Sunday, September 12, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Emmys Fashion
My loving sister sent me this link this morning, and herewith are my comments. The numbers correspond to the number of the photo in the slideshow.
8. Tina Fey looks about as good as she ever does on the red carpet. It's like she's embarrassed that she's good-looking.
22. Kate Gosselin gets to go to these things? What is the world coming to?
30. I have seen the dress Dianna Agron is wearing before. I can't place it. She's looked better; it's a little too much look for a small girl like her. She remains gorgeous, though.
31. Kelly Osborne has lost a massive amount of weight since the last time I paid attention, which, admittedly, was probably a few years ago. But she always styles herself to look older than she is, I feel.
34. Jewel looks awful. The whole thing is just unfortunate.
35. Carrie Preston looks awesome. Do you know she's married to Ben Linus in real life? Do you know I once saw Ben Linus on stage? Ask me all about it some time.
43. Seriously, Rita Wilson (Tom Hanks's wife) has been doing this for a while. Doesn't she know better?
57. You know, the thing is, that's not even a very good Mad-Men-esque dress. And furthermore, even if it were a better version of itself, it's what Joan Harris nee Holloway would wear to work. On a Saturday. Not what she'd wear to a fancy event. We've seen Joan get dressier than that for a night of clubbing with her lesbian roommate. So not
only is it not a nice dress, and not a fancy enough dress, it misses the point of the early '60s lifestyle that people who like Mad Men fetishize, the point of being more formal and glamorous than we ever are in daily life.
58. That's nicer than I've ever seen Jenna Ushkowitz look on a red carpet.
1. Heidi Klum be looking skinny.
2. January Jones needs hair and makeup (and maybe jewelry) to stand up to that dress. Which is quite a dress. Which is not to say I like it. Or that I don't. I'm undecided on the dress. But from the neck down, it's, "I'm an edgy TV star at a glamorous event!" and from the neck up (facial expression included), it's "What? I brushed my hair, didn't I? What more do I need to do for a simple run to the grocery store?"
3. Peggy looks slim! The dress is fine. It would look better on a taller woman but it's inoffensive.
6. I love the color of Kyra Sedgwick's gown.
7. Anna Paquin . . . that is . . . You know what that is? Much like January Jones, it is a lack of commitment to a look, only on her, the lack of commitment is all in the garment. What did they do, run out of metal coins? Her boobs are ready to go to war against Troy; the rest of her is still being pinned in preparation for a fashion student's "Draping 101" class. If you're going to go for a look, particularly a crazy one, GO FOR IT.
8. Tina Fey looks about as good as she ever does on the red carpet. It's like she's embarrassed that she's good-looking.
9. I was going to leave Neil Patrick Harris and his partner alone, because, boys, who cares? But I'm sort of bothered by the term "expectant father." Isn't only a pregnant woman "expectant"? Couldn't they be "expecting a child" rather than "expectant"? But as a note, I hope the sperm came from Neil Patrick Harris. We need more of him running around.
10. Sofia Vergara looks awesome! I think the haters who accuse her of pageant-ness are jealous of those curves.
10. Sofia Vergara looks awesome! I think the haters who accuse her of pageant-ness are jealous of those curves.
11. Julie Bowen . . . is usually so pretty. What is going on here? Does her stylist secretly hate her? I hate every moment of that look.
12. I'm not so huge a fan of Claire Danes's look. I mean, the dress is pretty and she looks fine, but she looks like every pretty blonde Hollywood extra ever. She doesn't really look like *her*.
13. When I first glanced at the photo of Lea Michele I thought she was Penelope Cruz. And I thought, "Well, Penelope Cruz always looks awesome, of course." So good job, Lea Michele! The bangs look okay to me.
14. Eva Longoria Parker needs some lipstick.
15. Jennifer Westfeldt (the girl lucky enough to be with Jon Hamm) is blonder than she used to be. Which is also contributing to a certain generic-ness. But she does have the night's best accessory.
16. I don't know who Nina Dobrev is but damn is she itty-bitty. Like the dress, though.
17. I thought Edie Falco was Helen Mirren at first. I need to keep reminding myself that these are the Emmys, not the Oscars. She looks nice, but she, too, could do with a little lipstick.
18. Oh no! I hate Christina Hendrick's dress! I love her so much! How could she go out looking like Dolly Parton in a nightgown circa 1974? (Which is a look Dolly Parton could rock. But only Dolly Parton.)
22. Kate Gosselin gets to go to these things? What is the world coming to?
23. I like Toni Colette's dress, but seriously, what is with hair and makeup tonight? Are hair and makeup artists on a strike?
24. Juliana Marguiles looks frickin' tiny. Like, out of proportion tiny. Is she leaning towards the camera?
26. SUE SYLVESTER LOOKS MAD HOT.
27. Keri Russel looks nice but . . . she knows she's at an awards ceremony and not her sister's bridal shower, right?
28. Wanda Sykes has much bigger boobs than I thought.
29. Julia Louis-Dreyfus looks unfortunate. I hate flat hair on her. I hope she hasn't been listening to Patti Stanger.
30. I have seen the dress Dianna Agron is wearing before. I can't place it. She's looked better; it's a little too much look for a small girl like her. She remains gorgeous, though.
31. Kelly Osborne has lost a massive amount of weight since the last time I paid attention, which, admittedly, was probably a few years ago. But she always styles herself to look older than she is, I feel.
32. Cheryl Hines - LIPSTICK. The dress is nice, though.
33. What is going on with Lauren Graham? She's so pretty! That dress sucks! Maybe she shares a stylist with Julie Bowen. Maybe said stylist was made fun of a lot in high school for being ugly and not wearing normal clothes, so now she gets her revenge on pretty actresses by making them look HORRENDOUS.
34. Jewel looks awful. The whole thing is just unfortunate.
35. Carrie Preston looks awesome. Do you know she's married to Ben Linus in real life? Do you know I once saw Ben Linus on stage? Ask me all about it some time.
43. Seriously, Rita Wilson (Tom Hanks's wife) has been doing this for a while. Doesn't she know better?
44. I love Julia Ormond's dress and color.
47. Padma Lakshmi looks awesome!
48. I hate Emily Deschanel's bangs. I'm not sure how I feel about the dress.
51. Jayma Mays looks awesome! Her hair looks great!
55. I think Santana looks a lot more pageanty than Sofia Vergara. Especially with those bangs.
57. You know, the thing is, that's not even a very good Mad-Men-esque dress. And furthermore, even if it were a better version of itself, it's what Joan Harris nee Holloway would wear to work. On a Saturday. Not what she'd wear to a fancy event. We've seen Joan get dressier than that for a night of clubbing with her lesbian roommate. So not
only is it not a nice dress, and not a fancy enough dress, it misses the point of the early '60s lifestyle that people who like Mad Men fetishize, the point of being more formal and glamorous than we ever are in daily life.
58. That's nicer than I've ever seen Jenna Ushkowitz look on a red carpet.
I am now perhaps recognizing that my extreme dislike of the makeup on display might not be the fault of these ladies or of their make-up artists. It might just be that they do these red carpets in the blazing California sun and that's what's washing everyone out. But I stand by the rest of my opinions.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
What Ideal?
I was just forwarded this by someone and boy am I annoyed. I'm sure other people have covered this territory but here goes my line-by-line annoyance anyway:
1. "The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy." False. False, false, and false. Of course polygamy is not the default, in any culture. In many cultures it is acceptable under certain circumstances - like if you are the sultan, or like if you are already married but then your older brother dies, leaving a childless widow who would otherwise have no place to be, or there are places where a woman will (sometimes) marry two brothers so that their father's land doesn't have to be split, but it's never the default, and it's never the default for good reasons. One is that you have to be rich to be polygamous; you have to have plenty of extra income to support the extra wives and especially the extra children. And I know people say that in older, agrarian societies, children were economic helps, not economic burdens, but that's sort of bullshit. In agrarian societies, your
child could be an economic help AT THE VERY EARLIEST by age five and probably more realistically by age seven, and even then, their economic help probably doesn't even break even with their economic burden until (for boys) 15 or 16 and (for girls) when they get married and bring in a bride price. Which is only any good if you don't have sons who will have to pay for brides. And of course, reverse it for societies that have dowries. Which are already societies where children are economic burdens, not economic helps. Because if children are economic burdens, you demand money from a woman's family to support her and her children (dowry); if children are economic helps, you have to pay to get the woman and her reproductive labor (bride price). And pregnant women are of limited economic help and significant economic burden. So only the rich in a society that supports polygamy can actually afford to do it, and there is no such
thing as a society where everyone is rich. The concept of "rich" doesn't exist without "poor." Second, where polygamy - and specifically polygyny, which is much more widely practiced than
polyandry - is the "default," as in the fundamentalist Mormon circles depicted on "Big Love," you have to either exile a large number of young boys, import a large number of young girls, or both. And that's really problematic and unsustainable, especially the first part. So it's never the "default," in any society.
2. "The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children." That's true, but problematic. The nuclear family as we know it is very much a modern invention, but what one means by "communal" needs to be teased out. First of all, it's rather unusual for two adult persons to live with no other adult persons - in many societies, you live with either the husband's, or, less frequently, the wife's, family of origin - along with siblings and cousins and whatnot. This arrangement has its pros and cons, and when the cons get to be too much, frequently, one or another brother moves out and establishes his own household. But it needs to be complicated further because it's not like all of human history before 1945 was a monolith. It's not like heterosexual marriages or child-rearing practices are a monolith now. And it's not like we don't rear our children communally now; we just consider such things unnatural or abnormal or not what we're "really" doing. What are we doing, after all, when sure, we are the idealized heterosexual family with the mom at home and the dad at work, but the kid goes to preschool, and his/her "rearing" is assisted by the teachers there, and on Mondays and Wednesdays, Grandma comes over for a few hours, also assisting in the rearing, and there's a babysitter across the street who comes over Saturday nights, and then, when the kid is five, the kid is in school for 30 hours a week, being partially "reared" by teachers, principals, classroom aides, lunch ladies, and even the state, which mandates what the child will learn and when. I mean, we have communal rearing now, is my point, but we don't call it that. And we treat many forms of it - like day care and nannies - like they are the marks of bad parents who are refusing to enact this bizarre ideal. And going back, child-rearing has been handled in many different ways by many different cultures across time, just as now, but across those times parents have not been subject to this impossible-to-achieve ideal of being "reared" exclusively by the biological parents of said child. Which is not to say they didn't have their problems. But talking about a single default mode and the nubby concept of "communal" child-rearing is misleading or at least
not particularly thoughtful. Also, "communal" child-rearing sounds better to me - and t0 many people - than the nuclear ideal.
3. "If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available." There is some evidence that this is not true. I mean, some scientists support the notion that men need to "spread their seed" and women need to gold-dig, but others disagree, finding this explanation rather self-serving and culturally, rather than scientifically, mandated. Jared Diamond, one of my favorite guys in the whole wide world, has written really interesting stuff about that, but his major point is that human reproduction (EVEN FOR MEN) is not a numbers game; it's a raise-them-to-adulthood game, and that doesn't necessarily fit with this notion of men spreading their seed, because they still need to be sure that their children make it to adulthood. He does say that for some relatively small percentage of males in any given society (say 5-10%), that is best served by sleeping with married women whose husbands (if adequately tricked) are better suited to supporting those children, but it's not a good strategy for most men. For the most part, since it's impossible to tell when a woman is ovulating without major equipment and attention to detail (and even then . . .), it's evolutionarily best to stick with one woman for a while, to make sure you get her pregnant and nobody else does, and then hang around to make sure your kids make it into adulthood. Furthermore, precisely because humans don't know when ovulation is happening, and can and do want sex even when it's not (which is NOT THE NORM for mammals), sex isn't mostly about reproduction for humans; it's mostly a bonding experience to keep adults attached to each other so they'll be willing to raise those kids together. He says that what we actually do IS the most "natural" for the way we are built - we are mostly monogamous, with some instances of cheating, some instances of polygamy, and some instances of serial monogamy.
4. "This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship." This is so much nonsense. Why is the ideal so much more ideal because the two adults are sexually different? If a heterosexual marriage does, in fact, involve the mutual surrender of reproductive self-interest
(which, as I've argued above, I think is not true), how much MORE SO does the same commitment by two people of the same sex? Yes, committing to one another for a lifetime is admirable, I suppose, although, let's be serious, there are things that are more admirable,
like for instance being a doctor for cancer-ridden children or something. I also feel - and this is a sidenote - that there are certain people who think when they get married, "Oh no! I'll never have sex with anyone else ever again!" and then there are people who feel, "Thank God I never have to go through the effort of enticing anyone else to have sex with me." Both of those people might, in the end, turn out to be wrong. But I think these are just very different perspectives on marriage and not everyone things they are surrendering anything when they make a lifelong commitment to one other person. Anyway, total nonsense.
5. "It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to
child-rearing." Leaving aside that this is a rather rose-colored view of families, and does not translate to most people's realities, even if they have, on the face of it, an "ideal" nuclear family, why is it "uniquely admirable"? Why is it better than when children do have an entire community they can rely on, rather than the two people out of whose loins they've sprung? Why is it better than living in a larger family household where, in addition to whatever "intimate contact" you have with your parents, you also have grandparents and aunts and uncles deeply invested in your life? Conversely, why is it so much better to have both of your parents - who, after all, have their own relationship with each other, which, good or bad, may take precedence
over their relationship with you - than to have one parent, soley and exclusively invested in a relationship with you? I'm not saying all these other arrangements don't have their problems; I'm saying, so does this "ideal" nuclear family, and that none of them are more admirable than the others. It's admirable when a child is well-loved, well-respected, and becomes a benefit to society as an adult. It's unadmirable when a child is neglected, disrespected, and turns into a
burden on society. Most children fall in the middle, and that's fine. Also, I think he thinks that because something is "unique," it is therefore "admirable." That's not really true.
6. "The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support." Really? Really? Heterosexual marriage is a "microcosm of civilization," but he's not saying no other relationships or families are valuable? That's bullshit. I'm sorry, but if you're going to say something, say it and mean it; don't say it and then pretend to back out of it. This is the NYT equivalent of "No offense, but . . ." Also, what does it even
mean to be a microcosm of civilization? More nonsense.
7. "Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the
sexes." Again, he's eliding many things without being thoughtful about it. Let's start with, for many centuries, Judaism wasn't considered a full participant in Western civilization. Second, Jews and Christians had VERY different ideas about marriage, so you can't lump them together. Third, these older forms of marriage were not "supplemented" by ideas about romantic love and children's and women's rights; those ideas RADICALLY changed what was considered "traditional" marriages at the times that these ideas were introduced. Romantic love was the same-sex marriage of its day, the thing that was going to destroy traditional marriage forever (and, if one looks at what one meant by marriage before romantic love in marriage became
so idealized, it did, in fact, destroy it). So were ideas about equality of the sexes, which, for heaven's sake, Ross Douthat should be aware of, since those days were, oh, yesterday.
8. "Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy." Look, he obviously hasn't read a single word by Stephanie Coontz, the leading authority on marriage history. I have read many words by her, and enjoyed all of them. But what it all boils down to is, there is no time and place when the "traditional" marriage/family of our imagination actually existed. Okay, maybe there was a decade, the 1950s, sort of, but even then it was not for everyone and it was always already going to be
short-lived, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction. It has always co-existed with less idealistic forms, albeit more or less accommodatingly.
9. "If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary." It has already done so. Gay marriage is morally necessary as long as straight marriage exists.
10. "But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their
potential fruit." Why, why, why is heterosexual marriage "one of the great ideas of Western civilization"? Why is it worth honoring, why is it worth striving to preserve? And preserve what, the marriages or the ideal? The marriages aren't going anywhere, or, at least, their departure is not being particularly hastened by same-sex couples. In fact, one could argue that the gay population's desire to imitate heterosexual lifelong romantically oriented marriage IS preserving it far better than heterosexual couples are doing it. And why be so concerned about preserving an ideal that's not being lived up to anyway? What is so ideal about it? I mean, I support preserving the ideal that a person ought not commit murder, because I see why that is beneficial, even if people are still murdered. But I don't see what's beneficial about the ideal of a heteronormative nuclear family - or at least what's more beneficial than myriad other arrangements. Nor do I see how allowing same-sex couples to marry will take anything away
from opposite-sex couples, in support or honor or anything. Also, ALL relationships are distinct. Yes, same-sex couples as a whole deal with a different set of issues than opposite-sex couples, although a lot of them come from living in an environment where one type of couple is thought more worthy and a better example of the awesomeness of Western civilization than the other. Ugly couples have a different set of issues than attractive couples, and both of these couples
differ from couples in which one partner is attractive and the other ugly. Wealthy couples have different issues than poor issues, and I bet that it's along those lines that one will find the most fractious differences. Okay? Acknowledged? Can we shut up now?
1. "The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy." False. False, false, and false. Of course polygamy is not the default, in any culture. In many cultures it is acceptable under certain circumstances - like if you are the sultan, or like if you are already married but then your older brother dies, leaving a childless widow who would otherwise have no place to be, or there are places where a woman will (sometimes) marry two brothers so that their father's land doesn't have to be split, but it's never the default, and it's never the default for good reasons. One is that you have to be rich to be polygamous; you have to have plenty of extra income to support the extra wives and especially the extra children. And I know people say that in older, agrarian societies, children were economic helps, not economic burdens, but that's sort of bullshit. In agrarian societies, your
child could be an economic help AT THE VERY EARLIEST by age five and probably more realistically by age seven, and even then, their economic help probably doesn't even break even with their economic burden until (for boys) 15 or 16 and (for girls) when they get married and bring in a bride price. Which is only any good if you don't have sons who will have to pay for brides. And of course, reverse it for societies that have dowries. Which are already societies where children are economic burdens, not economic helps. Because if children are economic burdens, you demand money from a woman's family to support her and her children (dowry); if children are economic helps, you have to pay to get the woman and her reproductive labor (bride price). And pregnant women are of limited economic help and significant economic burden. So only the rich in a society that supports polygamy can actually afford to do it, and there is no such
thing as a society where everyone is rich. The concept of "rich" doesn't exist without "poor." Second, where polygamy - and specifically polygyny, which is much more widely practiced than
polyandry - is the "default," as in the fundamentalist Mormon circles depicted on "Big Love," you have to either exile a large number of young boys, import a large number of young girls, or both. And that's really problematic and unsustainable, especially the first part. So it's never the "default," in any society.
2. "The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children." That's true, but problematic. The nuclear family as we know it is very much a modern invention, but what one means by "communal" needs to be teased out. First of all, it's rather unusual for two adult persons to live with no other adult persons - in many societies, you live with either the husband's, or, less frequently, the wife's, family of origin - along with siblings and cousins and whatnot. This arrangement has its pros and cons, and when the cons get to be too much, frequently, one or another brother moves out and establishes his own household. But it needs to be complicated further because it's not like all of human history before 1945 was a monolith. It's not like heterosexual marriages or child-rearing practices are a monolith now. And it's not like we don't rear our children communally now; we just consider such things unnatural or abnormal or not what we're "really" doing. What are we doing, after all, when sure, we are the idealized heterosexual family with the mom at home and the dad at work, but the kid goes to preschool, and his/her "rearing" is assisted by the teachers there, and on Mondays and Wednesdays, Grandma comes over for a few hours, also assisting in the rearing, and there's a babysitter across the street who comes over Saturday nights, and then, when the kid is five, the kid is in school for 30 hours a week, being partially "reared" by teachers, principals, classroom aides, lunch ladies, and even the state, which mandates what the child will learn and when. I mean, we have communal rearing now, is my point, but we don't call it that. And we treat many forms of it - like day care and nannies - like they are the marks of bad parents who are refusing to enact this bizarre ideal. And going back, child-rearing has been handled in many different ways by many different cultures across time, just as now, but across those times parents have not been subject to this impossible-to-achieve ideal of being "reared" exclusively by the biological parents of said child. Which is not to say they didn't have their problems. But talking about a single default mode and the nubby concept of "communal" child-rearing is misleading or at least
not particularly thoughtful. Also, "communal" child-rearing sounds better to me - and t0 many people - than the nuclear ideal.
3. "If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available." There is some evidence that this is not true. I mean, some scientists support the notion that men need to "spread their seed" and women need to gold-dig, but others disagree, finding this explanation rather self-serving and culturally, rather than scientifically, mandated. Jared Diamond, one of my favorite guys in the whole wide world, has written really interesting stuff about that, but his major point is that human reproduction (EVEN FOR MEN) is not a numbers game; it's a raise-them-to-adulthood game, and that doesn't necessarily fit with this notion of men spreading their seed, because they still need to be sure that their children make it to adulthood. He does say that for some relatively small percentage of males in any given society (say 5-10%), that is best served by sleeping with married women whose husbands (if adequately tricked) are better suited to supporting those children, but it's not a good strategy for most men. For the most part, since it's impossible to tell when a woman is ovulating without major equipment and attention to detail (and even then . . .), it's evolutionarily best to stick with one woman for a while, to make sure you get her pregnant and nobody else does, and then hang around to make sure your kids make it into adulthood. Furthermore, precisely because humans don't know when ovulation is happening, and can and do want sex even when it's not (which is NOT THE NORM for mammals), sex isn't mostly about reproduction for humans; it's mostly a bonding experience to keep adults attached to each other so they'll be willing to raise those kids together. He says that what we actually do IS the most "natural" for the way we are built - we are mostly monogamous, with some instances of cheating, some instances of polygamy, and some instances of serial monogamy.
4. "This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship." This is so much nonsense. Why is the ideal so much more ideal because the two adults are sexually different? If a heterosexual marriage does, in fact, involve the mutual surrender of reproductive self-interest
(which, as I've argued above, I think is not true), how much MORE SO does the same commitment by two people of the same sex? Yes, committing to one another for a lifetime is admirable, I suppose, although, let's be serious, there are things that are more admirable,
like for instance being a doctor for cancer-ridden children or something. I also feel - and this is a sidenote - that there are certain people who think when they get married, "Oh no! I'll never have sex with anyone else ever again!" and then there are people who feel, "Thank God I never have to go through the effort of enticing anyone else to have sex with me." Both of those people might, in the end, turn out to be wrong. But I think these are just very different perspectives on marriage and not everyone things they are surrendering anything when they make a lifelong commitment to one other person. Anyway, total nonsense.
5. "It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to
child-rearing." Leaving aside that this is a rather rose-colored view of families, and does not translate to most people's realities, even if they have, on the face of it, an "ideal" nuclear family, why is it "uniquely admirable"? Why is it better than when children do have an entire community they can rely on, rather than the two people out of whose loins they've sprung? Why is it better than living in a larger family household where, in addition to whatever "intimate contact" you have with your parents, you also have grandparents and aunts and uncles deeply invested in your life? Conversely, why is it so much better to have both of your parents - who, after all, have their own relationship with each other, which, good or bad, may take precedence
over their relationship with you - than to have one parent, soley and exclusively invested in a relationship with you? I'm not saying all these other arrangements don't have their problems; I'm saying, so does this "ideal" nuclear family, and that none of them are more admirable than the others. It's admirable when a child is well-loved, well-respected, and becomes a benefit to society as an adult. It's unadmirable when a child is neglected, disrespected, and turns into a
burden on society. Most children fall in the middle, and that's fine. Also, I think he thinks that because something is "unique," it is therefore "admirable." That's not really true.
6. "The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support." Really? Really? Heterosexual marriage is a "microcosm of civilization," but he's not saying no other relationships or families are valuable? That's bullshit. I'm sorry, but if you're going to say something, say it and mean it; don't say it and then pretend to back out of it. This is the NYT equivalent of "No offense, but . . ." Also, what does it even
mean to be a microcosm of civilization? More nonsense.
7. "Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the
sexes." Again, he's eliding many things without being thoughtful about it. Let's start with, for many centuries, Judaism wasn't considered a full participant in Western civilization. Second, Jews and Christians had VERY different ideas about marriage, so you can't lump them together. Third, these older forms of marriage were not "supplemented" by ideas about romantic love and children's and women's rights; those ideas RADICALLY changed what was considered "traditional" marriages at the times that these ideas were introduced. Romantic love was the same-sex marriage of its day, the thing that was going to destroy traditional marriage forever (and, if one looks at what one meant by marriage before romantic love in marriage became
so idealized, it did, in fact, destroy it). So were ideas about equality of the sexes, which, for heaven's sake, Ross Douthat should be aware of, since those days were, oh, yesterday.
8. "Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy." Look, he obviously hasn't read a single word by Stephanie Coontz, the leading authority on marriage history. I have read many words by her, and enjoyed all of them. But what it all boils down to is, there is no time and place when the "traditional" marriage/family of our imagination actually existed. Okay, maybe there was a decade, the 1950s, sort of, but even then it was not for everyone and it was always already going to be
short-lived, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction. It has always co-existed with less idealistic forms, albeit more or less accommodatingly.
9. "If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary." It has already done so. Gay marriage is morally necessary as long as straight marriage exists.
10. "But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their
potential fruit." Why, why, why is heterosexual marriage "one of the great ideas of Western civilization"? Why is it worth honoring, why is it worth striving to preserve? And preserve what, the marriages or the ideal? The marriages aren't going anywhere, or, at least, their departure is not being particularly hastened by same-sex couples. In fact, one could argue that the gay population's desire to imitate heterosexual lifelong romantically oriented marriage IS preserving it far better than heterosexual couples are doing it. And why be so concerned about preserving an ideal that's not being lived up to anyway? What is so ideal about it? I mean, I support preserving the ideal that a person ought not commit murder, because I see why that is beneficial, even if people are still murdered. But I don't see what's beneficial about the ideal of a heteronormative nuclear family - or at least what's more beneficial than myriad other arrangements. Nor do I see how allowing same-sex couples to marry will take anything away
from opposite-sex couples, in support or honor or anything. Also, ALL relationships are distinct. Yes, same-sex couples as a whole deal with a different set of issues than opposite-sex couples, although a lot of them come from living in an environment where one type of couple is thought more worthy and a better example of the awesomeness of Western civilization than the other. Ugly couples have a different set of issues than attractive couples, and both of these couples
differ from couples in which one partner is attractive and the other ugly. Wealthy couples have different issues than poor issues, and I bet that it's along those lines that one will find the most fractious differences. Okay? Acknowledged? Can we shut up now?
Monday, August 02, 2010
Random, Passing Thought
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html?hpid=artslot
There's a line in this article that's bothering me - I want a tankless water heater SO THAT I can take longer hot showers.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
More Zoe Cuteness
1. She now sings "Summer Nights" from Grease, which she refers to as "Tell Me More," but the best part is, she does the male vs. female voices. She goes up high (to the extent that a person with such a naturally high voice can) for the girls' parts and then down low, with her lips all smushed up, for the boys' parts.
2. She has added "Show you" to her "Come here" and hand gesture.
3. Whenever I ask her, "What did you do today?", no matter what we actually did, she says, "Ani, Akes (Alex), and Vanessa." Ani and Alex are her buddies and Vanessa is their mommy - my buddy. Yesterday, she also started talking about Ani's face-painting - which in fact happened over a month ago, but was very traumatizing for Zoe. She mentioned that Ani (who is older than Zoe; she just turned four) got her face painted, that they looked at it in the mirror, that it was flowers, and that it hurt Ani. I have been trying to convince her for this entire month that it did not, in fact, hurt Ani, and that Ani wanted her face to be painted, but I don't think I'm getting anywhere.
4. She calls (and has called for many months now) her magna-doodle-thing her "idea." Which is a good name for it.
5. She's full of complimentary speech lately. When Jason finishes vacuuming, she says, "Good job, Daddy," or "Nice job cleaning." She also tells me I've done a good job of various things - putting on her diaper, preparing her Cheerios and milk. She follows up suggested (by me or her) activities with "That'd be fun," or "Let's do that." When she mentions seeing Daddy, she always includes the phrase, "So happy to see you."
6. When she was missing Daddy the last few days, she spoke about sharing a pop with him. "We'll see Daddy tomorrow, Zoe." "See him? Share pop? Share green pop with Daddy?"
7. She played Curious George games on the computer with her Zeyda on Monday, and then on Wednesday, asked to play again. "Play Zeyda? Curious George on computer? Play nicely?" She also observed that Esmerelda and Quasimodo on the cover of her Hunchback of Notre Dame book were "sharing nicely."
8. She identified a coloring book picture of Esmerelda as me. :-) She also, about a month or so ago, identified the picture of Snow White on the cover of a coloring book as Grandma Lisa.
9. She LOVES the over-the-top girly things that her grandfather and her Zii Tara (her Zii Tara who chose Zii because it felt more gender-neutral) buy her.
10. She continues to say of various clothing items, "Oh, cute," and "Beau-ful dress!" She and I shared an Elle magazine today; quite a momentous occasion. She expressed extremely strong opinions on various items of clothing, good and bad, and not always but sometimes in agreement with my opinions. (In other words, she was neither agreeing with me blindly nor just saying "No" for the sake of it.) She also pointed to a drawing of a woman in a hair ad and said, "Beau-ful woman."
10a. Aunt Kate tells me that when she had Zoe helping her pick out an outfit for work, Zoe rejected a skirt of hers that I, also, do not like.
11. She does say "No" a lot now, in this very dramatic fashion, a very long, "Noooo!" with her head bent forward and her lips in a big pout.
12. When she likes something you've suggested, she says, "Oh, yeeeeaaaaah," or "Ummmmmmm . . . . sure!"
13. All the dancing and jumping she does is so damn cute I can't even explain.
14. She says, "Good girl" to dogs (even male dogs) and humans.
15. Friday night, when we got in to Newark at 1:30 in the morning, she was asleep on my shoulder. When we tried to put her in the car seat, she wailed and wailed and wailed for about five minutes, and then suddenly looked up and said, "I see moon?" Then she jabbered happily for the whole way home about the moon and other things she could see. (Then she jumped on the beds when we got home, and stayed up until 3-f-ing-30 in the morning. Which means so did I. One day, I'll be sad when all she does is sleep all day and not hang out with me, right?)
16. This is a little sweet and a little sad - a few times this weekend, she's thrown absolute fits at being put in the car. When I finally get her in, I put my hand on her cheek to comfort her. This is having an increasingly quick effect. She even sometimes holds my hand there, to keep it in place. The first time I noticed she really liked it was when I did try to take my hand away, and she grabbed it and put it back. Then I noticed when she got nervous on the Ferris wheel on Saturday (she does not really like rides yet) that she was holding her own hand to her cheek to comfort herself.
17. She's using the words "gibbous" and "crescent" to describe the moon. Not always accurately, but still, that's awesome.
18. When we disagree on a point - like whether the moon is gibbous or crescent, or whether the shirt is orange or purple, or whether Sparky is a boy or a girl, she is quite adamant in her opinions and does not back down. You say willful and stubborn, I say strong-minded and confident.
19. She LOVED her first sight of the ocean. She was cautious at first, but very, very interested, and soon was having a ball, splashing around, pointing at the waves and shouting, "You! You! You!" and being tossed up and down over the waves by her Aunt Kate. Also she enjoyed throwing sand on her Aunt Kate.
20. I knew she was a Jersey girl at heart - she ate better pizza in Ocean City than I've ever seen her eat anything before, and she was very eager for it even before she got her share. Also, she has a shirt that says "Jersey Girls don't pump gas!" and she insisted on keeping her "Jersey Girl" shirt on for quite a while. (She also insisted on keeping this casino bead necklace on much of the last few days.)
21. For a not-yet-two-year-old, she's really doing well with "Please," "Thank you" (or "Thanks") and "Your welcome." I think I've even heard an "Excuse me."
22. Of course she's got the concept of "My turn!" and "For Zoe!" pretty down, too. And she's started being picky about what foods are in what location on her plate.
23. Even when she's watching a movie or something, she looks so intent and interested. I rarely see that slack-jawed absorbing-mindless-media look in her face; she's always studying, responding, and commenting on what she sees.
I could go on all night. What am I supposed to do? She is the cutest, sweetest, smartest, most awesome baby ever.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Zoe Went Peepee in the Potty!
She's such a big girl!
Now, some will accuse me of trying to claim that she's potty-trained now at 22 months old. No such thing. Also, some will be expecting me to really push potty-training on her now. Also not happening.
The truth is, I really wasn't expecting this. She's always been "interested" in the potty and so we bought a potty chair and a potty insert. She prefers the insert so she can sit in the same place Mommy sits; the potty chair I think she just considers a regular chair. So especially lately, she's been very insistent on sitting on the potty insert and the truth is that I hate this activity because it means I have to sit on the floor in the bathroom for up to half an hour (at which point I lose patience and drag her out, as I did this afternoon) and it's not pleasant or comfortable but I can't leave her because a) she might fall, and b) she definitely will pull out all of the toilet paper and shove it in the toilet. So tonight she made a stinky and I went to change her and once she was clean, she asked to sit on the potty. So I let her. And lo and behold, not five minutes later - PEEPEE!
So now I will make these unpleasant trips to the bathroom more frequently to give her lots more opportunities. But we're not officially "potty-training" yet.
Want more cute Zoe things? How about these:
- She lies back on the couch arm and demands kissing. Best. Game. Ever!
- She puts my hands on her cheeks and says, "So happy!"
- She has started wishing us "Congratulations" all the time.
- Today at Old Navy, she chatted with the mannequins, hugged the toddler-sized mannequin, tried to touch the "daddy" mannequin, petted the doggie mannequin, and danced to the music in the store. So cute.
- She takes my books and "reads" them, repeating "ajah book" as she does so and then sometimes making up what the book says and reading it in a very "story-telling" kind of voice.
- She gives me this big grin and says, "Precious!"
In general, she continues to be the most awesome creature ever.
Now, some will accuse me of trying to claim that she's potty-trained now at 22 months old. No such thing. Also, some will be expecting me to really push potty-training on her now. Also not happening.
The truth is, I really wasn't expecting this. She's always been "interested" in the potty and so we bought a potty chair and a potty insert. She prefers the insert so she can sit in the same place Mommy sits; the potty chair I think she just considers a regular chair. So especially lately, she's been very insistent on sitting on the potty insert and the truth is that I hate this activity because it means I have to sit on the floor in the bathroom for up to half an hour (at which point I lose patience and drag her out, as I did this afternoon) and it's not pleasant or comfortable but I can't leave her because a) she might fall, and b) she definitely will pull out all of the toilet paper and shove it in the toilet. So tonight she made a stinky and I went to change her and once she was clean, she asked to sit on the potty. So I let her. And lo and behold, not five minutes later - PEEPEE!
So now I will make these unpleasant trips to the bathroom more frequently to give her lots more opportunities. But we're not officially "potty-training" yet.
Want more cute Zoe things? How about these:
- She lies back on the couch arm and demands kissing. Best. Game. Ever!
- She puts my hands on her cheeks and says, "So happy!"
- She has started wishing us "Congratulations" all the time.
- Today at Old Navy, she chatted with the mannequins, hugged the toddler-sized mannequin, tried to touch the "daddy" mannequin, petted the doggie mannequin, and danced to the music in the store. So cute.
- She takes my books and "reads" them, repeating "ajah book" as she does so and then sometimes making up what the book says and reading it in a very "story-telling" kind of voice.
- She gives me this big grin and says, "Precious!"
In general, she continues to be the most awesome creature ever.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Retro
Well, it's finally happened. My own coming-of-age years are now retro fashion. I'm not even thirty! And yet, as we all know, the famous "It's a dress!" "Says who?" "Calvin Klein." "It looks like underwear. Go put something on over it." "Duh, I was just going to!" dress from Clueless is being reissued by Calvin Klein. And this month's Elle features fashion inspired by Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love, Empire Records, and Reality Bites. On the one hand, I feel very, very old. On the other hand - I can wear flannel shirts and Doc Martens this winter, right? This can't be one of those "If you were the right age for the trend the first time, you're too old the second time" things, because it's the opposite of revealing. Right? It's entirely possible I still HAVE my Doc Martens.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Zoeisms
She also can't pronounce "smile" and "spider" quite right, so she says "sigh-mile" and "sigh-pider."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Glee Wishlist, Season 2
I thought since they gave me so much of what I wanted the first time I printed something like this, I'd try again!
1. The song-to-story ratio in The Power of Madonna was perfect. Can we have more episodes like that?
2. Could we have a couple of episodes that are going to be Artie-centric, or at least giving him a good B-plot, open with a dream sequence of him dancing?
3. Somehow, Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenowith need to meet and share a duet of some kind.
4. Jessalyn Gilsig needs some reason to still be involved. And her sister. Couldn't the red-headed monster children want to start, like, a junior Glee Club or something? Maybe led by Puck and Quinn?
5. Please either drop the jocks picking on gleeks thing or explain it better. Of the 12 members of Glee Club, five are now or have been Cheerios, and five are now or have been football players. Even as it stands now, there are two Cheerios and four jocks - half the club. Also, we only ever see Kurt and Finn get harassed. And Finn is the captain. Are Puck and Mike and Matt getting harassed? If so, why don't we see it?
6. Can we see Rachel's dads already? How are they the stage fathers we've been set up to expect, when they never show up to her performances, can't help her out with a Lady Gaga outfit, and don't even appear when she finds her birth mother?
The truth is, that's all I've really got, because I've mostly given up on coherent plots or consistent characterization, so if each episode is just a series of excuses to introduce song and dance numbers, that's fine with me. Let's just also look for excuses to get Puck out of his shirts. Thanks!
1. The song-to-story ratio in The Power of Madonna was perfect. Can we have more episodes like that?
2. Could we have a couple of episodes that are going to be Artie-centric, or at least giving him a good B-plot, open with a dream sequence of him dancing?
3. Somehow, Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenowith need to meet and share a duet of some kind.
4. Jessalyn Gilsig needs some reason to still be involved. And her sister. Couldn't the red-headed monster children want to start, like, a junior Glee Club or something? Maybe led by Puck and Quinn?
5. Please either drop the jocks picking on gleeks thing or explain it better. Of the 12 members of Glee Club, five are now or have been Cheerios, and five are now or have been football players. Even as it stands now, there are two Cheerios and four jocks - half the club. Also, we only ever see Kurt and Finn get harassed. And Finn is the captain. Are Puck and Mike and Matt getting harassed? If so, why don't we see it?
6. Can we see Rachel's dads already? How are they the stage fathers we've been set up to expect, when they never show up to her performances, can't help her out with a Lady Gaga outfit, and don't even appear when she finds her birth mother?
The truth is, that's all I've really got, because I've mostly given up on coherent plots or consistent characterization, so if each episode is just a series of excuses to introduce song and dance numbers, that's fine with me. Let's just also look for excuses to get Puck out of his shirts. Thanks!
Zoeisms
This is just a brief collection of things Zoe says that are sort of like the real thing but not quite.
"Walloh" - water (as in, "Wash hands in walloh?" or "Walloh evevyvere!" as a description of the "walloh park")
"Piece of fire" - pacifier
"banana" - booger. I don't know where she got this from but I guess it explains her aversion to bananas.
"pocket" - female genitals. I don't know where she got this. We taught her the anatomically correct term as all the progressive parenting guides told us to. But it's a pretty good one.
"Quinn crying," "tiny baby" - the "Bohemian Rhapsody" segment of the last episode of Glee, in which scenes of the rival glee club performing "Bohemian Rhapsody" are intercut with scenes of Quinn giving birth. She requests this more often than she requested "Single Ladies."
I didn't include a really cute thing she does, where she initiates some face-holding and snuggling and says, very soft and sweet, "So much," which is shorthand for "I love you so much" and "so happy."
Best. Baby. Ever.
"Walloh" - water (as in, "Wash hands in walloh?" or "Walloh evevyvere!" as a description of the "walloh park")
"Piece of fire" - pacifier
"banana" - booger. I don't know where she got this from but I guess it explains her aversion to bananas.
"pocket" - female genitals. I don't know where she got this. We taught her the anatomically correct term as all the progressive parenting guides told us to. But it's a pretty good one.
"Quinn crying," "tiny baby" - the "Bohemian Rhapsody" segment of the last episode of Glee, in which scenes of the rival glee club performing "Bohemian Rhapsody" are intercut with scenes of Quinn giving birth. She requests this more often than she requested "Single Ladies."
I didn't include a really cute thing she does, where she initiates some face-holding and snuggling and says, very soft and sweet, "So much," which is shorthand for "I love you so much" and "so happy."
Best. Baby. Ever.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Awesome Things Zoe Does
And for a little light-heartedness . . .
1. The day we came back from NJ, she started this game with me wherein she stands on her little bench/stool thing, and I sit in front of her, facing away from her, and she insists I take down my hair, and then she plays with my hair, pats my shoulders, and sometimes has me tilt my head back for a kiss, first to one side, then the other. And today during this game she kept hugging me and saying, "My toy!" And when she does the kissing thing, she giggles a lot in between. (She also wanted us to touch our teeth together but gave that up quickly because it kind of hurts.)
2. Today she walked up to the library on her own, moved her little chair over to where the light switches are, and turned them on herself.
3. She flirts. When we were in Baltimore, we went to the Inner Harbor, and there was a little boy there, maybe 6 mos older than Zoe. Zoe walked right over to him with her chin tucked, her head to the side, making eye contact and smiling coyly. Then she FLIPPED HER HAIR! Where does a 21-month-old child learn to flip her hair? Probably Glee.
4. She also selects outfits. Tuesday when I was back home for less than 36 hours, we went to Old Navy. Zoe kept pulling stuff (in the Toddlers section) off the rack and going, "Oh, cute!" and "Beautiful dress!" and "Jeans!" and handing them to me. Then we went home and I washed all her stuff. She pulled out this floaty patterned tank top that I'd gotten her and the shorts she'd picked out and wanted to put them on. BUT she also wanted her capri-length black leggings on UNDER the shorts. And she had to select a different color headband. Ridiculous.
These last two items, by the way, indicate that I am in SERIOUS TROUBLE with this one and that it will all start well before she reaches thirteen. In fact, it has started already.
5. She grabs my hand and says, "Come, Mommy," and then leads me to where she wants me to go. (She does this to people who are not me, too.)
6. She responds favorably and instantly to pretty young girls with brown hair. We had over a potential babysitter last week, a thirteen-year-old girl from across the street. The doorbell rang, which made her nervous, but then this girl walked in and she was immediately like, "Come! Blocks!" and started babbling about her toys and such. Then this week, Aunt Kate (who is herself a pretty young brunette) had a friend come by, whom Zoe had met maybe once, and Zoe took to her instantly and absolutely. It's adorable.
7. She's fearlessly bossy. A couple of weeks ago, we were at the playground with Aunt Kerri, and a group of pre-schoolers zoomed in. In imitation of me, she started hollering, "Watch out!" at them. (I was yelling because they were about to ram right into the large, heavy swing Zoe was swinging on.) Then when the four- and five-year-old boys were doing something of which Zoe apparently disapproved, she walked right into the middle of a knot of them and yelled, "Stop it!" She also didn't like the way the boy (a few months older than Zoe) was treating his dog and kept instructing him to "Stop it!"
8. She sings songs. Sometimes she sings children's songs, like the alphabet song or Twinkle, Twinkle. She also has a few little ditties that are sort of made up. She likes "Tonight" from West Side Story (which she knows from Glee). Her favorite right now is Bad Romance by Lady Gaga (and she prefers the real music video to the Glee version). But she actually sings all of it. The nonsense syllables in the beginning are one thing, but she goes, "Bad Romance," and "I want your ugly, I want your disease," and "Love . . . love, love, love" with all the right intonations and everything. It is awesome.
9. She's noticing and commenting on people's emotions, and most of the time she's responding appropriately - like if she sees me crying (which she's had occasion to do these past few weeks), she gives me hugs, pats my hair, and asks, "What happened?"
10. A few times, I've given her a pad and pen, and she scribbles away, all hunched over and focused, and then every once in a while she'll look up and go, "Genius? Genius."
11. She sits herself down - on a step or a bench or something - and leans slightly forward and clasps her hands in her lap, making herself look completely darling. Then she invites me to sit down next to her ("Come, Mommy. Sit down right here."). Then she smiles at me and says, "Feels good!"
12. When she is upset, usually about being told "No," she flings herself down on her knees with her face to the floor and wails piteously. Occasionally she pauses mid-wail and looks up to see if you are feeling very sorry for her. But whatever you do, you shouldn't laugh when she does this, because then she really starts wailing.
Well, that's all I'll write about right now. The girl is full-time adorable; it's hard to get it all in.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Mackie
My stepfather passed away one week ago today.
My first inclination was not to write about it at all. I don't intend to go into much right now. Especially not the anger, not the recounting of what an asshole various of his doctors were, etc. Basically, not the stuff I spent the week talking about.
I think it's been hard to define who he was to me. He was not my father. I have a father; it's not the same. And this wasn't a situation in which my father was gone and I needed a surrogate. My father was and is fully present in my life. In fact, he's been fully present all week, at the funeral director's office, at the wake, at the funeral, offering rides to various parties and making phone calls when needed. And, just as I have another father, he had another daughter. I knew I wasn't the same to him as she was. But he was more than, like, my mom's husband. She and he got married when I was five, and they dated for at least a year before that (I think). So he's been in my life for all but the narrowest slice of my ability to remember anything at all, and not just in my life, but in my house, as a parent.
I've tried to explain it like, "He's an uncle who lived with me." That level of love, that level of authority. It's not a bad explanation, but, you know, uncles come in different flavors. So to be more specific, he was like a really involved uncle who also lived with me. Whatever that means.
He did not come across to many as the warm and snuggly type. Well, apparently the priest who did the funeral thought he did. He described him as a man with "a kind word for everyone." Afterwards, my sister and I sniggered at that. If he had them, we didn't hear them. Sarcastic, funny words were more his style. But he was also capable of enormous caring and concern. He was the one who hugged me while I cried at my college graduation. And when my daughter was born, he was as tender and loving and protective as I've ever seen anyone. Her first Christmas, he kept walking us out to our car, hovering, with his arms sort of forming a bubble around me, just in case I slipped or she fell or something.
And he was a really good stepdad. My father was also a good stepdad to my stepsister, but in their situation, her father was pretty much absent from the daily parenting realm, so it wasn't a tiptoe act. It's not an easy balance to strike in a situation like mine, to be the parent in household but not the father of one of the children, to wield authority and to love and influence without stepping on the actual father's toes. And to love his own daughter just a little bit more without making his stepdaughter feel unloved, left out or jealous. Whether by accident or intention, he struck the balance perfectly.
There are so many things to say about him because he was such an interesting person, but everyone knows the other things - his music, his trucks, his beer, his taste in movies and TV, his love of travel, his love of a greasy spoon, his adoration of and devotion to my mother. These are the things I know. These are the things I will always remember.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
DANGER!
I was reading a couple of things today about product recalls for babies and how they've gotten out of hand and I just wanted to add something of my own experience. We bought Zoe a little cloth book with a little ball dangling from it on a string. On each page you were supposed to do something with the ball - make it stick to velcro, hide it in a pocket, and, on one page, "throw" it through a little cloth basketball hoop, etc. It was recalled. Of course. Why? Because theoretically, if the baby put the ball through the hoop in such a way that the book was around the baby's neck, the baby could strangle him- or herself.
Theoretically.
This had not happened, of course. And let me tell you, theory doesn't always translate to reality. The truth is, if a baby was at a high enough stage in development to get the ball into the hoop at all, the then baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. In fact, if the baby was out of the womb, the baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. And I say this as a parent of a very tiny child. Furthermore, while it would take some degree of coordination to get the ball into the hoop, and also a great deal of emotional/mental development to be interested in such an activity, it would take an even greater degree of coordination to do this while the book was around one's neck. I suspect there are plenty of elementary school students who couldn't manage it, even if the string was large enough to fit around their necks.
But what's the point? That yet another product was ridiculously recalled for no apparent reason? Who cares? My point is this - even though I thought the recall was ridiculous, and couldn't actually bring myself to return it, I sort of stopped letting her play with it. I mean, I didn't snatch it out of her hands or anything, but I didn't bring it along on car trips; I didn't choose to show it to her if I was trying to distract her, and I didn't keep it with her most-played-with toys. So she sort of forgot about it and I let that happen. And I really, really didn't think she could choke herself with it. I just thought, but what if I'm wrong, and something happens, and then the reaction is, "Well, it was recalled. What kind of a parent lets their child play with something that's already been shown to be dangerous?" And a part of me wasn't really thinking at all, I was just reacting emotionally to a toy now branded DANGEROUS. My point is, community standards have their effects on even parents who are actively trying to resist them, and for better or worse (mostly worse) mass media largely constitutes our community. So all these recalls, and the culture of control and blame surrounding them, make a person paranoid. I mean, the fact is, as unlikely as it is that a child would be harmed by this book, crazy things sometimes happen. But instead of seeing a world in which crazy things sometimes happen, we see a world where some parent, some corporation, some school wasn't responsible enough. And it's making us all crazy even when we have our blinders off.
Theoretically.
This had not happened, of course. And let me tell you, theory doesn't always translate to reality. The truth is, if a baby was at a high enough stage in development to get the ball into the hoop at all, the then baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. In fact, if the baby was out of the womb, the baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. And I say this as a parent of a very tiny child. Furthermore, while it would take some degree of coordination to get the ball into the hoop, and also a great deal of emotional/mental development to be interested in such an activity, it would take an even greater degree of coordination to do this while the book was around one's neck. I suspect there are plenty of elementary school students who couldn't manage it, even if the string was large enough to fit around their necks.
But what's the point? That yet another product was ridiculously recalled for no apparent reason? Who cares? My point is this - even though I thought the recall was ridiculous, and couldn't actually bring myself to return it, I sort of stopped letting her play with it. I mean, I didn't snatch it out of her hands or anything, but I didn't bring it along on car trips; I didn't choose to show it to her if I was trying to distract her, and I didn't keep it with her most-played-with toys. So she sort of forgot about it and I let that happen. And I really, really didn't think she could choke herself with it. I just thought, but what if I'm wrong, and something happens, and then the reaction is, "Well, it was recalled. What kind of a parent lets their child play with something that's already been shown to be dangerous?" And a part of me wasn't really thinking at all, I was just reacting emotionally to a toy now branded DANGEROUS. My point is, community standards have their effects on even parents who are actively trying to resist them, and for better or worse (mostly worse) mass media largely constitutes our community. So all these recalls, and the culture of control and blame surrounding them, make a person paranoid. I mean, the fact is, as unlikely as it is that a child would be harmed by this book, crazy things sometimes happen. But instead of seeing a world in which crazy things sometimes happen, we see a world where some parent, some corporation, some school wasn't responsible enough. And it's making us all crazy even when we have our blinders off.
Exciting Zoe Development
So I don't know if this behavior is on a chart or anything, but this week I have noticed a sharp increase in Zoe's ability and desire to imitate what others are doing around her. At Gymnastics, during circle time, for the first time, she followed the teacher when the teacher banged on the floor (for Thunder!) and stopped when she said "Freeze!" Then when the teacher brought out sticks for the kids to bang together, Zoe banged them in the manner the teacher was demonstrating - together, end-to-end, on the floor. At Hebrew School yesterday, she imitated the dance moves to "Not By Might," holding her hands up to her mouth for "the children sing" and raising her hands above her head when we sang "will rise" just like everyone else was doing. This doesn't sound like much, I guess, but I thought it was pretty cool to see, especially since she's been going to Gymnastics and Hebrew School for over a year and it was just like watching switch turn on.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Women
I was very interested to find this column on the NY Times' web site. Overall, I really like it. I hadn't heard of Ben Roethlisberger before, but the fact that I haven't heard of something is hardly evidence of anything at all. I've fallen woefully behind on current events coverage of late. But I like reading columns about how behavior like his is wholly unacceptable and should be considered unacceptable by the community at large, including by major corporations, and if I were in the market for athletic shoes, well, I certainly wouldn't be buying Nikes now.
But I find the inclusion of Tiger Woods in this article a bit puzzling. Ben Roethlisberger has sexually assaulted and raped women (ALLEGEDLY). Kobe Bryant, who is also name-checked, raped a woman (ALLEGEDLY). Tiger Woods didn't rape anybody as far as I am aware. He committed many, many acts of adultery, which is certainly disrespectful of his wife, and certainly seems to indicate a certain sense of entitlement. But isn't rape a whole 'nother ball game? Adultery is bad, yes, but isn't rape, like, a million times worse? I mean, okay, technically, Kobe Bryant was also committing adultery when he raped (ALLEGEDLY) that girl, but it's not the adultery we care about, right? It's the rape. So is it really fair to conflate them the way columnist Timothy Egan does?
I don't say this because I want to protect poor widdle Tiger. I say it because distinctions are important.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Price of Motherhood
I read this terrific book a couple of weeks ago, The Price of Motherhood by Ann Crittenden. I had intended to blog about it when it was still fresh in my mind, but one of the prices of motherhood is that that is a distant dream. (Although I guess I should be grateful that the fact that I am still f-ing breastfeeding this child means that I have time - during feedings - to read.) Another price of motherhood is that nothing, I mean nothing, stays "fresh" in your mind. Motherhood is like having the door to the refrigerator that is your mind always open. When I started reading articles earlier this year with studies "proving" that motherhood does not, in fact, make you more stupid, I started laughing. I suppose it doesn't actually make you more stupid. It's just like that device used in "Harrison Bergeron," where smart people have to wear a device that sends blasts of horrible, thought-interupting noises into your head every five minutes, so you can never complete a really good thought.
But I have some time now, assuming my daughter stays asleep for another little bit, and Jason already went downstairs and I don't think he knows I'm up, so there's no one for me to take care of at the moment and maybe I can get this entry written already.
It was a really terrific book and made me very angry at several points. Fortunately, it also reminded me that, while, apparently, most men are evil, the men I know personally, like my husband and my father, are not. I guess it's a good thing I already know them, because otherwise, after reading this book, I'd be starting a radical lesbian feminist army the intention of which would be to kill all men for having proved to be not only useless but damaging for several thousand years now.
"Oh, don't be silly, Ricki. Most men are not evil." Oh, really? And I quote: ". . . income earned or controlled by mothers is more likely to be spent on children than income controlled by fathers. " Crittenden cites an article done for the Population Council and International Center for Research on Women. "Economists now believe that mothers are so much more likely than fathers to invest in children's health and education that the surest way to promote economic growth in poor countries is to educate and empower girls." There, she's citing a working paper from Lawrence H. Summers, written for the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. (Oddly, he's the guy who stepped down as president of Harvard because he said that thing about women not being good at math. His name keeps coming up in my readings, for things other than that, and it becomes increasingly clear to me that that quote about women was taken way out of context and that's not really what he meant at all. But don't worry; he's doing okay. He's currently the director of the National Economic Council.)
I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs in full:
"Studies conducted on five continents have found that children are distinctly better off when the mother possesses enough income and authority in the family to make investing in children a priority. As one survey put it, there is 'considerable empirical evidence, across diverse cultures and income groups,' that women have a higher propensity than men 'to spend on goods that benefit children and enhance their capacities.' (from Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries) Even more provocative is the considerable evidence that children's welfare is enhanced not just when mothers have their 'own money' but when no man is able to challenge maternal priorities. Two researchers summarize this potentioal dynamite in the dry language of social science: 'Evidence is growing that the internal distribution of resources in female-headed households is more child-oriented than in male-headed households.' (from 'Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics,' in World Development 23) In other words, matriarchy, the original family arrangement, may turn out to be the optimal one after all.
Reserachers in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent have all found that when mothers are educated and have some control over the family income, children are healthier, get more schooling, and will eventually have a greater earning capacity, with all that implies for economic prosperity. The sad truth is that quite a bit of income in the hands of men seems to find its way into bars and the pockets of cigarette companies, among other fleeing pleasures (from World Bank, Toward Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy). 'It is widely perceived,' one report ("Understanding How Resources Are Allocated Within Households") notes, 'and supported by a mass of case study material that, relative to women, men spend more of the income under their own control for their own consumption. Alcohol, cigarettes, status consumer goods, even 'female companionship' are noted in the literature.' "
Crittenden follows with several stories from across the developing world indicated that in female-headed households, all members of the household eat more and eat better, and that much more of the money in female-headed households goes towards things that will benefit the whole household.
"But, Ricki," you say, "this is a developing world problem. The men in these countries do not have the sophistication to be good fathers like the ones in ours." Okay. I will admit that, again, the men I know personally do not behave like this. Jason gets just as big a rush buying Zoe toys as he does buying himself toys, and his latest toy is equally used by both of them. My father spent lavishly on his children's education. My stepfather has a few spendy hobbies but we were all well-nourished and well-educated. Even my uncle, who has no children of his own and, if he wanted to, could spend all his money on toys and pleasures for himself, instead invests in his extended family. The children of his brother and his cousin benefit from his money.
But increasingly I see that my own family is the exception, not the rule.
It was hard for me to decide which chapter pissed me off the most, the chapter I quoted above about the degree to which money in a female-controlled household was allocated to the household whereas money in a male-controlled household was allocated to the head male, or the one about child support in this country. Which, it seems, men don't want to pay. For instance, she tells the story of the changing of the law in 1992 in California so that, basically, mothers would be awarded more in child support. And men protested. Actually, men's second wives protested, which I guess is understandable, but the men stood around doing nothing. Except, you know, not paying up. And it's not just California, it's everywhere. Men apparently do everything they can to lower their child support payments and to pay as little as the can get away with, legally, and then, when that fails, to simply not pay. And I just don't know how men justify this to themselves. I know in their heads, the money is not going to their children, but to their ex-wives, who, by virtue of not sleeping with them anymore (or possibly more legitimate reasons than that) are heinous bitches who don't deserve it. But, dude, that kind of emotional reaction should be what you work to tamp down because you know deep in your heart that your CHILDREN, of whom you are the FATHER, need your financial support and frankly, deserve to be living the same lifestyle you are. But it's not just that vaguely shameful emotional reaction that, as adults, they work to suppress; it's the basis of entire political movements. Men - even wealthy men who can easily afford to pay for their children - ORGANIZE POLITICALLY in order to not pay for their children. It's so disgusting I can't handle it. (Of course, I do know men like this, who I will not mention here, because it's not nice. But fortunately, the men most directly concerned with my life are not like this.)
One of the more interesting stories related to this was a story in which an economics professor was asked to be an expert witness for a divorce case for a lower-middle-class family, and turned over to her class the assignment of figuring out how to fairly allocate resources after the divorce. One thing they learned is that, even if resources are fairly allocated, everyone's standard of living drops rather dramatically. They decided that everyone should have the same standard of living post-divorce, and that to make that happen, the husband would have to turn over 3/5 of his income to his ex-wife and THEIR four children. And the point, I believe, is not so much that the husband and wife should share the financial burden of a divorce equally (which, without children, is debatable - and I mean sincerely that I can see both sides of an argument about that) but that the CHILDREN should not suffer disproportionately financially when they will already be suffering in other ways. The students were shocked to learn that all their economic wrangling over who should get what was for naught - the court decided that the husband should get to keep most of his income and that the mother who was being left with sole custody of FOUR CHILDREN, including an infant, could get by on $15,000 a year. It's one of those cases where what you learned in kindergarten about fairness is more useful and morally supportable than how adults who run things do it.
Which brings me to the next point. Not only are men evil, but the government is evil, too. The total lack of support for the job of taking care of children is astounding. It's almost overwhelming to get into a rant about it now, but seriously. Judges routinely sneer at stay-at-home moms in divorce cases, arguing that they should simply get jobs, but a) employers don't like looking at "blanks" in your resume caused by you doing the work of motherhood, and b) there's no or limited government-sponsored, affordable child care. Unless you're in the military. And I don't want to be the kind of person who's all, "Why do our troops deserve this kind of support but not the rest of us," because I think that if you volunteer to be in the military, to train your body the way they do, to put yourself in physical danger the way they do, and to put your life in the hands of the government, letting them tell you where to live and for how long and what use your skills will be put to, then the government damn well better make the deal as sweet as possible for you. I'm all for extra goodies for military personnel. But I bring up the military's excellent day care system because it proves that it's doable - training day care workers and subsidizing day care so that everyone who's able and wants to work in fields other than child care can, and everyone who wants to work in the field of child care can be well-trained and reasonably paid. It can happen; that it doesn't happen in the non-military world is evidence that the government doesn't really give a shit about children. Or mothers.
Reading about France and Sweden really made me sick. In France you get a YEAR of paid leave. And if you're a single mother, you get all kinds of subsidies for nannies and stuff. AND government-sponsored FREE day care starts when the kid is THREE. In Sweden, the workday is being cut back to resemble the school day, and both mothers and fathers get A FULL YEAR. PAID. They live in this dreamland. It's unbelievable. And, yes, I know they pay a lot of taxes. It doesn't matter. It's so worth it. My husband had to argue with his company for them to allow him to take ONE UNPAID DAY (in addition to five paid days) to stay home with me. "We really frown on you taking unpaid vacation time," they said. "Unless it's for something really important." "The birth of my first child?" he said. "Well . . . if you must, you must." Honestly.
All of this really made me want to do something. Start a political organization. I mean, I already want to; I just don't know how. But I'm still stuck on this idea of, like, a Real Family Values coalition, which would fight for things like government-subsidized day care, and enforcement of child support payments and equity in divorce, and all the other things I like, like more playgrounds and gay marriage and stuff. How do I do this?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Push-Ups
I still cannot do a push-up. Actually, now it's worse. Before I could maybe manage one or two. Now I really cannot do a push-up.
And the thing is, it's not even a strength issue. That is, it is a strength issue, but before we can even get to strength we have to deal with my total lack of propioception (Jason taught me that word. It means an awareness of one's own body in space. He claims all species have it. I claim I do not.) and coordination. So by the time I've figured out if my legs are properly aligned and my back is straight and I'm trying to engage my abs and not arch and put my hands where they're supposed to be and what the hell do I do with my toes?, I've collapsed.
A lot of my workout problems come down to coordination. Here's what happened. I was disgusted with myself yesterday because all week I have promised myself I would accomplish something during the day, then we go downstairs and I make us eggs, and then I turn on the TV and watch endless episodes of My Name is Earl off the Netflix Instant Queue and nothing happens. So I made a new daily schedule, which included me waking up with Jason's alarm at 5:30 to go do an elliptical workout.
I did not wake up at 5:30. Jason claims he tried to wake me. I have no memory of this. Instead I woke up at 5:50, when he did, and attempted to get downstairs, but he waylaid me with concerns about the time and my hearing Zoe, and then Zoe woke up and needed a feeding in order to go back to sleep (because I am still f-ing breastfeeding this child), so by the time that was done it was, like, 6:05. So I decided that I would see if Netflix Instant Queue had any workout videos and do one in the library.
Well, surprisingly, the Netflix Instant Queue workout video availability is pretty limited. I did not expect that, because really, wouldn't you think it would take no skin off of anyone's back to offer the workout video this way? I mean, really, Neena and Veena - it would kill you? So I chose the Crunch Boot Camp something or other from the limited menu. And although not too many of the exercises were too difficult for me strength-wise (I mean, difficult enough that the were a workout, but not so difficult that I couldn't do them), they were all too difficult for me coordination-wise. And these moves should not be difficult. I mean, there was marching. Okay, I can march. But then there was marching to the side. Ooh, tricky. And then you march to the side and then forward and back. Oh, no. I can't handle that many instructions. I get confused.
And it doesn't help that I still don't know left from right.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
More Thoughts on TV
As an avid watcher of such silly programming as "Parenthood" and "10 Things I Hate About You" - and yes, I am referring to the television shows and not the movies on which they are based - I have to ask a question. How have we decided, as a culture, that the natural and acceptable reaction of a father to his teenage daughter entering the world of dating is that of a jealous boyfriend? Why do we not regard that reaction as vaguely sick and problematic, or at least wholly inappropriate, instead?
As a note, we do tend to see mothers who view their sons' dating this way as wholly inappropriate and maybe a little sick. Is it that we are more judgmental about mothers? Or more judgmental about teenage girls' dating lives? Or both?
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Television
For my second, very important post, I would like to discuss . . . television. ("Daddy! Mote! Watch TV! George!" is something else Zoe can say.)
Anyway, Glee is coming back in April. I had a wishlist all worked out in my head but from what I hear, my first item might be taken care of. It was . . .
1. Idina Menzel comes on as Rachel's surrogate mother. I hear that she's actually coming on, and that's probably the role she's playing. I mean, I try not to read spoilers but I hear rumors sometimes and that's one I hear. I have been rooting for this since the first episode, continuing my highly prescient abilities to predict plotlines on teen television. For example, my sister and I were rooting for a Joey-Pacey pairing before the theme song played on the first episode of Dawson's Creek. And then, when promos were running for the summer show that ran in between Dawson's Creek seasons, American something-or-other, sponsored by Coke, showing a father saying, "You can't be with him!" to his daughter, I immediately said, "Because she's your sister!" Yup, that's why he was saying it.
(On a completely separate note, I feel weird about the term "surrogate mother" if it is both the woman's egg and her womb that brought the baby into the world. I mean, in that case, isn't she just "mother" or even "biological mother"?)
So here's hoping the rest of my wish list comes true:
2. Kurt and Finn as stepbrothers! Come on, it'd be awesome! At least let us flirt with the possiblity.
3. More songs per episode. I love the show, I do. But mainly I love that my daughter loves the dance numbers. And we watch them. All the time. All 13 episodes still exist on my Tivo so we can play them whenever she says, "Watch TV! Glee!" But that means that, when an episode like Mattress has only 2 song performances (I'm not counting the song Smile that plays over the concluding montage because there's no dancing and therefore it is not interesting to my daughter), I am keeping 60 minutes of HD Tivo space for only less than five minutes of song. So what would be great for me personally is if we could have at least one song for every two commercial breaks in each episode. Thank you.
And since you're doing this for me personally, I'd like more of those songs to be from musicals, or rock classics, or, you know, songs I know. Thanks.
4. Pick a writing team and go with it. You can't have both the sappy, over-emotional stuff and the funny bulimia pamphlets. You need a tone. So I say you choose the funny team and ditch the melodramatic one. Like, the show is great when we've got Emma Pillsbury telling Rachel Berry that her lack of gag reflex will turn out to be a gift. The show is not great when Sue Sylvester has a Down's Syndrome-having sister. And actually, while I mean that as a synechdoche, I actually have major problems with that particular character development. I mean, aside from being annoyingly sappy, which is the writing team I think they should ditch, it was a bad choice. The brilliance of Sue as a character is her over-the-top evilness. But she only works as a cartoon villain type. If she's human, capable of sympathy, capable of taking good care of her Down's Syndrome-having sister in a loving manner, then the horrible things she says to Quinn about her pregnancy, to Will about his failures, etc., etc., come from a human and therefore sound like horrible things to say, rather than hysterical things to hear.
5. Keep the writing tight. One moment that's been sticking in my craw is when Kurt, initially excited by the idea of a makeover, refuses to work on Rachel because . . . she dresses badly? Who else would you do a makeover on?
6. No more episodes in which the kids start off feeling like losers because they're in Glee Club, and then end up recommitting to Glee Club because it means so much to them. If they already figured that out last episode, we won't really be charmed by them doing it again in the next episode.
7. On the other hand, we could use a little more characterization for the minor characters. That episode where the football players chose Glee over football? Made no sense. We have no idea why they would. But Finn chose football. Even though he had chosen Glee in the two episodes prior. Which speaks to number 5. But I'd like to hear just a little bit more about Brittany, Santana, and the two football players whose names I don't know. Like, I'd like to know their names.
8. It would be awesome if Rachel and Quinn joined forces for some reason.
And that is all I have to say about Glee.
But I'd like to say a few words about Lost.
I don't know where it's all going. I don't. But it seems to me that, just as the show asked me to believe Dr. Jack Shepherd was the most awesome awesome to ever awesome (which I didn't and still don't), the show is now asking me to accept its dichotomy of Jacob=Good and Esau=Bad. But didn't Jacob, through Richard and Ben, arrange for the genocide of the Dharma Initiative? Maybe the show will do a good job of accounting for this. I hope so.
And that is all I have to say about TV.
Bragging
Today will be a day of many posts, if Zoe stays asleep a little bit longer.
First, and most important, babycenter.com claims that Zoe should be between 10-50 vocabulary words as of this week. Haha! She surpassed the 50-word mark months ago. I can't even count the number of words she's got now, but it's got to be over 100. Plus, she strings words together. "Thank you, Mama," or "Thank you, Daddy," or whomsoever deserves thanks. "No, uppie down!" "Come on!" "Hang on!" "I see water!" And so on. My baby is a genius!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Breast-Feeding
God, I want to stop breast-feeding.
I cannot stop breast-feeding.
She's almost 19 months old, for fuck's sake. When people hear I'm still breast-feeding, their reaction has gone from "Good for you!" to ". . . Really? Still?"
I have not really developed another way to get her to sleep, though. I know that's bad. I know that, starting at about four months old, I was supposed to start putting her down in her crib (hah!) when she just looked drowsy so that she would learn to fall asleep on her own. I did not. Bad Mommy.
She bites me. She does it for fun. She clamps her teeth down on my breast and then pulls my nipple through them. When I cry out in pain, she laughs. I can't take it any more.
But she loves breast-feeding! She hums! She looks deep into my eyes. She says "Mama" in this sweet, grateful little voice. She just looks so damn satisfied doing it. How can I take it away from her?
What am I, supposed to do this forever? SHE'S 19 MONTHS OLD!
But she's doing so well! She's so strong, and so smart, and so happy! What if this is all due to the fact that I still breastfeed her and let her sleep in my bed? What if, when I stop, she just shuts down?
That's ridiculous. Also, this is ruining my life. I can't be separated from her for that long, because she might need to latch on. We can't go out at night. I can't get up early to work out; who knows when she'll need a breast-feeding?
She bites me. And she pinches me. And she doesn't eat much of anything else because she knows she's just going to get breast milk so why should she? I must stop doing this.
I can't stop doing this.
I don't know what to do.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
BOOKS ZOE OWNS
Zoe’s books (alphabetical by author or illustrator or publisher where appropriate)
A Little Golden Book (publisher) -
My First Book of the Planets
Old Mother Goose and Other Nursery Rhymes
American Girl (publisher) -
The Samantha Series
Barefoot Books (publisher) -
The Faerie’s Gift, told by Tanya Robyn Batt and illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli
Baby’s First Book by Clare Beaton
One Moose, Twenty Mice by Clare Beaton
Playtime Rhymes for Little People by Clare Beaton
Zoe and Her Zebra by Clare Beaton
I Spy the Sun in the Sky by Stella Blackstone, illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli
The Barefoot Book of Fairy Tales, told by Malachy Doyle and illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli
The Adventures of Odysseus, told by Hugh Lupton and Daniel Morden, illustrated by Christina Balit
Cleo and Caspar by Caroline Mockford
Cleo the Cat by Caroline Mockford
Cleo’s Alphabet Book by Caroline Mockford
Cleo’s Color Book by Caroline Mockford
Cleo’s Counting Book by Caroline Mockford
Come Here, Cleo! by Caroline Mockford
What’s This? A Seed’s Story by Caroline Mockford
The Barefoot Book of Classic Poems, illustrated by Jackie Morris
Shakespeare’s Storybook: Folk Tales that Inspired the Bard, told by Patrick Ryan and James Mayhew
The Story of Divaali told by Jatinder Verma and illustrated by Nilesh Mistry
Graeme Base -
Animalia
Ludwig Bemelmans -
Madeline
Stan and Jan Berenstain -
The Berenstain Bears books (all of them - thanks, Lisa!)
Stella Blackstone -
Bear in a Square
Bob Books Pals from Scholastic (publisher) -
Bump!
Cat and Mouse
Max and the Tom Cats
Willy’s Wish
Sandra Boynton -
Belly Button Book!
The Going to Bed Book
Let’s Dance, Little Pookie!
Philadelphia Chickens Book & CD
Sandra Boynton’s Greatest Hits, Volume 1, which includes the following titles:
A to Z
Blue Hat, Green Hat
Doggies
Moo, Baa, La La La!
Sandra Boynton’s Greatest Hits, Volume 2, which includes the following titles:
But Not the Hippopotamus
The Going to Bed Book
Horns to Toes and In Between
Opposites
Snuggle Puppy
What’s Wrong, Little Pookie?
Jan Brett -
On Noah’s Ark
Marcia Brown -
Stone Soup
Margaret Wise Brown -
Goodnight, Moon
The Runaway Bunny
The Important Book
Tricia Brown -
The City by the Bay
Eric Carle (illustrator, usually author) -
Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?
Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear?
The Very Busy Spider
The Very Hungry Caterpillar
Tomie dePaola -
Strega Nona
Rosie Dickins -
The Story of Rome
Disney (publishers) -
Baby’s Book of Winnie the Pooh
First Look and Find: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse
The Nursery Rhymes of Winnie the Pooh
DK (publishers) -
My First Hanukkah Board Book
Barbara Douglass -
Good as New
P.D. Eastman -
Are You My Mother?
Ian Falconer -
Olivia
Matthew van Fleet -
Cat
Debra Frasier -
On the Day You Were Born
Don Freeman -
Corduroy
A Pocket for Corduroy
Adam Gamble -
Good Night, San Francisco
Jim Gill -
A Soup Opera
Phoebe Gilman -
Something for Nothing
Nikki Giovanni -
Rosa
Green Start (publisher) -
In the Garden
One Tree
Maia Haag -
My Very Own Name
Doug Hansen (illustrator) -
Mother Goose in California
Happy Baby (publishers) -
B is for Bear
Animals, Colors, Words (a trilogy)
Piers Harper -
Little Rabbit
- A. Herman -
The Littlest Pumpkin
Amy Hest -
The Purple Coat
Where’s My Hug?
Hinkler Books (publisher) -
Baby’s First Sounds
Mary Ann Hoberman and Nadine Bernard Westcott (editor and illustrator) -
The Eensy-Weensy Spider
I Know an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly
Dave Horowitz -
Five Little Gefiltes
I Can Read! (publisher) -
Sammy the Seal
Steve Jenkins & Robin Page -
What Do You Do with a Tail Like This?
Kar-Ben (publisher) -
The Colors of My Jewish Year
Lawrence and Karen Kushner -
Where is God?
Munro Leaf -
The Story of Ferdinand
Maj Lindman -
Flicka, Ricka, Dicka and the Big Red Hen
Snipp, Snapp, Snurr and the Reindeer
Mercer Mayer -
Just Me and My Babysitter
When I Get Bigger
Sam McBratney -
Guess How Much I Love You
Nikki McClure -
Welcome
Miriam Moss -
Don’t Forget I Love You
The Snow Bear
Stuart J. Murphy -
The Greatest Gymnast of All
Noddy (character) -
Noddy’s Perfect Job (#1)
Noddy Lends a Hand (#3)
Norton (publisher) -
The Norton Anthology of Children’s Literature
Laura Numeroff -
If You Take a Mouse to the Movies
Mouse Cookies and More: A Treasury, which includes the following titles:
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie
If You Give a Pig a Pancake
If You Give a Moose a Muffin
If You Take a Mouse to School
Paragon Publishing -
The Princess and the Pea
Leslie Patricelli -
Yummy YUCKY
Marcus Pfister -
The Rainbow Fish
Picture Me (publisher) -
On Halloween
Beatrix Potter -
The Peter Rabbit & Friends Treasury, which includes the titles:
The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Benjamin Bunny
The Tale of Tom Kitten and Jemima Puddle-Duck
The Tale of Samuel Whiskers
The Tailor of Gloucester
The Tale of The Flopsy Bunnies and Mrs Tittlemouse
The Tale of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle and Mr Jeremy Fisher
The Tale of Mr Tod
The Tale of Two Bad Mice and Johnny Town-Mouse
Pudgy (publisher) -
Wheels on the Bus
Margaret and H. A. Rey -
The Complete Adventures of Curious George (a) which includes the following titles:
Curious George
Curious George Takes a Job
Curious George Rides a Bike
Curious George Gets a Metal
Curious George Flies a Kite
Curious George Learns the Alphabet
Curious George Goes to the Hospital
Curious George and the Firefighters (p)
Curious George at the Aquarium (p)
Merry Christmas, Curious George
The New Adventures of Curious George (p) which includes the following titles:
Curious George Goes to a Chocolate Factory
Curious George and the Puppies
Curious George Makes Pancakes
Curious George Feeds the Animals
Curious George Goes to a Movie
Curious George and the Hot Air Balloon
Curious George in the Snow
Curious George’s Dream
A Treasury of Curious George which includes the following titles:
Curious George Takes a Train
Curious George Visits a Toy Store
Curious George and the Dump Truck
Curious George and the Birthday Surprise
Curious George Goes Camping
Curious George Goes to a Costume Party
Curious George Visits the Library
Curious George in the Big City
Michael Rosen and Helen Oxenbury -
We’re Going on a Bear Hunt
Susan Goldman Rubin -
Counting with Wayne Thiebaud
Cynthia Rylant -
The Relatives Came
Robert Sabuda (illustrator) -
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
David Saltzman -
The Jester Has Lost His Jingle
Sandy Eisenberg Sasso -
But God Remembered: Stories of Women from Creation to the Promised Land
What is God’s Name?
Richard Scarry -
Richard Scarry’s Best Word Book Ever
Betty Ann Schwartz -
What Makes a Rainbow?
Maurice Sendak -
In the Night Kitchen
Where the Wild Things Are
Sesame Street Book (publisher) -
Big Bird and Little Bird’s Big & Little Book
Dr. Seuss -
The Foot Book
Horton Hears a Who
Oh, the Places You’ll Go
Your Favorite Seuss, which includes the following titles:
And to Think that I Saw it on Mulberry Street
McElligot’s Pool
If I Ran the Zoo
Horton Hears a Who!
The Cat in the Hat
How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
Yertle the Turtle
Happy Birthday to You!
Green Eggs and Ham
The Sneetches
Dr. Seuss’s Sleep Book
The Lorax
Oh, the Places You’ll Go!
David Shannon -
No, David!
Shel Silverstein -
Falling Up
The Giving Tree
A Light in the Attic
The Missing Piece
The Missing Piece Meets the Big O
Where the Sidewalk Ends
Esphyr Slobodkina -
Caps for Sale
David Small -
Imogene’s Antlers
June Sobel -
Shiver Me Letters: A Pirate ABC
Mandy Stanley -
Lettice: The Flying Rabbit
Marlo Thomas, et al -
Free to Be . . . You and Me - 35th Anniversary Edition
Kay Thompson -
Eloise: the Absolutely Essential 50th Anniversary Edition
Michael O. Tunnel -
Halloween Pie
Judith Viorst -
Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Tamson Weston -
Hey, Pancakes!
David Wiesner -
The Three Pigs
Karma Wilson -
Bear Wants More
Dan Yaccarino (illustrator) -
Five Little Pumpkins
Jane Yolen and Mark Teague -
How Do Dinosaurs Eat Their Food?
How Do Dinosaurs Get Well Soon?
Amy Young -
Belinda Begins Ballet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)