Saturday, September 27, 2014

There is Nothing Wrong With Aspiring to be Married

Recently, I've heard complaints about the Disney movie "Frozen".  The complaints sound something like this.  "Well, yeah I guess it's nice that Disney has a character who questions whether it's sane to marry a man you just met, but still, there is marriage involved, and one of the characters aspires to be married, which is damaging to young girls because it sets a bad example."

Let's set aside the fact that some people just like to bitch, and that Disney will NEVER be able to redeem themselves in the eyes of certain people who hold their 1950s cartoons against them.  Let's also set aside the fact that in the movie Frozen, the other main character becomes a LEADER OF A COUNTRY.  Let's pretend that the issue is simply that Anna wants to get married.

So what?

Look, I'm a feminist.  I fully agree that girls should have goals outside of getting married, and that they should know that their value is not attached to their ability to marry.  But that doesn't seem to be the point being made when people complain about "Frozen" and its like.  Their idea seems to be that little girls shouldn't aspire to be married at all, and shoudn't even think about it until they've earned their Phds in physics and won their Nobel Prizes.  

I think that's silly and sad.  Because in addition to being a feminist, I am also a big fan of marriage.

Most little girls (not all of them, I know) are natural romantics.  Their hearts are open and wide and strong.  They haven't been beaten down by the world yet.  Their hearts have never been broken.  It's to be hoped that they see examples of healthy marriages all around them.  Is it so wrong for them to want that for themselves one day?  Is a little girl who dreams about having a big wedding and meeting someone who sees her specialness and cherishes and supports her somehow anti-feminist?  Why?  It's not like we live in the dark ages when getting married was the end of the road for a woman, and she could kiss all her dreams goodbye.  Today's men want their women to be happy and to be successful.  They aren't threatened by it like previous generations have been.  Today's marriages, more often than not, are partnerships where the partners help each other achieve their goals.  

Is marriage for everyone?  No.  But it is for most people.  And telling little girls that marriage is not something they should want or plan for is unrealistic and silly.  Should it be their only goal in life?  Of course not.  But most girls are intelligent and complex enough to have more than one goal

Monday, August 25, 2014


When I was a little girl, I had a fur cap. I bought it for 25 cents at a garage sale.  It was nasty and old, and it smelled like eight kinds of death, and I'm pretty sure it was made of beaver fur - but I loved it intensely for a whole week.  It mad me feel elegant and classy, like Cruella DeVille or Veruca Salt.  In it, I was a sophisticated young lady...whose head smelled like a decaying wet dog corpse.  

Of course, as I grew older I realized my error, but I never completely changed my mind.  You see...I love fur.

I know.  Believe me, I know.  I absolutely hate cruelty to animals, and killing a small, furry creature just so you can wear its skin is horrific, evil and ghoulish.  It is wrong.  Wrong.

But so pretty.

Recently, I was shopping at Saks and found an absolutely gorgeous mink coat.  I knew it was wrong - so very, very wrong - but I ran my hands over it and goggled at it.  It was a thing of beauty.  I looked at the price tag - $8000.  I sighed.  Dammit.  I tried to take it from its hanger to try it on, but it couldn't be moved - I guess they didn't want people stealing it or whatever.  Fine.

So instead, I let my imagination do the work.  I picture myself strolling along the streets of Paris, in my mink coat, with a matching cap.  I'm wearing bright red lipstick and I'm smoking, even though I'm not a smoker, but you smoke when you're walking down the streets of Paris in a fuck-you-you-can't-judge-me-because-I'm-fucking-fantastic-mink-coat.  I catch a glimpse of myself in a cafe window and I raise an eyebrow at myself in approval.  I sit down at a table in the cafe and order a single glass of chilled white wine, and I sip it while reading some pretentious exiistentialist garbage.  I look pensively out of windows.  I am admired by everyone.  I am the girl in the mink coat.   Perhaps I'll eat a single chocolate truffle and then stroll back to my tiny white apartment and change into a peignoir and congratulate myself for being so thin.  

I am perfectly aware that fur is immoral. I am perfectly aware that there is no cause for owning a fur coat in Southern California, where it never, ever snows, or even gets that cold.  But dammit, I want one all the same.  

Thursday, August 21, 2014

In Which I Solve the Prison Overcrowding Situation

We all know that our prisons are overcrowded.  You hear about it in the news all the time.  The United States has more of its population in prison than any other developed country, from what I understand.  The reason for this is simple.  We, as a society, are focused on punishment, rather than rehabilitation.  We see prison as a way to punish all crime, regardless of what type of crime it is.  We are vindictive and angry, and we want to make people suffer for their sins.

By the way, I'm not included in "we".  By "we" I mean you.

In order to reduce the prison population, we need to rethink the purpose of prisons, and we need to start to consider the MOTIVATIONS behind crimes, not just the outcomes.  Not all criminals belong in prison.  Putting all criminals in prison is a waste of taxpayer money, and it does not rehabilitate the criminals.  Most criminals would be better put to some use - "restorative justice", if you will.  They should have to make what they've done right, as much as is possible.  The purpose of a prison should be to keep dangerous people off the streets.  Basically, if you wouldn't be frightened to run into a person in a dark alley, that person does not belong in prison.

There are five basic reasons why people commit crimes.  In my world, after a person is found guilty of a crime, she will undergo a psychiatric evaluation, as well as an evaluation with a social worker, to determine the root cause of the crime.  Once the motivation for the crime has been determined, the criminal can be sentenced.   I will discuss each of the criminal motivations, and how I believe they should be handled.  I will singlehandedly solve this problem.  You're welcome, United States.

1) Stupidity/Lack of Impulse Control

This is the guy who gets in a bar fight after he drinks too much.  This is the kid who throws a brick through the principa's windshield.  These aren't necessarily bad people, but they do bad things because they are stupid, or because they lack foresight.  Basically, they have bad decision making skills.

They do not belong in prison.  

If the crime is minor, or if it is a first time offense, the penalty should be community service.  Ideally, the service should be suited to the crime - for instance, a vandal should have to clean up graffitti, etc.   If the crime is a more major one, or if the criminal is a repeat offender, she should be sentenced to join the military, where she will learn self control and discipline.  

2) Desperation

Here you have your theives, your drug dealers, your prostitutes.  These are people who are motivated by poverty - no one chooses these kinds of lifestyles if they feel they have better options.  They do not belong in prison.

If the thievery is motivated by a drug addiction, the thief should be sentenced to a treatment center.  I know - I'm not a huge fan of forced rehab either, but here's the question - do you want to reduce the prison population, or don't you?  Addicts don't belong in prison.  They need help for their problem, and prison definitley will not help them.  Rehab might help them, even if it's forced.  

If drugs are not the problem, and it's just a matter of being poor and making bad decisions to try to not be poor, then the offender should be given 90 days to either A) get a job, or B) enroll in some kind of schooling or vocational training.  A social worker would be assigned to the criminal to assist them in finding resources to help them do this.  If, at the end of 90 days, they have not complied, then and only then should they be sent to prison.

3) Mental Ilness

This is the guy who believes he is a dog, and so he bites the mailman.  

If people are mentally ill, they cannot be held responsible for the actions they do that are caused by their mental illness.  They are not in their right state of mind.  They are suffering from delusions, etc. They do not belong in prison.

If the mental illness can be treated on an outpatient basis, with therapy and drugs, then the person should be given access to mental health treatments.  If the illness is more severe, and the person is a true danger to herself or others, she should be placed in a psychiatric hospital.

You might say "But doesn't it violate civil rights to force a person to take drugs/receive medical care against their wishes?"  Well so does putting them in prison, but no one criticizes that, because once you start committing crimes, you prove forfeit certain rights.  That's why convicts can't vote, own fireams, etc.  No, we should not forcibly medicate every mentally ill person, whether they like it or not.  Just the ones who have proven themselves to be dangerous to others.

4) Greed
Here you have your corruption, your bribery, your white collar crimes.  These are people who just aren't satisfied with what they have - they want more and more, and they don't care what rules they have to break to get it.   It's unsavory behavior, and certainly cannot go unpunished.  But they don't belong in prison, because they don't meet the "dark alley" criteria. 

Instead, we need to do "restorative justice" with them.  They need to refund all the money/property they gained illicitly.  If that is not possible, because they spent/destroyed it or whatever, or because it is unclear who should be reimbursed, then their wages will be garnished until the full amount is paid back. If it is unclear who should be paid back, the funds will be given to charity. If they used their jobs to gain illicitly, then they should be fired from those jobs, and no longer allowed to work in that industry.  In addition, they should be sentenced to community service helping the poor.  Spending time in soup kitchens and slums should help them to gain some perspective, and better appreciate what they have.   The amount of time spent doing community service should be proportionate to the crime committed.  

5) Malice/Evil

These are the people who belong in prison.  Here you have your child abusers, your rapists, your animal torturers, your serial killers.  These are the people who are motivated by causing pain to others.  They like to cause others pain.  They are psychopaths and they cannot be allowed to run amock, victimizing and hurting people.    Lock them up.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

The Inevitable 50 Shades of Grey Post

Since the movie of 50 Shades of Grey is about to be released, I felt that it would be an opportune time to give my opinion on the books, and on the criticisms that have been made against them.  Because some of the criticisms are valid and some are less valid.

And yes, I have read the books.  I actually read them while I was in labor, which might be borderline child abuse, but whatevs.  I needed something to distract me from the horror of the situation - something that would not be intellectually taxing.  And it worked, sort of.  Judge me.

1) The writing is bad.  

The most common criticism of the books is that they are badly written, and this is, in my opinion, absolutely correct.  They are badly written.  There is a lot of weird repetition of facts that are meaningless, and the main character, Ana, has a bizzare vocabulary that is by turns profane and outdatedly innocent.  

Here is my impression of Ana, and the books as a whole.  "Golly gee whiz I love being fucked inside out by my Sweet Fucked Up Fifty in the Audi.  Then he makes me some English breakfast tea.  Crap, he's hot!  Just like how my tea is hot!  Also, Audi!  Hot!"

2) It started as Twilight fan fiction.

I personally don't think this is a good reason to criticize the books.  Who cares if that's how they started?  Lots of writers base their writings on familiar character prototypes and use cliche story arcs, and I don't really see that as much different.  She didn't plagiarize.  She just drew inspiration from the "awkward clumsy girl who doesn't know she's beautiful" and the crazy controlling boyfriend who needs to protect her.  

3) It's mommy porn.

Again, so what?  

I've heard lots of women say that they refuse to read the books because "I'm a married woman, and there's no place for pornography in a healthy marriage" , "It's a temptation fo sin" and blah blah.   

Obviously this is subjective.  We all have different definitions of what is sexually healthy, and we all have different limits on the amount of sexuality we are comfortable with in our literature, and we all have different levels of tolerance for the use of pornography within and without of our relationships.  

For me personally, the books were completely and totally unsexy.  The sex was graphic and kinky and plentiful, but I found myself skipping over almost all of it because it was A) not erotic and B) not interesting.  So the pornographic element really didn't factor in for me, at all.  

4) It is a negative and inaccurate representation of the BDSM community.  

I'm conflicted on this one.  On the one hand, I can see why members of the BDSM community might find this representation to be offensive.  Grey is super creepy.  And the notion that sadism/masochism are the products of childhood abuse, rather than a different iteration of normal human sexuality is a rather insulting one.

On the other hand, I never heard the author claim that Ana and Grey were supposed to be mascots for S&M.  I don't see why they have to be representatives for an entire community.  Can't they just be two fucked up people in a deeply unhealthy relationship?

Which leads me to - 

5) The story is awful.  This is a deeply unhealthy relationship.  

This is indeed a deeply disturbing relationship.  They are both drama addicts, and there is nothing healthy about them.  Grey is controlling.  Ana has no boundaries.  They are both totally obsessive.  Worst of all, it uses the commonly used but extremely unrealistic "magical vagina" trope, wherein a severely damaged and troubled man is "saved" by "that one special lady".  

But again, I don't think this relationship was supposed to be aspirational.   Sure, it's passionate, but that does not mean it's something to be emulated.  And since this is a book written for adults, the readers should be mature enough to deduce that for themselves.  It's an entertaining relationship, but its entertainment value lies in its dysfunction.  No one wants to read a story where a man and woman meet, go on some dates, commit to be in an exclusive relationship, get married, have children, then die.  Healthy?  Yes.  Entertaining?  No.  

The issues I have with the plot are more mundane.  For instance, how does Grey have all this time to stalk Ana?  Doesn't he have multibillion dollar companies to run?  How is he able to take all this time off from work?

Also, why doesn't anyone tell Ana to dump Grey?  Why is everyone ok with his creepiness?  

And why the lurid fixation on child abuse?  Icky.

In sum, I would have to say these books are pretty bad.  The writing is awful, the characters are awful, and the characters are unrealistic.  

That being said, they are entertaining, and they do keep you reading, if for no other reason than morbid curiosity.  They will take your mind off anything awful that's going on in  your life - like being in labor - and give your brain a chance to relax.  

I would recommend them for intelligent adults who need a little mental vacation, who have good senses of humor.  I would NOT recommend them for children, or adults who are inclined to take them seriously, or prudes.  

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Gift Giving

I suck at getting gifts for you.  It's not because I don't care about you, and it's not because I've forgotten that it's your birthday/Christmas, etc.  I WANT to be a caring person who gives generously.  I just don't know how.  

First of all, I don't understand your taste.  I have no idea what you would like to have as a gift.  I know what I would like, but that is probably not what you would like.  At all.  When confronted with the task of choosing a gift for another person, I always feel panicked. like I'm being given an exam on you and your character and what will make you happy.  If I choose wrong, I will have offended you, and your house will have a piece of useless garbage in it that you hate.  

Second of all, I just don't think about getting gifts for others.  This is something that happens to me frequently - 

I meet Friend X for lunch.  We sit down and start chatting.  Then suddenly Friend X will present me with a brightly colored bag filled with awesome things.  "Merry Christmas!" she'll say happily.  

I feel sick to my stomach.  But it's December 3rd!  I'll say to myself.  Out loud, I'll say "Oh, I'm so sorry.  I didn't get you anything.  I didn't know we were...doing the present thing".  

And she'll tell me that it's ok, of course, but I know it's not ok.  I have failed the friendship/generosity/thoughtfulness test.  I'll resolve to get her a present and give it to her the next time I see her.  But then, time passes, and giving her a present would now seem awkward and out of place.  Also, I have no idea what to get her.  

Also, I don't ever expect to receive gifts.  It never even crosses my mind that someone will buy something or make something for me.  For some reason, it's just not part of the Dana zeitgeist.  I don't personally need to receive gifts to feel loved or appreciated.  You could never get me anything and I wouldn't care in the slightest.   I seriously wouldn't even notice the lack of gifts.  Maybe because of that, it's harder for me to remember that gifts ARE important to some people.  Does that make me a sociopath, lacking empathy?  Probably.  

And so I say to you - yes you - if I have ever neglected to get you a present, please forgive me.  I am very sorry.  I hope I'm a good friend/relative in other ways, and that it makes up for my lack of gift giving ability.  

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Stupid Experiment

If you read child rearing books/articles - and you do/will - you'll likely encounter a "study" that supposedly explaines how and why children succeed or fail.  It's about self control, they say.  A child needs to be able to delay gratification in order to succeed in the world.  They need to be able to postpone pleasure to gain greater rewards in the future. 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this conclusion, but I AM disagreeing with the experiement they used to come to this conclusion.  

You see, several decades ago, they experiemented on children.  They told the children that they could eat one marshmallow now, or they could wait and get two marshmallows later.  They followed the kids over the next several years and discovered that the kids who were able to deny themselves the initial marshmallow in favor of gaining an extra marshmallow were more successful and less inclined to commit crimes, etc.


But here's why the experiment is stoopid.  It makes two very big and incorrect assumptions.

1) That marshmallows are awesome - so awesome that no child would ever NOT want more marshmallows.

2) That all children come from awesome families where trusting adults is a good and reasonable thing to do.

Let's say a child comes from a family that is...less than perfect.  Perhaps her parents are alcoholics.   Perhaps they are emotionally abusive and manipulative.  Perhaps she lives in complete and utter chaos.  

Now tell that child that she can have the marshmallow in front of her now, or she can wait for two marshmallows later.  Everything in that child's experience tells her that adults cannot be trusted.  Sure, the guy in the lab coat SAYS there will be more marshmallows later, but that doesn't mean anything.  What if the lab coated man gets high and nods off and forgets all about the marshmallows?  What if his pimp comes in and smacks him around for a while and marshmallows become a low priority?  What kind of moron child would wait for a marshmallow that might never come, when she could eat the one in front of her, now?  CARPE DIEM!!!

And further, could we not assume that those children who took the initial marshmallow do more poorly in life because of their horrible home lives, rather than their "innate inability to delay gratification"?

Also, marshmallows are not that great.  I mean, yes, they are relatively tasty, but in all honesty, I'd rather have one marshmallow than two.  You only really need one, and that's plenty.  And you certainly don't want to eat a marshmallow all on its own.  You need to make smores or put the marshmallow in hot chocolate or similar.  Maybe some of these kids simply didn't give a care about how many marshmallows they got because whatever.  It's just a freaking marshmallow.  It's not like it's hollandaise sauce or mashed potatoes or something wonderful.  You know?

Anyway, I'm not saying self control and delaying gratification is bad.  It's good.  I'm just saying that this experiment is flawed, and it doesn't prove anything, except that the developers of psychological experiements all come from well-adjusted, wholesome homes and they have massive boners for marshmallows.

Sunday, July 13, 2014


I'm not a huge fan of work meetings.  They always strike me as tedious and pointless.  After all, it's not like management is asking for your input.  It's not like there's going to be a lot of discussion involved, and so you need to gather everyone together to generate ideas and opinions.  Most work meetings simply consist of a manager telling you things.  This could be much more efficiently done by sending an email.

So, if I were the CEO of a company there wouldn't be a lot of meetings in my workplace.  However, if I did have to have a meeting I would incorporate a novel element - 

bean bag chairs.

You see, it is impossible to look authoritative or competent while sitting in a bean bag chair.  No matter how intelligent, articulate, and put together you are, if you sit in a bean bag chair you automatically look like a dim slacker preparing to watch Super Troopers or similar.  

You cannot be taken seriously while sitting in a bean bag chair.

I would have an enormous chair of power.  I would give some excuse about my back, to explain why I need said chair.  I would enter the room, take my seat and say "I'm so glad to see all of you enjoying these bean bag chairs.  I thought, 'Hey!  Why don't we try to make these meetings more comfortable and fun?'  How are you liking them?"

And they would all say they liked them fine, because that's what employees do.

And then I would present the situation to them, present my thoughts on what we should do, and ask for input.  Then when people tried to share their thoughts, I would sit back and watch while the other employees censored everything, because what worth could possibly be coming out of the mouth of someone sitting in a bean bag chair?  I wouldn't have to criticize anybody - the workers would do it for me.  And then I would restate my idea and everyone would love it, because I looke so competant and in charge.

It's a good way to preserve worker morale and make them feel valued and important, while not actually giving them any real power or input.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

I Guess I'm a "Lunk"

If you live in this area, you've probably seen the Planet Fitness commercials, with their recurring "lunk alarm" theme.  They're stupid.

Here's one -

Now is it just me, or does this class look like SO much fun?  I want to dance and leap and look super hot and make growling motions!  Who is the target audience for this commercial?  People who don't want to be thin and active and have fun?

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

School Shootings

So there's been yet another school shooting.  Again.  Another one.  And yet again, the opposing sides of the gun control issue are screaming at each other.  GUN CONTROL!  GUN RIGHTS!  GUN CONTROL!  GUN RIGHTS!

I think we need to all just accept the fact that the politicians, NRA, lobbyists, etc are never going to come to a consensus about what the government should or should not do about school shootings.  I wish they would.  I wish they would find a way to solve the issue in a way that makes everyone happy.  But I'm not holding my breath, and neither should you.

Instead of vainly wishing that everyone would agree (with you), we should try to work from a place where we all already agree.  And I think most people can agree on the following:

1) School shootings are bad.
2) School shooters are mentally unbalanced.

So while the gun control fights wage on, let's discuss what we can do in the meantime to help prevent school shootings.  We can't wait for everyone to join hands and agree to X Solution.  We have to act now.

Now, I'm not a psychologist, and I don't claim to be an expert.  But I am really smart, and I spend a lot of time on the Internet, so you know.  I'm to be taken seriously.

I want you to think of everyone you know.  Yep.  Everyone.  Now I want you to eliminate all the females.  I know, I know.  But let's be realistic.  Girls don't pull this kind of shit.  They just don't.

Now I want you to eliminate really old and really young males.  Because four years olds and 90 year olds don't pull this kind of shit either.

Ok.  So now you have a pool of potential school shooters.  Now you need to learn the signs of dangerous mental illness.  Read a psychology book or something.  And also, use your common sense.  A teenage boy who wears black and mopes around and writes bad poetry isn't a dangerously mentally ill person.  He's just a pretentious douche.  He'll grow out of it.   Also, just because a kid doesn't have a lot of friends, that doesn't mean he's a school shooter in training either.  No really.  It doesn't.  And obviously you can eliminate the kids and young men who are actually well adjusted, or who are only mildly mentally defective.

Now you've probably narrowed it down to just a few troubled young men.  I know, you're probably thinking - "It's not my job to get involved.  It's his parents' job."  Yeah, no.  It's your job.  Here's why.

Some parents are too emotionally involved to make objective decisions about their sons.  They don't want to admit that their son could be a psychopath.  And some parents simply have shit for brains and some parents genuinely don't care about their kids.  

So yes, you have to get involved.  

Here's how I see it going - 

You: Hey, Troubled Teen.  I see you're writing something there.  What are you writing?
Troubled Teen: My manifesto.
You: Oh, how nice.

Then you go search Troubled Teen's room and find the little fucker's guns and explosives and you call the freaking cops!!!

I think privacy for teens is overrated.  I'm not saying we should lock up every kid who happens to have read The Anarchist's Cookbook, but I am saying that if you know a kid who is, shall we say, "a bit off" and has exhibited some disturbing behaviours, like torturing animals or stocking up on explosives, maybe you take a peek in his notebook.  Maybe you look in his closet.   Maybe you talk to his friends.  It doesn't have to be some crazy Orwellian monitoring situation.  Just basic checking would go a long way to making sure this kind of shit doesn't happen.

Because totally normal young men don't just wake up one day and decide to shoot a bunch of people.  There are signs.  There is planning.  And it is OUR responsibility to stop them.  Do not rely on the parents.  Do not rely on the teachers.  Do not rely on the government.  If you know a guy who is disturbed, check him out.  Try to get him some help, or call the police as the situation warrants.  

I mean, don't be crazy about it.  I'm not suggesting we form a mob and go get the weird kid who lives down the block.  I'm just saying, keep an eye out for the kind of crazy that kills people.  And if you have good reason (Note, I say GOOD reason.  Not "the kid is weird" or "the kid has a lot of piercings". Good means he has a lot of anger and access to weapons, etc.) to suspect that someone is capable of causing great harm to others, you need to step in and try to help or hinder as necessary. 

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

When People Pressure You to Have Kids

You often hear childless couples complain that family and friends are pressuring them to have children. They are annoyed by this pressure, and find it to be inappropriate and intrusive.  Of course, no one ever pressured me to have children - likely because you all thought I would be a terrible mother, due to my selfishness and lack of nurturing skills - but if I had been pressured to have children, I probably would have been annoyed by it too.  After all, what business is it of anyone else's if I have kids or not?

But now I'm going to let you childless couples in on a secret.  I'm going to tell you why we who have children are always trying to get you to join us.

It's not because we think you'd be awesome parents.

It's not because we think that having children is the "right" and "natural" course, and that deviating from this natural course is wrong and against God's plan.

It's not because we want to tell you how to live your life.

It's not that we think you're shallow for not wanting children, or that you're missing out by remaining childless.

It's because being a parent is terrifying and isolating, and we don't want to lose you as friends, and we don't want to go through it alone.

After you become parents - or even before, really, when you become pregnant - you immediately start to think of how everything is about to change.  And while some of those changes are awesome and great, some of them are freaking awful.

You imagine your childless friends and relatives will start to think of you as lame mommy and daddy types, and will ostracise you accordingly.  You imagine that everyone is bored to death every time you discuss your child or your pregnancy.  You imagine that everyone will be mad at you when you run late because your baby vomited on you just as you were leaving the house.  You imagine that people will stop inviting you to things because sometimes you have to flake out because you couldn't get a sitter, or because your baby is teething and can't be brought into public.   No one wants to hang out with the woman who can't drink because she's pregnant.  No one wants to hear about your baby's bowel movements.  And the fact of the matter is, once you have a child, it takes up roughly 90% of your mental and physical energy, and focusing on anything else takes a lot of effort.

But.  If your childless friends and family members were to have children too...well then that would change things!  They would understand everything, because they would be going through the same things too!  You could support each other and no one would think you're lame, or hate you because of this major life change that's happening.  

I have to constantly restrain myself from pressuring various friends to have children.  I want to.  I want to so very badly.  But I stop myself, because I don't want to be "that woman".  But I totally am that woman.  I want you to have kids.  Most of you, anyway.  Let's do this together.  Join us.  JOIN US.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Personalized Wedding Hangers

I think I would be the world's worst wedding planner, and here is why:

If you didn't click on the link, know that it is a website devoted entirely to making customized wedding hangers.  Because, you see, when a wedding planner plans a wedding, she thinks of these kinds of things.  

For those few of you who attended my wedding, you'll remember that it was a straightforward and frillless affair, which is how I wanted it.  The very idea of planning a super fancy wedding makes me feel stressed and miserable - I think the actual process of implementing a fancy wedding would kill me.
So I'm not the person anyone would think of to plan their wedding.

However.  Personalized wedding hangers?  Really?

I can't even begin to understand the mind of someone who wants personalized wedding hangers.  Like, what is the thought process behind it?  Is the wedding dress itself not special enough?  Are the bridesmaids really going to be put out that they have to pull their shiny dresses off of ordinary hangers?  Does anyone actuallyl care?  And how does a personalized hanger make the day better?  No, seriously.  Also, what the hell are you supposed to do with the hangers when the wedding is over?  Are you supposed to keep them?  No one but a crazy hoarder would keep such a thing - so it will just be garbage once all the festivities are done.  

I can't be the only person who thinks that this is the stupidest thing in the world.

But the thing is, it's not just some crazy bridezilla who decided that ordinary hangers would ruin her special day.  There are apparently enough of these women (I'm going out on a limb and saying that no men order personalized wedding hangers) that there is AN ENTIRE BUSINESS devoted to feeding this insanity.  

If Nadia wants personalized wedding hangers for her wedding, I will vomit.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

My Thought Process Re: Nadia's Scars

Nadia's scars are badass.  She's such a tough little warrior.  My little Viking baby!  She should rock those scars!

Wait - what if she doesn't think they're badass, as she gets older?  What if she's ashamed of them?  What if she doesn't want anyone to know about her scars, or her heart condition?  Isn't that her business?  Shouldn't she be the one to decide if her scars should be hidden or not?  Maybe I should keep her scars hidden for now, so she doesn't resent me when she's older.

But then, what am I telling her about her scars, if I always try to keep them hidden?  Am I telling her that they're something to be ashamed of?

NO!  I'm just telling her that they're private - like genitals.  

Really, Dana?  Her heart surgery scars are like genitals?  What's wrong with you?

Ok, not like genitals.  But still, private.  Medical history is private.  Also, what if people don't know about her surgery, and they think I'm like, abusing her or somethin?  What if people see her scars and say to themselves "What is that horrible woman doing to that baby?  Has she been slicing that baby open and bathing in her virginal blood, like some ghoul in a fairy tale?  I'm going to call child protective services."

OR, what if they see the scars and think to themselves, "Wow.  Why doesn't that mother cover up her baby's scars better?  It's like she wants everyone to see what her baby has been through.  She probaly likes the attention.  She probably is one of those Munchhausen's By Proxy mothers.  She probably drank a bunch of toxic chemicals when she was pregnant to give her baby a birth defect on purpose."

Which is obviously not the case.  But still, Nadia isn't anyone's freak show to be gawked at.  I don't want people feeling sorry for her, or thinking she's sickly or weird.  

But isn't it more important that NADIA not think she's sickly and weird?  Don't I want to instill confidence in her, and teach her that her scars are a mark of badassery?

Aren't I overthinking this?  Most clothes don't even show her scars anyway, so it's a moot point.  It's not like she's going to spend her days topless.

But what about her rompers?  They ALL show her scar if the fabric shifts.  And what about swimsuits? And V neck T shirts?

I don't want other kids to make fun of her, because then I'll have to do terrible things.  

But who says they will make fun of her?  Maybe they won't care at all, as long as Nadia is confident and matter of fact about it.

In sum, I think Nadia is more likely to suffer from having a neurotic mother than from having scars.