Archive | Parenting RSS feed for this section

Delusional Mom creates problem where none exists, and encourages girls to be delusional too! Sweet! Way to go, Mom!

30 Aug

Yesterday, I made a very rare trip to the mall to pick up some back to school clothes for my children. My oldest daughter, PinkyPinkyPie, will be twelve years old this year, and like almost all pre-teen girls, she has an intense interest in her clothing and how she presents herself.

Pinky has never been one to care much about clothes. As long as they are comfortable, she’s happy. And while comfort is still a big factor for her, she has now added a sense of “fashion” to her sartorial requirements. And I have to say, I adore Pinky’s sense of fashion. Last year, for indoor shoes, she had a pair of sapphire blue sequined combat boots, which I absolutely loved! This year, she picked a pair of black sequined combat boots with silver stars and bright purple laces.


How awesome are those boots? Totally girly, but not over the top Princess girly. Pinky is having a love affair with skulls, camouflage and animal prints, too, and she glams them up with sparkles and small touches of pink or purple. Here is her beloved camo ballet skirt outfit, and I’ve lifted up the edge of the skirt to show that not only is it lined, there are built in shorts so she can do pretty much anything she likes without exposing herself.


It’s really not that hard to find girl clothes that are not painfully frilly or cutesy pie or inappropriately mature for the age group. To be certain, if you go looking for hooker clothes for 12 year olds, you will find them, but you can just as easily find clever, cute, empowering clothing, too.

The store we love is called Justice, and while you will occasionally see the “Girls can do anything rah rah rah” bullshit, for the most part, the clothes celebrate girls without implicitly claiming victimhood or denigrating boys.



I mean, really, the whole “girls can do anything, girls can be anything” sloganeering strongly implies “if no one holds us back”, doesn’t it? It teaches girls to think of themselves as defying some sort of force that keeps them down. To think of themselves, in other words, as victims.

My daughter is not a victim. The only thing holding her down or back is herself. I will not allow her to pass the responsibility for her own life and her own choices off onto some nebulous creation that somehow “victimizes” her before she even begins.

Fuck that.


My dad is my BFF! How sweet is that? Pinky’s Dad is not her BFF, and he’s happy to demonstrate that when she crosses boundaries, but the sentiment is incredibly lovely, and it’s not something you see very often, is it? The celebration of love between fathers and daughters.

Sadly, some chick named Sharon Choski has never heard of Justice clothing, and is apparently unfamiliar with the fact that girls don’t actually get arrested or sentenced to hard time for preferring t-shirts hanging in the boy’s department. The last time I was at Wal-mart, no one checked to make sure I was buying those Star Wars and Lego graphic tees for my son.

star wars

Sharon was so dismayed by the lack of alternatives to girly frilly shit, and so stumped by the alternative of shopping in the boy’s department, that she created a clothing line that consists of t-shirts just for girls.

girls will be

What makes these t-shirts just for girls? Well, they are sized to avoid that boxy boy look. You know, a little more form-fitting. To draw attention to the girl’s bodies as feminine. Hey, way to subvert those gender expectations and get girls to think their bodies are the most important thing about them!


I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with girls being aware of the power their bodies have, but it’s rather rich to claim some feminist, gender defiance impulse inspired your clothing line, and then design clothes to emphasize a girl’s body.

We hope this shirt is just the beginning of our story. Because we believe there is a need for all kinds of clothes that follow the Girls Will Be style – colors beyond pink, no girly embellishments, imagery that breaks gender stereotypes, and styles that let girls be kids.

Our style is quite simple, yet incredibly hard to find. We tweaked a traditional unisex t-shirt to give it a slimmer fit, ever-so-slight shape to the body, less boxy sleeves with a “just right” length, and lighter weight fabric.

And what do the shirts look like?

Pretty boring, if you ask me.




Nothing you can’t find at any Wal-mart or Target. And what’s up with this one?


Popsicles? Things you lick and suck? Oh, okay. Nothing to read into that.

Here are the ones that really interest me:


Be daring. Bold, fearless, adventurous. Oh really? Bold, like SlaneGirl bold, or bold like Captain Kirk? Why not just get her a Captain Kirk t-shirt?


A message like that without any context can easily be misconstrued into “do whatever the fuck you want and damn the consequences”. Just the message young girls need. Consequences do not apply to you.



I am me. Good for you, sweetheart, but YOU are not the only person in the world who matters. Stop thinking about YOU for a second and try considering everyone around you for a change. Yeah, narcissism is exactly what young girls need to add to their trove of virtues.

What about meeeeeeeeeeee?


Be awesome. Sure. Go ahead. How are we defining awesome again? Make robots? Swim with sharks? Be an astronaut? Fly 747s?


Hate to break it to you, cupcake, but it’s mostly boys who will grow up to do and be those things.


Women make up about 5% of the 53,000 members of the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at major and regional carriers in the United States and Canada.

Most engineers building robots and every other useful thing are men.

More than twice as many men than women attend graduate school for computer science fields, and more than four times as many men are enrolled in engineering,

When women like Sharon tell young girls that girly shirts celebrating femininity and all the attendant attributes are unacceptable, what they are essentially telling girls is YOU SUCK. And feminists applaud message because they just love women so much, right?


Being a girl is shameful. Having feminine interests and inclinations is wrong. Preferring colors and accessories that appeal to women is bad. Everything about being a girl is disgraceful and distasteful.

Girls suck.

Unless they act like boys. Pretend you love sharks and robots and baseball and always, always go ahead and just be your awesome self!

Do you see the disconnect? I certainly do, and it pisses me off. Girls, be yourself, as long as by “yourself”, you mean just like a boy. Boys are way better anyways, aren’t they?

Hey, I love boys. I grew up surrounded by them and I have one of my own, and he is totally adorable and very much a boy. I also love my girls and I am perfectly comfortable with my girls liking girly things.

Because I don’t hate girls. Or the feminine. And I don’t believe that just because women aren’t engineers or airline pilots, we are worth less than men. We’re different. What the fuck is wrong with different?


Some girls hate frills. They really do love sharks and robots and baseball. And that is awesome. Just because some girls are tomboys doesn’t mean we need to shame and hate little girls who are feminine and like to look that way. And we sure as hell don’t need to set little girls up to think that only male interests and occupations are worth pursuing and that failure is the result of some imaginary forcefield holding all the girls down.

Poor little sparkly victims in their sequined shoes and pink tutus.

It’s bullshit. And there is no need to create clothing lines that aren’t feminine. Those clothes already exist.

They’re in the boy’s department.

boys dept

If your girl loves monster trucks and pro-wrestling, then head on over to boy’s wear.

And leave the rest of us alone. We like our frills and rainbows and tutus and sparkles.


And we love girls.

Lots of love,


Being a mother isn’t a job? Bullshit. Is it the toughest job? Hahahahahahah! Nope. But it’s definitely a job.

13 Jul





Lots of interesting commentary around the recent Parents survey that reveals 92% of all mothers agree with the statement “There’s no tougher job than being a mom”.


There are a number of different factors at play when we talk about “mothering” and what constitutes a “job” and what makes a job “tough” – let’s tackle them one by one.


Predictably, Jezebel begins with the old Simone de Beauvior “being a stay at home mother and wife should be banned” bullshit.




No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

– “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.


Feminism: giving women choices. Except the one they would most prefer.


Jezebel has a long history of slagging on women who do their work outside the formal economic structure of the marketplace, and it’s not the JOB they hate, so much as the women who do the job for their OWN families rather than for strangers.


Is working in daycare center a job?

Is running a housekeeping service a job?

Is owning a catering business a job?


Happy baking cooking woman


Of course it is, but only if you are selling your services in the formal marketplace. Provide those services for the family you love, and you are a pitiable dupe of the patriarchy. Because someone has to the earn the living, right? And if Mommy is at home, it must be Daddy doing the productive economic labor.


Oh, dear. Too much power for Daddy. Out there every day slogging in some job he may or may not enjoy so he can have the pleasure of lording it over the woman who gets to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, all day long.


I find it interesting that when a family has TWO Daddies, they are more likely to embrace the traditional division of family labor, and have one Daddy at home full time.


gay dads


In his seminal book A Treatise on the Family, published in 1981, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker argued that “specialization,” whereby one parent stays home and the other does the earning, is the most efficient way of running a household, because the at-home spouse enables the at-work spouse to earn more.

Guess who is most likely to specialize? Gay dads.


When you take the ideology of gender and feminism out of the equation and ask a couple raising children to make the most sensible economic choice, the traditional family wins out. If the debate were really about what makes the most financial sense, then having a parent at home would be a no-brainer.


But that is not what the debate is about. It’s about giving women the power to game a system that ensures that no matter how hard a man works, his wife will always be able to control the family assets and access to the children.


divorce-cake (4)[2]


And that conversation starts with denying that the at-home parent is even doing an economically productive job at all.


But the thing is, being a mom is not a job—if it were, you’d get time off, maybe some health insurance, and most importantly, paid for all your hard work.


Naturally, what Jezebel refuses to consider is Becker’s evidence that having one parent at home allows the other parent to be more productive, earning a premium, and that premium is the income the at-home parent contributes. Even if you are going to hold fast to the idea that cooking dinner every night only counts if you sell the dinner to your neighbor, not feed your own family, you can STILL measure a wage increase attributable to the at home parent.


Hey, the Nobel Prize committee thought it was pretty compelling evidence for specialization, but what do they know, right?




If millions of women decided “fuck this cubicle shit, I’m going home”, and millions more young women decided “screw $50 000 worth of student debt so I can work minimum wage, I’m getting married”, it would have a dramatic impact on both the marketplace and marriage.


Not very men want the pleasure of supporting a fat, nagging hag with a permanent bitch face. Creating a union in which one person is dependent upon another requires some slightly different attributes than a union in which two people compete for resources rather than cooperate.




Remember the Princeton mom who encouraged women to look for husbands at university? She was roundly spanked in the media, but she has a book deal! I can’t wait for that book. Publishers know there is a market for a book like that.


Personally, I think the market is growing, too. Young women especially are seeing that the whole housewife gig is a far cry from oppressive and dreary. It’s actually the best damn job any woman could have!




That brings us to our second point: being a mother is the toughest job in the world.


Excuse while I laugh hysterically for a moment.






oil rig










What do all these jobs have in common? They are physically and/or intellectually demanding, some are highly dangerous and the vast majority of the workforce in these occupations are men.


dead men


Maybe I’m doing it wrong, but so far, mothering has not included any dynamite, out of control flames, chemical spills or crude oil. Hell, I don’t even deal with clogged toilets or drains.




I text my husband for that shit.




I will add the caveat that having a newborn in the house is physically EXHAUSTING labor, but it’s not physically demanding in the way that construction or roofing is. Not even close.


So why is it that so many mothers agree that being a mom is not just a tough job, it’s THE toughest job?


Because most of them are shit mothers. That’s my theory. I’d like to see how many stay at home moms agree with that statement. Those of us who spend our days making cake pops for the kids dance troupe fundraiser (I have to make TWO THOUSAND by September 1st!), ignoring the housework and blogging in our spare time might have a thing or two to relate about how “tough” our lives are.




Women who leave the house every day, dragging sleepy, sobbing children off to the day orphanage, trying to get one modicum of “work” done in their cubicles then racing to the grocery store to pick up some shitty processed food to microwave for dinner might find mothering a “tough” job because it’s hard to cram in around all the other “priorities”.


Some of those women have so many other “priorities” that they completely forget they are supposed to drop off the baby for some other woman to raise, and they leave the baby to cook to death in the back seat of a hot car.




20 children have already died in hot cars in 2013. You know what kills me? What just kills me? The advice to avoid doing this to your own baby is to put your mobile phone in the baby’s seat or your purse on the floor near the baby. You know, something important. Something you would never forget. Something that has top priority in your life.


iphone girl




And it makes me rage when I hear sanctimonious commenters say “it could happen to anyone”. Like fuck it can. I do not mentally check out of my baby’s life for eight hours a day, expecting someone else to be responsible. The odds that I would “forget” my baby in the car are ZERO!




Failing to make mothering your primary job means that babies die. And the ones that don’t die are still miserable and unpleasant and angry and unsettled and really, really hard to take care of. They’re not being cared for in the way every neuron in their brain tells them is necessary. They need an attachment to a primary caregiver, and when they don’t get it, bad things happen.


‘No one can deny that daycare increases aggressiveness of toddlers. A toddler raised at home with a single carer is six times less likely to be aggressive than one enduring more than 45 hours a week daycare and the more daycare a child has, the greater the aggression. This aggression is sustained and predicts greater problems in primary schools.’


That Parenting survey was missing a word: Being a SHITTY mother is the toughest job in the world.




Now I have to go and get started on those cake pops. I need to make around 80 a day (weekends off) to hit 2000 by September 1st. This is the first year I am in charge of fundraising. I figure we’ll clear $4000 our first event. That’s quadruple the amount the squad made last year for the WHOLE year.


Oh, but don’t worry. I won’t consider it work. And I sure won’t delude myself into thinking making cake pops is “tough”. It’s actually a lot of fun! Look at the things you can do with a cake pop!


cake pops


cake pops 3


cake pops 2


Beats being a garbage collector any day. I wonder if the garbage crew would enjoy a cake pop the next time they swing down our street?



I think I’ll find out.


Lots of love,




Legal Parental Surrender is NOT morally equivalent to an abortion and no amount of bitchy sarcasm will make it so. Yeah, Amanda Marcotte, I’m talking to you.

10 Jul


It was heartening to see the New York Times jump into the reproductive rights fray recently  with their editorial questioning whether men actually have any.  Answer:  Nope.  Not really.

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Predictably, feminist website Jezebel responds with compassion and intelligence to a fairly complex conundrum that seems to be inherently biased against men.


Boo fucking hoo. At the end of the day, the only thing the government, and society, requires fathers to do is pay money, which is a hell of a lot easier than raising a child alone, as most mothers who have children out of wedlock are forced to do.

Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon is equally concerned when men’s freedom to choose to be a parent is curtailed:

I have to laugh at her question, “Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women?”

But I really think it’s Amanda Marcotte who takes the cake, agreeing that forced fatherhood is indeed unfair, and then summoning her bitchiest bitch tone to claim that for one thing, there are only about three men who have been forced into fatherhood, and men who don’t want to become parents are “dead-beat dad” wannabes and refusing to turn your resources over to a woman you explicitly do not wish to parent with is the moral equivalent of killing your child.

hat trick

It’s a hat-trick of idiocy!

For fuck’s sake, I can’t believe the NY Times gave space to the tedious argument that because women have been graciously granted their right to reproductive autonomy (actually, it’s not even remotely gracious), it’s time to deal with the largely imaginary plague of “forced fatherhood”, i.e. women getting pregnant and carrying pregnancies to term against the father’s wishes, and then suing him for child support. This happens occasionally, though compared to men trying to force women to get pregnant against their wills, it’s so rare that it’s comparable to shark attacks in its frequency.

Well, we dealt with the whole birth control sabotage thing a few days ago, and to the surprise of only me, apparently, sabotaging birth control so women can get pregnant against their male partners wishes is not just frequent, it’s normal.

There are a number of ways that paternity can be established when it comes to women who have chosen to have children without the explicit support of the father.

Voluntary acknowledgement – the father acknowledges that he is, in fact, the father

Administrative – child support agencies contact the putative father and the case proceeds from there

Judicial – the courts contact the putative father and the case proceeds from there

Default – the courts accept the word of the woman and simply names the father

The following report goes into the advantages and disadvantages of these different methods, but there is one chart in particular I would like to draw your attention to: 62% of local child support staff perceive there to be a an advantage in using any method OTHER than voluntary acknowledgement of paternity because it ensures that the correct father is identified.


Now why would that be?  Why would the majority of child support workers think identifying the correct father through something other than just “she said it’s true, so I guess it must be?”.


Could it be because the WRONG MEN are identified as fathers rather routinely?  It appears that child support workers deal with the “imaginary plague” of women having children outside of an established relationship and seeking child support from men who may or may not be the biological father ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

Imaginary plague, my ass.

Let’s move on to Amanda’s use of the words “paper abortion”.

Focusing on “paper abortions” is a way to soften up an audience to the demands of men who want to foist all the responsibilities of child-rearing onto their exes while still getting to float in periodically to be the big hero who takes the kids to Disneyland once in awhile. If you actually go to “father’s rights” forums and websites, you’ll find lots of paranoia about sperm-stealing, but the men who are on the forum almost all are divorced and are bitter about writing child support checks while not getting the sexual and house-cleaning benefits of having a wife.

Yeah, that’s exactly the topic we are discussing.  Amanda has mixed up two very distinct group of men:  fathers who are very much interested in being fathers who have been ousted from their children’s lives, and men who are confronting an unintended pregnancy only to discover they have absolutely no say in how that pregnancy proceeds.


The use of the words “paper abortion” is unfortunate, and I hope it is not a common phrase uttered by those who are interested in reproductive rights for men, because it strongly implies that refusing to be a parent by disavowing social and financial responsibility is morally equivalent to killing the child outright.

It’s not.

To equate refuting responsibility with death is disingenuous at the very least.  Men are not asking for the right to “abort” a child. The decision to allow a child to live belongs to women, as it must.  Men are asking for the same right that women already have:


safe haven

A woman who gives birth to a child she does want to accept legal or financial responsibility for has the option to surrender that child to the state and simply walk away.  The child will be given to someone who DOES want legal and financial responsibility, and the expense to the state is minimal and of finite duration.

Men should have the exact same right.

Amanda has some caveats she wants to attach to that right.  Let’s take them one by one.

He has to sign away all rights before the baby is born.  He does not get his name on the birth certificate. The child’s father will be registered as “unknown”. If someone else—say his ex’s new husband—wishes to adopt and coparent the child, he cannot interfere.

Agreed.  No problem whatsoever.

The only exception to this is if the mother did not alert the father to the pregnancy beforehand. He should be able to provide witnesses to testify that he hadn’t seen her in at least six months prior to the birth.

Uhm, no.  SHE should have to provide evidence.  Prove that she DID see him. Prove that a relationship DID exist. The burden of proof should be on the woman who has decided to give birth a child without knowing how she is going to support that child, and not on the man who may not even be aware of a birth control sabotage/failure.


He never contacts the child. As far as his child knows, he’s a ghost. No visits, no toys, no pictures, nothing. He should also not be allowed to contact the mother. If he reaches out to the mother, she has full rights to sue him for child support, using that as evidence that he actually does want a relationship with his ex and his biological child.

How are people who may work together or live in a small community or go to the same school together supposed to avoid contact?  This is an unreasonable demand.

This is for life. If you contact the child on her 18th birthday, you owe 18 years of back child support. If you contact the child when she’s 30, same thing: All 18 years of child support, with interest.


Bullshit.  This is for 18 years, same as in the case of legal parental surrender.  At that point the child is an adult and free to pursue his or her biological origins just as any other adoptee.  There is no guarantee that the father who has legally surrendered his child wishes to have a relationship, just as there is no guarantee that adopted children will have an adult relationship their biological parents.

If the court determines you were abusive to your ex, all the above is invalidated and you will pay child support with no visitation rights if the judge so determines.

Oh fuck off.  Get out of jail free card, much?  Allegations of abuse are routinely lobbed at men, with no basis in fact, other than her word.  This caveat invalidates every previous assertion. It’s straight up manipulative bullshit.

While we’re at it, let’s say children who don’t have child support get a special stipend from the government, much like the Social Security payments they’d get if you were dead.

adopted 2

Let’s say not.  In the case of legal parental surrender, the state is on the hook for the costs of placing the child with parents who DO want to accept legal and financial responsibility, which then transfers to those parents.  You don’t get to make the state your husband because you have made a terrible decision.

It’s interesting that a writer as virulently feminist as Marcotte would even lend her voice to this topic. That says a lot about how far reproductive rights for all has come. It needs to go a bit further, though.

It comes down to understanding that rights come with responsibilities.  Women have, and must have, the sole jurisdiction over deciding whether their bodies can be used to create a new life.  The right to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the person who is pregnant. But it comes with a responsibility.  If you are going to create that new life, you are responsible for it.  Especially if you are creating that life against the will of the father.

If you are married, you are responsible for maintaining that marriage for the long run.  That applies equally to men and women.  If you create a union and bring children into it, only the direst of circumstances gives you the right to dismantle that union.

If you are unwed, and have no social resources, you are STILL responsible for that child, because you exercised your right to bear him or her.  You can meet those obligations by being a single mother (bad choice) or by surrendering your legal and financial responsibility.  And that SHOULD apply to equally to men and women.  A legally surrendered child should be offered to the biological father FIRST.  He should have the right to claim sole responsibility, should he so desire.


I strongly suspect it is not babies that daddies don’t want responsibility for.  It’s the baby-mama they’re not interested in. That’s just a suspicion, though.  According to the PEW research council, the rate of households headed by single fathers is growing rapidly.  One quarter of single family homes are headed by daddy. That strongly suggests men are more than willing to step up to the plate to care for their children.

I suspect 2-3 men will take this offer a year if it becomes law. Maybe even a dozen!

You keep telling yourself that, Amanda.  Bring the law in.  Equal rights to legal parental surrender.

Who thinks the birth rates for single mothers will collapse?  Who thinks the astonishing number of children born to the rich and famous out of wedlock will collapse?

It’s certainly worth taking this hypothetical out of the arsenal of “men’s rights” activists.


You won’t be taking anything out of the arsenal, honey.  You’ll just be giving men the same weapons that women take for granted.

The right to force men into fatherhood is a right that women NEED to lose.  The sooner the better.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: