted” diorama the neighbor throws up every year also gives us the chance to tap into a delicious adrenaline rush while patting ourselves on the back for being brave enough to face something really, really scary. Maybe standing up to extreme Halloween décor is good for a kid’s self-esteem!

Thinking back to myself as a tween – a truly frightening age for any kid – helping to create gory and bloody decorations was extremely therapeutic. Just being a young girl scared the crap out of me on a daily basis, so hanging a bloody leg or two on the front porch seemed tame in comparison, not to mention hilarious. Life was scary in a vague, uncomfortable way. A bloody leg was scary in a direct bone-jutting-out-in-your-face way. A bloody leg gave me something to hang on to, a chance to playfully scream while getting some real pent up screams out. It worked because I knew I was safe.

I’ve noticed that my tiny children love to scream, too. In play-fear or excitement, screaming feels good. I’m constantly telling my son and daughter to stop screaming or the neighbors will call the police. On Halloween, thank goodness, my kids can make all the noise they want and not only will our neighbors not call the cops, they’ll encourage the screams with their lawn full of gory, blood-soaked decorations. Go ahead, kids! Scream as loud and long as you want to! 

On the flip side, when a child is freaked out by the bloody murder scene next door, we as parents have a great opportunity to show that we honor their feelings of fear, which we know are designed to be life-saving. “Yes, Timmy,” we can say, “I hear that you are scared of the fake person whose intestines are splayed all over the Flibertson/Malick’s yard. And that is totally and completely a valid way to feel. In fact, I feel the same way. Now let’s hug and go get some cookies.”

That’s what I call a bloody good time. 

Gory Halloween displays have no place in a family neighborhood

by: Julia Pelly

Earlier this week, as I took an evening stroll with my preschooler, we chatted about his day. He talked about playing with trains during his time in the early class at school, how he helped a friend go down the slide on the playground, and how he hoped we could have a Popsicle after dinner. And then, as his hand clasped mine and his little eyes peaked upwards, his tiny voice asked, “Mommy, how do heads get off bodies? And why do they hang in trees?”

He was, of course, referencing the plastic, bodiless heads hanging from my neighbor’s oak trees. Though his eyes were trained upward on the swinging heads mine quickly found the amputated and bloody arms and legs scattered across the lawn, and headless bodies covered in blood tucked behind the newly raised gravestones.

As I shooed my son quickly away from the lawn in question, explaining that the heads in the trees weren’t real, I silently cursed the decorating neighbors and wondered why they couldn’t simply keep their Halloween decor PG.

I’ve always loved Halloween. As a kid I thought about my costume all year, planning and changing my mind again and again as I looked forward to the thrill of trick-or-treating. As a teenager and in college I scoped out haunted houses and haunted hikes in the woods (the scarier and gorier the better!) and headed to bonfires or parties on the big night.

And now, in parenthood, I look forward to the thrill of letting my little boy choose a costume (a kitty cat this year) and experience the door-to-door joy of gathering more candy and treats that he’ll ever possibly be able to eat.

I also love watching his anticipation and excitement build as the pumpkin patches pop up across town and the decorations appear in front yards. The decorations I’m referring to include scarecrows and jack-o-lanterns, hay bales and miniature ghosts. I’m not talking about the goriest of displays that seem to be common in today’s suburban neighborhoods. While it may make me the lamest mom on the block, I think displaying something scary and gory in a family neighborhood is simply inconsiderate.

I understand that Halloween is supposed to be scary, that scaring and getting scared is part of the thrill, but a family neighborhood simply isn’t the place for the scariest or goriest decorations. When gore is on display in a neighborhood it can’t be avoided. Little ones driving to preschool or walking or biking in the evening must pass these displays and feel the feelings they inspire.

There’s a time and place for everything and if chopped up bodies and bloodied zombies are part of your Halloween fun, there are all kinds of places (preschooler-free zones) where you can indulge in your terrifying fun. Haunted houses, warped trails, and escape rooms all offer scary thrills without passing the fear on to little ones.

The thing about preschoolers is that they’re just figuring out the world and very often can’t tell reality from fantasy. They wonderfully believe in fairies and Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and would never think to question you when you tell them that their stuffed animals play together when they go to school.

Most parents would never let their little ones watch “The Shining.” It’s a terrifying movie and adults know their little one won’t understand that it’s not real. But when forced to walk next to a gory display the same feelings are being evoked for the child and telling them that it’s not real won’t erase their big feelings.

While scary is a big part of Halloween, fun should be a bigger part. When little ones are scared simply walking around their neighborhood, the fun is lost.

Even if a preschooler isn’t inherently scared by a gory display, exposure to violence (real or plastic) desensitizes them and makes the blood and gore seem normal. It also makes them more likely to act out what they see. While a bad Halloween display won’t turn your tot into a serial killer, continued exposure may make them more likely to pretend to chop off their friend’s arms or legs in a very ungentle manner.

So, this season, as you pull out the decorations and dust off the candy bowl I ask, beg, and plead for you to think of the preschoolers before you adorn your lawn with decorations better fit for a haunted mansion. Keep it light, keep it fun, and don’t ruin a little kid’s Halloween with a gory display.   

[totalpoll id=”310677″]

Who said motherhood doesn't come with a manual?

Subscribe to get inspiration and super helpful ideas to rock your #momlife. Motherhood looks amazing on you.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

Going back to work after having a baby is hard. Regaining your footing in a world where working mothers are so often penalized is tough, and (just like most things during the postpartum period) it takes time.

The challenges we face as working women returning from a maternity leave can be so different from those we faced before, it can feel like we're starting over from scratch. But mothers will not be deterred, even if our return to the working world doesn't go exactly as planned.

We are resilient, as Serena Williams proved at Wimbledon this weekend.

She lost to Angelique Kerber in the final, just 10 months after welcoming daughter Alexis Olympia and recovering from a physically and emotionally traumatic birth experience.

Williams didn't get her eighth Wimbledon title this weekend, but when we consider all the challenges she (and all new moms) faced in resuming her career, her presence was still a huge achievement.

"It was such an amazing tournament for me, I was really happy to get this far!" Williams explained in an emotional post-match interview.

"For all the moms out there, I was playing for you today. And I tried. I look forward to continuing to be back out here and doing what I do best."

The loss at Wimbledon isn't what she wanted, of course, but Williams says it does not mean there won't be wins in her near future.

"These two weeks have showed me I can really compete and be a contender to win grand slams. This is literally just the beginning. I took a giant step at Wimbledon but my journey has just began."

When asked what she hopes other new moms take away from her journey, Williams noted her postpartum recovery was really difficult, and hopes that other moms who face challenges early in motherhood know that they don't have to give up on whatever dreams they have for themselves, whether it involves working or not.

"Honestly, I feel like if I can do it, they can do it. I'm just that person, that vessel that's saying, 'You can be whatever you want to be.' If you want to go back to workand to me, after becoming a mom, I feel like there's no pressure to do that because having a child is a completely full-time job," she said.

"But to those that do want to go back, you can do it, you can really do it."

Thank you, Serena. You may not have won, but this was still a victory.

You might also like:

Since baby Crew became the newest member of Chip and Joanna Gaines' family three weeks ago, his proud parents have been keeping the world updated, sharing sweet snaps of their youngest and even giving us a glimpse into his nursery.

Now, Chip Gaines is showing off a pic that proves there is nothing cuter than a floppy, sleepy baby.

"My heart is full..." the proud father of five captioned the photo he posted on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Earlier this week Crew's mama shared how she gets him so sleepy in the first place, posting an Instagram Story showing how she walks around the family's gardens on their Waco, Texas farm to lull her newborn boy to sleep.



The couple are clearly enjoying every single moment of Crew's babyhood. As recently as 7 days ago Chip was still sporting his hospital bracelet. Joanna says with each child he's worn his maternity ward ID until it finally wears off. We can't blame Chip for wanting to make the newborn phase last as long as possible.

You might also like:

It was a changing table must-have a generation ago, but these days, many parents are forgoing baby powder, and now, the leading manufacturer of the sweet smelling powder was dealt a big financial blow.

Johnson & Johnson was just ordered to pay almost $4.7 billion to 22 women who sued, alleging baby powder caused their ovarian cancer.

A St. Louis jury says the women are right, but what does The American Academy of Pediatrics say about baby powder?

It was classified "a hazard" before many of today's parents were even born

The organization has actually been recommending against baby powder for years, but not due to cancer risks, but inhalation risks.

Way back in 1981 the AAP declared baby powder "a hazard," issuing a report pointing out the frequency of babies aspirating the powder, which can be dangerous and even fatal in the most severe cases.

That warning didn't stop all parents from using the powder though, as its continued presence on store shelves to this day indicates.

In 1998 Dr. Hugh MacDonald, then the director of neonatology at Santa Monica Hospital and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, told the Los Angeles Times "Most pediatricians recommend that it not be used," adding that the consensus at the time was that "anybody using talcum powder be aware that it could cause inhalation of the talc, resulting in a pneumonic reaction."

Recent updates

A 2015 update to the AAP's Healthy Children website suggests the organization was even very recently still more concerned about the risk of aspiration than cancer risks like those alleged in the lawsuit. It suggests that parents who choose to use baby powder "pour it out carefully and keep the powder away from baby's face [as] published reports indicate that talc or cornstarch in baby powder can injure a baby's lungs."

In a 2017 interview with USA Today, Dr. David Soma, a pediatrician with the Mayo Clinic Children's Hospital, explained that baby powder use had decreased a lot over the previous five to eight years, but he didn't believe it was going to disappear from baby shower gift baskets any time soon.

"There are a lot of things that are used out of a matter of tradition, or the fact it seems to work for specific children," he said. "I'm not sure if it will get phased out or not, until we know more about the details of other powders and creams and what works best for skin conditions—I think it will stick around for a while."

Talc-based baby powder is the kind alleged to have caused ovarian cancer in the lawsuit (which Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal), but corn starch varieties of baby powder are also available and not linked to increased cancer risks as alleged in the case.


Bottom line: If you are going to use baby powder on your baby's bottom, make sure they're not getting a cloud of baby powder in their face, and if you're concerned, talk to your health care provider about alternative methods and products to use on your baby's delicate skin.

You might also like:

In the days since a The New York Times report revealed a resolution meant to encourage breastfeeding was blocked by U.S. delegates at the World Health Assembly, breastfeeding advocates, political pundits, parents, doctors—and just about everyone else—have been talking about breastfeeding, and whether or not America and other countries are doing enough to support it.

The presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians say the controversy at the World Health Assembly reveals that mothers need more support when it comes to breastfeeding, while others, including The Council on Foreign Relations, suggest the national conversation needs more nuance, and less focus on the "breast is best" rhetoric.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that parents need more support when it comes to infant feeding, and in that respect, the controversy over the World Health Assembly resolution may be a good thing.

In their joint letter to the editor published in the New York Times this week, the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians, Dr. Colleen Kraft and Dr. Lisa Hollier urge "the United States and every country to protect, promote and support breast-feeding for the health of all women, children and families."

The doctors go on to describe how breastfeeding "provides protection against newborn, infant and child infections, allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and sudden infant death syndrome," and note the health benefits to mothers, including reduced risks for "breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.

"Helping mothers to breastfeed takes a multifaceted approach, including advancing public policies like paid family leave, access to quality child care, break time and a location other than a bathroom for expressing milk," say Kraft and Hollier.

Certainly such policies would support breastfeeding mothers (and all mothers) in America, but some critics say framing the discussion around domestic policy is a mistake, because the World Health Assembly resolution is a global matter and women and babies in other parts of the world face very different feeding challenges than we do here at home.

In an op-ed published by CNN, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations suggests the laudable goal of breastfeeding promotion can backfire when mothers in conflict-riddled areas can't access formula due to well-meaning policy. Lemmon points to a 2017 statement by Doctors Without Borders calling for fewer barriers to formula distribution in war-torn areas.

"International organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote breastfeeding ... and provide infant formula, but only by prescription. We believe that distributing infant formula in a conflict situation like Iraq is the only way to avoid children having to be hospitalized for malnutrition," Manuel Lannaud, the head of Doctors Without Borders Iraq mission wrote.

The various viewpoints presented this week prove that infant feeding is not a black and white issue, and policy debates should not be framed as formula versus breast milk—there is more nuance than that.

A recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics found opting to supplement with formula after first breastfeeding improves outcomes for infants and results in higher rates of breastfeeding afterward, and while the benefits of breastfeeding are numerous, they are sometimes overstated. Another recent study published in the journal PLOS Medicine found breastfeeding has no impact on a child's overall neurocognitive function by the time they are 16. Basically, parents should not be shamed for supplementing or choosing to use formula.

This, according to Department of Health and Human Services says national spokesperson Caitlin Oakley is why the HHS opposed the original draft of the breastfeeding resolution at the World Health Assembly (although critics and the initial NYT report suggest the United States delegation were acting in the interests of infant formula manufacturers).

"Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies," Oakley said in a statement.

That's true, but so is everything the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians presented in their op-ed, and that's why the U.S. should support breastfeeding policy.

Here's another truth: This is an issue with many perspectives and many voices. And we need to hear them all, because all parents need support in feeding their babies, whether it's with a breast, a bottle or both—and we're not getting it yet.

You might also like:

Motherly provides information of a general nature and is designed for educational purposes only. This site does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.Your use of the site indicates your agreement to be bound by our  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Information on our advertising guidelines can be found here.