Strollerderby : relationships

They Say: Staying Together for the Kids? Don't

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:00 GMT

How many times have you heard someone in marital distress say they're just trying to make it through for the kids? Might want to give them a hug next time and tell them they shouldn't worry about it.

A new study has found what plenty of kids of bitter, bickering parents already knew: staying together for the kids doesn't work.

Looking at teens from almost two thousands households and tracking them through to their early thirties, the study out of Cornell University in New York linked "exposure to parental conflict in adolescence . . . with poorer academic achievement, increased substance use and early family formation and dissolution, often in ways indistinguishable from living in a stepfather or single-mother family."

Again, not totally surprised here. But it's an important finding FOR parents who have long sought comfort as they navigate the difficult road of divorce. The dissolution of a relationship is almost never easy, and blame is quite often the name of the game. When kids are involved, the ante is upped as couples have to factor in more than just the two people in the marriage itself.

Studies have already found that divorce does not change the way a person parents. If you're doing a good job before the split, there's no reason to think you'll fall down on the job after the decree becomes final.

Parents should also take a long, hard look at their kids pre-split. Poor behavior that parents have often associated with post-divorce stress has been found to be something parents were overlooking in the midst of their marital discord. It was already there. The good news? Researchers say it doesn't actually get worse.

At the end of the day, I could never tell someone, "hey, yeah, get divorced." That's a very personal decision. But knowing you're worrying about your kids in the process means you're already far ahead of a lot of parents.

Image: OrlandoNest

Dad Fined $2,000 for Cursing in Front of Kid

JeanneSager — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Forget the cussing jar. What if every time you dropped an F-bomb in front of your kid you had to pay up to the tune of $2K?

I'm no sailor, but one LEGO in the bare foot later, and my bank account would be wiped.

A father in Pennsylvania is fighting a court-mandated "no cursing zone" put forth by the judge overseeing the custody of his nine-year-old. The judge issued a requirement that the man, "refrain from using any profanity when dealing with mother and mother's husband, and using any type of language around the children that's inappropriate."

On the whole, I'd agree. Divorces are rough enough without dad getting nasty with mom and her new hubby. And parents shouldn't, by and large, curse in front of their kids. It's uncouth.

But doesn't this sound kind of vague? Any inappropriate language, meaning, what? My parents didn't let us use the word "fart." Is that a finable offense? What about the parents who say don't say the word "stupid." Or what about "crap?"

The dad has since used some sort of four-letter word. The story in the Bucks County Courier doesn't say which one (could be crap!), but it earned dad a $2,000 fine. Apparently, the judge thinks he was being a sh---y father (oops, I went and said it).

The man is challenging his fine on the basis of free speech, and I'd tend to agree with him. Cursing At your kids on any sort of consistent basis isn't OK - that's abuse. But cursing in front of them. On occasion? It happens. And we're definitely NOT the only ones who do it. My daughter learned the word "bulls--t" from my mother, I'll have you know (yes, the same woman who wouldn't let me say "fart."). She heard "s--t" in the deli the other day, and "a--hole" in the lobby at the doctor's office.

Maybe His Honor would like to take this show on the road? He could follow my three-year-old and I around town and hand out fines.

Image: Sodahead

Two Parents Passing in the Night: Staggered Parenting

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

It's a concern that's become even bigger than ever, but the stories of parents getting creative to avoid daycare costs are only getting wilder.

Take the parents who work opposite shifts, rarely getting to spend real quality time together in their marriage, because it enables at least one parent to be home with their two kids almost every moment of the day.

Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode took a look at Megan and Tim Garrett this past week, a couple who surmises in a good week they're able to limit the use of actual (paid for) daycare to six to nine hours. How do they do it? "Staggered parenting," Belkin calls it. One works nine to five, the other in swing shifts. Just not at the same time (if they can help it).

It's something like what I talked about in my own Bad Parent essay last week in honor of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. Daycare is so cost-prohibitive, that I worked out a deal with my boss - I go into an office twice a week while she goes to an actual (again, paid for) daycare. The rest of the time, I take my daughter to work. Some say I've got it easy because I can do this, and I will certainly say I am lucky to have this time with my daughter.

But neither I nor the Garretts have it easy. And unless you're one of those lucky ducks still swimming in the big bucks in this economy, I dare say you don't either.

It's why we're all thinking outside that proverbial box to get the daycare bills paid - or better yet, to avoid them at all. I'm a proponent of paying people what they're worth, so it's hard to come up with a solution for the high costs of daycare. We can't very well expect these people to watch our children for free.

But what of the mom who works nights, the dad who works days, so one can be home with their son at all times? Should they simply be expected to accept the strain that puts on their marriage and their family because, well, "they are doing what should be done when we decide to have children" as one commenter over on the Motherlode said? What about the Garretts, who are ensuring their kids get to spend almost all of their time with mom and dad, but who get almost no time alone to just be adults? Not to mention virtually no "family time." This isn't a knock on single parents, but when there ARE two parents in the situation, it's hardly optimal for the kids to never see them interact.

Daycare is expensive. Daycare is often inflexible. And daycare is not created equal. My friend pays $30 a day for her son to go to a small registered daycare with a nursery school curriculum and both breakfast and lunch provided. That's $150 a week - not too bad, but not available to too many families. She's popular, and fills up fast. In the same town, another friend pays $490 a week for the same service. The disparity is hard to fathom.

For parents who work part-time, the problem isn't just expense but finding a program that will accept their child. We need the money, but few daycares want to take on a child who will not be bringing in steady income for them (can you blame them?) to the tune of five business days, and many are loathe to take on a child at the tail-end of toddlerhood because they know the money will soon dry up once the child is enrolled in "real" school. Infants are tough to place too - in many places they take the place of two older children. In other words, the provider can charge the parent of an infant one fee, or they could take in two toddlers and get two fees - but not both. Again, you can't fault the provider (I'd prefer a limit in kids, wouldn't you?) but it certainly doesn't make life any easier for parents.

So what do you do? Many of us go unregistered, which carries with it its own problems - when I recently wrote about setting up a quid pro quo system with an unemployed friend (cash in exchange for their babysitting time), a commenter pointed out that flies in the face of attempts to professionalize the industry. Again, I agree that daycare workers shouldn't be treated like scut labor, but "non-professional" daycare providers can provide top notch care too.

So what's the fix? Employer-sponsored daycare (um, yes)? Government intervention? For one, I'd like to see the childcare tax write-off system change so we can write off ALL daycare expenses (rather than the "up to $6,000 for families with two children under age thirteen"). Not to mention paid paternity leaves, lengthier paid maternity leaves, and . . .

For all those, of course, there are the arguments from the same people who popped up on the Motherlode citing the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for our kids. But let me ask: would they rather provide universal programs for parents to keep us in the job market or pay for us all to sit at home with our kids all day being unproductive and FEELING unproductive? Might I point out, those kids are American citizens and future taxpayers too. So how about a little help?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Me and My Shadow

Miley Cyrus Does It, But Would You Let Your Teen Sleep in Your Bed?

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:32:00 GMT

Think you've got it bad trying to kick your cosleeping toddler out of your bed? Actress and singer Miley Cyrus recently told Glamour she still likes to crawl into bed with mom and dad on occasion, and she's sixteen.

Cyrus told Glamour she sometimes feel immature for her age, and she related that to a desire to sleep with mom and dad, specifically cuddling with her mom, after a long day.

I truly can't imagine having crawled into bed with my parents at sixteen. Perhaps it speaks to how much tighter-knit the Cyrus family is; I was your typical teenage girl at odds with her mother and then some. But it sounds like they might be a little too tight-knit.

Not in a sexual way. At least, I'm not concerned that there's anything inappropriate between child and parents. I do wonder, how do mom and dad resume a normal sex life after their kids have gotten out of the infant or even early toddler stage if they don't know if their kid might wander into their room in the middle of the night? When does the family bed return to the marital bed?

My daughter is three and a half, and she usually crawls into our bed first thing in the morning - she usually wakes up before we do. But where she sits at the end of the bed with a coloring book or her stuffed Piglet for a few minutes to at most maybe half an hour each morning, she rarely sleeps with us.

That's usually reserved for nights when she's sick, when my husband or I initiate her coming into our bed. It's for comfort, mostly, ours as much as hers - I would be jumping up to check on her in the next room anyway. Even then, it's hardly pleasant. She kicks. She windmills her body, turning so she's spread horizontally across the bed, and my husband and I are driven to our two very separate sides of the bed. I don't enjoy sleeping with my daughter in the bed, and the sleep is hardly restorative.

After a certain age, kids just get to be too big physically to share a bed with two adults. They also prevent parents from having ANY time alone together, as two people who love each other for the sake of each other - not just because they share a connection to one not-so little body.

I haven't figured out what the age is - my daughter is still three and still needs me - sometimes - even though she's been out of our room since she was old enough to sleep through the night.

Where and when do you think parents should close the door on their kids?

Image: Wikipedia

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:30:00 GMT

I wasn't thinking about much when my daughter was three months old. My maternity leave was over, and I was back at work - albeit at a reduced thirty-hour schedule. I didn't have time to think about sex, nonetheless an ex.

Turns out some parents have turned the seven-year itch into the three-month itch. Their baby hits three months, and as exhausted and un-sexy as the mothers feel, they start thinking about what their life could have been if they took a different path. Namely, if they picked another partner.

In the New York Times this week, essayist Anna Solomon says she couldn't help romanticizing her exes when her daughter was still a newborn, when she hit that three-month mark everyone told her would be a turning point, when she would start to get her life back:

"I was certain that I’d ruined my life, and I was thinking — with alarming frequency — of men who were not my husband, men who seemed suddenly more attractive than they’d actually been, or kinder, or braver — men who would never have gotten me into this mess."

I always thought it was just in the movies that women turned on their husbands during childbirth, that they started screaming, "I hate you, I can't stand you, get away from me, you did this to me." But here that same feeling is, rearing its ugly head three months on, when the pain of delivery is gone and the reality of being a mother has set in. You aren't you anymore, and as long as you're stuck in this bleary-eyed state with this little person who can reach top volume and turn tomato red in the blink of an eye, it's hard to imagine you ever will be again.

Is it any wonder some women fantasize their way out of it? Even for a few moments? It's not sexual fantasies of exes past, because, frankly, sex is what put you in this predicament. It's emotional escapism, the kind that nourishes the body in what can be a very dark time for a parent, especially a stay-at-home parent or a woman still nursing a baby through the night (and hence getting no sleep). And that's why, for most of us - including Solomon, it's fleeting. Your baby grows, you get some sleep, and you realize you are pretty darn OK where you are - if not completely and wonderously in love with where you are.

Did you ever fantasize about the ex when your child was young, or daydream about going back to the pre-pregnancy days?

Image: DailyMail

Your Kid's Mouth Stinks: Here's Why

Also on Babble:

The New Celibacy

No Sex Please, We're Parents

Can Facebook Cut the Apron Strings?

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:28:00 GMT

While we adults are caught up in catching up on our past on Facebook, there's a possibility our kids are going to miss out on one of the great joys of late teenagehood. Escaping.

An interesting piece by Peggy Orenstein in the New York Times this week ponders whether kids will be able "to get busy with the embarrassing, exciting, muddy, wonderful work of creating an adult identity" with four hundred of their old high school buddies watching over a T-1 line.

She's got a point. While I kept up with several of my high school friends when I left for college, it was mostly via e-mail and AOL's Instant Messenger, maybe the sporadic phone call. Although more technologically advanced than Orenstein (who admits she grew up in the "postage stamp" age of college communication), the advantages to all these forms of communication were clear - I could start . . . and stop . . . them at my will.

Facebook is non-stop action. Change your relationship status, and everyone knows . . . now (and trust me, those shockwaves can resonate - ask the cousin who accidentally erased her husband when she was trying to update her favorite books list.). As long as they're your "friend," anyone can and will see - and can and will comment.

Orenstein posits kids will remain tethered to home much longer via technological apron strings, tied to the kids they were forced to spend time with in high school and might otherwise naturally distance themselves from come college. Except, thanks to Facebook (and to be fair, Myspace), now they're tied . . . for good.

I think she might be crediting Facebook with a little more power than is warranted, however. Surveys have found that even users with a friends list in the thousands traditionally only interact with a solid core of "friends." I'd hazard a guess that's the same core today's kids will take to college with them - like the high school friends we kept contact with back in the day. She's also overestimating kids' fidelity. The teenagers I know "friend" and "un-friend" one another with the speed of an eyeroll, to an extent I doubt will change much in the early days of college.

The truth is that old saying, "you can never go home again," will never die. Because leaving your parents' house, even if your friends follow, changes you. Often for the good, sometimes for the bad. But kids grow up - even kids with a Facebook.

Liar, Liar - iPod Sets Kid's Pants on Fire

Amber Alert Now an iPhone App

Mamas Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up to Drink and Party

They Say: Kids Attached to Mom Make Better Friends

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:32:00 GMT

Think your kid's too clingy? That might not be such a bad thing.

A new study from the University of Illinois links preschoolers attachment to their mothers with their ability to forge friendships.

In other words? If they're in tight with Mom, they have an enhanced sense of empathy. They're better able to make friends, but also better able to sustain friendships.

Researchers used data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development to look at the way more than one thousand kids interacted with their mothers and then with their peers. Following the kids from age three (preschool) on through first grade, they found the kids who had secure relationships with their mothers also had a better grasp on language at age four and a half than their peers.

"When kids feel comfortable talking about their emotions, especially their negative emotions, it increases their social competence with classmates and leads to closer friendships," explains researcher Nancy McElwain of the University of Illinois.

It's hard to assess this one internally - how do you determine whether you and your child have the best relationship? But watching my friends with their children, I see direct evidence of this theory. One friend, in particular, worried that her second child was too firmly attached to her coattails when she sent him off to nursery school. Small for his age, a "mama's boy," he could easily be the picked on kid. And yet, a friendship forged with another little boy in his class is one of the strongest I've seen - especially for two four-year-olds. He's been able, at four, to determine which kids he likes, which kids he doesn't - and already allied himself so closely with his little buddy that the two have an almost intuitive sense of where they fit in one another's lives.

Secure in his sense of where he fits in at home, and how much he's loved by his parents, he's been able to transfer that sense of self over to the school building, not bothering to be pulled into the playground politics.

Do you see a difference in how your kids relate to other kids from the way they relate at home? Do you think they're too clingy to you?

Image: LIve Science

Little Girls Really Do Marry Their Daddies

JeanneSager — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:01:00 GMT

Did your daughter ever inform you when she grows up she's going to marry her Daddy?

It turns out she probably will - or at the very least his doppelganger. Your son, by the way? He might well grow up to marry a woman is a heckuva lot like his Mom.

Recent research and surveys have come up with the same answers - an overwhelming number of people grow up and fall in love with someone who shares either facial characteristics or personalities with one of their parents. Some researchers say it has to do with familiarity, others because they are following set patterns in their lives (ie. a girl with a missing dad might marry an emotionally unavailable man).

Let's face it, kids inherit traits from their parents. So it only stands to reason that the traits they inherited from one parent would be the same kinds of traits that drew that particular parent to the other. If a girl is more like her mother, for example, wouldn't it make sense that she'd be attracted to a guy like her father?

Is one of your kids more like you? Do they have the kind of personality that would mesh with their other parent better? Who is your little one going to grow up to marry?

Image: Sydney Morning Herald

Grandpa Hires Hitman So He Can Visit Granddaughter

JeanneSager — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:45:00 GMT

How can you say no to a Grandpa who just wants to see his little granddaughter? When he's the type of guy who'd hire a hitman to rough you up for it, I'd say you have some pretty good grounds.

David Ward of Pacific, Missouri, has been accused of hiring a hitman to beat up his daughter, providing him with the woman's address and pictures so he could identify her in a crowd.

Ward told police he didn't want his daughter dead. He just wanted to see his granddaughter. Police say Ward was charged four years ago for assaulting the daughter - likely the reason she severed ties between child and Grandpa.

The details out on this story make it pretty clear Ward's daughter made the right move in cutting Dad out of the picture. But most of us have parents who drive us up the wall (and don't hire hitmen) - have you ever considered cutting them out of your child's life?

They're flesh and blood, but they're also not parents, so they don't have the rights that we do. Still, I watch my daughter running around with her grandparents, and she is absolutely idolized. Grandparents usually offer a different kind of love - because they don't have to do the discipline and clean-up later. Grandparents often do a better job with their grandkids than they did with their own kids too, either because they're older and more experienced or simply have the luxury of not worrying about the parenting aspect of it all.

Then again, grandparents spoil kids and send them home. They let them eat lollipops at nine p.m., and three nights later, our kids are throwing a tantrum because we say "no lollipops." They let our kids jump on the bed even though they would have tanned our (metaphorical) hides if we'd even glanced at the bed. They tell us how to parent, and they "tut, tut" when we don't follow up.

Sometimes, our parents aren't the best people for us to have around. Sometimes we just suck it up for our kids (so they can grow up, have kids, and we can be the pains in the ass later).

Image: DailyMail

Family Adopts Eight Siblings Separated by Foster Care

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

Mom Shoplifts Parenting Book With Kids in Tow

Case Made In Defense of Teasing

Kelly Mills — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:32:00 GMT

Fears of bullying and violence and discrimination have led many schools to adopt very strong policies against teasing. And lord knows most of us could probably dredge up a painful school year or two when the taunts of classmates made our lives hell. In our important relationships, we are encouraged to avoid poking and instead honestly share our feelings. And don't even get me started on the workplace... I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to defend teasing, right?

Hmm, during a difficult discussion with my sister about some serious tension between us, I said, "I think at least we can both agree the real problem here is you are a bitch." She laughed.

This is part of the point of a great New York Times article in defense of teasing. The arguement is that while bullying and harassment are acts of aggression, other forms of teasing can actually serve to build bonds between people, alleviate tension, and allow us to deliver messages to each other in a less direct form. For example, couples who teased each other during discussions about loaded issues came away from the conversation feeling closer than couples who engaged in only direct discussion. And teasing can also help signal what behaviors are okay, and help establish social status. By prohibiting kids from teasing, we are discouraging an important kind of social interaction, one that can even help teach us not to take ourselves too seriously.

At least that's the case made here, and me and my bitch sister would probably agree. But what do you think?

HIV Positive Teen Sues School for Harassment

NY Times (and I) Post Crap Study on Bullying

Childcare Relationships and Bickering Parents Affect Kids' Stress Hormones

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:30:00 GMT

It seems self-evident that kids with poor childcare relationships or parents who frequently fight are more stressed than other kids. But now two new studies have established this common sense theory from a biological standpoint, by monitoring the levels of cortisol (the human stress hormone) in preschoolers and 6-year-olds. As parents across the country struggle to afford high quality childcare and to maintain a stable home environment, these studies are unfortunately quite applicable to these trying economic times.

In most people, cortisol levels decrease throughout the day. But for many children in full-time daycare, the stress hormone increases as the day progresses. Researchers found that class size clearly affected children’s moods, with preschoolers in classes of 10 or fewer children producing less cortisol than those in classrooms with closer to 20 other kids.

Children with poor relationships with their daycare providers became more stressed after one-on-one interactions with the teacher, while clingier kids had higher overall cortisol increases throughout the day.

Similarly, a study of 6-year-olds with bickering parents found that those who were very involved in and distressed about the fights produced more cortisol than other 6-year-olds. Since high levels of cortisol have been linked to health and psychological problems, this finding offers a biological understanding of why kids who get very upset by their parents’ arguments are more likely to have psychological problems later. (Whether higher levels of cortisol are a cause or an effect of psychological disorders is not clear.)

The study’s authors hope that understanding the biological basis of stress in young children will change the way kids in these common problematic situations are treated. For instance, monitoring kids’ levels of cortisol could help indicate whether a given intervention is working to relieve stress or not.

Day Care Enrollments Plummet as Families Struggle to Pay the Bills

Is Cutting Your Sitter's Pay the Best Way to Save Money?

Photo: pregnancy-depression-help.com

Is a happy ending massage cheating?

Brett Singer — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:00:00 GMT

I always thought yes, but some of the writers at MomLogic think not.

"Guest blogger Gina" (I can't see any other authorial designation) says, "I don't consider it cheating -- and when he finally got his 'massage,' I was happy for him!"

A few years ago an unmarried friend told me that he had gotten a "full release" massage. (If you don't know what this means, let's just say that it's a massage where the masseuse goes below the belt, applying her hands to the man's "twig and berries.") He was unattached at the time, and therefore wasn't cheating on anyone. See, I thought, and he agreed, that if a guy in a relationship did this, it would be cheating.

In the interest of equal time, women can also get happy endings on the table. Leslie Adler from the Vuv Club (a blog) wrote that, "the Dreamy Diddle" is not cheating. Her reasoning? "You go to the gynecologist, right? And he or she doesn't even kiss you first and look at what you let them do to you."

Umm…

Obviously I've never had a gynecological exam. But those of you who have, correct me if I’m wrong but is it a pleasurable experience? Does what the doctor "do to you" include bringing you to orgasm?

As for whether or not it would be OK for her husband to go all the way, massage-wise, Leslie says, "Well, is it habitual? Is he forming an emotional attachment to 'Olga with the big forearms?' If no, I say give it a whirl (or a stroke or two in this case) and be sure to keep it to yourself so it's like 'Vegas.' What happens on the massage table stays there."

The guy in me wants to say, "YEAH! That's my kind of woman!" But I don't really feel that way. This kind of attitude isn't "cool" it's idiotic. If a person pays someone for sexual pleasure, that's paying for sex. Which is prostitution. It doesn't matter how that person gets you off, they got you off. Am I the crazy one here? And if a woman I was in a relationship with did this, I would be annoyed but also grossed out. "He put his fingers WHERE?"

Men, ladies, gay, straight, whatever your relationship configuration is: would you be comfortable with your significant other getting a full release massage? Would you encourage this behavior? Or are Gina and Leslie off their blogger rockers?

Source/Image: MomLogic

Mom blackmails daughters ex with nude photos

Stuff my 3 year old broke

Middle Schoolers Exposed to Curse Words, Parents Shocked

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Students Suspended for Hair Dyed Pink in Honor of School Nurse's Battle with Breast Cancer

The Return of the Halloween Baby Slut Costumes

Student suspended for smearing peanut butter on classmate

Clay Aiken Comes Out

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

Mrs. And Mrs. DeGeneres, and a male perspective on the name game

Brett Singer — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:00:00 GMT

You won't have Portia De Rossi to kick around anymore – well, you will (although why you would want to kick her, I have no idea), but she'll have a new name. According to the Daily News, Portia will take DeGeneres' last name when they officially tie the knot. (I guess that clears up any question about who the "man" in that relationship is, right?)

I do wonder how a gay couple makes this decision. Ellen definitely makes more money, and she is older. She also never wears dresses. OK, maybe in their case it wasn't that difficult. I'll be curious if other gay couples make name-changes as they (hopefully) continue to get legally hitched. (If this issue has come up for any readers, let us know in the comments.)

Interestingly, many women in heterosexual marriages don't change their names, at least judging from the reactions to Adrienne's recent post on the subject. Of course, some women did make the switch, for various reasons: "I didn't have any special attachment to my original name", "I didn't want to change my name, but my husband really wanted me to" are two of the comments.

The subject of names didn't come up when I got married, but it's clearly an issue. I know I wouldn't want to change my name, and I'm not sure how I would have felt about it if my wife had wanted to "keep her name" (a phrase I think sounds odd, although I admit that I don't have a better one – yet). I'm not a fan of the hyphen-name, mostly because usually it's only the mother who uses it; the husband and children use the man's name. If everyone in the family went hyphen, I think that would be different. One consideration that rarely gets discussed is what a woman has to do in order to change her name; if my wife's experience is any guide, it can be a lot of work.

So guys, if your wife-to-be doesn't want to "take your name" when she takes your hand in marriage, try this:

"Grrr! Ugg want you change name! Make Ugg feel manly! Now get Ugg dinner!"

Yeah, that'll work.

image: Daily News

Man dresses up as a woman to marry a man

And Now - The Gay Brain

John McCain Doesn't "Believe In" Gay Parents

New York Governor's Decision to Recognize Gay Marriages Brings Unexpected Praise (and Hugs)

Clay Aiken ain't no fruit

One More Reason To Be Jealous of California

Bobby Brown: I Was Whitney's Beard

Weekly Check-Up: Men Are Not All the Same

Kelly Mills — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:01:00 GMT

Researchers from the Kinsey Institute have made this groundbreaking discovery: Men are not all from Mars. "We're probably from a whole bunch of different planets," says one of the study's authors. What the hell are we talking about? Well, men vary widely in frequency of sexual desire, in what turns them on, and in what an erection means. You mean they don't all just need a picture of Pamela Anderson in a bathing suit and ten minutes in the shower? Yeah. So I guess dads are just as diverse in their interests and the amount of hummada hummada they want as moms. This should be news to anyone who never met more than one man in their entire life.

Guess what turned on an overwhelming majority of guys? Being outdoors, like for camping or a picnic. Maybe it's time to make that family trek to Yosemite a couples-only thing. And while I'm mocking this thing a little, since the idea that all guys are simple creatures who want it all the time is completely dumb, it is good that studies like this actually quantify what many of us know, that men are as complicated and varied as women. I did recently read that male lack of sexual desire was the biggest unspoken taboo nowadays, and it's not uncommon. Oh, and the researchers say that "as many as 30 percent of women may be more easily sexually aroused than most men" so ladies, don't feel bad if you are the lusty one in your relationship.

Five Kinds of Moms and How They Mess You Up

Kelly Mills — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:33:00 GMT

Jezebel reports on a new book by clinical psychologist Stephen Poulter called The Mother Factor: How Your Mother's Emotional Legacy Impacts Your Life. The gist is that your bond with your mom can have a big ol' influence on your emotional development, ability to form meaningful relationships, and so on. (Do the dads do anything? Cuz we should share the dysfunctional love!) Anyhow, according to the book, there are five kinds of mothers. This immediately begs the question: Which mother are you?

The five types are:

The Perfectionist Mother — whose family must look perfect in every way
The Unpredictable Mother--whose ups and downs can create lifelong anxiety and depression in her son or daughter
The "Me First" Mother — whose children come second or last
The "Best Friend" Mother — who's now in vogue but can wreak havoc
The Complete Mother--who provides guidance and shows compassion to her child

Um, I don't know which one I am, though I suppose that's the point, because the ways I'm screwing up my kid should be a mystery to me. I do know I'm not the Perfectionist, and my kid doesn't like me enough for me to be the Best Friend. See, I think of myself more as the "Well-Intentioned But Frequently Harried Mom Whose Child May Later Resent Her Blogging" which I guess makes me the "Me First" mom. Only thing is I made many of my big ol' life decisions based on what was best for my kid, not me, because I'm so noble like that. Oh well. Just let me know when they add an "Irritable Bitch" mom category.

How to Discipline Your Child -- Finally, Some Answers!

Madeline Holler — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:13:00 GMT

When your kids misbehave, are you a ranter or a reasoner?

Genetically, I'm a ranter who, until now, has fought hard to become the calm reasoner. I've tried (unsuccessfully) to recreate myself into the kind of mom who, in the heat of a child's blatant disregard for the sanctity of a peaceful home and/or the delicate nature of my own sensitive nerves, could quietly make "I" statements, talk about feeeeeelings and sensibly redirect the defiant child into more acceptable actions or self-expression. You know, so my kid could make better judgments, make better choices, change her own behavior without so much damn intervention (and talking and feeling and discussion -- or ranting).

But guess what? Not only are ranters barking up the wrong tree, reasoners aren't getting anywhere either. At least that's what one child behavior expert, Alan E. Kazdin, says. He's summarized his reasoning and strategies over on Slate. I'm going to give it a try. But here's the strategy in a nutshell:

1. Screaming and/or hitting your kids doesn't change behaviors. And it gets them to scream and/or hit when they face conflict with other kids.

2. Reasoning with you child about bad behavior doesn't change that behavior. Though it does give them practice in talking about their feelings with you, meaning they might come to you as they get older with stickier problems they need help on. So, reasoning isn't bad. It just won't change bad behavior.

3. Focusing on bad behavior doesn't change bad behavior.

4. Focusing on GOOD behavior changes BAD behavior.

5. Tell your child how you'd like them to behave in a given situation (fight with sister, upset when Mom says "no") and then practice it in a pretend situation. Praise and reward with love and hugs. Perhaps even reward with small trinkets.

He says it can take two weeks to a month to change a behavior, but that you won't (and shouldn't) be rewarding it forever.

Think you'll give it a try? I'm going to. Jeez, which behavior should I start with?

Photo: Yourparentingsolutions.com

Even More On Sex and Chores (and Chore Sex)

Kelly Mills — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:26:00 GMT

If there's a theme emerging on the Derby and in the rest of the news, it's that women want guys to do more in the way of housework, and doing the dishes or folding the laundry is essentially foreplay. There's even this article on the hotness of a man who knows how to wield an iron (some ladies made a "porn" book of photos of guys cleaning, hee hee). Now, I'm gonna bet that some guys already pick up the house without being told, maybe even as the neatnik in the family. But the bottom line is this: If you and your partner aren't necessarily compatible in the standard of cleanliness you require for sanity, the messier of the two is probably going to have to pitch in even when they don't want to, because that's part of being in a relationship. One person doing the lion's share is a recipe for trouble unless that's an agreement both are on board with.

That said, of course the same goes for sex. You have the clean(ish) house, it also seems fair to me that if one person has a stronger libido, the other person may need to do it even when they aren't begging for it themselves. After all, why should one person have to constantly tamp down their desire because the other one is rarely in the mood? Obviously there's extenuating circumstances (illness comes to mind) at times and maybe some work has to be done to make the experience more interesting for both parties. But either way, any natural incompatibility is probably going to necessitate compromise, and the solution probably can't be living in a pigsty and only having birthday sex, or giving in to the other person's requests for chores or sex with complaining or eye-rolling. Love is lots about giving, and not being an asshole about it.

If the idea of having sex makes one person resentful because they are tired from doing everything, or the notion of chores pisses someone off because they are treated to shabbily and never even get any, maybe it's time for someone to call truce. But if you are the clean one and the libidinous one, well, we'll find you some different porn.

Keep Kids From Messing Up Your Sex Life

Kelly Mills — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:01:00 GMT

By way of the Huffington Post, we now have some tips for ensuring your kids don't ruin your sex life. I'm a little underwhelmed. Guess what is number one? Take out your knives co-sleepers, because the top tip is: Separate beds. Now, I'm not even a family bed kinda gal, but I do know you can have sex in more places than just a bed at nighttime. But maybe group slumber does inhibit the nasty--you can let me know.

Other tips mostly center around making sure everyone gets enough sleep; setting aside couple time in the form of the adult-only vacation and regular date nights; and keeping arguments over discipline and such out of the bedroom (unless you are talking about the other kind of discipline and that happens to be your thing.) Nothing too revolutionary here, though the date night thing always irks me. I know we enjoy date night so much we decided to make it an annual event. I mean, does anyone actually manage to do this with real regularity? The cost of babysitting and a movie or a meal alone necessitates we dip into the kid's college fund. But hey, maybe you regularly do a night out with your sweetie, or even your spouse, so I'll suspend my total disbelief in case scientists discover the rare couple who does this all the time.

If Your Spouse Bugs You Now, It's Gonna Get Worse, But Better

Kelly Mills — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:34:00 GMT

Not to worry you or anything, but a study shows that if you find your spouse irritating and demanding now, you are probably going to find him or her even more grating the longer you are together. While negative views of children and friends tend to decrease over time, spouses just get worse. It's probably the result of prolonged daily contact and accumulated resentments, as well as a comfort level that allows us to express ourselves, and apparently our self expression is really super aggravating to our partner. I guess if you catch yourself saying, "To the moon, Alice!" you aren't alone.

Is there a bright side? Researchers think that perhaps this negative view is just a typical part of a very close relationship that involves spending time together, day in, day out, year after year, until life stretches out in front of you in a never ending prison sentence... Ha ha. See, since the researchers found this was a comon pattern, the good news is that it's probably normal and you aren't alone. Wait, that's the silver lining? Yeesh.

Kids Crushing on Kids

Karen Murphy — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:32:00 GMT

When my older son was in kindergarten, he let it slip at school that he was going to marry his little sister. "Ew, you can't do that!" shrieked his outraged friend, whose own sister probably just didn't pass his qualifications for relationship material.

"Can't I marry Serena?" my son asked me as we drove home from school one day, his face contorted with anxiety.

Sure that when the time came he'd likely change his mind about this, I assured him that he could marry whomever he wanted when he was ready to. He leaned back in his seat, satisfied. He was 6.

So what's the deal with kids and crushes?

SD's own Kelly Mills dishes on her own kid's serial monogamy this week over at The Poop. You need to read it. (I'll wait.)

There, you back already?

So...what's the deal on kid-crushes? I was baffled by other kids for the most part in early childhood, but developed some mild and benign worship-from-afar tendencies in about the 4th grade, finally ramping up into full-on obsession-from-afar in the 8th grade.

But plenty of kids are taking marriage plans in preschool. While I draw absolutely no correlation between kid-crushing and later relationship woes and/or awesomeness, I am curious as to how early crushing translates into later dating. Got any theories? Or stories?

Oh, and Serena? She probably won't marry anybody, not even her big brother, because at 8 she's determined to somehow become a boy.
But that's a whole other thing.

Marriage Class: Useful or Not?

Amy Kuras — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:57:00 GMT

One of the underpinnings of welfare reform is encouraging marriage. In some places, it goes as far as strongly encouraging marriage with financial incentives and so on. Others, like this program in Kansas City, target low income couples with "relationship training" –teaching couples how to fight fair, listen actively, and so on.

The idea is that by getting married and staying married, couples can raise their standards of living and lift themselves out of poverty. But in many low-income communities, according to sociologists, the pickings are mighty slim in terms of good husband material. And actually, about half of the low-income couples that might benefit from relationship training get most of the economic benefits of marriage by living together.

The program in Kansas City targets low income parents and parents to be, with the thought that if they can keep moms and dads together, married or no, it will improve the emotional and economic lives of their families. Single parenthood is a significant indicator of poverty and keeping mom and dad together can help avoid that.

And teaching relationship skills can only help families run a little better. Parents who know how to use "I" statements and resolve conflict healthily instead of throwing china when they are pissed can only be good for kids, after all. It's something that middle and upper class couples have had access to for quite a long time – making sure people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder learn those same skills is all to the good.

In Defense of Judgmental Mothers

Madeline Holler — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:26:00 GMT

She takes a lot of crap, Judgmental Mother. Or maybe you know her as Sanctimommy or, more generically, “that asshole who offered unsolicited parenting advice.”

Andi over at “Poot and Cubby” (would it be judgmental to say that blog name makes me shudder?), calls Judgmental Mother “HOB” -- Hateful, Opinionated Bitch or, alternately, Horribly Obnoxious Bitch. And Andi runs in to HOB everywhere. Understandably, Andi thinks she's a real menace.

Not only does HOB judge Andi for dressing her child too warmly (typical HOB), she thinks the baby is going to fall out of the sling (typical aging HOB). I don’t need to recount the details, because you have your own experiences with the gal (or, sometimes, guy). We all do.

For me, she told me my baby would suffocate in a sling, while I strolled through the airport; he said that my 1-year-old needed shoes (didn’t notice the double-layer of socks) one cold spring day in D.C. She proclaimed my 2-year-old ready to use the potty (I was changing her diaper at the science center), and that I shouldn’t highlight a 4-year-old’s hair (we don’t. Good genes.)

I seethed about these incidents loooooong after they happened. (And for any of you who had to hear my rant – real sorry. I must have seemed a tad defensive.) But that was then. I’m sure I’ve been HOBed loads since, but somewhere along the line, it stopped bothering me. And I actually think – from a much broader perspective – is kind of cool if not a little misdirected.

Recently, a parent at my daughter’s preschool cried, “oh, aren’t you chilly!” to my toddler, who was wearing a skirt without tights and quite possibly a short-sleeved shirt. In December, sure, but it’s Los Angeles County. She’s a cold-weather kid by heritage, so 67 degrees doesn’t merit the parka and multiple layers of her native peers. Anyway, the morning shirt battle is one we stopped waging months ago so if it's February and you see spaghetti straps, you'll understand. In any case, I smiled at the lady and signed my daughter in.

I’m pretty sure I would have been savagely pissed off at the self-badged sweater cop had this happened early in my mothering career. But I gotta tell you. Right now? Nearly 7 years and two kids into it? I could give a shit less. In fact, I’m oddly comforted.

So the lady had never seen a bare-legged kid withstand Southern California's punishing winter weather. She spoke up! I kind of like that. Maybe she’ll speak up too if she sees something shitty going on at that preschool (which, except for drop-off hours and monthly tuition, I know soooo little about). Maybe she’ll look out for my kid in other situations, not just wardrobe ones, like if a teacher is mean to her or if she’s pissed herself and not immediately changed.

A person who butts into someone’s business regarding socks or slings or snowsuits – or breastfeeding or immunizations or signs of autism -- would certainly say something to a parent slapping around kids at the mall. It takes a loud-mouthed, judgmental, butting-in type to want to call someone out on a perceived danger with the big stuff. Sometimes (often?), they’re going to cross a line in the smaller, none-of-their-business stuff too.

I’d rather cheer on the one and just smile ignore the other. I'm not saying we should usher them in as True American Heroes. I'm just saying there is something good below all that undermining. So I won't let it get to me. I've got enough to make me angry. You know, like my kids.

Research Says Depression, Anorexia, and Being a New Mom All Mess With Your Sex Life, But Not In the Same Way

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:01:00 GMT

A new study lumps some stuff together to show us the big differences between being anorexic and depressed, and being a new mom, besides the fact that anorexics and depressed women probably get more sleep. The women in all three groups for this study were married or in stable relationships, and they were surveyed about doing the nasty. At first I was confused as to why these were being compared, but it turns out that all three groups reported sex problems in previous research studies.

Here's what they found: depressed women and anorexics have sex more often than new moms. Surprise! Hey, nuns have sex more than new moms. New moms could probably be used as a baseline for hardly ever ever ever getting down. But while the anorexic and depressed women were getting it more often, they were also more likely to report "problems" in sex, and the postnatal women reported no problems during wild love. "This suggests that anorexia and depression have similar effects on a woman's sex life, while childbirth has a different sort of impact, according to the researchers." Okay, perhaps that information will be helpful in some way I don't yet get.

Breaking News: Salon Finds a Non-Dysfunctional Family

Kelly Mills — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:35:00 GMT

In these modern times, claiming to be from a dysfunctional family is about as novel as shopping online for gifts. At least one movie studio always comes out with a film about a zany, eccentric family who alternately abuse each other and teach each other about the power of love; news sources print columns about how to survive holiay dinners with the relatives; and some people drink too much and pass out under the strings of lights that snake over many storefronts and rooftops. Estranged family members are noticable by their absence, and at least one person is in rare form at every gathering. Awww, joy to the world.

I guess that's why I actually noticed this bit on Salon's Table Talk about a non-dysfunctional family. Or at least a family that loves each other and likes each other. Because it got me to wondering: Is dysfunctional just the standard nowadays? Have we learned to survive past romantic visions of what family and holidays should be by becoming acutely aware of the failings of our own brood? If the majority of people come from painful homes filled with difficult people, then maybe it's more normal to find family hard than it is to find solace in our flesh and blood. I would be shocked if family now was so vastly different than family in times past, so what's changed is our perspective. Is it true that most people come from a broken place, and does knowing that help? Or do we just expect too much from the ones we love?

Study: Women Still Stand By Their Men

Madeline Holler — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:23:00 GMT

Between being stay-at-home/work-at-home mom for almost six years and moving every time my husband’s job requires it, I feel like I’m going to get my feminist credentials downgraded to a Focus on the Family pledge form. I swear, I SWEAR, I don’t think men are more important than women, or that my husband’s career happiness is more important than mine. It’s just that what he wants to do has geographical restrictions and what I want to do, well, it’s portable.

But I know what it looks like. I just wish this following study weren’t actually reporting the facts: to a majority of American couples, the husband’s career is still more important than the wife’s. A study showed that gender roles are still entrenched and that more often than not, it’s the woman who takes a career hit or gives up a career in order for her husband to pursue his. Really? Still?!

The researchers looked at more than 4,000 working married couples between 25 and 59 years old. Men earned significantly more after relocating for a job than if they would have stayed put. The women, on the other hand, earned much less after a move than if they would have stayed in one place. Even when all the different salary ladders and types of jobs are accounted for, women earned less after they moved. These disadvantages for women, they said, pointed to the fact that couples, by and large, are relocating for the husband's job, not for the wife's.

They concluded that this means women still think a wife’s main priority is to support her husband’s career. I don’t know, maybe other women, but not me. That’s not how I see all of my family’s moves. But on paper, it must look that way. We're just bolstering the stats in this study’s outcomes. I wish there was a little space for comments when it comes to such studies. Or a whole lot more women seeing a financial windfall from relocations -- I wouldn't feel like I'm letting the sisters down.