I just realized I haven't updated anything recently. So, Jude is not yet attending school. I had originally planned to walk him but found out that the street the runs to the school is a pedestrian death trap. Not cool, so that's out. The school will not bus him unless he gets an IEP. I don't know anyone so I can't carpool (although his teacher has been asking around hoping to find someone willing, which is terribly sweet of her). The only people I know with a car they don't use is... well, let's just say it's use illegally gets in the way of us potentially borrowing it. More than that I will not say because it'll just lead me on a rant about negative behavior being rewarded and all that jazz.
So we wait for Jude's Chidfind apt on Oct 5th and we're pretty sure he'll qualify for speech. In fact two of the people that work with the org have asked his Tutu about it and we're happy to hear because they've heard him speak. He has a lisp mainly. He's got a fantastic grasp of language though, so fixing that lisp is all he needs. But that will be our ticket to transportation for him. Otherwise I wouldn't worry, we'd just work with him at home, and his class has a speech therapist come in once a week anyway. But we need that bus!
So in the mean time I've been taking Jude to Story Time at the library on Mon's and Play & Learn there on Wed. He's warming up to it. I want him to get use to a set schedule and the learning aspect helps too. He needs to get use to other kids and responding to his teachers. I'm a tiny bit nervous about how the first week will go when he does start since it won't just be class... the bus is a totally huge deal since he'll have to do two new things without me right off the bat... but that's life.
We've also been trying to connect with families in Gig Harbor in an attempt to make new friends that live on this side of the bridge. We had one play date Mon and it went really well. Jude and Caleb hit it off instantly and played hard for two hours. But other than his mother no one has been very proactive in the groups I've joined, which is sad. Hopefully another one or two will come out of the woodwork so he can have a variety of playmates.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Common Courtesy
What the hell has happened to us as a culture that we now fail to consider common courtesy?
Do we no longer know what RSVP means?
And when you do respond, hence the R=répondez.... respond.... seriously, if you can give 24 hrs notice to a doctor when you can't show up for an appointment, don't you think that those you care about, your friends and family, don't deserve at least that? Do I need to start charging when you fail to cancel an RSVP?
Fuck this callous lack of regard for decorum. Where has our respect gone?
I'm so tired of throwing parties and having a good 40% of those that RSVP NOT show up.
Look, I'm not offended if you don't want to come to my reception, or my son's birthday party, I'm cool, people have lives that don't involve mine. I GET that. I'm not a narcissist. And I'm not going to take it personally if you don't come because you have other things you must attend to... but goodness fucking gracious... DO NOT RSVP if you don't have at least a 90% chance of coming. And if anything changes in the 48 hours prior, just let me know. Send me a text, an e-mail, whatever, but just not showing up...?
It makes me like you just a little less each fucking time it happens. So when it happens repeatedly? Yeah, I don't like you nearly as much as I did three years ago.
Go it.
Show me a little respect and communicate with me.
Life isn't so busy that you can't take a minute to type a text and hit send. This isn't the 18th century, you don't have to send a messenger, just a fucking MSG.
Do we no longer know what RSVP means?
And when you do respond, hence the R=répondez.... respond.... seriously, if you can give 24 hrs notice to a doctor when you can't show up for an appointment, don't you think that those you care about, your friends and family, don't deserve at least that? Do I need to start charging when you fail to cancel an RSVP?
Fuck this callous lack of regard for decorum. Where has our respect gone?
I'm so tired of throwing parties and having a good 40% of those that RSVP NOT show up.
Look, I'm not offended if you don't want to come to my reception, or my son's birthday party, I'm cool, people have lives that don't involve mine. I GET that. I'm not a narcissist. And I'm not going to take it personally if you don't come because you have other things you must attend to... but goodness fucking gracious... DO NOT RSVP if you don't have at least a 90% chance of coming. And if anything changes in the 48 hours prior, just let me know. Send me a text, an e-mail, whatever, but just not showing up...?
It makes me like you just a little less each fucking time it happens. So when it happens repeatedly? Yeah, I don't like you nearly as much as I did three years ago.
Go it.
Show me a little respect and communicate with me.
Life isn't so busy that you can't take a minute to type a text and hit send. This isn't the 18th century, you don't have to send a messenger, just a fucking MSG.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Birthdays and School
So Jude turns four tomorrow, has an open house at his new school to meet his teacher and get to know the classroom, and we're hitting the fair. It's going to be a long day but I'm really looking forward to it. Jude is excited about school, we had a a moment where he fought the idea, but after explaining to him that everyone goes to school and that his friends are all starting school, and told him about all the fun things he gets to do he started to get excited. Now he's rearing to go. We still have to figure out transportation though... they won't bus preschoolers and I don't have a car... and I'd walk it except for about 50% of the walk there are no sidewalks, nothing but a two foot wide unpaved shoulder and a bunch of traffic. Not going to happen. So we'll see if I can work that part out. I've already managed to snag him a scholarship for tuition so maybe I can swing this too. I'm a pretty dedicated mama.
I want him ready for Kindergarten next year and I know they're going to fight me on it because his birthday is after the cut off date. But I KNOW they can test him in and I want him tested. I know he'll suffer if he's held back a year from all his friends simply because his birthday is a few weeks after theirs. He thrives with older peers, he seeks them out, he doesn't like younger kids and gets frustrated with them easily. I don't want him to hate school, I want him to be challenged and to enjoy it. That will not happen if he's made to wait. I'm hoping that his preschool teacher will see this and help me... most teachers are against early starts though. I get that as a general rule I just wish they were more open to testing at least.
I'd home-school him only in all honesty I lack the discipline and patience to do it. I'd do it if I had to, but I'd really rather not. Besides which I want Jude to experience school with other kids to socialize with, other adults that he has to listen too, a routine that he has to follow laid out by a teacher, not mom. I think that's important. He needs to go outside his comfort zone a bit.
Lordy, my little man is growing up!!! It's crazy. Where has the time gone. Everyone tells you it flies by but you never really get that until it happens. Part of me wants to slow it all down, and part of me is so proud of the person he is becoming that I can't wait to see where life takes him. It's scary too... scary to know that at some point I won't be there to protect him, to help guide his choices, that I'll have to step back and let him sink or swim hoping that I gave him the skills he needs to succeed. Watching other parents with grown kids deal with the backlash of unfortunate choices with the raising of their kids... seeing also that sometimes kids are just going to fail because of who they are in spirit.
Well, it's late, I must sleep, big day tomorrow.
I want him ready for Kindergarten next year and I know they're going to fight me on it because his birthday is after the cut off date. But I KNOW they can test him in and I want him tested. I know he'll suffer if he's held back a year from all his friends simply because his birthday is a few weeks after theirs. He thrives with older peers, he seeks them out, he doesn't like younger kids and gets frustrated with them easily. I don't want him to hate school, I want him to be challenged and to enjoy it. That will not happen if he's made to wait. I'm hoping that his preschool teacher will see this and help me... most teachers are against early starts though. I get that as a general rule I just wish they were more open to testing at least.
I'd home-school him only in all honesty I lack the discipline and patience to do it. I'd do it if I had to, but I'd really rather not. Besides which I want Jude to experience school with other kids to socialize with, other adults that he has to listen too, a routine that he has to follow laid out by a teacher, not mom. I think that's important. He needs to go outside his comfort zone a bit.
Lordy, my little man is growing up!!! It's crazy. Where has the time gone. Everyone tells you it flies by but you never really get that until it happens. Part of me wants to slow it all down, and part of me is so proud of the person he is becoming that I can't wait to see where life takes him. It's scary too... scary to know that at some point I won't be there to protect him, to help guide his choices, that I'll have to step back and let him sink or swim hoping that I gave him the skills he needs to succeed. Watching other parents with grown kids deal with the backlash of unfortunate choices with the raising of their kids... seeing also that sometimes kids are just going to fail because of who they are in spirit.
Well, it's late, I must sleep, big day tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Oh you know us women, we just get all emotional over nothing.
I had someone, in reference to my last blog post (actually to a FB post that was sharing that blog post, more specifically), say something that really made me sad. Rather than tell you, I'll just post a screen capture and you can read it for yourself. I'll even be nice and blur out his name and icon, 'cause I'm a lady ;)
Now, back to the women's rights thing and this jackasses passive misogyny (emosogyny). "Ooooo, that's a cool word, what does that mean Tiffany?" Well, he just showed you what it means, but let me go ahead and add a little to it just to make it clear. Emosogyny is when someone comes across initially as in support of women, but in reality isn't. It's making comments like this (oh, jokingly, of course):
To quote another blogger (who quoted another blogger):
Passive misogyny (emosogyny) is underestimating and/or stereotyping women based on deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes and ignorance, and then getting defensive when you are called out because you do not consider yourself sexist and you do not like being wrong.
Yup. And perhaps you'd like an example. Aside from the typical not allowing a wife to work but rather firmly (but oh so gently) insisting that she stay home, cook, clean, care for the kids etc., despite what the woman may desire (more power to you if that's what you enjoy doing, I'm a SAHM myself at the moment), of course, 'cause that one's too easy. Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say this daughter's has nothing but pink everything. Let's say you never think to allow her to go down the car toy isle at Target because, well, those are boys toys, why would she want those? Let's say you buy her legos, but oh, you must buy the ones they have in girly colors, or the sets with little girl figures that come with.... hair dryers... yeah. I loved legos as a little girl. Know what, the regular colored ones suited me just fine.
This does not mean that you can't allow a little girl to CHOOSE those things for herself. In studies where both "boy" and "girl" toys were offered collectively to toddlers of varying ages, often they gravitate towards those we consider to be "gender" specific (boys toward trucks, girls toward dolls). The point is not to push those stereotypes on to our children. By intentionally (or rather ignorantly) providing your little girl with nothing but baby dolls, toy strollers, fake high heels (which seriously should be banned), and play kitchens, you are telling them that this is all you expect of them. And maybe they're okay with that, maybe they are just born to be a mommy... but maybe, just maybe, they're not. Maybe they dream of flying an airplane and see the world, or being a doctor and saving lives, or a lawyer who helps fight for justice, or an archaeologist who gets to explore exotic lands and find wonderful treasures! Do you want to deny her her dreams? Do you want to potentially crush your little girls dreams?
I never said, in fact I stated quite the opposite in the blog post that was "shared" in the post blurry face was responding too... which means he didn't read the blog... *sigh* maybe for him ignorance IS bliss. Anyway, as I said there, I do not think that being a SAHM is shameful. Quite the opposite, I think it's one of the most rewarding, hardest, scariest, nerve racking, IMPORTANT jobs a woman (or man) can do. See how I threw in that "man" all sly like. Yeah, MEN can own that role too, and be damn good at it! The point is not shaming at all. The point is allowing a choice and allowing pride in whatever that choice is, and feeling pride for them in their chosen path. Period.
It may turn out that she rocks the SAHM role, but let her decide that's the role she wants to fill, don't push her into simply because your male ego can't see past her lack of a penis.
Don't worry if you have a "WTF did I just read" moment. I did. I even re-read it to assure that I wasn't simply sleep deprived (which I am) and sort of mixing things up a bit for my own amusement. Sadly, that is not the case. What we have here folks is the "I'm all for women's rights... so long as they're also good for men!" personality type. These are the ones that might even agree to a woman's right to choose, however, and this is important, so pay close attention, they still see women as SUPPORT for men. You can read it plainly in his post. In black and blue. That man obviously does not view women as persons independent of men, or even an equal half of a whole if you want to go that route. This is the same type of person that, if not openly, in his head, likely often finds himself asking the question "well, what was she wearing?" when told some woman was raped.
And the funny thing is, he does a disservice to men everywhere. In his relatively short statement via that wonderful social networking site FB, with all it's heaps of brilliant minds navigating it, he has managed to claim that men can't function without a woman to provide for...
Uh...
Hey gentlemen, you think that's fair?
I don't. To claim that a man can't find the drive to become a productive member of society if he doesn't have a family to bring home the bacon for is ridiculous. It's inane. It's exactly that kind of thinking that leads to people doing jack shit with their life simply because they can't find "true love" and it's a load of crap. Every person, regardless of gender, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of religion, race, or what team they root for come game time, should be able to find it in themselves to become, if not successful, at least productive without the need of validation from an outmoded ideal.
Sure, racism is taught (I know this sounds like a non-sequitur, but see screen-cap), I don't dispute that, but not talking about it isn't what makes it go away (you idiot), NOT PRACTICING it is. Not talking about it, not addressing the issue when it's presented (and it always will be, unfortunately, I have very little faith in humanity as a whole), that can be just as harmful. I don't mean to BE racist yourself, or to use racial slurs, obviously, I mean to educate. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what mister blurry face was trying to say, but in a world where the typed word is king, you had better learn to proof read your thoughts just a bit more before posting them lest you look like a court jester. Us writers will pounce all over that shit.
Now, back to the women's rights thing and this jackasses passive misogyny (emosogyny). "Ooooo, that's a cool word, what does that mean Tiffany?" Well, he just showed you what it means, but let me go ahead and add a little to it just to make it clear. Emosogyny is when someone comes across initially as in support of women, but in reality isn't. It's making comments like this (oh, jokingly, of course):
To quote another blogger (who quoted another blogger):
Passive misogyny (emosogyny) is underestimating and/or stereotyping women based on deeply ingrained cultural stereotypes and ignorance, and then getting defensive when you are called out because you do not consider yourself sexist and you do not like being wrong.
Yup. And perhaps you'd like an example. Aside from the typical not allowing a wife to work but rather firmly (but oh so gently) insisting that she stay home, cook, clean, care for the kids etc., despite what the woman may desire (more power to you if that's what you enjoy doing, I'm a SAHM myself at the moment), of course, 'cause that one's too easy. Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say this daughter's has nothing but pink everything. Let's say you never think to allow her to go down the car toy isle at Target because, well, those are boys toys, why would she want those? Let's say you buy her legos, but oh, you must buy the ones they have in girly colors, or the sets with little girl figures that come with.... hair dryers... yeah. I loved legos as a little girl. Know what, the regular colored ones suited me just fine.
This does not mean that you can't allow a little girl to CHOOSE those things for herself. In studies where both "boy" and "girl" toys were offered collectively to toddlers of varying ages, often they gravitate towards those we consider to be "gender" specific (boys toward trucks, girls toward dolls). The point is not to push those stereotypes on to our children. By intentionally (or rather ignorantly) providing your little girl with nothing but baby dolls, toy strollers, fake high heels (which seriously should be banned), and play kitchens, you are telling them that this is all you expect of them. And maybe they're okay with that, maybe they are just born to be a mommy... but maybe, just maybe, they're not. Maybe they dream of flying an airplane and see the world, or being a doctor and saving lives, or a lawyer who helps fight for justice, or an archaeologist who gets to explore exotic lands and find wonderful treasures! Do you want to deny her her dreams? Do you want to potentially crush your little girls dreams?
I never said, in fact I stated quite the opposite in the blog post that was "shared" in the post blurry face was responding too... which means he didn't read the blog... *sigh* maybe for him ignorance IS bliss. Anyway, as I said there, I do not think that being a SAHM is shameful. Quite the opposite, I think it's one of the most rewarding, hardest, scariest, nerve racking, IMPORTANT jobs a woman (or man) can do. See how I threw in that "man" all sly like. Yeah, MEN can own that role too, and be damn good at it! The point is not shaming at all. The point is allowing a choice and allowing pride in whatever that choice is, and feeling pride for them in their chosen path. Period.
It may turn out that she rocks the SAHM role, but let her decide that's the role she wants to fill, don't push her into simply because your male ego can't see past her lack of a penis.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Coolest F-word Ever Deserves a Fucking Shout!
I am raising a feminist. But Tiffany, you have a BOY... what does that mean exactly? You may well ask.
Feminism is not just for ladies. Feminism is not a bad word. It's not about bra burning or men hating. It's not about hairy legs or tampon waving (I'm not even sure what that means). It's about the simple desire to see women as equal to men in RIGHTS.
Define feminism:
fem·i·nism1.2.
[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
See. This does not mean that a feminist thinks that a woman can do everything a man can, let's face it, it's extremely hard for us to pee standing up without getting it all over ourselves (and men can't seem to keep pee off of toilet seats so there's some balance to be had). It just means we, the collective we, deserve the same rights, protections and opportunities. If a man can legitimately gain a job over a woman based on skills, schooling or experience, okay then. Fair won. Right on. In some jobs that can be a physical requirement, like say, a Fireman... they kind of need to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. That's doesn't mean a woman can't try, or even succeed, but I recognize that it means there are going to be fewer Firemen that are ladies. I'm cool with that. If I ever need to be rescued from a fire you can bet your ass I want someone that can lift mine. But lady weight lifters DO exist, it is possible, and we merely deserve the opportunity.
This does not mean that being a feminist means you think women are better than men. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and yes sometimes that's due to nature and gender, but those are things we're born with, not something we created ourselves. It's the peeing standing up argument again. I personally do not discriminate based on sex, women can be assholes too. Let's just be fair about the criteria when we hate, okay?
When it comes to our bodies we deserve the same rights afforded to men. You will never see (not in our lifetime) a law up for debate that requires men give up the right to choose what they do with their reproductive organs. No time soon will you be hearing of a Supreme Court case that involves a mans right to choose to get a vasectomy, or masturbate (all those little potentials for life!?!? OMG, just wasted.... WWJD?) into a sock. You will not hear them being forced to carry a child for nine months because he was raped (which if it were possible it would still never happen), or questioned as to whether on not their rape was even legitimate. Nope.
We are on the cusp of a new feminist revolution folks. We are being faced with wave after wave of ridiculous attacks against the rights that our mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers fought to win for us! How can we just stand by and allow this to happen? How can we, again collective, actually AGREE? That's what really boggles my mind is the amount of women out there that are being swayed into following along with these misogynistic ideals that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies?! This isn't a matter of if you believe abortion is wrong, it has to do with the fact that you can't force your will on other people. Jesus never taught about creating laws to rule others lives? He taught about loving your neighbors despite how they may make choices we don't agree with. He taught to let GOD deal with them if they choose to live less than ... Christian.
Laws must exist to protect, and some claim that abortion laws are protecting unborn children... want to know what? I was raised Mormon. Know what I was taught... led to believe by the churches movies, propaganda, etc? Well, it wasn't that the spirit entered the body at conception. Nope. I distinctly remember a movie that when a mother lost a baby, it showing the "spirit" of the child still hanging out in the pre-exisitance (like heaven but for those that have yet to be born), bummed at not getting to be born yet... So... what's up there?
Regardless, laws are based on provable facts. That's why we don't just put people to death without first proving that they are without a doubt guilty of something (and even then most countries, or states within them, have squashed the death penalty on the off chance it's not right). Legal burden of proof. It's why we sometimes have to let guilty people go; because we can't prove they did what we may know in our hearts they did. So, with that knowledge and no scientific proof that a microscopic bundle of cells is actually a person, how can we (not me personally) impose our spiritual belief on the right of someone to handle their own medical decisions? No shit. That's what this boils down to. This is about spiritual belief, this is not about facts. If you can not prove something you should not be basing laws that take away someone's proven rights on it. Period.
That metaphor is powerful (excerpt from Ani's Grand Canyon). Takes a min to really sink in, but think about that, think about surveying the rubble of our rights as women... think about the flames they went up in, the people that died fighting to preserve them, the work of the countless people that built them up in the first place. That's huge.
So what are my plans? How will I personally fight to combat this tide of rage against women? Two things, first, I vote. That's pretty simple. Second, I will raise my son to respect women, women's rights, human rights, and civil rights. I will raise him to be a gentleman and open doors, not because a woman needs him to open the door for them, but because it's a sign of respect and common courtesy, He will be taught that a woman's sex life is no more his business than a mans is, and unless he's in a relationship with them he has no right to discuss it or judge it. He does not have to agree with their choices but he does have to respect their right to choose. He will NOT be taught that the way a woman dresses is a direct expression of their sexual desires and that no one ever "asks" to be raped or assaulted. He will learn that men and women have an obligation to each other to live balanced lives, both within society as a whole as well as in individual relationships. A woman's desire to stay home with her children is not a direct reflection of any acknowledgement of "her place" being in the home any more than a man's decision to work is a direct reflection of his desire not to see his family. We each do what we feel is right for us and our families. If a man wishes to stay home and raise the children, that is a mighty fine and noble choice.
Our fight to regain feminist as a title of power and respect rather than a slur for conservatives to sling around like mud begins with teaching our children what it really means to be one. We must learn to respect ourselves and each other. We need to stop putting our worth between our legs. We need to stop using terms like "slut" and "whore" to label each other. We need to start supporting each other in our choices of motherhood over a career or a career over bearing children. These are personal choices not statements about all womankind. We need to teach through example and we need to include our SONS in all of this. It's not just about raising strong daughters, it's about raising strong sons that support those strong daughters. Sons that can accept equality and not feel the need to strut and fight and control women in order to feel like men.
Many may think this means raising them to be feminine... Is Christian Bale feminine? George Clooney, Will Smith, Matt Damon, Jon Hamm, Ryan Gosling? Bah, that line of thinking is a load of crap and I won't even bother to entertain it. Besides, I can guarantee you those feminist men get more genuine positive female attention than Paul Ryan ever did.
I am raising a feminist.
Feminism is not just for ladies. Feminism is not a bad word. It's not about bra burning or men hating. It's not about hairy legs or tampon waving (I'm not even sure what that means). It's about the simple desire to see women as equal to men in RIGHTS.
Define feminism:
fem·i·nism1.2.
noun
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rightsof women equal to those of men.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement forthe attainment of such rights for women.
This does not mean that being a feminist means you think women are better than men. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and yes sometimes that's due to nature and gender, but those are things we're born with, not something we created ourselves. It's the peeing standing up argument again. I personally do not discriminate based on sex, women can be assholes too. Let's just be fair about the criteria when we hate, okay?
When it comes to our bodies we deserve the same rights afforded to men. You will never see (not in our lifetime) a law up for debate that requires men give up the right to choose what they do with their reproductive organs. No time soon will you be hearing of a Supreme Court case that involves a mans right to choose to get a vasectomy, or masturbate (all those little potentials for life!?!? OMG, just wasted.... WWJD?) into a sock. You will not hear them being forced to carry a child for nine months because he was raped (which if it were possible it would still never happen), or questioned as to whether on not their rape was even legitimate. Nope.
We are on the cusp of a new feminist revolution folks. We are being faced with wave after wave of ridiculous attacks against the rights that our mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers fought to win for us! How can we just stand by and allow this to happen? How can we, again collective, actually AGREE? That's what really boggles my mind is the amount of women out there that are being swayed into following along with these misogynistic ideals that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies?! This isn't a matter of if you believe abortion is wrong, it has to do with the fact that you can't force your will on other people. Jesus never taught about creating laws to rule others lives? He taught about loving your neighbors despite how they may make choices we don't agree with. He taught to let GOD deal with them if they choose to live less than ... Christian.
Laws must exist to protect, and some claim that abortion laws are protecting unborn children... want to know what? I was raised Mormon. Know what I was taught... led to believe by the churches movies, propaganda, etc? Well, it wasn't that the spirit entered the body at conception. Nope. I distinctly remember a movie that when a mother lost a baby, it showing the "spirit" of the child still hanging out in the pre-exisitance (like heaven but for those that have yet to be born), bummed at not getting to be born yet... So... what's up there?
Regardless, laws are based on provable facts. That's why we don't just put people to death without first proving that they are without a doubt guilty of something (and even then most countries, or states within them, have squashed the death penalty on the off chance it's not right). Legal burden of proof. It's why we sometimes have to let guilty people go; because we can't prove they did what we may know in our hearts they did. So, with that knowledge and no scientific proof that a microscopic bundle of cells is actually a person, how can we (not me personally) impose our spiritual belief on the right of someone to handle their own medical decisions? No shit. That's what this boils down to. This is about spiritual belief, this is not about facts. If you can not prove something you should not be basing laws that take away someone's proven rights on it. Period.
"People, we are standing at ground zero
Of the feminist revolution
Yeah, it was an inside job
Stoic and sly
One we're supposed to forget
And downplay and deny
But I think the time is nothing
If not nigh
To let the truth out
Coolest f-word ever deserves a fucking shout!"
So what are my plans? How will I personally fight to combat this tide of rage against women? Two things, first, I vote. That's pretty simple. Second, I will raise my son to respect women, women's rights, human rights, and civil rights. I will raise him to be a gentleman and open doors, not because a woman needs him to open the door for them, but because it's a sign of respect and common courtesy, He will be taught that a woman's sex life is no more his business than a mans is, and unless he's in a relationship with them he has no right to discuss it or judge it. He does not have to agree with their choices but he does have to respect their right to choose. He will NOT be taught that the way a woman dresses is a direct expression of their sexual desires and that no one ever "asks" to be raped or assaulted. He will learn that men and women have an obligation to each other to live balanced lives, both within society as a whole as well as in individual relationships. A woman's desire to stay home with her children is not a direct reflection of any acknowledgement of "her place" being in the home any more than a man's decision to work is a direct reflection of his desire not to see his family. We each do what we feel is right for us and our families. If a man wishes to stay home and raise the children, that is a mighty fine and noble choice.
Our fight to regain feminist as a title of power and respect rather than a slur for conservatives to sling around like mud begins with teaching our children what it really means to be one. We must learn to respect ourselves and each other. We need to stop putting our worth between our legs. We need to stop using terms like "slut" and "whore" to label each other. We need to start supporting each other in our choices of motherhood over a career or a career over bearing children. These are personal choices not statements about all womankind. We need to teach through example and we need to include our SONS in all of this. It's not just about raising strong daughters, it's about raising strong sons that support those strong daughters. Sons that can accept equality and not feel the need to strut and fight and control women in order to feel like men.
Many may think this means raising them to be feminine... Is Christian Bale feminine? George Clooney, Will Smith, Matt Damon, Jon Hamm, Ryan Gosling? Bah, that line of thinking is a load of crap and I won't even bother to entertain it. Besides, I can guarantee you those feminist men get more genuine positive female attention than Paul Ryan ever did.
I am raising a feminist.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Narcissists Need Not Apply
Never doubt that my love for my son and husband will always FAR out weigh any love I'm expected to feel toward extended family. Notice the use of the term "expected" because while some may think love is required, for me it's fucking EARNED. And I can promise you that my love is not given freely or gained easily.
You don't want to hear any specifics I have to say on the subject because my words will penetrate far deeper than any junkies needle ever will.
You don't want to hear any specifics I have to say on the subject because my words will penetrate far deeper than any junkies needle ever will.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Epidemic of the Eternal Adolescent
There are a few things I have come upon in the past few days that have only worked to reinforce certain beliefs I have about parenting. The first was brought to my attention via this article: Discipline for Softies.
Actually, that will lead directly into the next thought because frankly they are connected.
Okay, so here's what I have an issue with. Being a "softie" is not a character trait to pander too, it is a FLAW that has to be fought against. Why? Because in shielding your child from the facts of life (read largely as "consequences for their actions" and "inappropriate behavior vs. appropriate behavior") sets them up for either a great shock when they become aware of them on their own, or a complete inability to recognize them at all.
Remember: it is our JOB as PARENTS to TEACH our children how to interact with the world around them in a way that makes their lives as full, healthy, and beneficial to both themselves and all the rest of society. Got it? I know that's heavy shit, but parenting IS heavy shit. It's being wholly responsible for raising another human being. That human being has in turn the ability to saves lives... or ruin them. They have the ability to become leaders of great revolutions, or instigators of horrible acts. They can protect, or they can harm. They are a force in this world and we as parents are responsible for doing our absolute BEST to make them forces of good. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yes, there are times where our best will never be enough. There are things beyond our control, like mental illnesses, that we can only do so much to shape. HOWEVER, we as parents are still responsible for doing what can be done. Period. And I'm going to leave that topic alone because that will get me way too off course. So back to the average range.
So, in the article it mentions a few things that really get my goat. Like the "child-proofing" your day. Unless your child has a condition that means that "melt-downs" are more than just a bratty fit, then all you're doing it padding their life. What I mean by that is that by taking away the possibility for conflict you're setting them up to expect an easy road. When they are faced with it outside of their life with you they are going to be unpleasantly surprised and likely unable to solve their own problems.
The second thing is the "master distractor" part. Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! Past the infant stage this is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Hell, even then it's dangerous. Why on earth would you pass up the opportunity to not only help your child learn how to problem solve and share (if other kids are involved like the example in the article), but also the opportunity to point out exactly what behavior is inappropriate, WHY it's inappropriate, and then what the appropriate behavior that should replace it is? THAT's pretty much everything you're supposed to be doing as a parent. Distraction is a cop out, it's lazy, it's selfish and it's worthless. I do not only disprove of this method of parenting, I outright condemn it, and if you use it as a parenting technique expect a serious look of disdain from my general direction.
Scene playing out in my head *Office pulls your son over for speeding: "Son, do you know how fast you were going?" "Uh, no officer?" "It's okay, ooooo look, play dough!"*
Now, when it comes to discipline, which the article doesn't really touch. It talks about avoiding having to discipline more than it covers the actual act. Given, if you're actively parenting you rarely have to do so, but still. Okay, pop quiz: what is the most important thing to remember when disciplining a child? Anybody? FOLLOW THROUGH. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you do not follow through with any act of discipline your child will figure out what their odds are pretty fast. If they know they can act out and 9 times our of 10 they won't get in trouble for it... well, anyone can tell you those are pretty damn good odds. They will risk that one time if it means they get their way the rest of the time.
Okay, so from there let's fast forward 20 (or 30) years.
Where's your kid now?
There is an epidemic currently going on in America. It's the epidemic of the eternal adolescent. It is whole generations of children that never make it past the age of 20 (or more likely 16, but I'm trying to be generous) emotionally. These children have no purpose, no direction, no real place in society. They are often a burden on their parents as well as the rest of the population (wasting pell grants, collecting unemployment, food stamps, medical, etc). They complain about no jobs but feel that working at McDonalds is beneath them (NOTHING is beneath you if you're earning an honest living and providing for yourself and your family). They has a false sense of entitlement thanks to decades of being given awards for "participation" and being told that they are a "special" for no other reason than because they were born. Being born doesn't make you special. There are millions of people on this planet and most of them are nothing special. You can be someone special to someone else, that's all most of us can hope for in all honesty, but being special above and beyond the rest of the populace? Please, that's takes serious gumption, intelligence and/or talent mixed with a whole lot of luck.
The funny thing, the problem really, is that once a child becomes an adult in mere years parents stop treating them like a child. If they are living in your home, if they are eating the food you buy (and cook), if you are washing their clothes, if you are paying for the utilities they use, if they are driving your car and asking you for money for gas to put in it... guess what? They are NOT an adult. They are still a teenager and unless you want to live out the rest of your life with them under your wing, you have to return to treating them like a child. You have to hope to either help them start growing again, or push them into doing it.
There are a ton of articles out there that cover the "rules" concerning adult children returning home, so I'm not going to get into that. Google it if you want some ideas. They're pretty "no-duh" for the most part and pertain mostly to situations that anticipate those children being responsible and their stay being merely temporary, and that's not the type of thing I'm currently talking about, that's a different situation entirely. Instead I want to focus on those that seem to have no desire to become independent.
Ah, here we are: When an Adult Child Won't Grow Up. That's much more useful. (I totally just said that in my head using Hoggle from Labyrinth's voice, I'm a nerd)
The fact of the matter is that pandering to children of any age is a serious recipe for disaster. You have to prepare them, you have to push them, you have to teach them, you have to discipline them, and you absolutely CAN NOT reward negative behavior. You don't allow a child to go on a field trip after repeatedly bringing home bad grades, lying, or throwing tantrums... why the hell would you an adult to act in essentially the same way then hand them the car keys, gas money and a promise of a vacation? Because if you do, you get no sympathy from me, no "It's not your fault" comments, because when YOU allow them to treat you that way, well then... it is your fault.
Actually, that will lead directly into the next thought because frankly they are connected.
Okay, so here's what I have an issue with. Being a "softie" is not a character trait to pander too, it is a FLAW that has to be fought against. Why? Because in shielding your child from the facts of life (read largely as "consequences for their actions" and "inappropriate behavior vs. appropriate behavior") sets them up for either a great shock when they become aware of them on their own, or a complete inability to recognize them at all.
Remember: it is our JOB as PARENTS to TEACH our children how to interact with the world around them in a way that makes their lives as full, healthy, and beneficial to both themselves and all the rest of society. Got it? I know that's heavy shit, but parenting IS heavy shit. It's being wholly responsible for raising another human being. That human being has in turn the ability to saves lives... or ruin them. They have the ability to become leaders of great revolutions, or instigators of horrible acts. They can protect, or they can harm. They are a force in this world and we as parents are responsible for doing our absolute BEST to make them forces of good. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yes, there are times where our best will never be enough. There are things beyond our control, like mental illnesses, that we can only do so much to shape. HOWEVER, we as parents are still responsible for doing what can be done. Period. And I'm going to leave that topic alone because that will get me way too off course. So back to the average range.
So, in the article it mentions a few things that really get my goat. Like the "child-proofing" your day. Unless your child has a condition that means that "melt-downs" are more than just a bratty fit, then all you're doing it padding their life. What I mean by that is that by taking away the possibility for conflict you're setting them up to expect an easy road. When they are faced with it outside of their life with you they are going to be unpleasantly surprised and likely unable to solve their own problems.
The second thing is the "master distractor" part. Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! Past the infant stage this is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Hell, even then it's dangerous. Why on earth would you pass up the opportunity to not only help your child learn how to problem solve and share (if other kids are involved like the example in the article), but also the opportunity to point out exactly what behavior is inappropriate, WHY it's inappropriate, and then what the appropriate behavior that should replace it is? THAT's pretty much everything you're supposed to be doing as a parent. Distraction is a cop out, it's lazy, it's selfish and it's worthless. I do not only disprove of this method of parenting, I outright condemn it, and if you use it as a parenting technique expect a serious look of disdain from my general direction.
Scene playing out in my head *Office pulls your son over for speeding: "Son, do you know how fast you were going?" "Uh, no officer?" "It's okay, ooooo look, play dough!"*
Now, when it comes to discipline, which the article doesn't really touch. It talks about avoiding having to discipline more than it covers the actual act. Given, if you're actively parenting you rarely have to do so, but still. Okay, pop quiz: what is the most important thing to remember when disciplining a child? Anybody? FOLLOW THROUGH. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you do not follow through with any act of discipline your child will figure out what their odds are pretty fast. If they know they can act out and 9 times our of 10 they won't get in trouble for it... well, anyone can tell you those are pretty damn good odds. They will risk that one time if it means they get their way the rest of the time.
Okay, so from there let's fast forward 20 (or 30) years.
Where's your kid now?
There is an epidemic currently going on in America. It's the epidemic of the eternal adolescent. It is whole generations of children that never make it past the age of 20 (or more likely 16, but I'm trying to be generous) emotionally. These children have no purpose, no direction, no real place in society. They are often a burden on their parents as well as the rest of the population (wasting pell grants, collecting unemployment, food stamps, medical, etc). They complain about no jobs but feel that working at McDonalds is beneath them (NOTHING is beneath you if you're earning an honest living and providing for yourself and your family). They has a false sense of entitlement thanks to decades of being given awards for "participation" and being told that they are a "special" for no other reason than because they were born. Being born doesn't make you special. There are millions of people on this planet and most of them are nothing special. You can be someone special to someone else, that's all most of us can hope for in all honesty, but being special above and beyond the rest of the populace? Please, that's takes serious gumption, intelligence and/or talent mixed with a whole lot of luck.
The funny thing, the problem really, is that once a child becomes an adult in mere years parents stop treating them like a child. If they are living in your home, if they are eating the food you buy (and cook), if you are washing their clothes, if you are paying for the utilities they use, if they are driving your car and asking you for money for gas to put in it... guess what? They are NOT an adult. They are still a teenager and unless you want to live out the rest of your life with them under your wing, you have to return to treating them like a child. You have to hope to either help them start growing again, or push them into doing it.
There are a ton of articles out there that cover the "rules" concerning adult children returning home, so I'm not going to get into that. Google it if you want some ideas. They're pretty "no-duh" for the most part and pertain mostly to situations that anticipate those children being responsible and their stay being merely temporary, and that's not the type of thing I'm currently talking about, that's a different situation entirely. Instead I want to focus on those that seem to have no desire to become independent.
Ah, here we are: When an Adult Child Won't Grow Up. That's much more useful. (I totally just said that in my head using Hoggle from Labyrinth's voice, I'm a nerd)
The fact of the matter is that pandering to children of any age is a serious recipe for disaster. You have to prepare them, you have to push them, you have to teach them, you have to discipline them, and you absolutely CAN NOT reward negative behavior. You don't allow a child to go on a field trip after repeatedly bringing home bad grades, lying, or throwing tantrums... why the hell would you an adult to act in essentially the same way then hand them the car keys, gas money and a promise of a vacation? Because if you do, you get no sympathy from me, no "It's not your fault" comments, because when YOU allow them to treat you that way, well then... it is your fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)