thanks for stopping by and reading or scanning or whatever.. I now blog over at wordpress:
http://mandreago.wordpress.com/
Monday, October 8, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Why I Won't let My Sons Join Boy Scouts
My oldest son will be entering 2nd grade this coming school year, I have been recently thinking and have already talked to him about him joining Boy Scouts. He’s small in stature and loves adventure and learning new things, so naturally I thought this would be a great opportunity for him to do an extracurricular activity that he’d probably enjoy a great deal. I had a really great scout leader and “pack” all picked out, a nice guy from a nice family, and my son knows the other boys in the troop, so I was all but ready to pay the yearly dues and start his membership. That is until today when I heard the disappointing news that the Boy Scouts of America, after a confidential 2 year review, reaffirmed their Anti-Gay policy. This includes both boys as members and adults as scout leaders. I honestly didn’t even know this was a policy in the first place. One of the biggest and oldest traditional groups for a young boy to join and they are adamantly homophobic. To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. My head wants to explode. It took 2 years of review to decide, yup, we still want to be a markedly bigoted group that teaches kids it’s okay to be exclusionary and hateful. No Thank You!
The insinuation is horrible. No, its sickening. They are essentially proclaiming that gays aren’t fit to lead and care for children. Or that boys should not associate with their gay friends. That it’s okay to exclude people based on their lifestyle or traits that they are born with. That someone else is less than. I don’t even want to say out loud that they must think homosexuality equates with pedophilia, because that makes me furious. Beyond furious. I shouldn’t have to even have to explain that that’s insane. Anyway you spin it, this policy is not okay.
The sad thing is, this probably doesn’t even effect each individual troop that much. I have no clue on what the stance of my son’s future, would-have-been scout leaders would be, and at this point, that doesn’t really matter. How in good conscience can I let my son become a member of an exclusionary group that stands up for bigotry and hatred. I just can’t. I teach my children whenever an opportunity arises, to stand up for their peers, and to accept all kinds of people, so obviously since the Boy Scouts is standing up against this message and standing for the complete opposite, I just can’t become a party to it.
How am I supposed to predict, at such a young age, my child’s or my children’s friends or future nieces or nephews sexual preferences? I can’t. So how can I encourage or allow membership into an exclusionary, bigoted group that one day could potentially not even allow them or their friends or family members admittance or participation. Both of my older children have friends with gay parents, as well as I have friends, how can I support and give money to an organization that excludes these friends and their families. What if my son goes to school and says how cool this new club is, and one of his best friends is upset because his kind isn’t welcome there? As I previously stated, No thank you!
I feel like this is a good teaching opportunity for me and my kids. Yes, my son was looking forward to the camping trips and earning badges, but sorry, we will not join exclusionary bigoted groups, even if it means we are disappointed in missing out in activities we wanted to do.
I usually stay away from blogging about and pushing my agenda as far as gay issues or marriage, which I fully support, because it’s not my job to push my views on others, but I feel like its important to make a stand and speak out against blatantly bigoted groups like the BSA. I know they are a private organization and can do what they want with their membership. I also feel like I no longer want them promoting their clubs, which most certainly stand for hate, in our children’s public schools. How can we even let them set up booths at open houses when all walks of life walk those halls? When the scout leaders call my home and in the fall and when I walk past the tables filled with fliers, I plan on saying exactly why I will not let my sons join Boy Scouts, and I hope my children take note in what I will say. It’s unfortunate that they choose to be so hateful, but without looking back I can say that I will not support in any way or look at the Boy Scouts in quite the same way again.
The insinuation is horrible. No, its sickening. They are essentially proclaiming that gays aren’t fit to lead and care for children. Or that boys should not associate with their gay friends. That it’s okay to exclude people based on their lifestyle or traits that they are born with. That someone else is less than. I don’t even want to say out loud that they must think homosexuality equates with pedophilia, because that makes me furious. Beyond furious. I shouldn’t have to even have to explain that that’s insane. Anyway you spin it, this policy is not okay.
The sad thing is, this probably doesn’t even effect each individual troop that much. I have no clue on what the stance of my son’s future, would-have-been scout leaders would be, and at this point, that doesn’t really matter. How in good conscience can I let my son become a member of an exclusionary group that stands up for bigotry and hatred. I just can’t. I teach my children whenever an opportunity arises, to stand up for their peers, and to accept all kinds of people, so obviously since the Boy Scouts is standing up against this message and standing for the complete opposite, I just can’t become a party to it.
How am I supposed to predict, at such a young age, my child’s or my children’s friends or future nieces or nephews sexual preferences? I can’t. So how can I encourage or allow membership into an exclusionary, bigoted group that one day could potentially not even allow them or their friends or family members admittance or participation. Both of my older children have friends with gay parents, as well as I have friends, how can I support and give money to an organization that excludes these friends and their families. What if my son goes to school and says how cool this new club is, and one of his best friends is upset because his kind isn’t welcome there? As I previously stated, No thank you!
I feel like this is a good teaching opportunity for me and my kids. Yes, my son was looking forward to the camping trips and earning badges, but sorry, we will not join exclusionary bigoted groups, even if it means we are disappointed in missing out in activities we wanted to do.
I usually stay away from blogging about and pushing my agenda as far as gay issues or marriage, which I fully support, because it’s not my job to push my views on others, but I feel like its important to make a stand and speak out against blatantly bigoted groups like the BSA. I know they are a private organization and can do what they want with their membership. I also feel like I no longer want them promoting their clubs, which most certainly stand for hate, in our children’s public schools. How can we even let them set up booths at open houses when all walks of life walk those halls? When the scout leaders call my home and in the fall and when I walk past the tables filled with fliers, I plan on saying exactly why I will not let my sons join Boy Scouts, and I hope my children take note in what I will say. It’s unfortunate that they choose to be so hateful, but without looking back I can say that I will not support in any way or look at the Boy Scouts in quite the same way again.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Editing Children's Literature
How many parents out there find yourselves editing out certain things in children’s literature or classic nursery rhymes or choose not to read them to your kids because they may be violent or scary?
Many of the stories, fables, nursery rhymes and fairy tales that I and my peers or our parents grew up on are often more violent and scary than most of the young children’s books put out there today. The question is: is there anything wrong with that? I grew up on The Brothers Grimm, Aesop’s Fables, Humpty Dumpty and Old King Cole. Today these are often skipped over for fear of scaring kids or edited to make them more politically correct or less sexist or palatable for us to repeat to our kids. The idea of editing classic works isn’t exactly a new idea; each generation there seems to be re-tweaks to our good old favorites. My generation probably doesn’t know that the original Snow White ends with the Step-Mother dancing at her wedding wearing red hot iron shoes that kill her. I definitely don’t remember that in my little Golden Books. Imagine that kind of ending in, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, It probably wouldn’t fly.
My generation had Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf with big terrible claws and teeth, and Hansel and Gretel and the witch that tries to eat them, all written as cautionary tales. If you pick up a modern copy today, they probably won’t be the same; they’ve been rewritten and toned down a bit. Instead of the wolf eating dear grandmother, she’s locked in a closet. Another example, the recent remake of Rapunzel is a bit tamer than the original book that has her parents give her away and her love interest blinded by thorns. Another example I bet most people don’t realize is, in the original Frog Prince story, the princess didn’t kiss the frog; she threw him against the wall as hard as she could to turn him into a prince.
I remember when my oldest son’s Preschool teacher read his class a book and made a big deal when she didn’t realize the book she was reading had a page with the boy holding a pop-gun. She made sure to explain the difference to the kids about real guns and fake guns and how guns are bad, etc. I’m not so sure the kids ever would have noticed otherwise? Then last year in my son’s kindergarten class, they sang “Three Cool Mice,” instead of “Three Blind Mice.” And now some modified versions of Puff the Magic Dragon now include Little Girls and Boys instead of just Boys. And I know I sound odd as a feminist questioning whether we should be including little girls or not, but the thing is, it’s not the original piece of work. When you change a masterpiece, wrong or right, it becomes something else and I don’t think that we can consider it or appreciate it in the same way. Take it or leave it, but when something is changed, we are no longer reading classic material, but something new entirely, based on our values as they are today.
Flipping though our collection of Mother Goose Rhymes there are definitely some cringe-worthy tales in the group. Many of the old rhymes were originally written as cautionary tales or as songs referencing incidents in history. Many of them deal with death and dying and violence. Some of the rhymes reference things that kids probably won’t recognize, but as parents, we are shocked. There is Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary, that is about Bloody Mary, and the Silver Bells and Cockle Shells that are referred to are torture devices, and the garden, her graveyard. Then there is Goosie Goosie Gander, where I’ve read that it is a dig against the Catholic Church, and also the fact that it came from a time in England when “goose” meant “prostitute,” and of course there’s the line at the end, “There I met an old man who wouldn’t say his prayers, so I took him by the left leg and threw him down the stairs.” It’s mean to be a cautionary tale of a certain action that gets a punishment, and a drastic one at that. Speaking of vulgar, there’s See Saw Marjorie Daw, where the word “Daw” is an old English word for “Slut.” Of course we have Ring Around the Rosie that is about the Bubonic Plague and Rock a Bye Baby who falls to the ground, yet we sing it to our babies as if it’s a sweet tune. Three Blind Mice is another rhyme about Bloody Mary in which she violently cuts off their tails with a carving knife. There’s not only violence in classic stories, but bad habits: we see both Old King Cole and even Santa Claus in A Night Before Christmas both smoking pipes; and then my kids wonder why the characters smoke when it’s something that I’ve told them is very bad and will cause one to become sick. We’ve got Old Mother Hubbard, another dig at the Catholic Church, which the kids don’t understand, but the part where they reference the dog being dead may shock some now. There’s The Woman in the Shoe who whips her kids and puts them to bed without any supper. Not necessarily Mother of the Year material there. There’s Jack who broke his crown, who is really King Louis XVI who was beheaded, and Jill, whom is really Marie Antoinette, that came tumbling after. Another shocking one is Oh My Darling Clementine, who apparently wasn’t a swimmer and died. Then there’s the age old tale that tells us exactly what Little Boys and Girls are Made of: puppy dog’s tails or sugar and spice. Ugh, as if that’s something we really want to encourage gender roles in this day in age. I even struggled with bible stories when talking to my kids. I’d like to teach my children stories in the context of history, but I did disagree with my husband this past Easter when he was going to tell them about Jesus getting hung on the cross. I thought it might be too much for them, since they mainly knew Jesus as the cute little baby lying in the manger and that his birthday is why we celebrate Christmas. I’ve taught them about the good deeds of Jesus, and wasn’t ready to touch on the crucifixion part yet.
That all being said, the more I read about the original meanings of some of the nursery rhymes, even though they are violent and sexist, (Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater) I do appreciate the social context that they were written in and the stories behind them. Being a history major in college, I appreciate the historical references; I realize they are or were learning tools, although usually when kids are interested in nursery rhymes, they are too young to know the significance or learn about beheadings, and the plague, and history of the Catholic Church. I do also see how they could have been helpful at the time they were written, for kids that didn’t understand or wanted to make light of what was going on. Now a day I see children’s books written about September 11th or divorce, things that may be more on our minds today. People often say how in modern times we are so much more violent because of television and so forth, but I think we often discount how violent history really was. Things like public hangings and the Wild West and the Holocaust and Slavery were really a thing and kids were well aware of the situations at the time. Violence is not a modern day phenomenon by any means. So it’s interesting how we perceive our society as being more violent, we criticize television for being so violent, yet we can hardly stomach traditional nursery rhymes in fear that we will expose our children to too much violence. So maybe we are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to censoring children’s literature?
So cut to today and I question how we should be handling the classic literature. On one hand I think it’s important not to lose the classics and make sure that my children know traditional stories as it’s a part of our culture, on the other hand, I am finding myself cringing while reading sometimes and often opt for modern classics like Dr. Seuss and Eric Carle. Is it better to remember classics as they originally were, with their vulgar language and violent references or to sanitize and commercialize and make them less sexist and politically correct or abandon altogether? At what point are they completely edited with each retelling that they become something entirely different than what they were originally written to be, by writers that we consider to have been literary masters. There is something about the poetry and the flow and the artistry of an original work that is lost with each re-write. It is no longer their words.
So I’m torn, but I am feeling myself gravitate towards the notion that we shouldn’t lose the classics. The thing is, yes, children’s literature is sometimes violent, especially the classics, but should we be frightened to let our children hear these stories as if the stories will somehow make them act violent or shelter them from death and the feeling of fear as if we live in a world where these things don’t happen anyway. As if fear and consequences aren’t things that children need to deal with on an everyday basis anyway. Kids already feel fear; they already see or hear about violence. Truth is, we live in a violent world. People do die. We do kill the worst of our criminals with capital punishment. I’m not sure books are really the worst that they will see and hear. No, I’m pretty sure, these books are nothing compared to the real world. So these stories that show them fear and violence and wickedness can help them process these feelings at an early age where they are still learning what the world is all about.
I do personally shelter my kids from watching the news and violent television because on TV there are a lot of things that are just gratuitous. There is way too much violence shown on regular TV, and it’s not meant to teach morals and lessons like many fairy tales are meant to do.
Another aspect to editing or sanitizing literature is the act of reading stories is meant to be entertaining. No, books don’t only have to be violent to be entertaining or interesting- but there is some entertainment value to Hansel and Gretel and the Big Bad Wolf, and so on, that maybe we would possibly be stifling a future literary lover or creative mind because we edit the exciting parts out of stories. It’s entertainment, but at the same time teaches values, so it’s different than the material that contains violence for entertainment only. Should we tell our kids that if they want to write about exciting adventures, it’s best to edit out the uncomfortable information in the story? There is imagery and connections that are lost in rewrites that is important to the original body of work.
We also fear that violence may transcend into real life, that kids will read Hansel and Gretel and not understand the difference between real and pretend. I don’t think we are giving them enough credit and we could even be hindering their ability to develop the capacity to differentiate between fiction and nonfiction. The need to learn that houses aren’t really made out of gingerbread and that witches won’t really eat you up is important. Besides, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never really heard of anyone citing a nursery rhyme for bad behavior. Our kids may out of anger threaten to throw us in the oven, but anger is natural and an okay emotion to feel. On the surface it’s all blood and death and an old woman fattening up little children to eat, but look beyond that and folk lores are stories that have been passed down generation after generation telling cautionary tales. They are displaying which traits are the most desirable and showing us good morals and condemning bad behaviors that result in judgment where punishment is dealt out to the wicked. Leaving a trail of bread crumbs to mark your path is a bad decision. You will not find your way back through the woods. Do not accept treats from strangers. This is important.
I won’t say all Brothers Grimm or Aesop’s Fables or Shakespeare stories are for children, as some of them weren’t originally written for children as an audience. This goes for modern day books as well, there is an audience for the Hunger Games and Harry Potter, and obviously it isn’t written for the very young. It is also, of course, up to parents to read to their children what stories they feel that they can handle. I do find it sad that future generations may not know classic stories because of the fear that they are inappropriate and also that we as parents feel too uncomfortable to discuss certain things with our children. Something I feel like we don’t duplicate when we make rewrites is the poetic rhyming or the older style of writing. This in itself is a part of history. I do feel like as a culture is it important to not forget the old tales, as they are considered poetic masterpieces for a reason.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Time's Up
I know pretty much everyone is sort of sick of hearing about Time Magazine. I am too. But at the same time I just feel like I need to wrap the issue up neatly before shelving it for good. So here we are.
The latest Time Magazine Cover controversy caused quite a stir in the Mom world yesterday. I think just about every mainstream media outlet, every blogger and much of the social media networks were all a buzz with a range of anger, shock, grossed out or just trying to get involved in the discussion of how dare Time start the next phase in the hot button 'Mommy Wars.'
Well nothing in advertising or well renown publications is ever accidental, and Time sure got their money's worth in controversy dollars or however much they paid the mom to stand weirdly in a way that no body really ever breastfeeds with her kid on the cover. Props to the mom. I'd probably do it too. That is unless I was trying to insist that extended breastfeeding was actually being portrayed accurately, then well, I wouldn't have let myself be talked into posing so suggestively. Maybe insisted on my kid dressed in pjs, sweetly snuggling, not looking like he just came home from a rock concert to get a sip from the nip. But well, we know that people can be convincing. And I did see the outtakes. The pictures that weren't used were different. Not as controversial at all. But they weren't about to sell a bunch of magazines either.
Time had us good and mad from the get go with their fighting words headline, "Are You Mom Enough." After seeing the title, I automatically went to defensive mode. Yes I do some of what they want to label as Attachment Parenting and I wasn't about to idly stand by when Time Magazine had the gall to start calling us 'extreme,' as if it was some sort of freakish method that people were all of a sudden participating in. As if breastfeeding and cosleeping and baby wearing were this new age extreme method. News flash people, this stuff is only extreme because we're sitting in comfort in the 21st century in a 1st world country where we've invented contraptions to do stuff for us. From the pricey baby gadgets to breast pumps, to yes, even hospital births are somewhat a modern invention. Having your baby close to you all the time isn't really extreme either. It's handy. I'm not bogged down as some tend to portray Attachment Parenting 24/7. It's nice not having to go far to stick a boob in baby's mouth and having him drift back to sleep quietly rather than standing outside a child's door and have them scream for hours in order to 'train' them into sleep submission. For me it's a no-brainier when I bring 3 kids to the zoo that I strap the youngest to my back and have my hands free to go on my way. It's not really that extreme. Although I do get looks and plenty of comments when I stroll through Wegmans with my son in a backpack, it's mostly because ew, the carts and the comments are mostly little old ladies telling me how cute he is. And who doesn't love that. And like I said, it's handy.
So back to Time Magazine. Just who were they taunting anyway with their 'Mom Enough' headline? Was this just another swing in the Mommy Wars, which is really just another extension of the War Against Women? We've barely swallowed and digested Rush Limbaugh's slut and feminazi comments and now this is thrown our way. So we're ready for a fight. Ready for the catchy one liners and the derogatory names, the accusations and the mud slinging.
But like any good controversy, this one barely had the shelf life of a bottle of pumped breast-milk. The nasty tone didn't really make it past the front cover like we were all expecting it to. A copy of the article trickled its way around my group of friends and elsewhere online. The ones who weren't swearing off the word Time till the end of time, and we all read basically a snooze of an article that probably was never originally going to make it past the back half of the magazine. Not without that cover shot anyway. I mean it's not like an article with a description about parenting is really hot off the presses type news. And to our further surprise, there really wasn't any further mudslinging, not really any more fighting headlines, it was basically a bio of Dr. Sears, the so-called Attachment Parenting Guru. I even had to skim some parts. It was dry. It was all about Sears and his wife and how they came to the conclusion that Attachment Parenting was the best way for them and his 30 books and oh how cute he wears scrubs with Dr. Bill on the pocket. Like I said, it was sort of a snooze and I'm actually interested in some of his methods. So that's pretty much all. And I don't know if it's surprise or disappointed or what, that we got all worked up over a mediocre article with a cover that seemed to taunt us more than actually put its dukes up and deliver.
Basically Time Magazine did what any profit seeking magazine would do when they come across that money shot sure to spark an echo of controversy across the nation. They throw the picture on the cover and hope its gonna catch fire. And that it did.
Between this and Amendment one (the anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina) getting passed on Tuesday and then President Obama 'coming out' on Wednesday in support of gay marriage, I'm all controversied out for the week. I would hope this whole thing would bring important discussions to the forefront. Like acceptance of a mother's choice of extended breastfeeding or for everyone to not get all boob- scratch that- public breastfeeding phobic. But I think the 15 minutes are just about up and I don't see that happening this time around.
The latest Time Magazine Cover controversy caused quite a stir in the Mom world yesterday. I think just about every mainstream media outlet, every blogger and much of the social media networks were all a buzz with a range of anger, shock, grossed out or just trying to get involved in the discussion of how dare Time start the next phase in the hot button 'Mommy Wars.'
Well nothing in advertising or well renown publications is ever accidental, and Time sure got their money's worth in controversy dollars or however much they paid the mom to stand weirdly in a way that no body really ever breastfeeds with her kid on the cover. Props to the mom. I'd probably do it too. That is unless I was trying to insist that extended breastfeeding was actually being portrayed accurately, then well, I wouldn't have let myself be talked into posing so suggestively. Maybe insisted on my kid dressed in pjs, sweetly snuggling, not looking like he just came home from a rock concert to get a sip from the nip. But well, we know that people can be convincing. And I did see the outtakes. The pictures that weren't used were different. Not as controversial at all. But they weren't about to sell a bunch of magazines either.
Time had us good and mad from the get go with their fighting words headline, "Are You Mom Enough." After seeing the title, I automatically went to defensive mode. Yes I do some of what they want to label as Attachment Parenting and I wasn't about to idly stand by when Time Magazine had the gall to start calling us 'extreme,' as if it was some sort of freakish method that people were all of a sudden participating in. As if breastfeeding and cosleeping and baby wearing were this new age extreme method. News flash people, this stuff is only extreme because we're sitting in comfort in the 21st century in a 1st world country where we've invented contraptions to do stuff for us. From the pricey baby gadgets to breast pumps, to yes, even hospital births are somewhat a modern invention. Having your baby close to you all the time isn't really extreme either. It's handy. I'm not bogged down as some tend to portray Attachment Parenting 24/7. It's nice not having to go far to stick a boob in baby's mouth and having him drift back to sleep quietly rather than standing outside a child's door and have them scream for hours in order to 'train' them into sleep submission. For me it's a no-brainier when I bring 3 kids to the zoo that I strap the youngest to my back and have my hands free to go on my way. It's not really that extreme. Although I do get looks and plenty of comments when I stroll through Wegmans with my son in a backpack, it's mostly because ew, the carts and the comments are mostly little old ladies telling me how cute he is. And who doesn't love that. And like I said, it's handy.
So back to Time Magazine. Just who were they taunting anyway with their 'Mom Enough' headline? Was this just another swing in the Mommy Wars, which is really just another extension of the War Against Women? We've barely swallowed and digested Rush Limbaugh's slut and feminazi comments and now this is thrown our way. So we're ready for a fight. Ready for the catchy one liners and the derogatory names, the accusations and the mud slinging.
But like any good controversy, this one barely had the shelf life of a bottle of pumped breast-milk. The nasty tone didn't really make it past the front cover like we were all expecting it to. A copy of the article trickled its way around my group of friends and elsewhere online. The ones who weren't swearing off the word Time till the end of time, and we all read basically a snooze of an article that probably was never originally going to make it past the back half of the magazine. Not without that cover shot anyway. I mean it's not like an article with a description about parenting is really hot off the presses type news. And to our further surprise, there really wasn't any further mudslinging, not really any more fighting headlines, it was basically a bio of Dr. Sears, the so-called Attachment Parenting Guru. I even had to skim some parts. It was dry. It was all about Sears and his wife and how they came to the conclusion that Attachment Parenting was the best way for them and his 30 books and oh how cute he wears scrubs with Dr. Bill on the pocket. Like I said, it was sort of a snooze and I'm actually interested in some of his methods. So that's pretty much all. And I don't know if it's surprise or disappointed or what, that we got all worked up over a mediocre article with a cover that seemed to taunt us more than actually put its dukes up and deliver.
Basically Time Magazine did what any profit seeking magazine would do when they come across that money shot sure to spark an echo of controversy across the nation. They throw the picture on the cover and hope its gonna catch fire. And that it did.
Between this and Amendment one (the anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina) getting passed on Tuesday and then President Obama 'coming out' on Wednesday in support of gay marriage, I'm all controversied out for the week. I would hope this whole thing would bring important discussions to the forefront. Like acceptance of a mother's choice of extended breastfeeding or for everyone to not get all boob- scratch that- public breastfeeding phobic. But I think the 15 minutes are just about up and I don't see that happening this time around.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mommy Wars... And Just Who are We Fighting Anyway?
We’ve all heard the menacing catch phrase, ‘The Mommy Wars’ floating around. That utterance alone conjures up images of crazy moms throwing down their purses and jumping in the ring for a all out mommy brawl. One mom kicks aside her briefcase and the other, her baby sling for a hair pulling fight over how to be the best mom. As if there was one mom-method to rule all others. As if moms ever really do this.
The most recent issue of Time Magazine with it’s controversial cover is just one more example of media fanning the flames to an already volatile issue. On the cover is a (real) mother nursing her 3 year old child as he stands on a step stool, with the accompanying title, “Are You Mom Enough.” Apparently the article, which I refuse to pay money to read, talks about Attachment Parenting, a parenting style that is widely criticized, and includes things like extended breastfeeding and baby wearing and co-sleeping. I automatically get defensive and offended by the condescending tone of the highlighted title and the first paragraph I read of the article online, and the fact that it calls this sort of parenting ‘extreme.’ When I think of extreme parenting I think of the ‘Tanning Mom,’ or baby swinging ‘Yoga Mom.’ Not breastfeeding and carrying your baby in a baby carrier.
And then I realize that the Mommy Wars are not Mom vs. Mom, it’s really Mom vs. the Media.
It’s the way Time Magazine asks the question, “Are you Mom Enough,” with an angry look on the mother’s face. It’s the way the media says Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life when she has raised 5 boys. It’s how the paparazzi follows Beyonce around and tries to figure out how long and why she is breastfeeding. It’s how The New York Times has to make women feel like they have to choose between Motherhood and Feminism, as if the two are mutually exclusive. As if any style of parenting is mutually exclusive. I get offended by the insinuation that there are certain rigid parenting styles and that there is a concrete parenting doctrine that you need to adhere to, to feel ‘Mom Enough’ to do. I haven’t even mentioned the controversy of extended breastfeeding, which is featured on the cover, and the portrayal that this is extreme or somehow as the way the models on the cover are positioned that is looks anything like it is making it seem, with the child standing up on a stool. Some how suggestive or sexy or annoying. Or that this is a requirement to be “Mom Enough.”
If Time Magazine asked it’s audience if they were “Man Enough,” or “Black Enough,” or “American Enough” or “Gay Enough,” or Anything Else Enough,” it would never fly because that’s offensive. But the Mommy Wars are hot right now, so it’s ok. They’re adding to the false sense of pitting mom against mom to make headlines.
The original Mommy Wars are supposed to be an issue about Working Moms vs. Stay at Home Moms. But I think a lot of that is the media playing tricks in our mommy heads that you need to feel guilty for either way. The thing is, there is no one way to be a mom, there is no “Mom Enough,” because that would imply that someone else’s best isn’t enough. That no matter what, we can never be enough. As if there is an XYZ of parenting and one needs to fulfill your role a certain way to be enough.
The Mommy Wars is based on the premise that Working Moms don’t spend enough time with their kids and Stay at Home Moms spend too much time with their kids. You can’t win. The fact that there isn’t ever going to be a winner doesn’t stop media and political pundits from constructing sensationalized headlines devised to create a buzz. They set up the ring, sound the bell and play announcer as guilty moms everywhere throw their purses up in the air because the only knock out is going to be their ego and their not good enough parenting style.
This concept isn’t new. Media’s concept of what a mother should look like have been around since media has been doing their thing. It’s almost the oldest, easiest portrayal in the book. How many references do we still see of the 1950’s mom and her perfect house and her perfect smile. How about how sitcoms portray mothers, from June Cleaver to Roseanne to Carol Brady and Clair Huxtable. How about Kelly Ripa and her obnoxious Electrolux commercial. See, I’m not any better myself. I can hardly sit through how commercials portray moms without gritting my teeth and not feeling ‘Mom Enough.’ Oh wait, and where are the dads in this equation? Oh never mind, media doesn’t portray them as making parenting decisions. We’ll Just leave them out here.
I honestly don’t know how to stop the Mommy Wars. Do we boycott certain brands or publications, boycott products that play on mommy emotions? All I can say is brush off your mommy shoulders, because you and I, we are all ‘Mom Enough.’ We earn this badge just by being a mom and doing what we know will work for our kids, the way that we know is right. So working or staying at home works for you. Perfect. So breastfeeding or bottle feeding works best for you. Perfect. So whatever works for you, pat yourself on the back and Happy Mother’s Day to all.
The most recent issue of Time Magazine with it’s controversial cover is just one more example of media fanning the flames to an already volatile issue. On the cover is a (real) mother nursing her 3 year old child as he stands on a step stool, with the accompanying title, “Are You Mom Enough.” Apparently the article, which I refuse to pay money to read, talks about Attachment Parenting, a parenting style that is widely criticized, and includes things like extended breastfeeding and baby wearing and co-sleeping. I automatically get defensive and offended by the condescending tone of the highlighted title and the first paragraph I read of the article online, and the fact that it calls this sort of parenting ‘extreme.’ When I think of extreme parenting I think of the ‘Tanning Mom,’ or baby swinging ‘Yoga Mom.’ Not breastfeeding and carrying your baby in a baby carrier.
And then I realize that the Mommy Wars are not Mom vs. Mom, it’s really Mom vs. the Media.
It’s the way Time Magazine asks the question, “Are you Mom Enough,” with an angry look on the mother’s face. It’s the way the media says Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life when she has raised 5 boys. It’s how the paparazzi follows Beyonce around and tries to figure out how long and why she is breastfeeding. It’s how The New York Times has to make women feel like they have to choose between Motherhood and Feminism, as if the two are mutually exclusive. As if any style of parenting is mutually exclusive. I get offended by the insinuation that there are certain rigid parenting styles and that there is a concrete parenting doctrine that you need to adhere to, to feel ‘Mom Enough’ to do. I haven’t even mentioned the controversy of extended breastfeeding, which is featured on the cover, and the portrayal that this is extreme or somehow as the way the models on the cover are positioned that is looks anything like it is making it seem, with the child standing up on a stool. Some how suggestive or sexy or annoying. Or that this is a requirement to be “Mom Enough.”
If Time Magazine asked it’s audience if they were “Man Enough,” or “Black Enough,” or “American Enough” or “Gay Enough,” or Anything Else Enough,” it would never fly because that’s offensive. But the Mommy Wars are hot right now, so it’s ok. They’re adding to the false sense of pitting mom against mom to make headlines.
The original Mommy Wars are supposed to be an issue about Working Moms vs. Stay at Home Moms. But I think a lot of that is the media playing tricks in our mommy heads that you need to feel guilty for either way. The thing is, there is no one way to be a mom, there is no “Mom Enough,” because that would imply that someone else’s best isn’t enough. That no matter what, we can never be enough. As if there is an XYZ of parenting and one needs to fulfill your role a certain way to be enough.
The Mommy Wars is based on the premise that Working Moms don’t spend enough time with their kids and Stay at Home Moms spend too much time with their kids. You can’t win. The fact that there isn’t ever going to be a winner doesn’t stop media and political pundits from constructing sensationalized headlines devised to create a buzz. They set up the ring, sound the bell and play announcer as guilty moms everywhere throw their purses up in the air because the only knock out is going to be their ego and their not good enough parenting style.
This concept isn’t new. Media’s concept of what a mother should look like have been around since media has been doing their thing. It’s almost the oldest, easiest portrayal in the book. How many references do we still see of the 1950’s mom and her perfect house and her perfect smile. How about how sitcoms portray mothers, from June Cleaver to Roseanne to Carol Brady and Clair Huxtable. How about Kelly Ripa and her obnoxious Electrolux commercial. See, I’m not any better myself. I can hardly sit through how commercials portray moms without gritting my teeth and not feeling ‘Mom Enough.’ Oh wait, and where are the dads in this equation? Oh never mind, media doesn’t portray them as making parenting decisions. We’ll Just leave them out here.
I honestly don’t know how to stop the Mommy Wars. Do we boycott certain brands or publications, boycott products that play on mommy emotions? All I can say is brush off your mommy shoulders, because you and I, we are all ‘Mom Enough.’ We earn this badge just by being a mom and doing what we know will work for our kids, the way that we know is right. So working or staying at home works for you. Perfect. So breastfeeding or bottle feeding works best for you. Perfect. So whatever works for you, pat yourself on the back and Happy Mother’s Day to all.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Why I can't Enjoy Every Moment
When you become a parent there is a universal occurrence that happens to everyone from the very beginning. This phenomenon is something that always happens from the time that you announce your pregnancy. People start to give you advice. It seems like everyone has something to say about how to raise and care for your children. Some things you are told as a new parent are very helpful, some are outdated and some are so silly they are laughable. One piece of advice that I often hear over and over again is to, “enjoy them while they are young” or, “enjoy every moment.”
I know this is well meaning advice, I know I will look back and tell future or new parents a variant of the same exact thing. But honestly this is about the hardest thing to do sometimes. I’ll be completely frank and say that sometimes I just can’t enjoy the moment. In fact, sometimes, I down right can’t stand the moment. I know some of you are probably thinking, gosh, did she really just admit that? I did. I love being a Stay at Home Mom overall, but let’s face it, being a mom is hard. Even saying that “it is hard,” is a bit of an understatement. At times it feels impossible, it’s maddening, it’s frustrating, it makes you feel desperate, it’s thankless, it’s boring, it’s lonely, it’s never-ending, it’s physically and mentally draining, you lose your identity, you lose your hobbies, your freedom, your ability to take care of your own basic needs at times; and sometimes it’s just not very fun. So no, a lot of times I feel like I can barely enjoy or make it through a moment or a day, much less enjoy every little moment of every day.
Being a mom is like being in any relationship, you have your ups and you have your downs, and I don’t think that we should have to feel like we should love every little moment of being with your kids to really love your kids or to be a good mom. Going even further than being a Mom, being a Stay at Home Mom is this unique thing where it’s sort of a job, but at the same time, it is not. It’s an extremely taxing task, it feels like work most of the time, yet it’s not quite a job in that it never ends, you don’t get paid and you never get to punch the clock and leave, and you certainly don’t get to take sick days. It is work, but it’s also life and love and is everything you are all about. It’s a unique task, but if I am comparing it to a job, it’s just not fair or realistic to expect me to love every minute of it, as most people, even if they love their jobs, don’t love every minute they spend working.
From the time that my oldest was born, it all of a sudden became all about him and eventually now that I have three children six and under, my entire day consists of taking care and thinking about them. I understand being a parent is selfless dedication; I went into the job knowing this and have made it my mission to be devoted to them and make the right choices to raise them according to my values. But just because I am now a mom, I didn’t stop being a grownup with grownup interests and desires. I am not saying that I don’t want to be selfless and I’m not saying I am not up for this job. I am not even complaining that I don’t want to have this job or give up all the things I once thought were so important. I’m just saying I can’t be expected to enjoy every little moment. I just can’t.
Now that I am a mom I don’t read as much, I don’t sew as much, I rarely spend time with friends. When you are a parent, you sacrifice a great deal. I knew this was going to happen, but being honest, sometimes I don’t want to play Legos and sing the ABCs all day. No, bringing three kids to the Zoo or to the Museum isn’t always fun. And meal time. Well, let’s just say, that is never fun. Going places with my kids is stressful and crazy and to say I have my hands full doing things like that is an understatement. As a mom I do feel pressure to act like that stuff is fun all the time. No I don’t really want to play toys and have tea parties all day. It’s not like that stuff is all bad, but really, it’s not always that enjoyable. I am not saying I don’t like to play with my kids. I am saying don’t expect me to enjoy it every second of the day. Parenting isn’t easy when your kids are screaming and fighting and crying. As a mom I have to try to act calm even when I am sad or feel like crying myself. As a mom, there are moments I can’t stand. My kids can be clingy, cranky, messy, demanding and impossible to please, so sometimes when I hear, “enjoy it while it lasts,“ I am thinking to myself, I can’t wait until this very moment is long gone.
Overall, even after saying that there are many moments that I do not enjoy, being a parent is wonderful. I can’t say that I would trade being a mom for anything in the world, but there are single moments of Motherhood that I would trade for anything else in the world. There are moments where my child is having a tantrum and screaming and crying and I just want to run away. Just please let this moment pass. But then there is also that moment where my child is crying from sadness and I wouldn’t trade being able to hold them and console them for anything in the world. So I do buck up and I do take the good with the bad. This is what the job entails.
There have been moments where I’ve been proud or awestricken. There are moments when your child takes their first step or smiles for the first time or tells you they love you or says something so cute you can barely take it. Yes, I can get caught up in reckless playing with my children and just be having a perfect blissful moment. There are even moments that don’t mean anything that I love. Sometimes I can just look over at my kids and think, God, I love being their Mom. There are wonderful, amazing moments that catch you by surprise and make parenthood so special. I cherish those moments, and I know I will be sad when some of those moments are long gone. But I think it’s unrealistic to think that I need to cherish every single moment. So no, I can’t enjoy every moment, so let’s stop implying that we should. What I can do is try to enjoy enough little moments so that I can look back and think yes, I did okay.
I know this is well meaning advice, I know I will look back and tell future or new parents a variant of the same exact thing. But honestly this is about the hardest thing to do sometimes. I’ll be completely frank and say that sometimes I just can’t enjoy the moment. In fact, sometimes, I down right can’t stand the moment. I know some of you are probably thinking, gosh, did she really just admit that? I did. I love being a Stay at Home Mom overall, but let’s face it, being a mom is hard. Even saying that “it is hard,” is a bit of an understatement. At times it feels impossible, it’s maddening, it’s frustrating, it makes you feel desperate, it’s thankless, it’s boring, it’s lonely, it’s never-ending, it’s physically and mentally draining, you lose your identity, you lose your hobbies, your freedom, your ability to take care of your own basic needs at times; and sometimes it’s just not very fun. So no, a lot of times I feel like I can barely enjoy or make it through a moment or a day, much less enjoy every little moment of every day.
Being a mom is like being in any relationship, you have your ups and you have your downs, and I don’t think that we should have to feel like we should love every little moment of being with your kids to really love your kids or to be a good mom. Going even further than being a Mom, being a Stay at Home Mom is this unique thing where it’s sort of a job, but at the same time, it is not. It’s an extremely taxing task, it feels like work most of the time, yet it’s not quite a job in that it never ends, you don’t get paid and you never get to punch the clock and leave, and you certainly don’t get to take sick days. It is work, but it’s also life and love and is everything you are all about. It’s a unique task, but if I am comparing it to a job, it’s just not fair or realistic to expect me to love every minute of it, as most people, even if they love their jobs, don’t love every minute they spend working.
From the time that my oldest was born, it all of a sudden became all about him and eventually now that I have three children six and under, my entire day consists of taking care and thinking about them. I understand being a parent is selfless dedication; I went into the job knowing this and have made it my mission to be devoted to them and make the right choices to raise them according to my values. But just because I am now a mom, I didn’t stop being a grownup with grownup interests and desires. I am not saying that I don’t want to be selfless and I’m not saying I am not up for this job. I am not even complaining that I don’t want to have this job or give up all the things I once thought were so important. I’m just saying I can’t be expected to enjoy every little moment. I just can’t.
Now that I am a mom I don’t read as much, I don’t sew as much, I rarely spend time with friends. When you are a parent, you sacrifice a great deal. I knew this was going to happen, but being honest, sometimes I don’t want to play Legos and sing the ABCs all day. No, bringing three kids to the Zoo or to the Museum isn’t always fun. And meal time. Well, let’s just say, that is never fun. Going places with my kids is stressful and crazy and to say I have my hands full doing things like that is an understatement. As a mom I do feel pressure to act like that stuff is fun all the time. No I don’t really want to play toys and have tea parties all day. It’s not like that stuff is all bad, but really, it’s not always that enjoyable. I am not saying I don’t like to play with my kids. I am saying don’t expect me to enjoy it every second of the day. Parenting isn’t easy when your kids are screaming and fighting and crying. As a mom I have to try to act calm even when I am sad or feel like crying myself. As a mom, there are moments I can’t stand. My kids can be clingy, cranky, messy, demanding and impossible to please, so sometimes when I hear, “enjoy it while it lasts,“ I am thinking to myself, I can’t wait until this very moment is long gone.
Overall, even after saying that there are many moments that I do not enjoy, being a parent is wonderful. I can’t say that I would trade being a mom for anything in the world, but there are single moments of Motherhood that I would trade for anything else in the world. There are moments where my child is having a tantrum and screaming and crying and I just want to run away. Just please let this moment pass. But then there is also that moment where my child is crying from sadness and I wouldn’t trade being able to hold them and console them for anything in the world. So I do buck up and I do take the good with the bad. This is what the job entails.
There have been moments where I’ve been proud or awestricken. There are moments when your child takes their first step or smiles for the first time or tells you they love you or says something so cute you can barely take it. Yes, I can get caught up in reckless playing with my children and just be having a perfect blissful moment. There are even moments that don’t mean anything that I love. Sometimes I can just look over at my kids and think, God, I love being their Mom. There are wonderful, amazing moments that catch you by surprise and make parenthood so special. I cherish those moments, and I know I will be sad when some of those moments are long gone. But I think it’s unrealistic to think that I need to cherish every single moment. So no, I can’t enjoy every moment, so let’s stop implying that we should. What I can do is try to enjoy enough little moments so that I can look back and think yes, I did okay.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
When talking to my single friends looking for love, I keep hearing women ask, “Just where are all the Princes anyway?” I think from the time us women are very young we expect our lives are going to end up like a Disney Movie. We look for the handsome prince to scoop us up, sweep us off our feet, and carry us off into the sunset on the back of their white horse and onward to the castle in the sky. Snow White sang our mantra, “Someday My Prince Will Come,” and that little tune warms our hearts and we nod with hypnotic visions of what love is supposed to be in our eyes and unrealistic expectations in our brains.
So now, when we’re in our 20’s & 30’s and 40’s and single or divorced or even in an imperfect marriage, we question: Where’s my prince, my knight in shining armor, why can’t my life be like the movies? Well, I’m here to say #1 we don’t live in the movies and #2 maybe the prince doesn’t really exist. Are you sad yet? The same childhood movies that fool us into thinking what a prince is really supposed to be like, is also the same movies that show us plainly that these princely guys may not be the dreamy men that we think they’re all cracked up to be.
Take Snow White for example, her so-called “prince” is actually kind of clueless and creepy. When The Prince finds her in the woods after being lost and confused, he scares her half to death and Snow White actually runs away from him. The Prince doesn’t take the hint at all, he shows up and kisses her when he thinks she’s dead. This kind of freaky postmortem fetish isn’t really up my alley at all, but somehow makes birds chirp, dwarves dance and awakens Snow White to her senses. We all know a good kisser is a plus, but come on, no man is that good.
That brings me to Cinderella and her prince, Prince Charming. So Cinderella meets Prince Charming at the ball, he instantly falls in love with her, yet even after an entire night of dancing doesn’t even bother to learn her name. So then he has the brilliant idea of finding the girl he “loves” by saying he will marry anybody who fits into the shoe he’s carrying around. I mean, luckily he found the right woman, but what are the odds? How many of your friends have the same shoe size as you? I’m pretty sure it was a ploy to fulfill his foot fetish and he was really willing to pick the first girl he wanted based on the feel of her foot. This feeling of kismet is tempting, but keep moving Cinderella, you can do better.
Moving on to Princess Aurora and Prince Phillip. First of all, he still lives with his parents. Ugh. This tells us he probably doesn’t have a job and isn’t very ambitious. Then, he’s another one who kisses girls while they’re sleeping. This is called Date Rape, ladies. Stay away!
Moving on to Jasmine and Aladdin. Where do I start? Aladdin is a reckless, homeless, bad boy, thief that lies about everything he is to get Jasmine to like him. If this was real, all your girl friends would tell you how bad this guy is. Once a liar, always a liar. Dump him immediately.
What about Peter Pan? This guy starts the relationship being a peeping tom & watching Wendy through her windows at night. This is not endearing ladies, this is creepy. Then we find out Peter is an immature player (hello, Tinker bell, Tiger Lilly) that refuses to act mature. We all have dated guys like this and all he wants to do is play video games and run around with his friends. You can not change him. He will never grow up. Avoid!
While growing up, who hasn’t wanted to live in a magical castle. Too bad in Belle’s case this meant living with a controlling, verbally abusive, self centered monster like the Beast. I’d suggest he get anger management classes immediately and Belle get the hell out of that situation before it’s too late and things get worse.
Then we have Flynn Ryder in Tangled. He’s another thief that gets incarcerated. Keep moving Rapunzel, a guy with a rap sheet is not a catch.
This brings me to Prince Eric from the Little Mermaid. This guy doesn’t care about who he’s with as long as she’s a good singer. This seems very shallow to me. Eric goes back and fort from this Ursula/ Vanessa character and then to Ariel so easily, we all know he’s not being genuine with either one. Another thing, Eric seems so clueless, that even when on a date and they’re under the glow of the moon and romantic music is playing, Ariel is dropping hints all over the place, he still can’t take the initiative and just “Kiss the Girl.” We all know this guy is a Mamma’s boy and we would totally have to do everything for him and teach him everything. I don’t know about you, but I need a man that can do things for himself. This guy is totally leaving his clothes on the bathroom floor and knows absolutely nothing in the bedroom. No thank you. Next.
Then we have Captain John Smith. First of all, he needs to respect boundaries and not be kissing Pocahontas when she already has a boyfriend. Then, in talking to Pocahontas, he reveals his true racist feelings, saying his people have improved the lives of the “Savages.” Come on Pocahontas, don’t degrade yourself like this. Find a man who appreciates you for you and respects your culture.
So after running down the list of all the so-called heroic princes that we all love, I have to ask the question: Are women really that naive or are we taught from our youth to pick the wrong men? I am pleading with all you women out there, please don’t be like Snow White. Please don’t stare dreamingly up to the sky and sing how someday your prince will come and imagine being with a man that you don’t even know exists or not. Get out of the house and hop on your own white horse. Don’t dream about the castle in the sky, because this is more unrealistic that the American Dream. We all know neither one exist in the way fairy tales tell us they do. I’m sure there’s a great guy out there for you, but he’s not from the Disney movies, and frankly thank God, because those guys are losers!
So now, when we’re in our 20’s & 30’s and 40’s and single or divorced or even in an imperfect marriage, we question: Where’s my prince, my knight in shining armor, why can’t my life be like the movies? Well, I’m here to say #1 we don’t live in the movies and #2 maybe the prince doesn’t really exist. Are you sad yet? The same childhood movies that fool us into thinking what a prince is really supposed to be like, is also the same movies that show us plainly that these princely guys may not be the dreamy men that we think they’re all cracked up to be.
Take Snow White for example, her so-called “prince” is actually kind of clueless and creepy. When The Prince finds her in the woods after being lost and confused, he scares her half to death and Snow White actually runs away from him. The Prince doesn’t take the hint at all, he shows up and kisses her when he thinks she’s dead. This kind of freaky postmortem fetish isn’t really up my alley at all, but somehow makes birds chirp, dwarves dance and awakens Snow White to her senses. We all know a good kisser is a plus, but come on, no man is that good.
That brings me to Cinderella and her prince, Prince Charming. So Cinderella meets Prince Charming at the ball, he instantly falls in love with her, yet even after an entire night of dancing doesn’t even bother to learn her name. So then he has the brilliant idea of finding the girl he “loves” by saying he will marry anybody who fits into the shoe he’s carrying around. I mean, luckily he found the right woman, but what are the odds? How many of your friends have the same shoe size as you? I’m pretty sure it was a ploy to fulfill his foot fetish and he was really willing to pick the first girl he wanted based on the feel of her foot. This feeling of kismet is tempting, but keep moving Cinderella, you can do better.
Moving on to Princess Aurora and Prince Phillip. First of all, he still lives with his parents. Ugh. This tells us he probably doesn’t have a job and isn’t very ambitious. Then, he’s another one who kisses girls while they’re sleeping. This is called Date Rape, ladies. Stay away!
Moving on to Jasmine and Aladdin. Where do I start? Aladdin is a reckless, homeless, bad boy, thief that lies about everything he is to get Jasmine to like him. If this was real, all your girl friends would tell you how bad this guy is. Once a liar, always a liar. Dump him immediately.
What about Peter Pan? This guy starts the relationship being a peeping tom & watching Wendy through her windows at night. This is not endearing ladies, this is creepy. Then we find out Peter is an immature player (hello, Tinker bell, Tiger Lilly) that refuses to act mature. We all have dated guys like this and all he wants to do is play video games and run around with his friends. You can not change him. He will never grow up. Avoid!
While growing up, who hasn’t wanted to live in a magical castle. Too bad in Belle’s case this meant living with a controlling, verbally abusive, self centered monster like the Beast. I’d suggest he get anger management classes immediately and Belle get the hell out of that situation before it’s too late and things get worse.
Then we have Flynn Ryder in Tangled. He’s another thief that gets incarcerated. Keep moving Rapunzel, a guy with a rap sheet is not a catch.
This brings me to Prince Eric from the Little Mermaid. This guy doesn’t care about who he’s with as long as she’s a good singer. This seems very shallow to me. Eric goes back and fort from this Ursula/ Vanessa character and then to Ariel so easily, we all know he’s not being genuine with either one. Another thing, Eric seems so clueless, that even when on a date and they’re under the glow of the moon and romantic music is playing, Ariel is dropping hints all over the place, he still can’t take the initiative and just “Kiss the Girl.” We all know this guy is a Mamma’s boy and we would totally have to do everything for him and teach him everything. I don’t know about you, but I need a man that can do things for himself. This guy is totally leaving his clothes on the bathroom floor and knows absolutely nothing in the bedroom. No thank you. Next.
Then we have Captain John Smith. First of all, he needs to respect boundaries and not be kissing Pocahontas when she already has a boyfriend. Then, in talking to Pocahontas, he reveals his true racist feelings, saying his people have improved the lives of the “Savages.” Come on Pocahontas, don’t degrade yourself like this. Find a man who appreciates you for you and respects your culture.
So after running down the list of all the so-called heroic princes that we all love, I have to ask the question: Are women really that naive or are we taught from our youth to pick the wrong men? I am pleading with all you women out there, please don’t be like Snow White. Please don’t stare dreamingly up to the sky and sing how someday your prince will come and imagine being with a man that you don’t even know exists or not. Get out of the house and hop on your own white horse. Don’t dream about the castle in the sky, because this is more unrealistic that the American Dream. We all know neither one exist in the way fairy tales tell us they do. I’m sure there’s a great guy out there for you, but he’s not from the Disney movies, and frankly thank God, because those guys are losers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)