'Rebecca Eckler put her kid in day-care and had two nannies--you can barely call her a mother...'
May 13th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In Author Says Divorced/Separated Dads Owe Their Exes a Mother's Day Gift, I criticized Canadian journalist Rebecca Eckler's recent article Get what you want this Mother's Day. Twist the ex's arm (Globe and Mail, 5/6/08).
Canadian journalist Lydia Lovric (pictured), a critic of Rebecca Eckler, posted on my blog about some of Eckler's history. She cites her blog post Mommy Wars rage in Canada, and writes:
"For those who don't want to read the entire column, here are the Coles Notes version as to why I have zero respect for Ms. Eckler:
1) She smoked while pregnant (and basically bragged about it).
2) She wrote a column about how she was in love with some other guy, while she was pregnant with her fiance's kid.
3) She CHOSE not to breastfeed...didn't even bother to TRY...because she didn't want to be 'tied down' to the baby.
4) The woman put her kid in day-care AND had TWO nannies. You can barely call her a mother.
In the article, Lovric writes:
“'I rarely spend an entire day and night alone with The Dictator,' confesses Eckler. 'The Dictator' is Eckler’s nickname for her 2 ½ year old daughter, Rowan.
“'Usually, I have Nanny Mimi around all week, and we have a weekend nanny too, or The In-Laws to watch her at night, or I’m hanging out with friends with their Dictators. But it’s rare that I’m ever alone with The Dictator all day and all evening, all by ourselves.'
"According to Eckler, her parents, the in-laws and even the nanny are all uneasy about leaving her alone with her child. 'Really, why does everyone think I’ll kill my child, or myself, after a day spent alone with her?' quips Eckler.
"If this is supposed to be funny, I’m not laughing."
Lovric adds:
"When Eckler is faced with the daunting task of feeding her own child, she writes: 'I watch Nanny Mimi feed her and it’s a process that can last sometimes up to an hour. I do not have that kind of patience.'
"After reading Eckler’s blog entry, I questioned how such a woman could offer other mothers parenting advice or insight. I mean, if this is your role model, you may as well put the kids up for adoption."
Lovric's full article can be seen here. For the "Sacks has no right to criticize Eckler because he's a man and doesn't know how hard it is to take care of a baby" crowd, I suggest you click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.505 seconds.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Not all women are mother material (just as not all men are dad material). Ms. Eckler is one of them. She should have refrained. What is most worrisome is that she offers domestic advice to others. Let's hope she doesn't breed again.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
In Eckler's defense, she didn't have two nannies at one time but rather splitting a FT nannie's chores between weekdays and weekends. In addition, it seems strange that she has the child in daycare when a nanny is available so maybe she's balancing nannies and daycare to have 24 hour coverage for her children.
The smoking while pregnant is indefensible and it's a reason why I steered clear of women who smoke. Bottle versus breast is a personal issue. If we argue about a woman's RIGHT TO THEIR BODIES (upper case) then it's her own affair. From what I've heard from women themselves, they say that breast feeding was LESS of a hassle!
Other than that, provided the child is well cared for, I don't see a big deal about using outside care rather than personal changing of diapers. I think that motherhood has gotten this holy martyr image because they change diapers when these are really irrelevent tasks. Keeping a child cared for is a responsibility and HOW that responsibility is fulfiled is irrelevent.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
so let's get this straight- under the current family court paradigm the primary caregiver of the child should be awarded custody. Assuming the above is true then it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that "nanny mimi" is the primary caregiver of the child.
hence nanny mimi should be henceforth awarded full custody of the child and ms eckler should be required to pay child support.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
the core of the issue as I see it:
1) All women are not saints... and the subject of the article is an excellent example.
2) The subject of the article suffers from female entitlement syndrome, which is an affliction that is much more common than most people are willing to admit.
Many men are good citizens, fathers, and mates - stop the bashing
Many women are useless, selfish, and incompetent - stop the beatification
May 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Dear PK:
I suggest you read Lovric's whole article ... in addition to having more bullet-points one-two punches, it's a quick, easy and entertaining read. And the point is not so much condemning someone who takes advantage of professional daycare, but rather Ms. Eckler's hypocrisy of telling people how to be good mothers when her own behavior is lacking. There's not much reason to defend Eckler, so why bother? It's clear she's missing empathy herself. And like Ms. Lovric points out, it appears the baby is probably better off with either of the nannies than with Ms. Eckler herself.
The real shame is that people like Ms Eckler can make a living simply by being so despicable that they make a spectacle of themselves. For pity's sake I hope she is a better person than she lets on through her writings, but she appears to be detestable with unabashed sincerity.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
"DCR Says:
so let's get this straight- under the current family court paradigm the primary caregiver of the child should be awarded custody. Assuming the above is true then it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that "nanny mimi" is the primary caregiver of the child.
hence nanny mimi should be henceforth awarded full custody of the child and ms eckler should be required to pay child support."
ha ha - good one. I am sure the court would find some theoretical contortion to exclude this situation from being subject to the rules… Feminist is founded on selective application of rules.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Lets hear it for sugar and spice and everything nice.
Lets hear it for the myth of the great maternal instinct.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
She might be simply the most selfish person I have ever read about.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
"Woman with entitlement complex doesn't even take care of her own kids"
And this is news to any of us?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
A friend of mine had a baby with an ex-girlfriend, and he was ordered to pay daycare as part of the court decree.
His ex-girlfriend was extremely lazy and did not work. However, just because she didn't have a job didn't mean she wasn't sending there daughter to daycare.
He went back to court protesting the daycare bills as his daughter's mom, his ex wasn't even working.
Her attorney successfully argued that the decree regarding daycare did not say anything about daycare beib related to employment.
The judge ruled she can put her in daycare even if she doesn't have a job and he would be responsible for the daycare bills. Another women with a great maternal instinct.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Mandatory Breastfeeding! It is in the best intrest of the child. If she won't/cant/doesn't want to,then she can hire someone else to do it so it isnt a "my body" issue. She can use the same stash of mythical, magical money men use to pay child support that makes working not a "my body, my choice" issue.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Breastfeeding supposedly makes kids smarter:
May 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Andy S says: The real shame is that people like Ms Eckler can make a living simply by being so despicable that they make a spectacle of themselves. For pity's sake I hope she is a better person than she lets on through her writings, but she appears to be detestable with unabashed sincerity
PK responds: Andy, is she really making a living or is married to some liberal wonk paying the bills?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I feel so sorry for that child. If its a girl (and I think it is) she'll grow up to be an entitlement princess or if its a boy he'll grow up being brainwashed to put women on a pedestal.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Outrageous, that this woman dares to call herself a mother and doesn't even care for her own kids herself? Dang, it sure must be nice to afford not only daycare but the salaries of not 1 , but 2 nannies. Come On!! Daycare costs a lot of money and employing 2 nannies as well with the associated extra paperwork with those nannies. Must be rough, indeed. Shame on you Ms. Eckler
May 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hmm. One wonders how the kid will be affected by not having a real mother.
Question: Glenn has written extensively, and we've seen studies for more than 40 years, showing how critical the FATHER is to a child's well-being.
While I am sure it's best to have TWO parents, is anyone aware of any studies showing that a child is negatively impacted in any significant manner if raised without a MOTHER? I must be honest, I am not aware of any such studies. My suspicion is that having a father is more important to a child's well-being.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
OK, PK. I don't know. It seems she gets money from her child's father. I presume she gets money from writing, ... But Ms. Eckler does get published, which is a shame all by itself...
May 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
If this mother cares so little for her child, why isn't the child with her Father? Fathers can be and are very capable of providing for and caring for babies and small children. Any dad can hold a bottle and change diapers. I sure did. My ex waited until my child could dress herself and I had already taught her how to use a toilet correctly before divorcing me. Feminists say that Dads are uneccessary except for their part in conception. I say that Mothers are actually uneccessary after child birth unless they are actually breast feeding the shared child.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Andy says: "OK, PK. I don't know. It seems she gets money from her child's father. I presume she gets money from writing, ... But Ms. Eckler does get published, which is a shame all by itself..."
PK responds: Andy, I know writers and they don't get paid that much. Think about it: There are thousands of women (and liberal men), often from well-to-do families that graduate with high degrees in French Literature or Ancient Greek Mythology. Money is not a big deal to them, it's the prestige of getting their name in print. They usually have an inheritance backing them up.
They don't call them starvin' artists for nothing, you know. Karl Marx needed capitalism to pen his manifesto blasting, er, capitalism.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Depending on your grading criteria, the presence of that child's BIOLOGICAL father is, to significant degrees, more important to a child's welfare than the presence of that child's mother. Presence of a step-father mitigates some of the negatives of not having the biological father around, but is not a full replacement (statistically, not individually).
I think there's a reason the NIS-3 is not available online (you can, however obtain it here). They actually tested for some of the factors and found children were much better off in single father households than they were in single mother households in categories of abuse.
As for testing scholastic ability for single mother/single father households, I know of no study. Same with crime.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Thank you, Demonspawn.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Welcome. For those too busy/not interested in obtaining their own copy, here's one shocking fact that is useful in the "child abuse" debate.
Often, when presenting the facts that children are much much more likely to be abused by their mothers by their fathers, the retort will be the "mothers spend more time with their children" excuse (as if that justifies it). The NIS-3 looked at abuse rates per household in single mother, single father, and two parent households.
The debate ender: The abuse rate in single father households was between 1/3 and 1/4 of the abuse rate in single mother households. Women really do just abuse their children more.
The scary side: Abuse rate of single father households was actually a little bit below that of two parent households.
That one kinda gets me. The extrapolations I want to make from that....
May 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Demonspawn - some writers may struggle to make a living, but Eckler (amazingly) isn't one of them.
From her blog "Ninepounddictator:"
"Rebecca Eckler is one of Canada's most talked about newspaper columnists, the author of Knocked Up: Confessions of a Hip Mother to Be, which has been translated into nine languages. Also the author of Wiped! and the soon-to-be-released, Toddlers Gone Wild. Random thoughts on life in the competitive world of modern mommyhood. Blog will be loved by trendy mothers who still feel, or often feel, that the most important word in "mommee" is ME!"
Notice that last line: "..the most important word in "mommee" is ME!" - absolutely staggering. She should have been sterilised at birth.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Demonspawn Says:
May 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The scary side: Abuse rate of single father households was actually a little bit below that of two parent households.
That one kinda gets me. The extrapolations I want to make from that....
SS34: So as far as a child's best interests (in being safe and not being abused), a child is better off with Dad only? I wish I could get the judge in my Family Court case to read that information. That really is the scary side if you see that the only common denominator is that higher rates of abuse occur in families that involve either mom only or mom and dad together. Common denominator = Mom. Try posting that on NOW's website (I'm kidding, they wouldn't even let it get posted if it were submitted).
May 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Why have a child unless you want to spend time with them? You only RENT children for a SHORT period of time, and I am going to miss them when they have lives of their own and they are on their own. This is aready happening because they are teens. The time you have with your children is finite and this makes it exceptionally valuble.
She is a mother [was that a pun?] BUT more importantly she is NOT a parent.
b
bernies blogs
May 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
It seems to me she only had a child as a status symbol.
I am more than appalled.
b
bernies blogs
May 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
What is it with Lydia Lovric's site? Less than 25% of it is dynamic text - the rest is a huge pic, whitespace, and navigation. I reloaded it in IE and Opera, thinking that somehow Firefox misinterpreted some horribly bad code, but that didn't help.
Glenn, it's not that we don't think you're handsome, but please promise never to do that.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I think that the nannies and the daycare staff are more deserving of the mother's day gift than Mz Eckler.
It's difficult to tell if she's honestly that narcissistic, or if she's trying to be a parody of an entitlement princess. She might be writing for shock value. In either case, I have little use for her.
I'm wondering what her kid's going to be like after years of indoctrination with this kind of stuff. I can only imagine how horrified she'll be when she discovers exactly what her mother thinks of the intrusion she's made into her life.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Glenn, where do you find these people??? She sounds psycho.
Although she sounds weird, not breastfeeding does not make you a bad mother. I think that issue has been entirely blown out of proportion.
If God had meant for us to breastfeed, he wouldn't have invented Similac.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
What a putrid pile of rancor and self-absorption this Eckler woman is. This poor excuse for a human being seems not only to be in the running for the title of Worst Mother of the Year, but to actually be proud of said candidacy.
If the feminists really cared about children- as opposed to caring about the "right" to rip them from their wombs- they would denounce this idiot as a child abuser. One day this child will be old enough to read her mother’s views of her and I don’t think it will do her any good at all. This of course is assuming that her in-laws don’t leave her alone with the child for too long.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Golly gee... it looks like some negative information from this blog post found its way into Eckler's Wikipedia entry. Hmm, I wonder who did that...
May 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Eckler is just doing her part to create as many jobs for poor people as possible. It is the Stay-at-home mom that does the laundry, feeds and bathes the children, keeps the house clean and cooks for her husband that is truly selfish. Don't stay-at-home moms know that when they left work to stay home they took money away from the government that could have been given to a poor single teenage mom living in a government paid housing project and pumping more babies from multiple men? If she worked, she could be creating new jobs for more day care workers, maid services, and takeout restaurant cooks. Come to think of it, maybe stay-at-home moms should be taxed based on their last year working, adjusted for inflation every year or based on the annual report that says how much stay-at-home moms are "worth" whichever is higher. This will help trap women in the working world and allow Eckler to believe she is really helping other, more than she is neglecting her child.
In case you can't tell, I am writing with tung firmly planted in cheek. But watch out. Some day Eckler and people like her will call for a tax on stay-at-home moms for just the reasons list above.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
If a woman thinks that a baby is a hindrance to "progress" and "empowerment" of "career", better she foregoes the opportunity to be a mother. It would be lot better if she lives alone with out any sort of romantic relations. In that case she can work herself to an early grave and "progress" in "career".
Motherhood is a favourite whipping horse for the feminists and career woman. All hail Free market economy. Any thing not associated with market, even basic human emotions of love and empathy, are useless and must be avoided. I just dread thinking of future of human relations. In future we would have only the relations mediated by the market.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Mark says:
"Some day Eckler and people like her will call for a tax on stay-at-home moms for just the reasons list above."
Factory says:
Sure, why not? They already fought for, and got in some instances, a higher tax rate for men than women. Why stop there?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Incidentally, and even more off topic....anyone still doubt that "hate speech" laws will be used to try and stifle dissent once it gets too public?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Although Eckler sounds on the surface like a bad mother (or at least a very hands-off mother), she might be posting things in her blog just for shock value like so many people in the media. And I wonder how different she is from the super rich, who undoubtedly have never changed a diaper either. And yet don't get criticized (even when they also play parent).
But I will not defend her.
However, I won't defend her detractor either, Lydia Lovric, because she doesn't seem to think very highly of working women. She says, "I don’t care if mothers do some work outside the home for income, self-satisfaction or both. But if you’re working such long hours that you require not one, but two nannies when you don’t even have to work in order to make ends meet, then yes, I think your priorities are out of whack. "
and
"For those who question my own status as a stay-at-home mom, rest assured that I only write a couple of hours per week (at night, when my baby is sleeping). I quit my radio show and I only do the occasional TV interview now."
Yea for her. So we can only work just to make ends meet? Otherwise we can only work "some" hours? Does this go for men too? If men could work part time just to make ends meet, is any more than that selfish on their part?
They both sound like weirdos.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Eckler is a strange one, all right. What is this nonsense about babies being dictators? What the hell! Maybe she should have been aborted.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
A little kid can be very difficult, but I would wonder what their parents are doing to make them that way. Unless something is wrong with the kid, maybe acting out is the only way her child can get attention from her mom. And she is 2 1/2, after all. They're SUPPOSED to be asserting themselves and declaring everything to be theirs at that age. Doesn't she know that?
May 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I urge all to read this:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/columnnn/nn051021.html
Think about the potential consequences for society whith women not obeying nature and breastfeeding their children. I was not breastfed, and I suffer from many of the problems that could have been avoided that are mentioned in this article. Curses!
May 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Here is more from the AAP:
http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm
May 14th, 2008 at 12:51 am
And breastfed infants can leap tall buildings in a single bound…
I don’t believe studies that are undertaken by people who are trying to get a certain result.
The scientific studies they talk about don’t mention numbers. Are the babies 95% more likely to not get diarrhea? 5%?
Breastfed kids “may have a lower risk of obesity in childhood and adolescence”—Keeping kids away from sodas and junk food and getting them exercise lowers their risk of childhood obesity, not a few months on the breast.
They “have fewer cavities and are less likely to require braces.”—Breast milk straightens teeth before they’ve even developed?
“Breastfeeding mothers have been reported to be more confident and less anxious than bottle-feeding mothers.”—“have been reported” by whom? Most females give up on breast feeding because it’s hard to do and frustrating for the first 4-6 weeks.
“Breastfeeding contributes to feelings of attachment between a mother and her child.” Especially when you cover the kid’s face with a blanket so that no one can see you suckle it. As opposed to a mother (or father) who can feed a baby and look directly at the baby’s face.
Do any guys feel they’ve really, really missed out by only bottle feeding their baby? Whether it’s a bottle or a breast, you still hold the baby close to you. The baby doesn’t care which it gets (actually it likes a bottle more because it gets fed immediately instead of sucking for 2 minutes with no results). Sorry, guys, but you just can't bond effectively with your baby unless you breast feed it. You lose, apparently. So do all the adoptive parents.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:07 am
She can afford two nannies? That money must come from a combination of her ex, and her income from being an unethical journalist. I think some of them make pretty good salaries.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Jeana,
It is interesting that any anti-feminist research is a big issue for you. Breast feeding is like giving birth - a female only biological function. I don't know how much difference it makes to breast feed a child and bottle feed a child. Quite frankly, I think it is unfortunate for the child to have a mother that does take that "new" approach - irrespective of the medical implications of it - clearly shows where the priorities of the mother are. Unless the mother absolutely has to bottlefeed - lets say she is the sole breadwinner and place of employment does not allow breast feeding and she absolutely needs to keep working for such an in-human organization - what could be a reason to bottlefeed? First it is more effort, second - bottled milk can get contaminated easily - specially when one of those lousy creatures called husbands take over (not really, but appealing to jeana's misandry here ;)) the job of feeding.
And what for? A job? Are you too busy to attend to your own flesh and blood? If you are - I recommend not having the kid - spare the child the hurt of being the second best thing in your life after your job - please.
Do you honestly think a baby takes an hour per feed? When I read Glenn's blogpost about the little girl and her dad - I was reminded of how much children need parents to care for them. I thought it was very inconsiderate of the father to tell her to be "quiet" - even if he was polite - he should have assured her of food at the earliest possible opportunity. Now at a time of life when a baby needs food only a mother can provide - to cut corners or to consider it a burden is just as offensive to me. Maybe I love kids a little bit too much - too bad that I wont have any - maybe I will adopt when I am ready to support one - if they let single males adopt by then.
Did you know that breast feeding also reduces risk of breast cancer? Now what possible motive may breast cancer prevention advocates have in getting women to breast feed?
May 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
jeana asks,
"If men could work part time just to make ends meet, is any more than that selfish on their part?"
That's an odd question. If he is a single man with no children, he can do whatever the fu** he wants. If he is paying child support, that's the best he can do - make ends meet - since he's probably having 80% of his wages garnished.
If he is married but has no children, that is between him and his wife. He is not "oppressing" her by making a certain level of income. Lot's of couples are in that situation anyway, where they can barely make ends meet. Ditto if he is married with children.
It seems to me the only analogy you can intend, that makes any sense, is if he is a divorced dad with custody of a kid. Now, if he isn't getting any child support from his ex-wife, for whatever reason (for example, because women so frequently fail to pay court-ordered support), I would assume he's probably struggling and doubt that he could afford two nannies. Or if he could afford this, due to being financially well off, then see above under "single man" [although it is ideal for him to have at least some amount of "quality time" (or whatever they call it) with his kid(s)].
The final scenario is if he has custody and is receiving support - and that's an important distinction. But this is identical to Eckler's situation, so in that case the answer to your question is, "No, a man in the same circumstances as Eckler, has no more right than Eckler does to do what she is doing."
Sooo..what is the purpose of your question/analogy? The answer seems self-evident.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:28 am
"Do any guys feel they’ve really, really missed out by only bottle feeding their baby"
This is so common knowledge - why do you have to even ask? Yes most fathers who get the time to spend around their babies - especially if their wife breast feeds - do feel a sense of incapability. They just have to make peace with making mommy very happy and providing to the best of their ability.
"The baby doesn’t care which it gets (actually it likes a bottle more because it gets fed immediately instead of sucking for 2 minutes with no results)."
How do you explain the natural tendency of animal babies to know how and where to feed? Apparently, they do care and they do know the difference. Just that a baby cannot talk nor does it remember those memories, why do you think children are gradually weaned off breast milk?
"Sorry, guys, but you just can't bond effectively with your baby unless you breast feed it. You lose, apparently. So do all the adoptive parents."
I know you are kidding, but think about this - If bonding was of only one type this would be true, thankfully there are different types of bonding and different methods for getting there. I think it is harder for children to bond with fathers than with mothers - yet they do establish a bond - I see it as a positive thing for fathers, a real indicator of their parenting effort.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:28 am
I believe my ex-wife may have set a record of some kind, because she breastfed both of our daughters until they were each three years old.
It was kind of funny to see a toddler walk over to her mother and open her blouse and suckle.
I thought it was a little excessive to keep breastfeeding for that length of time, but today in their twenties our daughters are rather exceptionally intelligent and successful young women -- so who knows?
Maybe mother's milk has some kind of magical chemistry that formula does not.
Breastfeeding is also a lot cheaper than buying powdered formula. (That has been a big issue in developing countries, where there is still a stigma against breastfeeding. And Nestle Inc. would like to sell a lot of powdered formula.)
May 14th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Pankaj,
First of all, for you to imply that bottle feeding makes a bad mother—it makes me wonder if you are trying on purpose to enrage me or you actually believe it.
“And what for? A job? Are you too busy to attend to your own flesh and blood? If you are - I recommend not having the kid - spare the child the hurt of being the second best thing in your life after your job - please.”
What the hell!!! I’ve always thought that a lot of the breast feeding kick was a way to keep women out of the workplace, and you help confirm my beliefs. You can do both--this isn’t the 50s. Females pump their breasts (which I find weird), put it in bottles and give it to their day care provider.
Or should every new mother quit their job, as they were always required to do?
A baby does not take an hour to feed. I never said it did. The psycho woman in the article said that.
You know what else decreases breast cancer rates? Not having toxic waste dumped into the environment.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Roy,
I think when the kid has teeth you should stop. I think if the kid can ask for it, they’re too old. I also heard that the benefits stop after a year. But I’m not a medical person. I wouldn’t do it, but if other people do, it’s up to them.
I never gave my son powdered formula. I bought the most expensive ready-made kind because my doctor said it was the best.
Nestle did a terrible thing by dumping their product on those women, whose breast milk then dried up and I think babies died as a result. Multinational corporations are greedy and awful.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Breastfeeding is also a lot cheaper than buying powdered formula. (That has been a big issue in developing countries, where there is still a stigma against breastfeeding. And Nestle Inc. would like to sell a lot of powdered formula.)
The stigma has been created by a feminists and chivalrous misandrists mostly in these countries. Even mother's that DO NOT WORK at home OR outside choose to formula feed their children. These are mostly bad women anyway - thanks to chivalry, they get away with ultra-bad parenting (encouraging underage-almost-prostitution in a couple of cases I know of). So I don't hold that against feminist propaganda - although somethings tell me it does have something to do with it.
Then it came out that these baby formula's were laced with steroids yet feminist types - just to thumb their nose at rest of society continue to feed this to their children. Who cares about fertility of their sons anyway?
Unfortunately, most of these are from poor households. The well to do, know and take good care of their children. Just another factor to widen the gap between rich and poor, in my opinion.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Norman L,
In the article that was linked to Glenn’s blog entry, Lydia Lovric implied that women who are working more than just to survive were selfish. I wonder if that applies to men as well. If you can get by by working only 20 hours a week, is it selfish for you to work 40 hours if you have a kid at home?
I am actually not even asking about men. I was using men as an example because of the sexist things she was saying. If a mother works, she is bad. (But if she doesn’t, she is an entitlement princess who is a leech off of her husband.) It is a double standard.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Pankaj,
Are you saying that feminists are pushing bottle feeding as opposed to breastfeeding in developing countries? I think the marketing department at Nestle is more to blame.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:54 am
"I’ve always thought that a lot of the breast feeding kick was a way to keep women out of the workplace"
Hey, I am on your side - if you want to breast feed at the workplace. I do not think you should work for a in-human employer though. Your brilliant efforts could help their competition much better - don't you think? If this is a problem - employers disallowing breastfeeding (some how it is mostly women who complain about this - as far as the cases I have seen) - I think it should be stopped. Although my solution is taking your hard work and valuable contributions to another place. Maybe a more sensible competitor could use a hand in stomping this sexist employer out of the market by getting more bang for their buck in shape of your efforts to support the company.
"you help confirm my beliefs" - I don't see how. No job - unless you are a surgeon performing non-stop multi-hour surgeries by yourself - i.e. your job absolutely does not allow breaks for hours together - is intensive enough to disallow breast feeding.
"You know what else decreases breast cancer rates? Not having toxic waste dumped into the environment."
Find out who is doing this and stop buying their products. Easy - put them out of business - unless they change their policy. Again, I am with you on this too. Where I come from you would not believe what goes on as far as environmental degradation is concerned. Believe me the US is the least to blame for that happening - although everyone can improve.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:00 am
No actually, feminists are to blame. And you think feminism has different flavors that I don't know about? lol...
Trust me on this. This does happen. They are also against prostitution by women who cannot possibly earn a living any other way. Effectively fighting hard to put these poorer women to starve and die. A rare minority of feminists and chivalrists have started helping these poorer women and it is gaining a spectacular effect towards curbing exploitation of poor women by pimps - which proves that poverty was the issue. Hopefully, the rest would follow suit - there is a lot of resistance though.
You may not believe this - but there exists a breed of feminists that is more misogynistic (although I think almost all of them are misogynistic in a subtle way) than any man or MRA you have met to date.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:02 am
jeana,
where in the article does she imply this? It sounds like a pretty broad generalization.
I think if she is getting an adequate amount of child support, then she can do better than "get by" and still spend more time with her kid. I think it's patently unfair to her ex to milk him for max child support in this case..effectively he's paying for a nanny or two - why not let the child stay with him part-time instead?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Incomplete sentences - I should go to bed after this.
"which proves that poverty was the issue" was supposed to be followed by " as opposed to mainstream feminist claims of men and male dominated culture as the villain responsible for exploitation of these women".
May 14th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Pankaj,
Companies don’t usually stop women from pumping their milk during the day (no one breastfeeds at work unless their baby is there with them). But they don’t make it easy. At my company, there’s a little supply closet you can go into. But I hear them also in the bathroom in a stall doing it. It is a big hassle because you have to have refrigeration available too.
“the US is the least to blame for that happening - although everyone can improve”—The US is a lot to blame for what we do to the environment. And for not being at the forefront in the fight for a cleaner earth. And for allowing our corporations to pollute developing countries and not clean up their mess.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:13 am
"marketing department at Nestle is more to blame" - not really. I have noticed that there are almost no ads of baby food on Televisions (they are more obsessed with instant coffee and chocolate over there). On the TV is bombarded by women's shows where medical professionals talk about breastfeeding - encouraging it. Govt is interested in controlling population and apparently breastfeeding increases the interval between children - its something about hormones.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Norman L,
There is another article linked to this one. That’s what she said. I didn’t see anything about support from her kid’s father. But I could have missed it. But why would she get child support if she has 2 nannies? That doesn’t make sense.
And I don’t think even if she was a millionaire it would make any difference. Lots of people don’t want to be with their kids but find any excuse to be away from them.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Pankaj,
They should encourage breastfeeding there! Poor people shouldn’t be forced to spend what little they have on formula. But if you can afford it, it should be an option. I admit, the idea of breast feeding weirds me out. It scares me. I’m too sensitive I think. Anyway, my son is 7. So I missed out anyway.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am
"The US is a lot to blame for what we do to the environment. "
This is not a environmental blog - but I invite you to visit India and China - maybe stay for a couple of years to understand ground realities takes at least that long. You will notice that the US corporations are actually helping clean up the developing world. It was a lot worse before that. Don't get me wrong - I am no flag flier for the USA or any other country - just that I have lived in there for quite a while 25 years to be exact. Pity I cannot take you back in time and show you how things were before the US companies came there or were allowed there. Leftist propaganda does not tell you about that part of globalization.
PS: Please don't insult the intelligence of the people of developing worlds. They may seem stupid, but they know what is good for them - because they have experienced very well what is bad for them - just need a tiny sliver of education each.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:26 am
"Poor people shouldn’t be forced to spend what little they have on formula."
Sadly poor are the easiest to manipulate. Little education, incredible need to feel important and socially significant leads men and women to do completely stupid things - crazier than Jackass!
May 14th, 2008 at 2:30 am
I don’t think people in developing countries are stupid at all. But their governments do not always do what is right for them.
There’s a book called “Diary of an Economic Hitman” or something like that about an American man who helped get countries into terrible financial agreements and help steal their resources. If you say that the US is helping out sometimes, then I hope you are right. I do.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:38 am
I would like to know where Rebecca Eckler’s husband or ex-husband is, though. What does he think about her? Why isn’t he with his daughter? It would be interesting to know. Because she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if he tried to get custody since she is so public about her lack of maternal instinct.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:40 am
jeana,
I guess I took it for granted because of the "twisting his arm" comment (even though I know that's a reference to a gift), but maybe she's not getting any support payments. So maybe it's even the case that he doesn't want to spend much time with the kid himself..I don't know.
But I think you are posing the question in a somewhat more general way than what was intended in the linked article. I think the writer had this particular case in mind..the idea of working to pay for two nannies. To me the main issue would be not so much the earning of money, but rather that the mother does need to spend more time with her kid herself.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Pankaj wrote,
"crazier than Jackass"
Come on, crazier than putting a leech on your own eyeball? Only radical feminists themselves are that crazy!
(maybe you didn't see "Jackass 2" - even worse).
May 14th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Norman L,
The author certainly thinks that her subject needed to spend more time with her kid—which I agree with—but she also seemed to imply (or I took it that way) that she thought that women should only work if necessary to survive. You know, there are plenty of men and women who work 2 or even 3 jobs just to survive. They don’t see much of their kids, but I have a feeling that they are better parents than Rebecca Eckler. At least she has responsible people caring for her child.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Norman L,
“Come on, crazier than putting a leech on your own eyeball? Only radical feminists themselves are that crazy!”
Radical feminists put leeches on their eyeballs? Ok, it’s midnight and I need to go to bed. But I can’t let this go without comment.
I looked and found this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4987419958539692813
These are stupid insane Jackass guys. And the first thing they put the leech on is a part of a guy, but not his eyeball (although that was next).
What is wrong with these males? No radical feminist would ever do anything so ridiculous!!
This is one thing you can’t pin on them.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
"them" meaning radical feminists.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Tim Murray says "While I am sure it's best to have TWO parents, is anyone aware of any studies showing that a child is negatively impacted in any significant manner if raised without a MOTHER? I must be honest, I am not aware of any such studies. My suspicion is that having a father is more important to a child's well-being."
Part of the reason why the effects of fatherlessness are more obvious is precisely because it's a much bigger problem in society. The social problems caused by not having a mother are not obvious precisely because relatively few children don't have contact with mothers.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that single father households are more beneficial for children on average than single mother families. But this is largely because it is only better fathers who are likely to get custody, while it is only the worst mothers who lose custody. So there is a big selection bias here.
So you can't really extrapolate from this to say that in custody disputes it would be better to favour fathers in general.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Jeana,
"But their governments do not always do what is right for them." That is not true either. Problem is people allow govt. to even try doing good. In fact govts of developing countries "do" the most to do what is right. Its just that they do not succeed and in the process consume resources thus prohibiting anyone else to fix the issue either. Thank god, the US govt is not there - its just for-profit entities. Hence my advice to not expect or compel the US govt or any govt to get involved and "help".
By definition, government is incredibly bad at doing anything, except wasting resources, money and time. Basically you appoint people to enjoy part of your earnings and then buy stuff you don't think is necessary with your money for other people who don't need it either. All the smarter people either setup businesses and flourish or leave for a better country. In un-developed countries, you will see govts trying to do a lot of good. Fix a problem - so to speak. Once you allow the govt to fix the problem, you are doomed. Its like fixing a wall by cutting out the foundation of the building.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:20 am
What is wrong with these males? No radical feminist would ever do anything so ridiculous!!
This is one thing you can’t pin on them.
-----------------
Actually you can. Some radical feminists believe males love death - literally! i.e. killing and dying while killing. This is their explanation for wars. They even claim that men are sexually excited by the idea of death - hence the swelling of the penis when a man is hung. Claim is testosterone does this to men. (tsk, women also have testosterone!)
While females love life, don't want wars. If that isn't ridiculous enough ...
They are willing to "fight" masculinity (gender wars) (er.. didn't they say that they wanted to not have wars?), commit gendercide to "regulate" male population. If their theories are correct, that is asking for death or looking to kill. Nothing is more stupid than than asking to believe any of that counter to scientific explanations of it.
How about rejecting biological distinction between the two genders? Is that cookie enough?
People may get think its cool to be on TV, but these feminists aren't even on there! Come ON!
May 14th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Oh and they think heterosexuality is a crime against women. Heterosexual sex is the worst possible expression of contempt for a female body. Now, this all is tolerated by other feminists who think they are for "equality" and that men have nothing to fear or hate about feminists.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I stand by what I said in a previous post, she should be SPAYED. No more children for her.
I read Lydia's story on this Eckler, and I think it supports my opinion. Maybe someone can find something good that this woman has done and post it. Maybe I would change my view, but until then I see no reason to change my opinion.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
About breastfeeding...
I was able to do it for six months until I made some mistakes and lost my milk...first kid and all...maybe next time I'll do things differently...but I'll admit it wasn't just the health of my baby that I had in mind, it was the money. I figured it was easier to breastfeed than it was for my husband or I to earn the money to buy formula, which can cost about $150 a month. At the same time I was pregnant, so was an old friend who was able to qualify for WIC. She had access to all that free formula...after a few days, when breastfeeding got tough (and it is for a few weeks) she switched right over to formula and it didn't hurt her in the wallet one bit.
During my pregnancy and my hospital stay, I was bombarded by free samples from all the formula companies. I was able to store a two month supply! One of the OB nurses told us that the formula companies aggressively target breastfeeding mothers.
To each her own I suppose, but I really think this whole formula industry is a racket. Formula is wonderful and a life-saver for babies who are not able to nurse...but these companies are pushing it on families whose wallets are being drained and whose childrens' health is not being optimized. I may not be one to talk, my part-time job pays very well and provides full benefits with no weekly deductible, so I was able to spend more time at home...baby only missed one feeding a day from me...but when someone says bottle feeding is "easier"....what's really easier, breastfeeding or working at a job to replace the money that you spend on formula?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Pankaj said
May 14th, 2008 at 8:16 am
It occurs to me that what we have here is a woman whose behavior epitomizes everything that women say is bad about men as fathers and partners. She is entirely caught up in her career and her own self-advancement, to the detriment of her offspring. She neglects the needs of her child through the tender years, leaving her in the hands of a hired hand (read: wife). When she does care for the child, she pawns her off on the next caregiver in line as rapidly as possible. All the while, her innate parental instincts show themselves to be weak, at best -- she is clueless.
Think for a moment how awful Eckler's relationship with her own parents must have been.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am
The sad truth is that the attitudes reflected by this "mother" (sic) are vastly more prevalent among women than our society -- or our courts -- will ever acknowledge.
The false ideal of motherhood which Americans like to hold in mind as what is in fact a fantasy, provides extensive cover under which many, many women abuse and otherwise mistreat or fail to properly care for "their" children.
On breastfeeding, the literature is very clear that one impact of NOT breastfeeding is an average reduction of 5 IQ points in children who were not breastfed, and this loss can range up to 10 IQ points based on genetic factors. In contemporary society, this is not an insignificant "injury" to inflict upon an infant -- a lost opportunity which lasts a lifetime. Similarly, there are other positive consequences of breastfeeding which relate to improved outcomes in terms of reduced risk of psychiatric sequelae.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Nick S: "There is considerable evidence to suggest that single father households are more beneficial for children on average than single mother families. But this is largely because it is only better fathers who are likely to get custody, while it is only the worst mothers who lose custody. So there is a big selection bias here. "
I agree.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
----She is entirely caught up in her career and her own self-advancement, to the detriment of her offspring. She neglects the needs of her child through the tender years, leaving her in the hands of a hired hand (read: wife).----
How true!!. But the fun of all is that many of these career oriented people are just slogging their wares out , not for themselves, but to CEO's and share holders.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
---Actually you can. Some radical feminists believe males love death - literally! i.e. killing and dying while killing. This is their explanation for wars. They even claim that men are sexually excited by the idea of death - hence the swelling of the penis when a man is hung. Claim is testosterone does this to men.---
How gross!!! Do such people(so called "radical feminists") exist in flesh and blood? Even if they exist, how does the society give them the right to share a living space? Even so, how does the society allow them to propagate this crap?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Pankaj,
"They [femimists] even claim that men are sexually excited by the idea of death - hence the swelling of the penis when a man is hung. "
Did anyone actually even ever say this? And if so, was it just one person? How can you say all of us think this? Or maybe some people need a biology course.
"Oh and they [feminists] think heterosexuality is a crime against women. Heterosexual sex is the worst possible expression of contempt for a female body. Now, this all is tolerated by other feminists who think they are for "equality" and that men have nothing to fear or hate about feminists."
Again, didn't one person say this? I don't know of any female with a brain, feminist or not, who would believe something so lame.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Anonymous Woman : “ what's really easier, breastfeeding or working at a job to replace the money that you spend on formula?”
I make significantly more than $150 a month.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer:
“On breastfeeding, the literature is very clear that one impact of NOT breastfeeding is an average reduction of 5 IQ points in children who were not breastfed, and this loss can range up to 10 IQ points based on genetic factors.”
So I guess my son, who has every educational opportunity available to him, who goes to one of the best & highest rated schools in Scottsdale, who has parents engaged in his education and who provide as much help as possible to him, including extra tutors and educational opportunities, will not be as smart as another kid born to a 14 year old in the Ozarks (no offense meant to any Ozarkians) simply because he didn’t have a few months of breast milk. I hardly think that is possible.
“In contemporary society, this is not an insignificant "injury" to inflict upon an infant -- a lost opportunity which lasts a lifetime.”
This is exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to “Parenting” magazine and others long, long ago. People who use formula are implied to be child abusers, and even called child abusers. I had it. There is no “injury” to children. If I thought there was an actual, significant benefit, I would have done it.
I worked 11 years in a baby nursery as a second job, and I saw how hungry and miserable those breastfed babies were. I talked to men at my work who worried because they thought their babies were hungry, but their wives bought into the “don’t give any food till the kid is 6 months or 1 year” school of thought. I vowed long ago I would not let my baby go hungry. And I didn’t.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jeana--so do I. But to pay $150 for formula every month, I would have to work 7.5 hours to replace it. That time was better spent sprawled out on my comfortable bed nursing my kid with the TV on.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Nick S: "There is considerable evidence to suggest that single father households are more beneficial for children on average than single mother families. But this is largely because it is only better fathers who are likely to get custody, while it is only the worst mothers who lose custody. So there is a big selection bias here. "
I agree also.
The same would be true of the child abuse. I feel that either parent would be as likely to abuse a child, but the reason there is less abuse in single father households is because only the BEST fathers gain custody of their children.
On the subject of breastfeeding... I do believe you should if you can because it is obviously good for the children, that is what nature intended for them to have. My breasts are very large and my babies were unable to suckle due to being premature. They were also supposed to have learning disabilities due to the same. I had to formula feed my babies because I was young and dumb and no one told me I could pump milk. By the time my babies learned to suckle I had no milk. I have two of the most beautiful grown women most people have ever seen now. They are highly intelligent scoring in the top one percent of the nation on standardized tests. One has a hypothyroid which is an inherited trait from my side of the family so we won't blame that on the formula and the only other flaws is they both are quick whitted and smart a--, but that kind of comes inherited from both me and their dad. Oh yeah, and that brings me to the dad.
He is a good dad, had his faults over the years, but loved his girls. He thinks you should just let them handle things, toughen up and I think they need the hugs sometimes. I honestly believe they need both parents for these exact things. I think that Dads do tend to try to toughen the children and Mom's tend to baby them. Boys with single mama's tend to be mama's boys and with single dad's tend to be a little less feeling than we would like. They need BOTH.
Mine had both, but they did have a selfish mother who worked. I don't work because I want to though. I work because I have seen so many women my mother's age be stay at home mom's for twenty years and then Dad leave then for a younger woman. Do you have any idea where that leaves a woman who has allowed herself to depend on him solely for her support? You try living on a part-time minimum wage job because that is all she can get after that, and be 50 with no health insurance because you cannot get a job that has it after all that time out of the work force. Try having a teenage child you now have to figure out how to support when you have no recent work history. Yes, I know if he pays child support that helps, but you still have a child who has been used to a standard of living you have to try to adapt to being poor. In the area I am in 300.00 is probably the standard child support for one child, that doesn't go very far to helping out a minimum wage job.
Don't get me wrong. I believe children should have a mother at home if that mother takes time with the children to teach them things and that they should be learning instead of just using that as an excuse to stay home as many of these young girls I know do. They should have Mom teaching them to brush their teeth and wash their hair and make up the bed and put their clothes away. They should have Mom to teach them to count and know their shapes and their colors and to carry them around other children to learn to get along. They should have Dad who comes home and teaches them how to be Dads. How to play ball, and how to be respectful of the women in their lives. But this is not how it always works. Women used to be able to stay home because she knew that man was there to take care of the financial end of things no matter what. Now they cannot afford to do that. Now they have to work even if they are married. Not to make ends meet, but because you NEVER know what that man will decide to do. The stigma of deciding your wife is not good enough and leaving is long gone. There is nothing to stop a family from falling apart and she may cause it or she may not be able to stop it no matter what she does. The point is, the reason families cannot be families as they should be anymore IS divorce. In the old days when people stayed together no matter what mothers could be good mothers, but in this day and age when there is nothing wrong with divorce and it happens every day there is no incentive for a man to stay with his stay at home wife who he is no longer attracted to. There is no stigma in leaving. That is your reason for many women who work even though they don't HAVE to.
I am not bitter after a divorce either. My husband and I will celebrate our 22nd anniversary this week. We have had rough spots and there was once when I thought he would leave, but mostly we have been great. So were the marriages of the women who I spoke of above. They took care of his children and his home and while he was gone to work he was finding a whole new home. They thought they were great too. So you see, this day and age you have to be cautious. Men are not always there to stay. ***************(I know, the same is true of women, but no one is arguing that men should stay home and trust completely in that woman to care for him the rest of his life.) ***********
You will not find a world where women are safe to stay home and care for their children until you find a world where there is a stigma to walking out on your family. That is a simple fact.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
"but the reason there is less abuse in single father households is because only the BEST fathers gain custody of their children."
Uh oh. I hope no one here reads that...
May 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
allen31540,
Thanks for your post. You make some very valid observations.
I do agree that it is prudent for married women to have job skills, and to work to the extent that their children's welfare isn't negatively impacted. As I told my wife when we married (28 years ago), her job and career in nursing was the best life insurance policy she could have. She didn't work while our kids were small, then she went back part-time, and eventually full-time. She is quite capable of supporting herself should something happen to me, which is a great relief for me.
I will say that, today, there are clear financial incentives for men NOT to divorce, while there are economic incentives for women TO divorce, especially when children are involved. Also, I disagree that there is no stigma attached to a man leaving his wife and kids for another woman. Perhaps that stigma should be even greater than it is, but wouldn't you agree that, these days, there is less stigma for a woman to leave her husband than the other way around?
May 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I really do not believe there is ANY stigma either way around and there should be. Not for the one being left, but the one doing the leaving. Either the man OR the woman. I am not that old, 38 and married when I was 16. We have had VERY rough times. I do not think you should split up a family except under the most dire of circumstances. Your children need both parents and she got fat or he got boring is not good enough, period. I think that almost anything can be worked out. As far as financial incentive, that would have been my husband's incentive had he left me. I am HORRIBLE with money and he would have financially been better off paying child support! LOL I am laughing, but it is true. These quick divorces over almost nothing are the downfall of out society and why so many children have no father or mother. Yes, I do think women are just as apt to be the ones leaving, especially now because so many of them are able to support themselves. It does not make it right. But as I said, the reason I was using men as an example was because I never heard anyone tell my husband that in order to be a good father he had to depend on me never to leave him and stay home to care for the children.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
On economic incentive I also have one more note. I know a couple who are really BAD together and she is really a very poor excuse for a mother or wife. One friend asked him why he doesn't leave and his answer was because I cannot afford giving her half my check as child support... everytime I hear a man say this my mind goes "as opposed to ALL your money they get now?"
I would have had more respect for him if he had of said I am afraid she will get custody of my kids or I don't want my kids in a single family home.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
She actually sounds like half the young mothers I know today. Nothing shocking.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jeana - I'm a little late getting to the tangent here.
My ex was a stay at home, who couldn't, even with a $1000 pump rented from the hospital, manage to put forth the effort to get herself on a routine. Drinking, smoking, staying up to 4 am and sleeping until the crack of noon were vastly more important. That, and running around playing the martyr. Bear in mind, it was HER decision to be a stay at home. Aside from being a 'person of negotiable affection', she didn't have a career, or an investement in a formal education that she was setting aside for this 'noble role'.
But she had my support. I know it was uncomfortable, and an inconvienience, but best for the baby, in the opinion of both her OB-GYN and the pediatrician. I spent plenty of nights up making her comfortable, or just getting up and feeding our babies, even when I had to go to work the next morning at OMFG o'clock in the morning. I picked up the slack in every other aspect.
I hear from women about how noble and how much of a sacrifice childbirth is, and how important women are to babies, etc. The reality is that when it comes time to actually BE there and DO those things, it's a chore, no, wait, it's slavery forced on them by teh patriarcy, or some misogynist husband/politician/society.
Can't have it both ways. She can't claim to be deserving of an annual push present on mothers day, AND on the kids' birthdays, especially when she can't be bothered to do the "mother" thing in the first place. To be deserving of the vaulted "Mother's Day", there's some expectation that she acts in the kid's best interest, and that involves some sacrifice, not just delegate the messy parts. Remember "Mommy Dearest"? That young woman's anger at Joan Crawford is well deserved.
Yes, it's what breasts are for. Employers should be more tolerant of employees who have to do this for their kids. I'd rather see this, than months and months of paid time off. People need to be more tolerant of women doing this in public. It's what they're FOR! It's why we're mammals! These are not just something to pump full of silicone when women want attention - the whole reason that evolution gave them to women is for THIS purpose. There's better immune system responses, better avoidance to developing allergies, etc. You're complaining that companies are guilty of making carcinogens that cause women to have breast cancer, but you don't say squat about mothers that put stuff in their bodies that directly pass to their children. In other words, everyone else needs to make accomodatations for women, the same women who can't be bothered to make accomodations for THEIR OWN CHILDREN! 'Scuse me if I have an amazing lack of concern, here, for a health issue that gets more national attention and funding than any other health issue, including issues that are more deadly to a broader section of our population. No! Save the Boobies! Lets have ribbons and pink stuff everywhere so we all know about the risk that women have to endure. Use the boobies? oh, hell no!
You do believe in evolution, right?
I don't send the mother of my children a mother's day present. She hasn't been one. She puts on a good show from time to time, but when push came to shove (pun intended), she opted to induce her own labor early to save her self a month of discomfort and inconvienience. The result put one of the kids in the neonatal intensive care for two weeks, fighting for her life. Just like Mz Eckler, she'll claim the anguish of a single mom when it garner's her some sympathy, or a moment's consideration when holding her accountable for being an ass, or to hold them hostage to continue to enable her self-destructive life, but when it comes time to an active role in BEING a parent, forget it. She's as much of a parent as any absentee, sperm doner dad that feminists denigrate daily.
Considering Mz Eckler's example, and the things you (JeanA) espouse, i think that the presumption that women are better parents, or should be the presumptive custodian of children should be tossed out the window, especially since you're stating that outsourcing the parenting (including the feeding) is indistinguisable from being there. The presumption should be with who can provide for them better, and without a subsidy from the other parent, first, if we're considering that we should have a primary caregiver. I would rather that both parents support their children equally, to the best of their ability. If mom decided she wanted to be a stay at home alcoholic, dad shouldn't be forced to subsidize it because he studied, got a job, and is responsible. He should be allowed to take care of the kids directly, and when he works his butt off, shouldn't be punished for it. Both sets of parents should be allowed a tax deduction, instead of non-custodial parents having to pay taxes at the single rate on money they've got to pay "for the kids", to someone who gets to receive it tax-free.
As to your comment about "only the best dad's get child support". There's a ring of truth there. The first thing that has to happen is that the mother has to be found to be an absolute trainwreck, first, and men have to run a gauntlet of scrutiny to become a custodial dad, and overcome the prejudice and sexism in the family law environment, AND successfully negotiate the character assassination that is part and parcel of our adversarial divorce industry.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Glenn, do I have a post on this thread which is caught in your url-trapper?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer Says "Glenn, do I have a post on this thread which is caught in your url-trapper?"
I don't see one but my patience for people who post without giving me a real email address so I can respond to their problems or issues is wearing thin. It wastes my time. I don't need to know your name--you can get a hotmail account that says "Spacealien@hotmail.com" for all I care, as long as it goes to you. New rule--no real email address provided, then no questions answered, no service provided.--GS
May 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
jeana Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Sorry, guys, but you just can't bond effectively with your baby unless you breast feed it. You lose, apparently. So do all the adoptive parents.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Darn! my first post ended up in the twilight zone again, my first thoughts are usually the best too! )-:
I will try to duplicate.
jeana, although I agree with the rest of your post I have to disagree here. Men and women bond differently with their children. This is both necessary and imperative. Children need the different types of bonding to develop healthy and happy. I have bonded with my children in a way that their mom cannot understand and their mom has bonded with them in way that I cannot understand. This just the way it is and fact of life that cannot be changed and it takes maturity to realize. [this is not a flame directed at you just for those that do not understand]
Nice post jeana
b
bernies blogs
May 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
jeana Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
"but the reason there is less abuse in single father households is because only the BEST fathers gain custody of their children."
Uh oh. I hope no one here reads that...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Too late, thanks jeana for highlighting it for me.
Hey! The point is that the courts are supposed to "act in the best interest of the child(ren)." If what you assert is true then men ARE better parents if there is more abuse in single mother households. It seems logical because only the best mothers would receive custody of their children.
I am not saying I am buying this but if true it will have to be analysed further.
b
bernies blogs
May 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Bernie,
I never asserted that the courts always act in the best interest of the children. I was very strongly asserting that the best interest of the children was to never see the courtroom. It is the parents thinking of their own happiness when that happens, not their children.
When I said only the BEST fathers get custody that is ALL I meant. I did not say only the best mothers get custody. We all know, MOST mother's get custody, which would be why only VERY VERY good fathers do most of the time unless the mother is a real low life and then they often still do not.
Please do not twist my words to say that even the best mothers abuse their children more than the best fathers as you know full well that is not what I meant.
I stated very plainly that I felt either sex parent was just as likely to be abusive.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
"Again, didn't one person say this? I don't know of any female with a brain, feminist or not, who would believe something so lame."
Jeana,
look up Andrea Dworkin. But you proved my point. Feminists are either ignorant of what their leaders are preaching, or they do know and are trying to hide it - possibly to avoid the reaction they would get. Then when someone picks the leader's comments out - they pretend as if it never happened.
Maybe you ought to read a little more about feminism or stop pretending you don't know - which ever fits your case.
But I don't think you have not heard man-hate 101. Its a stepping stone to being a feminist (via chivalrist or direct man hate).
May 16th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Glenn,
I can imagine that the task of overseeing this blog must be a bit taxing at times, and may even cause one to question to cost/benefit ratio of doing so. I am hopeful that this blog is helping materially to elevate your status as a reliable spokesperson for many of the core issues covered in this emerging community, and hopefully, by-product ad revenue is compensating somewhat for the time, stresses and other costs of same. My guess is that the long-term benefits of having built your own brand will ultimately deliver excellent rewards for the at times seemingly unrewarding task of trying to herd the "cats" who post here. I am sure you also know that for a non-owner of this blog to post here in such a way as to produce positive residual traffic impacts/ripples on/from your blog requires a real commitment of not just time, but also of attention, creativity, and care in writing/fact-checking. It can also take some forbearance on the part of the poster who must at times put up with quite a range of replies. Regarding how rules might serve your mission, surely some might/will help streamline operation of the blog, while a certain amount of editorial arbitrariness can even help to shape/develop/enhance a media persona. But I think too much of the latter can also run the risk of casting one in a less optimal light.
Regarding my own query about a possible trapped post, I am sure you can understand that I didn't see it so much as a service valuable to me, but rather the point was to avoid a rewrite which would put two similar-sounding posts into your blog when in fact one was pending. So, I was trying to help avoid blog clutter (not to say that some of my posts might not qualify as "clutter":). Similarly, I have been happy to reply to your requests for suggestions relating to your site issues, including both technical solutions and practical search strategies for finding safe, precedented system solutions for you, and hope these have been helpful.
Regarding anonymity, significantly, this is a topic which relates to one of the mail raison d'etres of your blog. In fact, the need for anonymity is a perverse and tragic consequence of some of the worst of what is going on in America right now.
What is being done to fathers in America has caused rational fathers to be extremely fearful of making lawful public protests. Some have taken to making lawful anonymous protests instead.
When I see folks criticizing the progress of fathers movements in the U.S., I wonder if they realize the far more vicious grip that the courts here routinely exert around the lives, livelihoods, children, assets and throats of fathers in the U.S., and especially against those who might be in the greatest positions to help this movement the most by lending their public voices.
Clearly I am someone who values anonymity, as do many fathers who know that in present-day America, their children and assets are de facto and de jure litigation hostages controllable and exploitable by an increasingly out-of-control judicial layer of government which is capable of -- and even proud of -- engaging in extremely vengeful conduct towards its father-citizens who dare to criticize it. But I would offer you a derivative observation flowing from this: in my circles, there are large numbers of fathers with not insignificant resources who would very much like to be heard if they knew they could be heard in a way which is safe to them and their relationships with their children. In your blog, you are only seeing a very tiny percentage of the voices of those fathers. Thus, I believe it is very worthwhile to have a way for their voices to emerge safely -- as they will not speak here otherwise.
In that regard, I appreciate the kind offer of receiving email from a made-up address. However, I do hope you will trust my judgment that from a practical standpoint, anonymity protection can effectively be materially reduced by the use of any email address transmitting to/from your own, and at the end of the day that is not in the interests of your blog, which I personally would like to see continue to ramp to a very high level of success. CBS just offered $1.8B for CNET. Maybe the time will come when Glenn-net is similarly coveted. The key to success however you measure it, is to continue your tireless (and tolerant) efforts to become the go-to destination for an ever-expanding and ever more valuable demographic. Including even those who are anonymous, knowing that those anonymous eyeballs are ones which advertisers can easily ascertain are attracted to your site and value, just as I am sure you value them and their writings in your role as editor/publisher.
Best,
AP
May 16th, 2008 at 2:42 am
allen31540 Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Bernie,
I never asserted that the courts always act in the best interest of the children.
I know I am saying that the courts assert thatAgreed
It is the parents thinking of their own happiness when that happens, not their children.
Agreed Again
When I said only the BEST fathers get custody that is ALL I meant. I did not say only the best mothers get custody.
No you did not but it does imply it especially when the courts say that thy are acting in the best interest of the child(ren) then the logical presumptions is that the court would only give the child(ren) the the VERY, VERY best of mothers. Not by any means a far reach. Which would say something about moms, and again further study would have to be examined.
We all know, MOST mother's get custody, which would be why only VERY VERY good fathers do most of the time unless the mother is a real low life and then they often still do not.
See above
Please do not twist my words to say that even the best mothers abuse their children more than the best fathers as you know full well that is not what I meant.
I stated very plainly that I felt either sex parent was just as likely to be abusive.
Fine with me
b
bernies blogs
May 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Glenn Sacks Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
-=-=-=-
I thought that nonreal emails were filtered out anyway
b
May 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Bernie, you said :
when the courts say that thy are acting in the best interest of the child(ren) then the logical presumptions is that the court would only give the child(ren) the the VERY, VERY best of mothers
Yes, it would imply it if we believed that the court only acts in the best interest of the children. Do you actually believe that? Mother's usually get the children whether it is in the best interest of the children or not. That is WHY the mother's homes appear to be more abusive. It only makes sense that unless you ACTUALLY believe the courts are acting in the best interest of the children and are never wrong then mostly the mother's have the children. Good mother's or bad ones. Mostly only good father's have the children unless they are married to the mothers. Therefore more children are in the custody of bad mothers. To twist that to say that most mother's are bad may fool the idiots that know not what they read, but I happen to understand what is said. So... You want to say most mother's are abusive instead of looking at the courts who put the children with the mother without regard to which parent is worse. Sounds to me like you are more interested in making the women sound bad than holding the courts responsible for ACTUALLY acting in the best interest of the child. It would not take any studies as you suggest. Common sense tells you that if the mother usually gets the children and it is very hard for a father to get custody then fewer children will be with bad fathers than will be with bad mothers. You would have to be made of rubber to stretch that to say that more mother's are bad.
As my posts clearly show, I am a far cry from a feminist, but to twist things to make most women appear bad is just as bad as twisting things to make most men appear bad.
I realize most of you guys have had really horrible experiences with the women you have picked. I would suggest that maybe you should be a little pickier next time instead of blaming all women for these experiences.
I actually wound up on this site to help support fathers, but if all you guys are here to do is woman bashing, I will leave you to the feminists to discuss things with.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
allen31540 Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Boy this is going to be a difficult one to explain in print.
allen you are assuming an awful lot when my comment that you quote was taken out of context and meant as a parody of what you had said.
The point is what hard evidence do you have that demonstrates that there is this illusion disparity that better men than women receive the children?
I was not saying that women are more abusive I was saying that it is my considered stance that the laws of chance are not manipulated in the way you suggest.
This would mean that the percentage not the number of reported abuses on children between men and women would be the same.
Just to be clear it is not my stance to make women look bad, it is my stance that you make dads look bad by implying that only very, very, good dads receive their kids. This indirectly states that the courts are un/intentionally stacking the deck that makes dads look better than moms. I do not buy it because the proportions should not change.
Bottom line is that I am not saying that moms are more abusive you are by the way information can be extrapolated from what you said with the above considerations.
b
June 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
jeana Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer:
“On breastfeeding, the literature is very clear that one impact of NOT breastfeeding is an average reduction of 5 IQ points in children who were not breastfed, and this loss can range up to 10 IQ points based on genetic factors.”
I have seen these studies also. Furthermore, the ties you mention regurding intelance they state have to do with the better bonding the child receives from brestfeeding. They are closer to mom, they are held differntly whil brestfeeding thus creating a better bond which helps procure a more emotionally amd confident individual.
So I guess my son, who has every educational opportunity available to him, who goes to one of the best & highest rated schools in Scottsdale, who has parents engaged in his education and who provide as much help as possible to him, including extra tutors and educational opportunities, will not be as smart as another kid born to a 14 year old in the Ozarks (no offense meant to any Ozarkians) simply because he didn’t have a few months of breast milk. I hardly think that is possible.
Ahh, the ugly head of truthiness rears its ugly head again. Of course it is possible, also it hs been shown to happen, like it or not. Does this mean that it will happen with your child? NO, of course not. But this is like the proverbial smoking argument. You will NOT get canser from smoking unless you and your genes are suseptable, but we do not have a screening process YET that can tell you weather or not to smoke because it will nt affect you so do not take the risk and do not smoke. As of yet we do not have a screening test to see which kids REQUIRE brestfeeding to feel nurtred, recieve mother natures formula for food to become a well developed stable member of society, so why take the chance. Like it or not you did take a chance. Yep, you to not have to show physical trauma to be an abuser, not my rule but most of the rest of societys. Deal with it like the rest of us have to, some feel it takes corporal punishment to keep their kids in lin and keep them out of jail later in life, who would know better you or the people raising them? Not all kids are the same but yet thes people are lable abusers because they know their children and what works best for them. The wort of this scenero is that if thes parents conform and do not use corporal punishment to keep thier kids in line and later the become troublesome for society, the very same society will yet AGAIN condem the parents for NOT useing corporal punishment. Emangine that! You kno this to be true, it is undeniable.
“In contemporary society, this is not an insignificant "injury" to inflict upon an infant -- a lost opportunity which lasts a lifetime.”
Bingo
This is exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to “Parenting” magazine and others long, long ago. People who use formula are implied to be child abusers, and even called child abusers. I had it. There is no “injury” to children. If I thought there was an actual, significant benefit, I would have done it.
Ahh but it is not what you think it is what the rest of society thinks, this is how you are judged. This is why this blog exests to educate and to get people PROPER information to change thier thinking so that they see that they are wrong and we are right, without this we will NEVER be right. Another truth.
I worked 11 years in a baby nursery as a second job, and I saw how hungry and miserable those breastfed babies were.
Then you SHOULD
I talked to men at my work who worried because they thought their babies were hungry, but their wives bought into the “don’t give any food till the kid is 6 months or 1 year” school of thought. I vowed long ago I would not let my baby go hungry. And I didn’t.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
jeana Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer:
“On breastfeeding, the literature is very clear that one impact of NOT breastfeeding is an average reduction of 5 IQ points in children who were not breastfed, and this loss can range up to 10 IQ points based on genetic factors.”
I have seen these studies also. Furthermore, the ties you mention regarding intelligence they state have to do with the better bonding the child receives from breastfeeding. They are closer to mom, they are held differently while breastfeeding thus creating a better bond which helps procure a more emotionally and confident individual.
So I guess my son, who has every educational opportunity available to him, who goes to one of the best & highest rated schools in Scottsdale, who has parents engaged in his education and who provide as much help as possible to him, including extra tutors and educational opportunities, will not be as smart as another kid born to a 14 year old in the Ozarks (no offense meant to any Ozarkians) simply because he didn’t have a few months of breast milk. I hardly think that is possible.
Ahh, the ugly head of truthiness rears its ugly head again. Of course it is possible, also it has been shown to happen, like it or not. Does this mean that it will happen with your child? NO, of course not. But this is like the proverbial smoking argument. You will NOT get cancer from smoking unless you and your genes are susceptible, but we do not have a screening process YET that can tell you weather or not to smoke because it will not affect you so do not take the risk and do not smoke. As of yet we do not have a screening test to see which kids REQUIRE breastfeeding to feel nurtured, receive mother natures formula for food to become a well developed stable member of society, so why take the chance. Like it or not you did take a chance. Yep, you to not have to show physical trauma to be an abuser, not my rule but most of the rest of societies. Deal with it like the rest of us have to, some feel it takes corporal punishment to keep their kids in line and keep them out of jail later in life, who would know better you or the people raising them? Not all kids are the same but yet these people are label abusers because they know their children and what works best for them. The worst of this scenario is that if these parents conform and do not use corporal punishment to keep their kids in line and later they become troublesome for society, the very same society will yet AGAIN condemn the parents for NOT using corporal punishment. Imagine that! You know this to be true, it is undeniable.
“In contemporary society, this is not an insignificant "injury" to inflict upon an infant -- a lost opportunity which lasts a lifetime.”
Bingo
This is exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to “Parenting” magazine and others long, long ago. People who use formula are implied to be child abusers, and even called child abusers. I had it. There is no “injury” to children. If I thought there was an actual, significant benefit, I would have done it.
Ahh but it is not what you think it is what the rest of society thinks, this is how you are judged. This is why this blog exists to educate and to get people PROPER information to change their thinking so that they see that they are wrong and we are right, without this we will NEVER be right. Another truth.
I worked 11 years in a baby nursery as a second job, and I saw how hungry and miserable those breastfed babies were.
Then you SHOULD have realized that one of two things happened. The on was not breastfeeding right or she did not produce enough milk to feed the child. Not doing it right mainly consists of not feeding long enough because the mom is either very active and did not take the proper amount of time [so she could go and do something else or was becoming sore and did not want to make the sacrifice for her child}. A breast pump easily remedies both of these. OK then we fall a little short in the bonding issue BUT we still have Mother Nature's formula. As for the women who do not produce enough milk, I have read the same periodicals that you have and I cannot honestly say that they labeled these women abusers because formula is made for these women and children so that these children do not go hungry and can live. Of course there is always the option of a wet nurse. "A thing not looked for is seldom found!" author unknown
I talked to men at my work who worried because they thought their babies were hungry, but their wives bought into the “don’t give any food till the kid is 6 months or 1 year” school of thought. I vowed long ago I would not let my baby go hungry. And I didn’t.
Again see above. You condemn something that you have not done that is unfair. Furthermore you could have also done both breastfed for the nurturing and mother natures formula and SUPPLEMENTED to keep your child from being hungry. Simple again a thing not looked for is seldom found like the solution to your [in my opinion] paranoid unsubstantiated claim. There are answers but you have to be dedicated to finding the solution.
I know these things because all of my children were breastfed for more than 6 months and they all had separate needs. We were the parents of a child who could not fend for themselves so it was our responsibility since we brought them into the world to find the answers, this is the epitome of what being a parent means.
b
June 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Opps, Sorry for the partial double post must have had FFS [fat finger syndrome] again. (-=
b