How is the child abuse rate in this country not higher?
(Seriously, no depressing replies from my social worker friends and family or law enforcement readers on how desperately high even a 0.00000001% rate is. I know that. But the question does not value a higher rate. It marvels at the <100% rate.)
Why can I not watch a film, show, or commercial without composing a critical theory response that involves footnotes and dreams of a research grant? What the hell is wrong with me? Am I missing enjoyment centers in my brain or something?
Where is that box of books I labeled to be first on the shelf after the three moves of a year-plus ago? I need two of those books, man. Where are they?
How does, "you may cut paper and only paper" translate into "try to cut your shirt, the rug, your chin, a bracelet, and the baby toys while I’m right here watching“? Seriously. Taking the whole ‘looking for negative attention’ thing to a whole new level.
No wonder I’m pissed I have absolutely no time to write…the voices in my head are better companions than small children. Why does nobody say how completely not ideal the companionship of young children is?
(repost, as in “to post again,” not as in “offensive follow-up to a parry,” of musings from February 2009)
First Law: net inertia. Subjects at rest tend to stay at rest until you settle in. Then they spring into action, usually of the death-defying (or at least social-convention-defying) sort. Conversely, subjects in motion will tend to stay in motion until such time as you enjoy their motion. Then they will stop.
Second Law: F=ma. The relationship between the force needed to cajole a small person into even the most pleasant task is Force=(minutes needed to perform task without small children)x(age, in years, you feel after the task is complete). Exempli gratia, force required to put on child’s shoes=(.25)x(57)=14. Units may vary. 14 minutes, 14 different techniques, 14 different pair before they finally agree to leave one on, 14 threats to leave without said child if they don’t put on their flipping shoes NOW…
Third Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You get dressed, they glitter paint the cat. You prepare breakfast, they remove all the tape flags from your research books. You strike up a conversation with the clerk at the market, they strip down naked and run away laughing.
You don’t see how those are equal and opposite? You must possess logic and reason, then. Ah. You must not have children.
When I began this blog I knew I didn’t want to use my son’s name, since there is a creepy-ass element on these interwebs from whom I will seek, potentially in vain, to protect him.
But calling him Peanut is problematic now that he is older and bigger. And now that his brother has arrived, it’s too hard to make casual references to ages so readers have enough info about the differences between Peanut and Hazelnut, the delicious name given our newest dude by The Kitch Witch, who swore he’d be a girl.
So do I go with Eldest and Youngest as some on my blogroll do? Preschooler and Baby, changing their designations as they age? #1 and #2 as those of us who’ve moved beyond fourth grade humor will undoubtedly still giggle about? Intense Dude and Tiny Dude? Clearly the latter would have to change, again as Hazelnut gets more personality.
Not sure how to handle the naming of children on blogs.
And can’t believe I just wasted this many words just thinking out loud. Now, you tell me how or why you chose to refer to your children online (or how and why you vote for naming our little nuts.)