This is an awesome and honest response from a mom hearing her daughter call herself fat:
http://www.rachelsimmons.com/2012/01/mom-im-fat-one-mothers-inspired-response-to-her-7-year-old/
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Talking to young girls about beauty
Here is a very balanced approach to raising a balanced girl from a dad who knows what he's talking about:
http://jezebel.com/5871822/the-right-way-to-talk-to-young-girls-about-beauty?tag=genderal-interest
http://jezebel.com/5871822/the-right-way-to-talk-to-young-girls-about-beauty?tag=genderal-interest
Maternity Leave Law Versus Reality
It's been a few months since my last blog post. I was left go of my position with a large publisher (and several other problems occurred -- health problems with my daughter, issues with my home, etc. -- prohibiting me from writing), which is the basis for my post today. I initially thought myself lucky to be going back to work after a year's mat leave. In the United States, one-year maternity leaves just don't exist. And, of course, for many those who are freelancers or self-employed, there is no mat leave at all. But the real reason I felt lucky is that my job still existed. For many moms that I know, there is that unenviable call from their employer that comes somewhere between the sixth month and the 11th month of their mat leave.The call that tells them they do not have job to return to. There are many ways that employers do this -- positions are eliminated (easy to do when the employee wasn't replaced -- if the other employees are taking up the slack, they can continue to do so) or job descriptions are changed (I know of one woman who job suddenly become bilingual, something her replacement was and she wasn't).
In Canada, companies legally have to allow women to take a one-year maternity leave. Women are to return to their job, or another job with the company that offers a similar pay. Unless their position no longer exists. This is the law. But it is not the experience for many women, myself included. For the women who return to their original position, that sense of job security they feel upon returning is false. When a company downsizes, often women who have taken recent maternity leaves are first to go. A company may realize that the year with the maternity leave replacement was less expensive than a year with the experienced employee -- so that woman is let go, a new, more junior title is given to the replacement and, along with the new title, a much smaller salary. Or a woman may just come back to a new environment -- a new boss, new coworkers, etc. -- and find that she is now the odd woman out and it's only a matter of time before she is "restructured" out.
Most women, myself included, would tell you that the trade off was worth it. Raising a child is the most important job that they've ever had or will ever have. But isn't the point of the law that we no longer have to choose? That we can have children at any point in our career because our career will be waiting for us? Is there a solution? An amendment that can be made to the law? I doubt it. Companies are not people; they are not "loyal" to their employees and would find a way to circumvent a tougher law. Loyalty is a work concept of my parents generation, and not one that I understand. I KNOW that my employer, any employer, will pay me as little as they can and will let me go if there is a cheaper alternative, or let me go if I simply don't kiss the right ass.
I've heard that in Finland women can take up to a three-year maternity leave, though they are not compensated for the entire time. Perhaps that works for them -- or maybe the women in Finland simply start looking for a new position after two and half years.
In Canada, companies legally have to allow women to take a one-year maternity leave. Women are to return to their job, or another job with the company that offers a similar pay. Unless their position no longer exists. This is the law. But it is not the experience for many women, myself included. For the women who return to their original position, that sense of job security they feel upon returning is false. When a company downsizes, often women who have taken recent maternity leaves are first to go. A company may realize that the year with the maternity leave replacement was less expensive than a year with the experienced employee -- so that woman is let go, a new, more junior title is given to the replacement and, along with the new title, a much smaller salary. Or a woman may just come back to a new environment -- a new boss, new coworkers, etc. -- and find that she is now the odd woman out and it's only a matter of time before she is "restructured" out.
Most women, myself included, would tell you that the trade off was worth it. Raising a child is the most important job that they've ever had or will ever have. But isn't the point of the law that we no longer have to choose? That we can have children at any point in our career because our career will be waiting for us? Is there a solution? An amendment that can be made to the law? I doubt it. Companies are not people; they are not "loyal" to their employees and would find a way to circumvent a tougher law. Loyalty is a work concept of my parents generation, and not one that I understand. I KNOW that my employer, any employer, will pay me as little as they can and will let me go if there is a cheaper alternative, or let me go if I simply don't kiss the right ass.
I've heard that in Finland women can take up to a three-year maternity leave, though they are not compensated for the entire time. Perhaps that works for them -- or maybe the women in Finland simply start looking for a new position after two and half years.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
The National Women's Show, clearly representing all that you care about
I just received this email about the National Women's Show -- essentially an opportunity for companies to directly reach the women that they want to buy their products. And you get to pay $14 for the opportunity to have products sold to you. But, according to the flyer, this is what is important to women on a national level: soap opera actors, fashion, home decorating, cooking and makeovers. Thank you Chatelaine for putting all things that women love into one convenient location!
Friday, October 21, 2011
Shout out to single moms and dads
I know it's been said by a lot of people, more eloquently than here, but it's still probably not said enough. Single moms, and dads, I don't know how you do it. My husband recently spent a week out of the country and even with daycare and help from family, I was so exhausted, both mentally and physically. Even more than usual, and I'm pretty much constantly ready to fall asleep. For those of you doing it on your own, many without the help of family, with infants and toddlers: how do you find a moment to shower? to work/clean/cook? to think? to relax?
It wasn't that many years ago that I was newly single, striking out on my own, but unsure as to whether I would meet someone special and be able to start a family with them. It was around the same time my nephew was born. I looked at him a lot that first Christmas season on my own. I knew I wanted that. I nearly reconsidered my choice to be single. Instead, as the new year came around, I made a promise to myself that no matter what happened, I would have a child. I decided that if I reached 35 without finding the right person to spend my life with, I would have a child on my own and create that family I desired. It was a freeing decision and took all the pressure out of dating and trying to find Mr. Right. It wasn't long after the decision was made, that I did find the right guy. But that knowledge that I would have done this on my own by this point in my life (I'm now 36), sits in the back of my mind. We all have those "what ifs" -- but this "what if" isn't "what if I didn't have a baby?", it's "what if I'd had a baby on my own?" What would my life look like now? What would I be doing? Where would I be living? It's hard to say, because children change everything. Everything. Immediately. And having a child on your own changes everything in an entirely different way than having a child with a partner who shares those duties, joys and tears with you.
This is all apropos of nothing. Other than to say, thank you, to my husband and my daughter. You've changed everything, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
It wasn't that many years ago that I was newly single, striking out on my own, but unsure as to whether I would meet someone special and be able to start a family with them. It was around the same time my nephew was born. I looked at him a lot that first Christmas season on my own. I knew I wanted that. I nearly reconsidered my choice to be single. Instead, as the new year came around, I made a promise to myself that no matter what happened, I would have a child. I decided that if I reached 35 without finding the right person to spend my life with, I would have a child on my own and create that family I desired. It was a freeing decision and took all the pressure out of dating and trying to find Mr. Right. It wasn't long after the decision was made, that I did find the right guy. But that knowledge that I would have done this on my own by this point in my life (I'm now 36), sits in the back of my mind. We all have those "what ifs" -- but this "what if" isn't "what if I didn't have a baby?", it's "what if I'd had a baby on my own?" What would my life look like now? What would I be doing? Where would I be living? It's hard to say, because children change everything. Everything. Immediately. And having a child on your own changes everything in an entirely different way than having a child with a partner who shares those duties, joys and tears with you.
This is all apropos of nothing. Other than to say, thank you, to my husband and my daughter. You've changed everything, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Creative girl nails it to American Apparel
For years American Apparel has been sexualizing young girls and underweight women and men in their ad campaigns. Now they've decided to start offering larger sizes, and sponsored a contest where plus-sized women posted photos of themselves to become the next face of American Apparel. They just weren't counting on anyone intelligent and lacking the need to find beauty approval finding out about the contest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/09/nancy-upton-on-her-american-apparel-plus-size-photo-spoof.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/09/nancy-upton-on-her-american-apparel-plus-size-photo-spoof.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
