No gender bias, just stop acting like a dumbass

So a few days ago, Mrs. Hall wrote this to the girls in her sons' ("the Hall boys") social sphere, complete with a photo of her three shirtless boys (and their sister). Mrs. Hall makes some great points. I, too, think it's inappropriate for girls to post hideous, scantily clad selfies in messy bedrooms. However, it's not because I don't want my sons seeing them "in a state of undress" and then not being able to "un-see it." It's because I don't think anyone should see another person in an awkward, unnatural pose with their lips sticking out. You know who else shouldn't see it? Your parents, your siblings, your friends, your employer, your future employer, your teacher, your neighbour, or ... anyone. Because you look ridiculous.

Mrs. Hall got a lot of backlash, and rightfully so. Her blog post was completely hypocritical considering the corresponding picture of her boys "in a state of undress" in the male equivalent of provocative poses. Really? Seriously?

I figured I probably shouldn't outright steal Mrs. Hall's photo. It's actually a really nice photo. So here is a screen capture of how it appeared on my computer, which I declare to be fair use.

Plenty of other people saw this, too. Like PigtailPals and Rebecca Hains. They make good points. They call Mrs. Hall on her condescending attitude and the way she places the responsibility for her son' reactions to the photos onto the women who post them, rather than her sons. Mrs. Hall hopes to "raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls." That's awesome! Excellent! But you can't teach them that simply by restricting all access to images of scantily clad high school girls. If they want to look, they'll find a way. You can't teach them to be men of integrity by telling them that girls who post sexy selfies are sluts, which is essentially what Mrs. Hall is saying. You can do it by showing them how to treat people (not just women, people).

But then they start talking about slut shaming. This term has been used a LOT lately. I'm seeing it more and more. Feminists don't like slut shaming. I'm a feminist. I get it. Slut shaming is about blaming women for dressing in a sexual manner and inciting bad behavior in men, or shaming them for wanting to be sexual. Miley Cyrus is infamous now for her performance on the video music awards. She got backlash for doing it, but then the backlashers got backlash for slut shaming. I saw several arguments that her behavior was perfectly acceptable. She's a 20-year-old female exploring her sexuality and behaving like a 20-year-old. The real culprit in the performance should be the middle aged married man who was gyrating right along with her. Miley was just fine.

Re-invent yourself all you want, but there will always be images of you masturbating on stage before millions of people. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

Bullshit. I call bullshit. Her behavior was shameful. The only place where masturbation in a dance performance is appropriate is a strip club. She was on a stage in front of thousands there to watch an awards show, in a performance broadcast to millions of people of mixed demographics. Masturbating on stage is not appropriate. When my 6-year-old daughter touches her genitals, we gently remind her to do that in her bedroom, in private. When my 5-year-old sits naked on the couch with a giant boner, I tell him to go to the bathroom and go pee. When my 3-year-old plays with his penis... well, I mostly ignore it because he's three and has no idea what he's doing. Point being, apparently Miley Cyrus need to be reminded about where and when behavior like that is appropriate. Miley Cyrus should also pay attention to the people who are suggestion she seek professional help.

Laura didn't get a picture, but Google did.

I don't particularly care about Robin Thicke's involvement in that shit show because I'm not entirely convinced he knew she was going to behave in that manner. However, the song he sang is indicative of something that should be shamed. It's an attitude, mostly ascribed to males but sometimes (often?) embraced by females, that Laura observed in the mall the other day.

Today at the mall I saw a teenage boy wearing a shirt that said:

COOL STORY HOE 

NOW SUCK MY DICK 

It makes me ill that casual misogyny is so easily accepted that this shirt got made, marketed, displayed, purchased, and worn, without anyone ever pointing out how truly dreadful it is. How do we - as parents and as people - respond to this?

How do we respond? I propose the male equivalent of slut shaming: douche shaming*.

That's right. I don't think there is anything wrong with public shaming when shaming is warranted. When you wag your tongue around and wear ill-fitting, ugly underwear while masturbating in front of millions, you should feel ashamed, because your behavior is shameful. When you wear a shirt in public (or anywhere else) that demeans a woman who has done nothing but tell some sort of story or anecdote and then requests she perform a sexual act on you, you should feel ashamed because your behavior is shameful. Douche shaming.

Here are some douches who should be publicly shamed. These images are not attractive. No one wants to see the top of your underwear. It's not sexy. It makes you look like a douche.

Nice toilet, dumbass.

Did you really need to pull down your shorts to reveal your underwear? Is that your junk bulging out? Because it doesn't actually really look like it, so if that's what you were showing off, you fail.

Giant caps are not attractive, backwards or forwards.

Why isn't there backlash toward this male slut, whose only fans are teenage girls?

I'm not going to un-see that picture of Justin Bieber. It doesn't make me imagine him naked, nor will it make me only view him in a sexual manner in the future. It makes me imagine him as an immature dumbass who posted a half naked photo of himself on the internet because he's rich and he doesn't need to worry about employers seeing it. But I don't want my daughter seeing it, at any age, because I don't want her getting the impression that guys who pose in bed with overdone hair, giant headphones, tighty whities are sexy. They're not. Because he's trying too hard, just like Miley Cyrus was trying way, way too hard.  People dismiss this gigantic douchebag as a gigantic douchebag and make fun of him. What they don't do is a massive public shaming a la Miley Cyrus. That needs to change. Please, please, please let the douche shaming begin.

If you see a guy wearing a shirt like this, for fuck's sake don't flirt with him. But don't just run the other way, either. Laugh. Insult. Taunt. And get your friends to do it, too. Spill your wine on it. Deface it. This photo is interesting because it came from a collection of photos of horrible shirts from an event in Las Vegas. I did not the photographer chose to allow the men to remain anonymous, removing our ability to publicly shame them. Rarely does this happen to photos of women behaving badly. Please, can we start publicly shaming these douchebags? We could start with this guy (yes, I've spent some time on Google tonight):

This is JMatthewRoss. He posted this picture on his public dating profile. He is Christian, but "isn't seeking a relationship or any kind of committment" (shocker!) and has a son who is his "everything." Aww, sweet! But remember, he's a giant douchebag who's wearing this shirt. Maybe that is why he describes himself as "sometimes misunderstood." But hey, he's gainfully employed in the US Army, so that's a plus. Ladies, this man is a DOUCHE. Do not date him. Shame him.

@AJNaranjo21 also thinks this shirt is funny, but check out his Twitter pic. Shouldn't shock you. I have discovered in this exercise that this shirt is available at Spencer's, which also features such great shirts as Party with Sluts and many multiple shirts that reference the wearers penis. Girls, these men are giant douchewads who do no deserve your flirtation. Different words may (or may not) come out of their mouths, but their opinion is right there on their fucking shirt.

But let the slut shaming continue, too, because if it convinces girls to stop posting ugly photos of themselves scantily clad in their dirty bathrooms or masturbating on stage, I'm all for it. But let's not ignore the guys who do the exact same thing. And let's not ignore the girls who thrown themselves at Justin Bieber despite his clearly being a gigantic douche and jackass or the guys who praise images of women and girls with their boobs hanging out while at the same time calling them hoes and ignoring anything they might have to say about life.

Because all four groups are equally responsible for the perpetuation of an absolutely terrible standard of human decency. So thank you, Mrs. Hall, for starting the conversation, but let's not limit it to girls. I would not want my daughter staring at that picture of your boys and judging them based solely on their physique. Because when I see photos like that, I automatically compare them to photos like the ones above. Do your boys also think their body is their best asset? 

I don't know what social media will looked like when my kids are teenagers, but I'm guessing proper grammar and spelling still won't be popular. My kids are going to be taught that presenting yourself as intelligent is attractive. They will be actively discouraged from spelling words incorrectly on purpose. They can post pictures of their hobbies and sports and the books they're reading and their pets and their outings with friends. But if they post pictures of themselves posing for the sake of showing off their bodies, or making unflattering facial expressions, or anything remotely like Miley or Justin they will be told to delete them.

Because I'm raising kids with integrity and self-respect, too, and that has very little to do with what other people are doing and a LOT to do with what YOU are doing.

*Current slang usage of the word "douche" defines it loosely as a guy who behaves like an idiot or asshole. Original usage is a women's feminine hygiene product, so I was reluctant to use it here because I realize I probably shouldn't be using an insult that only became an insult because it's associated with dirty female reproductive organs. But I decided to use it anyway and just acknowledge its questionable heritage and appropriateness. So there.

Important things to say

"I'm a doctor, Mummy."

She is wearing a green sweater/cardigan/shrug thingy, a green ruffled sleeveless blouse, a flowy pink top with spaghetti straps as a skirt, striped capris length leggings, leg warms tied around her ankles, and pink rubber clogs. Oh, and a scarf tied around her waist.

"Why are you a doctor?"

"Because I am. Now I'm going to go swimming naked and then put it back on when I'm done, because I'm a doctor."

It is hot outside and even hotter inside.

Mary, age 6 3/4


-----------------------

(From the bathroom, while pooping)

"HEY DADDY! Do you want to give one of my toothbrushes to the Phillipines because they hardly have any there!?"

Thomas, age 5

-----------------------

"If you don't let me have two candy things... I will cry!"

"Do you want one of the little chocolate bars?"

"The only thing that will make me happy is one of the other candy things."

-Thomas

-----------------------

Cam, 5: "Mommy, if you don't get me what I want I'm not going to be good. But that's your choice."

-----------------------------

"And guess what, Mary? We also get no water park, no fun, and no trampoline. Just cleaning. Clean clean clean."

-Thomas

-----------------------

"Look! I'm as tall as your nipple!" (Shouting) "Everybody look! I'm as tall as Mom's nipple! Hooray!"
Gwen, age 5

-----------------------

Thomas: Well, you don't know everything, Mary!

Mary: No one does!

Thomas: Except God. God knows everything, because he made everything, so he knows about it.

Mary: Yeah... and 1 + 1 should equal 11.

-----------------------

Mom: How about you finish tidying up?
Gwen: How about you stop talking to me?

-----------------------
After dropping various items several times, Gwen was frustrated.  In fine sarcastic form, she shouted:
"REALLY?  How about I just drop everything in the world right out of my hands?  That would be AWESOME.  NO IT WOULDN'T."

-----------------------

Evelyn: Look it, Mommy! I make it!
Mom: What did you make?
Evelyn: Poison!

Evelyn, age 23 months

------------------------

"Umm, Daddy? Do we have any bacon?"

----------------------------

After giving my kids some lemonade I asked:
Mom: Que se dice?? (What do you say?)
Sophia, 8: gracias (thank you)
Adrian, 3: cheers!

-----------------------------

Mom: "Sam, put that way! We don't want to see that! Pull up your pants!"
Sam, 3: "EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE IT!"

---------------------------

Cam, 5: "Mommy, remember--the most important part of my costume is the horny hat. DON'T FORGET THE HORNY HAT. And it doesn't have a point, it has a HOLE."

-----------------------------

Mary: "Daddy, if you lost a bit of weight you'd just look pregnant."

We came for a prescription...

At my doctor's office.

Literary Geeks

So it's cool to be a geek, I get it, especially if you're a girl. It's a new feminist wave, getting girls accepted in geekdom circles. Gamer girls are hot. Let's encourage girls in STEM (science technology engineering math... I think), and blah blah blah. I'm all for encouraging empowerment for people who have long been underdogs.

There are several problems with this. It's ignoring boys completely. Boys apparently don't need to be encouraged to explore STEM. Boys dominate geekdom. But what about encouraging boys to embrace fields normally dominated by girls? I'm not about getting kitchen set toys for boys, I'm talking career path.

All I ever wanted to study was books. I liked to read. I'm not even that literary. There are certain periods of literature I can't stand. And I hate poetry. But I like to read. This has long been the bastion of girls. Bookish wallflower girls. This is not trendy yet. But you know what else? No one thinks it's nearly as important to push boys as hard into girl-dominated fields as it is to push girls into boy-dominated fields. I tried googling this issue... nothing much came up.

Eventually I came across this: How to Raise Boys That Read.

The article touches on something that has always bothered me. It's cool to use comic books to encourage kids to read. If you look in the YA section, a good 75% of the novels are in the fantasy/paranormal genre. Twilight exploded teenage reading. But Thomas Spence brings up another good point - the gross out factor. That's the newest gimmick to encourage boys to read. Captain Underpants. The Day My Butt Went Psycho. Sir Fartsalot Hunts the Booger. Because really? If those are the options for my boys when they learn to read, I'd rather they just go back to playing with sticks and collecting boxes of junk, because those skills will get them farther in life.

When I was a kid, I was a big fan of Nancy Drew. These are no literary masterpieces, but Nancy taught me to be observant, think critically, and try to help people. She was polite, well spoken, and dressed neatly. I've never read a Hardy Boys book, but I imagine they're similar. I read a but of Judy Bloom. I read Babysitter's Club. I read Little House. But then... I'm a girl. But then... why the hell can't boys read Judy Bloom and Baby Sitter's Club? Because society is still telling boys that things girls are traditionally interested in are lame. Why? Because we're putting all this time and effort into helping girls break in to traditionally male-dominated territory under the theory that it's superior. What if it isn't?

Babysitter's Club? I learned about entrepreneurship, friendship, and childcare (albeit questionable - what sort of parent sends they're 4-year-old out on a sail boat with a 13-year-old for the day?). God forbid boys develop an interest in caring for children. Why can't boys read Ramona and learn about periods and how girls react to getting them? Is it a secret?

There's a whole series of books I fully plan to get my daughter: Our Canadian Girl. Where's Our Canadian Boy? Or just Our Canadians, with stories about girls AND boys. Because you don't hear a lot of men talking about their childhood interest in Little House and Anne of Green Gables. You know what you learn about in Little House? A whole shit ton of historical detail about 19th century family life that fueled my passion for history that still exists. Why the hell wouldn't boys want to read the entire chapter dedicated to Pa building a door with no nails?

Here's my other beef. Reading (and writing) is never trendy. Geeky things are trendy. Sports are always encouraged. You can get scholarships for science and tech and sports and business. You know what you can't get scholarships for? English. As a teenager, I was interested in reading and writing. That's about it. This still isn't trendy. There's no cult following. It isn't hot to be in a book club. There's no controversy about gendered involvement because no one cares. One of the new feminist fights is gaining acceptance for girls and women into the male-dominated geek culture. If people actually cared about reading, I mean really cared to the point that it was trendy, you wouldn't see boys and men getting excluded from books clubs. Karen Joy Fowler has a novel called the Jane Austen Book Club. Six people form the club, one of them a guy. Austen is very firmly chick territory, but Grigg reads the novels critically and finds things to enjoy about them.

But reading for the sake of reading isn't cool. We're supposed to encourage kids to read read read so they'll be literate enough to read their science text books. Why can't we encourage them to read so that they themselves will be good storytellers? You know what else I learned from reading. Decent grammar. You know who had shitty grammar and spelling? My non-reader friends. You know who flunked first year English at university? Non-reader students from the engineering and business departments taking their English requirement. You know who didn't flunk? Me, because I'd developed critical thinking skills (as well as decent grammar and spelling) by reading.

So, how do I go about making reading and writing the next "it" thing? Because I want all three of my kids to be readers, and I want them to be reading rock stars in the same way girls in STEM are rock stars and boys who excel at sports are rock stars.

Two Ingredient Pancakes - NAILED IT

It sounded perfect. Pancakes! Two ingredients! Gluten free! Protein rich! And they just looked yummy! Observe:

I know, right? They even LOOK like real pancakes, so easy to convince the kids that they are. It seemed like such an awesome idea that I doubled the recipe. Instead of two eggs and one over-ripe banana, I used four eggs and two bananas.

Easy! Stick it all in a blender. Let a child press the buttons.

Pour it into a frying pan with the lubricant of your choice.

They're a little thin, and they spread out larger than expected.

Not too bad on the first flip.

Kinda fell apart on transfer from pan to plate.

First taste test. He liked it.

Umm, waitasec. Second batch isn't going so well.

Third batch... screw it. Way too much work flipping these suckers. The rest became weird, overly sweet (but sugar free!) banana flavored scrambled eggs.

Original recipe and instructions: The Skinny Confidential

More Than a Mistress, Chapter Eight

This is it, the chapter where I predicted things would get physical.  In the last chapter, Jane felt very aware of the Duke "as a man" and the Duke felt it was really important for Jane to know that he hadn't slept with Lady Oliver (though not important enough for him to actually tell her).  Let's see if my prediction comes true.

The chapter opens with Jane discovering the Duke in the library with a candlestick his new crutches.  She is all flustered because "she had not remembered that he was quite so tall."  They go for a stroll in the garden and then rest with "her shoulder almost touching his arm."  The Duke comments that he no longer takes his health and mobility for granted, and Jane reflects inwardly that she no longer takes her freedom and non-fugitive-status for granted, either.  We learn that her parents died within a year of each other, leaving her with her father's cousin, who had also inherited his title.  The cousin both resented her and courted her favour.  One more piece of the puzzle as to why she killed (?) the Earl's son, but none of it makes sense yet.

The Duke hits on Jane again, commenting that she makes him feel very "unsaintly".  Then he leans into her so that his arm is against her shoulder!  Yikes!  She can't move any further away from him on the bench, so she stands up.  Darn, so close to a make-out session!  "That feeling of almost unbearable tension was happening altogether too often. (...) She could not deny that the sight of him - even the very thought of him - could quicken her blood.  That the careless touch of his hand could make her ache for more."  So yeah, she's all wound up after that hot arm-on-shoulder action.  Though Jane tells the Duke that she will never be in the mood for a dalliance (that's how they said "DTF" in ye olde classy times), the narrative gives us hope: "it was a statement and a resolve that were to be tested later that very night."  YES.  I am so winning this bet!

The next scene has Jocelyn suffering insomnia, which he attributes to his new boring life as an invalid.  He is also feeling incredibly restless.  "He could feel temptation grab almost irresistibly at him - the sort of temptation that had often got him into trouble when he was a boy until he had learned to curb his urges." He usually deals with his urges by "go[ing] to a woman and stay[ing] with her until there was no energy left for anything but sleep and a return to his normal way of life."  Sometime past midnight, he can resist no longer, and hoists himself out of bed.  He puts on a shirt and pantaloons, making him deliciously underdressed for the time, and heads downstairs.

Meanwhile, it turns out Jane also cannot sleep.  She is worried about the Duke's recovery, specifically the fact that it is going well and thus she will soon be out of a job (and away from a safe haven).  She overheard a visitor that morning speculating that perhaps Jardine is not dead after all, and also varying descriptions of what the would-be murderess looks like: "a black-eyed, black-haired witch as ugly as sin, or a blond Siren as beautiful as an angel.  Take your pick; I have heard both descriptions and several others."  Jane again wonders what she should do, and even considers confronting the earl at the hotel - "It would be such a relief to come out of hiding, to have everything out in the open."  But then again, confessing would likely mean being "thrown in jail.  To be publicly tried.  To be hanged."  She is not actually sure whether an earl's daughter could be sentenced to hang, as an earl could not.  Interesting, but I suppose not all that surprising, that different classes of people would have different criminal sentences.

Anyway, she gives up on sleeping and decides to go down to the library and get a book.  She puts a cloak on, but does not "dress or put on shoes".  I'm not sure what she's actually wearing under the cloak, then, but trust that she is suitably unclad for the good times ahead.

As she descends the stairs, she hears piano music and is totally out of ideas as to who could be playing it.  When she reaches the door and sees that it is the Duke, she is transfixed.  The Duke is "playing without sheet music, his eyes closed, a look almost of pain on his face.  He was playing something hauntingly beautiful, something Jane had never heard before." That's right.  Those 'urges' the Duke was having trouble dealing with?  The ones that usually require a night of lovemaking to dispel?  They are piano-playing urges.

Jane is awestruck: "She had not believed there could be another musician with a talent to match her mother's."  Minutes pass, the music ends, the Duke's eyes open, and ... "What the devil are you doing here?" he thunders.  She apologizes, and his eyes narrow as he recovers from his shock.  "I dabble, Miss Ingleby.  I was amusing myself, unaware that I had an audience."  Jane realizes that he has "retreated (...) behind a familiar mask.  She had never thought of him before as a man who needed defenses."  So he plays piano just like Mother used to do, and he is a misunderstood man with hitherto unplumbed depths of character.  BINGO, Jane is in love.  Oh, and it doesn't hurt that he's handsome and tall.

But Jane, you know, she says what she thinks, and she isn't about to let the Duke describe his playing as mere dabbling.  "You have been gifted with a wondrous and rare talent.  And you were not amusing yourself.  You were embracing your talent with your whole soul."  The Duke calls this poppycock, and declares that "I have never even had a lesson, Jane, and I do not read music.  There goes your theory."  Except that actually, that just makes her point even more effective.  Because if two people played an incredible piece of music, which one would impress you more?  The one who has had decades of training, or the one who has never seen a piano before?  Way to argue, your Grace.  Also, this declaration makes Jane realize that he must have composed the piece he was playing.  In the middle of her being all shocked and amazed at this, the Duke goes and changes the subject to, you know, his favourite subject.

"You do not wear it loose even to bed?"

Yes, he's talking about her hair again, which by the way is in a thick braid down her back.  She doesn't comment.  "I suppose that playing the pianoforte, composing music, loving it, is something quite unworthy of a Dudley male," she points out.  The Duke agrees that it borders on the effeminate and confesses that when his father caught him playing as a youth, he was beaten so severely that he couldn't sleep on his back.  Jane wonders inwardly, "why was it that men of that type did not realize that the mature, balanced person, regardless of gender, was a fine mix of masculine and feminine qualities?", which is a fine and enlightened perspective.  The Duke starts playing again, and then asks her to sing.

Well, spoiler alert, Jane has Like The Best Voice Ever OMG.  Unlike Balogh's description of Jane's inadequate piano playing, and the Duke's amazing piano playing, we don't really get a description of what is so great about Jane's voice.  All we get is the Duke's response, which is, "I have never in my life heard such a lovely voice. Or one that adapted itself so perfectly to the music and the sentiment of the song."  The moment passes and suddenly Jane becomes aware that she is sitting beside the Duke in the music room wearing only a nightgown and a cloak in the middle of the night.  But she can't think of any way to leave "without making a grand production out of it."  Hmm, have you tried, "It's late, I'm going to bed now.  More singalongs tomorrow!"

The Duke tells her that a talent like hers ought to be shared, not hidden from the world, which is pretty much exactly the same thing she said to him ten minutes ago.  Then he takes her hand and "half the air seemed to have been sucked from the room."

"You ought not to have come down.  You have caught me at a bad time," the Duke says, which is a lovely bit of victim-blaming or at the very least personal accountability avoidance.  Come on Duke, don't buy into rape culture!  No means no!  Except then, "Yes," was all Jane could think of to say.  "Everything except her common sense yearned for her to stay."

"Don't go," he says in an "unusually husky" voice.  Having a husky voice is a sure sign of imminent sexy times.  If Jane's voice is then described as "breathy", then we are Go For Launch.

But Jane says not a word, just walks over to him where he sits on the piano bench and places her hands on his head "as if in benediction".  His hands on her waist pull him towards her and he buries his face between her breasts.  (Which always seems like a super sexy idea, but really, how does he breathe in there?)  After they revel in that awkward physical position for a few minutes, she kneels down on the floor between his legs, resting her hands on his "firm, muscled" thighs.  Then "he cupped her face with his hands before kissing her."

Now, first of all, let me say a BOO-YAH for correctly predicting the hotness of this chapter.  But secondly, if he is sitting on a piano bench and she is kneeling on the floor, her head is not in optimal kissing position (not for his mouth, anyway).  He would have to lean over far enough that frankly, a sexual partner would become obsolete.  Are you following my meaning here?  Okay, MAYBE she is on her knees but sitting up (as opposed to her thighs resting on her calves).  Otherwise he is performing a truly ungraceful hunchback manoeuvre right now.

Anyway!  Kissing!  Jane has never been kissed like this.  Forget that Charles character, THIS was kissing.  Her body "sizzled with awareness and ached with desire".  And so on.  Then the Duke says, "We will have to punish each other for this in the morning," and I'm not sure if he means the fun kinky kind of punishment or the kind where they just pretend the hot makeout session didn't happen.  "I am just a rake, my dear, with nothing on my mind except covering you on the floor here and taking my wicked pleasure deep inside your virgin body."  (Jane, to her credit, does not swoon.)  "You think that what has happened is beautiful.  I can see it in your eyes.  It is not. That is merely what an experienced rake can make a woman think.  In reality it is the simple, lustful, raw desire for sex.  Go to bed now. Alone."

Oh, this Duke fellow is confusing.  In the last chapter he really wanted Jane to know that he wasn't as much of a rake as his reputation made him out to be, but now he is saying the opposite.  And while there is nothing wrong with the simple, lustful, raw desire for sex, he is making innocent Jane feel ashamed of her participation in that desire.  What an ass.  Jane "searched his eyes with her own, looking into the mask that he had settled firmly in place."  Oh, I get it.  Every time he acts like an ass, it's because he's wearing a 'mask'.  And when he isn't being a jerk, that's the real him.  I guess it is Jane's job to help him 'take off the mask' and become 'his true self'.  Okay then.

She goes off to bed and only then realizes she never managed to get a book from the library.  But she doesn't go back.

"You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

My friend Val is a "Children's Restraint System Technician," which means that she has taken suitable education and practical studies to be legally certified in making sure children's car seats are safely installed and properly used. She performs carseat checks, often FOR FREE, for any parent who would like to make sure that their kids are safe. Which, really, should be every parent. Val is also a big fan of Royalty, and was pretty excited to see the first footage of the new infant prince heading home from the hospital in London. Except that, unfortunately, His Royal Highness's car seat usage was pretty inadequate. Knowing that the Royal family is adored and emulated the world over, she posted a picture on her Facebook page pointing out the mistakes and offering her car seat checking services.

The local news picked up on the story, and then the regional news, and now I think the story has even gone national. I've seen her interviewed on television and listened to her live radio interview. She has done a great job educating the public on how car seats are meant to be used, what mistakes to avoid, and how to contact a technician to get your own check done.  What Val has not done, in any interview or Facebook post or even side comment to a friend, is judge anyone.

Let me break this down.  "Judging" someone means making an assumption about a person's character based on their actions.  For example, if I were to say, "Jeff and Jenny are terrible parents because they don't know how to use their carseat properly," guess what?  I just judged them.  If instead I were to say, "Jeff and Jenny don't know how to use their car seat properly, and I want to help them learn," there is no judging there.  No, we call that "educating."

I have seen Val take a fair amount of flack for "judging" people that she actually adores. The Royal Parents don't need to be defended from Val, because she isn't attacking them. It then occurred to me that this might be about more than just car seats. I think we as a society have wandered too far into the territory of boosting self-esteem, at the cost of actually reducing ignorance. I've spoken to school teachers who've told me they are actually no longer allowed to give failing grades to their students anymore, for any reason. That's kind of terrifying. If everyone is guaranteed a passing grade, every year, for every assignment, is there any actual learning going on?

Have we become so terrified of actual information that we deride every statement of fact as "judging"?  If a teacher gives back an assignment and notes that I spelled the author's name wrong, I am not being judged.  I am being reminded of valid, factual information that I need to know in order to complete my course. When I notice my daughter's shoes are on the wrong feet (again), I point that out to her. That is not a judgement ("My daughter is a stupid person because she put her shoes on the wrong feet"), it is education - the instilling of a piece of information that SHE NEEDS TO KNOW.

Now, let me say another thing about parenting. I have certainly gotten on my soapbox before about how much judging parents are vulnerable to: from family members, friends, and society at large. Everyone and their in-laws have an opinion about every parenting issue you can imagine: how many kids you should have, how far apart they should be, what you should feed them, what you should name them, where they should sleep, what they should wear, what they should play with, where you should take them on vacation ... on and on. It starts the minute someone knows you're pregnant (or trying to be) - this sense of entitlement to comment on your experience.  As far as I can tell, it never stops.  (By the way, every example I've listed is something I or a close friend have received unsolicited advice about in the past year.)  My stance on all of that is this: you, as a parent, are the only one who actually lives with your own experience and your own family. You know your child, you know your family dynamic, you know your own needs and limitations and abilities and context. When it comes to your own child and your own family, ALL of those decisions are up to you, and when you open your mouth to start telling someone else what THEY should do, you are crossing the line, because you don't know their experience.  Feel free to *share* what your experience has been (if asked), framed in terms of "this is what worked for us." But recognize that other people have their own needs, limitations, abilities, and context, and that they are doing what works best for them within that context. In other words: Don't be judging.

On the other hand, there are certain immutable facts of parenthood that require a different approach from the usual "live and let live." If a friend told me she was still co-sleeping with her son at four years old, I'd smile and say I was glad she'd found something that worked for her family. If on the other hand she told me that her son slept outside with the dog because he just loves that critter so much, I would suggest that this was not safe.

If she told me that she'd found this great set of marbles and given them to her one-year-old to play with, I would ask her if she was concerned about a choking hazard.

If she told me that she wanted to leave her child unsupervised while she went on a 5k run, I would ask if she needed a babysitter.

And if she told me that she put her baby's car seat on her lap in the front seat of the car instead of actually installing it, I would show her how to install it properly. (Or, even better, call Val and ask her to do it.)

Do you see the common thread here? In every example, there is a piece of information the parent needs that they don't have. Shying away from giving it to them isn't doing anyone any favours. Also, in none of these examples do I mention that I decide my friend is a terrible mother and doesn't deserve to have children. Because that would be (say it with me ...) JUDGING.

Giving information can be positive, too. Here are some more examples:

If a friend told me that she really wished she had something to do with her two-year-old on weekday mornings, I'd let her know that a lot of schools in the area offer free StrongStart programs.

If a friend told me that she had always wanted to learn how to ballroom dance, I'd show here where Parks and Rec offers adult dance classes.

If a friend told me that she wanted to do something this weekend but didn't know what, I'd show here where to look up what's happening on Vancouver Island.

See? Passing information to someone who needs it. Judging and Educating ... not the same thing.

But I'm not judging you for not knowing that.