"Hey! Can it, douchebag!"

You couldn’t avoid it last week. Even for those of us who couldn’t give two rat’s asses about any Kardashians, what they might or might not be wearing, how long their micromarriages might have lasted or how much they spent in Beverly Hills boutiques, it was inescapable. Huge headlines about how Khloe Kardashian’s father MIGHT NOT BE HER REAL FATHER!! HER MOTHER WAS A REALLY BAD LYING CHEATING BAD MOM!!! SCANDALZOMG!

And the whole thing made me nauseous.

Because despite the Kardashians being famewhores? Their private lives – whatever parts of them are private – are still none of our business.

In our fame-obsessed society, we seem to think that because someone is a public person we have the right to know everything about them, that they have no possible right to object to people digging in to their dirty laundry and airing it for the world to see. They invited the media in to their lives, in to the minutiae of their day to day and their relationships and their vacuity and all of it. And, the reasoning goes, because they have chosen to be public about some of their lives, they have therefore given up their right to privacy in all matters!

Is this really what people believe?

This is the kind of mentality that led to a newspaper in the UK feeling it was perfectly OK to invade the privacy of dozens of people by hacking in to their personal mobile phones to Look For Dirt. They felt they had the right to do so, because their targets were Public People (whether by choice or not).  Imagine having a child go missing and then, during your desperate search to find her, having a newspaper hack in to her voicemail and erase messages, making you believe she was alive. When she wasn’t. But you thought she might be, because someone else felt it was their right to hack in to her phone to look for a Story.

This is the same kind of privacy violation we’re talking about here. The belief that we have a RIGHT to know everything about everyone, no matter what damage is caused by revealing it. Newsflash: We don’t have that right. Even if someone lets us in to their life and shows us more than we feel is appropriate, they still have a right to privacy. They still do draw a line. And wherever that line is, that’s their line, and we have no right to go past it. None. Never.

Her father was the man who raised her, who taught her right from wrong, who kissed her goodnight and read her stories and the man she misses every day. End of story, unless she personally chooses to tell us otherwise. Quit digging for smut, go do something good for humanity, and shut up.

OK, look. I know times, they change. I know that the style is no longer 90s grunge, where you wore everything three sizes too big. I know the style is short and sexy.

But on children? Who then do suggestive, provocative, emulating-sex-moves-ative dance moves? Why?

And yet, this is what they did on So You Think You Can Dance last night.

That’s always been the one thing with SYTYCD that bothered me… the clothes. Or lack thereof. The dancers, particularly the female ones, generally wear what appears to be underwear when they dance. Bras and panties. How…. enlightened. (Yes, I’m a cranky old Bad Mom fogey, but STILL.) Sure, maybe it’s comfortable. Maybe it gives them room to move. But in this age of lycra and spandex, surely there are other options. Except it’s obvious: The producers like it this way. The sexifying of the dancers seems to be just as important as the talent. Make sure they dress skanky. Make sure they look hot. It’s the only way to engage viewers, after all. It’s not like people can tell a good dancer from a bad one. It’s not like they are looking for talent or anything.

But last night they brought in the Rage Crew – a troupe of young dancers ranging in age from 8 to 18. Who are undeniably talented. Who will no doubt continue to grow and learn and dance at the top of their game. And whose impressive talent was overshadowed by their choices of wardrobe. 8 year olds were dancing in teeny sparkly bikini tops – despite having no breasts to fill them – and pleather pants, and were caked as heavily with makeup as the adults were – in fact, probably heavier. Check it – it gets creepy about a minute in:

Lots of tweeps loved the routine, for its complexity and the obvious display of talent. And lots of them were just as horrified as I was. Not to mention totally squicked by the fact that while they were watching a dance show, they all of a sudden had oversexualized 8 year olds dressed like hookers doing grinding club dance moves on their screen.

I am not a pedophile. Seeing sexualized children makes my skin crawl. I am a mother. Seeing sexualized children horrifies me. Most other people who are not pedophiles feel the same way. How on earth could an international television show not *get* this? Bombing regular people with a routine equivalent to an introduction to Pedobear’s wet dream in the middle of mainstream evening viewing? It just plain sucked. And boo to the producers of So You Think You Can Dance, who obviously have immersed themselves too far up their own ratings-motivated asses to realize how creepy – seriously, creepy – the whole thing really was.

Can we cancel birthdays?

Or, if not, can we at least agree to some rules? Or maybe some guidelines?

I’m not really sure where to start, but maybe an “is this going to make a kid cry?” checkpoint might be a good place to begin.

I’ve hated birthday party politics since I was a kid. Most of my friends could invite whoever they wanted to their birthday parties and they handed out the invitations at school. In our house, the rules were a bit different. I could invite whoever I wanted to invite, but I had to invite the two other girls my age who lived on our road, whether I wanted to or not. One of them was a friend of mine, so that was fine. But the other one was a popular girl and I was…well…not. Every year, I was mortified to the point of almost cancelling my birthday, when my mom insisted that I invite her to the party. I was afraid that she would think that I thought we were friends. I was afraid that she would tell all her cool friends how boring and uncool my birthday party was. I was afraid that I might do something embarrassing at my birthday party that she would subsequently use to torment me at school.  The other rule was that I couldn’t hand out the birthday invitations at school because someone might be hurt that they weren’t invited. I insisted over and over again that it wouldn’t be a problem. Everyone who would want to come to my birthday party was invited and the only ones who weren’t invited were the ones who were too cool to talk to me. But she insisted that we spend an evening driving all over town to hand deliver birthday party invitations to the homes of each of my friends. It seemed a bit silly to me. Even if the invitations weren’t handed out at school, people obviously talked about birthday parties at school.  Although I hated my mom’s rules, I know why she had them. She had been left out of things as a child and didn’t want anyone else’s child to feel the same way that she did. Her rules were based on the “is this going to make a kid cry?” checkpoint.

This year for Emma’s birthday, we left things fairly wide open in terms of the number of invites. We were having the party at our house and most of the expenses were going to be the same whether there were four kids there or fifteen kids there, so we let her invite as many friends as she wanted. This seemed like the easiest way to ensure that no one was left out. Of the 10 kids or so that we invited from her school, three came to the party, one said “yes” (two days after the RSVP date) but didn’t show up (no explanation), one politely and promptly declined, and five didn’t bother to RSVP. Emma kept asking over and over again why Julia didn’t come to her party. “Maybe she was sick,” we said when she asked with her sad face, but would it have killed them to call or send an e-mail? As for the five who didn’t bother to RSVP at all, I have no words. We left a phone number and an e-mail address on the invitation. We gave people plenty of time to RSVP.  Why didn’t they bother? I don’t know. To make matters worse, when Emma went to her friend Sophie’s birthday party a couple of weeks later, all of the kids who didn’t bother to RSVP for Emma’s birthday party were there.

A few weeks ago, Karen wrote about birthday party politics too:

She found me in the schoolyard, a few days after all the invitations had been handed out.

“So,” she said, smiling, “My son has had his first taste of rejection.”

Blink. “Excuse me?”

“Well, my son said that the some kids were talking about your daughter’s birthday party, and when Paulie* asked Mischa about it, she said that his invitation was in the mail.”

I didn’t track down anyone in the school yard, but I did wipe away plenty of tears. From the first day of preschool until sometime about a month ago, Julian and Josh were best friends. They were inseparable. Recently, Josh hasn’t wanted to play with Julian as much at school. Apparently Kevin told  Josh that he shouldn’t play with Julian anymore. These things happen from time to time on the school yard and usually last a few days and then things are back to normal. But when Josh’s birthday party invitations came out, Julian was the only one who didn’t get one. Everyone else in their circle of friends was invited. Julian, the only one he had been friends with for four years, was not invited. He asked Josh why he hadn’t received an invitation. Josh said he just hadn’t gotten around to it yet. He asked Josh’s brother why he wasn’t invited and he said that Josh was still working on the invitations. So we waited. Julian wanted me to call Josh’s parents, but I didn’t want to be THAT mom, so I didn’t. The Friday before Josh’s birthday came around. As we were leaving the school yard, Brett’s dad waved at us and said “I guess we’ll see you tomorrow afternoon at Josh’s party!”. No, we wouldn’t. Instead, we would spend the weekend consoling a six year old boy who couldn’t understand why his best friend hadn’t invited him to his birthday party.

I don’t know what lesson to teach my kids. Do I teach them that some people are just jerks and that is the way life is? Do I teach them to have a stiff upper lip and take rejection in stride? Do I just let the tears pour out and be there to cuddle them and pass them a tissue? I don’t know. All the options seem to suck.

Real politics make my head hurt. Birthday party politics make my heart hurt.

* Names have been changed to protect the children whose parents didn’t apply the “is this going to make a kid cry?” guideline.

Image credit: dawnzy58 on flickr

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

If you thought you had to take your kids to political rallies and demonstrations to turn them into good socialists, you’re dead wrong. All you have to do is park them in front of the television.

“I like Jack Layton,” he said pointing at the big orange signs we passed on the way to school each day. “Is Jack Layton going to be the next Prime Minister?”

“Oh, Stephen Harper won? Is he going to have to go into one of the big jails that he is building?”

Those are the words of a child who started watching Sesame Street at around six months. Mesmerized by Elmo, he soaked up his every word. Children of his generation are living by the word of Big Bird in the same way that millions of women live by the word of Oprah. If you thought Sesame Street was just teaching your children manners and ABCs, you were dead wrong. Turns out they are being brainwashed by left-wing producers and writers.

In his book, Primetime Propoganda, Ben Shapiro wrote about how television is being used to push a left-wing agenda.

Primetime Propaganda is the story—told in their own words—of how television has been used over the past sixty years by Hollywood writers, producers, actors, and executives to promote their liberal ideals, to push the envelope on social and political issues, and to shape America in their own leftist image.

One of the shows highlighted in the book is apparently Sesame Street.  According to the Daily Mail’s article on the book:

Shapiro, 27, also spoke to one of Sesame Street’s founders, who told him that he used the programme, in the wake of 9/11, to highlight how there were peaceful alternatives to war.

This revelation may surprise some, but the show – which has featured guest stars such as Katy Perry, Ricky Gervais and Michelle Obama – was criticised for having an anti-right agenda in 2009 when it mockingly referred to America’s Fox News channel as ‘Pox News’.

If you thought Sesame Street was teaching sharing and cooperation, Shapiro would say you are wrong. Apparently, it is teaching ethnic groups civil disobedience.

If Shapiro is right, this could have serious consequences for American politics. In 2008, around 77 million Americans (around 25% of the population) had watched Sesame Street as children. But in 1996, a survey found that 95% of American preschoolers had watched Sesame Street by the time they were three years old.  Do you know what happens this year to children who were three years old in 1996? They become eligible to vote and there will be more and more of them joining the ranks of voters each year. So watch out!

Oh and don’t forget…the Martians are coming and they are socialists too!

So tell me, if Sesame Street is teaching children left-wing values, which kids TV shoes are teaching them right-wing values? Do I really want to know?

Image credit: phdinparenting

So first, Kerry Campbell claimed she injected her 8 year old regularly with Botox and gave her bikini waxes so that she would win beauty pageants and be “famous” when she grew up. We were appropriately outraged.

Then someone finally called children’s aid and the child was removed from Campbell’s custody. And Campbell swore up and down that she’d learned her lesson, she’d changed!  We were appropriately smug.

Then she said the whole thing was made up, that she was paid off by The Sun to make the outrageous claims and the whole thing was hogwash.  We were appropriately righteously indignant at having been had.

Then the reporter Campbell said put her up to it said Campbell’s lying about lying. Now we’re just confused.

My head. It hurts.

Every new revelation in this story brought a new wave of fury. The first one was well placed. A mum, a non-medical person, is injecting her daughter with toxins in order to prevent wrinkles? Wrinkles? In an 8 year old? What 8 year old has wrinkles? She’s giving a prepubescent child bikini waxes?  To wax what, exactly? What is she doing to this child’s body, never mind the lifelong damage she’s inflicting on her psyche? This woman is UNFIT!

Then the story collapsed, and that collapse is just as telling. It says just as much about us as a society as it does about her as a mum. While her judgment is seriously under question no matter what she did – is it worse to inject your child with botox, or to just pretend you did for fame and profit? – what does it say about us that we believed it, that it was newsworthy in the first place? What does it say that we were completely willing to accept that someone could be that crazy as to do this kind of crap to a child for the sake of the publicized, Hollywood image of “beauty”?

Here, I’ll answer that: It says we are so obsessed with youth and youthfulness and sexuality that we’ve gone completely insane. Think about this: it’s OK and totally mainstream for you and me to inject ourselves with deadly toxins so that we won’t show a wrinkle. It is accepted and expected that women will maintain an attractive weight, an attractive style, and women of a certain age who look younger than that age are praised for “keeping themselves well” despite their years. We worship youthfulness and tautness and reject age in all its forms.  But we draw a line at botox on a child, because – well, because why? Why draw the line at all? It’s not like we don’t parade girls in beauty pageants. It’s not like girls’ clothing isn’t sexualized. It’s not like a 13 year old girl didn’t stand up on stage in front of millions during the taping of the last Oprah show and brag about losing 20 pounds.

So why were we so outraged by the thought of a Mum injecting her kid with botox?  Because yes, it IS an outrage, but let’s not pretend that in 10 years our society won’t be shilling that same product to that girl in the pages of Cosmo or Marie Claire.  If we want to figure out why this was even news in the first place, we need look no further than the copy of Star or Us Weekly in our grocery carts. Our society buys in to it, and we do too.

According to SheKnows.com, Mariah Carey has already had her first visit from Child Protective Services (CPS):

Apparently, Child Protective Services came out to the hospital to investigate Carey in response to an anonymous call from someone at the hospital reporting that she was abusing alcohol while breastfeeding Moroccan and Monroe. Cannon explained, “One of the nurses told my wife that to make the breast milk come out, drink a little dark Guinness — and it actually happened! So I guess that’s where the story came from.”

“The Child Protective Services agent came to me in the hospital in the hallway. They were like, ‘This is ridiculous. Clearly, you guys are loving parents.’ It’s sad the length that people will go.”

Another article stated that this was simply a tabloid scam by someone hoping to get pictures of the celebrity twin babies. Regardless of the reason for the call, the fact that this was even used as the ruse for the call highlights ongoing myths about breastfeeding and alcohol.

Myth 1: Alcohol Increases Milk Production

Probably every new mom has heard the old wives tale that drinking beer (sometimes in particular Guinness) will increase your milk supply. While it would be nice if that were a miracle cure for all of the moms struggling with their supply, that isn’t the case. The ingredients in beer that do help increase milk supply are generally no longer used in North American beer production. Even when they are, the dampening effect that alcohol has on milk supply would cancel out any benefits from the ingredients that could possibly increase milk supply. According to kellymom.com, “babies nurse more frequently but take in less milk in the 3-4 hours after mom has had a drink, and one study showed a 23% decrease in milk volume with one drink.” So drinking beer won’t help you increase your milk supply (as the misguided nurse told Mariah), but it may have a negative impact on your supply.

Myth 2: You Can’t Drink Alcohol While Breastfeeding

A lot of people seem to believe that you can’t drink at all while breastfeeding or that you need to pump and dump if you do. That simply isn’t true.  It is completely safe for a mom to have a drink or two while breastfeeding.  According to kellymom.com:

In general, if you are sober enough to drive, you are sober enough to breastfeed. Less than 2% of the alcohol consumed by the mother reaches her blood and milk. Alcohol peaks in mom’s blood and milk approximately 1/2-1 hour after drinking (but there is considerable variation from person to person, depending upon how much food was eaten in the same time period, mom’s body weight and percentage of body fat, etc.). Alcohol does not accumulate in breastmilk, but leaves the milk as it leaves the blood; so when your blood alcohol levels are back down, so are your milk alcohol levels.

Obviously, as I have previously ranted, parents shouldn’t be drunk when caring for a baby (whether breastfeeding or not). So the issue here isn’t really whether alcohol is passing through breastmilk, but whether the parent is sober enough to keep from harming or neglecting the baby. Dropping the baby, getting into a car accident or setting the kitchen on fire because you’re drunk are all going to hurt the baby an awful lot more than a bit of alcohol in the breastmilk.

Have a Drink If You Want To

There is no reason to start drinking while breastfeeding in order to increase your milk supply, but there is also no reason to quit drinking altogether while breastfeeding either unless you are really struggling with your milk supply. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy your baby.

Cheers Bad Moms!

Cheers Mariah!

photo used with permission

thumbnail img source

Oh, well this is fun.

Age Limited.

Laura Miller has started a website. This website is called Too Big For Stroller. It features pictures of children of varying ages being wheeled about in strollers. Many of these children are older than 1 or 2. They are maybe 4 or 5 or even older – ages Laura obviously thinks as Too Old to be in a stroller. She is apparently very upset about the fact that children who appear to be too big to sit in strollers, sit in strollers. (I think Laura needs some real problems.)  So Laura walks around and takes pictures of other people’s children (or accepts email submissions from people who take photos of other people’s children) and then posts them on the internet, with a little blob over the child’s face (because that makes it all OK) with the word “walk” emblazoned over it. She also adds a snappy caption like “its ok, everyone…there’s room for her PURSE” and “these parents must be exhausted.”

How funny.

Laura, probably back in third grade or so, they should have taught you something in school. Something about how picking on someone smaller than you, someone who can’t defend themselves, someone who really isn’t doing anything wrong, isn’t cool. About how it’s really not a good thing to do to take something you somehow brand as “lame” and turn it in to a weapon to use against someone else, to point and mock and laugh and belittle. Often people who do these sorts of things try to get other people on their side, to use their cruelty in order to get other people to laugh along with you and tell you you’re cool. But here’s something you might not realize:  they might laugh to your face, but they actually think you’re mean, and they walk away going, wow. I can’t believe she had the nerve to do that! Because really, to surreptitiously take photos of children (which totally isn’t creepy at all) and post them on the internet (wow, even less creepy!) in order to make your point that you in your personal judgment think that the use of a stroller past a certain age/weight/height is just so, so, terribly wrong that it deserves public shame? Is pretty awful.

I’m not going to use the fact that you don’t have any children against you. I mean yes, I already know that you would never ever have your child in a stroller past whatever arbitrary age you decide, and your child will be babyworn and then walk everywhere. Because, of course, imaginary children are far easier to parent than real ones. They never get tired or whiny or sore or sick or have any invisible physical limitations or any of a million things that might mean a stroller will make life a lot easier for everyone.

No, instead, I’m going to use this opportunity to inform you of something. When someone picks on a child, their parents’ response isn’t to say “oh, yeah, hahaha, that’s funny! And so right! I am going to totally change my ways because that bully is totally correct!”

Our response, instead, is to behave much as the bull who’s just been taunted with the red flag. We don’t listen to reason. We go, proverbially, or perhaps literally, in to a state we call Mama Bear. We anger and protect and defend.  We politely (even though we don’t want to be polite) tell you why your website sucks and how you’re hurting people. We make sure our child never sees the photo of them on the internet that a mean person put up to mock. And from then on we walk around with our hackles raised, making sure nobody’s surreptitiously pointing a cell phone camera at us in order to get something to make fun of on the internet.  But if you are, and we see you, jebus save you from the verbal blasting you are about to receive.

Maybe you never had a Mama Bear. Maybe you have never seen a Mama Bear in action. Maybe nobody stood up for you when you were little and instead left you to be eaten by the wolves, wolves who were never taught themselves that it’s not cool to pick on someone else. In that case, I feel sympathy for you. But in this case, this case where you’re publicly picking on kids, you’re on your own.

So sure, Laura, pick on parents. We’re used to it. Hell, we’ve got a whole website here based on the fact that people think parents suck since people like you, people who like to haughtily tell parents what a shit job we’re doing,  are a dime a dozen.

But do not, do not pick on our kids. Because that doesn’t make you funny. It just makes you mean.

Via Jezebel.

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…

So a school in Virginia suspended a 6 year old last month.

Did he act out? Shove his classmates? Bite someone? Steal lunches unashamedly?

No. It was worse. So much worse.

Grounds For Suspension. Feel Shame.

This degenerate child, obviously the product of horrible, neglectful, borderline abusive parents, parents who probably watch reality TV so you know they’re horrible, had the nerve to – god, I can’t write it, I’m so horrified by it – this child *deep breath*…

He cried. The child cried. In class.

Can you believe the audacity?! That, that… juvenile delinquent, that dreadful example of…..

Wait. What?

Yes, you read that right. An elementary school, where I can only assume they’ve taught six year olds before, took such issue with a child crying that they suspended him from attending class for “disrupting the educational process”.

The world has gone completely mad. Have we really gotten to a point where it’s not OK for a six year old to cry?  I mean, sure:  Crying kids can be annoying.  It’s entirely possible – probable, even – that he was being ridiculous and obstinate and just plain intentionally difficult. Hey, newsflash: That’s what six year olds DO. But surely there was a better way, a more productive way, to deal with a crying child than to kick him out of class?

I get that dealing with a room full of six year olds must be really hard. This is one reason why I never became a teacher. I had no desire to spend my days herding little exploding minihumans with limited ability to reason, act independently, or wipe their own noses. People who can deal with that sort of thing day in or day out are made of stronger stuff than me. But to suspend a kid for crying? Christ, what do they do with a kid who actually does steal lunches? Lop off fingers?

What do you think? Is crying a valid reason to suspend a child from school?