Why are we talking about immigration?

If you were lucky enough to miss the debate last night, let me sum it up for you quickly:

BRAGGADOCIOUS

REAGAN

W KEPT US SAFE

HEY, I HEARD YOU SAID MEAN THINGS ABOUT ME, YOU JERK HEAD.

SHUT UP, JAKE TAPPER, I AM NOT FINISHED YET.

Got it? Okay, cool.

During all this blahblahblah, however, the Republicans spent an inordinate amount of time discussing immigration. Like a full half hour almost. And it was cringe worthy.

Yeah, there was the same old talk about the beautiful wall we're going to build around our borders with the fancy doors. And then there was some talk about fingerprinting every single person coming over and keeping an eye on them. I mean, we can't just be trusting them foreigners trying to make a better life for themselves, right? And one of them was like, I don't know, a dome or a force field or something equally ridiculous. And those jerk students and workers for our companies overstaying their damn visas. They are totally out of line, definitely. How dare they contribute to our society and cultural network with the money they earned and are putting back into the system. WE SEE YOU.

I know I'm convinced. I'm packaging up some legos to send to the cause right now.

Anyway, at one point, Donald Trump said (I know, I know, bear with me), that we are the only nation that allows a baby born on our soil to be a citizen, and he went on and on about how we then have to take care of that baby for, like, 85 years. AT LEAST. The horror.

But then, to my surprise, most of the Republicans standing on that stage were like, ya know, Trump's got a good point there. We gotta give that one to Trump. Yup. Babies being born here, and then we carry their asses for nearly a century. Something must be done. Good point, Trumpy.

No.

Nope.

Nooooooo.

First of all, when a child is born in the United States, they are an American citizen. That's kind of like our thing, guys. Yes, we are one of the only nations (if not the only nation) that has this rule. Because IT'S LIKE OUR THING. It is one of the things that makes us amazing. It is one of the few things left that make us amazing. It's a touchstone of our heritage as an immigrant country.

We are a country of immigrants. Can we please keep that in mind?

Second, all those Republicans stood in abject horror as they talked (wrongfully) about Planned Parenthood. They are pro-life. They argued over which one was the mostest pro-life. Dear God, we must take care of the babies! Who is thinking of the poor, defenseless babies? Why are American women so fucking cold-hearted that they'll just kill all the babies who can't even speak for themselves!

Unless they're brown, though, am I right, guys? All those immigrant babies should be born in the ocean to shorten their lifespan so we don't have to take care of their greedy asses.  We love every single baby. Unless we hate that baby because its parents are from another country. Those dicks.

Third, last time I checked, a baby didn't actually stay a baby for 85 years (unless I'm doing this whole parenting thing really, really wrong). And, like, citizens have rights and everything which I know is a total bummer, but in return they work jobs in our country and pay taxes in our country and support services in our country, and basically make the country work.

Like, you know, people.

Babies born on U.S. soil, who are then U.S. citizens, are, in fact, productive, fruitful members of our society who contribute to our national money base and follow the rules set forth by our founders.

They are not wailing, needy, no-go, babies for 85 years.

So.

Actually, that was a really bad, flawed, made-no-sense point and the Republicans who agreed with Trump there should be ashamed of their inability to logic correctly. What even was that.

And finally, lest you forget, Trump is like best buddies with Mexico. And China. They love him so much. He told me. So, at least there's that.

Caloric Content of Muffins Outweighs Gruesome Texas Showdown in State Senate

At 11:30 p.m. last night, eastern time, I sat hunched over my desk, a glass of wine at the ready, preparing manuscripts to send to magazine editors. I nearly jumped out of my chair when the shrill sounds of a woman with a "parlimentary inquiry" blasted over my computer speakers.

I'd totally forgotten about the Texas filibuster! Not because I wasn't interested, but because news outlets apparently couldn't care less about the veritable circus going on within the chambers. No one was saying anything.

Wait, let me rephrase. No one who gets paid to pay attention to newsworthy events around the country was saying anything. Twitter was aflame, and I did my part to engage the 500 friends I have on my Facebook account, many of whom had no idea what I was talking about.

How could they not? This was a level of Tomfoolery not seen since I'd say 2000 when the presidential election was stolen...by a Texas politician (uncanny coincidence, eh?)

Senators shouting over each other, ineffective calls for order, the crowd literally going wild, arrests, miscounts, wrangling of official records to change vote times, slimy political moves, feminism in Texas ("At what point must a female senator raise her hand to be recognized over her male colleagues?" Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D)TX, who skipped her father's funeral to be there, by the way. This had me clapping in my house at past midnight. Looking like a lunatic, but I didn't care.)

What about this isn't news?

As for me, it was pure luck I had the livestream of the Texas senate going in a tab I'd long forgotten about. Curious about it earlier in the day, I'd clicked over, to no audio, lost interest and left without shutting it off.

Where were you? Where were you CNN? This is...kind of your thing. And you're so "Twittery" and "Youtubey" lately, one would think you would have jumped at the chance to air that livestreaming Youtube video. It's just like a satellite share. It's easier in fact. No coordinates to type in, no networks from which to get permission. Plug in and air the news. You didn't even have to do anything. You had three straight hours of amazing programming just sitting there gift-wrapped for you. Where. Were. You.

Sure, you're there now. 10 a.m. the next morning. But two hours ago, your story on the matter consisted of quotes from random people on Twitter and a brief overview of Wendy Davis' website. Really? You couldn't, I don't know, pick up a phone? Basically, I could have written the story you wrote at 8 a.m. this morning five hours before that. Word for word. Not because I used to be a journalist, but because that's the amount of research you did. Any Twitter or Facebook user even remotely interested in the event could have fashioned your story.

I've never been so disappointed in my life.

Here's a quick rundown of Journalism 101 for you, in case you've forgotten.

Determine newsworthiness:

- Is it timely? (Yes.)
- Is it breaking? (Yes.)
- Is there drama? (Yes.)
- Does it impact individuals? (Yes.)
- Does it have overreaching consequences for the country's population? (Yes.)
- Is it salient? (FFS, YES.)

Women's rights has been a hot-button issue for years now. It's not as if this blindsided you. And sure, state proceedings could possibly be boring and silly, but you had the video at your disposal. You could see that things escalated to newsworthy in .02 seconds. Hell, it was newsworthy as soon as Davis put on her pink sneakers.

Here's what you were doing at 8 a.m. this morning:

- Quoting President Obama's Twitter status from more than 10 hours before that. (Old, vague and irrelevant.)
- Quoting Ricky Gervais' Twitter. (I...what?)
- Quoting some random guy's Twitter who at least said something funny (Not newsworthy.)
- Getting background information on Sen. Wendy Davis from her website. (Lazy. You couldn't confirm she went to Harvard and got pregnant at 19? Really?)
- Outlining the bare bones of the story that anyone could pick up from watching the livestream (Not helpful.)

Here's what you should have been doing:

- Getting to the scene. Seriously. You weren't even present? This wasn't a quick story. You had thirteen hours to get your shit together.

- Interviewing people outside. Can't get in? That's okay. They're taping. Talk to the people outside. Get the human side of the story.

- Calling your sources frantically to get statements from the senators as the proceedings were taking place. Look, I saw Lincoln. They used to do this shit via carrier pigeon, and note-carriers on foot. Surely it's easier now.

- Blowing up the phones of Wendy Davis, the Lt. Governor and Senate President, Kirk Watson, Letitcia Van de Putte, etc. Running them down in person directly after session. Getting the story. You know. Things.

- Stalking the police department. Your people could have been there when they brought the arrests in. On the other side of this, you didn't even have to leave the chamber. Interview police officers at the scene. When they can't talk, call the chief or the PIO. This is easy stuff, people. I did this at 18 years old for a local cable station. No reason why you can't.

- Digging up the rules of the Texas Senate so you could do a feature piece on how many rules were broken in a slimy and horrid way. (Actually, I bet no one does this. If anyone wants to commission me, I'll totally do it for you.)

- Digging up the history of this bill so you could do a feature on how it came to be, who the main players are, and how it all managed to culminate in this wild governmental kerfuffle.

I could go on and on and on, but I'm getting too disgusted.

Journalism, they say, is dead. But Twitter didn't kill it. Bloggers didn't kill it. The Internet didn't kill it. You killed it. By paying your employees literally nothing, by promoting people who don't know what news is but do know how to say "yes, sir," and "you're great, sir."

But, hey, everyone loves a muffin debate, am I right? So get on with your bad self, CNN. You eat that 350-calorie muffin and call it a day. Because it appears you've had yours.

And if you want a true rundown of the actual events, and a number to reach Wendy Davis head over to Accidentally Mommy who wrote a heart-wrenching piece on the implications of this historic filibuster attempt.

 

Modern Sexism

The problem is subtlety. The problem is "how far we've come." The problem is enlightenment. The problem is a society that congratulates itself on the freedom and equality all face when compared to how it was, when compared to where it is elsewhere. This is the problem.

The problem is that Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow did not even think about the implications of their words because on the face of things, without 20/20 criticism, there seemed to be no issue with their words. It seemed to be the natural way to frame the story, given that the victim is protected and anonymous.

The problem is using the advancements we have made as a culture (as in, allowing rape victims to remain anonymous) to facilitate a step backward in the name of ease. CNN focused on the "only" angle of the story they were given, they maybe didn't have the money or the staff to flesh out the story in a way that would have caused an emotional response in the audience without falling to the "these poor boys' lives are ruined" line as the boys break down into tears about their ruined lives. Their own lives that they ruined. Not like the girl's life that they interrupted, that they acted upon. The problem is people like me assume her life was ruined. We don't know her. You have a friend who has a friend who didn't consent to something like that and they don't even think about it. The problem is not being able to talk about these kinds of things when we need to.

So, where's the line? Where's the line between protecting victims and letting them move on, and calling for the rational and equal treatment of women as a set of human beings? Are they on separate sides of the equation? The problem is, as much as you are reading this blog right now, there are millions of people who watched CNN and since there was nothing blatantly, glaringly wrong with their coverage, some of these people don't really think about it at all. Some process it peripherally, and the words, the scenes, they sink in unconsciously. They permeate, if even for a short time, our view of the matter. The problem is many viewers of that coverage were not outraged, and as such, ingested those messages as legitimate, tossing them aside into the abyss of thousands of other messages received that day. The problem is those messages stick around because of their quietness, of their unobtrusive nature.

The problem is subtlety.

In a society which congratulates itself on how far it has come, on how much obvious recognition we (spokenly, if not in action) give these problems, the problem is that a news organization thinks there are any acceptable reasons to sympathize with someone who raped someone else. The problem is deeper even than that. It's that the news organizations didn't think at all.

The problem is that our resting point as a society still doesn't question these innate assumptions about rape victims, oppressed peoples and women. It doesn't question them because it thinks we've overcome them. And if you're above something, you don't have to think about it anymore. It's not you. It's not what you are doing or what you think. Only it is.

The problem is we think we've solved a problem when we haven't.

And the polarization that occurs out of that includes people arguing that we should "lighten up," or "enjoy entertainment for what it's worth."

The problem is the people who say that think they are not affected by the messages. The problem is they are not affected by those messages.

They are effected by a layering process that starts when we're just old enough to take in our immediate world around us, where dominant ideologies persist, no longer through force, or through blatant acts of coercion but through a more modern, more subtle, more intricate path to our brains.

The problem is we can never attack this modern sexism because we never think about it. Because we think we're more sophisticated than that. It doesn't apply to us.

"I can watch a scary movie, mom, it won't scare me. I know better."

The problem is this isn't a scary fucking movie. This is real life.








 

Permissive Parents: Beat your Brats

Okay, so maybe LZ Granderson said "Curb your Brats" in the title, but if you read even a bit of his obviously enhanced-for-web-traffic piece, you'll see that I'm not so far off.

Granderson says he has an issue with parents unable or unwilling to discipline their children. If this were really the case, I'd back him up 100 percent. But that's not what I got from his unsubstatiated, anecdotal diatribe. No, what I took away from this piece is that Granderson has an issue with the existence of children.

Granderson has some news for parents.

"I do not love your child," he says. "The rest of the country does not love your child either."

Mr. Granderson, here's a news flash for you. We don't love you either. Our presence in your vicinity has nothing to do with a fondness for people who dislike children.

He goes on.

"The reason why we're staring at you every other bite is not because we're acknowledging some sort of mutual understanding that kids will be kids but rather we want to kill you for letting your brat ruin our dinner. Or our plane ride. Or trip to the grocery store."

Well, thank you for clearing that up. All this time, I thought the hatred-filled stares thrown our way when one of the kids had a breakdown was really just a mask hiding the overwhelming waves of love underneath. I was convinced that each heavy sigh and eye roll was a gesture of kind understanding and sympathy.

Oh, wait, no I wasn't. I know you hate us in that moment. I assure you, I am doing everything in my power to fix it, be it leaving the restaurant, ditching the cart in the grocery store, or taking a bathroom trip on the flight.

But, really, we need to come to a compromise. What would you have families do? Stay holed up in their homes until their child rearing and discipline training is complete? Because that "look" you mention doesn't just work overnight. "The look" takes time, skill and practice. My three year olds are just now getting the look. Should I have stayed in my living room all this time, so as not to step on your toes?

While Granderson may have a handle on how he disciplined his child and what worked for him, I do not believe that gives him the right to assume that all other parents who may do things a bit differently don't discipline at all.

"And we know you don't discipline them at home because you don't possess "the look." If you had "the look," you wouldn't need to say "sit down" a thousand times."

How smug of him.

Look, when I didn't have children, I didn't like children. They're loud. They're obnoxious. I simply did not care for them. In fact, I'm positive I'm guilty of saying five years ago, "Why are they here? Do they think the Starbucks is a Chuck E. Cheese?" As if they didn't have the right to get a coffee. A coffee they probably needed 100 times more than I did, since they were undertaking the admirable and difficult task of acclimating their children to the world. Still, my experiences didn't affect me further than that because if it went on for too long and the parents refused to leave my coffee shop, I could very easily go to the one on the corner. Which I did. No harm, no foul.

I understand what Granderson means. I understand the small section of parents to whom he is speaking. But he's not speaking to that small section of parents. He's speaking to all parents. Who hasn't had a normally well-behaved little one turn into a puddle in public randomly? And when that happens, who hasn't had onlookers ogling them and their children, hatred dripping from their eyes? As if our children are always this bad because we didn't use "the look." As if we're purposely trying to ruin everyone's night, including our own. As if we think the world owes us for having kids.

No. We want to disappear. We are mortified. We feel like bad parents (even if we're not, which is usually the case) and we want to get out as fast as possible.

"I have seen a small child slap her mother in the face with an open hand, only to be met with 'Honey, don't hit Mommy,'" Granderson laments.

I say, good for her! What would you have had her do, Mr. Granderson? Hit the child back? Yell at the child in public? Grab the child's hand in a threatening manner? Make more of a scene using negative discipline techniques to satisfy your perverse need to discipline someone else's child by proxy? I'm open to your suggestions, but you didn't give any. To me, a mother capable of being calm and controlled when her child slaps her in the face in front of people while still being able to show that child the incorrectness of the behavior is a hero. To be able to do that, to show positive discipline under such duress and embarrassment, is a strength not many know.

Like I said, we all need to come to a compromise. If you don't want a screaming child in your face while you eat dinner, well, I'll do my best to keep my kids from acting up. If that, for whatever reason, doesn't work on any particular night, you could stop eating at the Cheesecake Factory and go to an actual adult restaurant. If you really need the peas-in-a-can directly opposite the baby food in the aisle, I'll do my best to thwart any upcoming tantrums. If I fail, perhaps you could go get your bread first while I try to control my child, instead of subjecting yourself and me to your discomfort.

My biggest problem with this piece is how sure Granderson is that all parents think they should be treated in a special manner with an excess of understanding simply because kids will be kids.

"Parents who expect complete strangers to just deal with it are not doing anyone, including their children, any favors. They are actually making things worse."

But I don't know any parents like that. There are some out there, but I haven't met them yet. Have you?


___

If you like this blog, please consider voting for me here! And if you really love me...Babble is the most important ranking to me, and I'd love you forever.  xxoo

Tales of an Unlikely Mother is 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.