Fleshing out the feminist bitch-slap in the Harms of Homeschooling

Just for the sake of archives on unclimber, since I refused to link myself when I made the comment.

This is a link to The Diosa Dotada Endeavor, another post that discussed the aforementioned Robin West article and another place where I left a comment. Many homeschoolers and other commented and once again, my comment is not easily found (though it is easily linked).

yeah, I, too was wondering about the “over-educated” comment of hers. How is it a feminist professor can label some women as over-educated and what makes her different from the paternalistic professor of the 60s who pointedly asked the women in my mom’s class why they were there, taking up a seat that could have been filled by a man? The irony of it all. And I’m a homeschooling mama who is, was, and always considered herself to be a feminist. Why do some feminists think that all women need to listen to them and do as they say and what makes that any different from the current paradigm of male-domination? Sorry, but I don’t see it as an advancement for women to stop doing what men say in order to do what some “feminist” tells us to do. Makes no sense – isn’t feminism about women thinking for themselves? And I choose homeschooling for my daughters.

     by Marjorie December 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm

The Scary, Scary Harms of Homeschooling

At the risk of giving publicity to an article I don't agree with, I am posting about a slightly dated article The Harms of Homeschooling by Robin West. A friend of mine called my attention to the article and pointed me to a blog post commenting on it. I was quite pleased to see that West herself commented on the post and she did so in a way that suggested a far more reasonable mind than her original article. Despite my normally shy and reserved demeanor, I couldn't help commenting on it also, within the comments section of the post. The comments continue, because I just received notice of another one, which is what reminded me to write this post.

When I first read the article, I was surprised that it was published and even more surprised that it was written by a law professor. It was very alarmist, not terribly factual, highly anedoctal, and mostly just a rant. As anyone who has read the earlier posts on this blog, you'll know that I recognize that style of writing because it's so similar to my own. But I publish on a personal blog, not a university journal. Clearly I have some career soul-searching to do.

I just want to pull out my comment from the comment field and reprint it here because I like it, it makes me proud (up until the end when I go a bit nutty) and because there are so many comments that if I just leave this here hoping one of my blog's readers will find it, they might lose interest. I'm kicking myself for not linking this blog to my name but I was worried it would reduce the impact of my comment if it became clear it was posted by a nutcase.

- if I counted correctly, it's the 14th - this link might take you directly to it, but I've reprinted it below

Marjorie 

Robin, I appreciate your comment here. I was disturbed by the alarmist nature in the PPP article and hope that the full treatment of it in your work does not sound as emotional and poorly reasoned. I’d also be interested in seeing your legal reasoning and hope you have more comprehensive coverage of the laws regarding homeschooling. As a homeschooler, I have only focused on the laws of my own state, Virginia, and have not had the time nor inclination to research beyond that. I would caution you against relying on the HSLDA (or NHERI) for your homeschool facts — many homeschoolers disagree strongly with that organization, it’s approaches, tactics, political and religious views, and how it derives it’s data.

I’m not certain why you feel that testing is the only way to give adequate evidence of education – in Virginia, it is but one option. Another option is an evaluation with an accredited evaluator. Personally, I believe in the value of learning to take tests, but I don’t see how that ensures a literate and numerate citizenry any more than a meeting with an evaluator.

I’d also love to hear more discussion about the state’s legitimate interest in education and how best to ensure that. I’m always curious to learn how private schools are regulated and why they are free from the concerns that plague homeschooling.

Finally, I think when you mention the “children of the over-educated and under-employed suburban mothers who simply would prefer to do this work for themselves than delegate it to the state” you show a fundamental lack of comprehension (and interest) for why many choose to homeschool. Simply stated, a homeschool education can be richer, deeper, and more individualized (and often has little to do with religion or conservative politics, which seem to be your greatest concerns). To comment on the mothers seems to underscore the emotional nature of the piece and sounds more like an attempt to ignite the Mommy wars than a reason why homeschooling should be regulated. It strikes me as poor reasoning that one moment you seem disturbed that homeschoolers are not accredited to teach their children and then you comment that some of us are overeducated (but I understand that advanced degrees are not teaching credentials. However, most homeschooling mothers have fewer than 30 children in their families, so perhaps they don’t really need teaching credentials. Which raises the question of what teaching credentials are and what they are for – a question no one ever seems to examine, they just seem to assume that homeschoolers should have them).

Thank you, Milton, for calling my attention to this article and for providing a forum for comments.

UMW Feminist Survey Feedback

Hello,

The survey did not have a place to leave feedback, which is why I'm sending you this e-mail. I appreciated the opportunity to participate in your survey. I found it very interesting. I'm a married, homeschooling mother of two young girls and I have a JD. I left my work as an attorney for the federal government with the birth of my first and have not returned. In a completely unanticipated turn of events, I have become a homeschooling mother. I have always considered myself a feminist -- I was very active in feminist issues while in law school, volunteering with a battered women's shelter and serving on the staff of the William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law. The unpublished note I wrote was about battered women's syndrome and a proposed answer to that in the form of an abuser's profile.

While I consider myself a feminist, I realize that others may not consider me to be a feminist. In talking to one friend, she labelled me as post-feminist, I believe. My take on feminism is that it seeks equality for women in all aspects of life so that the individual woman may have the same choices are men. I strongly believe that feminism does not dictate what choices a woman should make and I have written on this subject, as least within the tiny confines of my blog.

Now, for the feedback on your survey. I skipped many of the questions that asked about what I thought a "typical" feminist might think. I don't believe in a typical feminist, in some ways, I suppose this approaches essentialism. My view is that feminism is about women as individuals, not as a group that should be told what to do. I am not interested in trading oppressive systems of male-dominance for oppressive systems of female-dominance. The survey seemed to suggest a rather narrow-minded way of thinking of feminism and that feminism is an authoritative dogma as to the thoughts and behaviors of it's adherents. The idea of feminism as consisting of a group of controlled individuals indoctrinated into group-think is disturbing and your survey's questions about what a typical feminist might think contribute to that. I realize it's part of research only but wonder if perhaps your survey if influential to the thinking of young feminists in college who are taking this survey.

Frankly, I don't see what breast-feeding, home birth, or c-sections have to do with feminism. Having the choice for any of those things is a feminist issue, but the choosing of them should not be.

The tone of the questions in the survey suggested to me that feminism is about living life in a certain way and I certainly hope young feminist college students are not internalizing that message and stand ready to accuse other women of anti-feminist activities if they don't make certain decisions deemed to be feminist choices. I'm not sure the survey questions on having and raising children aren't poised to stoke the Mommy Wars. What I want to know is where are the Daddy Wars?

I also found the questions about the roles of men very interesting and tended to answer neutrally on them. Just as a woman is an individual who should not have her life path dictated for her by dogma, so should a man be treated as an individual. I believe men are vastly different in their approaches to gender roles, house-keeping and child-rearing. Ultimately, if a woman is so timid as to be unable to approach her husband about the division of household labor and other marital issues then I fear that feminism (or something) failed her long before she got married.

Sincerely,

What if I'm Not Wasting My JD?

At a homeschooler's park day yesterday, I discussed the Washington Post piece I blogged about yesterday, with a friend. She was talking about the underlying article in the American Prospect but I haven't read it. When I went to the link this morning, I quickly bailed on the article -- there is just not enough time to blog about the minutiae in my life and read an article by a feminist scholar. Yup, and I sold my volumes of Camille Paglia at a used book store last year to buy a homeschooling book. Thats right, go ahead and cry.

As I alluded to in my comment on my last post (if I don't talk to myself, who else will?), I wonder if this view of women wasting their education and careers by being at home misses an important point. It seems the argument is that women should buy into the current corporate paradigm of power. We must work at jobs while our children are young so that we can be the power brokers of the future. Only in achieving conventional success, will we be a success, the theory seems to say. There are some nice political words for this which escape me because I've filled my brain with such trivia as my DH's preferred orange juice (Tropicana Pure Premium Original, aka, no pulp). What is the term? Subscribing to the male dominated power structure, accepting the current paradigm, what? Something about accepting what others have decided without deciding it for yourself. Maybe Linda knows.

My point is, perhaps its possible that these rich, overprivileged, educated women are looking for something better than what the corporate world has to offer. Maybe they are wrong, but maybe they aren't. Maybe these at-home mommies are the real risk-takers, betting that their careers and their lives are better off for the path they are taking (not to mention how they feel about their children).

An example: I worked as an attorney for a government agency for three years before having my first child, after which I stayed home to be with her. Now, I'm a homeschooler, a completely unanticipated turn of events for me (I always thought they were religious fundamentalists and I am not). I've only been asked once if I felt I wasted my degree. Reflecting on that conversation, the only thing I felt I wasted was the time spent talking to that person.

Anyway, what if in 15 years or so, I move on to a completely different career? What if my "time at home" helps me craft a new path because of the volunteer work I'm doing now for causes I believe in far more strongly than whether a particular imported item should be duty-free under NAFTA. Oh, I may never get my GS-14 which I may rightly deserve, but is the women's movement really worse off for that? What if I become an executive director of an organization that helps abused women? What if I become a lobbyist on children's issues? Am I a failure because my salary isn't as big as it could be?

To me, working while my children are young isn't about career advancement or social movements. Its about material acquisition and consumerism. (In a earlier blog post, I wrote about an article that suggested that at-home moms should thank working women for making the world a better place. The article was written by a woman who used to market Splenda in South America. And she thinks she was a hero of the women's movement?) I'm happy with what I have -- I am spoiled enough, I don't need more. So what if I spend my time with my kids. Whats it to you? If career achievement is blooming, can't you tolerate a late-bloomer?

And trust me, I plan to do something with my JD, even if its only to spout off at the male attorneys at the top of the current domination system. Actually, I do that now, so maybe I am a working woman.

Note: I polished this up, tried to de-inflame it a bit and posted it to the Life Without School community blog.

Kudos to the PR Princess

Awesome press coverage -- on the front page of the Washington Post's Style section I got a treat with my breakfast this morning, an article about Club Libby Lu. I've blogged about Club Libby Lu before, first expressing my uncertainty and later my horror over the implications of such a place.

I really can't believe this picture, in the print edition, it was three columns wide and equally tall (i.e. it was a large, square picture), above the fold on the front page of the Style section. Do the parents not realize that a pedophile would think they hit paydirt with that image for their own personal use? If they don't actually have the newspaper, its comforting to know they can find and buy the image on-line. Yuck.

Am I being overly sensitive here? Maybe my long-ago interest in becoming a sex crimes prosecutor has made me overly cautious. But there are monsters out there who like little girls, I really don't think its a good idea to be dressing your kiddie up and urging her to shake her thing in the store front of a local mall. Don't prostitutes in Amsterdam have store fronts? I wonder if they dance.

Sometimes people walking through the mall gather by the windows at Club Libby Lu to watch the spectacle of little girls: all that pink and glitter. All that flesh, too.
A woman passing by says to three blondes in tight outfits, the youngest of whom is 4: "If you're wearing those kind of clothes, you gotta shake your booty."

At least the parents are paying a lot of money for this.

They come here for the makeover parties, which start at $21.50 per girl, and they stay at least an hour, and they buy.

Well, what else are the kids going to do anyway?

Is this business of pretend headsets and pants so low the waistbands of little girls' underwear shows -- is this business a girl's fantasy or is it a marketer's fantasy? Would little girls be as satisfied to dress up like 19th-century frontier women?

Maybe. It might be worth a try. There are plenty of places where kids can wear historical costumes and learn or play. Granted, you won't find them in a mall.
Turns out that Club Libby Lu is really providing a service.

In some newspapers, Blaizgis says, Club Libby Lu has been the victim of a "feminist backlash." She says articles have suggested Club Libby Lu is "forcing girls to grow up too quickly." What she hopes to get across is the store's "sense of fun."
"We are about fun and play and pretend," Blaizgis explains another day.

Well of course Club Libby Lu is not forcing the girls to grow up, the parents are willingly paying lots of money for this. And what about those feminists, don't they realize how fun dressing up is? Are they just jealous because they have aged out of Club Libby Lu? They need not worry, why across the mall is a large Victoria's Secret where they can indulge in their own "fun and play and pretend." Likewise, when the Club Libby Luers outgrow the store at age 13, they too will have a place to go.
I just hope they don't run into any pedophiles in the meantime. I know, I'm no fun -- I guess dressing up at home with your friends doesn't hold the same thrill. And its free, so no one knows how much money you are able to spend on your child's birthday party.

The Horror, The Horror

Grab your fiddles, dearies, Rome is burning.

I've actually read a bit of the newspaper this week and I've been following two stories that have graced the front page of the Metro section of the Washington Post. One story has been going on for a month, the disappearance of a 17 year-old local girl from her college campus. Through these articles, we have learned how a beautiful college freshman disappeared after she was sexiled from her dorm.

It gets worse. Turns out this girl was carrying on with a 38 year-old "amateur photographer." First we are told they had a "personal relationship." He was a "person of interest" in the disappearance of the girl which led to a search of his apartment which uncovered kiddie porn. Nice. A few days later, the paper reports he had a sexual relationship with the girl (big surprise there, right?). A 38 year-old father of two who keeps kiddie porn having sex with a 17 year-old. Real nice. Oh, by the way, in case anyone was wondering, the girl's remains have been found (its not even a body anymore, the grave was too shallow to keep the animals away). Did anyone really think she'd be found alive except for her loved ones who were probably hoping and praying beyond all reason. I cannot tell you how much I hurt for her mother. Your baby is killed. You learn that she was sleeping with a man 21 years older than her who doesn't seem like the nicest of folks. The horror.

I followed this story over the past month, partly because I could relate to the story of a naive freshman making foolish choices -- leaving her dorm at night with only car keys, a cell phone and some cash. I made lots of foolish choices in college and I know many others who did as well. I could also sympathize with the mom, I'm the mother of two young daughters.

In the last few days, there has been another story that has attracted my attention. The local mall opened up a large wing. A Victoria's Secret had a provocative display that provoked many into protesting and demanding it be changed. I guess the mannequins were getting too racy. I am outraged to think of a business trying to use sex to sell its wares! Shocking and horrifying. Imagine.

Well, from what I've read and the newspaper pics, it does look like it was the B&D version of Victoria's Secret and I can definitely understand the outrage of parents who don't want their kids seeing that smut in the local mall where they are allowed to roam unsupervised. I also remember what it was like to be a young woman without kids and I probably would have applauded the sexual freedom it represented.

In the end, its exploitation. Sex sells. It makes lots and lots of money. So, we put a little light B&D mannequin action in the store windows and displays, we get LOTS of free press and attention over the controversy, we change the display and, well, its no biggie, right?

As a teen, I roamed the mall unsupervised. I would have seen the display and thought -- 'you go, girl! You celebrate your sexuality and do what you want! More power to you.' Of course, I'd be talking to a bunch of mannequins. Then, maybe, I'd go off to college and see nothing wrong with dating a 38 year-old who likes to take pictures of me. I'm young! I'm beautiful! Here is a man 21 years older than me who thinks I'm interesting and wants to be with me! I'm awesome! I'm free to do as I please. [update: actually, I wouldn't think that. I remember being an 18 year-old college freshman and going on a date with a 31 year-old. He was a grad student, so I knew he was older but when I found out how old he was all I could think of was "how can he legitmately find me interesting?" He seemed like a nice guy, I met him at church. After that, I decided to skip church and find my dates at fraternity parties. That wasn't the best plan, either.]

I think I've seen it suggested in feminist literature that mannequins can been seen as representations of dead women.

Oh well, these issues are for another day. My girls are so young, so far away from such concerns. I'll go to the mall but avert my eyes from Vickie's House of B&D. I'll just take my little girls over to Club Libby Lu. There, they can be little girls and dress up in black sequins, bare their midriffs, and shake their small bodies to the music while dancing in the store front for passersby to watch. Thats an innocent celebration of girlhood, no? Maybe I'll even take their pictures.

Fiddle lessons, anyone?

UPDATE: for a post about the look and feel of the aforementioned mall, go read Rob's post.

What About the Dads?

I can't stop thinking about the Newsweek article Mommy Madness. While the general tenor of the article seemed to me to suggest that moms are trapped, I really think its the dads who are trapped. The dads generally have less choice about how they live their lives -- for many dads its a given that they will be working to support the family while mom gets the choice of determining when, whether, and how she will work, all the while complaining about it. Of course I know plenty of examples where the mom works full-time and the dad stays home and others where both parents work and stagger schedules to allow one parent to be with the kids most of the time. However, the article seemed to be focusing narrowly on the moms who have the choice (and therefore the enviable option of staying at home) and their situation.

The author mentions the "diffuse dissatisfaction" of motherhood for those who have the 'push to be perfect.' It reminded me of the Desperate Housewise pilot (the only episode I saw) in which the women are talking about their husbands, one of whom walked out in an attempt to leave his 'life of quiet desperation." One of the women quipped, "what, does he think we're all living lives of noisy fulfillment?" Well...isn't the this just the same thing with the moms complaining? Are the men really happy to go off to work long hours for an income dictated by the demands of what the neighbors have? No child actually needs the expensive activities and toys and camps and schools, they may not even want them, but parents somehow determine that that is what is important -- could it be because that is 'what everyone else is doing'?

The author claims that the 'excessive, control-freakish way' in which women mother today is partly a psychologically conditioned response, but also the fault of a society which does not support them and take care of their children (something to the effect of...it takes a village). Because there is no 'widespread feeling of social responsibility,' moms must take everything onto themselves, the author claims, and since they can't, "they simply go nuts."

She's talking about learned helplessness and psychological conditioning and then claims that its basically inevitable that mommys will go nuts. Is it possible that she herself is part of this learned helplessness and psychological conditioning? Nah, buy her book, she seems to have all the answers.

The inevitable conclusion for me is something I have fought for months. My pal Mike, official chronicler of clanlally, has been saying that life continues just as in high school. I say that we mature and grow. He's told me that its a beautiful thought but it simply isn't true, by and large. He may be right. I'm thinking many of us affluent moms were good students, on the honor roll, in activities, doing everything we could to be 'perfect' young women so we could get into good colleges. But did all of that make sense? Where was the balance then when it was all about the quest for college? Well, we go to school, get our degrees, and go work for awhile. Was the workplace always so welcoming and kind? Were there times back then when we felt we couldn't "take it anymore [and] hate[d] everyone and everything [and were] going insane" as one mom put about her motherhood experience? Surely not, this kind of angst exists only in the world of the affluent mom. Poor me.

Back to high school, is it possible that the mommy race is simply an extension of trying to get on the honor roll by trying to get our kids on it? Those who bucked the system back then may still be bucking the system, those who ascribed to the system are still ascribing to it. We aren't trapped and how dare the author try to make us victims, but the sad thing is, many of the women quoted in the article seem to view themselves as victims, to wear their victimhood as the bumper sticker that they are an honor roll mom.

A better article to read is Anna Quindlen's, The Good Enough Mother.

Help! I'm a Pampered, Rich, White Mom and Life is So Tough

I've been reading Newsweek again -- why do I bother? The cover story for the February 21 issue is about the myth of the perfect mother and is an excerpt of an upcoming book by Judith Warner. I will not be reading this book.

Basically, being a mom is hard work. Make that really, really, really hard work. The author said she followed all the expert advice on baby care and eventually realized she "had no thoughts left of my own." Was that before she read the baby care advice or after? After this epiphany, she decides to listen to other moms in the playgrounds and playgroups of Washington, D.C. (which part, I wonder. Southeast? Anacostia?). Well, turns out they've all had their minds eaten by motherhood, they had "surrendered their better selves -- and their sanity -- to motherhood." How did this happen? In the "push to be perfect" these moms were "always looking over their shoulders to make sure that no one was outdoing them in the performance of good Mommyhood." Maybe they'd feel better if someone sent them a report card.

The article uses the term 'perfect' with regard to motherhood many times. It also mentions competition and control (as in feeling "out of control"). I find this article annoying because as I read it, it seems that the real problem is the moms comparing themselves to each other and judging each other and listening too much to what the 'experts' and other people and each other say.

Ummm...when did these women check their minds at the door? The author begins the article talking about the time when she tried to do everything right and what she did (breast-fed, co-slept). Who decides what is 'right'? Apparently, the books. I take a different approach, I'm an outlaw, a renegade mom who looked the books squarely in the eye and said 'screw you.' I chose not to breast-feed. Its rather liberating to start the motherhood journey by throwing up your hands and saying, "I'm not the perfect mom." I was immediately freed from the child-care books because I certainly wasn't going to waste my time reading books that told me I was a bad mom.

Why can't more people be like me? Seriously, some of this mommy angst seems to have its roots in trying to keep with the Joneses. The author says that she found the craziness all over "in middle and upper middle class enclaves where there was time and money to spend" on "shuttling back and forth to more and more absurd-seeming, high-pressured, time-demanding, utterly exhausting kids' activities." These women are tired and anxious and depressed and wish their lives would be different 'but have no idea of how to make that happen.' Here's one idea -- don't do it. Why do they do it? To give the kid a leg up on the competition? Well, they really aren't doing it for the kids, they are doing it for themselves and each other, to prove their worth as moms or show how much money they have by what they can afford. My view is the kids will do better if they have some free time to sort out their thoughts, to unwind and create and (dear me) think. I honestly believe it is possible for some people to achieve their best without competition to spur them on (Einstein, Edison, Eminem...).

The article does the same tired number on 'balancing' our lives. Whoever thought that life should be balanced during certain time periods? How long do we live? How long are the children young enough that they need our intensely focused care -- five years, 10, 20? Well, maybe our lives balance out during their entire span, why should we feel that we need everything balanced when we're raising our kids?

One mom wonders how her daughter ended up being such a princess -- she should go back and read the part about 'whole towns turning out for a spot in the right ballet class', the best camps and piano teachers. If life is so demanding and parents go to such lengths to secure these things for their kids, is it so surprising that the kids would expect a continued level of devotion and sacrifice for 'their best interests,' which they might think includes the right clothes and gadgets and toys? Jay McInerney in his novel, Story of My Life, does a great bit where the narrator wonders how she is supposed to figure out how to be self-sufficient after years of living on her father's allowances. (For an interesting post discussing McInerney, go visit my friend Mike's blog)

My favorite part of the article -- how do we solve this horrible problem of frazzled moms? How do you think? We need government-funded childcare for the middle class. This really makes no sense to me since on the page before, the author was bemoaning how the public school system is so abysmal that parents must work to send their kids to private schools. Well...the public schools are run by the government, do you really think it would do a better job with childcare? Come on, you know the middle class would be sending their kids to better 'private' preschools anyway. I don't think moms are feeling guilt about childcare because of its quality or lack thereof, though that may be a concern for some; they feel guilty about not being with their kids and even Mary Poppins wouldn't be able to completely alleviate that feeling. Plenty of moms at home feel guilty for not working. Guilt is a part of life and the government cannot make it go away.

More typical stuff in the article about economic pressures, but the sample she used has more choices than many others. The author is forthright in admitting that she was dealing with a privileged population.

I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties of raising kids. I'm in the trenches myself and I understand the need for 'me' time and how hard it can be to adjust to a new lifestyle once you have kids. But it can be done. Look for support groups, churches, mothers-day out programs. Realize that its tough but its not forever. Realize all the choices you have and be grateful for them -- it could be worse. Finally, pay attention to what you're doing and how your family is doing and don't ever confuse the push for achievement with the demonstration of love. Kids need to be loved, just as you do, stop looking to be perfect and look instead to be content.

Now, back to my regularly scheduled Lenten fast. Wait, what's that on the cover of Time...

2010 update: as I go through old posts to give them labels, I'm having fun re-reading my posts. What struck me about this is now I understand why some feminists bash at-home moms -- it's because of articles like this, that make it seem like so many moms (possibly at-home, possibly working) stop using their abilities to think critically. Maybe they have a point, if this article accurately portrays what being an at-home mom is like.

Mall World

My daughters and I got to be 'ladies who lunch' yesterday. We went to the local shopping mall and looked in stores and then had lunch at the Rainforest Cafe with my mother, who is probably the World's Best Grandmother (this is no surprise because she is the World's Best Mother). The lunch worked out well, I was a bit nervous that the 2 year-old might be spooked -- for those unfamiliar, the Rainforest Cafe is heavily decorated and creates the look and feel of being in a (simulated) jungle. There are large, realistic animals that move and make noises at various intervals during the meal. Luckily, we were not seated near any of these and were in the front of the restaurant where we did not feel completely immersed.

I couldn't help but notice a table of young girls, perhaps 8 years-old. They were clearly having a birthday party and all had their hair done up like Greek goddesses -- which was a curious juxtaposition with their sweatpants and otherwise sloppy attire. I took a peek at the goody bags as they passed to see the words Libby Lu. Interesting, I thought, a makeover party accompanied by lunch. I'm a no fuss kind of birthday party hostess so it was like a glimpse into another world.

When we returned to that mall after lunch, we wandered past Club Libby Lu, the place that spawns the mock Greek goddesses. Only this time it was spawning mock Britney Spearses. [UPDATE: apparently, the mock Greek goddess look has been dropped in favor of the rock star look; the website no longer shows the flowing ringlet hairpieces that were once offered] There were a half dozen midget divas with punky styled hair, glittery faces, dressed in short, tight, black sequined dresses, some of which bared midriffs. These kids were vamping it up to pulsating music in the front of the store at the direction of one of the employees. The proud mama and papa of the birthday girl were joining in the fun, with papa asking the girls 'how low can you go?' and snapping photos. I tried to picture my DH doing this but could only come up with a vision of him filling out application forms to send our girls to Catholic school.

As the mother of a 4 1/2 year-old, I realize that we haven't yet reached the age at which Club Libby Lu has become a driving need. However, I cannot help but wonder whether this is a harbinger of the decline of our civilization or whether I've just lost my sense of humor. Is it simply just a public form of playing dress-up or are we paying to have our daughters sexualized at a young age? Is this no big deal or is it the modern version of child sacrifice to our gods of consumerism and materialism?

I need chocolate.