A Very Princess Christmas

If you have daughters, it’s quite likely that you have plenty of princess movies, books, dolls, clothes, posters, cups, plates, utensils, rugs, robes, lamps. . .  you get the idea, princess EVERYTHING around the house.  With two daughters under the age of seven, in our house, there is plenty of princess paraphernalia.  There is much said these days about these princesses and their so called “fairy tales” that always feature a damsel in distress needing to be saved by a handsome prince. 

As mothers we watch our daughters playing with Barbie and Princess dolls or worse (we all know what I’m talking about as you’ve all heard Izzy’s rants) and know that we did the same things.  We turned out o.k., right?  No one talked about Barbie’s waist proportions or her ample bust back when I was a kid.  If they did I wasn’t aware of it.  I was too busy driving my Barbie dolls in their super mega camper to get to the Barbie pool.  But for years now, there have been debates.  There have been people comparing “The Spice Girls” to Barbie, and the list goes on. 

A little while ago I picked up a copy of the book “Growing a Girl: Seven Strategies for Raising a Strong, Spirited Daughter” by Dr. Barbara Mackoff.  I haven’t even finished the book yet, but feel I’ve already been fairly successful in this area. We’ve got “spirited” pretty much down, at least for the early years. You should see my daughters snap kick.  Seriously.

One of the things that really caught my attention in the book was the couple paragraphs about “Sleeping Beauty.”  In the book, the author’s daughter chooses to read this particular book frequently.  The author, thinking it’s a fairly annoying and trite story of the damsel in distress being saved by the prince in the end, offers up some alternative ideas to her daughter. 

“‘You know what bothers me about this story, Han?’ Hannah shook her head, only slightly interested.  ‘It’s that when Sleeping Beauty goes to sleep, she doesn’t even try to wake herself up; she waits for the prince to come and do it.”

The author decides that she’ll allow these princess stories, but she’s always going to be there to provide some alternative commentary.  I decided to try it myself with my daughter.  While watching Cinderella get locked in her room, I paused the movie and asked my daughter how she would get out if she didn’t have any mice to help her.  We had quite an interesting conversation, which included thrust kicking the door down as just one of our creative options.  For obvious reasons, we also enjoy watching Mulan.  That is one kick-some-serious-butt Disney girl, and she definitely makes real karate girls proud.

This holiday season, I wanted to offer up a suggestion for those of you with daughters, nieces, or other little girls in your lives (actually big girls might get quite a kick out of it too), maybe as an accompaniment to a Barbie or Princess doll.  Although many of you may have already heard of “The Paper Bag Princess” by Robert Munsch, it’s worth mentioning again. 

If you don’t own it, go get it.  If it’s hiding out on a dusty book shelf, dust it off.  It’s a fabulous fairy tale where the roles are reversed and the princess has the role of savior.  What she finds is that what she thought was worth it, isn’t so much worth saving after all.  It’s a staple in our house of girls, and you’ll thank me for making it a staple in your house as well.

BBM writes at Black Belt Mama, and The BBM Review.  She also accepts birth stories at Birth Story (and could use some desperately).  Thanks for letting me blogsit Izzy.  Sorry for the state of your fridge.  Oh, and when I got your mail and was checking our your local store advertisements, I ripped out all the Bratz ads to spare you the trauma.  You’re welcome. 

Are they real or are they fake?

This is a guest post written by me: Angie at www.AllAdither.com

I am a “Real Christmas Tree” kind of girl. When I was a wee child, my family would, more often than not, trek out to a tree farm, in three feet of snow, to hack down a Douglas Fir.

Now that I’m married with two very young children, my husband, the littles and I scurry to Home Depot, grab the cheapest shrub we can find (yeah, I’m not paying $80 for a dead Noble Fir), toss it in the back of our truck and race home before kids start screaming for juice boxes and string cheese.

Still, despite our decidedly unfestive method of obtaining our tree, I like the smell, the sensation of a real live (well, only recently deceased) evergreen in our living room.

Recently, though, J. and I have discussed buying a fake, pre-lit poseur. Our four-year-old son is pushing for it. He wants to erect our tree the day after Thanksgiving like all his faux-tree owning friends.

And, even I have to admit, there are certain aspects of a wannabe tree that are appealing: less mess, no watering, you get to keep the plastic thing (can you sense my disdain by now?) up from October through February, if you so desire, without any concern of the branches spontaneously combusting and burning down your house.

J. and I consider ourselves somewhat environmentally progressive (which basically means we recycle and mull global warming without necessarily owning a Prius or remembering to utilize our reusable shopping bags). So we decided to look into the environmental effects of Real Christmas Trees versus Artificial.

I found, in my research, that faux trees are made with PVC. Otherwise known as vinyl. Otherwise known as: Really Bad for the planet and possibly for our health too. And according to Umbra Fisk at Grist.org, lead is often used to stabilize PVC.

Fisk goes on to suggest that live, potted Christmas trees, an attractive option for those with the money and desire to treat Mother Earth kindly, isn’t an ideal option either if you lack the land or climate necessary to grow them.

The old fashioned, real, trees, he surmises are the earth’s best bet. Especially if you get yours from a sustainable, small scale grower (ie not Home Depot).

Hanukkah has its own version of Going Green, with a handful of environmental activists proposing that Jewish households light one less candle this year to curtail the (tiny amount of) carbon dioxide each candle emits. While I applaud these activists’ lofty efforts, I think they should concern themselves with mountains of crumpled wrapping paper tossed in landfills and houses lit up like mini constellations. Not these tiny flames.

Because I’m nice and because I’m excited to be IzzyMom’s blog-nanny for the day, I’ve included photographic evidence of MY idea for a Green Christmas: constructing Holiday Trees out of common household items:

This until someone starts making Christmas trees from recycled soda bottles and old tires.

Angie at www.AllAdither.com

Sperm Donors And Child Support

Normally, when a woman blog-sits for another woman, they talk about rummaging through their host’s fridge and dresser drawers, looking for “dirt” or things to make fun of them for. However, being a man, I don’t want to do that, because I know that with my luck the one drawer I open will be the one with bras and/or panties, and all of a sudden I become that guy. And I have no interest in being that guy, thankyouverymuch. So, all I am going to do is make sure I take off my boots (there’s a lot of snow where I am) and sit on the couch and watch football (this is America - there’s always a game on somewhere). Oh, and hope I don’t block the toilet. That’s basically all men do when they visit anywhere.

When Izzy put out the call for guest bloggers, I practically tripped over myself to offer my services. She’s a blogger after my own heart, who often writes in the “original” blogging style of taking a news piece, linking to it, and then going to town on the subject. Hell, she even started Moms Speak Up, which is all about news commentary. So, with that in mind, I bring you today’s post.

---

In the past week, two separate rulings have come down from courts, one in the U.S. and the other overseas in the U.K., ordering men to pay child support for children fathered via sperm donation. Both were cases of private sperm donation to a lesbian couple, and neither circumstance had any legal documentation that absolved the man of parental responsibility.The easy thing to do here is put on our blinders, trust our gut reactions, and say that because the men contributed sperm they are technically a father, and therefore bear responsibility for the child or children. However, I feel that would be trivializing the issue, and also would lead us down a slippery slope I am not comfortable with.

Before I continue, I would like to state, unequivocally, that I am in favour of all people being able to have children by any legal means available to them (i.e. I’m not cool with baby stealing, but pretty much anything else is on the table, from petri dishes to turkey basters). This includes same-sex couples, single men and women, or any other concept of a family.

Dealing with my trivialization comment first, I ask the following question: should a sperm donor be allowed to file for custody of a child conceived with his genetic material? Consider the following hypothetical: a young man donates sperm to his lesbian friend so that she and her partner may enjoy parenthood. Fast forward a few years, and this man has now married and discovered that his spouse is infertile. They talk, and conclude that it would be preferable to raise his child than to adopt or seek a surrogate. Knowing the court’s tendency to favour heterosexual couples, they would likely end up with the child. I would suspect that the majority of people (who are not opposed to same-sex marriage and/or same-sex couples raising children) would agree this is unfair to the mother. However, to say the father cannot seek custody but is still financially responsible is a double standard.

With regards to the slippery slope I identified, if these cases result with the fathers having to pay child support, how much of an impact will it have on the likelihood of sperm donation in the future? Will men be willing to offer their genetic material to lesbian couples, or even couples who cannot conceive for that matter, if there is a chance that their donation may land them a monthly support payment? Realistically, that end is somewhat far off, because the most likely evolution of the story will be that more and more fathers will be forced to pay support, which will lead to a run of legal “absolution” documents being conceived and signed, which will lead to one of these documents being challenged in court, which will lead to the document being overturned, which will leave us where we are today: sperm donors on the financial hook. In the end, I suspect that sperm donation will become too great a financial risk, and subsequently lesbian couples and those unable to conceive will have a dramatically more difficult time having a baby.

Rhetoric and hypothetical situations are all well and good, but it’s important I take a position in the discussion. While my instincts as a dad push me towards the “a father is a father” side of the argument, I cannot, in good conscience, restrict people from having a family because of legal pitfalls. To this end, my suggestion would be to formally legislate a means for a man to renounce rights to a child, and in so doing, absolve him of any responsibility in the future. To make this reasonable, the renunciation would have to be supported by the child’s mother (otherwise, every man who had a one night stand that resulted in a pregnancy would take this route). I feel that this offers the best of what is a complicated situation: men will feel free to donate sperm without fearing long-term financial burdens, and couples who otherwise would be childless have a better chance to have a baby.

We are now at a crossroads, and depending on what direction the courts take, we could be at the precipice of a dramatic change in alternative methods for how families are created. From where I’m standing, I hope they make the right choice.

---

You can read more SciFi Dad at his personal blog called Tales From The Dad Side and also at his commentary column called Daditorial.

Blog Clutter: Good, Bad or Doesn’t Matter?

I recently read a post over at Lorelle on Wordpress about blog clutter…you know, all that crap bling in our sidebars and any other stuff that isn’t inherently necessary to a blog’s existence.

Apparently, there’s a bit of a trend towards getting rid of all that stuff so that readers can focus on your content.

Content? Content? You mean people don’t care that I think free, unstructured outdoor play is good for kids? Or that I was the Parent Magazine podcast’s blog of the month? Or that Facebook Sucks? Or that Text link Ads can be rather lucrative? Or that we’re all invited to a fun blogger weekend getaway? Get outta here!

But seriously, folks, is the bloggy bling really deserving of the old heave ho? Personally, I have mixed feelings about it because yes, while it can be distracting and perhaps a little hard on the eyes, particularly when something is moving, twinkling or flashing, it can also serve the higher purpose of educating readers.

Yes, blog clutter can be educational in that 1) it helps us get a better sense of who the blogger is and what they’re all about and 2) it can help spread information about various causes, events and things you might actually WANT to know about.

On the other hand, however, having a ton of widgets and linky love things that send people off to other places probably isn’t so good for the blogger but if they don’t care, should we mind?

And then there is the never ending brouhaha over ads. Personally, I don’t mind them so much. Sometimes they’re even interesting but there remains a core of bloggers and readers who think content should be king and that ads have no business in the blogosphere. Bah! Tell that to the people who are known to earn a nice living from ads on their blog. I think it’s safe to say they aren’t going away anytime soon…

But alas, despite anything I’ve offered up in favor of ye olde blog clutter, I still find myself pondering the idea of having nice, soothingly tidy sidebars. In fact, I’m visualizing the sleek, milky white bars pared down to the barest of essentials and it makes me want to do it RIGHT NOW! But I’m awfully attached to my sidebar crap so meh. Maybe next month.

As a blog reader, is bloggy clutter perfectly acceptable, the worst thing since Carrot Top started wearing eyeliner or are you merely indifferent to it? What about on your own blog? Any plans to declutter?

In other news…I’m going on vacation for five days on Friday and I need a blogsitter or three. Anyone interested in writing a compelling, thought-provoking or humorous post (in other words something a tad more interesting than a post about blog clutter?) for me while I’m gone? Drop me an email — izzymom {at} g mail dawt calm.

Consumer Culture and Kids: Do Our Values Even Matter?

Crocs, Crocs, Crocs… The ugliest shoes ever created and yet so beloved by my seven year old daughter. Well, actually she doesn’t have THE Crocs™. You know, the name brand ones sold in the same shoes stores where they carry all those other ugly, expensive shoes that are supposed to be so awesome and comfortable (SAS shoes? UGLY!!!).

No, she has whatever you call the ones they sell at Target — the ones that were like $6 instead $30 — and she has been very content with her ugly, plasticky, purple Croc knockoffs.

So yesterday, when I announced that we were going shoe shopping because my two year old needed some shoes he could get wet, as well as put on and take off at will (because he’s forever getting his little suede sneakers wet outside and they’re starting to smell a tad funky and his sandal are totally MIA) my daughter suggested “Crocs” for him. I begrudgingly agreed that they were probably perfect for his needs — easy on and off, closed toe, and water impervious…

However, I also let her know that we wouldn’t be purchasing him the brand-name Crocs from the Ugly Shoe Store at the mall. Why? Because he’s two and he could care less who makes his shoes and his feet grow way too fast.

But then I realized that made it sound like if you were older and more aware, that it was perfectly acceptable to care who made your shoes which was, of course, the exact opposite of what I wanted to convey.

So I launched into lecture mode and, in essence, told her that a lot of luxury, brand-name and “designer” things are kind of silly; that some people use them to elevate how they feel about themselves; that labels don’t make you a better person because who you are comes from the inside, not the outside. You know…all the stuff your parents probably told you, too.

She listened patiently and then, upon conclusion, promptly changed the subject to something more interesting to a seven year old. Still, I hoped what I’d said had some impact or had at least lodged itself in her subconscious, ready to be unleashed should she begin to ever give a crap what name is emblazoned on her stuff and sparkly, girly accoutrements are no longer enough to satisfy.

Frankly, the whole thing made me examine my own feelings toward designer and name-brand things. Here I am lecturing to my child about this stuff and I have to wonder if I’m being a hypocrite? Am I practicing the old “Do as I say, not as I do?” when it comes to values?

Well, let’s just say that while I don’t long for one in the least and would never go out and buy an expensive handbag (Coach, Dooney, Louis, Fendi, Gucci etc) I would probably carry one (but only a very tasteful and understated one) if it were to magically fall into my lap because who doesn’t like a nice purse, right? But for me (and not necessarily anyone else), the unconscious subtext of my carrying something so conspicuously expensive is “Hey! This is a very expensive bag and I have one and now I’m cooler and better than I was when I didn’t have it.”

The last time I was in a thrift store (I LOVE thrift stores though I rarely get to go them anymore) I found a brand new navy blue Polo school uniform skirt in my daughter’s size for $4.00. I’m embarrassed to admit that little red polo player on the front made me just the tiniest bit giddy and hello? Polo for FOUR BUCKS! I did, of course, buy the skirt but I still made a point not to mention the designer name to my daughter because I don’t want HER to care about that sort of thing.

I guess I am a hypocrite and I find this very disconcerting. I really don’t want to be brand conscious like that and yet this morning, I found myself cringing inwardly just a little when I was getting into the momvan after dropping my son off at his morning program.

You see, as I was opening my car door, I saw another mom from P’s class parked behind me. She waved and smiled. I waved and smiled back AND took note of her gorgeous black Mercedes.

In front of me? A macked out BMW sport utility…just one of many.

My car? A domestic minivan with the malfunctioning keyless entry computer chip that I may never get fixed ($500+ is the estimate OUCH!).

And in the same moment that I was feeling both dorky and slightly inadequate, I was chastising myself for being exactly how I don’t want my children to be AND concurrently telling myself that if we were some kind of dirt poor hillbillies, we wouldn’t even BE sending P to this school. My inner dialogue is more like a heated group discussion, apparently.

I’m not sure what my point is here except to note that even I, staunch rejector of conspicuous consumption and overpriced designer items, am susceptible to wandering into the keeping-up quicksand that I really want my kids to feel empowered enough to sidestep.

Do I suffer from some kind of unacknowledged middle-class shame for not having the very things I have such contempt for?

And do I have contempt for them because of they clash with my values? Or because we simply can’t afford to live like Oprah and the Donald?

Or am I just a hapless by-product of a covetous consumer culture in which everyone is constantly made to feel inadequate to some degree?

Either way, no matter what the answer is, it seems that there is no shielding your children from the insanity of it all no matter what ‘class” you fall into. Even in schools where the kids clearly come from a lower socioeconomic background, there is still pressure to have expensive designer clothes and accessories.

Though we’re not there yet, I do wonder how to deal with this stuff down the road should my lecturing turn out to be grossly ineffective…

What’s a parent to do? Give in and buy the “right” stuff for your kids, whatever it may be, so they fit in or put your foot down and pray your kid isn’t treated like a total outcast?

See, that’s a tough question because we all remember being kids, right?

There is a period before you discover your individuality where fitting in is THE most important thing ever. Studies show that rejection from whatever peer group a child identifies with, regardless of their standing in said group, does leave a permanent mark on how a child sees him or herself in a social context and that mark is lifelong. Yikes!

Can clothes, shoes and the like really be the deciding factor? I find myself hoping it’s really that simple, despite how much it grates against my seemingly fluid values.

See, I remember begging my mom for Nike sneakers and Levi’s cords when I was about ten. A couple years later it was “earth shoes” and designer jeans a la Jordache, Sergio Valente, Cacharel, Sasson etc. and those suckers were pricey for that time. But I was spoiled AND a child of divorce so I rarely heard the word “no”.

Did having the right attire propel me to the heights of popularity? No, not really.

Did they save me from being a complete outcast and cool-kid pincushion? I have no idea and I guess there isn’t any real way to quantify that but I do know that I don’t ever want my kids to be in that position.

Do a parent’s values even matter in an age where we’ve had to invent a new term for a specific kind of bullying that is becoming more and more common — fashion bullying?

Personally, I think buying Dolce & Gabbana for children is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard and any parent who raises the bar to that level for the rest of us should be publicly flogged with a D&G belt — in the middle of a Walmart!