I have been checking Tommy Sotomayor out for a while. He tells it like it is.
I’ve been asking the same question to many of my female friends and no one can seem to give an answer:
I have been checking Tommy Sotomayor out for a while. He tells it like it is.
I’ve been asking the same question to many of my female friends and no one can seem to give an answer:
This is the kind of thing I have been exploring for years. I’m glad to see more push back on the notion that people need to just drop their kids off for someone else to raise.
The role of the parent who stays home with a newborn or toddler is just as important as the one who provides the financial support.
I’ve done BOTH. I’ve stayed at home with both of my kids and worked for major corporations. Staying with my kids is very difficult and exhausting. But honestly, I’d rather be with my kids.
We can change jobs at any time. It ain’t easy changing kids, esecially when you love your kids as much as I love mine.
We are in this together. Mothers and fathers need each other. Working together as a partnership is vital to a successful relationship.
I feel the time has come to stop devaluing the stay at home parent.
Below is A great blog post by Matt Walsh:
It’s happened twice in a week, and they were both women. Anyone ought to have more class than this, but women — especially women — should damn well know better.
Last week, I was at the pharmacy and a friendly lady approached me.
“Matt! How are those little ones doing?”
“Great! They’re doing very well, thanks for asking.”
“Good to hear. How ’bout your wife? Is she back at work yet?”
“Well she’s working hard at home, taking care of the kids. But she’s not going back into the workforce, if that’s what you mean.”
“Oh fun! That must be nice!”
“Fun? It’s a lot of hard work. Rewarding, yes. Fun? Not always.”
This one wasn’t in-your-face. It was only quietly presumptuous and subversively condescending.
The next incident occurred today at the coffee shop. It started in similar fashion; a friendly exchange about how things are coming along with the babies. The conversation quickly derailed when the woman hit me with this:
“So is your wife staying at home permanently?”
“Permanently? Well, for the foreseeable future she will be raising the kids full time, yes.”
“Yeah, mine is 14 now. But I’ve had a career the whole time as well. I can’t imagine being a stay at home mom. I would get so antsy. [Giggles] What does she DO all day?”
“Oh, just absolutely everything. What do you do all day?”
“…Me? Ha! I WORK!”
“My wife never stops working. Meanwhile, it’s the middle of the afternoon and we’re both at a coffee shop. I’m sure my wife would love to have time to sit down and drink a coffee. It’s nice to get a break, isn’t it?”
The conversation ended less amicably than it began.
Look, I don’t cast aspersions on women who work outside of the home. I understand that many of them are forced into it because they are single mothers, or because one income simply isn’t enough to meet the financial needs of their family. Or they just choose to work because that’s what they want to do. Fine. I also understand that most “professional” women aren’t rude, pompous and smug, like the two I met recently.
But I don’t want to sing Kumbaya right now. I want to kick our backwards, materialistic society in the shins and say, “GET YOUR FREAKING HEAD ON STRAIGHT, SOCIETY.”
This conversation shouldn’t be necessary. I shouldn’t need to explain why it’s insane for anyone — particularly other women — to have such contempt and hostility for “stay at home” mothers. Are we really so shallow? Are we really so confused? Are we really the first culture in the history of mankind to fail to grasp the glory and seriousness of motherhood? The pagans deified Maternity and turned it into a goddess. We’ve gone the other direction; we treat it like a disease or an obstacle.
The people who completely immerse themselves in the tiring, thankless, profoundly important job of raising children ought to be put on a pedestal. We ought to revere them and admire them like we admire rocket scientists and war heroes. These women are doing something beautiful and complicated and challenging and terrifying and painful and joyous and essential. Whatever they are doing, they ARE doing something, and our civilization DEPENDS on them doing it well. Who else can say such a thing? What other job carries with it such consequences?
It’s true — being a mom isn’t a “job.” A job is something you do for part of the day and then stop doing. You get a paycheck. You have unions and benefits and break rooms. I’ve had many jobs; it’s nothing spectacular or mystical. I don’t quite understand why we’ve elevated “the workforce” to this hallowed status. Where do we get our idea of it? The Communist Manifesto? Having a job is necessary for some — it is for me — but it isn’t liberating or empowering. Whatever your job is — you are expendable. You are a number. You are a calculation. You are a servant. You can be replaced, and you will be replaced eventually. Am I being harsh? No, I’m being someone who has a job. I’m being real.
If your mother quit her role as mother, entire lives would be turned upside down; society would suffer greatly. The ripples of that tragedy would be felt for generations. If she quit her job as a computer analyst, she’d be replaced in four days and nobody would care. Same goes for you and me. We have freedom and power in the home, not the office. But we are zombies, so we can not see that.
Read the rest here: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/09/youre-a-stay-at-home-mom-what-do-you-do-all-day/
Dr Money and the Boy with No Penis
An experiment on nature versus nurture goes tragically wrong. This is a cautionary tale of what may happen when a scientist falls in love with a beautiful theory and ignores the ugly facts.
On 22 August 1965 Janet Reimer was granted her dearest wish: she gave birth to twins. The two boys, Brian and Bruce, were healthy babies, but they would lead tragic lives, blighted by one scientist’s radical theory.
When they were seven months old, the boys, who lived in Winnipeg, Canada, were sent to the local hospital for a routine circumcision. Unfortunately the doctor in charge of the procedure was using electrical equipment, which malfunctioned several times. On the last trial, Bruce’s entire penis was burnt off. Brian was not operated on. The family were distraught. In the Sixties plastic surgery was not an option: even today it is not recommended that new-borns undergo penis reconstruction operations.
It wasn’t until several months later that Janet and her husband, Ron, saw a television programme that gave them some hope. Dr John Money, a highly renowned sexologist, featured in a debate about sex change operations on transsexuals. He had brought a transsexual with him who was convincingly feminine looking.
Perhaps, thought Janet Reimer, this was the solution – they could turn their baby son into a daughter. She wrote to Dr Money immediately. He responded swiftly and invited them to come and visit him in Baltimore, Maryland.
Dr Money is a highly intelligent, well respected, charismatic individual. He suggested to the Reimers that they bring their son up as a girl. Thus, when Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and a rudimentary vulva was created for him. The family now called him Brenda and tried to treat him like a little girl.
Dr Money was the answer to the Reimers’ prayers, but they were the answer to his too. He had studied people known then as hermaphrodites, now referred to as intersex, who are physically both male and female. As it was surgically easier to turn these people into females, this was standard practice.
The gender gate
Dr Money had used case studies of hermaphrodites to show that there was a window of opportunity for surgery – a ‘gender gate’ – which lasted up to the age of two. During that period, he argued, if the parents chose the sex of the child, the way they brought it up would determine the child’s gender, not its physical characteristics. But until this point, Dr Money had never put his controversial theory into practice with a non-intersex child. Now he had the perfect and unplanned opportunity to do so: a set of identical twins, two biological boys, one of whom could be raised a girl.Janet Reimer wrote to Dr Money of Brenda’s progress and once a year the whole family visited him in Baltimore. When Brenda was five Dr Money started to publish her case – disguising her by referring to her as Joan/John – in his books. The case became a sensation. It was the proof that feminists in particular were looking for. It was proof, they argued, that there was no biological reason that boys are better at maths and that men should earn more than women.
Nurture not nature determines whether we feel feminine or masculine. Widely cited in many text books, the case was a landmark study – hailed as proof of the overwhelming force of nurture – in spite of increasing evidence that hormones both in the womb and throughout a child’s life, play a huge part in an individual’s perception of themselves as masculine or feminine.
Meanwhile, back in Canada, things were not so good for the Reimer family. Brenda behaved in a distinctly masculine fashion. She liked running and fighting and climbing and loathed playing with dolls. She had no friends and was increasingly lonely as her twin Brian was embarrassed to play with her in front of his other friends. She hated going to visit Dr Money.
Convincing Brenda of her gender
He insisted that to fully understand that she was a girl, she needed to grasp the difference between men and women, and frequently spoke to her about her genitalia. He took photographs of her and her brother naked. He tried to persuade her to have a vagina constructed, which, at the time, would have been made out of section of her bowel or else from the skin of her thigh, which would then be inserted into the pelvic region.He showed her graphic photographs of a woman giving birth when she was seven years old in an attempt to get her to agree to having a ‘baby-hole’ made. He also suggested strongly that she take hormone tablets in order to make her grow breasts when she was 12. Other scientists, including Dr Money’s ex-students, argue that he did these things in the best possible interests for his patient – to make her believe that she was indeed a girl. Brenda however felt traumatised and became suicidal.
Finally when she was 13, the family told her and Brian the truth. Brenda was intensely relieved as she had felt she was going insane. Almost immediately she turned herself back into a boy and called herself David. David received compensation money for the circumcision and used this to pay for surgery to have a new penis constructed. In his early twenties he met Jane Fontane, who had three children of her own, and they married.
Unfortunately, his relationship with his brother worsened. Brian had felt that David, as Brenda, had received all the attention when they were growing up; once he discovered that he was no longer the only boy in the family, he became extremely angry. It was the start of mental disturbance that would develop into schizophrenia. After two failed marriages, he died, possibly of a drug overdose, which may have been a suicide attempt.
David had never managed to complete his education and had to take semi-skilled work. He was made redundant and was unemployed for a year. He sold the movie rights to his story, but lost the money when a business man absconded with his investment. Stricken with grief for his brother, his marriage started to fail. Jane asked him for a short separation period, but David took this very badly. He returned to his parents’ house for a few days, before driving to a supermarket car park on 4 May 2004 and shooting himself in the head. He was 38 years old.
Read the rest of this TRAGIC story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml
An excerpt from THIS article
‘In 1980, just 12 percent of boys said they did not like school very much at all, according to a study by the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan. By 1991, the percentage of boys who disliked school doubled, zooming to 24 percent.
Schools come down hard on boys who are often rambunctious, messy, disorganized, and enjoy activity and competitive games. Yet many schools are cutting back on recess and are eliminating games that boys enjoy. “Since the 1990s, many schools have done away with games like dodgeball, red rover, and tag,” finds researcher Christina Hoff Sommers. Some schools even label “tug of war” as “tug of peace.”
As I listened at the restaurant to the guy who dropped out of college, I wondered if his reason for leaving college had a lot to do with boredom and low academic skills. The problems of boys become problems for girls, who find it hard to meet mates who match their educational backgrounds. His girlfriend sure didn’t look happy.’
Read more here: http://m.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/problems-of-boys-men-show-no-sign-of-improving/article_a17e3f50-8aea-11e3-9638-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm
I discovered an image that perfectly explains the natural difference in parenting styles of mothers and fathers on THIS blog. I had to repost:
“My father used to do this with me when I was a baby. People always looked really anxious and asked him what he was doing. He would simply reply, ‘I’m teaching her to trust me.’”