Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Mommyjacking

OK, this isn't news, but I found it entertaining enough to share.  I'm not too familiar with STFUP as a whole, but the "mommyjacking" section (linked here) has to be seen to be believed.
STFU Parents





This is one of those sites you have to click-through to, since the real fun is in screen captures like the above. Here's an excerpt from the editor:
I’m starting to think that mommyjackers have a sixth sense. Whenever one of their friends has a big announcement or updates about a milestone, the mommyjackers are there, ready to pounce with their needless information. You thought your news was big? HA! Dream on. You thought that people could press the brakes on their own lives for a second to acknowledge yours? Think again, you fool. Mommyjacking is a lifestyle choice - a forever commitment - and people should be prepared to have their “big news” trumped by their hijacking friends when they post an update. No milestone will go unturned in the hands of a mommyjacker, and that’s just how it’s going to be.
This is obviously not a parent-hating kind of blog, as our readers have a diverse array of views on the subject. However, the behavior displayed on the Facebook screen captures in this thread is heinous enough that I'm pretty sure parents would also think its hilarious.
And as to the phenomenon of banal, gross, or annoying Facebook updates from parents? This is not a problem I have every really suffered. I find that careful use of the unsubscribe command is a good way to leave only those people who post relevant and funny stories about their kids even us childfree folks can enjoy.
Technorati Tag:

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

New Book; The Conflict:How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women

Withey: Modern moms under pressure to do what’s right by the planet

This article discusses the book The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women

This is a scathing, controversial and brilliant piece of writing about how moms have effectively regressed as women in their efforts to do everything the so-called ‘natural’ way, be it drug-free deliveries, co-sleeping or on-demand breastfeeding.

“We have agreed to this regression in the name of moral superiority, the love we bear for our children, and some ideal notion of child rearing, all of which are proving far more effective than external constraints,” Badinter writes. “As everyone knows, there is nothing quite like voluntary servitude.”
. . .
Many women are, of course, furious about the book, especially the “atayollahs of breast-feeding,” as Badinter dubs them. Special aim is taken at pro-breastfeeding group La Leche League, whose “crusade,” Badinter says, supports traditional parenting (namely, that mommy and her milk supply stay home with the baby), eroding women’s freedoms.

Ruffled feathers? Just a bit. France’s foremost feminist (who by the way is a mother) has had death threats for her explosive views.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything Badinter writes. Still, I think this book is an essential read, whether or not you plan to have a child. Because she also touches on society’s treatment of women who remain childfree, either by choice or not. Though it’s becoming increasinly acceptable, the tendency is still to see these women as failures, she says, to view them with “pity or rebuke.”

Yet we don’t tend to question people’s decision to have children, and we certainly don’t care about their regret. “Society is not ready to hear that some parents feel frustrated and bitter and would perhaps have done better without children.”

While many modern women pin their identity to their status as moms, even title themselves such (mommy bloggers, mompreneurs), others find this a tough road to hoe. It has nothing to do with how much we love our children. We love them! But as Badinter argues, a mom’s instinct is not innate.
Technorati Tag:

Monday, March 19, 2012

'Friends with Kids' Is Not So Friendly to Those Without Kids

HuffPo
What makes Friends with Kids disappointing is that, in the end, our protagonists don't break all the rules. They come around and follow them. It starts when they swiftly dismiss the option of not having kids -- of course they want kids! -- and it continues on from there. There's one resolutely childfree character in the film -- Mary Jane, Jason's girlfriend. "Honestly, I've just never had the urge, and I love my freedom," she explains. But in her last scene, she's supposed to come across as selfish and pouty -- because she isn't happy about being seated in high-end restaurant next to a family with three squirrelly kids. Overall it's not a terrible portrayal of a childfree person (Mary Jane is played by Megan Fox, so at least she makes the childfree look smokin' hot), but in a movie in which almost everyone is presented sympathetically, M.J. gets the shaft.
Technorati Tag:

Childless couples tell of slights and judgments

New Zealand Herald
A book by Theresa Riley has given an insight into the lives of those who have opted not to have children - and the Auckland PhD student told the Herald she was fascinated by her findings. Her thesis and book, Childfree in New Zealand: How couples who choose not to have children are perceived, explores the experiences of 10 couples aged from their early 20s to their 50s.
Technorati Tag:

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Taxpayers pay for children services, why not contraceptives?

Taxpayers pay for children services, why not contraceptives?
A recent letter, printed Feb. 26, was titled “Individual choices should not be society’s burden.” The writer’s point was that if people choose to participate in activities that might produce a pregnancy, other people should not have to pay for their contraceptives. I wonder if the writer has taken into account how taxpayers, especially those who are child free by choice, may feel about supporting other people’s choice to have a child.
Technorati Tag: