5 yr. old Jazz, the genderless baby's brother who gravitates towards "girlish" preferences. Screen shot via HLN Dr. Drew show.

That’s right, JERKS!

In case you haven’t heard, a Toronto couple has decided that they’re apparently on a higher evolutionary plane than the rest of saps who kowtow to our genders by allowing the big, bad society to foist its ideas of gender inequality on us and pressure us to like and do things that are unnatural or something like that. So all you women who love your makeup and sassy shoes, you better just pass that crap onto your husband because apparently, YOU are part of the problem.

A Canadian couple, David Stocker and Kathy Witterick, have two sons, both of whom they are allowing to guide their own gender roles and identity according to what compels them. One of the little boys, Jazz, 5, loves to wear pink dresses and has long hair which he prefers to have braided and Kio, 2, who also seems to prefer femininity over the “constraints” of what is expected from his offensive male gender. Their newest edition to the family, Storm, is 4 months old and the parents have decided that he/she/it shall remain genderless. They are dressing he/she/it in gender neutral clothing and are refusing to disclose the sex of the baby. For these parents, gender is only a state of mind. One has to wonder how the progressive parents got pregnant. That must be a difficult task to accomplish when your genitals are thought to be so insignificant.

Ms. Witterick told a news organization via the Daily Mail:

I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.

(Insert obligatory eye-roll.)

So, the pretentious progressive Canadian couple who seem to (ironically) welcome media hype and attention shared their experiment with the world. An experiment one would assume requires isolation and dismissal of the rest of our species, but let’s face it, if you really wanted your child to keep gender biases away from them, where else would you go to keep that a super-secret?

The media of course!

Seriously. How rude is that? Why on earth would you subject your child to your own weird sociological experiment? Why discount and even dismiss the beauty of the gender we are born with? There is nothing wrong with celebrating and embracing the gender you’re born with. Furthermore, what proof is there that societal influence is the only reason men and women gravitate towards certain preferences? And if gender were only in the mind, how do you explain the physical and anatomical differences? How do you explain biology?

Dr. Drew Pinsky’s show on HLN featured this topic last night. He discussed this experiment and the potential consequences on the baby. His panel was stacked on the side of thinking this kind of gender bending and child guided gender identification was the bees knees. One of the guests was the mother and author of Princess Boy, Cheryl Kilodavis, who wrote a book about how her young son favors dressing like a girl and that the world should just accept him as a boy who likes frilly dresses.

All I can say, is thank God for Dr. Drew. Among this strange elitist parenting trend, he seems to be the voice of reason:

“Most research is pointing towards biology as having a very powerful effect, right? Very powerful. There is likelihood that that biology is going to express itself and I know males, and he is going to be angry,” Dr. Drew said. “Isn’t there a subtle message that gender itself is wrong. There is something wrong with having a gender.”

Dr. Drew then flashed a quote from Storm’s mother, Kathy Witterick, which read:

“Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what she/he wants to be?”

Dr. Drew’s response:

“That sounds great on paper, but communism sounds great on paper too.”

(Hahahaha! Does anybody else love Dr. Drew as much as I do?)

Psychologist Lisa Boesky made a good point on the show when she suggested that this Canadian couple might be making an even bigger deal about gender identity by imposing this social experiment on their child because gender identity is only part of who we are and Storm’s parents are the ones making their child’s entire identity about gender.

(Interesting point.)

I would have thought the heartbreaking story of David Reimer, who was boy, castrated as an infant and raised as a girl, which later lead to a lifetime of depression, anger and ultimately his suicide —  that this “experiment” would have taught us all a lesson. Gender is innate. Raising a child to be genderless is neither natural or compassionate, it’s just plain cruel.

Do you have a parenting related debate topic you’re dying to write about? Email us at admin (at) imperfectparent.com to get your voice heard! If we use your debate post, we’ll give you a few bucks and a high five.

The post Parents trying to raise the next ‘Baby X’ are a bunch of jerks appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

I love TV! Photo via Wynand Delport.

Television in the kids’ bedroom is a controversial issue even in my own home. I’ll admit, I have taken a page out of the lazy parent’s handbook on this issue and happily run with it. I think my husband thinks it’s somewhat unsophisticated and pedestrian to allow our children to have TVs in their room, but has chosen his battles wisely and decided this was a battle which was best left to snarky comments and not action.

When I set up the TVs, he decided that there were far worse atrocities in the world, besides, I am a gigantic TV head, he knew this when he married me. My husband and I put in long hours at work and at the end of the day, I cannot read another news story or science abstract, I simply want to veg, eat popcorn, and be mindlessly entertained in front of a ginormous television. When I go up to bed, I watch a little news which routinely puts me to sleep. I have always been that way because I, too, had television in my bedroom as a child. I have fond memories watching Please Don’t Eat the Daisies. For me, the television became a soothing and relaxing tool which proved to be harmless.

I was about 8 years old when my parents put a TV in my bedroom. My brother and sister didn’t have one. They weren’t interested, hey, ya snooze, ya lose. I have always had difficulty sleeping and I think my mother finally gave in because she chose her own sleep over my late night interruptions. And I was a pretty good kid. I did my homework, I was pretty responsible and I was popular on the playground because I was able to give other kids the what for on various issues that were off limits or foreign to them because I had TV in my bedroom. Of course, I only had 3 TV stations to choose from. Those were the dinosaur days where the extent of my television was determined by my antenna limitations.

Today, there hundreds of television stations. Kids have so many media choices. My kids aren’t all that interested in television when they have their Playstation DS, computer and iPod Touch to choose from — which may be the reason why it’s difficult to shut down their brain at night — and so I go the way of my mother. As somebody who also values my sleep and night-time meditations, after many nights of my son telling me various stories about being scared and trying to convince me he wasn’t tired, only to have him crawl in bed with me, forcing me to turn my beloved news station to Disney, I had to drill down my priorities.

Both of my kids now have televisions in their room. The oldest one had to rely on basic cable for the first few years until we upgraded him to full cable. Parental controls have given parents the ability to control what shows kids can watch, and although we use those controls, I find it unnecessary as my kids preferences are for “G” rated content anyway. And much like the family dynamics I grew up wtih, one child is less enamored with the TV than the other. The younger one needs television to fall asleep. My husband thinks I’m partially to blame for this — foisting my own neurosis of having to have television to fall asleep, on him. Perhaps it’s true, but he is a good kid too. His academic abilities are significantly above his grade level and he is well adjusted, well as adjusted as a kid with television in their room. I’m not striving for perfection after all.  At the end of the day, he’s sympathetic and kind, so what more can I expect from him?

With the older one, I put a television in his room (again, against my husband’s wishes) in Kindergarten, with my younger one, I did the same. So now they fall asleep to NBA games and Nickelodeon, is it so wrong? While numerous studies suggest that children with televisions in their bedrooms are at an increased risk of child obesity and doing poorly in school, I have a hard time believing that given the circumstances in my family. My kids play sports and my older child needs to put on weight, not lose it.

I think these studies are for parents who don’t give a rip about what their kids are watching and likely have other contributing factors like excessive junk food and lack of activity along with their television habits and dependency. I think there is a responsible way to manage television as a parent and quite frankly, I don’t get what the big deal is.

Do you have a parenting related debate topic you’re dying to write about? Email us at admin (at) imperfectparent.com to get your voice heard! If we use your debate post, we’ll give you a few bucks and a high five.

The post Allowing television in kids’ rooms appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Fetus at 20 weeks gestation. Photo via Flickr Commons by Justin Grenier.

Guest post by Alison

Advocates of abortion like to point out their perceived discrepancy between conservatives wanting less government intrusion and then having the gall to tell women what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies. It’s really not about a woman’s body. Women can have plastic surgery, go on a crazy diet, exercise, or sit on the couch playing a video game and eating nothing but potato chips. I won’t try and make any of that illegal. I’m trying to speak on behalf of the innocent, unborn children who can’t speak for or defend themselves and are being murdered.

Some will say that “unborn” and “children” is an oxymoron—that the fetus is not a child until it’s born, at the most when you hit the third trimester. I say, give me a break. The growing child inside is developing a spinal cord before many women even find out they’re pregnant and has a detectable heartbeat at about 7 weeks along. It’s not like women don’t know that “growth” inside of them is going to come out human. Just because you can’t hear him cry doesn’t mean he’s any less alive.

Another argument in favor of abortion is that those “unwanted children” who couldn’t be aborted if we made it illegal would become society’s plague being raised on welfare and joining gangs etc. It doesn’t have to be that way. If they do become society’s takers, they certainly wouldn’t have a monopoly on that arena. There are “wanted children” who struggle too. Maybe there could be a test for unborn children to determine whether or not they’ll be well-adapted, contributing adults and then we can kill the ones who fail. (If you can’t tell, that was sarcasm.) Who are we to say if a child gets a chance at life or not?

Doesn’t it seem strange that children can be taken away from a mother who neglects them or endangers their life, but killing them is no problem as long as it’s done during a certain window of opportunity?

I think there’s an element of fear in some people who advocate abortion. What if I get pregnant or, for those who are already parents, what if my daughter gets pregnant when it’s not convenient? I want the option of abortion. Well, there are such things called consequences. Getting pregnant is a common consequence of having sex. Abortion in most cases is a way to avoid responsibility. You want the privilege of having sex without the burden of a child.

I understand there are cases of rape and cases where abortion is medically necessary for the life of the mother. Those are special cases where special justification may exist. I still think the decision to abort should be very carefully considered and abortion avoided if possible. Also, I’m not writing this to increase the guilt of women who’ve had an abortion and regret it. This is about the present and the future.

Now a plug for adoption: I myself was adopted as a baby. Instead of a being aborted or being raised by a young, single mother, I was raised by two loving parents and grew up with two sisters. My birth mother got a chance to go on with her life and I got raised in a great home. I went to college, got married, and now I’m raising two beautiful children. Isn’t that a happy ending—or middle of the story since I’m still alive? For those hating me right now, maybe not, but I think so.

Being pregnant and having a baby isn’t easy, and certainly a pregnant teenager has a long road ahead of her. However, I don’t think abortion is an acceptable option except perhaps in those special cases I mentioned beforehand. There are many choices we make in life with consequences we may not realize fully when we make them. Taking responsibility for those choices anyway is the right thing to do. We should support those young girls in their pregnancy and as they make decisions about their future and the future of their child, not just hand them off to Planned Parenthood. There can be life after pregnancy for the mother and the child.

Do you have a parenting related debate topic you’re dying to write about? Email us at admin (at) imperfectparent.com to get your voice heard! If we use your debate post, we’ll give you a few bucks and a high five.

The post The case against abortion appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Is redemption enough? Photo via Kat Jackson.

A mother in Montreal Canada, age 25, was accused in 2006 of alleged child neglect and abuse when her then 18-month-old baby was found wandering an apartment complex by himself. He was found by a neighbor with a soiled diaper, covered in soot and inflicted with severe burns. Some of those burns were infected and were determined to have happened over an extended period of time.

The toddler was in so much pain, he was transported to the hospital and immediately given morphine upon arrival. The mother who can’t be identified due to a court order put in place to protect the identity of the victim, her son, was found asleep in her apartment when authorities went to look for her. Upon being questioned, it was clear she had no idea where her toddler son was and refused to visit him in the hospital. (Sounds like a real winner, right?)

The mother subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts of child abandonment and one count of child neglect. While the incident happened in 2006, she is still dealing with prior charges of drug trafficking on top of issuing threats in a court room as recent as 6 months ago.

Even after all this, a judge decided recently to give her a break. A big break. The prosecution wanted jail time, but the judge apparently thought jail was much too harsh. He let her go on the basis that she stopped doing crack in 2008. He also noted that she was trying to finish high school and that the real culprit of the alleged abuse was her prior drug problem and prostitution. Apparently, this Judge doesn’t find you accountable for your actions if you’re on drugs. He gave her a 2 year suspended sentence which is essentially probation.

The only real consequence to her was that her child, who is almost 7 now, was taken from her care. She has two other children whom have remained in her care, something the judge said he took into account because she was able to care for them satisfactorily.

So, my question is, what’s the point? While some may argue the fact that she lost her son was punishment enough, if she didn’t want the responsibility to begin with, isn’t that more of a reward? Also, isn’t the victim, her young child, the one who has to live a life of punishment? That kind of neglect at such an early age has to live on for a lifetime. So, the baby gets an emotional life sentence and the mother gets parenting classes. What’s wrong with this picture? That is buuuuuuuuulllllshit!

The post Child abuse: Is sorry enough? appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Maternity leave, be careful what you wish for. Photo by Doriana S.

In the U.S., by contrast, through the Family Medical Leave Act, you can get a whopping 90 days IF you work for a company with over 50 employees and have worked for at least a year. But wait! Not only can you get up to 90 days, you get the privilege of not even getting paid while out on maternity leave, although many companies extend pay for women on maternity leave for competitive advantage.

In Canada, both mother and father can split the time of almost a year off with their partially paid maternity/paternity leave laws, although providences do vary.

The question is — are we getting royally screwed here? Do Americans generally hate babies? Are women still treated unfairly in the land of the free?

While our dollar is becoming increasingly weaker, we are still one of the most prosperous countries in the world. According to the Department of Labor, almost 50% of all women over 16 years of age is employed. But before you call the wahmbulance and decry the unfairness of it all, consider this… according to The Local, an online Swedish news site, more Scandinavian and Nordic women work than U.S. women. But, the news site contends, Scandinavian women lack the success and prestige of higher paying jobs than their U.S. counterparts:

In major metropolitan areas in the US, such as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and Chicago, young women have not only broken the glass ceiling, but in fact outearn men by up to 20 percent in average salary. One third of American women in the workforce outearn their husbands. Amongst unmarried people without kids above the age of 40, women earn considerably more then men.

Such successes are however not evident in Scandinavian nations, since a great share of women active in the labour market tend to work for the public sector. The possibilities for career development are limited in public sector jobs compared to the private sector. Also, wages are considerably lower. The dependence in public sector employment stifles women’s opportunities, not least for those with a higher degree of education.

Apparently maternity leave does not provide the best of both worlds, as many American women might mistakenly believe. Sweden offers up to 18 months of paid maternity and paternity pay, but it may be prudent to ask yourself, is 18 months really worth a lifetime of mediocrity at best?

The Local goes onto say:

The need to fund large public sectors has led to exorbitant tax wedges on services; up to 75 percent. Thus, it is difficult for professional women to buy household services and free up time for careers. Another effect of tax and transfer programmes is that both the need and the ability to accumulate personal savings are reduced. This helps explain why Scandinavian women have far smaller saving than their American counterparts, both in absolute terms and as share of national assets.

Furthermore, countries like the United Kingdom are now reassessing their generosity when it comes to maternity leave. While UK women have enjoyed 39 weeks of paid maternity leave for years, the government voted to extend that leave to 52 weeks, raising baby leave to a full year back in 2009. It was supposed to take effect in April of 2010. It never happened. In fact, the extension has been postponed indefinitely. Why? Because it’s unsustainable.

Want more proof that the grass is not always greener?

Of the countries that offer significantly longer maternity leaves, their GDPs pale in comparison to the U.S., with the low end being Albania whose GDP per capita is $7,400 compared to the U.S., which still has a GDP of $47,400 per capita. The exception would be Norway, with a GDP of $59,100 per capita, however, Norway has one of the highest costs of living in the entire world and is largely known as a “welfare state.” It openly practices redistribution of wealth. They also have a VAT (taxation of all items bought on the open market) of 25%. That means, everything you buy there is taxed 25% and on top of that, and you are taxed on your net worth, causing people to stifle their own success. It is one of the most taxed countries on Earth. A country that openly accepts and supports socialism, although the climate is changing. Even after all of this, Norway is finding itself moving ever so gingerly away from government controlled everything. All their eggs are in one basket. They rely almost solely on their oil exports. Should an alternative fuel become viable, they would be colossally screwed.

For all the praises that are sung for nations like Sweden and Norway, and their extended maternity leave and baby initiatives, one has to consider all the facts. Is it because these extended-baby-leave countries love mothers and babies so much more than Americans or is that these countries actually have less confidence in women as productive members of society? If women are only getting these extensions because the country they live in only allows them opportunity as mothers, then no thanks. I’ll take my 9 to 5 as a working mother. I actually enjoy it.

The Local concludes their article:

The 40 percent goal has been hailed in international media as a success, but few have reported the problems created for Norwegian companies. In part because the welfare system reduced the number of career women in the private sector, it has not proven easy to fill the board seats. Norwegian firms desperately attempt to find female board members, going so far as actively recruiting women from neighbouring countries to fill the quotas.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that the law in many cases resulted in firms filling their seats with politicians, in many cases those very politicians who pushed the quota legislation to begin with. There is no tangible evidence that the rent seeking board quotas have had any beneficial effects for Norwegian women in general.

Scandinavian cultures have for long been famous for their general egalitarianism and for their equality between the sexes. But it becomes increasingly clear that the opportunities of women in the private business sector are stifled by welfare policies and government monopolies.

Would you be willing to give up much of your net worth and career opportunities for women to take a year to a year-and-a-half off of work to have a baby?

Talk about a meal ticket.

The post The case against extended maternity leave appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

This morning I heard two male hosts on some random radio station talking about the doll, which works by having the child wear a halter top of sorts which electronically sets the baby doll to sucking. The male radio hosts kept saying how uncomfortable and “dirty” the commercial for the doll made them feel, which was kind creepy in and of itself, but that’s a different post. The commercial shows a little girl, probably around the age of 7, putting on the halter top and then putting the doll to her undeveloped breasts.

During the show, they played clips from mothers who like the doll, telling tales of their child breastfeeding stuffed animals and even remote controls — anything that’s broken that the child thinks needs comforting.

One of the hosts said that a child that would try to breastfeed a remote control must have been dropped on its head as a baby, and the host who was presumably a father said that he never witnessed his two daughters trying to breastfeed random objects.

This doll will likely be a huge hit with breastfeeding advocates who are trying to promote breastfeeding as a women’s rights issue and societal influencer. Since breastfeeding can be thought of as a cultural phenomenon nowadays, many moms want to start influencing their children’s behavior towards full breastfeeding compliance and this could be a tool to help them do that. They would likely argue that breastfeeding is completely natural and that a breastfeeding doll is more natural than a bottle-feeding doll and represents the ideal feeding situation.

Problem as I see it though, it’s NOT natural for a 7-year-old to breastfeed a baby.

View the video below and tell us what you think. (I have to admit, that I did get a chuckle out of the comment about what was next — fake tampons? LOL!)

The post Breastfeeding baby doll comes to U.S. appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Shannon Hawley, age 29, accused of child cruelty for allowing 11 yr. old to babysit. Photo via Conway Police Department.

Is it okay to leave an 11-year-old at home alone? What about a 10-year-old or an 8-year-old for that matter? Although there are many factors involved, such as the child’s maturity level and the age of his/her younger siblings, it seems to me that society’s acceptable age to “babysit” keeps getting higher as our life expectancies rise.

When I was a kid, back when Shelley Duvall had a career, I was babysitting newborns when I was 11 years old. In fact, I was taking care of multiple kids for slave wages, even if you adjust for inflation, until 2 or 3 a.m. in the morning. While I believe there are parents out there that would feel comfortable allowing their 11-year-old to babysit an older child, say 5 years and up, they likely wouldn’t announce it on the 10 o’clock news or anything. Furthermore, I knew of kids in kindergarten while I was growing up that were latch key kids. If you did that today, your kids would be in foster care quicker than any explanation would allow.

Recently, a woman in Conway, South Carolina, was arrested on two counts of child cruelty because her two daughters were left alone one evening until the mother returned at 11 p.m. The kids were 11 and 7. Granted, the mother allegedly failed an observed sobriety test when she returned home and found the police waiting for her. If she’s guilty of what she’s been accused of — “Driving with an Unlawful Alcohol Concentration” (DUAC, which is similar to a DUI) , then she deserves to be punished for that crime to the full extent of the law, but the two charges were based on her leaving her daughters home alone.

Turns out, the 11-year-old’s father is the one who contacted police, alerting them to the fact that his daughter may be home by herself.

When the police asked the mother why she left her kids there, she said that her older daughter was babysitting.

According to SCNOW.com, the mother, Shannon Hawley, age 29, was charged for child cruelty based solely for leaving her children home alone. But South Carolina doesn’t have a strict law as to what age you can leave a child home alone. It, like many states, leaves that determination to the discretion of the parent(s) with caveats. The children must be left in a safe environment, have food, know how to address an emergency or reach an adult, etc. Granted, there may be some missing details in this case but considering the reports clearly state that the children were unharmed, why is she being charged with two counts of child cruelty?

At what age is it appropriate to leave children home alone?

On the other side of the debate, I have met parents who allowed their 8-year-old children to be home alone, for a short time and when a neighbor was aware. These children happen to be exceptionally smart and mature, so is that okay or would that land some people in jail?

If the daughter in this case happened to be 13, would that have made a difference?

Since the girls have different fathers, DCFS has placed them in different homes. One with her biological father and the other with their Grandmother. Assuming these girls were safe, since there isn’t information at this point to prove otherwise, and provided the court does their job in addressing a possible drinking problem (I don’t know if she has one, but the court should be able to make a judgment based on the information they have in their possession), then how does this crime warrant the separation of sisters?

What do you think? Can an 11-year-old babysit a 7-year-old?

The post Leaving kids home alone appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Photo by Chris Richardson

Just a few days ago, a brief, from The University of Kent, UK, was published, decrying the social and political arm twisting new mothers face in deciding how to feed their babies — breast, bottle (formula) or both. While breastfeeding is preferred, as supported by scientific evidence, infant formula is completely fine.

People, get a grip. The bullying that takes place, especially cyberbullying, over how a mother chooses to feed her baby, is nothing short of bullshit. There is nothing wrong with a mother choosing to formula feed.

On the flip side, nobody should give a flying squirrels butt if a mother loves to breastfeed but it’s not something that other mothers should be forced to admire either. I mean really. You breastfeed. What do ya want, a cookie?

While I have been extolling the power of choice when it comes to infant feeding and dispelling hyperbolic claims when it comes to the significance of both feeding methods, I have to say that a brief like this one made me thankful for much needed advocacy for those outsiders who decide not to breastfeed for one reason or another.

The brief, penned by Dr. Lee, suggests that the current climate which tries to humiliate mothers into breastfeeding and dictating a political, social and lifestyle ideal is counterproductive. To me, it’s like saying, if you choose to formula feed, you might as well live in a trailer, eat dog food, beat your children and vote for David Duke (and oh, yeah, you can’t come to little Timmy’s birthday party either. Humph!). The insanity needs to stop.

Dr. Ellie Lee suggests:

Policy in this area should aim to support individual mothers to feed their babies in the way that makes most sense for them and their families. It should cease to connect mothers’ infant feeding practices with solving wider social and health problems. Doing so, evidence suggests, has failed to do much to increase breastfeeding rates; has generated a distorted picture of the causes of health and social problems; and has encouraged a situation where many mothers experience being placed under pressure to feed their baby according to priorities laid down by others.

Amen, sistah.

I think this is particularly important because there is so much bad information and the bad information being distributed in order to promote breastfeeding is downright dishonest and misleading. While there are undeniable benefits to breastfeeding, it is not a life or death decision for 99.9999% of people in industrialized nations. While many women view the whole breastfeeding vs. formula feeding as the biggest decisions in their lives, the older your children get, the more likely you are to look back and wonder why tears were shed over the equivalent of Wheaties vs. Shredded Wheat.

Dr. Lee goes onto say:

Active efforts need to be made to separate infant feeding from morally-charged ideas and rhetoric about motherhood. The moralisation of infant feeding is detrimental for mothers – however they feed their babies – and damaging for wider society. Policy needs to be disentangled from the promotion of a particular orientation towards motherhood and family life.

Can I get a hellz yeah?!?

I suppose some readers are starting to pick out a common theme here at the Imperfect Parent’s Hot Topics — why are people making their problems other people’s problems? Why should any woman’s goals and feelings towards society and the world be your cross to bear?

Bullshit, I tellsya.

More from the briefing:

Mothers feed their babies in a range of ways, yet as things stand, lip-service is paid to choice in infant feeding: alternatives to breastfeeding are routinely portrayed as inferior. As a result, tensions exist between mothers and health service staff. Policy makers need to work to change this situation. Mothers should be provided with properly balanced information about all feeding methods as a matter of course.

Balance. Oh yeah — that. Speaking as a mother who did both, breastfed and formula fed (but mostly formula fed), I can say that the iron fist which seeks to censor information about the safety and/or health validity of infant formula is unacceptable. While it’s not my intention to encourage women to formula feed over breastfeeding, it is my intention to preserve the balance. Choice means having facts from both sides, not political rhetoric or distorted statistics. My hope is that mothers trust their own ability to hash out the truth and common sense. How can we trust any of our parental decisions if we allow other moms or people to influence them based on their own, personal, social and political motives?

Think for yourself.

The post Breastfeeding vs. formula feeding: Bring it! appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Joseph Maraachli

Detroit hospital refuses Baby Joseph
Detroit hospital refuses to treat dying Ontario infant
Dying Ont. baby’s transfer to Detroit denied

Joseph Maraachli has endured much suffering since he’s been born. He’s afflicted with a rare neurological illness that also took the life is his sister 8 years ago, according to Life Site News. His condition is grave and his parents have accepted that young Joseph is going to die. Little Joseph Maraachli is currently on life support and the family’s last wishes are that he be given a tracheotomy so he can be brought home to die in peace and dignity.

Moe Maraachli, Joseph’s father, has told Life Site News that he believes his son would get better care in the U.S. The couple lives just across the bridge from Detroit, Michigan in Windsor, Canada. Apparently Joseph spent some time at a children’s hospital in Michigan which happened to be one of the few times he showed improvement.

The Canadian healthcare system has denied the parent’s request to provide a palliative path towards his death and is now looking towards the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to determine his fate. The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee is a Canadian organization that basically gives people a gladiator-style thumbs up or down as to whether or not they’ll pull the plug on certain patients. The Canadian hospital Joseph is currently be cared for wants to take him off his respirator. The Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario Canada has ruled on the side of the hospital but the parents claim that doing taking him off his respirator would cause him to choke to death and die in agony.

Previously, a Detroit hospital agreed to give the baby a tracheotomy but later reneged after having reviewed the Canadian’s hospital records.

While all of this is extremely sad and unfortunate, I can’t believe how the Canadian press has turned this around to blame “Evil America.” While I cannot confirm whether or not the family was paying cash for this procedure, hospitals in the U.S. that accept foreign patients typically perform their surgeries and care gratis. In rare circumstances, when a patient cannot get the same treatment at home, Canada will pay a fee schedule at significantly below cost. It’s more a gesture than anything else. But most of these hospitals use tax payers dollars to pay for the care of foreign citizens. In America, foreigners that come here for life threatening illnesses must be treated by law. If they wind up at a private hospital, typically they get sent to a federal or state health clinic once they’re stable. So, you can be from outer Mongolia, come here with cancer, and be treated with tax payer dollars. It’s part of what makes our country great. We’re charitable.

Now, far be it from me to be a heartless wench. I feel for this family, but I fail to see how these headlines, faulting the big, bad American healthcare system is helping anybody. The real question is — why isn’t the Canadian healthcare system helping this baby and why isn’t the outrage directed squarely where it belongs — at an unethical universal healthcare system who is failing one of its most vulnerable?

I know Canadians are very patriotic, perhaps more nationalistic than most Americans even, but it’s time to face the reality of the limitations on universal healthcare. While I often hear Canadians singing the praises of the Canadian healthcare system, it’s typically from healthy people. I can tell you — having worked at a hospital for many years and having to field hundreds of phone calls a month from angry Canadians who were absolutely appalled and shocked that their Canadian healthcare system would not transfer here for cancer treatment, it isn’t all that. I’m not sure if it was the entitlement factor that left them so offended or if it was the shear desperation. It was truly heartbreaking to hear their stories. Many would beg us to take them, telling us that they would surely die within the confines of their own Canadian healthcare system.

The point is all but moot here in America as this is the unfortunate direction our system is heading, barring any extreme intervention which is likely not going to pass our Senate. I truly believe that in 2014, there will be a rude awakening amongst Americans as to how much their healthcare will change, along with their premiums. Nothing is truly free. No costly, unaffordable “gift” is without immense sacrifice.

I can give you speedy, cheap and quality in your healthcare system — just pick two.

The post America gets blamed for the failings of the Canadian healthcare system appeared first on Imperfect Parent.

Photo by slagheap via flickr commons

Joel Northrup has come under criticism for his decision, being accused of being ignorant and sheltered because he’s homeschooled, but are his actions worthy of scoff or admiration? Even though two girls made the tournament in wrestling and were wrestling within their weight levels, it is extremely rare for high schools to combine girls and boys in contact sports. The reason, albeit politically incorrect, is fashioned in common sense.

Boys and girls have different body makeups. It’s not to say that one is “better” or that men are always stronger, but men typically have more muscle mass. Adding to the strength of boys, post-pubescent, is their center of gravity. Generally, woman’s center of gravity is lower – which gives men more strength in their upper body.

In my opinion, it’s wrong to have put this young man in such a position. Political correctness shouldn’t circumvent safety. Even the United States military doesn’t put women in situations of hand-to-hand combat. It’s not because people are “mean” or “ignorant” or that society wants to keep women down, it’s because, physically, we’re different. Our anatomy is different and if that offends anyone, it’s anyone’s guess as to who that complaint should be filed with.

The right thing for that girl to do would have been to drop out. In this case, there is no honor in winning by default. The girls should have fought each other.

The post Co-ed highschool sports; putting politics over logic appeared first on Imperfect Parent.