I Hate the Internet

Notwithstanding:

• that because of Facebook I have connected with two of my cousins, whose lives and deeds of inspiration have brought great joy to my heart
• that through blogging I have made a few wonderful friends whose daily musings both entertain and excite me, sometimes sparking deep personal reflection
• that if it weren't for email I would never have contact with my sister
• that I love being able to instantly find whatever information I am seeking--a recipe or a definition or a video of how a tornado is formed(!)
• that my spunky little computer may be my ticket to achieving my dreams,

I hate the Internet.

I hate the way that some people use the Internet to communicate in ways that they would never do in real life.  And I'm not talking about pornographers or terrorists.  I'm talking about regular, everyday people who think that sitting at a computer screen, getting glimpses into other people's lives, gives them the right to unleash their hyperbolic reactions and opinions in ways that they would never do in real life.

I'm not even talking about the occasional obnoxious comment that I receive here on my blog.  Honestly, if people don't like my ideas about natural parenting, unschooling and healthy living, there are lots of other places on the Internet for them to hang out.  Why would they waste their time on me?  It would never even occur to me to leave hostile criticism on someone's website, no matter what they write about it.  I just have other priorities.

What really bothers me are the people who express every knee-jerk reaction that springs to mind, yet in real life, they have nothing to say.  For example, every article that appears in an online newspaper on the topic of Unschooling seems to attract the most hateful, uninformed responses.  Would these commenters speak to me like that if they met me and my children at the park?  I doubt it.  

And that's the problem with the Internet.  The lack of face-to-face communication allows people to completely disregard the social standards of proper interaction.  It allows people to behave completely without social skills.  It allows for too much anonymity and lack of consequences for engaging in anti-social behaviours.

Imagine that my family and I were invited to a wedding.  While there, some of the guests find out that we are Unschoolers and they start screaming at us that we don't deserve to be parents, that we are unfit and abusive.  Would that happen?  No, because in real life, people know that there are social boundaries that we don't cross.  On the Internet, it seems that people don't give themselves boundaries.

And the reason this really concerns me is that already an entire generation has grown up with the Internet and without these personal boundaries being firmly in place.  When children see that adult Internet-users do not hold back their vitriolic and hateful opinions, they learn that they don't have to either.  We have school-age children who are expert cyber-bullies and we don't question how that happened.

As an adult Internet user, I have a responsibility to communicate in the same way that I do in real life.  The tone I set online is who I really am.  I don't have an online personality and a different one in real life.  When I have nothing to say, I stay quiet.  When I vehemently disagree with another person's ideas, I walk away and I don't come back.  When I believe in something, my real life and my virtual life work in harmony to promote it.

Will you do something for me?  Will you make a pledge with me?

I pledge that my online voice will be an authentic reflection of who I really am, the life I am living and the opinions I hold dear.  I will not use virtual words that I would not use in real life.

It's a small thing, but let's unite in our desire to uphold the social standards of communication that have been with us for generations.  Please leave me a short comment to let me know that you agree.

(If you are reading this in an email, you will have to click on the blue title at the top which will take you to my webpage.  Scroll to the bottom to leave a message.  Anonymous messages are accepted.)

What I Did Wednesday

(I think this suits me better than a Wordless Wednesday.)

One of the most important things I do every summer is to make sure that my chest-freezer is full of top-quality Ontario produce to feed my family all winter. 

(Just a little aside here:  When we went to Quebec earlier this month, the children asked me to bring strawberries to eat during the long car ride.  I was totally disappointed to only find berries from California in the grocery stores here in Toronto.  Yet, in the tiny grocery store where we stopped in Quebec, we picked up strawberries, raspberries and blueberries that were ALL grown locally.  Imagine that!  A grocery store that stocks local produce!  Not in Ontario, apparently.....)

I store the produce in Ziploc medium-sized freezer bags.  Already I have 12 bags of strawberries, 6 bags of blueberries and 8 bags of brocolli.

This week I nibbed, cleaned, blanched and bagged a bushel of green beans.

I picked up the beans at the East York Farmer's Market at 10am and it literally took me until 6pm to finish those beans!  The entire time that I was standing at the counter I kept thinking "My mother would NEVER have taken this long to blanch and bag a bushel of beans!" 

Aaaah, my mother.  Back in the day, she would have had the beans picked (out of her own garden) by 7am and the entire bushel would have been in the freezer before noon.  I just can't get it together to work that hard or that fast.

But now we have 16 bags of beans in the freezer!  This week I will make some peach jam and next week I am going to make oodles and oodles of spaghetti sauce with fresh Ontario tomatoes, onion, peppers, garlic and basil.

Now, sing it with me:
Good things grow-ow-ow
In Ontario!

**************************************************
Are you planning to participate in the Carnival of Birth Reflections?
Please visit TouchstoneZ to fill out the submission form and then email your story to both me and Zoie:  ptinh0441 {at} rogers {dot} com
zoie{dot}touchstonez{at}gmail{dot}com

Submission Form and Emailed Post Deadline: Tuesday, August 23 midnight PST


Carnival Date: Friday, August 26

Gender: I Did Not Want to Have a Son

Did you read my guest post at TouchstoneZ yesterday?


I wrote with honesty and anguish about how disappointed I was when I found out that my 4th babe was a boy. I had 3 daughters; I wanted 4 daughters. I had my reasons.

If you want to invite complete strangers to say completely stupid things to you, here's what you do: go out in public accompanied by your three girlie-girl daughters while you're visibly pregnant. Every comment is a variation on the same theme.

Is this one a boy?
Not another girl, I hope.
Still trying for a boy?
It's a boy, right?
I hope you get your boy this time!

Good grief. It made me want to scream.

First of all, there was the fact that it was none of their business. Even if I had  known the gender of my baby, why would I have shared that information with every passing stranger? But the entire issue is so much bigger than people who stick their noses in where it doesn't belong.

To start with, in my opinion, the only reason for any couple to have another child is because they genuinely want to nurture, love and enjoy a new person in their family. Period. Trying for one gender or the other is a pretty negative way to create new life, because no matter what people say, they are likely to be disappointed if they don't get what they want.

But this issue of BOYS is really frustrating to me. I don't understand how we can live in the 21st century where discrimination on the basis of gender is supposed to be a thing of the past, and yet Joe Q. Public still thinks that any family with 3 girls is incomplete without adding a boy. Frankly, I'm aghast. Isn't the entire notion of gender completely old fashioned? Shouldn't people feel as stupid about wishing me a boy as they would about wishing me a new washboard? And it's not just that people wanted me to have a boy--they wanted me to want a boy. Even people who I consider to be friends said that I needed to experience a boy. What does that even mean? I can't think of anything about raising a boy that I would do differently from the way we are raising our girls.

I can't even begin to explain how much gender does not matter to Partner-Guy and I. Every child born into this family is raised with the same values and expectations. Gender is so irrelevant. The experts agree that there is much more variation within the sexes than between them. Further to that, all fetuses begin as females and at about 8 weeks gestation the presence of testosterone determines whether or not the tiny sacs in the pelvis descend and become testicles or ascend and become ovaries. So what I've always said is actually true: a boy is just a girl who's a boy.

It bears repeating: a boy is just a girl who's a boy. It is primarily parents who create gender associations in children, which is to say that parents tend to ascribe what they consider to be 'boy attributes' to boys and 'girl attributes' to girls. Where parental stereotypes leave off, society and the culture of schools fill in the gaps to make sure that boys are boys and girls are girls. Just try to buy clothing for a boy toddler that doesn't have a truck or a superhero or an aggressive animal like a dinosaur on it.

I've noticed for years that almost every mother of a son under the age of 12 calls him 'Bud' or 'Buddy' as a term of endearment yet I've never heard a mother call her daughter 'Girlfriend' or 'Gal Pal'. Why? What is there about the way mothers relate to sons that makes 'Buddy' an appropriate nickname? I think if parents expect a boy to be different from a girl, he will be. I expect each of my children to be unique and to desire to individuate. Why would I look for ways that my son was different from my daughters any more than I look for ways that my daughters differ from each other? And why do people assume that Partner-Guy naturally desires a son? Does a Dad need a son to feel fulfilled? Not the dad at our house!

The result of all this attention and pressure on us to want a boy is that we actually became hostile to the idea of having a son. I didn't even want to compose a birth announcement that said "It's a boy!" because it seemed to imply that we were somehow more delighted with a son than with another daughter. I was actaully terrified of the stupid comments I got when I went out in public with my infant son. "Oh, you finally got your boy!" some idiot would say, and I'd be forced to come up with an answer that doesn't insult my son while also standing up for my daughters. Nothing comes to mind except "Your comment offends me on behalf of my daughters. My desire for another child has never had anything to do with gender."

Is that too rude?

Well, consider the lady up the street who told me after Holly was born, "Oh, well. Maybe next time you'll have a boy." Or the total stranger who asked if the baby was a boy. I answered, "Yup1  Not that it matters!" and the man said, "Oh be nice! You're lucky to have a boy!"  Talk about RUDE!

People are NOT just making idle conversation. They are making a judgement about gender. They are completely rude and mean and I don't care if they don't know any better or come from a generation or a culture that values boys over girls. Similar comments about race would not be tolerated or acceptable and I should not have to acquiesce just because people are stupid.

And it's not that I care that strangers, neighbours and friends think having a son is really important. It's that I care about my daughters (especially #2 and #3) being viewed by society as if they were just placeholders until the all-important male joined the fold.

I'm pro-girl, not anti-male, and having a son did not change that.




my son Julian at his first birthday (photo credit:  my friend Julie)



The One where I get Really Critical of Other Parents {In my neighbourhood}

We live in an affordable middle-class neighbourhood.  By 'affordable' I mean 'low-end.'  Most of the houses are bungalows, built post-war.  A few have been turned into two-storey houses.  There are lots of stay-at-home-mothers in my neighbourhood because families can afford to live here with just one professional income.  But there are also lots of two-income families, empty-nesters and retirees.

I'm pretty well-known in my neighbourhood.  We play in the front yard a lot, we are frequently at the local playgrounds and green spaces and I take my children out for walks and bike-rides multiple times daily.  I guess you say we are 'high profile' but only because we are around all the time.

But even though everyone seems to know 'of' me, I am really on the outside looking in.  I'm fine with that.  I chose this life--Parenting against the Mainstream--and I accept that it makes me left out of the dominant culture in which I reside.  I don't stand around the playground with the moms who are complaining about their babies STILL not sleeping through the night.  I'm not behind the school with the moms who can't express enough their RELIEF that their youngest is finally in kindergarten.  I don't fit in with them, and I don't WANT to fit in.

But from my place on the outside I certainly have an interesting perspective.  Here are some questions that I would love to ask some of my mainstream neighbours.

1.  Does getting married mean that the wife must give the control of her uterus over to her husband?
There are three different mothers in my neighbourhood who have told me that they would LOVE to have a third baby but their husbands say absolutely not.  And there is another mother who is obviously overwhelmed by her two children and she can hardly organize getting one kid to school and one to pre-school (although she doesn't have a job), yet her husband is all gung-ho to have a huge family and so they're expecting a third baby this fall.  I don't get it.  The decision to have more children should be agreed upon by both parents.

2.  Why do you call yourself a 'stay-at-home mom' if all you ever do is run around?
There are mothers on my street who drive by my house 6 times a day.  Sometimes with their kids, sometimes not.  In fact, I once asked one of my neighbours (a mother of 3) whether she would like to stay home if her husband could provide for the family.  She said, "Oh, I'd love to quit my job.  But I could never sit around at home all day with the kids.  I'd take courses and go to the gym."  I don't get it. 

Well, actually, I do understand that not all mothers are content to be home with their children.  There are some people who are genuinely able to be better parents in just 4 hours a day than they would if they were with their kids for 14 hours daily.  But I don't understand all the running around--to activities, to the school, to daycare, to the grocery store (every day!?).  I guess I just don't have a 'car mentality'.  And I guess that for me, the value of being home with my kids is that I'm not always dropping them off at different locations.

3.  If you are constantly fighting with the school system, then why do you send your children to school?
Yeah, this really confuses me.  We live in one of the best places in the world to homeschool--the laws protect us and there are resources widely available.  Why would parents fight with the school about everything from homework to vending machines to bullying to playground equipment when they could just keep their kids out of school?

4.  Are you completely unaware of all the mainstream parenting advice in every mainstream media?
All three of the mainstream publications I read (Maclean's magazine, The Toronto Star and Today's Parent Magazine) are full of advice for mainstream parents, not to mention the advice people get from their doctors and what they see on TV ads.  So for example, parents are constantly being told how to prevent/fix childhood obesity:  walk to school, spend time outdoors, have more family activities like biking, etc.  Yet there are many, many parents in my neighbourhood who always drive their children to school (less than 300 meters).  And the children never play in their yards.  And the parents never take them to the playground.  Do these parents think that the school provides adequate physical activity?  Not even close.

And here's another piece of mainstream advice you've probably heard about:  babies need 'tummy time' to prevent their heads from getting a flat spot.  Well, those of us who use carriers and who don't leave our babies in carseats for 8+ hours daily don't have to worry about that problem.  Yet in spite of all the warnings, I see parents whose babies spend hours and hours in strollers (the kind that hold the carseat) and guess what?  Their babies have flat heads!

How is it possible that the mainstream media with the mainstream advice for mainstream parents is not getting through to these parents?

***************
OK, that's it.  End of rant.
I'll be more positive tomorrow.

More on Dogs and Kids

I'm trying not to rant here, friends.  Your comments are welcome.

Just for the record, I am not scared of dogs.
I'm disgusted by them.

If I've been to your house and you have a dog, it is out of my enormous respect for your friendship that I will even come inside.  I would no sooner want to sit down on the couch where a dog sleeps than I would want to sit down on a couch where a cow sleeps.  Eat with a dog at my feet?  How about a turkey?  Or a goat?  Or a whole petting zoo of domesticated animals?

But dogs are trainable, you argue.  Training an animal to sh*t in manner that makes it convenient for the owner to pick up does not elevate the animal's status in my eyes.  If dogs are trainable, why don't their owners train them not to stick their noses in people's crotches? 

Dogs, cats, hamsters, geckos....unless they serve a useful purpose,I just don't understand the point of having them around.  If we someday achieve our dream of owning a house on a dozen acres then we will likely have a guard dog.  And if we have a few out-buildings, I can imagine us having a cat to control the critter population.  But a pet dog or cat?  In the house?  Unimaginable.

Honestly, I'm struggling with whether or not it is OK for me to feel this way.  Am I being authentic?  Or am I just a snob?  If I am authentic about my preference to be away from dogs, can I let go of being responsible for offending a dog owner?

Recently a friend from my university days was visiting Toronto from Montreal and suggested we get together for a coffee--but when I responded that I would have to bring at least some of my children with me, the invitation quietly disappeared.  I get it that some people don't want to be around little kids:  Will dog owners get it that I don't want to be around their dogs?

On to my next issue:

It is inappropriate to expect kids to 'get comfortable' around dogs.

Children experience fear for a variety of reasons.  The most important reason why children experience fear is because they are genuinely scared.  I'm scared of some things too, like shopping malls at Christmas and being forced to wear a costume.  As an adult, I expect my fears to be accommodated if not validated.  I don't want to be coerced to 'face my fears' or deliberately put into situations where I am going to be scared.

Obviously children deserve the same respect.  Since Partner-Guy has no aversion to dogs (or other pets) he has many times encouraged his daughters to approach a dog while he petted it and while the owner held it by the leash or collar.  Occasionally the girls have responded favourably to this.  (Even I can appreciate the pure attractiveness of a well-groomed golden lab.)  But if they are not interested in approaching the animal, Partner-Guy doesn't cajole or coerce them.

I can see how being approached by an off-leash dog who weighs as much as they do is scary for a child.  I trust them.  If they don't want to be sniffed and licked by an animal, I am not going to coerce them to stand there and let the animal behave like an animal.  The words "He's friendly" are not an antidote to a child's fear and discomfort.  I'm friendly too, but would you want me to greet you by licking your face and sniffing your crotch?  If dog-owners are offended by my desire that they get their dogs away from my children, I can live with that.

I think fear is mostly normal.  I wouldn't teach my child to let a stranger caress them just to avoid offending the adult.  And I wouldn't try to coerce a vegetarian child into eating a hamburger.  How dare an adult tell a child In this situation you should NOT trust your instincts BUT in this OTHER situation you SHOULD trust your instinct.  I will trust my children's instincts. 

And they will grow up trusting their own instincts.  A skill more valuable than learning how to be around a dog.

That's NOT the Way We do Homeschool

I've been thinking this week about how our family tries to live our purpose:  Freedom and Joy. 

I recently discovered a network of blogs on the theme of living simply and I began to wonder if maybe I needed to refocus on simplifying our lives--less stuff, less TV, less...???  I soon realized we couldn't  get any less busy (we rarely go anywhere) or less scheduled (we have no schedule) or less strung-out financially (we live pretty comfortably within our means already).  So I patted myself on the back and I thought about our homeschooling and I wondered if we could get more simple.

I headed to a blog called Simple Homeschool.  BIG MISTAKE.

The mother writing at Simple Homeschool is living the exact opposite of what I would describe as simple.  In fact, I was so appalled at what she was writing that I had to walk away from the computer--as if her ideas were going to hurt me.

In a nutshell:  She describes her morning with her 4 or 5 children, how she takes her 7-year-old to another room for a spelling lesson and gives her 5-year-old a time-out for interrupting her and lets her 2-year-old cry by herself.  She says she has to 'train' the younger ones.  And she says they have to learn to obey her.

Stop right there, thank you very much.

I have a much simpler philosophy. 

The needs of the youngest or weakest among us always come first.
There is never any guessing in my house about how to look after 4 kids under the age of six.  When the needs of the youngest always come first then everyone always knows their place in the family.  When the baby needs his diaper changed and someone else is asking for juice and toast, the diaper comes first.  When I'm reading a story for the girls and the baby wakes up from a nap, the book is dropped and the baby is picked up.  Immediately.

There are two big advantages to establishing this approach.

1. I don't ever spend time in my head thinking about what to do next.  I don't feel guilty about whether or not Anna got more attention than Holly or Jasmine.  I don't debate who to run to when 3 kids are needing attention.  My brain stays clear for thinking about other things.  Decisions are made in advance of situations.
2. If my kids are going to receive any training in this house, then the training is in how to balance their needs against the needs of other people.  They are going to grow up knowing that before they act they think about the needs of other people.

Just imagine if governments and businesses adopted this attitude:  Our decisions will be made in such as way as to take care of the youngest and weakest members of society first;  then we'll worry about profit.  I would vote for anyone who promises to take care of the youngest and weakest first.  Even a Conservative.  (Ha ha ha.)

I just can't imagine a mother who calls her approach to her family 'simple' subjecting her children to arbitrary punishments and unreasonable expectations.  What is a two-year-old learning from having to cry while she waits for her mother to teach Spelling?  How is spelling more important than the needs of the toddler?  I don't get it.  I don't have an agenda that doesn't meet everyone's needs. 

The only time I don't use the 'youngest or weakest' criteria to determine whose needs get met first is when two of the older children have competing needs.  Then my criteria is also predetermined.

Emotional needs trump physical needs.
So if someone is crying over a wrecked Barbie dress while someone else is whining asking for toast and a cup of juice, the crying child is comforted before the hungry child is fed.  Whenever someone cries I drop whatever I am doing to go to that child.  I don't get involved in any drama, I just listen to the story behind the tears, I validate and I wait for the child to move on.  Guess what?  Very little crying at my house.  If you don't like the sound of crying, then go to the crier, and chances are the crying will stop.  Amazing.

I try not to get terribly critical of other mothers.  We are all genuinely trying our best.

But if a mother is going to call her website Simple Homeschool, then she should actually be doing it simply.

Time for a Snow Culture

Yesterday, amid a frenzy of media reports of an impending snow storm, Chris Spence, the Director of Education for the Toronto District School Board, closed the schools.  It was Toronto's first Snow Day since 1999.

The uproar was immediate.  Parents, confused and furious, flooded his office with phone calls.  He was there, fielding phone calls and reporters, his two children (aged 9 and 11) beside him.

Responding to critics he said:

It's like anything else.  You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, so you might as well hang on to what you believe in.

Student and staff safety trump everything!  To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing.
Source:  The Toronto Star

That parents were angry about having to keep their children home or find alternative care for them proves two things.

1.  It's Time for a Snow Culture
Weather happens.  Parents know it, school boards know it and employers know it.  If children stay home because of school closures many parents face hard decisions.  Take the day off and lose a day's pay?  Use up a sick day or a vacation day?  Leave the children with someone who you maybe don't completely trust?  Take the kids to work with you?  Work from home?

Everyone's options are different.  So maybe the government needs to step in here.  Maybe the government needs to set a standard about what will constitute a Snow Day (factoring in wind speed, temperature and snow accumulation) and declare that all employers must provide for two paid snow days per winter if necessary.  Yes, there are some essential services, but maybe hospitals and transportation providers and other services could create a reasonable contingency plan.  It could work, with a little planning and compromise.

The critics would say What about the effect on the economy?  Well, what about the effect on the economy of people trying to carry on as usual in spite of the weather?  A couple of years ago a woman was travelling the 401 with her children during a heavy snowfall, trying to get to work and school.  She stopped under an overpass to clear the snow off her vehicle and was struck and killed by a snowplow as her children watched in horror.  I would venture to say that her family doesn't give a damn about the effect on the economy.

If we as a society believe that safety matters more than money then it is time for us to act like it.  Loss of potential revenue is unimportant compared to loss of life.  It's time to recognize our limitations.  Business leaders and government need to say that it's OK for staff to stay home when the weather is dangerous.

2.  Schools Really are all about Babysitting
All the parents who were angry about the school closures yesterday had a single complaint:  What are we supposed to do with our children?  D'uh.....how about spend the day with them?  Were all the whining parents scheduled to perform open heart surgery yesterday?  How important to their jobs do they really think they are?

I get it that some parents would lose income by not working yesterday.  And some parents work in situations were it would be inappropriate to bring their children along, but the majority of parents can probably use a sick day or a vacation day and stay home.  If that is the case, then it really just comes down to a question of selfishness, doesn't it?  You'd rather save those days for when you want them rather than spontaneously take a day to spend with your children.

Primarily, parents need school for babysitting so that they can go to work.  The fact that parents are unable to figure out alternatives to school on a Wednesday sort of proves this.  In fact, this inability to solve the 'child-care problem' is exactly what school is all about.  School teaches people not to think for themselves, to follow along with what everyone else is doing, to keep a strict routine and never deviate from it.  Going to school makes both children and adults into helpless marionettes controlled by the economics of modern culture. 

It is the people who didn't conform to the status quo who weren't scrambling for child-care yesterday:  families with a stay-at-home parent, self-employed parents, multi-generational families under one roof, unjobbers and entrepreneurs.    And yes, some parents dropped the kids off to Grandma or had the nanny show up as usual yesterday.  But parents don't have to be rich (or lucky) to have alternatives to sending kids to school and daycares.  They just have to be creative and pro-child, two things a school can never be.

If Chris Spence were to read this post I would want him to know that I totally respect his decision to close the schoosl yesterday.  But I would also want to him to know that there is nothing he could do to get me to enroll my kids in one of his schools.  For us, everyday is a snow day.