Living in Montreal, I have lived through the years when the so-called mayor was nothing more than a an invisible man, nowhere to be seen or found while the mafia-owned-and-runned city fell apart.
Am I in love with the new mayor? Not particularly. But what I do love is the fact that he a present, engaged, visible mayor that goes about town and gives himself the appearance of getting shit done - whether or not he does in actual fact is open to debate, but at least he's OUT THERE and not hiding behind the closed door of a downtown office.
I don't agree with everything he says and does. His stance on the sacrosanct home-delivery of mail is, to me, wildly hyperbolic and made to cater to the 60+ crowd - the same belly-achers that will get their doctors to get them disabled parking passes to avoid walking 20 extra feet to get to the doors of the mall, or request wheelchairs to get per-boarding privileges in Fort Lauderdale, but are miraculously cured as the elbow you in the ribs to get off the plane and into the customs line first. On the mail issue, I must say this: I have lived on the island of Montreal almost my entire adult life, and not at any of the 3 properties I lived in was the mail delivered to my door. I have not been killed, injured or maimed by walking the 35 feet required to get to my communal mailbox. If you can walk, you can get your mail. If you CAN'T walk, then I sympathize and would support specific door-delivery for you.
But here's where I do agree with Mr. Mayor : standing up to the screeching, whining blue collar workers who are outraged - OUTRAGED, I tell you - that they are being sanctioned for deciding to suddenly walk off their jobs and attend union meetings because... because... well, BECAUSE. They have a contract until 2017, they are not negotiating a new one, and there is no valid reason to be striking, other than they appear to be jealous of the attention the other public-sector employees are getting. They are victims of a smear and hate campaign on the part of the media and the administration who aren't even decent enough to recognize that blue collar workers give out Christmas baskets.... Wait, what?
WTF does Christmas baskets have to do with the fact that you have a valid contract that is still in effect and that your strike is both necessary and illegal? Paul Arcand's interview with union leader Chatal Racette was an exercise in belligerent, adolescent avoidance of fact and misdirection that essentially came close to shaving a few points off the listeners' IQs. She was completely unable to explain the fundamental question of *why* they were striking, and spent the interview complaining that the mayor and media were just mean stupidheads.
Though I don't always agree with M. Coderre, when it comes to the blue collar workers, I'm glad we have a man instead of a ghost in office.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Monday, May 5, 2014
"Please proceed"
So the Parti Québécois is very, very busy right now trying to analyze what the hell went so wrong with their last election. It's part entertaining, part pathetic.
And now they're mud-slinging and ripping their shirts open. They're blaming poor-quality polls, and being forced to go off-message by other parties, and, especially, they are in agony over their own raison d'être - an independent Quebec. Here are my favorite ideas coming out of the post-partum analysis by party.
And so I sit at home reading about the PQ's plans to go back to their roots and re-take possession of the sovereignty issue - you know, the issue that over 60% of the population not only rejects but is so damn tired of having over their heads like a sword of Damocles that they would rather vote in a corrupt government for a four-year term over a separatist one? The same issue that is losing ground with an increasingly open and worldly population, especially the young 'uns? The issue that automatically shuts people down and turns them off at the very mention of it? That issue?
Please, proceed.
And now they're mud-slinging and ripping their shirts open. They're blaming poor-quality polls, and being forced to go off-message by other parties, and, especially, they are in agony over their own raison d'être - an independent Quebec. Here are my favorite ideas coming out of the post-partum analysis by party.
- "We lost because of PKP and his fist in the air". Well, yes. Yes, you did - in part. But... wait a minute. Isn't Article 1 of your party's charter to become an independent state? So, what you're saying is that you lost because the population was reminded of what you really stand for? Ouch.
- "We lost because we didn't talk enough about separation." So you lost because the population was reminded that your entire reason for being is to eventually hold a referendum to become independent - but you also lost because you didn't talk about this issue enough? My brain is starting to hurt...
- "The Liberals used the Referendum Scarecrow to 'scare' people." So are you saying that you don't want a referendum, and that the Libs are scaring people over something that will never happen? Or are you saying that a referendum is, in fact, totally within your intentions, but that the Liberals are somehow cheating when they remind everyone that a referendum is your ultimate goal? Because here's the thing: when you, yourselves, claim that any mention of a referendum is 'frightening' for voters, you are admitting that your reason for being is something to be nervous about.
- "Marois put herself on the poster and didn't give the local candidates enough publicity". So here's a newsflash: if you're in an electoral district that has a recognizable candidate like the party leader or someone well-known like, say, Agnes Maltais or Gaetan Barrette, then you recognize the name and face on the local poster. But at the end of the day, whether or not you actually know the person on the poster doesn't count for squat because a large number of people aren't really voting for a candidate: most of us are voting against the thing we don't want. If you represent a separatist party, I ain't voting for you. Period. It's not about the platform, not about the local issues, not about whether or not I like the face on the poster or not. Do you think another referendum is a good idea? Do you really think that this issue is worth the m/billions of dollars it will take to achieve and that the money is not better spent on hospitals, schools and and pensions? I'd rather vote for a crook who will give his buddy a contract to build a new hospital, thank you very much.
- "Quebecers are cowards, unable to stand up and put on their pants." and/or "We lack vision as a nation". Oh, yes, calling me a coward for standing up and saying no to something I do not want and that I know will most likely mortgage my child's future in the land of his birth will definitely convince to to adopt your point-of-view. Calling me a cowardly unintelligent non-real-Quebecer will surely get my vote. Riiiiiight.
- "We tried good governance and it didn't get us re-elected, so we should drop the idea of building a good government and place our focus/energy/message back on the sovereignty issue." So you tried good governance and... Wait - you actually think you tried good governance?? In the 18 moths you were in power you presented us with a governmental gong show with your divisive Charter for which you lied unabashedly about legal opinions, you tried to introduce nationalistic history classes for CEGEP students and toyed with the idea of revoking the right to attend English-language institutions at the collegiate level. You reneged on balancing the budget deficit and ignored your own law on holding elections on fixed dates. You called your own damn election at the time of your choosing instead of being toppled from your position as a minority government and got your asses handed to you by a party which remains on TV every day at the never-ending public inquiry on corruption. You were like a government of circus clowns - and that is an insult to circus clowns, quite frankly. If that was your attempt at "good government" I can't wait to see what you look/sound like when you drop "good governance" from your priorities.
- "Our polls were wrong." ORLY? You're that bad at gaging public opinion? You're that bad at picking your professional services?
And so I sit at home reading about the PQ's plans to go back to their roots and re-take possession of the sovereignty issue - you know, the issue that over 60% of the population not only rejects but is so damn tired of having over their heads like a sword of Damocles that they would rather vote in a corrupt government for a four-year term over a separatist one? The same issue that is losing ground with an increasingly open and worldly population, especially the young 'uns? The issue that automatically shuts people down and turns them off at the very mention of it? That issue?
Please, proceed.
Mirabel - Buh-bye and good riddance!
They're finally going to tear down the Mirabel Airport passenger terminal.
The terminal is built in the middle of farm-land and has sat unused for 10 years. There's asbestos in the walls, the sprinkler system must be replaced and the roof is finished. In its current state, it would be impossible to use it as a passenger terminal, and all efforts to rehabilitate the facility into something else (indoor outlet mall, office space, an entertainment complex, etc) have failed. The airport authority spends at least $3 million a year just to heat it and keep the vandals and looters away.
It needs to go.
But there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people are shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - by the idea of demolishing this unused and useless drain of money. And I just don't understand their resistance. I can sympathize with their disappointment, certainly, but not with their insistence to keep it standing.
Since the issue is all over the news, I have learned more of the history behind this fiasco. Despite being old enough to have traveled through the airport, its inauguration in 1975 makes it so that I have no living memory of the events that saw this airport come to life. Other than knowing it was in a stupid location and that it was hard to get to, the only other thing I knew about it was that many, many families and farmers were expropriated from their lands and homes in order to build the airport.
And so now I learn more about the incredible hubris and short-sighted nature of the entire project, where Montreal would be welcoming 50 million passengers by 2000 (we welcomed about 12 million in 2013) and at least 4 more terminals, three more landing strips and a train running between Mirabel and Montreal would be added. The land was taken from the locals and only 1 terminal and 1 strip were built. The terminal building was described as an example of the modern architecture Quebec was capable of building. Oh, glorious day.
Except it wasn't. The air industry adopted Toronto as a hub, and times, they were a-changin. Without a good way to get people to and from Montreal efficiently, eventually all air traffic was moved back to Dorval and Mirabel was cooked. And then the terminal stayed unused for ten years while we paid millions and millions every year just to leave it standing.
And now that somebody has finally put their grown-up pants on and decided that this ridiculous, unjustified spending of money had to stop, we have mayors and residents getting their dreamy underpants in a bunch. Oh, noes, we can't tear it down!! Because, you know, that would be admitting defeat and what about the people who were expropriated?? There was a LTE in La Presse over the weekend that even lamented that the tearing down of this money pit meant that we we no longer allowed to dream, or some other philosophical nonsense that didn't deserve to be printed. Even Montreal's new uber-Mayor says that he will ask for a injunction to keep the demo from happening and to buy time in order to 'rehabilitate' the building.
Do I feel for the people who lost their homes for this out-of-all-proportion pipe dream? Of course I do. But nobody has explained how the wrong of keeping the building standing 'rights' the wrong of those useless expropriations. How, exactly, would this monument to governmental error and misjudgement soothe the hurt caused by the expropriations? I would think that nothing could right that wrong. And if it were me, I would curse the presence of that reminder everyday that it remained standing.
How can we even afford to leave it up as a silent, empty museum? We can't. Not in a province that has a huge deficit and is wondering how they will provide its citizens with adequate health care and pay their retirement pensions.
And call me unsophisticated, but a squat rectangle covered in curtain-wall glass in the middle of a field is not the type of architecture that I feel needs to be preserved through a $3 million maintenance bill. This ain't Mount Rushmore or even The Big Owe. It's a building nobody goes to and nobody ever sees. I would bet a dollar that if you showed a picture of the terminal to most people on the street that they would not be able to identify it.
Those who are opposed to the demolition accuse the pro-demo people of lacking vision. Hey... wasn't Mirabel built because people had a little too much "vision" in the first place? Maybe it's time we had a little less vision and more open-eyed reality.
Is this airport and its terminal a giant flop? A mistake? You betcha. But a mature and intelligent society does not fear its mistakes. It admits them, learns from them, and moves on. It does not keep making a yearly $3 million mistake to bury its head in the sand over the initial error.
The terminal is built in the middle of farm-land and has sat unused for 10 years. There's asbestos in the walls, the sprinkler system must be replaced and the roof is finished. In its current state, it would be impossible to use it as a passenger terminal, and all efforts to rehabilitate the facility into something else (indoor outlet mall, office space, an entertainment complex, etc) have failed. The airport authority spends at least $3 million a year just to heat it and keep the vandals and looters away.
It needs to go.
But there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people are shocked - SHOCKED I tell you - by the idea of demolishing this unused and useless drain of money. And I just don't understand their resistance. I can sympathize with their disappointment, certainly, but not with their insistence to keep it standing.
Since the issue is all over the news, I have learned more of the history behind this fiasco. Despite being old enough to have traveled through the airport, its inauguration in 1975 makes it so that I have no living memory of the events that saw this airport come to life. Other than knowing it was in a stupid location and that it was hard to get to, the only other thing I knew about it was that many, many families and farmers were expropriated from their lands and homes in order to build the airport.
And so now I learn more about the incredible hubris and short-sighted nature of the entire project, where Montreal would be welcoming 50 million passengers by 2000 (we welcomed about 12 million in 2013) and at least 4 more terminals, three more landing strips and a train running between Mirabel and Montreal would be added. The land was taken from the locals and only 1 terminal and 1 strip were built. The terminal building was described as an example of the modern architecture Quebec was capable of building. Oh, glorious day.
Except it wasn't. The air industry adopted Toronto as a hub, and times, they were a-changin. Without a good way to get people to and from Montreal efficiently, eventually all air traffic was moved back to Dorval and Mirabel was cooked. And then the terminal stayed unused for ten years while we paid millions and millions every year just to leave it standing.
And now that somebody has finally put their grown-up pants on and decided that this ridiculous, unjustified spending of money had to stop, we have mayors and residents getting their dreamy underpants in a bunch. Oh, noes, we can't tear it down!! Because, you know, that would be admitting defeat and what about the people who were expropriated?? There was a LTE in La Presse over the weekend that even lamented that the tearing down of this money pit meant that we we no longer allowed to dream, or some other philosophical nonsense that didn't deserve to be printed. Even Montreal's new uber-Mayor says that he will ask for a injunction to keep the demo from happening and to buy time in order to 'rehabilitate' the building.
Do I feel for the people who lost their homes for this out-of-all-proportion pipe dream? Of course I do. But nobody has explained how the wrong of keeping the building standing 'rights' the wrong of those useless expropriations. How, exactly, would this monument to governmental error and misjudgement soothe the hurt caused by the expropriations? I would think that nothing could right that wrong. And if it were me, I would curse the presence of that reminder everyday that it remained standing.
How can we even afford to leave it up as a silent, empty museum? We can't. Not in a province that has a huge deficit and is wondering how they will provide its citizens with adequate health care and pay their retirement pensions.
And call me unsophisticated, but a squat rectangle covered in curtain-wall glass in the middle of a field is not the type of architecture that I feel needs to be preserved through a $3 million maintenance bill. This ain't Mount Rushmore or even The Big Owe. It's a building nobody goes to and nobody ever sees. I would bet a dollar that if you showed a picture of the terminal to most people on the street that they would not be able to identify it.
Those who are opposed to the demolition accuse the pro-demo people of lacking vision. Hey... wasn't Mirabel built because people had a little too much "vision" in the first place? Maybe it's time we had a little less vision and more open-eyed reality.
Is this airport and its terminal a giant flop? A mistake? You betcha. But a mature and intelligent society does not fear its mistakes. It admits them, learns from them, and moves on. It does not keep making a yearly $3 million mistake to bury its head in the sand over the initial error.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Yeah, but, you LET them
So apparently Twitter is about to turn all wallstreet on us and this means that they will be the new insidious threat to our online privacy, because they have this enhanced tracking power built into their platform that will allow really, really targeted ads to be sent to people across their multiple devices. Or so sez Mother Jones. This has different people in a flutter because it will be even worse than what facebook or google does.
I don't worry a lot about this. I mean, I stay informed and I regularly go into my FB settings to make sure as many "private" tick boxes are ticked. But I'm not exactly cowering in fear. Why?
Because judging from the hilarious offers and ads that pop up on FB and during my internet browsing, the Internets have no clue at all as to what I want and what I might buy.
Examples: while reading an atheist blog, I get ads offering me to meet Christian singles. I read American liberal political blogs, and ads for donating to the Republican party appear in the banner. The BBC News website streams commercials for Jaguar Canada to me (not in the market for a car, let alone a Jaguar). I could list more, but you get the big picture. Not only are the ads not within my sphere of interests, but they are often at the polar opposite of my tastes and leanings and with the content of the website I am visiting.
This is not the result of me making extraordinary efforts to hide from data collectors. My cookies are enabled and I have very basic firewall and anti-virus thingies on my 'puter. I shop online occasionally.
But I think I stay off of the radars and confound the ad-generators mostly because I used this seemingly antiquated and apparently little known approach to using the Internet. It's called "discretion" (she says as she posts a very public blog...). No, I'm not trying to be ironic.
I am relatively discreet when it comes to my internet use, especially with the social network platforms. Here's what I don't do that I think has helped me feel that my privacy is a little more private than other internet users:
1) No third-party app access to my FB account. I play Bejeweled Blitz and Candy Crush and whatnot. I do not use Game Center nor do I allow these games to access my FB profile. What I play and what my score was last night is nobody else's business (and I don't fucking give a flying fuck about your score or your fake farm animal either). But more importantly, I don't think my FB account and FB 'friends' are Game Center's, Apple's or any game-maker's business. So, no, I won't use the Birthday App on FB either, no matter how many times I am invited to do so.
2) No 'Liking' of companies on FB nor any mention of them on Twitter. Ever. I really do not like a capitalist profit-seeker enough to give that entity access to my information or 'friends'. The less they know about me, the better. (One exception: I 'liked' Oreo's page when they issued the rainbow Oreo picture in support of equal rights.)
3) I have accounts on FB, Twitter and Pinterest but use them discreetly. I don't link those accounts together so that these guys can gang up on me and I am mostly a lurker on these platforms. I avoid oversharing and I do not allow my smart phone to automatically announce to the world that I'm at this mall or that airport. I do not allow my phone to geotag my pictures. I don't post pictures of the food I'm having at the restaurant. I don't post pictures during my vacation as an advertisement for burglars to come break into my house. See, I just don't think any of those things are :
a) crucial for me to share nor crucial for anyone to know
2) anyone's business
iii) especially a third-party capitalist's business
4) I don't leave my email address to retailers at the cash when they ask me for it. I do not accept the 3 thousand credit card offers that the cashiers or junkmailers offer me. I have very few fidelity cards and will most likely get rid of some that I do have because I never use the points and all I get out of the deal is more spam in my inbox.
5) I log out of Twitter and FB on my smartphone and tablet when I am out and about and rarely (if ever) use their Apps. I use both on my browser and make sure to log out when I'm done.
And so I don't really worry all too much about being tracked or targeted by retailers and social networks who want to sell my info to said retailers because without being obsessive about it, I limit access to those types of people when it comes to me and my accounts.
Am I totally safe and anonymous and hack-proof? Not by a long shot. But I think my refusal to blindly link accounts and platforms together and to announce every detail about myself online has already proven to me that the trackers have a hard time tracking me. Because, c'mon, christian singles for a married atheist on an atheist blog? You can't get more off-base than that!
So if you find that the banners and pop-ups and FB ads are eerily accurate and pertinent to your habits and preferences, it's only because you let them find out all that stuff about you, in the end.
I don't worry a lot about this. I mean, I stay informed and I regularly go into my FB settings to make sure as many "private" tick boxes are ticked. But I'm not exactly cowering in fear. Why?
Because judging from the hilarious offers and ads that pop up on FB and during my internet browsing, the Internets have no clue at all as to what I want and what I might buy.
Examples: while reading an atheist blog, I get ads offering me to meet Christian singles. I read American liberal political blogs, and ads for donating to the Republican party appear in the banner. The BBC News website streams commercials for Jaguar Canada to me (not in the market for a car, let alone a Jaguar). I could list more, but you get the big picture. Not only are the ads not within my sphere of interests, but they are often at the polar opposite of my tastes and leanings and with the content of the website I am visiting.
This is not the result of me making extraordinary efforts to hide from data collectors. My cookies are enabled and I have very basic firewall and anti-virus thingies on my 'puter. I shop online occasionally.
But I think I stay off of the radars and confound the ad-generators mostly because I used this seemingly antiquated and apparently little known approach to using the Internet. It's called "discretion" (she says as she posts a very public blog...). No, I'm not trying to be ironic.
I am relatively discreet when it comes to my internet use, especially with the social network platforms. Here's what I don't do that I think has helped me feel that my privacy is a little more private than other internet users:
1) No third-party app access to my FB account. I play Bejeweled Blitz and Candy Crush and whatnot. I do not use Game Center nor do I allow these games to access my FB profile. What I play and what my score was last night is nobody else's business (and I don't fucking give a flying fuck about your score or your fake farm animal either). But more importantly, I don't think my FB account and FB 'friends' are Game Center's, Apple's or any game-maker's business. So, no, I won't use the Birthday App on FB either, no matter how many times I am invited to do so.
2) No 'Liking' of companies on FB nor any mention of them on Twitter. Ever. I really do not like a capitalist profit-seeker enough to give that entity access to my information or 'friends'. The less they know about me, the better. (One exception: I 'liked' Oreo's page when they issued the rainbow Oreo picture in support of equal rights.)
3) I have accounts on FB, Twitter and Pinterest but use them discreetly. I don't link those accounts together so that these guys can gang up on me and I am mostly a lurker on these platforms. I avoid oversharing and I do not allow my smart phone to automatically announce to the world that I'm at this mall or that airport. I do not allow my phone to geotag my pictures. I don't post pictures of the food I'm having at the restaurant. I don't post pictures during my vacation as an advertisement for burglars to come break into my house. See, I just don't think any of those things are :
a) crucial for me to share nor crucial for anyone to know
2) anyone's business
iii) especially a third-party capitalist's business
4) I don't leave my email address to retailers at the cash when they ask me for it. I do not accept the 3 thousand credit card offers that the cashiers or junkmailers offer me. I have very few fidelity cards and will most likely get rid of some that I do have because I never use the points and all I get out of the deal is more spam in my inbox.
5) I log out of Twitter and FB on my smartphone and tablet when I am out and about and rarely (if ever) use their Apps. I use both on my browser and make sure to log out when I'm done.
And so I don't really worry all too much about being tracked or targeted by retailers and social networks who want to sell my info to said retailers because without being obsessive about it, I limit access to those types of people when it comes to me and my accounts.
Am I totally safe and anonymous and hack-proof? Not by a long shot. But I think my refusal to blindly link accounts and platforms together and to announce every detail about myself online has already proven to me that the trackers have a hard time tracking me. Because, c'mon, christian singles for a married atheist on an atheist blog? You can't get more off-base than that!
So if you find that the banners and pop-ups and FB ads are eerily accurate and pertinent to your habits and preferences, it's only because you let them find out all that stuff about you, in the end.
Monday, September 23, 2013
The Charter
I've done a fair amount of reading about this stupid Charter o' Values that the Marois government is using as a wedge issue to drive the next election (reading this tripe is how I fall asleep at night) and there's a thought that keeps occurring to me that I haven't really seen expressed, which can be summarized as follows:
Freedom.
Allow me to expand on the point.
One current of thought flowing through this whole debate comes from some women and their supporters who have emigrated to Canada from places like Tunisia and Algeria. I have nothing but humble respect for all immigrant people who uproot themselves and start all over again in a foreign country; however some of these particular women have been in the media expressing their support for the ban on head scarves for government workers because (they say) the head scarf was used in their countries of origin as a tool and symbol of domination and the subjugation of women by (radical Muslim) men.
Do I agree that these women should never have been forced to wear a scarf? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Because Freedom.
And now, these women and many others want to speak for women's rights/equality by... telling other women what they shouldn't wear. Because... not Freedom???
Are there Muslim men out there who force their wives and daughters to wear the scarf (and worse) against their will? Abso-fucking-lutely.
But that doesn't give the right to any other woman, government or organization to step into the role of the abusive Muslim man and replace his edict with another. It certainly doesn't give anybody the right to tell a woman who chose to wear the damn thing (of whom there are many) to take it off, either. A feminist who tells that woman to take off her scarf is as bad as any Muslim who tells her to put it on.
Because Freedom dictates that in this country, those women have the right to walk away from their asshole husbands and wear whatever the fuck they want. They have the right to wear a scarf in fucking peace and not have a desperate gang of seperatists ostracize them. Because Freedom is why they came here: to live their own personal pursuits of happyness in peace, which they felt they could not do in the countries they fled. The homes they left behind. The Freedom was worth it. Which is why they are mostly all HELLNO about the Charter. And why, as an atheist who lives by the idea of the separation of church and state, I am against this bogus charter thing as well.
And why if you truly left a dictatorship in the name of freedom, you cannot possibly be in favor of creating oppression here. If freedom means both the neo-nazi and the humanist have the right to speak, it must also mean that I can wear a paisley snot-rag on my head while the Muslim woman wears her scarf.
And so while I'm at it, let me offer the same answer to the nitwits who argue that if I were to go to a 'Muslim country' I would have to adopt their laws/customs and put a piece of scarf on my head, and so this gives Quebecers the "right" to force Muslim women to "conform" to "our values" and remove it once they hit Quebec soil.
Once again : because Freedom, you dumbasses! Those countries aren't free. This one is. Get it? We don't do that here and that what makes us so awesome.
And if going to those countries and being forced to wear a headscarf is so offensive to you, why would you use the same tactic that offends you so much in others???
Freedom.
Allow me to expand on the point.
One current of thought flowing through this whole debate comes from some women and their supporters who have emigrated to Canada from places like Tunisia and Algeria. I have nothing but humble respect for all immigrant people who uproot themselves and start all over again in a foreign country; however some of these particular women have been in the media expressing their support for the ban on head scarves for government workers because (they say) the head scarf was used in their countries of origin as a tool and symbol of domination and the subjugation of women by (radical Muslim) men.
Do I agree that these women should never have been forced to wear a scarf? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Because Freedom.
And now, these women and many others want to speak for women's rights/equality by... telling other women what they shouldn't wear. Because... not Freedom???
Are there Muslim men out there who force their wives and daughters to wear the scarf (and worse) against their will? Abso-fucking-lutely.
But that doesn't give the right to any other woman, government or organization to step into the role of the abusive Muslim man and replace his edict with another. It certainly doesn't give anybody the right to tell a woman who chose to wear the damn thing (of whom there are many) to take it off, either. A feminist who tells that woman to take off her scarf is as bad as any Muslim who tells her to put it on.
Because Freedom dictates that in this country, those women have the right to walk away from their asshole husbands and wear whatever the fuck they want. They have the right to wear a scarf in fucking peace and not have a desperate gang of seperatists ostracize them. Because Freedom is why they came here: to live their own personal pursuits of happyness in peace, which they felt they could not do in the countries they fled. The homes they left behind. The Freedom was worth it. Which is why they are mostly all HELLNO about the Charter. And why, as an atheist who lives by the idea of the separation of church and state, I am against this bogus charter thing as well.
And why if you truly left a dictatorship in the name of freedom, you cannot possibly be in favor of creating oppression here. If freedom means both the neo-nazi and the humanist have the right to speak, it must also mean that I can wear a paisley snot-rag on my head while the Muslim woman wears her scarf.
And so while I'm at it, let me offer the same answer to the nitwits who argue that if I were to go to a 'Muslim country' I would have to adopt their laws/customs and put a piece of scarf on my head, and so this gives Quebecers the "right" to force Muslim women to "conform" to "our values" and remove it once they hit Quebec soil.
Once again : because Freedom, you dumbasses! Those countries aren't free. This one is. Get it? We don't do that here and that what makes us so awesome.
And if going to those countries and being forced to wear a headscarf is so offensive to you, why would you use the same tactic that offends you so much in others???
"Do you work?"
I follow a few irreverent motherbloggers from Chicago who, I shit you not, swear more than I do. They are Baby Sideburns and People I Want to Punch in the Throat, as well I Just Want to Pee Alone.
Baby Sideburns has a blog up this morning that re-hashes the notion of what a stay-at-home mom would be paid, should she perform her duties with pay. You can read it here.
Now, I do not think that I should be paid to be at home with my child. I do think we should get some hella good tax breaks and whatnot, but not necessary a paycheck. There's a point I do agree with, and it is the following:
"Do you work?" I know, I know, a common complaint, I'm not the first and I'm not the last, but this is a standard question asked by just about everyone. It comes right after the, "So, what do you do?" standard new-meeting-interview question. The "do you work?" riposte always comes right after the statement, "I help my husband with his home-based business and am at home with my kid, and I am heavily involved as an official in an amateur sport." This answer just isn't enough for people; they just need more than that because society has taught them that the SAHM (stay at home mom) is not enough, not a contributor, not a moverandashaker - they aren't satisfied with this image and therefore neither should I. There's an soupçon of 'is that all?' that spreads across their faces and tones that inevitably comes with the added spices of total incomprehension, some disgust, and quite frankly, total, utter disinterest. The sign I see stretched across their foreheads reads BORING and NOTWORTHMYTIME. The standard follow-up 'do you work' is often presented more as a second chance to redeem myself, as though one could not possibly just stay at home with a child and be happy and/or interesting. The more insensitive and brash worker drones actually ask the question with a different phrasing : they say, "But... you work, right?". Of course, I don't really encourage further conversation with the brainwashed automatons by issuing my standard answer, to whit: "No, the TV watches my kid while the cabana boy serves me margaritas by the pool all day long." But quite frankly, most of these people don't hear the answer because their chins are already turning to the next person, someone who is actually interesting and not a waste of time to talk to.
I understand this attitude from some men. I can also understand this to a certain extent coming from women who don't have children. Until some people actually work with children or have some of their own, they imagine being at home with a child being this bliss-filled life of book clubs, pleasurable shopping and scrap-booking - or whatever other shit I have no time for and no interest in - because caring for kids is easy : you feed 'em, you supply them toys and DVDs and you're set. No alarm clocks, no commute, no traffic, no boss... You read your book-club novel on a park bench while your child plays blissfully on the playground. (Disclaimer : as a former educator, I always referred to SAHMs as women who do not work outside the home.)
I don't forgive women who treat me this way when they have children. Because these women should know better, they should know that there's no peaceful sitting on park benches with a pre-schooler when nobody else is at the park on a weekday and even if there were, he needs you to intervene in a very hands-on manner because he doesn't want to share the slide with anyone and screams at them to get off, and needs you to tell him that sand is not for throwing, and needs you to check his pants 40 times in an hour because you're in the middle of potty-traning and there is no bathroom at the playground (which he would refuse to use anyway)... See, I get that the childless professsional doesn't get that, but not other mothers.
Other mothers should know better. Other mothers should know that while you are in the presence and responsible for a baby, toddler or preschooler, that child is the boss. Not in the sense that the child orders you around and whatnot (not in my house anyway), but in the sense that your entire schedule, your entire day, revolves around this persons needs. If your Little Person (LP) is going on his next snack or meal, all other plans go out the window and you have to stop and eat. Period. If the LP needs a nap, you are not dashing to the drug store that afternoon. If your LP needs a nap and refuses to do so, you are SoL on pretty much EVERYTHING you needed to do that day, because the day is now devoted to taking care of a crabby, loud, floppy, teary, unmotivated and unreasonable shit-and-spit machine that does stuff like insist they cling onto you on the couch to watch Cars for the three thousandth time, but insists on keeping his hand on your face because he's decided that you aren't allowed to watch the movie and you must look at the wall. Nor are you allowed to speak, comment, sneeze or go put a load of clothes into the machine. So you sit there, getting nothing done except get more tears and snot on your shirt because you inadvertently glanced at the TV and set off the LP all over again...
Oh, you could choose not to do any of these things and insist on making your LP conform to your schedule, but you quickly learn that only person you punish by doing this is yourself. And you turn yourself into one of those annoying, whiny parents who complain that you have whiny, annoying children that you 'can't take anywhere'. See, I can take my child anywhere, as long as I've otherwise respected his needs and schedule... But I digress...
Yeah, other mothers should know better. They should know better through the sigh of relief they let out once the door of the daycare closes behind them in the morning and through the brace-for-impact breath of air they take before stepping inside to pick them up at night. They should know that when they get a report of a "bad day" and a bag full of vomity clothes that had they been at home, THEY would have dealt with the vomit puddle, the tears, the change of clothes, the laundry - everything from start to finish, which is what a SAHM does. No respite. No union breaks. No window-shopping on your lunch hour and picking up a new shirt for that thing you're invited to on the weekend. No stopping at the drug store (alone and unfettered) on your way to or from the daycare. No sitting at your desk with a coffee while you quietly check your email. No lunch at that new Thai place around the corner. No adult conversations with other parents, trading tips or recipes. No special donut day for somebody's birthday. While you are doing all of that, I am absolutely not having a grand ol' time with Manuel the Cabana Boy. And you know it.
Now, I understand that you don't want to hear the minute details of how I got my LP to sit on a potty and consistently produce pee all last week. I know better, I won't do that to you. I also understand that some people avoid the subject of my being at home with my LP because they would love to be able to it too, and can't, and therefore avoid the subject.
And I already listed the wonderful 'no' list in my life (no commute, no traffic, no worrying about being late) and so I don't want to harp on comparing my daily life to that of a work-outside-the-home mom (I do refuse to use the term 'working mom' however). This post is all about how people lack respect, and I won't make my point by implying I don't respect the WOtH moms - I respect them so much that I don't know how they do it.
The point here is that I don't get the same respect back. And all this is illustrated by a single exchange I had a few weeks ago.
In the course of my volunteer work, I've been on a federation committee for a few years - and often felt like a committee of 1 person until this year, when they asked a second official to be part of the committee as well. Yay! Some qualified help! Especially appreciated for the yearly training seminar that I have been planning, organizing, powerpointing for and presented alone almost every year.
Almost a month before the seminar, I contact this new committee member to see if she can do a part of the training. She says she'll think about it and concoct an activity.
Two weeks out, I still don't have any details or anything resembling a plan.
One week before, I prompt again and get told that it will be a short, 15-minute activity. So I pick up the slack, plan another activity to complete the training and the schedule.
I wait until Tuesday to hand in and distribute the final schedule. I work until late at night both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete everything (you remember how it's impossible to get something like that done while the LP is awake, right)? So it's all about midnight powerpoint sessions (after I edit that letter hubby needs to send first thing tomorrow, you know, the kind of stuff that keeps money in the account and food on the table...)
Thursday afternoon, 24 hours before the seminar starts, I get somewhat giddy email saying that the 15-minute activity will now be more like 45, because the person really gets carried away once she gets started, haha, I hope that's ok!
Well, no it's not OK, because you basically are unreliable and wasted my precious (sleep) time, and have now messed up my fucking plan and schedule. But all this is not the completely insulting and annoying part.
The insulting part is when I call another mom/official to kvetch about the total lack of respect for the seminar, my time and my efforts, this other WOtH mom tells me the following:
"I know it's annoying, but cut her some slack and accommodate her like you always end up doing with everyone, because you rock. And after all, she has a job."
And that, folks, sums up my entire point. It's okay if another mom shits all over my time and effort because she has a "job". I have to respect her, but in return, I basically get dismissed.
Do I work? Yeah, I fucking work and am on-duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (compounded by the hubby's home-based consulting business - and if you think that means he's home and therefore helping me with the kid, well... I may have another blog post for you real soon...).
I don't want to be paid for any of this.
But a little goddam respect for my fucking time and efforts would certainly be appreciated.
Baby Sideburns has a blog up this morning that re-hashes the notion of what a stay-at-home mom would be paid, should she perform her duties with pay. You can read it here.
Now, I do not think that I should be paid to be at home with my child. I do think we should get some hella good tax breaks and whatnot, but not necessary a paycheck. There's a point I do agree with, and it is the following:
"Do you work?" I know, I know, a common complaint, I'm not the first and I'm not the last, but this is a standard question asked by just about everyone. It comes right after the, "So, what do you do?" standard new-meeting-interview question. The "do you work?" riposte always comes right after the statement, "I help my husband with his home-based business and am at home with my kid, and I am heavily involved as an official in an amateur sport." This answer just isn't enough for people; they just need more than that because society has taught them that the SAHM (stay at home mom) is not enough, not a contributor, not a moverandashaker - they aren't satisfied with this image and therefore neither should I. There's an soupçon of 'is that all?' that spreads across their faces and tones that inevitably comes with the added spices of total incomprehension, some disgust, and quite frankly, total, utter disinterest. The sign I see stretched across their foreheads reads BORING and NOTWORTHMYTIME. The standard follow-up 'do you work' is often presented more as a second chance to redeem myself, as though one could not possibly just stay at home with a child and be happy and/or interesting. The more insensitive and brash worker drones actually ask the question with a different phrasing : they say, "But... you work, right?". Of course, I don't really encourage further conversation with the brainwashed automatons by issuing my standard answer, to whit: "No, the TV watches my kid while the cabana boy serves me margaritas by the pool all day long." But quite frankly, most of these people don't hear the answer because their chins are already turning to the next person, someone who is actually interesting and not a waste of time to talk to.
I understand this attitude from some men. I can also understand this to a certain extent coming from women who don't have children. Until some people actually work with children or have some of their own, they imagine being at home with a child being this bliss-filled life of book clubs, pleasurable shopping and scrap-booking - or whatever other shit I have no time for and no interest in - because caring for kids is easy : you feed 'em, you supply them toys and DVDs and you're set. No alarm clocks, no commute, no traffic, no boss... You read your book-club novel on a park bench while your child plays blissfully on the playground. (Disclaimer : as a former educator, I always referred to SAHMs as women who do not work outside the home.)
I don't forgive women who treat me this way when they have children. Because these women should know better, they should know that there's no peaceful sitting on park benches with a pre-schooler when nobody else is at the park on a weekday and even if there were, he needs you to intervene in a very hands-on manner because he doesn't want to share the slide with anyone and screams at them to get off, and needs you to tell him that sand is not for throwing, and needs you to check his pants 40 times in an hour because you're in the middle of potty-traning and there is no bathroom at the playground (which he would refuse to use anyway)... See, I get that the childless professsional doesn't get that, but not other mothers.
Other mothers should know better. Other mothers should know that while you are in the presence and responsible for a baby, toddler or preschooler, that child is the boss. Not in the sense that the child orders you around and whatnot (not in my house anyway), but in the sense that your entire schedule, your entire day, revolves around this persons needs. If your Little Person (LP) is going on his next snack or meal, all other plans go out the window and you have to stop and eat. Period. If the LP needs a nap, you are not dashing to the drug store that afternoon. If your LP needs a nap and refuses to do so, you are SoL on pretty much EVERYTHING you needed to do that day, because the day is now devoted to taking care of a crabby, loud, floppy, teary, unmotivated and unreasonable shit-and-spit machine that does stuff like insist they cling onto you on the couch to watch Cars for the three thousandth time, but insists on keeping his hand on your face because he's decided that you aren't allowed to watch the movie and you must look at the wall. Nor are you allowed to speak, comment, sneeze or go put a load of clothes into the machine. So you sit there, getting nothing done except get more tears and snot on your shirt because you inadvertently glanced at the TV and set off the LP all over again...
Oh, you could choose not to do any of these things and insist on making your LP conform to your schedule, but you quickly learn that only person you punish by doing this is yourself. And you turn yourself into one of those annoying, whiny parents who complain that you have whiny, annoying children that you 'can't take anywhere'. See, I can take my child anywhere, as long as I've otherwise respected his needs and schedule... But I digress...
Yeah, other mothers should know better. They should know better through the sigh of relief they let out once the door of the daycare closes behind them in the morning and through the brace-for-impact breath of air they take before stepping inside to pick them up at night. They should know that when they get a report of a "bad day" and a bag full of vomity clothes that had they been at home, THEY would have dealt with the vomit puddle, the tears, the change of clothes, the laundry - everything from start to finish, which is what a SAHM does. No respite. No union breaks. No window-shopping on your lunch hour and picking up a new shirt for that thing you're invited to on the weekend. No stopping at the drug store (alone and unfettered) on your way to or from the daycare. No sitting at your desk with a coffee while you quietly check your email. No lunch at that new Thai place around the corner. No adult conversations with other parents, trading tips or recipes. No special donut day for somebody's birthday. While you are doing all of that, I am absolutely not having a grand ol' time with Manuel the Cabana Boy. And you know it.
Now, I understand that you don't want to hear the minute details of how I got my LP to sit on a potty and consistently produce pee all last week. I know better, I won't do that to you. I also understand that some people avoid the subject of my being at home with my LP because they would love to be able to it too, and can't, and therefore avoid the subject.
And I already listed the wonderful 'no' list in my life (no commute, no traffic, no worrying about being late) and so I don't want to harp on comparing my daily life to that of a work-outside-the-home mom (I do refuse to use the term 'working mom' however). This post is all about how people lack respect, and I won't make my point by implying I don't respect the WOtH moms - I respect them so much that I don't know how they do it.
The point here is that I don't get the same respect back. And all this is illustrated by a single exchange I had a few weeks ago.
In the course of my volunteer work, I've been on a federation committee for a few years - and often felt like a committee of 1 person until this year, when they asked a second official to be part of the committee as well. Yay! Some qualified help! Especially appreciated for the yearly training seminar that I have been planning, organizing, powerpointing for and presented alone almost every year.
Almost a month before the seminar, I contact this new committee member to see if she can do a part of the training. She says she'll think about it and concoct an activity.
Two weeks out, I still don't have any details or anything resembling a plan.
One week before, I prompt again and get told that it will be a short, 15-minute activity. So I pick up the slack, plan another activity to complete the training and the schedule.
I wait until Tuesday to hand in and distribute the final schedule. I work until late at night both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete everything (you remember how it's impossible to get something like that done while the LP is awake, right)? So it's all about midnight powerpoint sessions (after I edit that letter hubby needs to send first thing tomorrow, you know, the kind of stuff that keeps money in the account and food on the table...)
Thursday afternoon, 24 hours before the seminar starts, I get somewhat giddy email saying that the 15-minute activity will now be more like 45, because the person really gets carried away once she gets started, haha, I hope that's ok!
Well, no it's not OK, because you basically are unreliable and wasted my precious (sleep) time, and have now messed up my fucking plan and schedule. But all this is not the completely insulting and annoying part.
The insulting part is when I call another mom/official to kvetch about the total lack of respect for the seminar, my time and my efforts, this other WOtH mom tells me the following:
"I know it's annoying, but cut her some slack and accommodate her like you always end up doing with everyone, because you rock. And after all, she has a job."
And that, folks, sums up my entire point. It's okay if another mom shits all over my time and effort because she has a "job". I have to respect her, but in return, I basically get dismissed.
Do I work? Yeah, I fucking work and am on-duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (compounded by the hubby's home-based consulting business - and if you think that means he's home and therefore helping me with the kid, well... I may have another blog post for you real soon...).
I don't want to be paid for any of this.
But a little goddam respect for my fucking time and efforts would certainly be appreciated.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The REAL wrong turn, according to Everybody
So maybe I'm feeling particularly shitty because I woke up this morning and discovered that our kinda sick-looking, half-paralyzed Beta fish died overnight. He was stuck head-down into the gravel at the bottom of the tank, like his last act in life was trying to bury himself. Since Mommy is in charge of human and animal health in the house and the buck stops with me, it's my damn fault the thing died. Don't try to tell me otherwise. Of course, the 2-year-old lost interest in the thing weeks ago and so has not noticed the missing fish, but Hubby got a little upset that we (I) had managed to kill a living thing. It's not a good day when you're flushing dead fish down the shitter before your 1st cup of coffee (that I had to drink with skim milk instead of homogenized because we're out of homogenized, blech. That's like adding white water to your coffee or worse, coffeemate).
So, good morning, it's time to change a diaper, flush a pretty but dead fish down the shitter and then drink your yucky white-water coffee. Have an awesome day.
This is on the day when I have to host/attend this cocktail event thingy that I have NO motivation to go to. The one that I got roped into because facts were either withheld or underplayed when it was presented to me, and I can't find enough bitchiness inside me to quit because I've never quit anything I've given my word to... You know, the kind of group project that everybody but you and 1 other person thinks is super great, and you and the other person think it's lame and bitch about it all the way home after every meeting? This cocktail thingy is being blown out of all reasonable proportion, there's a powerpoint presentation involved and decorations, food and drink, all for about 20 people that I don't know, and the group is all like giddy, and like "did you practice your portion of the powerpoint?" and I'm thinking, no, I did not practice presenting 20 minutes of statistics to 20 strangers because I'm used to speaking for, like, 3 days on end with people I'm supposed to teach, guide, mentor and be a Role Model to in the name of a national federation with a multi-million dollar budget and thousands of members. Plus, I think the whole thing is pretty lame and can't be bothered. The Latina Girl and I both think so and can't wait for the whole thing to be over and done with.
Today and the f'ing cocktail is same day that Hubby knows about since nearly 5 weeks ago. The day he was supposed to help me out and go get The Son from Grandma's house because I'm not available, and then booked a business dinner, informing me of it two days ago. That's after I went and told The Aunt that I didn't need her to babysit today, because he'd be at Grandma's house and Hubby was picking him up. Now there's a whole logistics thing where Hubby will bring Auntie the car seat at work, and Auntie will pick The Son up and bring him home, but only if Grandma already gave him dinner, all this when Auntie is notoriously late all the time and will probably not show up at Grandma's when she is supposed to, and then Grandma will tell me all about it on the phone tomorrow...
That's not really the point. The point is that SAHMs (Stay At Home Moms) are very, very dismissible, according to Everybody. I'm told either that I'm exaggerating, that I'm not the first person to go through this and to suck it up, or that others have Jobs and so everything must be forgiven because they Work. At Jobs. Real ones.
Show up 2 hours later than you were supposed to, and don't call to let the SAHM know? That's OK, according to Everybody, because Mom is at home and doesn't really have a 'set schedule' or 'real commitments'. Because things like nap times, meal times, snack times, appointments, meetings and promises to 2-year-olds don't count as important scheduley things nor commitments.
Say you'll babysit and then cancel the night before (nonchalantly and unapologetic)? Everybody thinks that it's OK, because, really, what kind of serious, important plans would the mother of a 2-year-old have when she's counting on her only day off in a week (or more)? A mother doesn't Work at a Job so she can do whatever unimportant crap she had planned for that day any other day. Because the 16 things you get done alone in 1 day will get done just as quickly with your toddler in tow, including that wax appointment at the salon you can't bring him to. Duh, who doesn't know that?
Do you, as a SAHM, have things like 'feelings' and 'frustration'? Oh, no, I guess it really sucks to be you. Because you CHOSE to stay at home, you see, so you have to shut up and swallow that choice for the rest of your life. Of course being a mom is the 'most important' and 'toughest' job in the world, absolutely. No one disputes that. They just don't want to hear you whine about stuff like you wanting to cry every time The Son asks you to sing that song, because you've sang that song 125000 times already this week. Or when you just want to talk about how you didn't realize caring for another human being day in, day out, would be the most bone-wearing you'd ever do (shout out here to all those who care for another human being in their homes 24 hours a day, young or old). That was your choice, now suck it up and don't bore anyone with the details.
And do please try to tell your face and attitude that you are a happy person, because you've been kind of bitchy lately, quite frankly. I mean, it's not like when he was a baby, when it was really tough and you deserved repsect and offers of help. Like back when he was sleeping 18 hours a day with 2 naps a day and could stay in a pack in play while you showered and emptied the dishwasher. Things are breeze now that he's 2, can open child-proof cabinets, walks, runs, climbs, jumps and wants to 'help you' do everything from folding clothes (which he rumples into a ball and throws on the floor) to washing countertops (screaming when I don't let him have the toxic spray-bottle of soapy-soap I'm using) to vaccuming the carpet (he only vaccums sections of about 6 inches at a time). He also requires full-time, full-eyes-on supervision all the time, or constant entertainment in the form of play, crafts, music, reading books, going to the playground, playing outside in the yard, running races, being pulled in his wagon, being pushed in his stroller, keeping his hands off of the stupid candy displays at arm's reach at all the check-out cash lanes in every store, meals, baths, boo-boo kissing, etc. And he's not really napping anymore, so full-time, awake-time duty for a SAHM with a toddler (as opposed to that quiet, sleeping and immobile baby) goes from 7:00am to 8:00pm. Yeah, but he sleeps nights, doesn't he? So what are you complaining about?
What? Daytime activities, you ask? There are no organized daytime activities for toddlers. Daytime is for daycare, Everybody knows that. Everybody expects toddlers over the age of 18m to be handed over those overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated, under-funded and (too often) under-trained and under-motivated daycare workers. I see them at work, in the playgrounds and fun centers and when they are walking their inmates in a chain-gang with their little orangejumpsuits pinnies on. I see them stare blankly off into to space while they push a bored-looking toddler in the swings, who looks at us in envy while The Son is giddy with mirth because I pretend to munch on his toes with my hands every time he swings toward me. That's the difference, you see, between a well-intended but underpaid and under-appreciated stranger and an unpaid and under-appreciated mother. Toe-munching and laughter vs. blank stares and boredom. But that is also why the mothers are so f'ing tired all the time - we're on for 12-13 hours a day non-stop, but we put so much more goddam heart and effort into it.
Now give the job and the person doing it a little more goddam respect, willya? 'Cause Mother's Day was just 2 days ago and is already a distant memory.
So, good morning, it's time to change a diaper, flush a pretty but dead fish down the shitter and then drink your yucky white-water coffee. Have an awesome day.
This is on the day when I have to host/attend this cocktail event thingy that I have NO motivation to go to. The one that I got roped into because facts were either withheld or underplayed when it was presented to me, and I can't find enough bitchiness inside me to quit because I've never quit anything I've given my word to... You know, the kind of group project that everybody but you and 1 other person thinks is super great, and you and the other person think it's lame and bitch about it all the way home after every meeting? This cocktail thingy is being blown out of all reasonable proportion, there's a powerpoint presentation involved and decorations, food and drink, all for about 20 people that I don't know, and the group is all like giddy, and like "did you practice your portion of the powerpoint?" and I'm thinking, no, I did not practice presenting 20 minutes of statistics to 20 strangers because I'm used to speaking for, like, 3 days on end with people I'm supposed to teach, guide, mentor and be a Role Model to in the name of a national federation with a multi-million dollar budget and thousands of members. Plus, I think the whole thing is pretty lame and can't be bothered. The Latina Girl and I both think so and can't wait for the whole thing to be over and done with.
Today and the f'ing cocktail is same day that Hubby knows about since nearly 5 weeks ago. The day he was supposed to help me out and go get The Son from Grandma's house because I'm not available, and then booked a business dinner, informing me of it two days ago. That's after I went and told The Aunt that I didn't need her to babysit today, because he'd be at Grandma's house and Hubby was picking him up. Now there's a whole logistics thing where Hubby will bring Auntie the car seat at work, and Auntie will pick The Son up and bring him home, but only if Grandma already gave him dinner, all this when Auntie is notoriously late all the time and will probably not show up at Grandma's when she is supposed to, and then Grandma will tell me all about it on the phone tomorrow...
That's not really the point. The point is that SAHMs (Stay At Home Moms) are very, very dismissible, according to Everybody. I'm told either that I'm exaggerating, that I'm not the first person to go through this and to suck it up, or that others have Jobs and so everything must be forgiven because they Work. At Jobs. Real ones.
Show up 2 hours later than you were supposed to, and don't call to let the SAHM know? That's OK, according to Everybody, because Mom is at home and doesn't really have a 'set schedule' or 'real commitments'. Because things like nap times, meal times, snack times, appointments, meetings and promises to 2-year-olds don't count as important scheduley things nor commitments.
Say you'll babysit and then cancel the night before (nonchalantly and unapologetic)? Everybody thinks that it's OK, because, really, what kind of serious, important plans would the mother of a 2-year-old have when she's counting on her only day off in a week (or more)? A mother doesn't Work at a Job so she can do whatever unimportant crap she had planned for that day any other day. Because the 16 things you get done alone in 1 day will get done just as quickly with your toddler in tow, including that wax appointment at the salon you can't bring him to. Duh, who doesn't know that?
Do you, as a SAHM, have things like 'feelings' and 'frustration'? Oh, no, I guess it really sucks to be you. Because you CHOSE to stay at home, you see, so you have to shut up and swallow that choice for the rest of your life. Of course being a mom is the 'most important' and 'toughest' job in the world, absolutely. No one disputes that. They just don't want to hear you whine about stuff like you wanting to cry every time The Son asks you to sing that song, because you've sang that song 125000 times already this week. Or when you just want to talk about how you didn't realize caring for another human being day in, day out, would be the most bone-wearing you'd ever do (shout out here to all those who care for another human being in their homes 24 hours a day, young or old). That was your choice, now suck it up and don't bore anyone with the details.
And do please try to tell your face and attitude that you are a happy person, because you've been kind of bitchy lately, quite frankly. I mean, it's not like when he was a baby, when it was really tough and you deserved repsect and offers of help. Like back when he was sleeping 18 hours a day with 2 naps a day and could stay in a pack in play while you showered and emptied the dishwasher. Things are breeze now that he's 2, can open child-proof cabinets, walks, runs, climbs, jumps and wants to 'help you' do everything from folding clothes (which he rumples into a ball and throws on the floor) to washing countertops (screaming when I don't let him have the toxic spray-bottle of soapy-soap I'm using) to vaccuming the carpet (he only vaccums sections of about 6 inches at a time). He also requires full-time, full-eyes-on supervision all the time, or constant entertainment in the form of play, crafts, music, reading books, going to the playground, playing outside in the yard, running races, being pulled in his wagon, being pushed in his stroller, keeping his hands off of the stupid candy displays at arm's reach at all the check-out cash lanes in every store, meals, baths, boo-boo kissing, etc. And he's not really napping anymore, so full-time, awake-time duty for a SAHM with a toddler (as opposed to that quiet, sleeping and immobile baby) goes from 7:00am to 8:00pm. Yeah, but he sleeps nights, doesn't he? So what are you complaining about?
What? Daytime activities, you ask? There are no organized daytime activities for toddlers. Daytime is for daycare, Everybody knows that. Everybody expects toddlers over the age of 18m to be handed over those overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated, under-funded and (too often) under-trained and under-motivated daycare workers. I see them at work, in the playgrounds and fun centers and when they are walking their inmates in a chain-gang with their little orange
Now give the job and the person doing it a little more goddam respect, willya? 'Cause Mother's Day was just 2 days ago and is already a distant memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)