Pretty in Pink

I was talking with my wife tonight about the hot button topic (in our household) of the color pink. For the first time, I think I was able to articulate what my problem with pink for girls, and specifically my girl, so here it is. This could be a little long.

I've got two kids now, a boy and a girl. I love them equally, and have equal hopes for both of them in the future, that includes professionally, socially, politically, financially. But the sad truth is, my son has far more choices tailored for him than his sister. There are more jobs that people will assume he is better at, more types of toys pushed in his direction to develop skills with, more positive role models held up to strive to be like, and frankly, more colors for him to choose from to wear, surround himself with, or decide are his favorite.

The environment and clothes that you give your kids form a very early part of their identity. Before they can speak, they'll start to internalize certain things as comfortable, as part of them, as theirs. These things will catch their eyes and attention almost immediately. Colors are a part of that. My son's wardrobe isn't dominated by any one color. He's got red, blue, orange, green, black, white, yellow, and purple shirts, in roughly equal numbers. "Boy" stuff, beyond newborn layette, doesn't come mostly in blue, or any other color.

My daughter already has about 1/3 of her wardrobe in pink. Frankly, it's difficult not to get any. We've got plenty of gifts, for which I don't want to imply I'm not gracious. There are hand me downs, etc, and if it's made for girls, most likely it's got pink on it. Brown is in these days, accented by pink. Rock and roll clothes for girls are often black... with pink accents. It's as if society wants to make sure we never forget that's a girl, and yet our boy needs no reminders.

The problem comes in as she gets older, and since conservatively 1/3 of her clothes are pink, that color becomes the most familiar, the most likely to be comforting. So when we're at a store, and the kids are being whiny brats crying for whatever toys catches their eye, what will more likely catch hers? Pink stuff. What will catch his? ANYTHING ELSE. My son is allowed to like anything, except a small subset of things that he's been told are for girls. (This affects our boys too!) My daughter on the other hand, is ONLY really allowed to like stuff that's in a small subset of all things that she's been told are okay for girls. The lesson here? Male is default, female is a small subsection, and not the norm.

Now, what sorts of things are in that subset? Let's do really surface searches on the biggest store sites. Target.com has a number of "boy toys" on its front page when you click boy toys. One is a competition game with tops (Beyblades), one is an action figure accessory, one is a remote control chopper, one is a race track. So, sports(ish), action, and fine motor control. All of these sport multiple colors, by the way, no dominant color.

Go to the girls' toys link. Dolls. Dolls with clothes. LegoFriends, in which the minifigs were designed to be more like dolls. A dvd for Brave (one good thing!) Except for the Brave stuff, guess what the dominant color in ALL of those other girl toys is?

Look up boys' bikes on Amazon. Tons of colors. Blue, orange, black, green, red, silver. Girls' bikes? 17 out of the top 20 are pink. I stopped counting after that.

Why the hell is my little girl not allowed the same choices as my son? Sure, she can buck the trend, and end up the social misfit. What kind of choice is that?

Where does this lead? It makes sense to me that this leads to a lifetime of subconsciously being told which things are allowed for her, because those certain things are more comfortable, and socially acceptable for her. And, as I mentioned, while he's got the rest of the world open to him, it makes certain things off limits for my boy. By the time they are middle school age, both kids will have been bombarded with images and ideas about what's okay and expected of them to enjoy, excel at, and strive for, based on their gender rather than their strengths.

These roles lead to nonsense like the wage gap. I'm not okay with my daughter not being able to earn as much as my son for the same job in most fields. That's not okay. These roles taught early on will tell my daughter that she won't be as good in math and science as my son. That's not okay. These limited selections of toys will tell my daughter that when she has a family someday, the bulk of the work in raising the family should be hers, and not shared equally by her partner (if she's straight, who knows?) That's not okay. These early acceptable forms of play will tell my daughter that pretty is more important than strong. That's not okay. These fashion dolls will tell my daughter that a big part of her place in society is to be an object of desire for a man. That's not fucking okay. These limited palettes will tell my daughter that when a teacher hands out construction paper, she should ask for the pink, even if she really wants the green. That's not okay.

The other side of this is that these roles that are deemed okay for girls are never allowed to grow up. Pink, like baby blue, is a soft color that's associated with, well, babies. I said at the beginning, yes, baby boy stuff is light blue as often as girl stuff is pink. But by the time they're holding their heads up and having tummy time, the boy clothes, toys, etc, have taken on new hues. Darker blues, reds, rugged greens, and exuberant oranges. Girl stuff? Still baby pink. The message here is that girl stuff is frivolous. It's child's play, it's not serious, not valued, not strong, not grown up. Ladies, if you need a new hammer, we made one in a baby color for you (look up "women's tools" on Amazon.)

I can't completely shield her from all of this. But while she's still a toddler, still a baby, still mostly around her home, I can keep that influence out. I can try to keep her from bonding with one seemingly innocent color that will lead her down a very narrow path. If she chooses that path anyway, at least I'll know it was one of many choices, whether I agree with it or not.

Is pink an evil color? Nope. I like it. It's a happy color. Pinkie Pie is one of my favorite ponies (but Rainbow Dash is way better). But in 2012, in America, for our little girls, it's a trap that they will be taught to walk right into.

Resolution

I will blog more. No, really. I told myself I wanted to take this blog more seriously this year, so I am.

Just, not now. I'm tired.

I did just blog over at the Megablah!, the official Megabrain Comics blog. While you're at it, go check out our Kickstarter campaign.

Insomnia

I don't think I'm an insomniac. But my sleep schedule is so fucked right now that I can't get my mind to just shut off for the night (morning now.)

I think that blogging from my iPhone isn't helping.

Where have I been?

Crap. It's February already? I haven't posted a damn thing this year...

Well, that's got to stop. I've got a lot that I'm trying to do right now, so there's not lack of material. I guess this post will be a bit of a digest to get all my millions hundreds couple of readers caught up.

It ain't so cold, you wimps.

I rang in 2012 with a swim at Coney Island. We got there a little bit late, and so we didn't get in on the official Polar Bear rush, but we still swam! I'll tell ya, all the barefooting in 2011 really seemed to help, as the first steps into the water were no shock at all. And this time, my lovely wife joined me for the first time!

I'm just going to rub against you until I'm dry, okay?

This year I've also decided, again, that this would, once again, be the year I lose a bunch of weight... again. It's hard to call it a resolution, when I've been exclaiming I'd do it since roughly 1990, and never made a very serious effort, with one exception in 2003 that didn't start until the summer.

"Top level predator" my ass... nomnomnom.

So this year I decided to put some real incentive and pay for my weight loss. Did I join a gym? Hell no. Pay a trainer? Nope. Weight Watchers? Please... I started my own Biggest Loser group on Facebook. I've got 21 competitors, each paying in $34 over 17 weeks, and the people with the 3 biggest weight loss percentages by Memorial Day weekend will win a share of the total buy in. So far, I'm in second place, having lost about 11lbs total at the last weigh in. I'm sure I'll post more about that in later posts.

Ok, I think about does it, you're caught up! Congratulations!

Hey 2011, GTFO.

Yeah, I had a rough year too.

Well, another year comes to an end. I'm glad to see it go, and I can't wait for 2012 to get rolling.

I don't want to detail the year, mostly because going over it just gets me stressed. I'm not the kind of guy who stresses easily, and this stupid, frakked up year tried its hardest to change that. There were two bright points, and a whole lot of sludgy, painful, shameful, embarrassing, depressing, disheartening, angering moments.

Bright point #1: My son was born. He's the most amazing person on Earth, and brings me nothing by joy every day.

Bright point #2: Megabrain Comics got off the ground with a very successful launch of our first comic.

The rest of 2011: GO FUCK YOURSELF.*

* "Yourself" includes but isn't limited to: myself and my issues with disorganization and motivation, economic corruption, health issues for various people in our lives, my apartment, Dick's Sporting Goods, fender benders, the NYS DMV, the shoes required rules at Target and the Empire State Building, the VA DMV, unsolicited advice, students' parents from Hell, questioning my career, one of my cats constantly pissing on the couch, lack of health insurance, and bad internet service.

Extremes

Here's just a reposting of a great short post about the merits of relaxed parenting. I can't agree with the whole thing, even if she starts out sounding very relatable. This woman seems something other than relaxed, in the article she comes across as very detached from her kids, which isn't cool.

But there's a good discussion point about not pushing constantly.

Read it here!

Parenting the Vulcan Way

(This ain't my kid. He doesn't watch Dora.) 

Sitting too close to the TV will not hurt your kids' eyesight. 

I used to be the guy in the group who argued that logic was not the most sensible way to live your life, leading to boring, predictable decisions without any spontaneity. Once I wasn't the only person in my own life, I found myself more and more leaning back on logic, facts, science, and provable theories when conflicts came up. Especially when we're making decisions with my son, it better make sense. When people assume (or flat out tell me) I'm not doing right by my child because of their "common sense" or opinions on what's right, then I get angry.

• My son sitting too close to the tv is not bad for his eyes. Watching too much tv from any distance is bad for his brain. Stop telling me he's too close.

• Yes, I saw he fell and I didn't jump to pick him up. There's a reason he's so good at walking and getting up at such a young age. There's also a reason he's so laid back and doesn't cry much or for very long. It's the same reason. Back off.

• Colds are caused by virus, not from taking off your socks in the house. Yeah, if you get too cold you can weaken your immune system, but it's not that cold in here and his feet are warm.

• Billions of people live in close proximity to animals and even manage to raise children while doing it. I'm not worried about the dog licking him in the face.

• Why yes, I did let him eat that apple after dropping it. Kids need germs. 

Everyone has an opinion, probably me more than most. There's very few things I don't have an opinion on. But y'know what? The world has facts too. If your opinion is refuted by facts, you're just wrong, so stop looking at me like I'm the crazy one.

Live long and prosper, bitches.

One Size Does Not Fit All

EDITOR'S NOTE: I've revised and read through this a couple of times, and even to me, it sounds like sour grapes, middle class problems, and as though I'm begging for handouts. But I think the bigger issue isn't what I get, but rather that people and institutions in positions where their purpose is to help, have to be held to a higher standard of service and differentiation.

"Just be glad you're getting anything."

That's what it feels like sometimes when dealing with certain government institutions that are designed to help those less fortunate or otherwise struggling in our society. This past year, I find myself out of any regular paying work. It turns out that starting your own comic book publisher doesn't pay well (at all at first) or have a good insurance plan. My wife is working, but a part time retail job has surprising the same benefits as being a self publisher.

So that means that while I'm looking for work in my chosen field of education, we're also currently applying for various programs to help provide us and our son with healthy food and medical care. For us, this meant applying to three programs: Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (aka food stamps, or SNAP), WIC, and Medicaid.

SNAP: We were turned down for this program right away. They have a scale that shows the maximum income per household, and we're actually a few hundred bucks above the limit. Fine, we're not the poorest people on the block, but still, we're struggling pretty hard. Would it make more sense to base the eligibility on usable funds, rather than gross income? As it's currently set up, SNAP works fine for those very close to the poverty line, and those who have been at this point for some time. However, if you are someone who was previously employed and living a lifestyle above the poverty line, this program is next to useless.

I was going to roughly break down my own finances, but in the interest of generalization and sloth, I found this chart, which is pretty accurate to our situation.

Monthly Expenses	One Adult	One Adult, One Child	Two Adults	Two Adults, One Child	Two Adults, Two Children
Food	$232	$378	$448	$594	$740
Child Care	$0	$572	$0	$572	$1,012
Medical	$76	$151	$152	$227	$302
Housing	$1,185	$1,318	$1,185	$1,318	$1,318
Transportation	$232	$397	$464	$629	$794
Other	$188	$369	$376	$557	$738
Monthly After-Tax Income That's Required	$1,913	$3,185	$2,625	$3,897	$4,904
Annual After-Tax Income That's Required	$22,956	$38,220	$31,500	$46,764	$58,853
Annual Taxes	$1,706	$2,678	$2,387	$3,373	$4,161
Annual Before Tax Income That's Required	$24,662	$40,898	$33,887	$50,137	$63,014

(from http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/counties/36081)


Between my unemployment insurance, and my wife's current wages, we're making just a smidgen less than $2400 a month. Hardly comfortable, but there are certainly far worse off people. So, if the required monthly income AFTER taxes is $3,897, and we're bringing in >$2400, we're already below the living wage line. Of course, it is possible to live below that line. I'm not looking for a government handout to buy iPads with, just enough to survive until we can right our own ship. (1)

The problem that's ignored by the SNAP program is that many expenses that we could formerly afford aren't easily opted out. For instance, our cell phones. Our plan has many minutes, data plans (required with certain phones), and some other features. We've already trimmed those features, but canceling entirely to get a cheaper plan would cost us up to $175, per line, since we're in the middle of a contract. We can't afford to get out of our plans, and we don't have a land line to rely on.

Another such expense is our car, which I bought when our family was expanding and I had a steady job. I admit it, I love having a car, even though in NYC you don't NEED one. Still, we have family out of state, we have an elderly dog with a vet on Long Island, my mother has severely limited mobility and relies on me for transportation. I do try to not drive too much, to save on gas. I pay about $600 a month between car payments and insurance. I currently owe more than it's worth, so selling isn't a viable option. Coupled with the added expenses our family would incur if we didn't have our own car (cabs, rental cars for travel, ability to shop competitively around the city), we'd lose more money in the short term by getting rid of the car that I can't afford. So the car stays.

There's more of these types of expenses, student loans come to mind (though I'm in the process of consolidating and deferring those right now, but that takes time) and other credit lines that we're trying to deal with without further wrecking our credit.

Had we been living an impoverished lifestyle before, these wouldn't be problems we're facing. Of course, there'd be other, more serious issues, but that doesn't lessen the fact that I have an iPhone and a minivan but I can't afford groceries.

WIC: Here's the one that really gets me going. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, also known as WIC. Let me get this out of the way right away; WIC can be a lifesaver. Studies have shown that women enrolled in the WIC program during pregnancy have a lower incidence of medical issues and a higher probability of carrying to full term than women of the same socio-economic status who do not participate in the program. WIC takes a huge burden off in buying groceries, usually.

 The problem is that the program provides you with a very strict, unchangeable set of items which you can purchase. This doesn't come up very often, but I can't imagine we're the only family who's ever run up against these issues. For most people, the standard package is probably fine. For instance, my son is 11 months old. So, when we just signed up, we were approved for assistance and given WIC checks to purchase formula (a specific brand, despite the fact that he's been on a different one for his whole life. Luckily he's not too sensitive about this anymore,) and a certain amount of jars of baby food. The problem? My son doesn't eat baby food anymore.

To help him not be fussy, to make sure he's got a balanced diet, and to save money, we'd been making a lot of our own home made baby food, and lately, he's just been eating grown up food. He regularly eats whole bananas, rice & beans, bread, apples, pears, raspberries, cheese, soup, chicken, and just about every other food in this house. So I asked the WIC "nutritionist" if we could get the equivalent checks for just fruits and veggies. No, apparently there's no ability to substitute or approve that, because he's less than a year old even though he's been eating that more wholesome and complete food for about a month already.

This doesn't even mention the contracts that plague the system. I don't pretend to know anything about the funding that goes into this program, but it's apparent that profits play a bigger part in the purchasing decisions than nutrition or thrift. I've got a nice long rant worked out about the types of bread you're allowed to purchase. Here's the short version- you're not allowed to buy the healthiest option, forced into the middle of the pack, regardless of price. With the baby options, aside from the jars/fresh veggies debate, there's also a preference for a certain brand of cereal. The check specifies a brand, even though there's another we prefer, that has less additives, AND is less expensive. So, I'm not allowed to go for the more natural option, even though it's cheaper? Wouldn't that both be better for my child, and less drain on the state?

Basically, if your kid isn't in the middle 50% of the bell curve, you're screwed, or you need to compromise and give your child something that is less than ideal and developmentally inappropriate for him or her.

Medicaid: I haven't dealt with them much yet, just got the baby signed up. The one immediate frustration is that we're looking for new doctors, as our pediatrician doesn't accept it. Why are doctors given the choice to accept or not? Insurance is suppose to pay for services, they say up front which ones are paid for, what difference does it make to their bottom line where the check comes from?

Of course, Medicaid itself has different options and HMOs you can choose. But not all are available to all people. I saw on the list that there is an Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield option, but I don't make enough for that. What? THAT'S WHY I'M APPLYING FOR MEDICAID.

Working as a public school teacher in Washington, DC during what was pretty much a war between the teacher's union and the school district, I witnessed many of the same ideological problems that I'm now seeing with these social assistance programs. I know, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and unabashed romantic idealist. That doesn't take away from the fact that if an institution makes a mission statement to help those less fortunate, to try to level the playing field for those who do not have the power in our society to do it themselves, then that institution needs to be held to a high standard of doing right.

If I had to distill what I learned as a special educator down to one word, it would be differentiation. Not every kid needs the same thing to succeed. Said out loud, it sounds painfully obvious, doesn't it? How is this any different from people who are at an economic disadvantage? Not everyone who needs a hand needs the same cookie-cutter package. Some of these programs are doing a great disservice to those they pledged to help.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where I discuss the paternalism and assumptions about those that require services that drive these poor decisions.

1. If anyone does know about a government program that hands out iPads, feel free to forward the info to me.

How I Roll

I get pretty vocal about those issues that I care about, and I can be pretty insistent and irritating about it to those around me. Now, since I'm about to write my first post about anything weightier than me going barefoot in my day to day life, I'm going to put down a couple tenets of my style of argument.

1. We cannot agree to disagree. People take this stance to avoid unpleasantness, but to me that is a cowardly cop out and the same as saying that your ideals are nothing more than an intellectual exercise. If the issue is important enough for me to argue about it, then it is something that affects our lives. And if it affects my life, and I think you are wrong about the issue, than it is imperative to me that I somehow change your mind. 
2. Everyone thinks they are right. I can't stand it when people say to me, "You always think you're right!" Don't you? Who the hell doesn't? Who on this Earth opens their mouth and says things they think are wrong? I can be convinced I was wrong, but bring your A game, because I'm stubborn and I think before I speak or write.
3. I like to argue. I tend to get caught up in the competition of it all, so sometimes I need a reality check, feel free to give it in the comments. My ego should come second to the truth, but it doesn't always. 

Feel free to refer back to this post if you feel tempted to type the phrase, "Let's agree to disagree," or "You always think you're right." 

Barnes & Noble: Podophobic Booksellers

I spent the day with some friends who were visiting NYC, and spent the whole day barefoot, except when we went to eat. It's a pretty laid back place, but my wife asked nicely for me to put on the emergency shoes before we get in, she didn't want to risk any kind of confrontation while we had guests. Fair enough, not everyone else should have to deal with the challenges of my lifestyle.

I got plenty of the usual looks, I overheard plenty of comments, and there were plenty of questions as the rest of the day went on, walking downtown, a bakery (Buttercup Bake Shop is amazing, 52nd & 2nd in NYC, get the chocolate trifle pudding), and eventually to the Union Square Holiday Market.

When my little guy, who's been riding in a baby carrier on my back, needed a diaper change, I ducked into the big Barnes & Noble. I made it up to the second floor kids' dept, and not til then, before taking my son into the bathroom/changing station, a security guard told me I needed to put on shoes. She wasn't particularly rude or polite, just said it brusquely, but it caught me off guard after an open toed, unshod December day.

For the record, a quick googling shows that Barnes & Noble has some unspoken but occasionally enforced anti-barefoot rule. 

Good Samaritan

Yesterday for the first time, I was stopped by a stranger while walking around barefoot. I was just on my own block, having just done laundry and grabbed a slice a pizza, when a car pulled up at the corner. The woman in the car looked very concerned, bundled up against the winter weather.

She said, "Where are your shoes?"

I casually said, "I usually don't wear any," and I continued walking. She followed me in the car.

"Are you okay?"

"Yeah, thanks, I'm fine," I replied. "I just don't like shoes." This made no sense to her at all.

"Can we get you anything? Are you sure you're okay?" She was leaning out of the car window now, driving very slowly as her family inside looked on.

"No, I'm good, thanks! I just don't like shoes." This still made no sense. She looked as if I'd answered in Klingon and couldn't make out what I was saying. Still, I just walked on, and she slowly drove off. I wonder what the conversation in that car was afterwards.

I'm not as naive as some of my friends think, and I know that walking around unshod in NYC is an odd thing. Still, I've been lucky in that it's mostly treated with an amused smile, or an attempt at discretion while they point or look. I've really been getting to the point where I don't notice it as much, and when some one makes a big deal, I'm a little caught off guard.

I was going to post a bunch of reasons why I've been going barefoot, but there's whole online communities discussing that, and I don't need to rehash that all here. It just feels right.

Intentions

I've been wrestling with starting a new blog for a long time, like, for months now. There's been a few things mostly holding me back, which I figure I could list here as my first post. If I can exorcise those things, they shouldn't stand in my way anymore, right?

• How much do I want to share, and with who? I want to write down the things that interest me, and my musings, but also those things that make me angry. So, who gets to read it? Do I want to share with my family and friends, even if what I write here will offend them and cause arguments, resentment, or burn bridges?
  So, then there are three paths.
• Share with those people in my life, via Facebook and other means, but then censor myself so I don't step on certain toes.
• Don't share with those people, be very selective over who gets to read it, or find a whole new audience, but then be able to say whatever I like here. 
• Share and be brutally honest. Deal with the consequences. This is potentially the most painful, but also the most useful type of blogging, right? I'm not sure I'm brave enough for that right now. 
• Do I want to focus the theme of the blog, or go broad? I want to write about so many things right now, and I do believe they are related. Still, I want this blog to be more than just my online intellectual masturbation, I'd like people to follow it and to have it make discussions happen. I want connection though this blog to other people to agree or to argue with.
  From what I've seen, blogs that thrive with readers and connections tend to be focused. I have a friend who writes a blog on modern urban/suburban farming and homesteading, my brother writes a great anecdotal blog on parenting, many friends with art focused blogs. They've all done well in their circles.
  So, what do I want to write about?
• Social issues: I'm a very vocal person about how I think the world SHOULD be. I'll no doubt talk about feminism, racism, economic justice, classism, cultural borders, and many things I think are broken in our society. 
• Education reform: Maybe that's tied directly into social issues. I've got very definite opinions on how our kids should be educated, and about what. I'm less into system wide reform, if only because I haven't looked too deeply into it, than in what goes on in classrooms.
• Barefoot lifestyle: I've been more and more leaving shoes behind. It's a niche little countercultural movement, but it feels natural to me, and yet it's something in my life that gotten a lot of criticism and attention.
• Child raising: My son has been a both a huge influence on my life, and in some ways, a confirmation of how I already saw the world before he was here, so no change at all. I already paid lots of attention to how my friends and family raised their kids, and now with my own, it's like I get to test all my armchair parenting. This is one of the areas that I think will cause the kinds of fights I don't want to get into.
• Lifestyle from the ankles up: Other things about my life and how I should live it, and by extension, how I think other people should live it.
• Confessional: I need a place to dump my internal crap more than ever, and I've never felt like dumping into a confidential journal or diary was helpful. It's like screaming into a pillow. I much prefer screaming into the night sky, so someone can hear the howling. 
• Aspirations: If I don't make public and jot down what I want, they easily fall by the wayside.
• A name for this blog. I think that's settled. I'll have to see if this name sticks. It certainly describes me, but I'm not sure it encapsulates this blog so much. 

Those are the three big things I can think of now. I'm going to read this back later and see how it sits in my stomach.