Archive for How to avoid screwing up your pup

Moar School? Noooooooooooo!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on July 18, 2012 by conservativewerewolf

Listen to the child in all of us, and don’t give them more time to program, er, educate (?) the youth than they’ve already got.

Some Citigroup Council on Foreign Relations Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget [digression: WHAT budget?] douche says summer makes kids fat and dumb and we should therefore lengthen the school year.

I call bullshit.

Kids don’t need MORE time in institutions.  They need time AWAY from their progressive liberal hippie Marxist teachers.  The older ones need to go out and get JOBS so they can learn about the real world (TAXES), and how to tell when their teachers are full of crap.

They need to go turn over rocks to find out what’s under them, and swim in creeks, and read whatever the fuck they WANT to read (with parental permission, of course).  [You wanna know how to make kids HATE reading?  TELL THEM WHAT THEY HAVE TO READ.]

They don’t need to be in a factory of mediocrity everyday, taking notes on what someone who may not be as not as smart as half of them reads out of a textbook.

Yes, there are great teachers (I had just under one per year) – and THOSE teachers can do amazing things from August/September to May/June.  So why keep kids in school longer?  Why not just hire better teachers? [Well, yes, unions, that’s why.]

Here’s (the other reason) why they want more time with the kiddies: to make them MANAGEABLE.  It’s for their own good, you know.  Otherwise, they’d all become fat and stupid, IN ONLY  THREE MONTHS, according to the linked article.  Whatever would people do without the Department of Education to save us from ourselves?

As if it could.  Plenty of “well-educated” people are going to become fat and stupid anyway.  More “education” is not going to inspire people to get off their asses (fear of starvation would, but I kid when I recommend that).

I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you central-planning/statist types that the problem could be one of quality, not quantity?  That more stimulus won’t create healthy levels of economic growth, and more “education” won’t make people thin and brilliant?

Or maybe you know that.  Hmm.

Guess it’s home-school for my pups.

Advertisements

It took you how long to figure this out?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on June 26, 2012 by conservativewerewolf

Mona Charen comments in National Review Online on Anne-Marie Slaughter’s Atlantic article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” (Both are worth reading).

Charen writes:

“But she has discovered that the “have it all” catechism was a lie.  Even with a supportive husband who was willing to “take the lion’s share of parenting while I was in Washington,” she found that she didn’t want to be away from her two teenage sons, particularly when one was having trouble in school…

“Slaughter’s wants mirror those of other women (high-earning and otherwise). A 2007 Pew survey found that among working mothers with children 17 and younger, fully 79 percent said that they would prefer part-time (60 percent) or zero (19 percent) work outside the home. Only 21 percent said they would choose full-time employment while their children were young. This was down from 32 percent who preferred to work full time in 1997.”

Imagine that – women caring about their children and wanting to be there for them.  What will they come up with next?

1960s Feminism, meet Reality.

Oh, and here’s one more quote, just for kicks:

“Despite endless repetition by Democrats and feminists, the idea that women earn less than men for the same work is fiction. Single women without children earn just as much, and sometimes more, than comparably qualified young men. Women earn less (over their whole careers) because they choose to. And they choose to because they place more value on child-rearing than on money or status.”

Will radical feminists believe this?  No, because they’re addicted to perceived personal injustice – what would they whine about if they realized that sometimes they have life just as good as or better than many American men?

I suppose they could move to Africa (or Camden) and run orphanages and start schools for kids whose parents have died due to AIDS, but then they’d REALLY have to compromise.

Wait, I’ve got it… they want to be CEOs?  Okay, start a company in Cambodia and educate, house and employ people who currently live on top of trash dumps and live by fishing recyclables out from among the other dirty nasty ish.  Oh, but there are no pilates classes there.  Hmm.

If only modern-day feminism could be reconciled with the fact that there is no virtue in just doing what makes you happy.

Does America Get Cartoons?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on August 17, 2011 by conservativewerewolf

OMG guys, did you know there are cartoons on TV that are not appropriate for children???  AAAAAAAIIIII! *freaks out*

Marketing “Adult Swim” fare to 12-year-olds is a dick move (Cartoon Network better thank God I’m not a mama werewolf), but America needs to learn that ANIMATION DOES NOT EQUAL FOR KIDS.

Got that?

I swear, it’s like people have never heard of Japan.

So, while anyone who thinks “Family Guy” is suitable programming for beings who breathe oxygen figures out that we should at least direct the children away from it, I’ll be watching Avatar: The Last Airbender.  The Avatar gives people hope that good television programming can actually happen (even if Hollywood can’t get it right).

Mommy am I pretty? NO, you’re UGLY!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on July 28, 2011 by conservativewerewolf

Really, what are you going to say, lady who thinks it’s harmful to tell your little girl she’s pretty, when your beautiful little girl asks you if she’s pretty?

“Whatever happened to moderation?” Conservative Werewolf muttered before realizing she’d become an old fogey before hitting thirty.

Here’s an idea – don’t make a big deal about looks but don’t pretend looks don’t matter to people.  How’s that?  “Yes, you’re pretty, but it’s much more important that you be a good, moral person.”  Or, if your kid is ugly, “You are a beautiful person, and anyone who tells you otherwise is only commenting on you because they’re insecure.”  Or, if your kid is an ugly jackass, “Your only hope is to have inner beauty, kid – better get to work on that.”

[And when said jackass brings up the possibility of plastic surgery, you could say: “Sure, you can make yourself beautiful, just like Voldemort could make himself live forever.  Now, let’s have a talk about the kind of person you want to be.”]

“Har har, Conservative Werewolf.  But is it really bad not to tell your daughter she’s pretty?  Wouldn’t it help her not focus on her appearance?”

No, it wouldn’t.  You can fight society’s shallowness, but, for the sake of your kid, you shouldn’t ignore it.  Similarly, we can fight our impulses, but if we ignore them, we’ll end up mauling an entire small town in one moonlit evening (well, maybe not YOU, but, well, it’s a metaphor).  Little missy is probably going to want boys to like her at some point in her life.  If she expresses no interest in anything related to romance until she’s thirty, well, good for you.  But, if, like the author’s daughter, she does, what do you do?:

“The other week, when Hannah tried on a new dress (yellow and twirly at her request) and asked if she could wear it to nursery because ‘Louis [her friend] will tell me I look beautiful,’ my first reaction was to laugh, then text Louis’s mum to discuss wedding plans.

Of course, because it’s cute and normal.  Oh, she wants a boy to notice her?  Couldn’t be that someday she’ll want to smooch one? OMG, let’s freak out that she’ll become anorexic:

But once I was over the comedy factor, it bothered me that my three-year-old thought the way to impress her friend was by looking pretty.  And I was horrified when I read that a recent BBC survey had found that six out of ten eight to 12-year-olds thought they’d be happier thinner, and that research by Girl Guiding UK had found that girls under ten often link happiness with body image.

This is a prime moment for guiding your kid in the ways of not being a little whore (i.e., not feeling she needs males to drool all over her for self-esteem, and therefore not going around wearing next to nothing and/or feeling she must radically change her body).  But ignoring that she’s gonna grow up into a cutie-pie isn’t gonna do it.

When I take them out together, my one-year-old son Rafal gets ‘clever’, ‘friendly’ and ‘smiley’ thrown his way, whereas my daughter is bombarded with pretty dress chat. The well-meaning compliments of passers-by is a reminder of the world in which she’s growing up. Rafal will be fine being friendly and clever, but Hannah will constantly be judged on how she looks.

It’s little wonder that studies have found that attractive women are assumed to be kinder and more intelligent and are also more likely  to make friends and even find jobs.

Do you realize this doesn’t make sense??  “My daughter is bombarded with pretty dress chat” –> “It’s little wonder that studies have found that attractive women are assumed to be… MORE INTELLIGENT”??? Really?  Could you explain to me how A leads to B?  Or, in her case, how it’s a bad thing?  So people will assume good things about her- great!  Help her be able to live up to the expectations of being able to figure things out, being up for the job, etc.

We can’t shelter our daughters from that reality, but as psychologist Susie Orbach, author of the ground-breaking body-image bible Fat Is A Feminist Issue, puts it: we can ‘innoculate’ against it. ‘When others say “she’s so pretty”, we can concur but also add that she does such a great job of skipping, running or playing her drums.

See, even you understand.  Couldn’t have just gotten straight to the logical point, hm?  Had to whine for several paragraphs about your concerns and feelings and shit.  There’s a time for processing our feelings, and there’s a time for addressing them.
‘Or talk as well about an aspect of her character so the pretty is acknowledged but not primary.’ Dr Sandra Wheatley, psychologist and author of Helping New Mothers To Help Themselves, agrees: ‘It’s natural to dress up girls in a typically feminine way and there’s nothing wrong with that — as long as that’s not all you focus on. If you fight against human nature, you’ll always lose the battle.’
Thank you, modern psychologist lady, we could not have figured that out ourselves.  People haven’t known this for generations.  This, feminists, is your legacy: people being quoted in papers saying the obvious things that counter your messages of gender sameness and such bullshit.
The article concludes:

There’s no getting away from the fact that being comfortable and confident with her appearance will help my daughter get on in life. And as long as I help her to value her other more enduring qualities, feeling good about her looks is something I should encourage, too. So next time I brush her hair and she gives me that ‘tada!’ look, I won’t feel guilty about telling her how pretty her curly hair looks. And I won’t even mind if she says mine is pretty, too.

All children, while growing up in a physical world and addressing the day to day issues herein, need to learn that it’s the things we can’t see that truly matter.  Maybe next time the Daily Mail will publish an article that delves a little deeper into the subject.  *snrk*

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost. “
-J. R. R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
-C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity