Women, Stop Oppressing Yourselves!

Being a mother isn't a real job -- and the men who run the world know it.

I really like The Atlantic. I feel like it publishes thoughtful, interesting articles on areas that interest me. Which is why when I read Elizabeth Wurtzel's piece "1% Wives Are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible," I cringed. Because she's not just talking about one-percent wives. She's talking about any woman who chooses to stay home. Or doesn't she think I can read?

Wurtzel's point is that feminism is a movement meant to get women into the work force, and that anything else is not only against that aim, it's also stupid.

In the first paragraph, she says, "Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it? The whole point to begin with was that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own."

Okay, so at least we know right off the bat that she's missing "the whole point," since "the whole point" of the feminist movement is to give women the freedom to make their own decisions about their own lives. Some women decided that they were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day, and went to work. Hurray! That's awesome! That doesn't mean that those who chose otherwise are wrong or against feminism.

If Wurtzel's stringent definition of "choice" were to be applied to abortion, this is what it would look like: Who can possibly take pro-choice seriously when it allows for everything, as long as women choose it. The whole point to begin with was that women were losing their minds pushing out babies with out a room or a salary of their own."

Just like pro-choice doesn't mean every woman who supports it must have abortions, feminism doesn't mean every woman who supports it has to work. It's her choice.

"Let's please be serious grown-ups," she says, "real feminists don't depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

Funny, last time I checked, serious grown ups were able to respect the choices of others without condescension.

Oh, and speaking of condescension, here's a tip: In an article that's purportedly pro-feminism don't ever say this. "Men know better." That's game over, right there. Opinion invalidated, point missed.

 Wurtzel goes on to say, "If you can't pay your own rent, you are not an adult. You are a dependent."

Again, I must disagree. If this were even remotely true, it would mean that 10 years ago when I was getting black out drunk and partying every night, I was a real adult. And now that I'm responsible for two other human beings, and I'm not ruining my body and making bad decisions, I'm back to being a child.

Being an adult boils down to responsibility, not money.

On top of this, even getting married is considered weakness in Wurtzel's world.

"When it's come up, I have chosen not to get married. Over and over again, I have opted for my integrity and independence over what was easy or obvious. And I am happy. I don't want everyone to live like me, but I do expect educated and able-bodied women to be holding their own in the world of work"

I'll just be over here, staying at home, and wondering how marriage is easy and obvious. I'll also tackle how being single is tied in any way to my integrity or independence. This might take me a week or two. After all, I'm just a feeble-minded wife. And privileged. And apparently living in an awesome city.

"To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege, and most of the housewives I have ever met -- none of whom do anything around the house -- live in New York City and Los Angeles, far from Peoria. Only in these major metropolises are there the kinds of jobs in finance and entertainment that allow for a family to live luxe on a single income."

I would like to introduce Ms. Wurtzel to...me. Hi, I'm Darlena Cunha. I live in Gainesville, Florida. I am a stay at home mom because the money I would earn for work in my field would not cover the cost of child care for twins. It's nice to meet you.

 And here's where my thoughtful disagreements end. At the risk of weakening this piece, I have one more response. To this statement:

"...being a mother isn't really work. Yes, of course, it's something -- actually, it's something almost every woman at some time does, some brilliantly and some brutishly and most in the boring middle of making okay meals and decent kid conversation. But let's face it: It is not a selective position. A job that anyone can have is not a job, it's a part of life, no matter how important people insist it is (all the insisting is itself overcompensation) ...Which is to say, something becomes a job when you are paid for it -- and until then, it's just a part of life."

I would like to say, please, go eff yourself. You are the problem, not me. You are the well-educated, highly paid lawyer who just wrote a 1,000-word article shaming women for their choices.

Now, admittedly, on dictionary.com the first definition of job is "a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price." If one keeps reading, though, she'll find this definition is also valid, "anything a person is expected or obliged to do; duty; responsibility."

The definition of work is pretty cut and dry. "Exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil."

I'm pretty sure neither education nor money gives someone the right to make up her own definitions of words. Words have meanings. That's why we can use them so effectively.


 In conclusion, this is wrong.

"Feminism should not be inclusive, and like most terms that are meaningful, it should mean something. It should mean equality."

The point of feminism is to be inclusive, and by including all choices and a woman's ability to make her own choice for her own "serious grown up" self, we will achieve equality.



___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

 

Tanning Mom

Tanning Mom.

 I'll be totally honest here. When I first saw the video that went along with this story about Patricia Krentcil bringing her five year old to a tanning salon and possibly burning her in one of the booths, I forgot about the story.

I forgot to be outraged.

I laughed. Then I wide-eyed. Then I laughed again.

I've been thinking about the story for a few days now. Until this point in my life, I had no idea about so-called "tanorexia" (a name I don't like at all). Does it exist? Are there chemicals released through the rays aimed at the skin? Is it different from those released within the body from the sun, itself?

What a weird thing.

I originally came here to poke at her calling her critics fat and ugly, but reading the news about it, it seems as if she's only calling one person that, someone she knows, someone who supposedly hates her.

I have people who hate me, too, Patricia. They don't hate me because they're fat and ugly. They hate me because I annoy them, bother them, have done something to them that they have decided is deserving of hate. Their appearance has nothing to do with it.

On that train, should Krentcil's appearance have anything to do with the story of child endangerment?

I know that upon seeing her, my reaction was, duh, guilty. But back up. That's not fair. I drink coffee and alcohol, but my children don't. There are many parents out there with various addictions, mental disorders, phobias and other hardships that work very hard not to pass them to their children or expose their children to their battles. Just because you have a thing, doesn't mean you're passing it off to your children.

Now, Krentcil might be. I don't know. She did, so far as I know, at least bring the child to the salon and had her wait outside the booth. I wouldn't leave my five year old outside a tanning bed. But if it's an addiction well...

Point being, I had my laugh, and it wasn't very right of me.

Patricia Krentcil needs help. Maybe therapy, if she truly is addicted to this, maybe guidance from public services to help her make decisions that won't land her in the news with a butt-of-jokes nickname. Maybe a babysitter so that she can go do this without bringing her kids along.

Whatever she needs, I hope she gets it. And I hope her kids grow up strong and form their own opinions on the hazards of tanning (which are great) compared to the benefits (which are small). And not just tanning, but everything.

To me, this is just another story of moderation is key.

**However, I don't yet believe that she stuck her kid in that tanning bed. If she did, well, she was really, really wrong.

As parents, we have to set the example for our kids. We have to fight our demons on our own time, and seek help if we cannot pull that off alone. It's not weakness, it's strength. It gives the next generation the best possible start.

___

If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

 

Congratulating Samantha Brick

I'd be lying if I tried to say I haven't seen Daily Mail reporter Samantha Brick's "beautiful" face every time I've opened my computer in the past few days. She's on my Facebook feed, she's up in my Twitter, people are talking about her on every forum and social site I visit, in fact.

Because as a devastatingly average-looking woman, she dared to write this: Why Women Hate Me for Being Beautiful: The Downsides to Looking This Pretty.

To her I say, well done.

First, I rolled my eyes, and thought, yes, dear, it must be so awful to be completely ordinary. Then I thought, perhaps people aren't asking you to be their bridesmaid because you sound so self-centered and boring. Then I thought, she's totally delusional, look at her. Then I thought, (and this is where the brilliance comes in on her part), you're a total asshole. Maybe she is gorgeous. Who are you to judge someone else's looks?

The thing is, had an extraordinarily pretty woman written that piece, she'd still have been flamed. Because it's a fake thing to complain about. Can your looks prevent you from getting a promotion or job? Yeah, you know, they could. But that scenario is rarer than rare and cannot compare to other discrimination problems in the workplace. Or maybe you have to dress yourself down, and wear unflattering make up so as not to feed on female jealousy and you don't like having to change who you are?

Or maybe, as women, we can all simmer down. It's not enough to have to fight for our rights in this society daily? We also have to fight each other over who is prettier? And prettier to whom? And for what? Is Brick saying she'd rather be a bridesmaid than get free champagne? Well, I guess as a bridesmaid, you would get free champagne, anyway, right? So there goes that...of course she would.

In my opinion, this article is glorious. Here is a regular woman speaking as if she's never seen a mirror in her life. And the backlash has been even better. She says 'see, these comments only prove my point!' Because motivation is a funny and personal thing, she could have a million people telling her she's an ugly, vain narcissist, and she could turn around and say, 'you're only saying that because you're so jealous that I'm so pretty.'

Amazing win.

On the Today Show this morning, she continued the charade, but did admit that it was "partly tongue and cheek" and that it wasn't about how attractive she was, but about perception.

No kidding. I'm surprised so many people missed that, but that's art for you.

Samantha Brick is a reporter for the Daily Mail. Her beat is "trolling," seriously. She's been doing this for years and years, looking for a hit. Surprisingly, great columns like "I Use my Sex Appeal at Work...and so Does Any Woman Who Has Any Sense," and "Would You Let Your Husband Dress You" only made minor splashes.

Finally, after persistence and time (I mean, I probably would have given up after the Sex Appeal article didn't go viral), she's made it. And she deserves it.

Bravo, Samantha.

Sexism didn't do it. Misogyny didn't work. Objectification of women? Nothing. Subjugation of women? No interest.

It took an average woman calling herself pretty to get the world's attention.

So...forget Brick for a moment. What does that say about us?


___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

The Advice Column of Shame: On Perpetuating Rape Culture

Dear Emily Yoffe,

If a woman does not consent to having sex and has sex, she is a victim of rape. It does not matter if she was biting, kicking and screaming, or if she was too drunk. It's really quite simple. A woman giving consent equals consensual sex. A woman not giving consent equals non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex equals rape. That's it.

...

You all know Dear Prudence. What would you think the advice given on this question would be?

"Friend Has Revised One-Night Stand Story:A friend recently called me and said she had a one-night stand after drinking too much. She was beating herself up over drinking too much and going home with a guy she met at a bar. I reassured her that everyone makes mistakes and didn't think much more of the account. However, since then, she has told many people that she was a victim of date-rape—that the guy must have put something into her drink . She spoke to a rape crisis line, and they said even if she was drunk, she couldn't have given consent so she was a victim of rape. She now wants to press charges—she has the guy's business card. I have seen her very intoxicated on previous occasions, to the point she doesn't remember anything the next day. I'm not sure on what my response should be at this point. Pretend she never told me the original story?"

I know that I expected Yoffe to tell this reader to support her friend, listen, offer sympathy and help where she could, and let her false, and frankly catty, assumptions go. I expected a litany of reasons why alcohol should not be used as a way to force shame upon anyone. I thought Yoffe, acting as Prudence, would soothe the friend while setting her straight about what rape really is and offer words of wisdom to help buoy women up. I thought she'd tell the reader that it's not her friend's fault and that the friend had every right to proceed as she felt best.

Wrong.

Instead, she starts like this:

"Trying to ruin someone else's life is a poor way to address one's alcohol and self-control problems."

I admit, that's as far as I got last night. I had to stop so I wouldn't throw my computer across the room. (I would then, of course, blame the computer for breaking itself, since the computer was the reason I saw such angering content. That's how this works, right, Prudence?)

"Trying to ruin someone else's life..."

First, why should this woman care about this man's life? He raped her. Secondly, he ruined his own life when he took advantage of her. So, what Yoffe is basically saying here is that not only is it the woman's fault she had sex without giving consent, the blame will also fall on her shoulders should something bad befall this man due to his actions toward her. That's a lot of blame. I guess it's not enough to be "asking for it," anymore, huh? Now, as victims, we also have to be wary of inconveniencing our aggressors due to our piddly trauma over the event. We need to be sensitive to aggressors' needs. After all, they didn't ask to be prosecuted. We wouldn't want to do anything without their consent, now, would we?

"a poor way to address one's alcohol and self-control problems."

If she only had some self-control, none of this would be an issue. If she'd only had some self-control, she wouldn't have gotten raped. Obviously. Her alcohol problems are the reason she was raped and now she's going to vindictively ruin some poor innocent man's life just because she likes whiskey and can't keep her legs shut.

You asshole.

Why don't we correct this a bit? If he only had some self-control, none of this would be an issue. It is not the woman's fault that someone raped her. I don't care if she's "knee-walking drunk." I don't care if she's blacked out. It's not her fault.

Then, Yoffe manages to get even more insulting.

"Since her first version of the story is that she was ashamed of her behavior, and since you have seen her knee-walking drunk on other occasions, it sounds as if she wants to punish the guy at the bar for her own poor choices."

First of all, her "first" version of the story and her "second" version of the story are the same story. Nothing about her story changed, other than her waking up to the fact that what happened wasn't her fault, a notion her "friend" would do well to keep in mind. I cannot see one bit of difference in the woman's stories. In the first she's ashamed of herself. And that's better, Prudence, somehow? And because she has been brought up in this culture of rape, because she has been brought up to take the blame in a situation as unfortunate as this one, she should be reminded that her first reaction was to blame herself? She should then be blamed by others? Her wrong view of the situation somehow taints the events, making it even more her fault? What if she'd come out the gate not being ashamed? That would have made a difference. That's bullshit.

And what does it matter how often she gets drunk? It still doesn't give any guy at any bar right to have sex with her if she cannot give consent. Would it be better or worse if she never got drunk but had that one night? I don't care if this woman wakes up drunk, takes three shots of vodka for breakfast and drinks nothing but beer for the rest of the day until she wakes up to do it again the next morning. It's still not her fault she was raped.

Her own poor choices? Where did she choose to have sex with this person? Nowhere, that's the point. Choosing to get drunk at a bar is now an offense rightfully punished by rape? Whether or not getting that drunk is a poor choice, it doesn't equal should-be-raped-and-shut-up-about-it. In fact, getting drunk has nothing to do with having sex.

"Yes, I agree that men should not have sex with drunk women they don't know."

Apparently you don't, actually.

"But I think cases like the one you are describing here—in the absence of any evidence she was drugged—where someone voluntarily goes home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges."


Well, isn't that a pretty load of assumptions. How do you know she was going home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter? They could have been going back to his place to bake cookies for all you know. And more importantly, it doesn't matter if she did intend to have sex with him. Here's a novel concept: people can change their minds. Women can decide no at any point, at any time. Ask Herman Cain.

If you decide at 8 p.m. that you want a cookie, then you bake cookies, then when they're done at 9 p.m. you decide you don't want one, you can do that. Minds can change. You do not set your path in stone with just one decision.

"makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges." 

You know what makes it harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges forward? This column. All the people who think this way. The culture that makes a woman ashamed to begin with. The culture that tells her it's her fault, no matter what the circumstance. People like you telling her she deserved to be raped. That's what makes it hard for people to bring charges forward.

"Talk to your friend. Tell her that she needs to think very long and hard about filing a criminal complaint against this guy if there's any way her behavior could be construed to be consensual. Say you understand her shame, but you're concerned about her drinking, and if she addresses that, she won't find herself in such painful situations."

This paragraph, in fact, is why women find it hard to bring charges forward. Why don't you leave it alone, Prudence, and let the court decide what's consensual and what's not?

And "say you understand her shame?" I'm barely able to type now. She has nothing to be ashamed of. (I'm going to use caps, watch me.)

SHE HAS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF.

(I feel better.)

Her shame is the result of columnists like you, of the world we live in where getting drunk equals deserving rape.

If she addresses her drinking she won't find herself in such painful situations.

If she addresses her drinking she won't find herself in such painful situations.

If she addresses her drinking, she won't deserve to be raped and we can all rally behind her. Is that what I just heard you say?

And how is this parenting related? I have two girls. If anyone ever tells me my kids got raped because of their bad decisions, I will most likely go to jail after my bad decision to beat the shit out of that person. And then I'll tell the person, no, you had it coming. You're not a victim of my fists. When you opened your yap to blame my girls for something that was not their fault, you made a poor choice, and you were punished for that choice. Think very carefully about your actions, and maybe you won't find yourself in such painful situations.

For the full column, visit Slate.

___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

The War on the War

Last night I ended up having a conversation with a good friend of mine about only children. Did you know that even today, they feel judged and ostracized for their parents' reproductive choices? It's not just "onlies." Children are judged all the time based on their parents. Are their parents too young? Are they too old? Were their parents married when they were born? Are they married now?

How any of these things have to do with the actual children involved, I'll never know. It's all part of the generalization culture in  which we immerse ourselves, usually unknowingly.

And whenever I end up attacking an article, my arguments always take on the same refrain. It's understandable that the people on the other side of these unfair judgments should be upset, but does that mean they should strike back, not at their aggressors, but at others in their same group?

Take this Salon article, for instance. In it, Mary Elizabeth Williams argues that only children are the subject of ridicule and false assumptions, contempt and judgment throughout their entire lives. I can't refute that. I wasn't an only child, nor do I have an only child, so I'll never know or understand where she is coming from, and I've no right to comment. I can only say that the statement surprised me. I never noticed only children getting the short stick while I was growing up. Until we were eight, my best friend was an only child. I bet she has some stories to tell, but I can assure you that she got made fun of more for being "rich" than anything else. Isn't that completely ridiculous? Let me expand: we were lucky enough to live in one of the wealthiest towns in the wealthiest state in the nation, growing up. And people were making fun of someone for their parents being able to provide a wealthy lifestyle for their child? Ask her today, she'll tell you...I've rarely seen her as ruffled even as an adult than when someone mentions her family's supposed wealth. (By the way, they're not Richie Rich rich. They were simply well off, comfortable, well bred human beings.)

Point being, children are judged for stupid details they don't have any control over all the time. As one of those groups, as an "only," you'd think Williams would be calling to the other groups in a positive effort to stop all this nonsense.

But no. Instead she hacks away at those other ostracized groups, showing how 'normal' only children are in comparison. She complains that no one ever calls the youngest in a family really immature. Yes, they do. I've heard that a million times. Certainly as many times as I've heard about "onlies" being spoiled. Ask my brother; he's the youngest. He'll tell you.

I'm the oldest (which wasn't mentioned in the article.) I can't tell you how many times I've heard that my bossy personality gave my sibling status away. Even from teachers and other authority figures. "Oh, you're the oldest. Yeah, that figures. No, in a good way!" Oh, okay.


More importantly, and the only reason I'm writing this response is that she called my kids dicks. Okay, not really, but she did say this:


"It’s one of the standard responses we “onlies” get — near strangers denigrating us because of our parents’ reproductive habits. Nobody ever says, “Youngest of four? So you’re really immature, right?” or “You’re a twin? Wow, you must be a total dick.”"


Color me surprised. I had no idea that twins were considered dicks. And since I'd never heard of that until now, and it's Williams purporting that twins are thought of in that manner, then the illogical conclusion is that Williams thinks my children are dicks. What the hell?


But, that's not what she said, so I accept my defensive overreaction and move on.


The main problem with this column is that it does exactly what it's fighting against. It takes anecdotes and singular experiences from the author's life and builds them up into sweeping generalizations that are simply not true.


"I love my two girls, and can’t imagine either of their lives without their touching sisterly bond. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to nod my head in quiet assent when some yahoo goes on about that “helicopter mom” of one who doesn’t “get it” about what parenting is really like, or how “entitled” her kid is. I’ve seen your children too, folks. They’re all pretty equally cranked up."


Helicopter moms come in all shapes and sizes and have any number of children. Children can be entitled whether there is one or twelve of them. So, other than this one instance, where whomever she's talking about really is being a jerk, are these types of judgments really strewn around just about parents of only children?


And why add in that last line about the other kids? Doesn't really fit with the tone or message, does it?


Interestingly, after spending many, many paragraphs stating that "onlies" are just like everyone else, Williams then says this:


"It’s true that we onlies are a different breed. My girlfriend with three sisters will never understand my horror around peeing in front of other people. It’s not an accident that I work in solitude."


Okay, so are you the same as everyone else, different but just as good as everyone else, or a totally different breed with quirks that even you attribute to the fact that you had no siblings growing up?


Because I have to be honest, I'd not have thought that things like peeing without other people around (although as a mom of toddlers that's a luxury I no longer have), and liking to work in solitude had anything to do with being an only child. Maybe some people from bigger families like those things too, for opposite reasons. Or maybe some only children like working in groups.


Lastly, this quote from her friend really irked me:


"Sharing? Do you know how much easier it is to share as an adult when you didn’t have to protect what’s yours as a little kid? …  It’s easier to give away a big slice of pie when you’ve had all that extra pie to yourself for so long.”


I hate to be a stickler, but I'd need to see some research on the actions of children versus the actions of their adult self to even remotely believe that holds water. Her theory about extra pie rubs me the wrong way. I just don't think that's true for everyone, or even the majority.


As my friend, an only child who liked the article said, "Why do we have to be judged based on how many siblings we have at all. Can't we just all agree that some people are shitty and others aren't?" Cassie, by the way, writes an excellent blog herself, found here at Mama Phrass.


Exactly right. Some people, for a variety of reasons, not just one, are just bad people, and others, for a variety of reasons, not just one, are good people.


So, why do the ones being judged by others always fight it by judging right back?


___

If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list! Takes just a moment!

Beauty is in the Eye of the Self

Two years ago, I had a slight moment of fame. I was driving to work (yeah, I used to work!) and on my 45-minute commute, I heard the morning DJ ask a question.

"If you could either be America's Next Top Model or a Nobel Prize winner, which would you pick?"

I was astounded at how many women called to say they'd rather be a model.  Really? Then I turned it in on myself, musing as I waited at one of the many red lights, listening to a bad local commercial since the station had gone to break.

Actually, I had wished many many times to be America's Next Top Model. In the "before time, in the long long ago," by which I mean before the girls came along, I had gone so far as to look up sign-up information. I really wanted to do it.

Then I saw that at 5'9" I was supposed to weigh 110-115 pounds. I shrugged my shoulders and ate a piece of cheese, to be honest. Screw that. I couldn't weigh 115 pounds if I never ate again. My bones weigh more than 115 pounds.

Anyway, thinking about this on my drive, I realized that all my life, I'd never once wished to win the Nobel Prize. So, really, I was no different from the women calling in. Except for one thing. The reason I'd never wanted to win the Prize is that it had never crossed my mind as a possibility.

So I called in and said that I'd rather win the Prize, and I thanked the host for posing the question because before the two were juxtaposed I had never realized how silly my goals could be, how low I was reaching.

Last week, I cam across this article about photoshopping and magazine covers.

Now, I've known forever, as most people do, that the images seen on magazines aren't real. That hasn't stopped me from wanting to look like those images without the aid of photoshop. Especially in my younger days. If I could eat healthily, work out, and wear the right clothing, surely I would soon look like that air-brushed image...naturally. I don't know why my brain worked like that, but it did. This coming from a woman who can't even put on makeup without looking like a clown. Who doesn't know how to match clothes to shoes. Yeah, right. Dream on, self.

And yet, that's the problem. These dreams aren't healthy. They aren't possible. And the images are so much more pervasive than we allow ourselves to realize. Yes, you assume that the high-fashion magazines smooth blemishes and erase a line here and there, but magazines like Shape reducing the size of women by a third? Check out the pic of Kelly Clarkson in there. Shape completely ruined her for their cover. Then they defended it, saying Kelly's inner beauty is what they showcased and you can't photoshop that. Well, no, you can't photoshop radiance, but by completely changing her shape, magically erasing 50 pounds, you are not touting a message of self-acceptance and inner beauty, no matter how you try to spin it. It's really sad.

Most of the time, image is about the other people. That's backwards. Image needs to be about the self.

About six months ago, I took a before / after shot on a rare occasion when my husband and I were going out. It's all about manipulation, even without photoshop.

Before:

The pulled back hair is my normal, resting state. I hardly wear it down due to the kids. Notice the arm, the waist area, the chest in proportion to it. Just a normal person taking a normal picture.

Now, let's add in some "MySpace-esque" angles and lighting. This photo was taken about 20 minutes later.

Bright light in the forground giving a tinted look to the picture? Check.
Head tilt and half-smirk? Check.
Knee bent in the front to give myself some semblance of a backside? Check.
Sucking it in? You betcha.

Turned slightly away from the camera so that it sees less of my body to trick the eye? Absolutely.
So what I actually look like is not what I want you to think I look like. Why is that? Why aren't I enough as is? Why aren't any of us? It's so important for us to love ourselves. Not just for the self-confidence and energy we need to make it through the day, but also so that we can move on with our lives. So we don't find ourselves glued to the mirror, or thinking about our looks / weight / skin / whatever. Those things, those thoughts, inhibit the real work we are here to do.

And if you ever need a refresher...look at your kids. Look at the love, respect and admiration in their eyes. To them, you are a beauty queen and a genius and the entire universe all rolled into one. Those are some big shoes. They don't belong stomping all over your self-esteem.

Beauty redefined. They're right.

Minus One Pregnancies and Abortion

"My body, my choice."

Simple, isn't it? Pro-choice opinion with all of its reasoning and nuances wrapped up in a simple, catchy slogan. It makes it easy. I'm pro-choice. I believe that a woman's body is her domain and no one else has the right to tell her what she can and can't do with it.

But is it, perhaps, too easy? The problem with catch-phrases is that they remove the thought necessary to really form an educated opinion, so that when faced with the specifics of certain situations, people can then say, oh, yeah, but that, that's different. And they're never forced to re-examine their view. They separate situations, and still feel like they can say that they fully believe in one, without looking at the larger implications.

This article in the New York Times is what forced me to really think about this topic. Because if I were truly all about choice, then the concept of terminating one twin fetus and keeping the other one because parents only wanted one child would not squick me out.

But it does a little. I don't know if it's because I have twins, or what, and don't get me wrong, I'd never say to a woman having this done that she was wrong. I don't believe she is, intellectually speaking. But I can't help the distant rumble in my gut at the idea. Or, at least I couldn't without sitting down and really thinking about it, really thinking about my stance on abortion.

It's not the half-abortion, even, that bothers me so much. I think it's more the specific things this woman says, and the specific reasoning given in the article for why people would do this. But does that matter if it's a woman's body, a woman's choice? No. Her reasons don't matter, and the opinions are hers to have.

"She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion."

My original reaction? Wait, so you tried to get pregnant for six years, using technology you knew would likely result in multiples and now you are going to terminate one of them? Why?

That reaction sucks. It doesn't matter. She wanted one kid and she can legally give herself one kid. It is not my place to say that because she'd been trying for a long period of time and using fertility treatments that she should have to have twins.

"“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later."

Okay, so at 45, she feels like she can't handle twins. And she feels like having other children means she doesn't need two more. And she feels that she doesn't have enough money for two, even though she had enough money for expensive fertility treatments. (Maybe they used up her disposable income.)

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of those things, but I'm not her. Her body, her choice. Which leads to the sad fact that she felt she had to try to rationalize it to the public at all. Decisions like this are not easily made clear to outsiders. She shouldn't have to justify her actions, and in doing so, she succeeds in giving off the opposite impression of what she is going for, at least to me. Because then she says this:

"“If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.""

I...I don't like this. The logic is flawed, and she is insinuating that by creating her child through artificial means, it means less than if it were produced naturally. I'm sure many IVFers would disagree. A natural order of things? Does that mean the child that you continue to carry is unnatural in some way? Will you treat your natural children differently? I'm sorry, but this just sounds to me like she's making excuses. It almost sounds as if she's against abortion in general, doesn't it? Since "natural" pregnancies shouldn't be disturbed? She's holding herself and her decision apart from the main point. She feels she's a special case. And yes, in many ways she is. It's not often that women terminate one of a set of twins. But her guilt is being projected upon so many others who may have made a choice for different reasons. And it doesn't sit well. Because it's not half an abortion, after all. It is a full one. One she has every right to have. But in saying this, she implies that her specific conditions hold her above the other people making that choice.

It's your choice, lady. You don't have to rationalize it. Doing so only makes you look insecure and makes you accidentally insult a lot of people. You are no worse than the rest of society, and you are no better. You are just you and that is enough.

 "The idea of managing two infants at this point in her life terrified her. She and her husband already had grade-school-age children, and she took pride in being a good mother. She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love."

I was terrified, too, and if she has other children, then she would know that love doesn't work that way. But again, as I thought and thought on this topic, I discovered it doesn't matter what reasons she gives. She's just trying to assuage society. And she doesn't need to. It's her body, her choice.


 "“This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,” she told me."

And there it is. Now she's not rationalizing to the readers so much as to herself. There's the issue right there. There's the reason for her other statements. This is a personal battle for her. Something we ought not forget when we speak on this topic as people who are not current going through it. Abortion can sometimes be chosen without doubt, but just as often, those who do choose it face many demons of their own making (and society's) along the way. It is hard. Hard as a philosophy and hard as a practice. I say we give everyone a break. Their body, their choice.

Reduction started so that women who had many fetuses could increase their chances of having a healthy child. Now that it's a surface choice, people are balking. Where is the ethical line? If you're pro-choice, are you really pro-choice? When does it turn? When is it too much?

"As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want."

For me, reading this article was a really good start to try to define my true feelings on this complex issue.

Of course, there's one section that I can't argue with at all.

"Studies report enormous disruption in families with multiples, and higher levels of social isolation, exhaustion and depression in mothers of twins."

Yup. But, for me, they're totally worth it.

Are Parents Ruining Their Children?

Are parents ruining their children?

This expansive article by Psychology Today, first released in 2004, says yes.

It says that from infancy on, helicopter parents cushion their children's failures while pushing them ever harder for success, and if that success doesn't come naturally, well, the parents help the children along. Anything for a successful child. It concludes that the obsession with perfection from a young age prevents children from growing up. It sites increased depression and anxiety diagnoses and a slowed rate of adults actually being adults (which they define as completing school, holding down a job and starting a family) to back this theory up.

And it's not that I don't agree, necessarily. I think the five-page article brings up many valid points and that parents need to re-look at their dealings with their kids.

But I think those studying this need to take our society into consideration. Remember, if your studies start in 1988 and end in 2004, or continue to the present, you are using the same subjects as both the children and the parents. That's important. For if this child-adults you speak of actually are the parents, then it's no wonder why they coddle their kids the way they do. They don't know any different. You cannot in one breath complain at the immaturity of adults today, then turn around and say those adults should know better while rearing their own kids. Of course they don't.

This is a long-term problem that has been getting worse very very gradually, not just in the last 20, 30 or even 50 years.

As we become more technologically advanced, we are coming up with solutions to problems prevalent in the 1980s. In twenty years from now, the technology will be focused on eradicating the new problems brought into existence by our current solutions to our old problems. This is a pattern that's gone on from the beginning of human existence. It can hardly be blamed solely on "hothouse" parenting.

This is an incredibly long piece, so I'm just going to highlight the select areas I had issues with.

In the very beginning, the study uses an example of a highly competent girl whose parents wrote in to her school, explaining that she had "difficulty with Gestalt thinking." The authors put forward that there was nothing wrong with this girl, that her parents had prematurely set her up for an advantage while taking her SATs.

Now, that could very likely be the case. Or, alternately, the girl could have actually had problems with Gestalt thinking. A close friend of mine in school was very smart, worked very hard on her grades and pulled in good ones. She was social, academically inclined and good at sports. She got a 500 on her SATs. She took the tests three or four times, each with the same dismal results. She'd probably have a lot to say about the smarmy conclusion of this article. Some kids, believe it or not, actually do have the problems they present with, regardless of their competence in other areas. Had my friend been given the unlimited time for the test that trouble with Gestalt thinking allows, she'd have done just fine. Her issue was that she could not skip questions, an imperative piece to doing well on the test. I don't know why she couldn't, but I believe her when she says she couldn't. She's now an elementary school teacher with a master's degree and two children. Wimpy? I think not.

This broadens to the next point of the article which is increases diagnoses of depression and anxiety in college students, supposedly brought on by parental involvement. The article purports that students are pushed to be perfect while at the same time their parents are doing their work for them, blocking them from the natural cycle of failure and disappointment, the result being that students feel they cannot do anything by themselves, and the prospect of having to (in college) folds them into a box of insecurity, anxiety and depression.

Could be. This could definitely be part of it. But we cannot ignore the advanced techniques we now have for diagnosis these conditions and regulating the brain chemicals to help those truly in need. Fifty years ago, these conditions may not have seemed as prevalent, but that doesn't mean they weren't. It simply the ways for treating it (or ignoring it) were different. Those who were not suffering to the point of incapacitation were considered slow, or odd, or slightly off. They had trouble making it in society and often stayed with their parents forever, never even attempting this growing up that the article is so fond of referencing. Those who suffered from advanced symptoms were locked away and shoved under society's rug.

Are people these days using depression and anxiety as a crutch in what should be very normal lives? They could be, I can't talk to that. But I do know that you cannot use such a statistic as evidence of poor parenting practices. It's not logical without taking societal history into account.

The article says parents are no longer teaching their children the essential skills they need to survive. Instead, it says "showing kids how to work the system for their own benefit."

I would say for the sake of argument that learning how to work the system in which you live to your benefit is a valuable life skill.

It attacks cell phones, saying the devices extend the umbilical cord indefinitely. That students and young adults no longer reason for themselves, but simply call mom and dad to get out of trouble.

I would argue that the point of cell phones is to help young people out of trouble. Real trouble. I would say the safety benefits of cell phones outweighs the potential for stunted growth into adulthood. I have a cell phone. An., yeah, I called my mom up until my early twenties if I was scared or sick. Childish? It probably was. But it didn't harm me. And I felt loved and safe. And I'm now 29 with my own family, and I no longer call my mommy when I have the stomach flu or when my car gets towed. Not that this disproves their theory, which I agree with in essence, but I do think cell phones are an advantage, not a disadvantage. Remember, 50 years ago, people stayed a lot closer to home and had their entire extended family network to lean on, in person.

The article boldly states that parental hovering is the cause of failure in young adults. It says the "no man's land" of 20-30 is continuing to extend because children don't know how to be adults themselves, and so they revert to being the children they were never allowed to be in youth.

"Using the classic benchmarks of adulthood, 65 percent of males had reached adulthood by the age of 30 in 1960. By contrast, in 2000, only 31 percent had. Among women, 77 percent met the benchmarks of adulthood by age 30 in 1960. By 2000, the number had fallen to 46 percent."

Remember, the benchmarks are finishing school, getting a job and having a family. Excuse me, but why would we use the classic benchmarks of adulthood here? We're not in 1960. We cannot compare to that without comparing all other factors as well. What about the increasing number of students getting their master's degrees and doing post-doctoral work? What about the economic downturn that is stopping millions of previously employable, competent people from getting jobs? What about women becoming more confident in pursuing careers, so that perhaps their family lives come later? My sister is well on her way to a Ph.D in biomedical engineering. According to this article, I'm the adult, and she's the kid. I'm the success and she's the coddled young adult unable to forge her way.

I don't think so. If you look at my specific family, you'll see it's my siblings that are successful. You cannot define success and adulthood by job and family anymore. It's not fair and it leads to false conclusions.

I think this article is great, don't get me wrong. It certainly gave me a lot to think about as I continue to rear my children. Many of the points are spot on, or at least make enough sense for me to be able to glean the information I need from them for use in my own life.

I do want my kids to be independent. I do want them to play. I do want my life to be easier. I think this article has a lot of tips to help parents who may be faltering on their way. But I also think that they've omitted important study in order to drive home their objectives. And I don't think that's necessary. The world is scary enough, as those writing the article well know.  We need to take things at their face value in the way they currently fit into our society without conflating them without making faulty comparisons and placing extensive blame. Of course parents are at fault for some of their children's problems. Are they responsible for the weakening of the fabric of society? I think that's stretching it.

___

If you like this blog, please vote on Babble.com. Tales of an Unlikely Mother is number 19, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up! Thank you so, so much.

I Hope You Didn't Think You Were a Person or Anything

I talk a lot about judgment doled out to stay at home parents by those in the working world, by other parents, by non-parents and by themselves. That's all small potatoes compared to a new ruling by the Federal Reserve.

Credit card companies have been told to stop issuing cards to people who do not pull in an income.

On its face, this ruling seems to make sense. People who don't make any money shouldn't have the responsibility of having to pay credit card companies back for their consumption needs.

Behind that face, however, the issue is so much deeper. Behind that face are women and men who stay home to take care of their kids while their spouses work, providing the more disposable income. To prevent these men and women from being approved for credit takes their legs out from under them, squelches their independence and deems the work they do worthless.  Now I don't care if you don't think being a stay at home parent is a career or even a job. This isn't about needing appreciation for the work done or not done. This is about being forced into a box because of personal life decisions.

This rule is unrealistic and it oversteps boundaries, in my opinion. The economy still falters. Many have lost their jobs. The saving grace for some has been the ability to stay at home with the kids, raising them and saving money on childcare costs while they look for other work. Other work that hasn't been coming. Now The Fed tells us that we can no longer get credit unless we can prove we can individually pay for it?  Okay, fine. Make the jobs come back and society will get right to work on that. Or not. Because it's our choice to work or not if our families can afford it, and repercussions should not be lauded over us for our personal family choices.

What about people who need to build their credit? They can't. What about those stuck in abusive relationships? Without access to credit, they're left crippled, forced to stay with their partners, given one less avenue in which to forge their escape or start a new life if they so choose.

This takes the stay at home parent back to a level of dependence the country hasn't seen since the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, which prohibits credit issuers from discriminating on any basis, including gender.

Because this is discrimination, plain and simple. You can say you're looking out for the consumer. You can point to the housing bubble collapse and blame the consumer. You can tell us it's for our own good. But you're wrong. It's constricting, belittling, and, honestly, it's dangerous.

Stay at home parents are not irresponsible with their money simply because they're not currently making any.  And while their home situation is okay right now, everyone deserves to have an individual safety net should circumstances change. The Fed is taking that net away from many parents. A death, a divorce, an abusive situation...without a credit history, the victim is rendered helpless on their own. It's a trap.

I have my health insurance through my husband's job. I have my car insurance jointly with my husband. I hold a joint bank account with him. If the government and insurance companies and other businesses accept my worth combined with my husband's, why not credit card companies? Or are my insurances and bank account next on the chopping block?

Well, go ahead and take them. I don't need them. I won't even notice they're gone. I'll be too busy over here in the kitchen in my heels and apron, making dinner for my provider and asking him if I can borrow a few dollars to buy the brood some shoes.

Let's not let it get to that point, okay, Fed?  Just because we stay at home does not mean we're not independent. But it will if you take all adult avenues away from us.


Article with more information:
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/stay-at-home-parent-credit-cards-household-income-1282.php


___
If you enjoy this blog, please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 14, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up!

A Tramp Isn't Just What She Wears

You know that CNN piece that has everyone up in arms? You know, the one that starts with the guy describing a delicious-looking eight-year-old girl and ends with him blaming the parents for wanting to be their kids' besties instead of their guardians?

LZ Granderson is shocked and appalled that young girls are being offered push-up bras and allowed to wear low-slung sexy sweats. His point is that young girls will suffer any multitude of adult problems from low self-esteem to eating disorders because they are allowed to dress in such a manner.

What Granderson completely overlooks is force of trends in fashion, the force of fashion in society, and the force of society on individuals young and old...but particularly young.  Now, I agree with Granderson that this trend toward "whore-chic" is disheartening, but, unlike him, I realize that this is because I'm a 28-year-old fuddy-duddy with toddler twin girls. My perception is skewed toward the upbringing I had, the good old days, as they were.  And even then, I remember clearly the senior talent show making fun of freshmen girls for trying to wear nothing to school.  This is not new.  It's no surprise as the societal view of clothing or lack of it becomes commonplace in the adult world, it would eventually pervade the youth as well. It's no surprise, and it's no shame.

Because shaming little girls at airports, or their parents, is not going to buck the trend. It's as logical to blame the parents as it is to blame yourself, Mr. Granderson, (and we all know with that leg-breaking thing how illogical that would be) because you, like the parents you are berating, cannot stop the swing and backswing of fashion. And that's all it is. Fashion.

It is a gigantic leap from low-cut jeans to eating disorders - one that I do not think you can make. Those that suffer from such afflictions would not take kindly to being told it was because their parents let them wear "whore panties" when they were little.  Probably because they didn't. And if they did, anyone with an eating disorder could tell you the two usually have nothing to do with one another. In fact, by using this particular cause and effect, you are minimalizing a  very real and very scary psychological terrain that many must walk through every day.  How dare you, sir?  But I don't want to go too far. Of course, it's not you who said that, but a study.

"In 2007, the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls issued a report linking early sexualization with three of the most common mental-health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression. ...There's nothing inherently wrong with parents wanting to appease their daughters by buying them the latest fashions. But is getting cool points today worth the harm dressing little girls like prostitutes could cause tomorrow?"

Now, if you read that link, here is what "sexualization" is defined as:

• a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
• a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
• a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
• sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

So, really, you're making another leap here because nowhere do I see buying a 12-year-old girl a push-up bra on that list.  Is it the first step to those four bullet points?  Possibly. But I would argue that, to at least some, it's just fashion.  Let's not forget that sixty years ago it was considered risque to wear a skirt cut above the knee.  Today, we would laugh at such prudishness, wouldn't we? Oh, it's not the same, you say, this is different, this is us.  They thought something completely normal was whorish.  We reserve that judgment for only what's completely over the top. Or is it?  Another example of this would be tattoos.  They were once a mark of sailors, prisoners and the toughest of the tough. It was not fashionable nor socially acceptable to have a tattoo otherwise.  Do you have a tattoo?  I know I do.  Fashion changes. It does not necessarily mean that those going with the changes will be irrevocably marred.

 Read further in that link and you'll find this:

"Although extensive analyses documenting the sexualization of girls, in particular, have yet to be conducted, individual examples can easily be found. These include advertisements (e.g., the Skechers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls). Research documenting the pervasiveness and influence of such products and portrayals is sorely needed."


While Granderson did a superior job pulling out the specific examples, he missed the point of studies and trends...the research part.  The paragraph above explicitly states that in the case of young girls the influence of these products is unknown. So, let's not put the bra before the breasts here, okay?  Let's do that research, or at minimum, let's call your specific opinion what it is, and not try to back it up with studies that don't actually back it up.

And it's not that Granderson's opinion isn't valid - it is. I agree with it. My heart sinks a little when I see sexy six year olds because I think sex shouldn't be important to them. In fact, in my eyes, fashion shouldn't be important to them.  (You've seen how I dress my toddlers.)

But my opinion of their priorities isn't reality. Fashion is important to them because fashion is important to our society as a whole. And anyone who thinks forcing their children to wear baggy tie-dyed t-shirts and balloon pants will save them from a lifetime of self-esteem issues has another thing coming. There's another facet to low self-esteem that Granderson fails to take into account and that is being made fun of.  Kids are cruel (and so are their parents) when it comes to being the odd man out. And fashions that were once considered whorish, have made their way into the trends with "whore-chic" and have trickled down into the youth, so that the child with the parents who force her to wear turtlenecks and corduroys may do just as much damage to her self-esteem as the parents who swing too far the other way and allow their child's thong to peek out from her ultra-low jeans.  Thankfully, the parents who would swing that far to the right are just as few as the parents who would swing that far to the left. Granderson speaks as if millions of young girls are being allowed to purchase and wear these items on the daily. That simply isn't the case. Just because an item is being marketed doesn't mean everyone is immediately wearing it.  Look at the Snuggie (oh, wait, bad example, but you know what I mean.)

But the biggest, most glaring, problem I see with Granderson's piece is that fashion and sex are not the same thing. He lacks an enormous insight into the psychology of an eight-year-old girl. Speaking in generalities here, I would put forth that girls do not dress up to impress boys or men. Girls, many times, dress up to impress other girls. Not in a sexual way. In a competitive way. Most eight year olds are not trying to get a rise, physically or otherwise, from a man in an airport. They are trying to show off to their friends. They are in it for the fashion, not for the sex.

Does the emphasis gradually change as they get older, and does the foundation laid by these fashions in the early years play a part in the way a woman grows up? It's possible, on an individual level, that yes, it does.  Would I feel comfortable letting my daughters wear sweatpants that say Juicy on the back with a cropped belly shirt? Absolutely not.  But that is me.  I'm not going to go around slamming every other parent out there for not thinking exactly like I do.  I'm not going to say with certainty that their daughters will have self-esteem problems and that it will stem from the parents' decision to let them dress the way they want to and the way their friends are dressing.  Because I don't think that's true.

Plus, (and probably most importantly), I don't for a second believe that my kids' backpacks won't have a change of clothes in them should I pull the fashion noose too tightly around their necks.

My thought process is, they're probably just going to wear it anyway.  But if I'm open enough and compromise with them enough, and explain to them the implications behind the fashions...if I talk to my kids instead of playing the break-your-legs card, maybe we can find a happy middle ground, and my kids won't feel forced to lie to me about what they're wearing when I'm not around.

And it's a triple win because I wouldn't have judged, blamed and shamed thousands of parents and children in the meantime.


___
If you enjoy this blog, please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up.

Safety Isn't Always about Convenience

It's a beautiful spring day. You're on your way to the grocery store with your babies in tow. You go to take that well-worn left turn and someone blows through the traffic light. Will your kids survive?

It's a snowy night in late December. You've managed to wrangle your young children into the car to head home from a family holiday dinner. Before you make it off the highway, someone fishtails and skids toward you, unable to stop. Will your family make it out alive?

You're running late on a school day. You toss the kids in the back and gun it for daycare, trying to get to work on time. As you come up over a hill, unexpected sunlight blasts into your line of vision, obscurring the road. You try to slow down, but you've gone to the wrong side of the road in your sunglare blindness. Are your babies safe?

Regulations are put in place for a reason. In the case of carseat rules, the reason is safety. The reason is life.  As I see more and more people up in arms about the new AAP carseat regulations, I wonder if they've forgotten that.

Once you are a parent, you know that in all walks of life, conveniences will be thrown out the window. No more jumping in the shower as soon as you wake up. The kids need you.  No more enjoying a leisurely cup of (hot) coffee before you start your day. The kids need you.  No more sleeping a glorious eight or nine hours at night. Your babies, they need you.  No more hopping in the car at a moment's notice to pick something up or run a quick errand.  It's just one of those things that comes with the territory.

And since we all have to put our children in their protective and useful carseats anyway, what's the big deal about not facing them frontward for another few months? It's safer for your kids. Full stop.  I, for one, fully support these new guidelines.  What could possibly be the reason not to do it? 

The only reasons I've been hearing have to do with convenience.  "My kid wants to look out the window. I'm sick of having to stretch and bend, trying to secure them in backward.  I can't reach them easily when I'm driving.  I want to see their cute little faces. Stop telling me how to parent."

Are any of these complaints valid in the face of an actual car accident?  If facing your children to the rear of the vehicle will spare them from whiplash, injury, or death, isn't it worth it?  No one is telling anyone else how to effectively parent in this situation. They are telling others how to effectively save the lives of their loved ones, to the best of their ability.  How can anyone frown upon that?

While we're at it, let's add in the other safety rules that are inconvenient. Do you take your child's coat off in the car in winter so that the straps are tight and fitted as they are supposed to be?  Do you make sure the five-point harness system connects high on the baby's chest?  Do you straighten and untangle the straps before tying the baby in?  Do you make sure there is no looseness or give in those straps?  Have you checked to make sure the device itself is properly attached to the car?

Car seats and car seat rules aren't there to annoy parents. They're there because babies have died. They're there to prevent your baby from dying.

But, really, whine and cry about it on every social networking site available to you. That's your right. As long as you're following the guidelines, even if you complain about it, at least your children will be safe. And that's what truly matters.

For more information: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/21/car.seat.guidelines.parenting/


___
If you enjoy this blog, please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up.

Love is Delusion, Duh

My father has an old saying.  "Houses and spouses may come and go, but children will love you forever."  While this statement may be coming from a place of discreet cynicism on his part, its foundation - that the love between a parent and a child is limitless - attempts to explain the inexplicable. The bond between parent and child cannot be measured, scientifically or otherwise. There is no quantifiable value to love, so far as I know.

That foundation is something this article, purporting that having children is foolish and all parents are delusional, would do well to take into account.  I know it's edgy these days to look at only select pieces of an issue and dissect them one at a time, but it is misleading to then draw conclusions about the entire issue based on the selective research.

The author puts forward that parents overestimate the joys of parenthood to rationalize the waste of money children are.

First, children are only a waste of money on paper when you don't take into account their future as adults, but more importantly, since when can a stranger with charts and studies (a whopping 80-person study and 60-person study, I might add), assign value to someone else's treasure?  A supposedly worthless tin ring can can signify someone's entire life with another.  An old family heirloom could be worth pennies, but to the bequeathed? It's priceless.  It is not up to someone else to tell me how much my kids are worth to me.

John Cloud says, "researchers have known for some time that parents with minors who live at home report feeling calm significantly less often than than people who don't live with young children. Parents are also angrier and more depressed than nonparents — and each additional child makes them even angrier. Couples who choose not to have kids also have better, more satisfying marriages than couples who have kids.

None of this directly correlates to children as a monetary investment, the proponent on which his article is based, it is there to prove that parents are "are in the grip of a giant illusion," but it is incomplete and unconvincing.

It could be true that parents with minors at home often feel more stressed out than people without kids.  It could also be true (I'd have to see the research) that people are angrier and more depressed when they have kids.  Do couples without children have better marriages?  It's possible.  None of these things, however, prove that people should not have children or that they exagerrate the benefits of having them. Going through the supposed negatives does not disprove the positives.

Even if the arguments above are true, it is unfair to connect them to parenting in general, as if the child would be the only reason for them. The arguments simply fall short of proving that parents are clinging to an illusion.  No one can tell anyone else how much their possessions or creations mean to them personally.

Cloud goes onto to say, "Humans throw good money after bad all the time. When we have invested a lot in a choice that turns out to be bad, we're really inept at admitting that it didn't make rational sense."

That's an inflamatory statement if I've ever heard one.  It implies that children are not only worthless, but actually bad.  There is not much rational sense to having children, not because having children in the grand scheme of things doesn't make sense, but because the driving force behind birthing babies is above and beyond the human capacity to reason.  Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it worthless or bad.

"Does this mean you shouldn't have kids? Yes — but you won't," Cloud says. "Our national fantasy about the joys of parenting permeates the culture."

He then goes on to praise the economic value of a child back in the 18th and 19th centuries when they worked for their keep.  He referred to them as our staff.  Now, he says, they're our bosses.

We have a national fantasy about the joys of parenting because as a nation we've decided to cherish the future citizens we're bringing into the world?  No. Making a decision to protect any person, young or old, related or stranger, has nothing to do with the joys of parenting.  It has to do with caring for others and trying to make the world a better place.  I've yet to hear anyone say, "Oh, I need to become a parent right away. I hear it's a completely joyous activity that will better my life in all ways."

This is not to say that children don't better lives. My children are not my bosses, nor my employees, but they are my teachers, my muses and my life.  Try to put a monetary value to that. It's impossible.

The bottom line is, people don't have children to better their lives in a quantifiable way. If they did, then Cloud might have a point. No parent that I've seen is suggesting that their children have made their lives monetarily easier, or that they had kids to lessen the stress in their lives.

We're not heroes or suckers.  We're parents.  You cannot tell someone what their love is worth. It cannot be feasibly measured.

I will concede the author's main point though.  My kids can, indeed, drive me crazy.

___
If you like this blog, please vote for it at Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com.  We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up!  It's quick and easy to do!