I Hope I Don't Forget These Things Now That I'm a Parent

1) It is not my place to be the fashion police.

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to enforce basic rules of propriety - for instance, I would not let Nadia wear a Catwoman suit to a funeral - but if it is just a matter of personal taste, I need to stay the fuck out of it.  

When I was young, I saw the following horrors thrust upon my fellow children -

* a boy forced to wear extremely high waisted jeans, because his parents disapproved of the saggy look.  They seemed unaware of the fact that there was a happy medium between tight cowboy jeans and jeans so low that the underwear showed. 

* a girl who was not allowed to shave her legs until she was thirteen, even though she was hairy like a male yeti.  She was mocked relentlessly.  What was her mother thinking?  What was she afraid would happen if her hairy-ass daughter shaved her legs?  That she would contract tetanus?  That she would turn into a slut?

* A girl who was not allowed to wear nail polish unless it was pink or red, because any other color was "inappropriate".  

* A girl who was not allowed to cut her ridiculously long hair, because her dad wanted it long for some reason.  She looked like she was raised on a polygamous compound, and she clearly hated it.

All of these are examples of parents forcing their taste on their children, to their children's detriment.  Fashion changes.  What was cool when I was young will not be what is cool when Nadia goes to school.  And unless her clothing choices are offensive or dangerous in some way, I need to stay out of it and let her experiment with how she wants to present herself.

2) The kids who kiss my ass are not necessarily the nice kids.

We all knew those kids.  They were super polite and perfect when adults were around.  And in return, all adults loved them.  "Why don't you invite Kid A to your birthday party?  She's such a nice girl!"  

But she wasn't a nice girl, was she, ladies?  No.  She was an evil bitch.  But nothing you said would ever convince the adults in your life that she was anything but an angel.

3) The kid who has no manners is not a bad kid.

The kid who comes to my house and has no understanding of how to eat at a table,  who never says please or thank you, who uses foul language, etc - is NOT a bad person.  He is neglected, and possibly abused.  Obviously no one gives a shit about him, and no one has ever bothered to teach the child how to behave.   Lots of times, I've heard parents say that they don't want Such and Such KId to come to their house because she's rude and awful.   They need to realize that A) If a child doesn't know how to behave, it's not the child's fault, and B) Allowing the child to hang around  your home will help to teach that child how to behave properly.  Children learn my example.  If you ban the rude kid from your home, all you've done is teach that child that manners are the domain of snobby, exclusionary assholes, and she might not ever learn any better.

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

Fur

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.  

  

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

Fine.

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.