Clearly Nebulous

Miss U('ve-Gone-too-Far).S.A.

I have always loved the two major pageants, Miss America and Miss USA. And I have watched them year in and year out with my daughters. Sure it's tricky terrain -- how do you reconcile beauty contests and feminist ideals? Well, I have always felt, and have always taught my daughters, that women can be smart and beautiful and there is nothing wrong with either one.

While trying very hard not to sound catty, I voice my opinion during the broadcasts when I think that a contestant is too thin or obviously had a boob job. Because yes, there is a fine line between sultry and slutty. And I feel I know when it's been crossed.

And with this year's "fashion photo shoots" I'm afraid the Miss USA competition has crossed that line. I was uncomfortable with some of the shots that were shown during last year's competition, but these latest pictures have pushed even farther. Fish net stockings, bustiers and garters are fine for an adult crowd -- but not for my daughters. 

I don't want them to think that sex is what will get them farther in life and I don't want them to think that playing into sexual stereotypes is what garners attention. While I also don't want them to think that prancing around in a skimpy bathing suit is essential to their success, there is nothing wrong with being fit and looking good.

Just like I don't buy the arguments from law school students who think they are "laughing their way to an education" as they earn their tuition at Hooter's, I don't buy that this step was necessary to attract attention. Donald Trump has mocked the more prudent Miss America officials, pointing out that their organization is suffering in the ratings department.

So you got your publicity and it may lead to better ratings -- but at what cost to women, Mr. Trump?

A poll on Good Morning America's website indicated that over 50% of those who responded feel that the Miss USA officials have gone too far this time. I concur, and we won't be watching this time. It might be too much to hope that a sufficient dip in the ratings will show Trump & co. that we're just not buying what they're selling, but I can dream...

(And I can also dream that there will be sufficient advertising for the Miss America pageant so we can tune in to show our support for their family-friendly -- and truly women-empowering -- ideals!)

It will be hard to top watching Miss Virginia win the Miss America crown... but we'll be tuning in!

"A Woman Hit More than Once is not a Victim but a Volunteer"

Harsh woods, blaming the victim? The man who said that, Gavin de Becker, doesn't think so. His reasoning? If a woman is hit once by a man, sure, staying with him might not be totally ruled out because there is the rare instance in which he will never do it again. (However, he cautions not only is this an unlikely scenario, but it also takes a lot of work.)

But when a woman stays with a man after being hit more than once, it is a choice, he says. "Just like leaving is a choice, staying is a choice."

The statistics that de Becker (the author of The Gift of Fear -- a must-buy for every family with daughters) talked about on Oprah are frightening: Of the approximately 3000 murders of women in this country every year, over 2000 are committed by current or former boyfriends or husbands. While, tragically, some of these women had an idea they were at risk and the system failed them -- sometimes the victims never saw it coming.

The Gift of Fear is a great resource that tells women to trust their instincts to stay safe.

So de Becker has devised a means to determine if you may be in a dangerous relationship, and he wants every woman who has even the slightest doubt about her current partner to take advantage of this new test. He said:

"The MOSAIC assessment system developed by my firm is available to anyone who wants to use it, at no cost, via Oprah's website. This allows anyone to diagnose a relationship to determine if it has the combination of factors most associated with escalated violence, and spousal homicide. Spousal homicide has remained a constant in our lives, such that every four hours at least one woman is killed in America by a husband or boyfriend. That uninterrupted and sad statistic can be interrupted and changed --because spousal homicide is the single most preventable serious crime in America -- it always occurs after many warning signs, and after several people are aware of the risk."

No one knows this better now than the friends and family of Yeardley Love, a UVA college student who was killed by a former boyfriend, a star athlete from an upstanding family. Her friends knew he had been abusive, and they gave Yeardley the courage to break up with him, but they all ignored the danger signs that indicated he was capable of such lethal violence. 

Yeardley Love broke up with an abusive boyfriend, but he has admitted killing her in a rage.

It's understandable that no one wants to think that a guy like that could be a potential killer. But better to let the professionals make that call. The president of UVA made an impassioned speech in which he encouraged all the students on campus to report to him personally if they fear for themselves or another student's safety. We can only hope that colleges across the country will follow suit.

But one father wants everyone to know that this can happen to even younger women. Gary Cuccia's daughter, Demi, was killed by a former boyfriend at the age of 16. He is advocating that awareness about the signs of an abusive relationship be taught in junior high.

In an appearance on Good Morning America he warned that one in three teens have been abused by a boyfriend or girlfriend, one in ten physically. He encourages parents to talk to their daughters about "one strike and he's out." And that abuse can include controlling behavior like isolation -- trying to make her dump her friends, activities, or hobbies -- focusing only on him.

Girls need to tell their parents if they're receiving harassing calls or text messages on their cell phones or are being harassed on social networks. Sometimes, all it will take is a male figure to step in and make sure the offender gets the message that he is to stop all contact. But if that doesn't work, parents shouldn't be afraid to call the authorities.

Personally I don't think enough is being done to stop this sort of behavior -- getting to the root of why a young man becomes so obsessive. But that's a discussion for another day...

Lastly, tell your daughters -- and encourage them to tell their friends -- about resources and websites like these that steer them toward healthy relationships. Their lives could depend on it.

"R" Parents Aren't Cool

Another study has been released that indicates that children who are exposed to R-rated movies are more likely to engage in "sensation seeking" and "risk taking."

This one shows that kids who are allowed to watch R movies are more likely to be underage drinkers. Other studies have shown that exposure to films for more mature audiences leads to smoking, sex, and violent behavior at a young age.

My husband and I have always been sticklers about not letting our kids watch movies we felt they were too young for -- just ask my oldest (and probably all our other kids) how sick she was (they are) of the word "inappropriate." But I found that it wasn't enough just to enforce rules in our own home.

Some parents think R-rated movies are harmless. This may be true for their kids, but you have to decide what you want for your own -- even if you think they are mature or do not exhibit risky traits.

Whenever we allow a sleepover at a new house, we mention to the friends' parents our wishes about movies. We headed off a viewing of the PG-13 Mean Girls by 11-year-olds when a mom told us she thought it would teach a good lesson about choosing nice friends. Her heart was in the right place, but when I explained that I had checked it out and told her about some of the scenes... Well, she agreed it was not a movie for pre-teens.

And thankfully there are all kinds of sites on the web which give the exact content and grade all movies that are released in theaters. (There are also sites that suggest family-friendly movies to rent or go see for those families that are struggling to find something for the enjoyment of all.) Hollywood is always doing their best to sneak in as much lewdness, violence and sensationalism as they can. As parents, we have to be vigilant.

I'm not naive enough to think that simply keeping my kids from watching unsuitable movies will prevent dangerous behavior -- but the proof is in the studies. It can make a difference, so why wouldn't I make the choice to shield my children?

Embracing Our "Motherhood Badges of Honor"

I've been struggling with continuing this blog -- is it worth my time to comment? So I haven't written in a while... So what finally compelled me to put my thoughts out there today?

Apparently childbearing "ruins" your body -- and so Jillian Michaels, the fitness guru from The Biggest Loser says she will only adopt because:

"I can't handle doing that to my body."

Okay... I really don't want to psychoanalyze this woman, but it seems to me that if you aren't willing to make the "sacrifice" of having your life not be picture perfect in order to bear a child, maybe you should not adopt a child either... But that's not why I wanted to write.

We all know there are plenty of women out there who have gone through childbirth and look just fabulous -- Demi Moore has been very outspoken, the reluctant Julia Roberts finally gave it a go, even the mom of octuplets, Nadya Suleman looks great in a bikini.

Some may have had help surgically (like Patricia Heaton who has not shied from revealing the procedures she has had) or otherwise (when you can afford the personal trainers and chefs -- and have the time -- why not?) but they all have taken the risk and now look ship-shape.

And then there are those of us with what I like to call "Motherhood Badges of Honor." We have imperfect bodies and we don't care. We don't want plastic surgery -- we just throw on some Spanx and we're good to go. Or not.

Motherhood can take its toll on a woman's figure -- but it's all for a great cause, right? Why not just own it? Sure I'm working out and intend to lose some more weight, and hopefully the Pilates will make my tummy look slimmer.

But I know there is a flab of skin that will never go away without surgical intervention -- and I don't care. That pocket of flesh once cradled the head of one of my twins. Totally worth it.

And as a testament to how proud I am of giving birth, and how much I don't car what it did to my body, I post the following picture that shows the Battle Scar Galactica. Ain't it something?

 

 

Motherhood is about sacrifices. If you don't realize that -- don't even bother.

If you agree with me -- and want to post a picture of your own Badge of Honor/Battle Scar to this site, just email a .jpg to lovehateoprah@live.com

Time to Tell Teflon "Ta-Ta"!

So you've heard about BPA and phthalates -- they were big news not too long ago regarding their use in toys, teethers, water bottles, baby bottles and formula cans. These chemicals' safety has been questioned, especially their effects on children.

Apparently there were attempts at damage control by the BPA industry, citing that the amounts of food or beverages sold in BPA-lined containers that you would have to consume to achieve dangerous levels was impossible. A website I found -- which I will have to explore more later and that you may find interesting -- called Mommy Mythbuster felt that the hoopla was unfounded. There is something to be said for the fact that these plastic products are not dangerous when used properly, and that BPA-lined cans help prevent spoilage and I imagine dangers like, you know, botulism.

Then a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers came out this month that shows that exposure to BPA in utero can permanently reprogram a person's genes and affect their fertility in adulthood. Pregnant mothers would be wise to add BPA to the list of things avoid unnecessary exposure to.

One of the authors of a new book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck (I bet the publishers literally leapt out of their chair to sign the authors with a great title like that!) appeared on a news program this morning explaining how he exposed himself to everyday chemicals and how the amounts in his bloodstream spiked to dangerous levels.

He didn't do anything all that unusual -- he heated his food in plastic containers in the microwave, he drank from a baby bottle, he used products with fragrances, etc -- and the levels of these chemicals in his bloodstream spiked noticeably.

It's been years since I stopped using Tupperware in the microwave -- but in those same years, I kept saying to myself, "Man, the coatings my old non-stick pans are starting to flake off -- I really should replace them."

So I won't be going on a warpath against products containing these chemicals in my home -- I'm not going to worry about sandwich bags though there are BPA-free Saran Wrap products. But there are sensible steps and guidelines. I already replaced our reusable water bottles and I found out that my Brita pitcher is already BPA-free and i suppose I'll try to look for fragrance-free products -- but I'm more so going to worry about when heat is involved. 

So no more Teflon for me: Stainless steel cookware with copper bottoms -- here I come!

Kids not Immunized? Time to Rethink that One...

I'll jump right into the fray -- I think anyone who doesn't vaccinate their children truly needs to rethink their position.

There seems to be 6 prevalent myths that Wired magazine debunks here, but quickly they are:

• They cause autism. The Institute of Medicine looked at all the studies in 2004 and concluded no connection -- and thimerasol use in kids' vaccines was ended in 2001 (it's currently only in a flu shot) -- so why is autism still happening?
• Too many shots overwhelm tiny bodies. Again, no evidence found, but you can always request to have the shots spaced apart.
• They cause diabetes. This was actually a new one to me. But again the evidence is not there to support that vaccines are the culprit -- signs point to the rise in obesity.
• They aren't necessary since the diseases are gone. The diseases are out there, but they don't usually appear because children are immunized. And they aren't innocuous, they can cause great harm and even death.
• There's no consensus in the scientific community. Just a few doctors who get a lot of attention think that vaccines are unsafe. An overwhelming majority of doctors and scientists consider them safe and necessary.
• The aluminum that replaced mercury is just as dangerous. Not true and it allows the shots to be more effective, therefore fewer shots.

A very thoroughly researched article in Wired examined not only these myths, but the fallout of parents' decisions not to immunize and how it endangers us all. (The article is lengthy, but a very informative read.)

Because you see, sometimes a vaccine doesn't "take," but you don't know it. This usually isn't a problem since everyone else around you is vaccinated, so the virus doesn't thrive in your community. Problem is, if there are more than a few who don't get vaccinated, the virus can then be out there, and you will think you're safe from catching it...

And we're not talking about being stuck in bed a little uncomfortable while Alice the housekeeper brings you your lunch on a bed tray. Mumps and H. influenzae type b cause meningitis, which can lead to deafness, epilepsy, and cognitive impairment. Measles can lead to encephalitis, blindness, and death. 

Whooping cough can also be fatal, which is especially of concern since newborns can't receive the vaccine, and are very vulnerable. In fact, it seems that the vaccines do not last into adulthood, so adults -- new parents especially -- are being advised to consider getting a booster. The article points out that in 2004-2005, 66 babies under age 1 died from whooping cough, including 56 who were under 3 months old.

As for the fear of autism -- there has been new research that seems to link exposure to toxins in utero as the possible cause. You would be better off staying away from make-up, hairspray, and plastics with BPA while you're pregnant than not immunizing your baby or toddler.

I think I can understand the thought process by parents who decide not to immunize. They hear about the very rare cases (so few they can't be undoubtedly linked to the shots themselves) of negative effects from vaccines, and they weigh them against the more likely possibility of catching the disease and having a serious condition arise from it.

I think they look at it this way -- do I knowingly have something injected into my child, and therefore it would be something I willingly brought upon them -- or do I want to just take the chance that my child probably won't come across any of the diseases, and if they do they probably will be ok?

What I don't think they consider is just how contagious some of these diseases can be. All you have to do to get the measles is to inhabit the airspace of a contagious person within two hours of them being there -- and that person might not even have the rash yet, thinking they only have the flu.

The other thing to consider, is that maybe your child will be the one walking around, not knowing they are infectious. Heaven forbid they should come across someone whose vaccine didn't take or whose effectiveness has waned, and that person catches it from your child, and then it is passed on exponentially. And what if your child -- or the people they have come into contact with -- give it to someone with a compromised immune system?

Are you ok letting your children walk around being a danger to not only those newborn infants, but the elderly, cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc etc...? 

If you believe you have thought this over and reached the conclusion not to immunize -- you have to know that there is always new info out there, and that you have to accept the responsibility that this decision needs to be revisited. It should never be -- well, I made up my mind and that's it.

Your children's lives -- and the lives of those around them -- are at stake.

Meanest GOP ever? Good!

It's funny how some sermons really resonate -- even if the message is really simple. One that has stuck with me for several years was about being a "mean" parent.

How many of us have heard more than a few times from our kids -- "You're so mean!" 

Well, a preacher taught me the proper reply to such outbursts -- "You think I'm mean? Gooood!"

Because if it's mean to say no to my children in order to protect them, or if it's generally in their best interest, I'm going to say no. I don't care about being popular with them, I don't care how much of a fuss they make.

Because more than sometimes "no" is the best call.

"But everybody else agrees with me."

"No."

"All of my friends get to do it."

"No."

"Come on, I never get to do anything."

"No."

I'll throw in some levity "I know, I know. I'm the Meanest Mom in the World -- I won't let my kid go see a trashy movie/ watch another hour of tv / hang out at them mall again / what-have-you..."

They get the message. They don't like it, but they are learning it's my job.

This lesson can be used in all sorts of extrapolations, in interpersonal relationships and in greater context.

It's a lesson that a certain sector of the electorate and elected officials in this nation need to learn.

Meanest minority in Congress? Gooood!

                                    

"Strong" Girl Names are No Match for Strong Skills

Six girls rely on me every day to help them grow into strong, independent women. So much has been said about exactly what a mother can do to help their daughters achieve that goal.

It starts with their names. Baby name sites like these can help a mother choose just the right "strong" name. Forget "cutesy" names, names with "distinctive" spellings, or nouns like "Joy." Conversely, names that are traditionally male or are a last name are supposedly good choices.

We were very picky about our daughters' names. Avoiding the pitfalls while choosing something distinctive was tricky. We decided against "Molly" and stuck to traditional spellings. We have two names that happen to be boys' names (but they really sound like girls' names.) We also nixed some of our favorites because they were simply too popular -- we didn't want our daughter lost in the sea of "Emmas." I think we did very well, as we often get compliments.

But now I'm wondering if perhaps parents overthink this whole name thing. Although I'll still stand by avoiding the strange spellings and names that are too popular -- it's not the name a young woman has, it's her character and her skills that determine her strength.

Case in point: If you had introduced me to Officer Kimberley Munley a week ago, I may have smirked inside my mind. I had just that sort of reaction when I met an Officer Brittany on my local police force. I thought, how can you take a woman with that kind of name seriously in that kind of role?

Nadal Hasan learned you don't mess with Officer Kimberley.

But now we all know that Officer Kimberley is a tower of strength -- a mom who had the presence of mind and the courage to take down a killer on a rampage. Even after she had sustained bullet wounds to the her legs and wrist -- even as half the blood in her body was beginning to drain out.

So whereas my daughters were already on the road to learning skills like balancing their own checkbooks, keeping a budget, learning to drive stick shift, changing air filters and burnt out bulbs, using a power drill, knowing self-defense tactics, etc etc...

Now I'm beginning to think that using a firearm might have to be included. Though I'm still not crazy about having a gun around -- learning to shoot couldn't hurt, and could perhaps help someday.

What Levi & the Left Don't Get about Sarah Palin

Levi Johnston -- from Object of Ridicule to Mainstream-Media Darling. Hmmm... what changed since November? Oh yeah, that's right: Now he's trashing Sarah Palin.

We're supposed to take the word of a disgruntled, dazzled-by-the-limelight word of a teenage boy as gospel? Ha! But I actually want to address some of the gossip that Johnston dished to Vanity Fair. The fact that these slanted stories were included in their latest issue says so much more about Levi -- and the Left --than the Palins.

How shocking that Palin's children do chores and cook for themselves! That's right, there's no nanny, and their mom isn't chained to the stove as they sit and play video games or chat on Facebook. These must be alien concepts to the author of the article and the editors. Why else should it be considered newsworthy?

And the fact that Sarah sometimes didn't sleep with Todd? Are they kidding? I can't count the number of times my husband and I haven't shared a bed due to the dynamics of raising our family. Is this only found in large families? Conservative families? Families that care about their kids and know that the occasional night in a different bed than your spouse in no way reflects on your marriage? Who are these people who find that so unusual?

Oh, the next was a doozy: Sarah suggested that she and Todd could raise their grandchild -- no one would have to know! Shocking! Assuming this is true, the Palins wouldn't be the first to pull this off. (Jack Nicholson, everyone?) But again -- it just shows the thinking of the Left.

There is no outcry, no screaming headlines when, in order to hide a pregnancy from everyone:

• underage girls sneak off to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and are told to lie about their age by the counselors

• PP counselors ignore the ages of the much older boyfriends of underage girls and don't report suspected sexual abuse as required by law

• PP counselors have any adult sign off for permission for an abortion when it's not the 14-year-old girl's family member but actually oops! the 21-year-old soccer coach that impregnated her

But when a loving parent -- who probably was just trying to shield her daughter from embarrassment -- in what was probably a weak moment, suggested that it was okay to hide a pregnancy and deny parenthood -- yep, to the salivating liberal press, that is hot ink.

Here was the worst account from Johnston: "I couldn't believe it when she would come over to us and sometimes say, playing around, 'No, I don't want the retarded baby -- I want the other one' and pick up Tripp."

So unusual for a grandmother to dote on a grandchild for a few minutes, when she spends hours every day with her own child. But what really is outrageous is the suggestion that Sarah was pushing aside Trig because he is mentally challenged -- that perhaps she was unhappy with having to rear a child with Down's syndrome.

Sarah Palin acknowledged that she had a fleeting moment of doubt about having her son. But have him she did, unlike 90% of other women in the same position. And like so many of the 10% who have the courage to recognize that Down's syndrome is a journey with challenges and triumphs, not a millstone one is burdened with --Sarah Palin clearly cherishes her son Trig.   

Although there are testimonials about how Sarah has met with families with a child who has Down's, and despite what Palin declares in public, championing the value of the lives of these children -- Vanity Fair deems Johnston's quote worthy of inclusion. Why? To insinuate that Palin secretly regrets her decision and harbors thoughts like theirs -- that these children should not be brought into the world, and that they aren't as worthy of attention as "normal" babies? Who knows what they were thinking at VF?

You know, I don't care if Johnston get 15 minutes of fame or 15,000. And it doesn't matter to me if Palin makes it to the White House. No matter what that young man says, or how much the MSM tries to bring her down, Sarah Palin is destined to play a very important role in some capacity that will mean a helluva lot more to this world than any one of them ever will.

As a speaker, as a fundraiser, as a shining example -- I imagine she will fill the void left by the valiant pro-lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver as she becomes a champion for those with Down's syndrome, autism and other mental challenges. No one will be able to stop Sarah Palin, whatever her future holds.

The side of Levi Johnston I choose to remember...

Another Idea How Parents Should React to Obama Nation

I've got to side with the libs on this one -- but only to a point.

When I heard that the President was going to address school children next Tuesday, my first thought was "Ok, he can impart some wisdom about the value of education." This is something I have talked about before -- how I think BO can have a real impact on a certain sector of students who might otherwise throw away the opportunities available to them.

After all, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 also addressed school children, albeit without any "Menu of Classroom Activities" distributed by the Dept of Ed. And whereas I'm sure there would have been a lot of eye-rolling and snarky comments -- I highly doubt that any liberals would have pulled their kids out of class if W. had made an address. (Yeah, yeah -- the schools are already so liberal, what would they be worried about?)

After hearing more about this speech and the accompanying materials, and how schools are handling the event, I have to say I have my reservations -- especially how this was just presented without any type of input from or consultation with local school district officials. But I believe the knee-jerk reaction by some conservatives is short-sighted.

Some have talked about taking their children out of school that day or having their children "opt-out" of listening to the speech. Yeah, that's one way to go about it -- and there are times when I think that is totally appropriate --but in this case, what does it really accomplish? You teach your child that if they disagree with our President that they should just tune him out. Meanwhile, their classmates who stay have no one to balance the conversation afterward.

I think the better approach is to first look over the materials provided by the Dept of Ed and know what you find objectionable. (Apparently, the officials there have already removed one of the more questionable activities that conservatives raised objections to in the past few days.)

Second, contact your school and find out whether or not they will even be participating -- many are not as it is the first day of school, and they feel it will be hectic enough. Then find out exactly how they will handle the event. Will all students be watching? Will all teachers be following the "Menu" afterward? How much time is being devoted to these activities?

If you don't like the responses, ask if you can sit in the back of your child's class -- don't take no for an answer. You have every right to be there. If you can't be there yourself, find another parent who can. If you don't know another parent who would do this -- you should. Identifying like-minded parents can be crucial to ensuring that your children retain your family's values.

If you were not able to take the opportunity to meet your child's teacher -- do so as soon as you can. Feel them out as to where they stand -- look around the classroom. You can get a real sense of what your child will be exposed to under his or her tutelage.

But most importantly, you need to sit down with your children and talk through exactly what you object to regarding the President and what he espouses. It may be hard for little ones to absorb it enough to be able to speak up at school in the presence of such overwhelming adulation -- but you can teach them to keep their ears open and pay attention so they can tell you what was said in the classroom.

You can then go over it all again, and instill in them a sense of discernment, not just abject opposition. And if what they report to you about their class seems to go outside the realm of what is appropriate, then you can make a call to the school to voice your concerns.

I have a feeling the address will be available on-line afterward, and we can then go over it with our children. I'm willing to bet that there will be very little to worry about within the speech itself. It is the discussions afterward in the classrooms that may be problematic, so you have to hope that you prepared your child sufficiently.

Yeah, I know -- closing the barn door. Unringing the bell. Closing Pandora's box. Whichever. It screams out as another validation for school choice. But until that happens -- for those of us who have very limited options for private schooling -- vigilance is the way to go, not simply abstention.

We all need to be plugged into our child's education. Take the steps today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

At least we got some warning about this speech. Apparently some school children were shown the above video without parents' knowledge. While it has some good ideas in it, there are some that are way off base -- and the whole presentation seems a little... indoctrinating. On the off-chance that one of my kids' teachers will show this to them, I sat them down to watch it and discussed it.

Stand Up, Speak Out, Grab the Chalk... Whatever it Takes

We all know we should be wary of viral videos and forwarded emails or messages -- well, everyone except my dad, unfortunately. (Love you Dad, but you have to be more discerning!) It often turns out that the info imparted is not entirely accurate, if at all.

So here's the latest video that was passed on to me by a friend:

As someone who would have loved to have been that student, and fully believes we should never fear  standing up -- I have to report that according to Snopes (yes, I know they're left-leaning, but they're pretty reliable although the snarky comments were totally unnecessary) this story is fictitious and its origin is decades old.

But still, that doesn't make the story -- even if it is just a parable -- any less compelling.

There are professors out there who need to be challenged, and our young people need to stand up to them. I was happy to see this story on the news earlier today. Who knows for sure what impact these students will have, but they at least are standing up to unnecessary political commentary by their educators. It's a lesson that we should pass on to all students at every level.

As I watched this video, I wondered if I would have stood up to that professor. I like to think I would. I did stand up to a prominent professor during a lecture in a religion class once.

The subject of abortion came up and one of my classmates -- who I knew was a conservative Christian -- weakly brought up the notion that we should allow abortion in the case of rape. The prof responded, can we really expect a woman to continue such a pregnancy? I was stunned when no one spoke up.

So I said, "Are you being rhetorical, or do you really want a response?" he said that he was speaking rhetorically but if I had a response...

I said that the baby had just as much right to live as any other, and that -- as a victim of such a horrible crime -- the mother should be supported in any way she needed to get through the pregnancy and afterward. Financially, emotionally -- whatever she needs.

I don't know if I changed any minds -- but that day, I stood up. No one should fear doing so. If you have children -- no matter what age -- teach them well to respectfully disagree. Show them this video, give them the courage.

But I would add this to the parable -- There was another option: I wouldn't have stood by and let the chalk drop -- I would have marched up there and took it from his hand and declared "God made me do that. His will stopped it from dropping... Who's the fool?"

Sometimes it's not enough to step back and let God take care of everything -- sometimes just standing up isn't enough either. Sometimes, we need to be his instruments and take action.

Purity Begins at Home -- from Day 1

I saw an article on AOL about how the Candie's Foundation is causing a stir with a new shirt that has what they consider to be a slogan that supports abstinence -- or safer sex -- or something -- they don't seem sure.

Why do I feel like it all -- the whole foundation -- is just a stunt? It seems "sorta pushing abstinence, but actually acting like teens can truly make this life-altering decision to engage in this behavior" is the equivalent of breweries joining the "designated driver" bandwagon -- it's the hip thing to do, that tries to misdirect our attention from the problem they're part of.

When it comes right down to it -- it seems to me like this campaign is trying to reel in girls who are already too far in peril. Whether or not they have already had sex, they are already in a hypersexualized state where their identities are too far embroiled in "all things sexy."

Why are we trying to make abstinence "sexy"? Why can't abstinence just be what it is? The smartest, safest, all-around best way to go?

I don't let my girls watch shows or videos, buy clothes, or listen to songs that push them to grow up too fast. And I'm only about 90% successful, at best, considering how much is out there. I keep having to endure what I feel are very "pouty" pictures. Thankfully, despite what others may think when they see them -- they are not trying to be sexy or emulate characters from a tv show that has inappropriate content. They're just imitating the models in innocuous ads. (No Abercrombie catalogs -- or clothing -- in this house!)

They're not calling up or texting boys (although I have been unhappy with some networking comments) and they tell me when boys say rude things to them. They think boys are stupid -- and I intend to keep it that way for as long as I can. (I know that a part of them longs to have a boyfriend -- but it doesn't involve anything beyond innocent puppy love.)

It's no accident that I started from a young age to tell my girls that they are more than just a pretty face. And being pretty is not about make-up and sexy clothes. (Oh, and that boys lie. Even the good ones. They can't help themselves -- or more accurately, their raging hormones.)

Let's teach both girls and boys from the beginning that purity, prudence, and pride are to be valued. Trying to bring them back when they've already been overexposed -- that's one genie that will not get back in the bottle.
 

Now that's a slogan I like! (Ok, a little cheesy -- but it's on the right track.)

Any Mom Could Tell You -- Preborn Babies Have Memories

A study from the Netherlands confirms what every mom already knows: babies in the womb have memories.

My mother told me how I (or was it my brother?) would calm at the sound of the opening theme from The Days of Our Lives. Then she figured it out: she would sit down and watch the show everyday, including during her final months of pregnancy. It was familiar, and therefore soothing.

I had similar stories for each of my kids, most amusingly with my youngest. During our son's final weeks in my ever-expanding belly, my husband and I sat down to watch the entire first season of The Office. I was relaxed and laughing happily during those viewings.

Months later, picking up his big sister from the airport, my little guy was crying inconsolably at the very start of an hour-long drive. Thinking quickly, my daughter pulled out her cell phone and played the ring-tones on it.

The one that calmed him down immediately? The folksy strains that are heard over the opening shots of the gang at Dunder-Mifflin, of course. We must have played it a hundred times. And it worked on many an airport trip after that -- and elsewhere -- whenever she came to visit.

It still makes him smile, to this day.

So NARAL has no comment -- of course not. But every mom already knows it. Our babies lives do not begin on the day they are born. Life begins in the most sacred place of all -- the sanctity of our wombs --  no matter what NARAL, NOW or our President says.

Why the Hate for Jon & Kate?

Well, I hope Joel McHale is happy.

Ok, so he's not the only one to blame, but is was the likes of McHale's portrayal on The Soup of Jon Gosselin as a hapless henpecked husband that must have drove the poor man to try and escape the world of a father-of-8-under-a-microscope.

Last night's premiere of the 5th season of Jon & Kate Plus 8 was bittersweet considering the recent developments. I believe Jon's side of the story, and I still understand that even the most innocent version of his galavanting is enough for Kate to feel very hurt and angry.

That's all you can really say. Exactly what drove Jon to such poor behavior, exactly what the couple's relationship is -- it's all pure speculation. Only the two of them truly know. What's up to us is to let these two figure it out -- especially for the sake of the children. But unfortunately, the media does not seem content to let them.

Gossip rags run covers like this, with sensational stories from folks who are paid big bucks for their indelicate info (I don't care if one of them is purportedly her brother -- what kind of brother would reveal such intimate details?):

And just look at the review of the show's premiere from the Washington Post. The producers of J&K did not send out a sneak peak, so the writer decided this was an appropriate time to launch a personal attack on the Gosselins, and a general attack on large families.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052402680.html?sub=AR

The show is deemed "appalling." Kate is then unkindly described as a "succubus" (that's a devil-woman for those of you without a dictionary handy) with a "bizarrely unattractive" hairstyle who may "claw you to death." Her love and pride of her children is inexplicably condemned as a "horrifying validation of her brood's importance."

Jon is described as "a shell of a man" and the couple's sex life is questioned. The admittedly materialistic turn seen on the show is somehow approximated to mild "abuse." I found this all an unnecessary, highly personal judgment coming from a tv critic. He should know (better than most) that such shows -- and the media coverage of them -- are focused on the sensational. By no means are they fair or accurate representations of the real lives involved.  

But the hate is not reserved for the stars of this show. The Duggars of 18 Kids and Counting are "pious," "epically backward," and "eerily sweet." Programs of this kind are "freak shows" and the moms' wombs are "clown cars." Couples who struggle with infertility are compared to wild animals. Large families are referred to as "litters" and those who watch the shows are psychoanalyzed as searching for the "soothing effects of belonging to the pack."

Even blogging moms are ridiculed that they "cannot shut up about every banal detail of their household." Harumph. No offense!

The critic then makes the PC leap to the consumption of resources, suggesting large families are not "green." He forgets that these households are run more efficiently than average, and therefore consume fewer units of resources per person overall. 

But this critic is not alone in his diatribe. It baffles me why so many choose the shrill attack mode, usually found only in unedited chat rooms. Why not a charitable tone for this particular family that is struggling with the trials of success and fame? And why drag other families, famous or not, into the fray?

I can only surmise that there is a sector that feels defensive about limiting their number of children. They feel that they must denigrate large families and assail the obvious drawbacks. There must be something wrong with those people and their colossal clans! Who knows why they vilify those who made a different decision.

So Kate is an easy target. She runs her household like a drill sergeant. So? She got way more than she bargained for when she signed up for this -- never did she anticipate being hounded by photographers. She is not only dealing with the obvious pressures -- what most people don't understand is the responsibility of being an ambassador for large families.

I do.

I know what Kate is thinking: We want the world to see that -- while we don't have unrealistic goals of perfection --  we want to show our best side. Otherwise, we give fodder to those who would cut us down. We want everyone to see that, whereas our lives have more than their share of challenges, it is a great life, nonetheless.

Again, the show is but a glimpse of the most sensational moments of Kate's life, for less than 30 minutes a week. We're not there for the mundane, quiet hours upon hours. I say, the next time all those folks are the mother of 6 babies at once, then they can voice their opinions. Until you've walked a mile... 

So enough sniping whether or not Kate is too demanding, enough speculation about Jon's actions -- let's all just root for a family in crisis to come out of this happy and healthy. 

Oh, and don't buy those magazines! 

Sarah Palin's Choice

You could see this coming from a mile away... When Sarah Palin disclosed in a speech for a pro-life group how she struggled with the knowledge that her youngest child had Down syndrome -- you just knew what the headlines and the response from the mainstream media would be.

Palin explained how she was on a business trip and the thought crossed her mind that she could sneak off and have an abortion without her husband's knowledge. She described the thought as "fleeting." She then said she found the courage to have her son and is so glad she did because Trig is the joy of her entire family's life.

Predictably, the headlines ran the ilk of "Palin Considered Abortion" totally ignoring the thrust of Palin's entire speech and once again bowing before the altar of "choice." And today the Washington Post ran an editorial by Ruth Marcus that reverently toed the pro-abortion line.

Marcus says that if Palin and prolifers had their way, women "would have no thought process to go through" -- (Because you know, those who cherish all life would be thought police. Women wouldn't even be allowed to think!) -- that we would in essence be making the decision for all women.

Every once in a while the Post will trot out an editorial by some wishy-washy liberal who actually realized the value of the imperfect life within her, and brought her child with Down syndrome into the world (unlike more than 80% of women like her in America). Even though the writer recognizes the potential of her child and the joy that has come from their appearance in the world, she hails the fact that there is still "choice" for women. In other words, the women who pen these editorials know that imperfect people deserve life just as much as anyone else -- but if another woman thinks they don't, it's ok for that other woman to kill her child. Because it's her "choice."

Ah, yes. The "women need to think for themselves" and "the government shouldn't be making private decisions" canards.

Of course the whole point of championing life -- and the whole point of Palin's  speech -- is treated by the MSM as if prolifers are simply bossy cows. In actuality we're declaring the value of every human life, and the ability for women to overcome any obstacle.

Sure there are moments of weakness in which someone may look for what seems to be an easier way out of a situation -- a way no one will have to know about -- with the mistaken belief that it will somehow be a better option. Forgetting that she will know about it. For the rest of her life.

If a woman struggling to feed her children considered shop-lifting, we would understand. If an overwhelmed mother considered abandoning her children, we would see it was out of desperation. If a beaten women considered murdering her abuser, we would recognize the sense of self-preservation.

But we wouldn't legalize theft, child abuse, and murder in order to preserve those women's ability to "control their own decisions." We would steer these women to a food bank, a childcare relief service, and a women's shelter. Because we know that there is always a better way that a woman can see when not feeling despondent and alone in the world -- when she feels supported by her family, friends, and community.

Sarah Palin recognized her vulnerability, one that many women may know at some point in their lives. But she also recognized the dignity of all humanity. Thoughts may cross our minds, even unexpectedly, but the actions we take are deliberate.

What will we as a nation -- as a part of that humanity -- decide the fate of the imperfect will be?

Mixed Feelings about Moms in the Military

Perhaps you heard about the NC mom, Lisa Pagan,  who was recalled by the army and made the case that there was no one to care for her children. Her husband travels extensively for his job, and both sets of grandparents live out of state. Having exhausted the appeals process, she showed up for duty with her two kids in tow.

Perhaps sensing a PR nightmare, the army has promised that she will be discharged. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_us/military_mom

Now I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this story. In one way I totally sympathized with this woman, having pulled a slightly similar stunt once myself. I was still nursing my oldest when I was called for jury duty. I phoned to explain the situation and was told to get a sitter. My child had never taken a bottle and there was no way I was going to make her start just for this... So I showed up that day with her in my arms and they sent me away telling me that they would recall me soon and that I would need to find someone to care for her.

In the end, it turned out not to be an issue for me the second time I was called, but that experience 20 years ago left me thinking that the judicial system had some catching up to do with the needs of modern-day moms, and it was about time the system changed to be more sensitive to those needs.

To rip off another anthemic chant: We're ladies, we have babies, get used to it.

I think the same applies to the military today. In this case, my mixed feelings stemmed from the fact that Pagan knew what she had signed up for, that her husband could have made a choice to change jobs (even in these tough times -- he had over a year, with the appeals process), and that it seems questionable that all the grandparents (or any other extended family) were really unable to help out.

Whatever the full case may be on each of those counts, it seems that the military still has that catching up to do. In an effort to treat servicemen and women as equally as possible, something gets lost in the implementation. It's a minefield that's tough to navigate -- there are so many variables -- but ultimately I think the trump factor is that the well-being of children is at stake.

Sure there may be those who take advantage of the system -- purposely getting pregnant or overstating hardship in an effort to avoid obligations. But all things considered, keeping in mind the importance of motherhood and the needs of the young should compel tptb in the armed forces to err on the side of keeping families intact.

Parker's Priorities

If I had started this category when I started this blog, I imagine Sarah Palin would have been the first entry. I think it's important to recognize women who are living their lives with their priorities straight and their lives in balance.

Just yesterday I read about 22-year-old WNBA star Candace Parker, a player considered essential to the success of the league, who is expecting a baby in the spring. She is not the first WNBA star to have a child mid-career -- Lisa Leslie missed an entire season when she had a child -- but as the "new face" of the league there has been some grumbling by some fans and sports writers that Parker is letting everyone down. But overall, the league and coaches and teammates have been supportive.

Parker, who is married to NBA player Shelden Williams, told the Los Angeles Times that she wanted her children to grow up witnessing the athletic career of their young mother rather than arriving after it ends, and the league commissioner acknowledged that.  “Candace can be a very usable symbol of how you can have a family and a career.”

Chances are that Parker won't have to miss the next WNBA season (although she relinquished a $1.5M payday from a winter league in Russia) as she has had great timing: It seems this pregnancy started right about when she helped lead Team USA to gold in Beijing, and she will deliver months before the start of the season.

But while Sheryl Swoopes played six weeks after giving birth to her son back in 1997, Parker is not in any hurry to return to play. "The biggest thing for me is not a matter of if or when [I return] but of coming back with a good balance in my life."

This mom-to-be seems to have her priorities in order. She recognizes that her career and family do not need to be at odds. And most importantly -- Parker says motherhood is "a blessing" that will "make me a fuller, happier person."  

You got that right.

 

 

 

Kids Will be Kids

"Dad at 13" screamed the headline of the London newspaper. As if that's news. Of course, it was the picture of the wee lad that caused the outrage. At only four feet tall, the little guy looks more like an eight-year-old.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5724616.ece

So your average 13-year-old is ignored. Considered no big deal. Only when they actually look far too young is there a fuss.

It seems that the threshold is creeping lower and lower these days, for both young boys and girls, as to what age is considered acceptable for sexual behavior. And of course this is because kids are maturing faster these days.

Wait, or is it kids are less mature than back in the day, when the average 18-year-old would go out and get a job and support himself, and not play video games all day... Ok, so there are two different meanings to the word "mature." Imagine that.

Just because -- due to the modern diet or genetics or whatever -- kids today are more physically mature, does not mean that they are therefore ready to accept the responsibility and deal with the consequences of sex. Just because a kid knows how to use a credit card and reeeally wants to, doesn't mean we should let them. Why should we turn a blind eye to something much more serious?

Ah, because we don't want to be "hung up" about sex. We want to be cool. And they're going to do it anyway. Teach them the way to be "safe," and they'll be alright.

Can I just say right now, that just because I don't think sex is appropriate for kids -- definitely not anyone under 18 (I don't care how "mature" you are) -- and believe it's really best in a marital relationship at any age -- that does not make me "hung up" about sex. (I have 7 children. Believe me, I am not "hung up.")

Being a parent is not being cool. It's being the bad guy now and then. I am not raising my kids to think that I will assume they are going to engage in dangerous behavior, and that they should simply minimize their risk. I am raising my kids to understand that they are too smart, too strong, and too precious to succumb to the temptations around them.

They will not smoke, drink, take drugs, or have sex -- not just because my husband and I said so and sent them off with our fingers crossed. We have talked with them, explained their choices and laid out the consequences. We have voiced our expectations, and we do not tolerate secretive behavior. We meet their friends and their parents, and make sure there are adults to monitor all activities.

There are even more strategies for ensuring that our kids will be kids. Not little adults pushed into the realms of actual adult responsibility because it's "inevitable."

Just about every parent who says "kids will do it anyway" is trying to justify their own reckless teenage behavior. Unrepentant types who won't do what's necessary to prevent their children from experiencing what can go wrong -- even when all "protective" measures are taken. 

Seems a potentially high price to pay just to be the "cool parent." Go ahead, dare to be the bad guy. Say no. It could save your children at least a lot of heartache, and at the most, their very lives.

Not your Grammy's Grammys

Remember when you could watch the Grammys and the biggest outrage was when Lionel Richie's Can't Slow down beat Purple Rain and Born in the U.S.A. for album of the year?

Alright, my complaints are actually few this year -- I won't argue how boring it was for Alison Kraus and Robert Plant to win so many awards. That kind of thing happens a lot.

But how about the language Mr. McPherson? Personally I like you and think you're funny, but this is sort of a family show so... I have to admit I was surprised when they cut to a shot of a mom in the audience covering her young daughter's ears.

And while The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift were squeaky clean, and at least two of those acts showed some talent and were entertaining, why does a show like this have to have I Kissed a Girl performed as young women gyrated in front of each other? Made for an uncomfortable moment with my young teen:

"But Mom, it's a cool song!"  "Do you know what it's saying?"  "Um, not all of it... it just sounds cool."

I'm clinging to the belief that she really does think it's an innocent ditty with a cool beat whose lyrics she has not really heard that thoroughly and thinks is about an equivalent-to-an-air-kiss. *sigh*

But there were three great "Mom Moments" -- Jennifer Hudson acknowledging her mom up in heaven was heart-breaking.

Later, a country singer, Jennifer Nettles, said this in her acceptance speech: "To my mama, she's here tonight, she carted me around to every wedding and funeral, she's my date, she's beautiful!"

And M.I.A. -- performing on her due date alongside four men -- (we'll ignore she's not married yet since you couldn't tell that just by looking at her) -- showed that a very pregnant woman can be beautiful and stylish and can really work it!

 

 

 

And (Eight) Babies make Fifteen

So not only octuplets -- but there are also six young siblings including twins. But only one parent. Making a family of fifteen that has been thrust into the spotlight. The facts have been trickling in. Everyone has been throwing their opinions around. I've been waiting, but now I think I've heard enough.

The kids: every single one of them is a blessing. All fourteen are individuals who have a unique road ahead, but no one should question whether or not they "deserve" to be here, or cared for. Parents across this nation have had one, two, or however many kids who needed medical assistance when they were born. Stop looking at them as a litter, and instead as distinct persons who are entitled to receive all the help they need.

And let's stop assuming the worst for them. On the Today show, Dr. Nancy Snyderman did not hide her contempt, and presented a laundry list of potential physical ailments the children may face. Sure, there is reason to express concern, and to discourage the placement of such a large number of embryos (which was six -- two sets of twins emerged apparently), but there's no need to paint such a dire picture.

The mom: Well, I heard a psychiatrist say that perhaps Nadya Suleman should have worked harder to overcome some of her "issues" and desires in therapy, not at a fertility clinic. Perhaps. Didn't I hear that she tried to have children for seven years before becoming a mother? If I did my math right, that would mean she started when she was what, 18 or 19? And did she start IVF treatments no older than age 25? What was the rush?

But truly the debate here should not be about the desire for a large family, but the absence of a father in that equation. Yes, the desire to have a child is a very strong one, and I believe it is best to have a father around -- I'm a little more forgiving than some about women who choose to have a child on their own when they're approaching the end of the best child-bearing years. But so many? So quickly?

I also don't think the debate should be about whether or not a single mom can do this on her own. (For surely she won't. She'll need the assistance from her family, friends, and church that she has talked about, if not others as well.) But for all the questionable choices that have been made -- it seems Suleman is very devoted to doing all she can, and treasures each of her children.

It was reported that the embryos were left over from previous treatments. And apparently, the other five times she became pregnant, she also used six embryos. You can't fault her for believing that each of the embryos was one of her children who should be given a chance. She couldn't have imagined that after no more than two surviving, that this time all six would and that two would split -- so who should the contempt be saved for?

The fertility clinic that is still remaining anonymous. Why so many embryos each time? I'm guessing the first three miscarriages Suleman experienced before becoming a mom involved fewer, so they upped the number to better the odds. And then why so many attempts? They'll probably argue the tired old  "Who are we to judge?" Forgetting that it's not about judging the person, but the decision. And that sometimes you say "no."

They'll counter that Suleman would just have gone somewhere else, or that they were her embryos and each time they implanted her, they just honored her request to give them a chance. So I want to know -- how many times did she undergo egg harvesting? There is no way she produced 42 eggs at once, is there? And if she did -- how ethical would it have been to fertilize all of them?

Which leads to so many other unanswered questions, not necessarily any of our business -- but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the bottom line will be this: The clinic wanted to make money and to increase its success rate so as to make even more money.

I don't have anything against making money -- but not in unethical ways, preying on the deepest desires of desperate people.

I wish the family well, and I hope that the questionable details will not deprive them of the assistance they will need from outside the family. Perhaps this case will finally lead to some kind of regulation in this "industry." Because I think the protection of children, and giving them the best chance at life -- even potential ones -- is the ultimate goal here.

Teach Your Children Well... Don't Let Al Gore Preach to Them

A lot has been said about how today's kids are being "indoctrinated" with liberal dogma by our public school system. On history, on the accomplishments of conservatives, on sexual behavior, and lately on the global warming -- er, "climate change" -- agenda. (See, since the Earth has actually been cooling for the past three years, they had to change the name.)

Today I heard what a couple of parents did and I want to applaud them for their foresight: Al Gore spoke to their child's middle school, and the couple made an audio recording. The father was interviewed and some of the audio is heard at this link:

http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/2009/02/audio-al-gore-tells-kids-not-to-listen.html

In the recording you can hear Gore say, "You know, you as children know things about this world, that older people don't know" and then he goes on telling them how their parents are stuck in the older ways and so on. "...new understandings are more apparent to young people."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable! The blatant attempt to undermine the authority of these children's parents!

Now, I haven't heard the whole speech, so I don't know for sure that he does not say that kids should go and have a conversation about the subject with their parents-- there is one very quick caveat from Gore: "Now, don't get me wrong, your parents and your elders, as you have already figured out, know a lot that you can gain from, but..."

And with that "but," Gore negates his previous statement. And I'm guessing he says no other words in support of parents.

How can we fight this kind of... well, propaganda is not too strong a word. Listen, I understand that there are things going on in this world that we need to pay attention to and take care of. I also understand that Al Gore and his followers do not have all the facts right, nor do they have the answers to the problems.

Gore and his ilk -- and their beliefs about everything from the ecology to the slant of history to sexual behavior -- are being thrown at our kids as FACTS not opinions. If you -- like me -- are unable to afford private school for all your kids, you are at their mercy.

What can you do? Check the curriculum, especially in the "family life" class, and look over your kids textbooks. (The easiest test for a liberal slant contained within a history book: Go to the index and look up Ronald Reagan and see how he is portrayed. If it sounds negative, chances are that any conservative and his/her values will be shown in a bad light.)

Talk to them every day about what they have learned. Ask them if they heard anything that sounds different than what they've learned at home. Trust your instincts. Look into anything that raises a red flag. Talk to other parents who share your values and beliefs and ask if they have become aware of any objectionable teaching.

And tell you kids to not be afraid to -- respectfully -- disagree with a teacher if it contradicts what they are being taught at home. I have told my kids to tell me if this ever occurs. (So far, just a couple of benign instances.) And I also ask once in a while, in case they've forgotten.

And of course I have met all their teachers. I have mentioned to them that we would like to be informed if there is ever any kind of conflict or problem that arises. I remain vague, not saying anything specific, since I don't want the teacher to think we are at odds. I want them to know I feel we are a team, and I make it clear that I am plugged in to what my child is learning.

Until there is school choice, parents will have to be vigilant to ensure their authority and their beliefs are not being undermined by the public school system... and desperately-trying-to-be-relevant former vice-presidents. 

Stand by Your Man? Or not?

Rare email from my husband yesterday: "This is what you should be blogging about." He feels I need to stand apart and talk more about issues that affect women like me. Ok, no problem.

So the link he sends is to a review of a book called Beside Every Successful Man by Megan Basham (the review is by Laura Vanderkam of The American magazine -- a respected right-of-center think tank -- http://www.american.com/archive/2009/what-women-want )

Of course the title grabs me, and I wonder why my working husband, who is trying to further is career, would be sending this to me, his stay-at-home wife who has no problem with not working outside the home and is doing what she can to help him so he can get ahead.

I decided he has no agenda here, and just figured that he thought I would be interested in giving my take on the subject. (No he's not worried at all that I've been inspired by Sarah Palin, and that my sudden interest in the PTO and the local school board and state-wide races are at odds with is ambitions. Nothing at all to do with that... I'm teasing. I really am sure he's ok with my new pursuits.)

So here we have basically another look at the "mommy wars." The slant here is the author says more women want to stay at home and support their husbands careers and be able to do what they want. In effect, they don't want to be CEOs or successful lawyers or even Sarah Palin. They are happy to do what they can so that their men can earn more and they won't have to go to work.

The reviewer takes issue with that. Saying that -- if money weren't an issue -- many dads would like to stay home, too, to be a bigger part of their children's lives. But because of the expectation that companies now have that all male employees should put in more effort, families are suffering the absence of dad.

I addition, women are leaving the workforce because they can't handle that extra load since most don't have husbands staying home. I would hate to think that I'm contributing to an inhospitable environment for women who do want to work, since it's hard for them to keep up with the men who have wives taking care of the home front.

So bottom line for me? I've always taken the books and studies and polls with a grain of salt. There are too many variables, women are of their own individual minds. Only they can know what's best for them. I know what's best for me, but I don't need someone to defend my point of view. And I don't think women who choose to work need to defend thier position either. There are pluses and minuses to both choices.

Sure, keep open the lines of communication -- don't stop the studies, and by all means keep talking about it. That way, women can make a more informed decision. But ultimately, each woman knows herself, her husband, and her children better than anyone. She knows what they can or cannot handle. She knows what their needs and expectations are.

So look at all those books and studies and commentaries for what they are -- useful info to help you know your options, not directives that can make you feel guilty should you choose otherwise.

The Trouble with Harry (and Tom and Dick and...)

Being somewhat conservative, I don't worry too much about being politically correct because I think that sometimes the P.C. crowd goes too far and victimizes far too many.

But I believe in being polite and sensitive to others, and in bringing about civility. I don't accept "well, it's all an inside joke/term of endearment/camaraderie" or the other lame excuses that are thrown about to excuse the use of derogatory terms.

I sat there in disbelief when poor Elisabeth Hasselbeck was making an impassioned plea toWhoopi -- how do I explain to my children that it's ok for some to use the n-word but not others?

"You don't understand," Whoopi said over and over, not really answering EH's desire to understand it. Yes, there is something about a community "taking back" a word and therefore diffusing it of its "power" to deride. But I say, why not just refuse to use it, acknowledge it, or give it any credence at all?

I had a Jewish friend who would say "He's such a Jew" if someone was careful about their money, but she didn't mean it as a compliment. Just because she is Jewish doesn't make it ok.

So now we have Prince Harry in another flurry, this time over demeaning names he used toward fellow soldiers. It has been explained that it was all a part of the camaraderie in the unit, that the names were said out loud by everyone to everyone's faces and that it was understood as a morale booster -- or something to that effect.

Now, I saw Band of Brothers and I understand that it's a tactic the military uses to help units bond. That by calling each member a name, you're making each one understand that there is no one among them who is any better than the others.

I'm all for embracing racial identity and boosting troop morale. But we're all grown-ups here. Can't we find a way to come together other than by calling each other names?

My 100th Post -- How about something completely different?

Naaah! So all kinds of U.S. birth rate statistics have been flying about lately...

First there are the stats that say birth rates are up in all demographics -- not just the raw number, but the percentage of women who gave birth in just about every category is up. For the first time since 1971, the U.S. birth rate is (barely) above the "replacement" rate of 2.1 births per woman. (By comparison, the E.U.'s rate is only 1.47!)

btw These are stats for 2006, so I was glad to do my part on that one! And in general, congrats to all my fellow mothers from that year. In my book, more babies = more blessings and it is all good.

The other rates that are up are births to single women. Again, up in just about every demographic. Some dramatically so. For 20-24-year-olds, which was at 37 percent in 1990, now we find that 58 percent of births to women in that age range are to single moms. That's... a lot.

But I think the more astonishing figures for unwed births are found in the racial breakdown. The rate for the largest sector, white women, is at about 26 percent, while the smallest -- Asian -- is only 16 percent. But the other group rates blew me away: Hispanics are split evenly at 50 percent, Native Americans are at 64, and non-Hispanic blacks... 70 percent, yes 7-0, of births are to single moms!

I'm no expert, but there seems to be something really not right here. We are failing minorites in a big way. But that's a much bigger fish to fry another day...

Re: the general increase in births, it is of course celebrated by fellow pro-lifers. Pro-abortion forces on the other hand spin it into a tragedy as they declare it's a result from fewer "reproductive service providers."

That's funny. It seems to me that despite the dearth, women were able to reproduce... Oh wait, you mean abortion providers. Of course! If only there had been more abortionists there would be fewer babies in our country!

(Not that "too many babies" is a problem, but if it were -- wouldn't the best/easiest/most sensible answer be less sex, not more abortions? I can hear them: No, not that -- anything but that!)

It couldn't possibly be that women chose not to abort because they realized it's not what they want, it had to be because that "choice" wasn't available. Well, the abortion rates for 2006 aren't available yet, but the last year released was 2004 which showed a decline to a level not seen since 1974. So it's not just an astronomical rise in the pregnancy rate -- more women are choosing life, especially teens. I'll stand by the notion that more often than not it's a conscious choice, not a paucity of providers.

Re: the rise in single motherhood. Again -- it's a tragedy to pro-abortion groups, because to them it signals lack of abortionists, but you aren't going to hear them say that they have any kind of problem with the absence of fathers and the diminishment of the family.

Of course, that's the first words out of more conservative folks. Single motherhood = bad. Oh, yeah, in cases like Bristol Palin, they're glad more women are choosing to have their babies and taking responsibility. But some are going so far as to say that all single moms -- if they don't intend to marry the father -- should put their children up for adoption.

Nothing against adoption -- but it's not for every single mother (me). And nothing against supporting marriage and working to have both a mother and father (who are married to each other) in the home raising their children, but it's not always the best short-term solution for some women. Long-term I would agree -- children fare better with a father around. But again, sometimes it is not in a woman's control, and they shouldn't run out and get any guy just for the sake of having a man in the house.

We have to be careful that while we encourage the family unit, pregnant single women don't feel ostracized to the point of making a really devastating decision.

Let's do what we can to support women who find themselves in a bind, no matter what the circumstances, and realize that there can be more than one life-affirming way that works best for all those involved. Our top priority should be creating a society that welcomes children and supports women -- without putting constraints on either.

A New Wrinkle in Birth Planning

A new study gives some info to chew on for mothers-to-be re: scheduling c-sections. I'd say it was quite surprising.

Ok, so I've mentioned how my last 5 children's births were induced, right? Heck, one could argue all 7 had some "unnatural" intervention. My first -- I went in with very mild pains, but I was 39 weeks along so they broke my water bag and then things took off on their own.

With my second, my waterbag broke 10 days early, and with little progress I was given pitocin without an epidural. Worst. Pain. Ever. Definitely not the plan.

The twins were the first conscious decision to go in prior to any sign of natural labor. Again, I was 39 weeks and big as two houses. It went so well, that with my three subsequent pregnancies (again 39 weeks and gi-normous each time) I convinced my doctor to induce.

Ok, so it all went fine for me, and there were no c-sections, and no complications. Looking back, I would have done the same, because they were 39 weeks along, but here's what this study found that moms considering an earlier delivery should consider:

Performing repeat elective c-sections at 37 weeks gestation nearly doubles the chance of any complication, and causes four times more cases of respiratory distress. The actual percentages of any complication: a 15 percent chance versus an 8 percent chance. So not a huge number, but I'd say worthy of taking into consideration.

Even at 38 weeks there was a 50% greater chance of a problem, and even a few days more saw a 20% increase. Most of the complications were not life-threatening, but many involved testing and treatment and a longer hospital stay, and sometimes a trip to intensive care.

So whereas I can relate to "I am so over being pregnant" and wanting to deliver when certain loved ones are in town, it really seems to be worth giving your little one those extra days to minimize the risk.

Because let's not forget, it is all about them -- giving them the best start in life.

"School" is not a four-letter word

So a new school in the U.K. is declaring that it is not a school -- because that brings up negative images in young people's minds. Instead it is a "place of learning."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/02/school

So we should just abandon any notion of having our children accept what a great privilege an education is. If they don't like something, let's sugarcoat it. Ok, that may work for yucky-tasting medicine, and sure let kids put cheese sauce on their broccoli...

But let's put an end to thinking school is anything less than the best of opportunities.

I've heard more than a couple of complaints today from my girls, on this last day of the winter break (of course, not "Christmas vacation," as we grew up calling it... but I digress...)  When my kids complain about school I remind them what a great advantage they have in life because of the education they receive.

Not everyone in the world enjoys such a benefit -- especially girls. I point out that there are some girls in the world who attend school in secret, at risk of great punishment. Those brave souls take that risk because they realize the rewards of scholarship, and the opportunities it leads to.

They may roll their eyes, and say "Yeah, I knooooooooow." But it will sink in slowly but surely. Better to stand up and declare the truth than let our kids turn into mushy illiterates.

Whatever happened to "a mind is a terrible thing to waste"? Let's not be content to let our children throw their brains on the trash pile just because they're bored or not having their needs met.

Let's challenge them to be all they can be, not placate their "fragile psyches" with torpid terminology.

Born under less than perfect factors -- what a Tripp!

So Sarah Palin is a grandma, and she and her daughter and son-in-law-to-be are showing great grace under pressure. They are also standing up to the snide comments and false reports to present a great example of how to deal with a not-all-that-uncommon family situation.

They are showing everyone that just because a blessing arrives under less than ideal conditions doesn't make it any less of a blessing. My oldest daughter arrived unexpectedly, but -- while I wish she had the more ideal life she deserved -- no one can tell me that she is worth any less.

How should we judge our grandchildren, our children, or heck any person on earth? On the circumstances of their conception or birth? So a child born to a married couple who waited until they had enough money saved and live in a house and then maybe had a little trouble conceiving so they more greatly appreciate the miracle of their child's entry into the world -- does that baby have more worth or potential? Are those parents superior members of society?

Sure we try to guide young people to make choices that would prevent this situation -- but the other side of the coin is that we don't want to make them feel we won't support them should a pregnancy occur. It's a fine balance, and one could argue that perhaps Bristol felt a little too secure in her family situation.

She knew that she and her boyfriend would be able to deal with this challenge, and that their families would be there to back them up. She knew that a baby may cause a detour in life, but not a dead end. So she and Levi took a chance, and sure enough, as they often do, a sperm met an egg and a little life began.

But by no means is Bristol being cavalier about her situation. She has said “Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with – this isn’t ideal. But I’m fortunate to have a supportive family which is dealing with this together. Tripp is so perfectly precious; we love him with all our hearts. I can’t imagine life without him now.”

So congratulations to Bristol and Levi, and may your son, Tripp, be blessed with health and happiness -- wishes that every child, regardless of how they came to be, richly deserve from us all.

They're Resolutions not Resolute - shuns

Yeah, there are two schools of thought on resolutions -- those that make them over and over, regardless of the outcome year in, year out. And those who scoff at them, thinking they're pointless because "no one ever keeps them."

Well, everybody's right -- but I still try to wipe the slate -- well, maybe not "clean" every year, but I definitely feel as though the new year is the best time to get back on track, and give yourself a kick in the pants to be the best you can be.

Just because chances are I'll veer off-track again doesn't mean I should forego trying -- and this isn't the only day of the year to make these promises to myself. The thing to avoid is cutting yourself too much slack. Balance, ever finding the balance...

So in addition to the usual avowals, I'm going to do my best to post at least once a day, and to comment on more topics, and to write even if there's only a little to say. Brevity has it's place as does verbosity.

And if I could just stick to the one about getting up earlier, I would kill so many birds with but one little stone...

Farewell 2008

My husband and I used to get frustrated with my oldest child on many an occasion when she was younger. She had this annoying habit of defining her entire day by the last bad thing that happened in the course of events.

So if we spent a really fun day at the zoo, had pizza for dinner and ice cream for dessert, and then topped it off watching a great movie -- what she would remember was how she was scolded just before bedtime for not doing her chores properly. All the positive aspects of the day would fly from her memory, and she would rattle of a laundry list of all the minor nuisances of the day and call it a disaster.

Thankfully she has outgrown that, and I have tried to teach her sisters not to take that kind of attitude, but more importantly I have tried to take the lesson to heart myself.

Looking back on this year, it would be easy to write it off as a dismal failure. From the silly -- the Cubs not making it to the World Series again -- to the personal -- a very regrettable instance during an otherwise incredible vacation -- to the serious (in my book anyway) -- the result of the election. Having the last episode so late in the year has made it a challenge not to tell 2008 "Good riddance!"

But that would be ungracious.

I never take for granted that my family, most importantly all my children, are in great health, and live a very blessed life. It could so easily be otherwise, especially since we up the odds by our sheer numbers! But seriously, I could kick myself for ever feeling grouchy or complaining about the trivial.

So I will not declare 2008 a disappointment. Rather I shall thank everyone I know, and the good Lord Himself, for being a part of my life, and for all the joy they bring.

I wish you all a very, very happy new year and all the best for 2009.

Onward!

Moms Rock the Olympics

So here are 10 great  women in the Olympics, some you may have missed…

 10. The women who fell short of their goals. Best example, Lolo Jones leading in her race, and then not even getting a medal after hitting the 9^th hurdle. A great moment? No, but her reaction afterward was first-class. After letting herself cry for a bit, she went on-camera and congratulated her teammate, and put her own performance into perspective.

 9. The women behind the scenes – the athletes’ wives. My top choice is Sarah Clay. She held down the fort for years, then watched as her husband Bryan was totally robbed of the glory he deserved. (He’s “the greatest athlete in the world” -- where was the coverage?  Maybe a total of 30 minutes. Bruce Jenner’s nose got more press this year.) Hopefully the world will wake up, and the Clay family will reap the rewards of all their hard work.

 8. The other women behind the scenes – the athletes’ moms. Of course, Debbie Phelps takes the top prize. She not only did the usual – driving and attending and yelling her heart out – she also never gave up on a boy who was a little different. And she did it on her own, to boot.

 7. The woman in Phelps’ shadow – Natalie Coughlin. She was 6 for 6 in medals, but “only” one was gold so she didn’t make as big a splash in the media. Her grand total is 11 for 11, counting her performance in Athens. If not for Phelps, she would have been the big story in swimming this year. But she hasn’t complained one bit and just keeps flashing that million-dollar smile

 6. The women’s beach volleyball champs, Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh. What I love is that they are not afraid to show affection, and that they were still jumping up and down during their post-win interview. And they still had the presence of mind to make a point to thank the President for coming out to the games and showing his support to the athletes.

 5. The women who prevailed on much less heralded stages. The women's rowing and fencing teams come to mind, but I loved the gold medal winner in the discus, Stephanie Brown-Trafton. She dreamed of being the next Mary Lou Retton, but then grew to be 6’4” – tall even for a discus thrower. But she used the hand she was dealt, followed a different path. and her dream came true.

 4. The first and only female athlete for the United Arab Emirates, Sheikha Latifa al Maktoum, who carried her nation’s flag in the opening ceremonies. She is the daughter of a Dubai ruler who persuaded her country to let her compete. She and other Muslim women wore outfits that followed their religious beliefs. Only Saudi Arabia and Brunei are still in the Dark Ages. If those nations don’t come around by 2012, let’s hope the IOC stands up and bans them both.

3. The sole woman amongst the plague of photographers that descended upon Michael Phelps.  I noticed her – despite the fact that she was dressed just like them in the obligatory t-shirt with tan shorts and vest-of-many-pockets. She must have been drowning in a sea of testosterone. That shutterbug's got guts.

2 and 1. The moms and the “moms.” A tie for second and first, between the women who have children, and the women old enough to be the moms of their teammates.

There were 20 moms on the U.S. squad this year, from Lisa Leslie, playing in her fourth games, to weightlifter Melanie Roach, mother of four including a boy with autism, who said this about motherhood:

“I just hope I can inspire that one athlete afraid that it will interfere with her sport… it makes you better.”

And amongst the older women were the 38-year-olds who won the gold in the marathon and the silver in the vault. (In gymnastics! She’s almost old enough to be a grandmother of one of the Chinese team members!)

 And of course, there was Dara Torres. She took her younger competitors under her wing, while proving that a 41-year-old can win without illegal enhancement. She also had my two favorite quotes:

 About motherhood: “It never crossed my mind that I couldn’t train for the Olympic games and still be a mom.”

 About age: “I’m teaching my daughter that you shouldn’t put an age limit on your dreams.”

 Well said, Dara, and well played! Congratulations!

 

 

On Death and Dying... and Life and Living!

Only O could take the incredible "Last Lecture" by Randy Pausch and almost besmirch it. Thankfully, the sagacious sermon transcended O's attempt to ruin it and therefore an even larger audience has experienced a taste of the heartbreaking message about life, love, and dreams.

I've mentioned the lecture before -- here's a link to view it in its entirety (about an hour and fifteen minutes, not the woefully too short ten-minute version that the professor presented on TOWS)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo

It is life-changing not just in terms of how you live your own life, but how you are present in your children's lives. I struggle daily to be the type of parent that Pausch had, and he himself became. This sermon really gives you a shot in the arm to be -- and help your children to be -- Tiggers, not Eeyores.

And on today's show, the professor had one more clever nugget -- he wants his young daughter to know that she should never listen to what the boys have to say -- that instead she should watch what they do, and hopefully that will prevent her from making bad decisions. I'm putting that one in my lecture to my girls...

Can I just ask quickly -- what was up with O? Not a tear shed, seemed to be rushing through the interview, asking  perfunctory questions... Is it because all her wildest dreams have already come true and so she doesn't need to hear this lecture? I hate to say -- as much as I can sort of understand her decision not to have children -- I think there was a part of her that couldn't let the lecture in because she has no children of her own to pass along her wisdom to.

I haven't had too many hits on my blog lately, while O reaches over 7 million viewers each day. I think Professor Pausch would still agree: I've got the better end of the deal.