For next week to thank my lovely husband for a wonderful Mother’s day surprises I am letting him choose a topic. He says to come back with a list of TEN THINGS HUSBANDS SHOULD DO. Clearly he forgot that I get to make a list too…
Sorry Stasha, I'm going rogue this week.
Last week threw a few things my way that I would normally have ignored. Partly because they don't affect me personally but also because they just make me angry. Angry of reading/hearing about things that really should be non issues.
The first was the cover of Time. I know you know the cover I mean. The blatant, absurd sensationalism really belonged on the cover of The World News. The picture and resulting caption would have been a little different. It would have read "Vegan Mom Raises Healthy Green Child ." With an appropriately tinted child attached to her breast.
Are you Mom enough? Are you kidding me? A voyeuristic photo on the cover, an inflammatory caption, sure you're just trying to stimulate conversation. Shame on you Time magazine. Is there only one way to raise a healthy, well adjusted child? Because we all know every child is exactly the same as the next. Enough with the judging, the Mommy Wars. Like it isn't a hard enough job as it is.
The next two came right out of left field. Or maybe that's right field? Courtesy of Bristol Palin. Yes, you read that correctly. I have to say, she and her family are pretty much non entities to me. A gun toting Mom sporting a star spangled bikini picture I could have gone my whole life without seeing, a teen pregnancy, a failed vice presidential run and a stint on DWTS. That pretty much sums up what I know of the Palins.
My login page directed me to a post about Bristol whining about being bullied in "the name of love." Now of course I was expecting some sort of foolishness but was not prepared for what I read. Ms Palin's take on President Obama's stand on same sex marriage.
After reading her post, the only question on my mind was, "What did I just read?" followed by "Are you really this clueless?". Okay that's two questions.
In case you are, Ms Palin, let's address your insightful post.
You started out on quite the high note.
When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission. ...
People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval. (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)
Is your point that women running for office get asked inane questions or that Republican, liberal women aren't Christians? Not sure? Neither am I, so let's move on. Cause the next bit, well what can I say?
While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.
Where to even start?
Mr. Obama's daughters didn't set policy, they posed a question. Why do we treat these people like this? How should he have responded? Because they're not like us. Because we always have. Because what they believe is different. Tough to give a good reason when there isn't one. He's being applauded for being a big enough person to re examine the reasons why he thinks the way he does.
As for changing the thinking on thousands of years on marriage, which thinking would you be referring to? Would that be no one caring one way or the other? Would it be women and children as a husband's property? Would it be parents arranging marriages for political or economic gain? These are the traditions of marriage that have lasted for thousands of years. And just for the record, various cultures through out time have recognised same sex bondings.
Say what now? You really should have brushed up a little on your history. It doesn't paint marriage in quite the same light you seem to be referring to.
Perhaps you're thinking of the romantic idea of love and marriage. The happy couple working together to raise their children. That isn't even three hundred years old. Love or picking your own marriage partner gained popularity in the mid 1700's and was considered quite revolutionary at the time.
The white wedding dress, the modern symbol of purity and chastity for the demure bride, not even two hundred years old. Queen Victoria broke with tradition and in 1840 opted for a white lace dress rather than the elaborate jewelled and embroidered confections that had been worn previously.
Fathers involved in shaping a child's world view? Let me just wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes so I can type. Historically, men have had almost no involvement in child rearing beyond conception. Fathers didn't shape a child's world view, they told it to them. Obedience was the only virtue a child need possess. Even in today's world, child rearing is still firmly seen as a woman's job. Sure more men are active parents these days but take a look at your statistics before making such claims.
While we're here on the statistics, there is no evidence same sex parents, single parents raise children who are any more or less mal adjusted than their peers from heterosexual couples. A loving, supporting environment makes happy, healthy children not the sexual orientation of their parents nor the two person, father /mother model. As a single parent yourself, your position, the sheer hypocrisy of it, astounds me.
For curiosity's sake, in your opinion, what does constitute a need to change one's way of thinking? The world is flat, everything revolves around the earth, women aren't smart enough to vote; a few other very popular, commonly held beliefs. Staunchly defended for centuries.
I get it though, change is scary. Standing up for beliefs not you own, terrifying. You see Bristol, I'm not asking you change what you believe. I don't care about your religious views. We don't live in a theocracy, we live in a more secular world. There is no valid legal reason to deny same sex marriage. Denying any group the legal rights enjoyed by all other members of a society is just plain wrong.
Marriage is not now nor has it ever been solely a religious institution. You don't need any church's permission to marry. Your license is granted by the state. A legally binding contract, between two consenting adults bestowing all kinds of rights and obligations. And whether you choose to stand up and say your vows in a church, or in front of a state appointed JOP, it's still called a marriage. Not in a spiritual sense, in the every day, secular one. And even if you do neither and choose to co habitate, eventually you are in a ..... common law marriage.
Just to clarify, you're not a victim of bullying. You're a victim of you own stupidity. Criticised for airing your ignorance and claiming it as truth. There's a difference and youth only excuses so much. Again, I understand. I'm sure your speaking engagements, at $15,000 to $30,000 a pop, leave you little time to type in a few Google search words or flip open a book.
Enough already. Life is hard enough with out everyone constantly throwing stones at each other. Can't we just play nice? Isn't that supposed to be the beauty of living where we live? The freedom to live, worship and be as we choose, without prejudice?
In answer to your prompt Stasha, what ever ten things he's asked. Cheeky, but the best I could come up with this week. I promise, I'll do better next. And sorry Mark, no pictures.