There are two main movie theaters in town. The one clear across town that is only a couple years old and yet still have the games in the game room don’t work. The theater seats are not all that comfortable. And the popcorn is terrible…unless you enjoy chewing on cardboard that will leave you sitting on the toilet for hours later in the day. [There's a visual for ya. You're welcome.]

We prefer the theater that is not far from our house. It’s older but well taken care of. The seats are nice. The popcorn is yummy. And it’s not usually as crowded.

So we headed over to our favorite theater where my mom and grandma met us. We got out tickets and headed in to the lobby. There are concession stands on both sides of the lobby. But I have never, ever seen both sides open at the same time. Even when it’s busy (like, say, the day after Christmas) they still only have side open. It’s always irritated me, but I’d still rather stand in line for a few extra minutes then have to eat stale popcorn at the other theater.

Yesterday was a particularly busy day. They, of course, only had one side open. But they also only had two people working the concessions. TWO people. Seriously?!? The day after Christmas? The TWO lines weaved through the video games until the people in the back of the line could literally sit on the counter of the concessions on the other side of the lobby. Nice.

We ended up standing in that line for THIRTY minutes. THIRTY MINUTES! For popcorn. But we were willing to do it because a movie just isn’t the same without popcorn and syrupy soda. Plus we brought our buckets.

Our theater had this promotion a year ago where you could buy an Indiana Jones bucket and then every time you brought it back they would refill it for $0.50. About six months after that they had another promotion where you could buy a Jonas Bros bucket and refill it for $1. The Indiana Jones bucket expired in May, but the Jonas Bros buckets are still in use. We have one Indiana Jones bucket and two Jonas Bros buckets. We usually bring all three buckets and then just pay for a large popcorn that they put in to the Indiana Jones bucket. That way we all have a noise-free bucket to eat out off and there’s no fighting.

By the time we finally got up to the stand Lee put all three buckets down. The girl behind the counter said, “This one’s expired.” To which Lee replied, “Yeah, I know. We want to pay for a large popcorn and just put it in this bucket.”

The girl kind of rolled her eyes. I said, “Wow she’s friendly.”

Lee replied, “Well I think she just doesn’t understand what I’m asking.”

Wait for it….

The girl then said with all the attitude her little teenage self could muster, “No. I understood you. It was the way you said it. You didn’t ask me. You just told me.”

I started laughing and said, “Are you kidding me? For real?”

And my mom exploded, “WE’VE BEEN STANDING IN THIS FUCKING LINE FOR 30 MINUTES…” and several more choice words. I was actually very proud of this teenage girl because she didn’t cry while my mom was berating her. I’ve seen grown woman cry when my mom goes off on them before.

I walked over to the ticket office to ask for the manager and my mom followed me. She chewed out some poor teen named Jimmy who said, “I’m not in charge. Do you want me to get the manager?” Yes, Jimmy. It’s probably best you get the manager.

As the teenage girl was finishing up our order, angrily throwing down cups, tossing lids on the floor, and asking through clenched teeth, “Do you want anything else?” I saw Jimmy and the manager coming our way. “Don’t swear at him,” I warned my mom.

Thankfully mom remained calm as she told the manager what had just happened. He offered to give us a free ticket which she declined. It wasn’t about the money. We’re willing to pay for everything, but I sure as hell will not have some 17-year-old girl talk to me like the world revolves around her.

Not once were we rude to this girl. Granted Lee didn’t ask her if she’d be willing to charge us a large and, instead of putting it in a bag, put the popcorn in our bucket. But he certainly wasn’t being snotty with her. He wasn’t telling her what to do. He was ordering. And we go to movies all the time and often use our expired bucket in this way. Never once have any of the workers had a problem with it. And if this particular girl had an issue with it she could have just said, “I’m not sure I can do that.” And we would have been fine with it. She could have just put it in a bag and we would have poured it in to our bucket ourselves.

What happened to customer service these days? At Thanksgiving we were at a local bar downing some half-priced martinis when we got the rudest waitress I’ve ever experienced. How do these people get jobs? If you aren’t a people person. Fine. I’m not either. But don’t work a job that deals with people if you can’t even fake a smile. Go do data entry or something. But please get out of the service industry before I have to bitch slap you. I’m just sayin.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And then my site went down (because apparently Dreamhost doesn’t understand what NaBloPoMo is exactly) and WordPress ate my post (because they hate me). So instead this is what you get for Wednesday’s post. Me whining about Dreamhost and WordPress. You’re welcome.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Related posts:

1. Today’s post has been interrupted by sleep Last night Lee and I went out to celebrate my...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And this is how I learned about the controversial “Back to School” speech President Obama will be giving on Tuesday; the first day of school for many children across the United States. The White House says President Obama wants to talk to school children directly to encourage them to “work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.” Conservatives, however, believe this is just an excuse for President Obama to drill his socialist ideals in to the minds of children.

Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer said:

I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power. While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda.

Drama queen much? How did a speech about hard work, education goals, and personal responsibility turn in to the President talking to first graders about a government-run health care plan (as if they’d even understand what the hell that meant…even high schoolers would be a little sketchy on that)?

Several parents are calling and emailing school principals to ask the school not to air the speech. A few parents have decided they will go to school with their child on Tuesday to watch the speech with their child. Some parents are drafting letters as we speak excusing their child from the speech. Others have threatened to keep their kids out of school on Tuesday.

I can’t believe we are even having this discussion. I can’t believe we are having this fight. Seriously?!?

You don’t want your kids to listen to a speech on education? You don’t want your kids to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning? Really? These are all lessons we are already trying to teach our kids. But the response we usually get from our kids is a big, heavy sigh and maybe even an eye roll. If we’re lucky we get an, “I know. I know. You’ve told me this a million times.” My kids are now tuning me out. So I welcome another authoritative figure preaching the importance of education to my kids.

The political process has always been a part of the curriculum at schools. We all spent hours and hours in a social studies class learning about government and presidents and world leaders. We need to take an interest in government. We need to listen to what our politicians are saying to us so we can make informed decisions and vote intelligently. Why not start this habit early with a speech on education?

I am an extremely liberal Democrat, but I don’t agree with everything President Obama says and does. However, I welcome his message of “stay in school” and “work hard.” I didn’t like President Bush. In fact “didn’t like” is being really nice. But if President Bush wanted to address my children and preach a message on the importance of education I would have welcomed it.

What would President Obama have to gain by “brainwashing” students with his “liberal propaganda?” It’s the beginning of his term. He already has the job. He’s not campaigning for votes. And most of these kids won’t be old enough to vote in 2012. These kids have no political influence. So why bother “indoctrinating” them?

And, even if President Obama does slip in some propaganda (although I seriously doubt he will), how would one speech brainwash them? Does President Obama have some super power I’m unaware of. You are the parent. You’ve been preaching your ideas to kids their whole life. Is one short speech from President Obama going to overturn all of that?

You want to take action. Fine. Get acquainted with the speech yourself. The White House has promised to post the transcript on Monday so you can read it before you children watch it. Or you can watch the video live on TV or streaming on you computer. Talk to your kids about the speech. Talk to them about your beliefs, your opinions, your morals. Give them exposure to both sides and trust them to make their own decision.

Like I said, I’m a liberal Democrat. My 15-year-old son? A Republican. [I know, I don't know where I went wrong.] I often call him Alex P. Keaton (you know, cause his name is Keaton). We have some pretty good debates; me arguing for the liberal side and him arguing for the conservative side. He makes some excellent points and he amazes me with how well thought out some of his arguments are. Although I wish he was a democrat I’m glad he’s not claiming to be a democrat just because I am. I’m glad he’s taken the time to think it through and form his own opinions. Let your kids use their brain, improve their critical thinking skills, and get involved in government.

So what are the big arguments against President Obama’s speech?

Hall Pass on That says,
Yes, presidents have spoken to schoolchildren before, but when circumstances required it. President Ronald Reagan addressed students after the Challenger shuttle disaster was witnessed live by millions of schoolchildren; George H. W. Bush addressed students as part of the effort to counteract the growing drug use by schoolchildren.

The only time President Reagan addressed schoolchildren was after the space shuttle disaster? Really? On May 13, 1986 (almost 5 months after the Challenger disaster) President Reagan addressed a group of high school students in his Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Students of John A. Holmes High School of Edenton, North Carolina. And if you read the transcript of this speech you will see that President Reagan did express his political agenda. It was not a speech that was given because “circumstances required it.”

But President Reagan’s speech wasn’t broadcast to millions of schoolchildren? Actually it was broadcast on the Instructional Television Network. And in the speech President Reagan said, “As you know, my remarks are being broadcast live over radio and television to high school students throughout the country.” However, in 1986 not many schools had televisions in the classroom.

But President Reagan was talking to high school students? President Obama wants to talk to younger children too. Ok, so in 1991 the first President Bush addressed a classroom of junior high students in his October 1, 1991 speech (which, btw, was just a year before the 1992 election in which he was a candidate) Remarks to Students and Faculty at Alice Deal Junior High School. This speech was also broadcast live by the Cable News Network, the Public Broadcasting System, the Mutual Broadcasting System, and the NBC radio network. In 1991, thanks to Channel One, more schools were installing TVs in the classroom, but it still wasn’t the norm. However, President Bush started the speech with, “Thank you, Ms. Mostoller, and thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you and all these students, and millions more in classrooms all across the country.”

And President Bush did address drugs in his speech…briefly. Go read it. Out of roughly 30 paragraphs three are on the subject of staying off drugs. THREE out of THIRTY. I wouldn’t consider the speech a plea to “Just Say No” as Nancy Reagan coined. The gist of the speech is about education. About staying in school and working hard. Sound familiar?

President Bush ended his speech with:

Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don’t do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you’re at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.

Did you catch that last part? “Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.” Hmm…President Bush was asking kids to send him a letter to tell him some ways kids can help President Bush achieve these goals. Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it? Sounds exactly like what President Obama was asking our kids to do on Tuesday. Only today’s republicans think asking “What can you do to help your President?” means President Obama is brainwashing our kids. Double standard much?

If President Bush can give a speech to millions of kids in classrooms all across the country (Bush’s words, not mine) about the importance of education, why can’t President Obama? Why don’t circumstances warrant it today? We still have a pretty high drop out rate in the U.S. There are still kids not living up to their potential. Wouldn’t another little push from the president be a big help?

Hall Pass on That continues with:

Parents have a right to know what their children are exposed to in school – even if it is from the President of the United States. If what he has to say is so important, he would have gone through the proper channels to do it. That includes allowing parents, eduactors [sic], school boards to preview before airing it to minors. What if he “mis-speaks” about something again? What if he calls Policemen “idiots” again. That would be very harmful to children. He also has a real habit of telling “non-truths”. This man has a different value system than I do. It is my right and duty as a parent to protect my children.

Do your children’s teachers give you a transcript of what they will say in the classroom each day? Do guest speakers that come to the school give you transcripts? Does your preacher give you a transcript? How about the checkout girl at Wal-Mart? Any of these people could have a political agenda. Any of these people could mis-speak. Heck, sometimes I would cringe when an older family member would say something politically incorrect in front of my kids. And yet I never asked for a transcript before going over to grandma’s house. Teachers give us the gist of what they will teach in their classrooms and we trust them to do their jobs. President Obama gave us the gist of what he’ll be saying to students and we need to trust him to do his job.

Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, says the problem is not that President Obama is giving a speech to children (after all, other presidents have done that). The problem is with the accompanying lesson plans. The “lesson plans” she refers to are actually called a Menu for Classroom Activities. Our school superintendent addressed the menu well:

Several thoughts went through my head as I read the documents:
• The suggested activities are educationally sound strategies to encourage deeper thinking.
• It can be inferred from the activities that the emphasis of the speech is “personal responsibility, persistence, and goals” related to school effort – ideas that are important in education and are not “owned’ by a particular party or political group.
• There are probably many more activities on the “menu” than any teacher would possibly use. That is why it is a menu – no one is expected to order everything on a menu or required to order anything from a menu. No one is expected to do each activity or to do
any activities.
• Our individual teachers are also capable of designing appropriate activities to extend learning and teach personal responsibility, persistence and goals in the classroom.

The menu is clearly designed to encourage discussion and critical thinking. Questions like “Who is the President of the United States? If you were President what would you tell students?” are questions any social studies teacher would ask in a normal class period. Questions like “What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?” and “What resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?” are thought provoking questions. What is President Obama inspiring me to do? Hmm…study harder, stay in school, try my best. Hardly sounds like political propaganda does it?

So before you get your panties in a wad, please do your homework. Read U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s letter to principals. Read the Menu for Children’s Activities. Read the transcript of President Obama’s speech when it is released on Monday. Talk to your kids about the speech. Talk to you kids about the controversy surrounding the speech. And then if you still want to ban your child from listening to the speech then ok. As a parent you have that right. But I really hope you will consider allowing your child to participate.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As expected with a story like this, commenters have strong opinions about this and criticism for Anita and her decision. Anita has five biological children and a husband who is deployed overseas serving our country. Many commenters are wondering why an adoption agency would give a baby to somebody with so many kids and an “absent” father. Some wonder why she would want to adopt a baby when she already has so many children. Others go so far as to accuse her of just wanting a boy. I mean they already have 5 girls. Clearly they were just trying to add some testosterone to the household. Stories like this just bring every Judgy McJudgypants out of the woodwork.

The fact of the matter is none of us know all the details. Anita wrote about an 18 month period in a one page essay. We have no idea what she did to try to get her children to bond. We have no idea who she talked to, whether she sought counseling, what advice she followed and what she didn’t follow. There’s no mention of family that she can lean on. We don’t even know how old her five biological children are. Most importantly, none of us have walked in Anita’s shoes. But we sure have opinions about it.

One commenter wrote:

To start with, anyone with five biological children is incredibly irresponsible. Add in an often absent father, and the irresponsibility goes into the stratosphere.

It sounds like there was no effort to bond the daughters with their brother. Little wonder he couldn’t attach to anyone, he probably got, what five minutes of attention every hour in that chaotic household?
— trudy

As the mother of four biological children and stepmom to one, I take offense to that comment. What constitutes a responsible number of children? One? Two? Three? Does it depend on how much money I make? Or how much love I can give? If I don’t work can I have more children since I will presumably have more time? Or is there some kind of mandatory cut-off at which point I should yank out my uterus and declare we are done so I’m not irresponsible?

The Druggar’s are expecting their 19th child. I do not think I could handle 19 children. But the Druggars seem to be doing just fine. They raise their children on their own. And their children seem to be well adjusted. So what business is it of mine or yours or anybody else how many children they have?

Some people can’t fathom having one child. Others can raise six or eight or more very healthy and happy children. Some families thrive in calm and quiet households. Others thrive in noisy chaotic households. I thrive on chaos. I love keeping busy with my kids’ sporting events or dance recitals or music programs. I monitor their homework, communicate with their teachers, attend PTO meetings, and have my 7-year-old read to me every night. We make time for movies, dinners out, playdates, and vacations. It works for our family. We make it work.

But we aren’t perfect. Just like every other parent, we make mistakes. And we learn from those mistakes. We’re all just doing the best we can. We’re are all actually very much alike. Even if our family dynamics are different.

So can we please stop being so damn judgmental? Can we please stop calling parents irresponsible just because their families are different then yours? And can we please look up the word irresponsible in the dictionary so we use it properly? Driving drunk with your kid in the car (or driving drunk period for that matter). Irresponsible. Leaving your 2-year-old home alone all night so you could get high with your friends. Irresponsible. Having five perfectly healthy and happy kids. Not irresponsible.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Leme wanted to know why it made me mad when people criticize stay-at-home dads when we’ve been criticizing stay-at-home moms for the last 40 years. I think I answered that question in my follow-up post; The mommy and daddy wars. But apparently Leme disagrees. So here are a few more words on feminism and staying home…for Leme.

Leme – Your question was not a simple question. Your question is a question that continues to fuel the mommy (and now daddy) wars. Your question is naive and irresponsible. Did you even read my response to your comment? Or do YOU not understand?

Why is it wrong to tell men they should have a career and be independent when that is the same thing we have been telling women for the last 40 years? It’s wrong because when something is wrong you should try to fix it. Not just say “well it’s always been that way so why change it now.”

100 years ago women could not vote. Only poor unmarried women worked outside the home; and then it was in jobs that were considered “women’s work” – jobs as domestics, teachers, or nurses. Women couldn’t be doctors or lawyers or fight for their country in the military. They didn’t have the educational opportunities that men had. After all you didn’t need an education to be a wife and mother. They couldn’t hold public office or even have an opinion on politics. Really they couldn’t even have their own thoughts. They were the property of their husband.

For centuries girls were told to devote their lives to finding a husband and having children. They were brought up to believe their whole self-worth was wrapped up in their marriage and children. That was what was expected of them. They didn’t get a say. That’s just how it was. And some women were perfectly happy with that. But some women weren’t. However they didn’t know there were others out there that were just as unhappy. They didn’t have a voice.

And then some brave women stood up and demanded they be heard. They demanded they have a right to make decisions that effected them and their lives. And then in 1920 women won the right to vote.

But women weren’t willing to stop there. They continued to fight for their rights. To be equals to men. To have their own opinions and the same opportunities as men. To be whatever they wanted to be.

And as women, whether we stay home or work, we should be grateful that somebody stood up for us. Were all of their ideas good ideas? No, but at least they were willing to fight for what they believed in, get a dialog started, and create change. If we’re dissatisfied with our lives we need learn from these early feminists and fight for our right to be heard.

“Why was it [Friedan's] “business” to comment on what other people did?” Because Friedan didn’t call women names for being stay-at-home moms. Instead she did her research. She surveyed the women at her high school reunion. She spent five years talking to moms to find out what they were feeling. And she spoke as somebody who had been there; somebody who gave up her career to stay home with her children. Most of the people who criticize stay-at-home dads have never been a stay-at-home dad; many aren’t even dads. At least Betty Friedan could speak from experience…rather than ignorance.

“I said “we” meaning the society as a whole…” I absolutely disagree. I do not believe that society as a whole has been advising women to continue with their careers rather than be a stay-at-home mom. Of course there have been some vocal opponents of stay-at-home moms, there have also been many opponents of working moms. But “as a whole” I think many people believe it’s perfectly fine for women to put their careers on hold or even abandon a career completely and take on a new career as a full-time mom. Laura Schlessinger is a big proponent of stay-at-home moms. She even goes so far as to say that all moms should stay home with their children for at least the first five years. This is the exact opposite of what you think “we” as a whole are saying. When Linda Hirshman, and more recently, Gretchen Ritter came out against stay-at-home moms saying it’s “dangerous” for women to stay home and that women should have a career, they received a ton of backlash for their comments. I would say “we” are somewhere in the middle. “We” think women should do whatever they think is right for them and their family; be it working outside the home or being a stay-at-home mom…as long as the decision is hers.

Additionally, as I stated in my rebuttal, more and more women are staying home with their children in recent years. Due in part to the feminist movement, many women sought out careers rather than staying home in the 1980s and early 1990s, but that number has been steadily declining since 1990. Woman have decided they don’t need to listen to society to tell them what do to do. They’ve decided the best person to make decision about their life is them. So some women are continuing in the workforce. And others are deciding to stay home. They’re doing what’s best for them.

Then why is it wrong to be equally concerned about the loneliness and isolation of stay at home dads. It’s perfectly fine to be concerned about a dad’s loneliness and isolation. In fact that’s why we talk about it. To educate people that there are stay-at-home dads out there who are perfectly capable of hosting a playdate or mingling with the moms at PTO meetings. And dad’s should understand that staying home may have some disadvantages. It can be lonely. So dads (and moms) need to find support systems. They need to find activities and hobbies for themselves and their children.

I think this was Betty Friedan’s point with her book. I think Betty Friedan was letting women know they weren’t alone. There were other women out there that were feeling just as lonely and unsatisfied with their lives as they were. We find comfort in numbers. Not every women was dissatisfied, but some were and they thought they were alone because everybody else seemed to have the perfect families and the perfect lives. But in reality, staying home isn’t for every women (or man) or every family.

Yes, I did say I encourage my children to get an education and not be dependent on somebody else. But I also continued with “Then when they are older and fall in love they can make the decision that is best for their family. They can work with their partner to determine the dynamics of their marriage. They won’t have to be told by their partner what will happen in their family. They will be an active and informed contributor to their relationship.” If any of my children (either my daughter or my sons) decide to be a stay-at-home parent I think that would be wonderful. As long as it’s his/her decision and not solely his/her partners decision. I think it’s important for all children (regardless of race) to explore and find what interests them and makes them happy. Not just settle for what their spouse or society chooses for them.

You said, “You responded to a question about being a stay at home parent with strong statements negatively equating staying at home with being dependent.” As I stated, being dependent on somebody isn’t about money. We are all dependent on others for some reason or another; I’m dependent on my husband for companionship, on my children for help around the house, on my boss to provide me with a paycheck. However, when I say I don’t want my children to be dependent on somebody else I’m referring to their livelihood. I’m referring to their happiness. I’m referring to their decisions. I don’t want them to be dependent on somebody else to make all the decisions for them and they just be submissive. I expect my children to stand up for themselves and have their own voice.

And for the record, my husband is very independent. He has many friends he’s known his whole life and continues to hang out with to this day. He is an avid football fan who runs a fantasy league every winter. He loves to play softball and plays in a couple of different leagues, several nights a week from April through September. He does bring in a little bit of income doing side jobs, helping people with their computer problems. And he used this opportunity as a stay-at-home dad to go back to college and get his degree. So while my paycheck may be what pays our mortgage, my husband is very much an independent man who makes his own decisions.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that getting an education is the opposite of being a stay-at-home mom. Therefore, when we encourage our children to get an education rather than devote their young adulthood to finding a suitable husband that means we are discouraging them from being a mom. That’s so not the case. It’s not black and white. In reality we are encouraging our children to explore the world, to learn new things, and to find themselves. Then they can decide what they like best. Some women love being stay-at-home moms. Some aren’t cut out for it. But both can be equally capable and loving moms and wives.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Leme wants to know why I’m upset that people slam stay-at-home dads “when we have been criticizing women who stay at home, for the past 40 years.” As if the fact that moms have been criticized for staying home makes it ok to then criticize fathers. That’s like saying Jimmy punched Sam because Sam stole his basketball. Ever heard the saying two wrongs don’t make a right?

So let’s break the comment down:

I would sincerely like to know why it is wrong to criticize men for staying home and not having a career, when we have been criticizing women who stay at home, for the past 40 years?

Did you read my post? Because I believe I explained why it’s wrong. I also NEVER once criticized women who stay home. It is wrong to criticize ANYBODY for staying home. What business is it of yours what my family or any other family does? If you want to stay home, if your spouse wants to stay home, if you both want to work, whatever…that is a decision for you and your family. Not anybody else’s concern. You’re use of “we” is a very general term, but that “we” does not include me or really anybody that I know. I know plenty of stay-at-home moms AND dads and none of us have been criticizing anybody for staying home this year or any time in the last 40 years.

Ever since Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique, we have been told that it is absolutely essential for women to have careers because staying at home would leave them depressed and unfulfilled. Also women have been told that staying at home puts them in the position of being dependent on their husbands and therefore unequal and unprepared to support themselves in the event of their husband leaving them due to divorce or death.

Friedan’s goal wasn’t to criticize stay-at-home moms. She was fighting for equal rights for women. She also talked about her own loneliness and the isolation many women did (and still do) feel at home. Part of her goal was to inform women. Personally I think some of the points Friedan and many of the other prominent feminists is good for woman to know. It’s good for women to realize they have opportunities and don’t have to stay home if they don’t want to. Woman have options. They can get an education. They can work. They can marry. They can have children. Or they can do them all. Or none of them. Or pick and choose. Being informed about your options is never a bad thing. It only helps you make better, informed decisions and look at the pros and cons of those decisions.

Do you also respond with anger when you hear stay at home moms ridiculed and put-down and told that they should have careers instead of being at home?

As stated above, yes.

Do you also object when young women are told that they should be certain to get a good education so they can have a career and support themselves and not be dependent on a man?

No. I think all people, regardless of gender, should get an education and learn to support themselves. These are important lessons for every young person to learn. Having options isn’t bad a bad thing. Telling young people to get an education because it will help them with their future goals is a good thing. If they fall in love, get married, have children and choose to stay home rather than pursue a career then that’s their choice. But at least they were able to make an informed decision about that choice.

Why is it wrong to tell a man he shouldnt be dependent on a woman, but not equally wrong to tell a woman she shouldn’t be dependent on a man but should instead have her own income?

It’s wrong for anybody to stick their nose in to other people’s business and act like they have the authority to tell them how to manage their families.

I don’t believe the message (at least not the message I give) is that woman should always have their own income and never be dependent on a man. However, as I’ve stated several times it needs to be her informed decision.

And I don’t believe there should be his and her income in a marriage. You are married. That income supports your whole family (dad, mom, and children)…not just the person whose name is on the paycheck.

Finally being dependent on somebody isn’t always about money. I am dependent on my husband to be a good partner. To help me with the kids. And to help me with the household. It would be extremely hard to provide for my family on my own, therefore I’m dependent on my husband to help support our family.

You object to people saying your husband should get a job. Why do you object to that?

Because it’s nobody’s business but ours. We support our family. We don’t live on welfare. Nobody else supports us. It’s our decision, and nobody else’s, whether we’ve decided to allow my husband to be the stay-at-home parent or not.

Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been telling women for the past 40 years?

Some people have been trying to force women to get a job, but they are the minority. There are still a lot of stay-at-home moms in the U.S. According to the U.S. Census 5.4M moms were stay-at-home moms in 2004. And in fact the number of stay-at-home moms (and dads) has grown in almost every year from 1995 to 2006. So clearly there is still a large group of women who either aren’t hearing this message or don’t care what some blow hard has to say about the SAHM’s own family.

You object to people saying your husband shouldn’t be dependent on you? Why do you object to that? Isn’t that the exact same thing we’ve been telling women?

Again, because it’s nobody’s business but ours. And, like I’ve said repeatedly, we aren’t all telling women that either.

And actually, for the record, my objection is to people who think stay-at-home dads are unnatural or call them a pussy or whatever else they have to say about stay-at-home dads. I don’t believe I ever spoke of dependency. Being dependent on each other is part of a marriage whether you work or not. And really has nothing to do with money.

Your marriage has gotten stronger because your husband stays home? And if a man said his marriage is stronger because his wife stays home, feminists would want to lynch him.

I think many feminists would be offended by this comment. Yes, some feminists do take it to the extreme, but the majority are looking for equal rights. Not cutting down men. They want things like equal opportunity in jobs and education, women executives, and equal pay. They don’t want to be told they have to sit home, raise their children, and service their husbands…unless they they want to. If a woman was staying home only because her husband or society wanted her to, not because it was a decision she made, then a man wouldn’t be able to claim his marriage is stronger. An unhappy wife does not make a marriage stronger.

It makes for a stronger marriage when one partner is financially dependent on the other? Good, then lets tell the feminists that they are completely wrong to call for equality in marriage!

No, feminists are absolutely right in asking for equality in marriage. But equality in marriage doesn’t mean both partners in the marriage make the same amount of money and do the same chores and split everything 50/50. Equality in marriage isn’t about the individual marriage. It’s about marriage as a whole. We need to move away from the assumption that the man works and the woman stays home in every family. Families need to be able to make their own decisions about what works best for their family.

If you think that staying home is so wonderful I’m sure that you will encourage your daughter and all other young women to avoid careers and be a full time stay at home parent because that’s the way to have a strong marriage and “really bond” with your kids, won’t you? Yeah right!

This doesn’t really make any sense. Why would I tell my daughter to be a stay-at-home mom when I myself am a working mom. Don’t you mean I will tell my sons to all be stay-at-home dads since that’s what we do in our family?

But to answer your question, no. I encourage all of my children to do well in school and to be independent. I don’t want any of my children to have to be dependent on somebody else. They need to be able to stand on their own. Then when they are older and fall in love they can make the decision that is best for their family. They can work with their partner to determine the dynamics of their marriage. They won’t have to be told by their partner what will happen in their family. They will be an active and informed contributor to their relationship.

Again, please tell me why it is wrong to condemn men who stay at home, while it’s not wrong to condemn women who stay at home and tell them they should have careers instead?

It’s wrong because both men and women can be loving and caring parents. It’s wrong because children gain important lessons from both parents and should be allowed to spend quality time with both their mother and their father. Gone are the days when dads came home from work, sat down to read the paper and ignore their kids. Raising children is not woman’s work. Raising children is parent’s work. And telling a dad he is a pussy because he spends time with his children is an ignorant comment that serves no purpose in an intelligent discussion about raising children and what’s right for families. But most importantly it’s wrong because IT’S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

BUT…

I was struck by the comments on this post. Whenever you start talking about stay-at-home dads the morons peek their heads out of the woodwork to give their two cents.

Moron exhibit #1:

Whenever a man is a stay at home parent it makes me sick. Men are supposed to be the providers. It is unnatural for a man to want to be around his kids as much as a woman, women have more patience and tolerance. That is just how we were created. I can’t see how any man could truly feel like the head of his household staying at home while his wife works to provide. -Erika

Men are supposed to be the providers? Providing for your family isn’t just monetary. Husbands and fathers need to contribute emotionally and physically as well. Lee doesn’t contribute much money to our household budget, but he still makes a huge contribution to our family. He provides us with love and devotion. He provides me with more time. He provides the kids with guidance. He doesn’t have a job, but he is definitely a provider.

It is unnatural for a man to want to be around his kids as much as a woman? I think it’s pathetic that you would want to be with a man who doesn’t want to be around his kids. The day of men working all day, coming home to pat junior on the head and then heading off to the study to read the paper all evening are over. Today we have evolved to involved families. Not just involved mothers. Today men are taking time off work to go to their kids’ school music programs or sporting events. Today I see several dads on school field trips. At the kids’ wax museum, Lee and I ran in to many, many dads. Today dads are staying home with their kids.

There is no perfect formula that fits every family. Heck, there’s no perfect formula that fits every child. After Skyler & Spencer were born I quickly discovered that worked to sooth Keaton just succeeded in ticking off Skyler & Spencer. In fact what worked for Spencer didn’t always work for Skyler. Everybody is different. You just need to do what works for your family.

Lee and I never set out for Lee to be a stay-at-home. It never even crossed our mind. But he lost his job installing cable and without a degree he couldn’t find a job that paid what he was making. So he stayed home. Neither of us was really sure how it would work out. But it has been such a great experience for everybody.

With Lee at home he has learned how difficult it really is to be the primary caretaker. He has a better appreciation of what it takes to raise a child. I think our marriage has gotten stronger because of this. He’s more plugged in to our family and our household. We share chores equally and therefore have more time for each other.

During that caretaking Lee has really bonded with the kids. He has such a great relationship with Skyler, Spencer and Caleb. I don’t think they would be this close if Lee wasn’t home every day after school, running them to activities, helping them with homework and hosting playdates with their friends.

And the kids get to learn important lessons that only dad’s can teach them. They get to horseplay (something I rarely let them do). He spoils them rotten by letting them by a small toy when they go to the grocery store (again something I seldom do).

If that’s unnatural, then I don’t want to be natural.

Moron exhibit #2:

ME: in my opinion only very ugly woman, controlling with low self stem will accept to support a guy and allow him to stay at home with the kids I don’t care what a good job a men can do there is not way you can compare the care of a good mom, it’s not in their instinct, so I don’t care what a “open mind” you want to be go and get a real man and loss that P….Y that you have as a husband! Matty

I had to read Matty’s comment several times before I could even fully understand this illiterate blubber. But apparently I am a very ugly and controlling woman with low self esteem. And Lee just doesn’t have the instinct to be a parent. I think Matty needs to go back to school and get his high school diploma because that is just ludicrous. I can guarantee that any man that has the courage to stay home all day long with children is no pussy. Successful women aren’t necessarily controlling bitches. And men absolutely have the instinct to be a good parent.

I’m so tired of hearing about how fathers are the second rate parent. I was raised by my father. He wasn’t a stay-at-home dad, but he was a single dad for many years. And he did a fantastic job raising me and teaching me to be a good role to my own children. Stop selling dad’s short. They may not parent exactly the same way moms do, but they are fully capable of being loving and caring parents.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Related posts:

1. Turning in to our parents This week has really kicked my butt. I suck at...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Personally I don’t think this new ordinance has anything to do with the drinking age. This new ordinance has to do with forcing adults to be responsible. It’s asking them to follow the law. Parents can still allow their child to drink in their own if he/she so chooses. But this law takes away an adult’s right to offer my child a drink.

I’m so tired of hearing this excuse that kids will get alcohol anyway. Teens will drink anyway. They’ll get it from somewhere. Fine. Then make them work for it. Maybe it will teach them some negotiation skills. Make them think critically to solve there “how will get I some beer” problem. Don’t make it easy for them.

Plus don’t you want to teach them to be law-abiding citizens? When your buying them beer and throwing parties with alcohol for your 17-year-old you aren’t exactly teaching them the best lesson.

But the biggest reason I agree with this ordinance is because of my teenagers. I don’t allow my teenagers to drink alcohol. I don’t buy them alcohol. Neither of them would have the balls to walk in to my house holding a beer until they turn 21. But other parents disagree. Other parents think it’s their place to make decisions regarding MY kids. Some parents think it’s ok to throw a high school graduation party with kegs of beer and buckets of vodka. Well now if they decide to be that irresponsible they will have to pay for it. Is being the cool parent worth $750 or $1000?

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Related posts:

1. Turning in to our parents This week has really kicked my butt. I suck at...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Last week two fifth grade boys in Salt Lake City were goofing off and did a Google search for the word “lesbian.” Instead of the definition of the word on Wikipedia, they found dirty, nasty porn. Like many curious 11-year-old boys they showed it off to their peers. One child told his/her parent and another child told the principal. The school reacted by suspending the boys for 2 days and calling the police.

The school district spokeswoman, Rhonda Bromley, said the school involved the police “based on the seriousness of the case.” Really?!? The SERIOUSNESS of the CRIME. Two curios boys looked at porn on the internet…like how many of us snuck a peek at dirty magazines when we were that age. And then, thinking they were the bomb, they shared it with their classmates. Probably while giggling like…well, schoolchildren. And that’s SERIOUS? And a CRIME? When the hell did society get so prudish? When the fuck did we start involving the police and threatening court and juvenile detention rather than just disciplining our children?

Bromley continued with, “…what they did was inappropriate, and it was wrong, so as educators and a society hopefully we need to help them learn that. It’s a little disappointing to hear people say, ‘Boys will be boys.’ … I don’t know what the magic age is when people can stop saying ‘Well, boys will be boys.’” Well you know what? These boys actually are boys. Boys who are curious about their bodies. Boys who are curious about girl’s bodies. Boys who wonder about this mysterious thing called “sex” that they see all over television, in movies, on the front page of gossip rags, and depicted in advertising. And all of the adults in their lives tell them it’s taboo so they seek information elsewhere.

Police Sgt. Gregg Ludlow said, “Our main emphasis is not to hammer these kids. If we can get them into the juvenile justice system and make sure they’re getting some counseling or other services, that’s our end goal.” Yeah, ’cause a juvenile record is such a great way to learn a lesson for the crime of being curious and trying to be cool. And counseling?!? For looking at porn a couple times on the school computer. Shit, if looking at porn on the internet a few times requires counseling Lee and I better call a psychiatrist first thing in the morning.

First we’re charging teens with child pornography and adding them to the sex offender list for innocently sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend. And now we’re charging 11-year-olds for showing their friends some porn they found on the internet. What’s next? Charging toddlers for indecent exposure when they won’t keep their clothes on?

I’m not saying that it’s ok for teens to send naked pictures of themselves. Or for 11-year-old boys to pass pornography around at school. But it’s not criminal. It’s a learning experience punishable by discipline. You know things like grounding, taking away their cell phone, hiding the video games, etc. Surely police have better things to do then discipline our children with handcuffs and threats of jail.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The County presented “five primary interests of society” in favor of a banning same sex marriage; promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a marriage, promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise and nurture children, the conservation of state resources, and the government interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage.

(1) Creating procreation. Granted, the majority of married couples end up becoming parents, but there are also several married couple who never have children. Should they have their marriage licenses stripped from them because they chose not to have children? After all, apparently the point of marriage is to procreate. What about couples who cannot have children? Many of them use fertility treatments, adoption or surrogacy…all things a same-sex couple could also use to add a child their family. What makes it ok for an opposite-sex couple to use those options, but not a same-sex couple?

(2) Promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a marriage. The plaintiffs in this case gave the County a big smack down on this one. They had some very compelling evidence from respected organization, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, that children of same-sex couples tend to grow up to be well-adjusted adults. Children need loving, supportive parents. It doesn’t matter what sex they are. And kids can have male or female role models that aren’t a parent. What do you think kids of single parents do? They seek out other family members, church members, or school officials as role models. And what about child abusers, pedophiles and other deadbeat parents. Shouldn’t there be a law that they can’t get married too? After all they aren’t promoting child rearing so they should be banned. And yet they aren’t.

(3) Promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise and nurture children. Whether or not gay couples can marry or not, opposite-sex couples are doing a pretty shitty job of offering stability in marriages. The divorce rate lingers around 50% or so. Straight people are getting married two or three or more times. Gay marriages have nothing to do with the stability of an opposite-sex marriage.

(4) The conservation of state resources. Seriously?!? This is an excuse to deny loving couples the right to marry? Because the state doesn’t want to pay out death benefits? Why stop at banning gay couples from getting married? Why not ban black couples from marrying? That would save state resources. Or maybe we could ban everybody with the last name of Smith from getting married. That’s a pretty common name. That would save some resources. Or blondes. They are too dumb to get married anyway. And then we can conserve resources. Ridiculous much?

(5) The government interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage. It used to be tradition to sacrifice animals too. Now PETA would be all up in your grill if you sacrificed an animal. It’s traditional for a bride to wear a white wedding dress. But we still allow women to get married if they show up in a red dress or a polka dot dress or a bikini for that matter. Traditions are nice, but they aren’t law.

I’ve heard a lot nay sayers getting their panties in a wad. But these judges just made law. They just made it so my children will have to learn/hear/see gay marriages. Shouldn’t I have a vote on that? Shouldn’t there be a majority vote? Since when does majority vote make law? Government makes law. You don’t like the law? Tell your congressman. He’s not fighting for what you believe? Don’t vote for him next year. That’s how government works.

And God forbid our children now have to grow up learning same sex couples have the same marriage rights as straight couples. What’s next? They’ll have to learn that women and black people have equal rights too? Oh wait. That already happened. Both of those groups got equal rights without majority vote too. And I think it’s safe to say that today almost everybody, the KKK and chauvinist pigs excluded, now agree that equality for all, regardless of gender and/or skin color, is a good thing.

Did you know interracial marriage was still illegal [not just frowned upon, but actually illegal with fines and even jail sentences] until 1967? 1967! That was just a few years before I was born. And even then the southern states didn’t want to legalize interracial marriage. They were forced to by a new federal law on civil rights. There was no majority vote. There was just the federal government saying “stop being such racist assholes.” [I'm paraphrasing, of course.]

I can guarantee you that same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, eventually. It may not be this year. It may not even be in my life time [although I hope it is], but it will be some day. Nobody’s forcing you to marry a member of the same sex. Nobody’s forcing you to change your religion or what you believe. Nobody’s even forcing you to tell your children gay marriage is ok [although I hope you would teach your children to be tolerant of all different kinds of people]. In fact, if you’re not gay, your life isn’t going to change at all. But now gay couples can marry, make decisions about their partner in emergencies, receive health insurance and death benefits, and more. All things they should be entitled too as Americans.

© 2004-2010 The Bean Blog - All Rights Reserved. Visit The Bean Blog for more great content.

Follow me on Twitter @ thebeanblog.
Find me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Related posts:

1. A whole lot of whining in one little post So I wrote this whole post about this article. It...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.