We are post-racial America, and we are so mad, tho

Before Thanksgiving, I published a piece in Time that took the Ferguson riots and defended them in the light of the historical context of the country, calling out the systemic problem of oppression and asking that the problem of violence be tackled from that end, rather than from the easy-chair route of blaming rioters as animals or just bad individuals who like to ruin shit for funsies. Are those rioters animals and bad individuals who like to ruin shit for funsies? Maybe. I'm not talking about that. Whether they are or not, the issue of the political and societal climate that forces a population to its last resort to be heard needs to be addressed. This problem can't be solved by shaking our heads at it or wagging our fingers at the aggressors. It can't even be solved by helping the business owners get back on their feet (though that will help the community and the innocent victim of this cultural rage). It can only be solved if we look at the root racial problem in this country, open communication, and train both our law enforcement officers and the communities they protect how to interact with each other.

Saying this really got a lot of middle aged white men mad at me. Like a lot of them. They're still emailing me about this. So, I thought I'd round up post-racial America's response to a call for systemic change in the face of last-ditch violent efforts to be heard by oppressed and marginalized peoples.

Let's start with a set of emails from someone calling himself ghetton1gger (isn't that lovely?)

First he attacks the fact that I stay at home with my kids. Which is yawn. I've been in the mommy wars since 2008, and those women are more vicious than poor GN can ever hope to be. Then he invoked the "purple people" argument, amid a lot of other silly, worn-out arguments that say Mike Brown deserved to die.

You should be ashamed of yourself, writing an article that promotes rioting. Even for a stay-at-home-mom, this is idiotic. Your article hits all the hot buttons: unarmed black youth, marginalized voices, pen-up anger. This is the jargon of someone who sits on her bottom at home and doesn't have access to the real world. Here's the reality: Michael Brown weighed 295 pounds and was 6'4", he had just robbed a convenience store, he attacked a police officer, he refused orders to comply. And he was shot dead. Unfortunate? Not if you value law and order. Anybody doing these things--whether white, black, brow, yellow, or purple--would have been shot dead. It just so happens that blacks are far more likely to be involved in violent crimes than any other demographic group. Hopefully, you won't fall victim to black violence. Even if you did, you would find a way to rationalize it as the fault of society. Liberals like you preaching zero accountability are what is causing America to crumble at its very foundation.

By the way, if I ever did "fall victim to 'black violence'" I totally would blame it on society. So there's that.

When that got no response, he wrote me again, a full week later.

Perhaps it is time for you to write an article advocating law and order in the "black community." Negro thugs will continue getting shot by police until they begin to learn some very simple and fundamental lessons. 

Oh. You're so right. There is no racial stereotyping in this country anymore. I don't know what I'm even on about.

I have a bunch more emails, but I want to move on to my social media. So I will just leave you with this gem, which is hands down my favorite comment about my article. Email is from Dan.

You are a typical, liberal, know-it-all cunt. Your attempt to justify the savage rioting in your “article” by animals who do not deserve to walk free in this society is not only asinine, it is just stupid. I hope you continue to live in squalor. It is a shame that you have procreated because you are an obvious example of where a gene pool should end. Fuck off and I hope you burn your turkey.

Sadly for Dan, my turkey came out deliciously. Probably because I know it all. I also love "not only asinine, it is just stupid." Like my friend said, that's not only redundant, it's just repetitive. Please note that to Dan, I live in squalor. This is important because apparently on Twitter, I'm a super-rich lady, living in the lap of luxury.

Speaking of Twitter, let's go there.

Here's one of the more sane tweets:

Nov 25: @DLoesch @parentwin: There is no defense in ruining the livelihood of innocent people who did nothing to warrant selfish thuggery.

I hear that, I do. But that's not what I'm talking about. There is a difference between condoning riots and the havoc they wreak, and explaining the underlying forces that create an atmosphere where riots can exist.

Moving on, there are a ton of tweets where people who are so incredibly against rioting go ahead and advocate people riot in my neighborhood. Because I made them mad. And so, they kind of prove my point, don't they? And they haven't even been marginalized in society for decades. They're just throwing a middle-class, white man tantrum. "I DON'T LIKE RIOTING. THEY SHOULD RIOT ON YOUR MOM'S FACE."

Great.

Nov 26: Is @parentwin inviting rioters onto her street or is it only justified when black people are burnt out and looted -- http://

Nov 26: People should riot over Mike Brown in @parentwin's neighborhood. Let's see if she writes this then --> http://

Nov 26: Is @parentwin going to post her home address so the rioters know where to go after #ferguson is destroyed?

@parentwin @jtLOL I'm feeling a rage at the imbecility of this ruling racist Liberal. Rioting in her neighborhood is my only option. 

@parentwin One, you're a stupid liberal hag. Two, there is NO defense for them rioting. I hope YOUR neighborhood gets the torch. Dumbass.

Dec 2@parentwin I hope the first place rioters target is your family's home, you useless moron.

There's a lot of "they did this to themselves" and a lot of "Mike Brown did this to himself" out there, too. Lots of straight up racism.

@parentwin If they (black lives) matter so much why do they kill themselves in such high number? They matter SHIT to me until they matter to themselves!

Nobody feels riots are only option. Savages are opportunstic b/c they know police won't maintain peace due to "PC" concerns. @parentwin

Nov 26: @parentwin @TIMEIdeas .. YOU'RE CONDEMNING WILSON B/C HE'S WHITE ..NOT B/C MIKE BROWNS ACTIONS ..PLEASE FIRE THIS WOMAN!

@parentwin You condone violence and destruction of property. You are part of the problem. Brown catalyzed his own demise. PERIOD.

Dec 1@parentwin @TIMEIdeas Go ahead, walk your 2 white kids down one of those streets at night then report back. I DARE you.

Then there are the tweets stretching it to the piece promoting the destruction of black communities and calling me racist (which I am because I'm white and can never understand, and have really big metaphorical balls talking all over a black issue with my whiteness...but not for the reason they say.)

Nov 26: Elite white @parentwin defends burning & looting in predominantly black neighborhood. Not racist at all - http://

Nov 26: @parentwin IS THE TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE RACIST WHITE SURBUBAN WHO THINKS SO LITTLE OF BLACK FOLKS

Nov 26: @AG_Conservative @TMZ_Politics @parentwin If that doesn't sum up the soft bigotry of low expectations.

(As an aside, having high expectations for society is not the same as having low expectations for communities.)

Privileged white TIME magazine writer @parentwin encourages poor blacks to burn down their own neighborhoods

Grotesque white leftist views blacks as animals, which is why she can't judge them by human standards: @parentwin 

Oh, and they really didn't like it when I said I was racist because I'm white. Because not all white people, obviously.

.@dennisprager You nailed it: Self-loathing FTW. MT @parentwin "If anything, I am #racist because I am white.

@parentwin dumbass white apologist who voted for a prez cuz hes black..I feel sorry for your children...GOFY!

@parentwin Okay, sure. But this idiotic bit about how if you're white you're racist is ridiculous. You don't know jack about race relations.

And, of course, Twitter wouldn't be complete without making absolutely no sense.

Nov 27: @presidentlazy2 Darlena wants to enslave people and bring the country down. She thinks she can still watch Maddow & drive an SUV.@parentwin

Nov 30@parentwin Your Time column, while calling for lynching as punishment for self defense, does poor job of explaining why you support lynching

I also got spammed with lots of anuses, so, you know, there's that, too. Let's move on to Facebook.

There's Rod, who's convinced reverse racism is a thing.

If anything, I am racist because I am white." Back in the mid-80's, I moved from Canada to the USA. I didn't know what racism was until I moved to this country. Within the first week I was accosted and punched in the face at a streetlight by a gang of black thugs out of pure jealousy (due to a scooter I owned which my mother just bought me due to my bicycle being stolen by another gang of blacks). If I hadn't escaped, I'm sure they would have continued to pummel me senseless. Fortunately I was able to escape with only a bloody nose, in shock that someone would attack me for no reason at all except "white privilege". If racism = being white, then racism = being any color, and racism means nothing at all. Your definition of racism is empty, void of all meaning. Fast forward to 2004. My company moved their headquarters to the edge of town, where mostly blacks live, in order to prove how "progressive" they were. I was attacked on my way to my car in broad daylight by a gang of black youth. While they were beating on my car, I was able to escape and call the police, who rounded them up within minutes. I declined to press charges, but when I asked why they attacked me, it came down to the color of my skin. Now tell me again, who is a racist? Your article made me sick to my stomach. You are no journalist. A real journalist would be accurate and fair. You might want to read the code of ethics for journalists.

Bill thinks it's a shame I don't give out my address to get some of what's coming to me.

Most journalists are fools. Too bad that this yo-yo won't volunteer her home as a target of acceptable "Black rage"!

Jonathan is one of those who hates rioting. Unless it's at my house. Because I made him mad.

While I steadfastly condemn rioting and the destruction of innocent people's property and belongings that had nothing to do with the altercation between Wilson and Brown, if someone is going to riot anyway, I might think it makes the most sense to riot at Darlena's home and destroy her property. After all, she would be supportive of that...

Glenn is really concerned about my parenting.

Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin four-year-old girls. When she's not parenting, she's writing novels, freelancing, going to grad school BUT NOT WATCHING AND RAISING HER TWINS or blogging at http://parentwin.com.
There is no defense of riots, only in Ferguson it is evident neglectful parents such as Darlena Cunha abandoning her twin babies to write such inflammatory criminal statements should have visits by the Child Protective Services which apparently they neglected in the case of the Brown’s matured boy into a hooligan, thief and thug! Where are her twins going?

Jeff: "The idea of white privilege is absurd." Oh.

". If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. " Excuse my ignorance, but is not white a color? Also, the idea of white privilege in today's age of liberal extremes is absurd.

And there are so many more. So, so many more. This is just a smattering. Something almost all the commenters have in common? They are all white men. Seriously. 97 percent of these comments came from white men. The other three percent came from white women.

But really, white men on social media, you are right. The way we are doing things as a country with regard to race is perfectly fine, and everyone should just shut up about it, already. Obviously, you see no color and have no preconceived notions.

 

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.

Using Babies for Adult Messages: Don't Do It, Part I

Something crossed my tumblr yesterday that really bothered me. It took me a while to place what my problem was, since I agreed with the overall message, assumedly being that women shouldn't concentrate so hard on being thin. Whoever posted it wanted women to know that stick-thin is not beautiful. More precisely, that extreme skinniness is not as sexy as having a little extra weight.

And there's nothing wrong with that message. Especially if it will help young women with their self-image and self-worth. Fighting the exagerrated and impossibly unattainable societal view of sexy is something I support, moreso than ever since I have three-year-old daughters, who soon are going to have to be strong enough to love themselves inside and out, regardless of what they see in the pages of magazines.

But this public service announcement really rubbed me the wrong way, and here's why.

It used babies.

There was one adorable roly-poly little guy, and one adorable skinny minny. An arrow pointed at the bigger one. "This," it said, "is sexier than this." The phrasing ended at another arrow that was pointing at the thinner baby. I have the pic saved on my hard drive, but I don't know where it came from, so I'm uncomfortable reposting it.

First of all, I'm just uncomfortable with people calling babies sexy. I don't think the poster or the rebloggers are perverts or anything, but sexy is simply a term that shouldn't be applied to infants. On the one hand, I can see their point, trying to enhance the message changing the situation around it, by placing it squarely in the lap of innocence. On the other hand, just no. The inappropriateness of the message vs. the photo outweighs the message itself and all its purported nuances.

Secondly, if the bloggers think that babies are uneffected by the weight/beauty debate, they're mistaken. How many posts do we see where parents are worried about their children's weight. Either for legitimate health reasons, or, more unfortunately, because other people are telling them that their baby is too fat, too thin, too something. They are babies. There is no sexier than, there is no too fat, there is no too thin. Each baby is different, grows differently, stores nutrients differently and needs different fat levels to be healthy and happy. The children pictured were so young that they were only eating breastmilk or formula at the time the picture was taken. It's not like they were making bad life choices. By bringing attention to the way their bodies process food, the bloggers are undoing their entire intent. They're essentially saying, "hey, this little guy has a slower metabolism than this girl. He's chubbier and she's skinnier through no fault of their own and through no fault of their parents. Let's stare and pick it apart anyway!" And isn't the point not to judge people about their looks? Good job.

I personally have an issue with the picture because it straight up told me my girls weren't pretty because they were skinny. Well, actually, I don't have an issue with it because it didn't say pretty, it said sexy, and just ew. But assuming the deeper message meant pretty, then my kids got the short shift.

We took them home at 3.5 pounds. It took them two months to fit into newborn clothes. They were then 6 or 7 pounds. At two months. It was all we could do to get them to eat. Every ounce was a battle, every one gained, a victory. Pointing at a skinny baby and implying there's something superficially wrong with her makes light of some very real and serious issues that these parents may be facing. And if the babies are not struggling to avoid "failure to thrive" and they're just naturally thin, well, there is still nothing wrong with that.

The babies are at least two months old here. Those are newborn clothes.

These kids have their whole lives to be judged by strangers. Let's not start it at three months or six months by splattering their image across social networking sites and labelling them sexy or not sexy.

Babies and social experiments just don't mix well together. Don't do it. Think of the kids.

___
If you like this blog, please vote on Babble.com. Tales of an Unlikely Mother is number 17, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up! Thank you so, so much.

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.