Photo courtesy Ohio University

What are you going to be for Halloween?

It’s a question we ask and answer over and over again at this time of year, whether we will be taking our children trick-or-treating for the first time, or trying to out-do our friends at the annual costume party.  And there are many of us that put quite a bit of effort into Halloween costumes – making a child’s costume by hand, spending too much money on a store-bought outfit or wracking our brains to come up with something clever and original that will have people talking until next Halloween.

But this year, a group of students at Ohio University would like us to think about something else when we are planning our Halloween costumes, and have come out with a campaign to help us do just that.

We’re a Culture, Not a Costume is a poster campaign launched by Students Teaching Against Racism in Society (STARS), and has each of several posters featuring students of various cultural backgrounds holding pictures depicting people dressed up in stereotypical and racist garb. In one poster, a woman of Asian descent holds up a picture of somebody dressed as a Geisha. “This is not who I am and this is not OK” the poster proclaims. It’s a strong message, and not surprisingly, the campaign has gone viral, exploding on Facebook and in other social media channels.

And while many of the images are disturbing (the student of Arab descent holding up the poster of somebody dressed as a Sheik-come-suicide bomber is particularly unsettling), I have to admit, I am unsure of where exactly – when it comes to Halloween costumes at least – the line that separates parody and archetype from  racism, is drawn.

I would probably not have thought of somebody dressed up as a Geisha as somebody being insensitive to Japanese culture. Why that is, exactly, I’m not sure. Because the misogynistic or enslaving implications of Geisha culture outweigh the racist ones? Because Geisha is no longer widely practiced and therefore already in the realm of parody and history but not stereotype? Because I am too ignorant to fully understand the implication? Like I said, I’m not sure.

There are definitely costumes that should never be worn, for cultural reasons. Dressing up as a Nazi comes to mind as about offensive a costume as you can get, but how many cave-dwelling Osama Bin Ladens do you think there will be at the Legion this year? Anybody with access to some combat fatigues and wig can go as Gadhaffi, and I’m pretty sure he’d get a few good guffaws. Their death count may not have been as high or as swift as Hitler’s, but genocide is genocide and I doubt people need to see any despot’s party tricks.

Does intention or model, I wonder, have any bearing on precisely how racist one should perceive a costume? I would cringe at the site of an ‘Indian Chief’ costume, all headdress and war paint and animal skin pants, but what about the dress and raven-hued hair of the hero princess Pocahontas?  I’ve already said that I have an issue with somebody dressed as an Arab sheik (bombs or not), but what about a little girl donning the costume of her beloved Jasmine? Is it ok if Disney does it first?

Last year, I dressed up as one of four sister wives at the inaugural Blissdom Canada Costumes and Karaoke party, something that could have been seen as offensive to a member of the Mormon Church. We knew that was a possibility, but quite frankly, dismissed our uncertainties almost immediately because we felt that parody trumped cultural insensitivity, and we went on to become some of the most widely talked-about masqueraders there.

This year, my group went as Georgian zombies, which should probably have only offended the most die-hard of Jane Austen enthusiasts, but are we now to scrutinize every costume for potential of offense? Perhaps the answer is a resounding yes, but I also wonder about (note – wonder about, not condone) the notion of turning even the most innocent of intentions into cause for alarm. I’m just glad that my own kids’ Halloween costumes are already decided. Hopefully the dragon and Bat Girl won’t get anybody’s ire up.

So what do you think as Halloween draws ever nearer? Is this about cultural sensitivity, or are we just being oversensitive?

Barbie.

One word that strikes fear in some Bad Moms hearts while for other Bad Moms it brings back a flood of fond memories of dress-up and make-believe.

Who knew Barbie could be so complicated and controversial? Oh who am I kidding, she always has been that way. For a toy based on a German character who embodied the sexual revolution, she sure has firmly entrenched herself in women’s movement. It’s just unclear what side she’s on. Anyway.

Here at the Bad Moms Club we have covered the various sides of Barbie debate from giving in to the entire Barbie phenomenon, protesting those who believe  Barbie defines the ideal female physical form, boys and Barbies, Barbie’s beliefs or lack thereof, or alternative uses/repurposing of Barbie. We’ve really tried to run the gamut, a gamut that really never ends. Enter the newest course:

Barbie has a new twist and I’m not sure what I think about it but I’m pretty sure I like it.

For some, this new Barbie means she has gone bad and I think that idea makes me like her just a bit more than five minutes ago.

For you see Barbie got inked.

That’s right. Tokidoki Barbie will be released this month and she has tattoos on her neck, décolletage and I’m not quite sure I want to know where else (odds of tramp stamp? HIGH).

Ignoring the fact that she’s wearing animal prints (oh Barbie, that’s so last year) and her pet is dressed like a cactus (that is one angry looking dog), isn’t it high time Barbie had some body ink? I mean, I’m a mom and I have a tattoo (or 12) and so do many of my mom friends.

And hey! None of us are bad people. Not one.

Granted all members of my parenting gang are Bad Moms but not in the traditional definition of ‘bad’. They are Bad Moms that embrace our philosophy of not judging other parents who are trying to raise their happy and healthy children different from standards set by media and some schools of thought.

Not that tattoos equal bad it’s just there is a school of thought that seems to think girls with tattoos are rebellious or reckless or just plain wrong.

Anyway. It makes me wonder what the ultra-conservative parents think of this latest member of Team Barbie? And not just the ultra-conservatives: what about all parents of little ones who ask for this standard classic in the toy arsenal, what do they think of this offering?

Only time — and sales — will tell.

via Nylon

Before I got married, my father filled my partner in on the secret to a happy marriage. “There are only two words you need to know,” he said. “Yes, dear.” That’s it, that’s all. The secret to blissful matrimony, according to my dad, is to simply comply with your wife’s wishes, or at the very least give the appearance that you are doing so. For the most part, I think my partner has done a pretty good job following that advice. There have been a few mishaps. Mostly when he pretended to be listening, said “yes, dear” or something similar, but then didn’t follow through with what he promised to do. But for the most part, I think he got it right.

My kids, however, still have some learning to do. I ask them to do something and they ignore me, defy me, or outright mock the request. Don’t they realize that it would be easier to live with me if they just did what I asked them to do?

In reality, I don’t expect my kids to comply blindly (the way my partner does!). I do, however, expect (unrealistically, I know) that they will at least listen to what I have to say, consider my reasons, and then discuss things with me if they disagree. Instead, they scream, ignore me, or do what I was asking them not to do. And believe me, it is hard to have a rational and calm discussion with a child who is screaming her lungs off while she paints the bathroom wall with toothpaste. Somehow when I try, I don’t feel like the message is getting through.

There is a lot of criticism of the school system for the way that it teaches our children simple obedience or compliance. I agree with that critique. I don’t want my children to follow the rules just because they are the rules. I don’t want them to obey orders just because someone in a perceived position of authority barked out those rules. What I really want, more than anything, is for them to learn to think for themselves, but to think for themselves in a way that considers their own needs, the needs of others, and the needs of our environment.

That, it seems, is too much to ask.

Perhaps it comes with time, with practice, with persistence, and with maturity. In the meantime, how do I cope?

This parenting gig would be an awful lot easier if kids were born with a reason gene. Isn’t that something science could get to work on?

Image credit: 96dpi on flickr

I hate it when writers take what could have been an interesting topic and worthwhile discussion and turn it into a rant against something they apparently know nothing about. In her article, Is Sex Passé?, second wave feminist Erica Jong says sex has become boring because younger women are “obsessed with motherhood and monogamy” (…and if you missed it last time, we’re also trying to perfect our babies by the way we nurture them).

Both motherhood and monogamy can certainly create challenges for passion and lust, but that doesn’t mean that those challenges are insurmountable. If anyone was looking for ideas or solutions in Erica’s article, however, they would be left sorely disappointed, utterly disgusted, or at the very least confused.

While writing about how women of my generation apparently idealize monogamy, Erica wrote:

Punishing the sexual woman is a hoary, antique meme found from “Jane Eyre” to “The Scarlet Letter” to “Sex and the City,” where the lustiest woman ended up with breast cancer. Sex for women is dangerous. Sex for women leads to madness in attics, cancer and death by fire. Better to soul cycle and write cookbooks. Better to give up men and sleep with one’s children. Better to wear one’s baby in a man-distancing sling and breast-feed at all hours so your mate knows your breasts don’t belong to him. Our current orgy of multiple maternity does indeed leave little room for sexuality. With children in your bed, is there any space for sexual passion? The question lingers in the air, unanswered.

For me, confusion lingered in the air. We’ve been sleeping in the same bed as our children since 2004, but I don’t understand what that has to do with sex. I mean, us Canadians sleep in our beds and have sex in canoes. I would expect that even the most conservative of Americans knows that you can have sex in places other than the marital bed, so why does an apparent maven of the sexual revolution like Erica Jong not understand that physical pleasure exists outside of the bed sheets?

In her post Dear Erica, Arwyn from Raising My Boychick wrote:

I am about to enter my 30s. I cosleep. I babywear. I breastfeed (for years). I am monogamous. And I have fucking fabulous sex.

She goes on to talk about all the places that she has that fucking fabulous sex before concluding that “if I were constantly held up in measurement against your visions of sex, your ideas of passion, your standards for sexuality, I might declare surrender and pretend disinterest as well.”

Ah yes, those standards. If you’re not doing it her way, then you just aren’t doing it right. As Jenny Islander wrote in the comments on Arwyn’s post, big flashy muscle cars are not always “all that” and sometimes a good reliable minivan will do just fine.

With three kids and one of us out of the house working most of the time, experimentation is a very low priority. Orgasms are the priority, preferably before the toddler wakes up in his crib needing midnight comforting or the cat starts to yowl that it’s about to puke. Everything else is a frill. The thing about minivan sex is, it gets you where you want to go. Muscle cars take too much fiddling around to get them to even start.

Do we have a duty to be having sex according to Jong’s rules? Betsy, who also commented on Arwyn’s post doesn’t think so: “I don’t buy into Jong’s definition of human sexuality — it sounds like a chore for a woman to fulfill, something akin to a kitchen sink that is sparkling clean.” Not everyone agrees of course, and Jessica Gottlieb has been known to tell other mom bloggers: “Ladies if you don’t want to fuck your husbands I’m pretty sure someone else does #HelpingYouStayMarried.”

All good points, all worth considering, but ultimately as with everything else in relationships and parenting, maybe there is a bit of room for figuring out what works for you and your family. Erica started out saying that “generalizing about cultural trends is tricky”, followed of course by “but….”. She should have stopped while she was ahead. Generalizing is dangerous. Some couples are having fucking fabulous sex, some are having mini van sex, some are not having sex, some are having solo sex, some are having occasional sex, some are having extramarital sex, and some are making sex into their evening chore. Surely this type of variety exists in the dating scene just as much as it exists in the monogamy scene? I mean sex for singles isn’t always mind-blowingly amazing, is it?

Passion is awesome. Passion can be worked on. But the bottom line is that throwing out a good partnership, loving relationship, and stable home because each and every day is not filled with “discombobulating and distracting” sex, just isn’t worth it for most people. That isn’t a rejection of passion, it is a realistic understanding that in an equal and respectful relationship, “piquant” may not be achievable each and every day and that isn’t the end of the world. Suggesting that it must be seems like the sexual equivalent of the 1950s expectation that a fabulous gourmet meal be served in heels and pearls every single night.

Sorry, but sometimes it is pizza night. For what it’s worth, I happen to appreciate a filet mignon more when I’m not eating it every single night.

What do you think? Is there a formula for passion that our generation is simply missing the boat on? Or are we doing okay?

Image credit: Heather Sunderland on flickr

what would you do?

He was a cute baby, perhaps 8 months old, all chubby cheeks and waving hands and little squeals. Sitting on his adult’s lap (I can only presume that it was his father, but that is indeed a presumption), that baby looked happy and clean and well-cared for. That baby made me smile.

And then the baby’s adult reached down beside him into a little paper bag, and shoved a fistful of popcorn into his mouth. The baby, being a baby, grabbed the man’s hand and yelped at him. I thought it was cute. It’s always cute when babies want what their adults have. Except then, the adult reached down into the bag again, came up with a single big, fluffy piece of popcorn, and popped it into cute baby’s mouth. Not cute! Not cute!

My stomach dropped and my eyes widened. Popcorn? For a baby? Is that adult crazy? I looked around to see if anybody else had noticed, but I seemed to be on my own. The man fished out another piece and gave it to the baby. And then another. They got into a bit of a rhythm – a fistful for me, a kernel for you. Cute baby was happy and seemed to like the popcorn, but all I could think was, cute baby is going to choke! Don’t you know how dangerous it is to give a baby popcorn?! Cute baby is going to die because cute baby’s adult is a moron!

I was absolutely stuck in a moral dilemma between standing there watching, minding my own business, and sprinting up to cute baby’s adult, informing him that You can’t feed popcorn to a baby! He will choke! He will die! I had no idea what I should do.

If cute baby had been un-seated in a car that pulled up next to me, I would have rolled down my window and yelled at them. Or maybe even called 911. If cute baby had been playing near an electrical outlet, or had a purse strap tangled around his neck, I would have said something. But I had no idea what to do about cute baby being fed popcorn.

The story ends with me getting off easy – cute baby’s female adult (presumably his mother) came back to the pair from some other corridor of the mall, and scooped cute baby up. She seemed neither concerned nor surprised about the baby’s current snack, but I can’t be sure she saw him eating it. The man got up and pushed the strolled after the woman, popcorn bag tucked into the basket underneath.

So I said nothing.

But it’s been nearly two years now and I still think about cute baby, my inability to make a moral vs safety call on the subject, and wonder if I should have said something.

Should I have said something? Would you?

A story broke this week about a Toronto Daycare Caterer who allegedly lied about food sources, preparation standards, and generally pretty much everything involving the food she provided to 75 different childcare facilities around the Greater Toronto Area. After my initial horror from reading the story, I immediately called my child’s daycare — who provide her two of her key meals on weekdays — to confirm their food source. Relief was felt when they put me at ease by telling me that they had never worked with this caterer. I’ve always been impressed by the menu at our daycare and my 5yo loves everything — except for the fish cakes but at least she gave them a try. The food is healthy, the variety is impressive, and while it’s not organic, neither is the stuff I serve at home.

Anyway. I count my family very lucky but what about the parents who had children in one of these daycares? It’s one thing to find out the ‘organic food’ your child was served was no where near organic — that fact alone is enough to make my head explode but what about the parents who discovered their children were eating:

• Halal meat that was just regular ol’ meat from the local discount grocers
• Kosher meals that have never seen a rabbi and kosher meat that was slaughtered contrary to tradition
• Undercooked meat and food transported without any cooling/warming systems
• Peanut-free snacks and food that actually contained or came in contact with nuts

Those accusations are all horrific and dangerous, and enough to make me rethink daycare (not that I can but I’d be lying if my mind didn’t try to figure out an alternative.) And to think: those are just some of the accusations made against the woman who runs this business. There are also claims of unskilled workers, prep facilities that violate regulations in too many ways to list, and re-labeling of food to cover up the lack of promised items.

These things — especially that nut one — could have killed a child. Killed a child.

I’m floored. I’m horrified. And I think this probably happens more than we’d like to think.

So why do people who run businesses do things like this? In my opinion it’s the bottom line: to save money. It almost always comes down to the almighty dollar. What a wonderful society we live in, eh?

The woman in the centre of the accusations is Susan Blouin, owner Whole Green Kids. She lives in a rented McMansion in Thornhill (a nice area north of Toronto for those outside the GTA), she drives a Porche Cayenne SUV, and apparently declared bankruptcy 4 years ago because she owed over $400,000. What does she have to say about the whole thing? In a nutshell: it’s disgruntled workers who are out to ruin her. Well Ms. Blouin, you will get your day in court (I hope) and I know you are innocent until proven guilty but even if one of these accusations is true, you should be ashamed of yourself and punished for letting your business operate this way. Everything on this list of accusations leads back to the operations of this business, and this is how I feel about anything she has to say about blaming this all one someone else:

• Untrained workers? Management’s fault
• Poor worker moral? Management’s fault
• Unsanitary conditions? Management’s fault
• Poor quality product? Management’s fault
• Poor Management? Owner’s fault
• Unchecked conditions as per The Board of Health? Okay, I’ll give her that one. Someone in that department needs to answer for that.

Please let this be an anomaly in the childcare system and please do not let this go unpunished if proven true. Families that need daycares put a lot of trust in those who provide that safe environment for the children, we don’t need this kind of worry with everything else that’s going on.

So what sayeth you fellow Bad Moms/Parents? Have you heard of similar stories? How do you handle a situation like this? How do you keep from running away from society and homeschooling the little ones? This Bad Mom wants to know.

source

image source

Subject: Oh , sigh…

Karen,

I’m sick of mothers who think that their voice is the only one that should be heard or that matters.

I chose not to have children and resent that I have to pay for the health, education and care of the kids of mothers who willingly chose to bring them into the world.

I work hard for my money and will never support a party that makes me have to fork out more than I already do to support families.

Childless people should not have to pick up your tab. In fact, I think we should get a tax credit.

Sincerely, TT [name withheld by author, though why I should use such discretion, I’m not sure]

And my reply:

Thanks for your email, TT

I think I’ll respond in a blog post, but meanwhile, feel free to start #childlessbychoicethevote.

Warmly, Karen

So here it is – my response, I mean:

I won’t even bother addressing the ‘Why should I pay for you’ issue;  I’ll just continue to pay for the retired, the Aboriginal, those on disability, those on welfare, those who need more medical care than I do, those in assisted living facilities, those on EI, those in jails, hospitals, nursing homes, foster homes or Others Who Are Not Me.

And I won’t complain about it because one day, That Could Be Me.  That is part of the social contract we agree to by being Canadian citizens, TT.

I also won’t bother to refute the ridiculous notion that mothers think their voice is the only one that should be heard. Mom The Vote started with one tweet that ended with three little words.  That’s it. I put it out on Twitter, hardly an exclusive club in this country. It was catchy. It caught on. Clearly, TT, you have access to the internet, therefore you have access to Twitter, therefore, you could have done what I did. And hey, I gave you the hashtag, didn’t I? Go nuts.

I’m not interested in trying to convince you that a mother’s voice is simply an extension of a woman’s voice, and that a woman’s voice must be heard this election for many reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

-          The recent funding cuts to International Planned Parenthood Foundation

-          30+ other women’s health and advocacy groups have had their funding cut by the Harper Government

-          The current limits to the Caregiver’s benefit, which is six weeks leave (TT, you don’t have kids – but do you have parents you might one day need to take care of?)

-          The education tax credit is currently only $4800 per year (I know this does not apply to you, but you might be around when these people are in charge. Their education will perhaps do you good.)

-          There is currently no adult fitness tax credit

-          Our rural communities are under-served by doctors and nurses, and health care accessibility varies greatly by province

-          Women are greatly under-represented in Parliament (only 22% of elected MPs in the 40^th Parliament), but there are a hell of a lot of us on the internet.

So, TT – I’m not going to defend my right to use my voice or try to convince you to use yours. But what I will say that if you are only going to use your voice to try to quell mine, I’m simply going to have to shout a little louder.  Oh, sigh…

I don’t know about you, but at my job, I get 20 paid vacation days and 5 paid sick days per calendar year. If I were still on mat leave or a stay-at-home mom, that number would be reduced drastically – like, to zero.

So how many days off should our politicians get?

How’d They Vote, a website that touts itself as a resource for political accountability, catalogues and categorizes the voting statistics of every MP in the 39^th and 40^th parliament, and includes some pretty juicy information, including parliament absenteeism and the number of motions that each MP has put forward.

The site takes a bit of navigation, but click on MP Statistics to get a good read on where the person you elected stands. (If you aren’t sure of who your MP is, click on Find your MP and enter your postal code. You’ll get a nice breakdown of their parliamentary action/apathy) There’s some revealing information here. For instance, the accusations regarding absenteeism levied against Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff are true – he showed up for Parliament less often than any other elected MP. That’s not to say that he wasn’t working when he wasn’t in Ottawa, but let’s face it – if an MP is not there to put forward or vote on motions, how effective can he really be?

But it’s not just Iggy missing from Ottawa – there are big names in the top 10 most absent.

A breakdown of the top 100 most absentee MPs would look like this (keep in mind that seats are not distributed equally and there are a lot of ties):

Liberals – 59

BQ – 20

Conservatives – 15

NDP – 9

Independent – 2

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind seeing the MP’s time sheets. I can understand that the PM might be away from Parliament for some foreign diplomatic reasons, but should he miss 82 sessions? What about Ruby Dhalla (don’t even get me started) or Helena Geurgis (insert hooker and blow joke here)?  Hell, Jack Layton was being treated for cancer and a bum hip this past year and he missed less work than I did.

By voting for someone we expect them to work on our behalf. We kind of become their boss. My boss wouldn’t put up with absenteeism. I don’t know many that would. So let’s stop putting up with it in our elected officials.

If there is one thing that this Bad Mom can say with absolutely confidence and without the aid of any special research or degree is: painting a young boys toenails pink is not going to give him the ‘gay’ or turn him transgendered.

Yet some social conservatives south of the border though that this J.Crew ad was going to do just that. And yes, Fox News was involved.

Fox News (I really should put air quotes around ‘news’ but I’m trying to remain unbiased) ran an opinion piece on the J.Crew ad where the actual president and creative director of the company is shown painting her son’s toenails pink. Dr. Keith Ablow talks about ‘physiological penalties’ for ‘planting seeds of gender identity’ and honestly I couldn’t read much further. Erin Brown from the Media Research Centre, a right-leaning research group, called the ad ‘blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children’.

So what say you? Do you think that an ad showing a mom painting her son’s toenails pink could influence children into becoming homosexual or trans-gendered? Wait, scratch that question. There is no question. DUH.

The only response to this crap is ‘NO — and stop being such ninnies’.

source

This video is, I think, pretty awesome, but according to YouTube commenters (let’s pause to acknowledge that the collective intelligence of YouTube commenters is somewhere between that of a potted plant and an earthworm) it’s a demonstration of what happens when Tiger Moms develop an appreciation of acoustic guitar. Which, do they have a point, do you think? Do small children develop this degree of skill without being compelled to practice eleventeen hours a day? Are these children from a Future Claptons assembly line? Or are they just gifted kids who love them some guitar? (Check out the gap-toothed little girl in the middle – doesn’t her wide, cheeky grin tell us something about how much she is enjoying herself?)

What do you think?