Lemondrop’s editor doesn’t want to hold your baby. And I can’t blame her.
The folks over at AOL’s women’s site (disclaimer: I sometimes write for them as well) put up a rant this week that sums up pretty nicely what we’re all thinking: “People always assume that if they have a baby and you have a uterus, that you want to hold your baby. I don’t want to hold your baby.”
If she were a guy, Julieanne Smolinski says she’d get to hold someone’s beer or their nachos. Because she’s a girl, it’s just the baby.
I’ll do her one better: just because I have a uterus that was once occupied by a person, I don’t want to hold your baby either. Nor do I want to babysit.
But I’m expected to, right? Because not only do I have a uterus, but I have a child. So I must adore children . . . all children . . . including those with bad skin and a tendency to spit up on my favorite dry clean only sweater. The sweater I didn’t wear during the entire period from the birth of my daughter until about two years ago.I’m telling you, I loved that sweater.
I don’t want you telling the restaurant it’s so cute when he gets handsy and pops my boob out for a little suckle either. I won’t be getting spinach pie there again – or at least not as long as that waiter is working there. He can’t look me in the eye anymore – makes it really hard to communicate “more diet pepsi” from across the room.
There are times I’ll hold your baby – when I ask to hold your baby, when you just need a hand so you can go to the bathroom or eat your own lunch. She is kind of cute.
But it’s on my terms, babe, or no baby.