SEARCH
social media
friends & sponsors
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Monday
    Nov192012

    fine reads: when winter comes

    When Winter Comes, by Nancy Van Laan, illustrated by Susan Gaber, is a short and sweet read that answers questions like, "Where oh where do the leaves all go when winter comes and the cold winds blow?"

    With calm, rhythmic text, this book manages to be at once informative and soothing. Classified as a title for "the very young," my almost three year old loved the somewhat muted, earth-toned acrylic-painted illustrations and the rhymes, and enjoyed being able to answer some of the posed questions himself.

    Before cozying up in bed, a child (whose only real gender signifier is a very cute bob, though interestingly I can only find them referenced as 'he') explores the outdoors with two big people (one of whom looks rather female; the other is just an adult in winter clothes). They check out the icebound pond, wonder about where the flowers went, and eventually make their way back to the house, where the little one gets ready for sleep.

    A perfect bedtime story for sensitive kids, this has no tension, just wintery imagery heavy on the beauty and wonder of the cold weather. When Winter Comes is relatable for anyone who lives in a snowy clime, but is equally appealing for those in warmer places who like a little seasonal vicarious living.

    There's nothing didactic about the adults; I got the impression that they were -- as we were --along for the ride, being led by the child's questions about the nature that surrounds us. They seem fairly ambiguously-aged as well as gendered (in the case of the blue-coated grownup), and, because there's no mention of them by name or title, they could easily be two mamas, a mama and a papa, grandparents or any other combination of a vaguely feminine person and someone else. The clothing and surroundings don't speak to a time period, and so this story feels enduring despite having been written in 2000. Racial identitiy is similarly ambiguous; the family's dark hair and the child's olive complexion mean this story could come across as a depiction of many different ethnicities and a few different races, with some room for multiracial or multiethnic families to feel represented.  I, of course, imagined a little Jewish girl, and started scheming about how to recreate that hat.

    Ratings:

    Kids' Gender Neutrality: ***** 

    Five stars for an outdoors-exploring, nature-interested kid dressed in simple, non-gendered clothing, without a name, with no pronouns and only a bob-with-bangs to serve as a hint to their gender. 

    Family Situations: ****

    Four stars for two companion adults, one of whom is probably female, not mentioned by name or pronoun but obviously loving and engaged. 

    Multiculturalism: **

    Two stars for a family that is not necessarily white, but not obviously anything else.

    Gentle Parenting: ***

    Three stars for involved adults who take a backseat to the child, and for a story with no correction and no negativity but lots of clearly (if poetically) stated answers to questions my own toddler might ask.

    Story and Illustration Quality: ****

    Four stars for beautiful pictures and truly endearing, lilting text. For a picture book, maybe a little too spare, but if this were a board book it would get five stars, easily. 

    Our family's Overall Rating: ****

    Four stars. George found it a "nice and quiet" exercise in rhyming, which he's loving lately, and especially liked the page about caterpillars. I appreciated the simplicity and warmth despite the snowy subject matter, and the inherent inclusiveness of a book with characters like these. When Winter Comes was enjoyable enough that I'll be looking for it to add to our permanent library here at home! Buy it at Powell's, or Amazon, or check it out at your local library.

     

     

     

    Saturday
    Nov172012

    fine reads

    We like to read, a lot, my kids and I. Visiting the library is a weekly (and sometimes bi-weekly) thing for us, and I can't skip over the book section of any thrift shop, which is another place we frequent. I try not to deny my kids any books, even though some of George's choices have led to improv work at storytime, to avoid... questionable text either I wasn't ready to tackle or he wasn't ready to hear. Picture books can be surprisingly dogmatic and violent! Despite my willingness to let them take home just about anything, however, there are some themes that I seek out, and qualities I look for in a picture book, to sort of level the field and normalize other realities for my white, (so far) cis-gendered kids who happen to have a "traditional" two-parent family. Unfortunately, these qualities in children's literature are also pretty hard to find, and difficult to search. Nobody's making Amazon lists called "non-heteronormative, multicultural books with ambiguous family situations your toddler will LOVE!" So goes the refrain of every over-achiever: I'll just do it myself. 

    In a new series, Fine Reads, I'll be reviewing books we discover that are widely available online at Amazon or, preferably, Powell's, and rating them based on these criteria:

    Kids' gender neutrality: I'll be noting whether or not there are gender pronouns used, if the children in the stories have gender-neutral names, or present in a typically-gendered way. 

    Family situations: I'll be looking for books that include non-traditional families, including same sex parents, single parent families, children raised by non-biological parents (adoptive parents, grandparents, surrogate and foster families, etc.), or books that simply don't specify who the pictured adults are. 

    Multiculturalism: This does not mean books about "the first Thanksgiving" and the like. I'm on the lookout for stories that feature regular ol' non-white or ethnically ambiguous families/children without tokenizing or fetishizing. 

    Gentle parenting: Not looking for incidences of punishment or other bummers, though I'm not anti-parents just don't understand situations á la Maurice Sendak's entire oeuvre. 

    Story and illustration quality: With obvious bias, but I'll comment on these, too. I'm often disappointed in children's books for their inattention to the story in favor of hip or pretty pictures. 

    and, finally, Our family's overall rating: I'll be using a star system, with one being the lowest and five the highest. I'll link to where you can purchase the book for yourself, and no posts will be sponsored or otherwise subsidized unless information to the contrary is clearly stated. I'm not interested in shilling books for anyone, just in providing a resource for llikeminded parents and reading some good books with my kids. 

    Are there any other criteria you'd like to see me cover? Leave a comment and I may add it to the list! Look for the first review coming in a few days; we checked out a very sweet title from our library last week! 


    Thursday
    Nov082012

    on involving my kids in politics

    A photo of my son -- a photo (and a kid, obviously) of which I am very proud -- did some laps around the internet last week. On more than one occasion it, my parenting, and my motives were questioned, and that took me by surprise, as George was participating in an activity I would never think twice of. What was he doing?

    Standing on the steps of our county's courthouse, at a rally in support of Referendum 74 (WHICH PASSED THANK YOU WASHINGTON), which affords all Washingtonians their right to marry whomever they damn well please.

    I was accused of indoctrinating him, of forcing my beliefs on him, and using him for political gain. Those accusations made me sad not because they spoke to me in any real way; they were absurd. I was disappointed to read them, because they meant that people are not engaging their kids in political discourse. To the hand-wringers, a child at a rally is a prop, not a participant, and that speaks volumes of the state of our nation. 

    George wasn't plunked down on the steps of the courthouse for a photo-op, and he wasn't naive to the cause for which we were rallying support. We've talked at length this fall about the presidential candidates, the ballot measures that most concern us, and what we, as citizens, can do to make sure our voices are heard and people get a fair shake. So many people he loves -- we love -- are affected by the homophobia that plagues our country, and if anyone feels injustice to the core, it's a toddler. What better time to introduce the concept of privilege (and shedding it) than in these formative years? We are developing a habit of participation, of informing ourselves and thoughtfully considering those around us. If that's indoctrination, well, there are certainly worse dogmata.

    That brings me to the other troubling part of the complaints: the assertion that I should give my kids "all the information" and "let them decide." This is a proposition only humored by liberals, and I'm here to say: NO EFFING WAY. Civil rights are not something about which we should even be voting. Were my children to grow up racist, I wouldn't shrug my shoulders and say hey, to each his own! The devoutly religious, the homophobic: they don't (usually) suggest to one another that there might be another way, so what's with the liberal guilt around the only things that are, without question, just and true? I have no problem telling my kids, or anyone else, that some things are right and some things are wrong and my family will not participate in bigotry. For the record, I also often choose what George eats for lunch, when he goes to bed, and whether or not he can oppress his sister despite not detailing every edible thing in the house, the necessary bodily functions that occur during sleep, or what will happen when Zelda is big enough to fight back. 

    I was proud to watch the debates with my children, proud to hear what George had to say about Obama and Romney, and thrilled when he could rejoice with me in the victories we won. It's never too early to have these conversations, and never too late, either. In a country where apathy is rampant, involvement is one cure. 

    Tuesday
    Nov062012

    ELECTED

     

    Proud of Washington State tonight. 

    Friday
    Nov022012

    an open letter to jessica valenti

    This post could be subtitled: Wherein I Refer Not To Your Book (which I haven't read) But To The Interview I Heard On The Radio The Other Morning. 

    Jessica Valenti founded a website I like a lot and has recently written a book: Why Have Kids?: A New Mom Explores the Truth About Parenting and Happiness. She is mother to a toddler (I gather) and has been making the rounds as a "young feminist" who is tackling "the issues" or, diving headlong into the profitable and ridiculous "Mommy Wars" which is a phrase I already regret typing despite that last thing I said being (subjectively) true. I was disappointed at many points during her interview in ways that I frequently feel disappointed with my contemporaries in the feminist community. 

    Dear Ms. Valenti,

     

    I realize that mine is a difficult undertaking, given that I haven't read your book. To be honest, my reading wish list is long, and includes many things I plan to read for reasons other than providing thorough refutations of Internet Personalities' views on parenting. So, please cut me some slack in that department and I'll stick to what I heard you say in this interview on NPR to which I would link if I could find it. 

    You seem to be taking the position that I've read and heard so often in the past few years: that parenthood is too hard on women. That attachment parenting is demeaning and demanding in unreasonable ways, particularly to women. That "problems" with these newfangled methods are, then, a feminist issue. I heard you smugly chuckle at the idea that some parents choose to watch their babies for elimination cues and take them to the toilet rather than change diapers. You scoffed, audibly, at the recommendation that parents wear their children as much as possible; at co-sleeping. You implied that these choices -- made by adults, generally after doing some research -- are making women unhappy, and that if it were more widely publicized that parenthood sucked so bad, if there were more affordable avenues for leaving your kids with someone else while you get on with your life, maybe fewer people would respond so negatively to the experience of raising children. 

    I'd like to talk a little about this, personally. While obviously not the case for everyone, my children were my liberation. After years of working jobs I didn't like to make ends meet, putting off the possibility of seeking out work I found fulfilling because I couldn't afford to fail, I got pregnant. There was nothing noble or progressive about the job I had when I got pregnant, but quitting it to raise my children has easily been the most controversial parenting choice I've made. Politically active, feminist-identified friends have given me figurative head pats, pep talks about re-entering the workforce someday, and treated me like a twee relic because I choose not to work outside the home. They have congratulated me on being self-sacrificing enough to take on things like cloth diapering because, while they'd really love to, they just can't imagine having the time. Like many people, I've had lifelong struggles with my body image. It wasn't until having children -- birthing them, unapologetically feeding them in public, witnessing their guileless exploration of my flabby upper arms, acne scars, and stretched belly -- that I began to accept and eventually appreciate my body for what it was and expect that others do the same. I found myself hoping for my kids to find meaning and joy in their days and, in trying to engineer that for my children, I've learned to search for and value the same for myself, whether it's a paid, intellectual pursuit or not. Because it almost never is.

    When asked the perfunctory question (why have kids?), you said there were two answers, a real one and a jokey one: you came from a large Italian family, and (basically) because kids say the darndest things. I realize that this was oversimplified but it still gave me pause. I had kids because I wanted to create a family with my partner, because I thoroughly enjoy children and because I knew I'd be good at it. Familial expectations didn't play into my decision, and similarly, I didn't have another child just to give my son a sibling. People should be parents because and only because they want to be, and believe they would be good at it. I agree that parental unhappiness stems in part from the lack of resources, but cheap daycare is not on my list of ways to make parents generally happier (It is, however, on my list of things we should do because it makes sense.). Instead, I take issue with a society that throws weddings to which children are not invited or relegated to a "childcare room" (because 200 adults can't just redirect a kid sticking his fingers in the wedding cake? Or, god forbid, hang out with some children?). I blame a country wherein breastfeeding in public is a debatable issue, and 30-something year old friends meeting my daughter for the first time say they've never held a baby before. We are setting up parents to fail by treating children like burdens we need to escape from, rather than welcoming them into the communities they'll inherit. We keep kids' normal behaviors a secret until those often confusing traits are foisted upon underslept, stressed parents focused on maintaining their "normal lives" and wondering why nobody told them that newborns actually eat every 3 hours...for 2 and a half hours. Including our children in our lives in both meaningful and mundane ways, incorporating them into everyday life so that they become as much a fixture as our phones, exposing others to the normality of childhood so that they know what to expect of young people: that's a way to make people enjoy parenting. Realistic expectations breed success. Attachment parenting, allowing a place for children in our everyday lives, enables that.

    The question: are you mom enough? is not a question posed by well-meaning fellow mothers or even sympathetic feminists. It's yet another shitty patriarchal device used to pit us against one another, and it, along with all the other trappings of misogyny, are what's making women unhappy. Just as I don't allow the patriarchy to dictate where my value begins and ends, I don't want to teach people that their value will begin when they can make themselves useful (by my standards), or that I will put up with their difficult nature as long as it doesn't hinder my own pursuits. I had kids to teach, to love, to pay attention to and nurture in whatever way they need. I hope to have many years of watching my independent offspring fend mostly for themselves, but that just isn't the deal when they're little and I knew that when I signed up for this gig. If it were a more widely known fact about parenting, perhaps that would make for happier parents. 

    Attachment parenting isn't making women unhappy. Following others' whims rather than deciding what works for your family? Sure, that'll do it. Uncertainty makes judgment feel harsher, hurt worse. Trying to squeeze your child into a philosophy that doesn't resonate with her? Failure: that'll make everyone unhappy. But don't blame women who believe fervently in and advocate for a more responsive way of parenting. Don't chuckle about parents who make educated choices that differ from yours. Then you're just throwing fuel on Time Magazine's beach bonfire. Some people find liberation in raising babies and chickens and the freedom to go to the library at 11am any damn day of the week, and nobody gets to tell me that isn't a part of my feminism.

    Respectfully,

    Stefanie