Shit My Kid Says 3

Kids are a cute, hilarious way to start people. Which is good because they're also an exhausting, expensive, time consuming way to start people. And they're kind of like parrots with an incredibly poor (or hilariously but humiliatingly awesome) sense of timing.

April 21, 2012

M finds a piece of lollipop from earlier in the day on her dress. She does this furtive side eye thing like she's involved in espionage and wants to make sure she hasn't been followed. Then she picks a chunk of lollipop off her dress and brings it towards her mouth.

Modeling the "steering wheel shirt."

Me: We don't eat candy we found on our clothes.

M: That's a 'strictive binary paradigm.

This might be a sign that I watch too many TED talks within earshot of my preschooler. Because now everything she disagrees with is part of a "restrictive binary paradigm" or "unwise."

April 20, 2012

M received a tank top with peace signs all over it as a gift. Her reaction was, "Wow! I love it! My whole life I've wanted a shirt with steering wheels on it! Thank you!"

Note to self: Make an effort to introduce iconic cultural symbols to off spring. Otherwise she'll be one of those kids that doesn't know who Paul McCartney is and thinks a floppy disk is a save button. And it'll all be my fault.

April 18, 2012

In the midst of doing 17 other things she's not supposed to do M broke my sunglasses yesterday. I loved those sunglasses. I wore them everywhere as sort of a, "Screw you, Seattle! You're not the boss of what I wear!" kind of thing. Or maybe we've just been here long enough that my eyes don't know how to handle non-cloud filtered sunlight any more so I need to be prepared at all times for the potential visual disaster that is a sunny day.

We did time out, revoked sunglasses borrowing privileges for a while, and talked about it. No big deal. Or so I thought...

M: Daddy, what do you think Mommy's going to do to me since I broke her sunglasses?

J: Probably not let you borrow her sunglasses for a while.

Child not currently on the side of the road in a cage who only bed shares with Elmo.

M: Do you think she'll put me in a cage and leave me on the side of the road?

J: What?! No!

M: Or maybe she'll put a monster in my bed and make me share my bed with the monster?

J: Also no. Where is this coming from?

M: Well, Dad. I'm spec-a-lating.

On a related side-note, I'm looking for a company that hires out monsters but it's really important to me that they use fair monster sourcing and labor practices. Please contact me if you know of one.

April 5, 2012

In retrospect we should not have been so surprised the cat needed Prozac.

M is making conversation with the checkout lady at the grocery store.

Lady: I have a granddaughter just your age!

M: Oh yes! I have a Gran and Gramps too! They're on vacation!

Lady: That sounds exciting. What are they doing?

M: Daddy says they're a-filling white people stereotypes.

My parents were on a trip to Hilton Head to golf and watch The Masters. So this is not an entirely inaccurate statement though it's probably not the kind of joke we should be making within her hearing. It's refreshing to know that she occasionally listens to what we say though. Lately it seems like that's touch and go.

One of the things that no one can prepare you for about parenthood is that you have to explain moments like this to Eastern European non-native English speaking grocery store clerks at any given time with no notice. And then when you stand there taken off guard and mumble something intended to reassure strangers that you don't spend your spare time racially profiling everyone like, "Well. She's shy. We try to bring her out of her shell but ::: shrug ::: what can you do?" people within earshot give you some pretty major side eye.

_______________

Being rich doesn't make you an unempathetic asshole. Being an asshole does. Assholery is equal opportunity.

I started writing a follow up to The Mommy Wars: Men's Issues Edition about Ann Romney's recent speeches and the Mommy Wars in the 2012 Presidential election. And a tangent about the bearing the Romneys' wealth has on the election started to take on a life of its own so I was like, "Meh. I need to post more anyway. So I'll make this it's own post. BAM! Posting frequency quotient upped!"

So. Much has been made of the fact that the Romneys are wealthy. This hooks back into the whole "Mommy Wars: Oh Good. Now It's Been Dumbed Down By Cable News" thing in that people have been inclined to dismiss Ann Romney as out of touch with the typical American woman's experience. Whatever a "typical" American woman's (or parent's) experience might be. Because whatever it is, it doesn't involve defining 'financial hard times' as that one time your husband had to sell portions of the stock portfolio he inherited. One in seven U.S. residents were on food stamps in 2011.

Ann Romney has worked hard, raised five children, and certainly encountered struggles in her life but none of her struggles were financial. Fair enough.

But here's the thing: poor people don't run for President. And if rich, fortunate people are by definition incapable of empathy then no one who actually runs for the presidency can understand what a "typical" American family's experience is. Which may be a legitimate systemic problem in and of itself. But it’s certainly not unique to the Romneys.

The vast majority of potential Presidential candidates and their spouses are wealthy. Usually they’ve been well off for years before they decide to run (Kerry, McCain, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, Dukakis) but even if they’re not in private jet territory just yet they’re certainly not in a paycheck to paycheck, coupon clipping, no health care situation by the time they’ve amassed enough political clout to make a legitimate bid for office (Clinton, Obama). Yes, Romney is wealthy even by Presidential standards but none of these families are "just plain folks" you'd run into at the grocery store (unless there was a photo-op and you live in a swing state).

Potential President's beginnings may have been humble and involved financial struggle but by the time they're having families they're all incredibly well connected attorneys and business people who will never have to worry about retirement or how they would afford to pay for treatment if a loved one became ill. People who worry that they'll have to choose between paying for food or rent don't rub elbows with people who donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to their SuperPACs.

Being rich doesn’t make you a self-involved, compassionless, entitled, out of touch asshole. Being a self-involved, compassionless, entitled, out of touch asshole does. Rich people certainly can be assholes. But the thing is: THERE ARE ASSHOLES EVERYWHERE. Assholerly is an equal opportunity deal.

Fortunately there are compassionate, thoughtful, reasonable, empathetic people everywhere too. So, you know, there's that. Thank God. Some of the capable, civic minded, non-assholes are even rich.

Financial fortune or lack thereof does not denote character.

And whether or not a Presidential candidate or his spouse is wealthy and privileged is neither here nor there in the same way that whether you'd like to have a beer with the candidate is neither here nor there. What do you think of their policies and their track record? When you peel back the rhetoric and look at the ideological thrust of their campaign what do you think? What do you think they'll do when they're in office?

I don't mind that Ann Romney has lived a very financially privileged life and has never walked in my shoes. I do mind that everyone is spending a bunch of time talking about the number of Cadillacs she drives instead of focusing on how trotting her (or any political spouse) out as a way to show the candidate is "connected to women's issues" and "values motherhood" is side stepping the point.

How is this "connection" and "value" going to be reflected in your potential presidency? And while you're at it, knock it off with this Mommy Wars stuff. Because however the Mommy Wars go by definition women always lose.

You really shouldn't mouth siphon gasoline. How well do you know your spouse?

Liability related concerns are generally not hilarious topics. But the way they impact the labeling of certain products definitely can be hilarious.

Take, for example, gasoline. I'm filling up my car today, minding my own business, thinking completely serious and responsible grown up thoughts when I notice this label on the pump:

It may as well read: "If you're the type that a) can read and b) bothers reading things but c) is unaware that gasoline is not so much a health drink as it is a petroleum derivative used to fuel internal combustion engines then please pay careful attention even though that clearly hasn't been your 'thing' up until this point: Do not swallow gas. Do not huff gas vapors. Do not involve your face in the gas pumping process. Do not get gas on your eyes and skin. Do not put gas in your mouth. And, hey, your need to read this tells me you're a Michael Bay fan. You know how in his movies cars explode and then lots of stuff is on fire and it's totally awesome but it would totally suck if that happened to you? A lot of that stuff happens because of GASOLINE. So be careful."

So I'm thinking about this health warning as I'm running errands. Particularly the "Never Siphon by Mouth" part. Because, really, if something shouldn't be in or around your lungs, skin, eyes, or face and is possibly fatal if swallowed then it seems unnecessary to add that you also should avoid situations that involve your mouth in the pumping process.

But presumably Shell wasn't like, "Let's get that dumbass in the mail room who idolizes the cast of Jackass to list stuff he would like to do with gas and then put "don't do that" in front of those things. BAM! Legal problems solved." Their legal division probably put a lot of time and thought into the exact wording of this health warning. (I'm going to save imagining those meetings for some day where I'm experiencing low job satisfaction and need a "things could be way worse" style pick me up.)

So why is mouth siphoning on there? Either someone sued Shell because they felt Shell lead them to believe that mouth siphoning was a better way to go than just pumping gas into a gas can and then pouring gas directly into their gas tank or mouth siphoning is otherwise a prevalent enough way of dealing with gasoline transfer that failing to mention it would be remiss.

Thank God I have a smart phone. Otherwise these pressing questions would have been left unanswered for upwards of 2 hours.

Googling "mouth siphoning gas lawsuit" and "people who siphon gas by mouth" results in lots of information on how to steal gas, how to siphon gas with a siphon pump, how to get gas in the event of the zombie apocalypse, and a youtube video of an idiot. It's not an extensive lexus nexis search but, still, pretty much nothing suggests that mouth siphoning gas is something anyone actually thinks is a good idea.

So why is the mouth siphoning health warning on there? Now it's a 'thing.' I MUST SOLVE THIS MYSTERY.

My husband kind of knows about cars. He worked on a farm during the summers as a teenager. And I'm pretty sure he was in charge of fixing a forklift at some point in the not too distant past. So it seems like he'd have more insight into this than I would.

More importantly, though, I routinely send him texts like, "M is watching an episode of 'My Little Ponies' where the ponies have to learn to stop being racist which makes me wonder about what de facto Jim Crow policies might have been going on in Ponyville up until this season" and "Arbor Mist: 'Wine' for people who think of "Twilight" as literature." so he won't find questions about mouth siphoning gasoline odd at all.

So I text him.

Me: Do you happen to know why gas pumps have warnings against mouth siphoning gas? (Other than you shouldn't do that.) Is it, like, a thing? Google isn't very helpful.

Him: (1/2) Um..inhaling aromatic hydrocarbons is big long term cancer risk, gasoline is remarkably flammable, (read about a guy who died after lighting a cigarette with gas on his shirt and hands).

Me: Right. But why do they have a warning label about it on gas pumps? It seems kind of like putting a warning label on a bike that says, "Don't bike into stuff."

Him: (2/2) And having done it once gas fumes irritate the hell out of your throat. Also gas tastes bad.

Me: WhyTF were you mouth siphoning gas? Didn't you read the warning label at the pump?

Him: We were in a field about 20 miles from a gas pump. Also those were the good old days...

Me: Do you mind if I tell the internet you mouth siphoned gas?

And the moral of the story is YOU CAN NEVER REALLY KNOW ANYONE. I went and had a kid with one of the reasons gas pumps have warning labels on them telling you not to put gas in your mouth and I'm only finding this out now.

Update:

So my mom comes to visit and I may or may not have brought up this topic. And she's all, "Well, yeah. Of course mouth siphoning gasoline is a thing. Where have you been? Let me tell you anecdotes about my childhood in Africa..."

And my husband is like, "Yeah. I know, right? I mean, really? EVERYONE knows it's a thing."

How have I missed this? I've been bred from and bred with people who are completely familiar with the concept that mouth siphoning gasoline is totally something that completely sane people would do.

I should be way less surprised when people are like, "Wait. WHAT DOES THAT DRAWING OF THE GUY CALLING IKEA MEAN ON MY IKEA INSTRUCTIONS?"

Mommy Wars: 'Men's issues' edition: "I don't want prostate cancer and I have economic concerns and Batman is awesome." I don't know. I'll defer you to my husband.

So. This starts with The Mommy Wars: Work outside the home moms v. stay at home moms edition.

Here's how it usually goes:

Someone says something stupid and offensive about stay at home moms. "She doesn't work. She's just a mom." People point out that this type of statement devalues motherhood and parenting. Because, obviously, if you're running around being some combination of life coach, chef, activities director, chauffeur, educational consultant, nurse, scheduler, role model, housekeeper, party planner, personal assistant, daycare provider, moral and spirtual compass, and 17 other things I'm probably forgetting then yes, it's work. (Give your toddler a bath when they don't want to take one. Tell me with a straight face and an honest heart it's not work.) It's just not the kind that comes with a paycheck.

Not that it can't make financial sense. Childcare can be expensive, employer flexibility with respect to family needs can be terrible, and maternity leave and re-entry policies can be atrocious. So some parents might have to exclusively work at home with their kids. And some parents might be lucky enough to be in a position where they can choose to do so.

Devaluing and simultaneously co-opting political theory.

One of the things I learned from studying political theory in college and grad school is that outside of people who study political theory pretty much no one cares about political theory. Not even in political science programs. People care about how to measure, predict, poll, and analyze things that are. And that’s it.

As seems to be the case throughout a lot of academic and pop culture coverage of research, if it doesn’t involve quantitative data, it’s not “real research” and is therefore for chumps.

To me, though, political theory is fascinating particularly because it’s simultaneously not taken seriously and used in political rhetoric in order to make things sound more serious.

Take, for example, “socialism” as in “Obama’s socialism” or “socialist health care.” Socialism is a real thing. There are reams and reams of Socialist scholars, philosophers, and writings out there.  

And “Obamacare” – love it or hate it for whatever its plus points and flaws – isn’t Socialist the actual thing. Don’t believe it? Ask a Socialist. Or anyone ever who is familiar with political theory in a way that doesn’t involve Googling the dictionary.com definition of Socialism.

By and large when people cry “SOCIALIST!” they don’t mean Socialist the real thing, they mean socialist the weird amorphous pretend thing that means they don’t like the way their money is being used. It’s ‘socialist’ the rhetorical construct we call any kind of program or law that creates mandates or uses tax dollars in a way that we don’t like.

Kind of like how when a judge makes a ruling you don’t like they’re an “activist judge” but when they make a ruling you do like they’re “upholding the Constitution as they should.”

Critics of ‘socialism’ don’t tend be like, “OMG, they’re building a new overpass on I-5!? BIG SURPRISE. Obama’s nanny state government is telling us where we can and can’t drive. Like real Americans can’t decide for themselves where’s a good place to drive. And they’re using my tax dollars to do it when I don’t even drive on I-5. And guess who’s going to drive on that new overpass? People who don’t pay taxes. And people who aren’t even Americans. And God only knows what sorts of horrifying acts of immorality the highway system facilitates. FUCKING SOCIALIST HIGHWAYS! WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM? THIS IS AMERICA!”

People don’t call the highway system or the police department or the school system socialist (the pretend thing) not because they couldn’t but because they don’t object to the government creating mandates and redistributing wealth to create those programs.

And that’s the problem with socialism the pretend thing: it’s name calling disguised as a real conversation about political philosophies and values. And it adds about as much to civil discourse as arguing about whether or not Obamacare is douchetastic.

It always annoys me when political theory is referred to as “purely academic” where “academic” is clearly meant as a synonym for unimportant. Because clearly it’s important to discuss issues that matter to us in a way that’s better than “YOU’RE A DOUCHE WITH YOUR DOUCHE PROGRAMS!”

I’m not suggesting the general population needs to sit down and read Marx, Schumpeter, and their buddies and have Deep Thoughts regarding the true nature of Socialism. That’s both unrealistic and unhelpful. But it would be helpful to put some type of thought into what, exactly, we mean by the terms we throw out that are meant to connote our values.

Because if those terms are so non-specific that they’re essentially being used as pseudo-intellectual ways of saying “good stuff” and “bad stuff” then we’re sitting around yelling at each other about how we like stuff that’s awesome because it doesn’t suck. There’s little chance of bridging any gaps or brokering any compromises with such divisive, pointless rhetoric.

And general civil discourse needs to evolve beyond the point where we’re having a Team Awesome v. Team Suck style non-debate that we’re cool with because we’ve stolen a bunch of terms from political theory and stripped them of their utility and specificity but still for some reason take them seriously while devaluing thought related to them entirely.

Calling someone or something a socialist is the equivalent of calling them a douchebag only dressing the word up in a fancy suit. And a douchebag in a fancy suit is still a douchebag.

Blogging, ethics, and real life intersections: Being as I write mainly for myself I find the idea of writing a blog for idiots particularly distasteful.

Irritating encounters raise interesting questions about blogging and ethics. You don't want to be too, um, frank? about people you know in real life because blogging about them is the equivalent of bitching about them to the whole world behind their backs. Even if no one reads you and you're anonymous-ish ::: waves :::, Murphy's Law - or perhaps Dooce's Law? - dictates that the person will find out eventually, you'll hurt someone, and you'll be That One Person Who Bitchs On The Internet Instead of Dealing With Her Problems.

Not that ruffling feathers is bad and being liked is the be all and end of life. But it's really not okay to be dick. If you wouldn't say something to someone in person you shouldn't put it on the internet.

But the flipside of completely excluding any thoughts or reactions you wouldn't voice in real life is that it's often random little often well meant conversations or encounters that are the tipping points in life when you're wrestling with a new idea or feeling. It's just one straw out of many but it's the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, so it's helpful to be able to put it down in words and think it out. There was something about that encounter that for you, at the moment, was important.


I had an odd, fleeting exchange with an acquaintance** today that I wanted to blog about but I didn't. Because what if they read this? How would they feel? Is that fair to them? They're not the problem. I'm not angry with them. They made a throw away comment that just happened to be that last drop of water that breaks the surface tension.

See? A picture of a cute a kid.

It's like that one time some guy threw a tantrum about his parking space, that one phrase on pinterest, or that one idiot in the state legislature who made an exceedingly poor choice of words regarding women and hogs. It's something that ends up playing a key role in your realization even though ultimately they're just random anecdotes, a drop of water in a bucket.

It's all well and good to talk about tipping point anecdotes when they're already out there for all the world to see but what about when it's more personal?

Now I'm sitting here thinking: do I just write stuff like that anyway and try to make all that clear in the post? Or do I 'change names and details to protect the innocent' and pass it off as fiction? Or some combination of both? Or just leave it out entirely?

Leaving it out entirely would be the easiest way to go but then I risk becoming one of those blogs that spends its whole time being "OMG LOOK WHAT I BOUGHT AT TARGET! IT WAS ON CLEARANCE U GUYS!" "MY KID IS CUTE AND I TOOK PICTURES!" "I MADE A CRAFT!" but doesn't take the time to touch on many of the aspects of life that are ultimately meaningful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for good deals, cute kids, cute pictures, and DIY hobbies and want to read and write about that too. But anyone who thinks those are the truly important aspects of life in general or parenting specifically is an idiot. And being as I write mainly for myself at this point, I find the idea of writing a blog for idiots particularly distasteful.

So. What to do, what to do? If you blog or write how do you handle ethical questions like this?


** ZOMG WHAT IF IT WAS YOU?!?!!!11!!!?