In defense of Taylor Swift

Posted on by — Leave a reply

My first exposure to Taylor Swift was a few years ago, when dd and her BFF were captured on cameraphone video performing “Love Story” at day care. Suddenly, dd was obsessed with Taylor Swift and we HAD to have her CD’s and we HAD to have them on repeat. All. The. Time. It was around this time that I saw La Swift herself on the MTV Video Music Awards, performing “You Belong With Me” in the subway and on the streets of New York City – the year that she was famously interrupted by Kanye West as she came up to accept an award.

Over the course of the next few years, Taylor Swift became part of the heavy rotation in both our cars, since she was kid-safe alternative to dh’s favored metal and a musical alternative to my standard in the car (NPR). Our ds soon became so enamored of her singing that he memorized words and titles for his favorite songs, often throwing hideous fits in the car if we didn’t let him hear the end of a particular tune.

And so, this is their exposure to her: a pretty blonde girl with a sweet voice and an ability to make infectious pop with twang.

Our exposure to her – mine and dh’s – is far different. Of course, you can turn off the TV, ignore the magazines and newspapers, and generally try to shut yourself off from the world, but that’s unlikely to happen these days. So, what we see (in addition to the loveliness that draws in the kids like a siren’s song) is a girl who’s under fire for her penchant for high-profile serial monogamy. Apparently, it’s still fashionable to treat women (at any age) as though searching for love makes her some kind of harlot.

The public (through the media) gleefully chucks men like George Clooney on the shoulder, wink wink nod nod, about his long series of female companions, declaring him a “terminal bachelor” and always dropping hints about the low likelihood that his current flame will stay lit forever. But no one ever drags him over the coals for any of his relationships ending. It may be that he’s just that nice of a guy and his relationships just cool off over time, so it’s really nobody’s fault that he’s been in so many relationships over the years. But then why is it okay to get all over Taylor Swift for having had several high-profile relationships of her own? No one refers to her as a “terminal bachelorette”; they make jokes at her expense and warn their sons to stay away from her because she’ll write a song about their break-up.

Sure, La Swift has dated pop royalty and Hollywood stars – the “It” boys from both sides of the pond. So what is really driving all this bile? Is it because she writes her own songs? Because she plays her own music? Because she’s already dated more young, desirable men than many women can match in multiple lifetimes?

It really comes down to two things: Sexism and a Mean Girl Society.

Sexism: I can come up with more examples than Clooney to show that Swift is being targeted in a fashion that the public rarely ever targets men. The few men who get such treatment often are chastised for more than just their dating habits (like John Mayer, the singer/songwriter and former boyfriend of Swift’s, whose erratic and often self-indulgent behavior garnered more than his fair share of tabloid headlines). She gets called out when men with similar serial dating patterns are put on pedestals for their ability to acquire attractive stables of ex-girlfriends. When Kristen Stewart did whatever it was that she did with Rupert Sanders, her “Snow White and the Huntsman” director, she was put through the meat grinder for cheating on her hot actor boyfriend, Robert Pattinson, and far less grist went into the mill over Sanders cheating on his wife Liberty Ross (the mother of his child). As my 3-1/2yo ds is fond of saying: “NO FAIRS!!!”

Mean Girl Society: La Swift has racked up quite the list of ex-boyfriends, and their total hotness quotient is usually measured in fairly high numbers. [Editor’s note: I’m not attracted to 99% of them, because several of them are nearly half my age, and their mileage is just too low for my personal taste.] She seems to have too much going for her. She’s pretty, she’s talented, she seems to be a genuinely nice person…and she dates all these cute guys. To all the people crying NO FAIRS in their own right, they feel like pulverizing her spirit publicly through tabloid stories and award show zingers is fine…but there’s a point at which you just need to lay off. She hasn’t done anything wrong, and probably the overwhelming majority of those taking pot shots would far rather be in her shoes.

Frankly, I shouldn’t even need to wag a finger at people for stuff like this. It’s just that I don’t want my kids growing up thinking that it’s okay to do this to someone else, and I certainly don’t want it to happen to either of them. Taylor Swift lives a remarkable life, I’m sure. She seems to be simultaneously all over the globe, recording, performing, talking, having her picture taken…ubiquitous. I can’t imagine the pressure she’s under when trying to maintain friendships, much less romantic relationships, when the demands of her current career probably keep her in constant motion. Having been her age (seemingly too long ago) and remembering what it was like balancing a simple enough day job with friends and dating options…I don’t know how I’d handle what she deals with. She’s probably doing the best she can. And if she isn’t, that’s NOBODY’S BUSINESS BUT HERS.

So let’s stop rooting against her. Sure, she’s talented. She’s pretty. She does seem to be a really nice person. Are those reasons to take cheap shots? Nope. So let’s just STOP, because the only joke right now is how pathetically she’s being treated by the media, and it’s not a damn bit funny.

{interlude} What if one of my kids is gay?

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

Having not one but two Supreme Court cases discussing issues around same-sex marriage or “gay marriage”, it seemed like a good time to have this chat. I don’t tend to get on my soapbox a lot, but when I do it’s because I really feel the need to say something. [Cases this week: Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v Windsor]

With my 3-1/2yo ds loving running around the house in a skirt – and even asking to wear it out – of course there’s always a question of, “Is this just dress up?” After all, doesn’t skirt-wearing and doll-playing automatically turn a boy gay? Er, no. And even if it did, SO EFFING WHAT?

Boys and girls like to play dress up. It’s utterly insane that girls can dress in “boy” clothes and people call them “tomboys”, while boys who dress in “girl” clothes are automatically labeled as “gay”. Is it because the clothes suggest femininity and any sign of femininity by a male connotes homosexuality? (Try telling that to the strapping lads of Scotland in their lovely kilts!) And since when is “gay” a bad thing? WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING GAY?

Oh right, there’s NOTHING wrong with being gay. (or bi, or trans, for that matter)

Sure, there are people who have religious arguments against anyone who’s not heterosexual, but these arguments fall apart as you start to work into the basis of their theological structure. If one believes that a specific higher power is infallible and doesn’t make mistakes, then the variety in our society – including in sexual orientation – isn’t a mistake, either. Diversity is not a negative.

It’s completely unclear to me how one person being (or not being) gay harms someone who isn’t gay – especially when these individuals may never come into any contact with each other. Why should the idea of two gay people marrying in California be such a bugaboo for people who live in Utah? The truth is, this whole notion of “eroding traditional marriage” is nothing but complete and utter crap. It’s just a crap argument, period. My marriage to dh isn’t harmed or even remotely affected by gay residents of any state, including our own trailblazing Massachusetts, getting married to each other.

What bothers me so incredibly much about these court cases that have to be run past the Supremes is that you have people essentially arguing that it’s okay to create two classes of citizens: one that can have all the rights that are bestowed to married people and one that cannot. You have a new variant on the “separate but equal” concept espoused in the 1896 case of Plessy v Ferguson (which was overturned in 1954’s Brown v Board of Education). The basic premise of the Plessy decision was a complete fallacy: separate but equal may be separate but it’s never equal.

I heard a snippet tonight on NPR’s “All Things Considered”, where a protestor outside the Supreme Court talked about why gay marriage is a sign that our society is going in the wrong direction. It’s not what The Founders would have wanted, and it’s not what they intended. She’s absolutely right about the last point – the men who founded this country would be shocked by the idea of gay marriage. They’d probably also be having massive heart attacks about having a non-white President and having had female cabinet secretaries, since the documents on which they built our country and the society they designed accepted slavery as a perfectly normal way of life. Women weren’t allowed to vote until the 1900’s. Before we hold up the late 1700’s as a perfect example of how our society was constructed, perhaps we should make sure reflects the values our society has grown and evolved to accept.

And so, I eventually wrap around to the issue at hand: What if one of my kids is gay? What then? What do I do? What do I say?

For me, it’s a pretty easy answer. There are a few things I’d do right off the bat:

1) I would remind them that I love them.

2) I would remind them that I support them.

3) I would give them hugs.

4) I would congratulate and thank them for telling me.

That’s it. There’s no inner conflict for me.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay, just like there’s nothing wrong with not being gay. If I want my kids to be able to grow up in a world that’s even better than the one I was born into, it’s up to me (and dh) to give them the support they need to thrive and succeed. Being accepting of who they are – and reminding them that our love comes unconditionally – is part and parcel of being the kind of parents we want to be.

This isn’t rocket science. Hate isn’t cool. Ignorance isn’t cool. Separate but equal is nothing more than separate and unequal. Our society can only progress toward enlightenment through embracing our diversity. For me, that starts with embracing my kids.

So, regardless of what they may one day say – “Mom, I’m gay!”, “Mom, I’m bi!”, “Mom, I’m trans!”, or even…”Mom, I’m straight!” – I will love my kids and support them. Unconditionally.

TV is not rat poison

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

Back when I was pregnant with dd, I spent quite a bit of time on the online discussion boards on BabyCenter. In one sense, this was a bad thing: too many hormonal pregnant women in any confined space (even if it’s online) is still a messload of hormones trapped, waiting to blow. In several other senses, it was a great thing: I got to meet a number of really fantastic women, some of whom I’ve had the good fortune to meet in real life. The women with whom I got along the best were the ones who respected and supported my choices, even when they weren’t 100% in step with their own. They understood that every parent has to choose what they feel is best for their own family.

One argument I recall from those online boards was the vehement opposition some moms had to baby formula. Some even likened it to rat poison, in their vitriolic rants about why it was breast or bust. Of course, formula isn’t rat poison. For some parents, formula is a necessary way to get through until the baby is old enough to be on solids 24/7. While many of them have slightly varying nutritionals, each one has to meet a minimum set of standards to be okay to distributed.

And then we get to TV. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy recommending no “screen time” for kids under the age of 2, based on the relationship identified between screen time and Body Mass Index (BMI). Medline provides more detailed recommendations about kids just over the age of 2, although there has to be a point at which their recommendations lose their freshness – probably by the time the kids hit their teens (at the latest). They don’t really give a cut-off for “kids”, so the harshest assumption is that they mean for readers to follow those guidelines through adolescence.

I definitely remember having a talk with dh before dd was born, discussing how we’d never be parents who let the TV raise our kids. And really, we do stick to that. So it’s funny that I’m writing this as I’m sitting in the den with ds, with “Cinderella” in the DVD player. There’s a part of me that gave in to the notion of letting the kiddos watch TV, potentially even on a daily basis, without freaking out. What we did to make sure that we could limit our own concerns, since we don’t want the kids to do what I did when I was younger (live on TV and become as sedentary as a turtle).

We bought some DVD’s and we strictly police the amount of time the kids can watch (usually 1 DVD or 1 show), whichever fits the time slot better. We also set up TiVo with season passes for PBS shows, like “Curious George”, “Dinosaur Train” and “The Cat in the Hat Knows A Lot About That!” TV shows without ad breaks for things I don’t want them asking for – whether it be toys or unhealthy foods – just bother me something fierce. The joy of TiVo, especially with the power of ON DEMAND, is that there’s always something I can put on if they get a quick half-hour or a full-hour of time when we’re okay with them watching something.

Do I let the kid watch TV when I’m not in the room? Sure. If they’ve been good all through dinner and they’re ready for bed (in pajamas, teeth brushed, etc.), I’ll let them watch a half-hour show while I’m doing dishes. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I know the shows they put on because I put them on for them, and we don’t both queueing up things we have concerns about. Stuff with excess violence or ads automatically makes the “DO NOT SHOW” list, in our house.

Now, I know I can’t protect them from everything, but there are some things I don’t think are worth getting crazy about. TV, in limited quantities, provides them with an outlet to dream and to learn. Especially with the shows from PBS, there’s always some kind of educational message explicitly or subtly built into the delivery. Some of the other shows that the kids have taken to more recently come from Disney Jr. and were featured at a breakfast I attended at BlogHer ’12 – “Sofia the First” and “Doc McStuffins”. Watching these two on ON DEMAND reduces any potential for ads while still providing the kids with access to shows that have life lessons embedded in them.

At some point, I’m going to have to introduce them to the stuff that was my life blood when I was growing up, Warner Brothers cartoons featuring Bugs Bunny, the Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and all the rest of the WB pantheon. I can’t imagine kids growing up without seeing all the silliness that involves anvils dropping on people’s heads with no real-world consequences.

And when it comes to movies, pretty much Disney is my go-to. The movies tend to be 2hrs or less (such as ds’ current favorite – “Cinderella”), and while each may have a scary moment, they aren’t typically violent or actually scary. Kids need to be given some measure of scare at some point, some challenge to that portion of their neural immune system, so they aren’t turned into complete fraidy cats later in life.

So sure, we limit their TV to typically no more than 1hr a day, 2hrs max (unless someone is sick, in which case all bets are off). And we limit what they can see by strictly controlling which shows are available to them. But we don’t keep them from TV, and I think that’s perfectly fine. It really isn’t rat poison, unless you let it be, and I don’t feel like any less of a responsible parent for letting them enjoy the fruits of someone else’s creative labors…with limits.