At the Crossroads
Please wait a moment while you are redirected to my new site, www.crossroadsbirth.com.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
We've Moved!
I'm happy to announce that this blog now has a new location: Crossroads Birth Care. If you are a subscriber (or if you would like to be!), then please visit the link to subscribe to the new feed. Thanks!
Friday, October 5, 2012
In Praise of Boys and Men (Yes, Really)
Delaney and Liam are playing spies in
the next room. They are assigning themselves various roles,
personalities, skills, and gadgets. Liam paused the assignments to
say, “The boy spy is usually the stupid one.”
I am so frigging sick of this. The dumb
guy trope should be over. It never even should have started.
My father has railed against it ever
since my sister and I brought home our first Berenstain Bear books,
with the goofy, clueless dad. The marital combination is a sitcom
staple: The mom holds the world together. The dad goes along for the
ride. Usually screwing up quite a bit in the process. Thank God the
mom is there to swoop in and save everybody.
This isn't silly. This isn't a funny
joke. It's becoming a cultural norm, and it has the potential to be
very damaging to men and women alike. And now, with Liam's comment,
I'm beginning to think that the same sentiment has wormed its way
into kid's movies and TV shows. It's called “children's
programming” for a reason, right?
Here's the reality:
Men have as much duty to care for their families as women do. And you
know what? Many of them are incredibly good at it. My husband keeps me
sane. He's super smart, he works hard, and I wouldn't be half the
person I am without him. He would say all the same things about me, too. My son is clever, funny, and capable. He's
an excellent problem solver. It hurts to think that the “adventure”
movies he likes would suggest he should be anything less.
This is not feminism. This is pure
reactionary stupidity.
I think it's
important to raise girls to be smart. To teach them that they are not
objects, but complete, worthwhile human beings in their own right.
I'm proud of my strong, smart girls. The idea of anyone turning them
into sex objects infuriates me, just as it would any good parent.
And I am equally offended and angered by the cultural insistence on turning my
boy into the butt of every joke, the hapless little dude consistently
rescued by a smart girl.
Can somebody tell
me why we are all so completely freaked out by the idea of men and
women getting along and actually liking each other? By both sexes
being smart and capable? Because that's what I do in my personal
life, it's what most of my friends and family do, and all in all, it's a pretty sweet arrangement. That's what I want my son
to remember about his childhood. It's time to override the
programming.
Detour
In New Hampshire, “CPM” is the
designation for a direct-entry, non-nurse-midwife. These are highly
trained, licensed professionals who attend statistically low-risk births in homes and
independent birth centers. Nurse-midwives can attend births in these
locations as well, but typically work in hospitals. Both embrace, at
least on paper, the whole person, midwifery model of care. To become
a CNM, one must first be a registered nurse, then train as a midwife.
A year and a half ago, I began a
two-part post detailing why I intended to be a nurse-midwife. The
first part was meant to explain why I was pursuing midwifery, the
second part, why I had chosen the nursing route to get there.
Mysteriously (or not) the second half was never written. Go figure.
Switching to a CPM track has been a
nagging idea that has popped up at inconvenient times for several
months now. Wrapped up in it are many conflicts about the way I view
pregnancy and birth, wondering what babies really need as they enter
the world, what mothers need as they become mothers, plenty of
struggles regarding the integration of family and personal calling,
and an ongoing disgust with the mismanagement and impersonalization
of healthcare. Oh, and that whole emergent birth, preemie care, NICU
stay firsthand experience thing.
So yesterday, I wrote a long post
detailing all my ΓΌber-logical,
black and white reasons that I finally decided to make the big
switch. I wrote for a good chunk of the day, yet I just couldn't seem
to wrap it up properly. Yesterday I couldn't figure out why, but now
I think I can.
When I was first working through my
postpartum anxiety, my therapist asked what drew me to birth work in
the first place - it almost doesn't fit with my Type A personality
(my words, not hers). After a long pause, I shrugged and said, “It
seems really chaotic and beyond our understanding, but it usually
just works itself out. It's like chaos with an underlying order to
it.” Whether birth is entirely straightforward or complications
arise, both the mother's body and the baby's have an inner wisdom
that goes beyond what science has been able to identify, and certainly beyond what medicine has been able to manage. It starts
with conception – no, even with the cycles that precede it. Our
bodies have an incredible, mysterious order that connects us to the whole earth, to the skies, even. And dare I say to God? Yes,
giving birth made me feel a much deeper connection to the God who
made the universe, and made me, and my husband, and my babies.
Disagree with that all you want, analyze it to death, but it did. And
birth gave me a deeper connection to myself, too, which is arguably
just as important.
Science is amazing. I live in awe of
the knowledge that's been obtained, of the nuances to these things
that have been discovered. The hormonal cocktail that floods the
brain, the physiology of the stages of labor, a baby's innate
protective reflexes. The amount that we understand about this very
mysterious act of making and supporting new human beings is
impressive. But science isn't all there is. Direct-entry midwifery
has been referred to as embracing the “art and science” of birth.
And, as much as I take issue with any philosophy that claims birth
works out 100% of the time - so much so that really, who needs a qualified
attendant there anyway (ARGH!) – I do believe that birth work
involves a necessary element of trust in the process. Extensive
knowledge, yes. But with a very, very healthy dose of trust.
In nursing school, I felt the art of
care and trust in the body being taught out of me. This is not the
case for everyone, and there are many, many wonderful nurses and
nurse-midwives who are able to embrace both the art and science of
traditional nursing care with ease. When I began the program, in
fact, I was thrilled to learn that nursing is considered its own
discipline, separate from medicine, and by definition it requires
whole-person care. On paper, it looks like the perfect compliment to
birth work.
But my
experience thus far has been the complete opposite. My learning style
is largely kinesthetic – I learn by doing, not by talking about it,
so what the books say is less significant to my development than what
I do in clinical. And what I'm required to be doing
involves very little trust, and minimal appreciation for holistic
care. The nutrition standards are out of date by decades; herbs are
portrayed as dangerous things to avoid, rather than potent
supplements to understand; and there's a med for everything (or
rather, for every symptom).
Doing poorly? Here, take pill. Oh, you're taking good care of
yourself? You're not quite where we'd like to see you yet. Here's a
prescription. Big Pharma continues to have a disturbing hold on
healthcare, and nursing is no more immune than any other element. I'm
tired of feeling so frustrated.
The
evidence supports exercise and a whole foods diet as not only
prevention of but even treatment for heart disease, Type II diabetes, and (of
course) obesity. It's in all my textbooks. I have yet to see these
recommendations make it into practice. We just tell people no salt,
no fat, and no red meat. And for the second time I'll remind myself –
you probably don't want to hear that rant. Suffice to say, pregnancy
and birth are no more immune to this archaic approach than any other – ahem - “medical
condition.”
So.
Anyway. I'm not going back to nursing school. (Gee, that was rather
anticlimactic, huh?) Instead, I am working toward becoming a CPM, a direct-entry midwife who attends low-risk births in homes and birth centers. I
have not yet decided which route to take toward NARM-certification. There are a variety of options, all of which have significant
pros and cons. Nor have a decided on my timeline. Anxious as I am to
get started, I can't help but agree with the stance put forward by
Elizabeth Davis and Carol Leonard in The Women's Wheel of Life, that midwifery,
in traditional cultures, comes after
motherhood – that is, there are significant benefits to waiting
until small children are older. In the coming weeks, I'll be talking
to some local midwives about what apprenticeship would entail, and
whether it's something I can take on now or should put off for a few
years. In the meantime, I'll be training and working as a birth doula.
Nursing
school was a valuable experience for myriad reasons. I'm grateful to
have done it. But when I made the decision not to go back, I felt the
proverbial weight lift off my shoulders. Nursing school was like a
worthwhile detour that temporarily took me off the path I'm meant to
walk, and now I am beyond thrilled at the opportunity to get back to birth work without reservations. I'm done with predicting the details of what this
might look like – that never works out the way I expect. But getting back on this path is exciting, and I can't wait to see where it takes me.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Living Space
So I lost myself in the living room
last week.
It started with the coffee table, a
nondescript brown monstrosity with which Jake inexplicably fell in
love. I'm not sure, something about the scrollwork. By nightfall on
Saturday it was there, taking up every last inch of space, buffeted
by an ugly green couch and unusually low rocking chair, anchored by a
black shag rug. I despaired. We have lived here for three years and I
have never been able to get the living room quite the way I like,
despite my numerous valiant attempts and hours upon hours of manual
labor on Jake's part.
48 hours later, glaring at the coffee
table and lamenting the Patriots' recent loss with back-to-back
episodes of Glee, came the revelation: Paint. Paint fixes everything.
The next night, a dark, windy one worthy of Halloween itself, I
rushed to Home Depot, returning home just in time for Jake to leave
for work. Soon I was surrounded by pieces of wood furniture splayed
out on various sheets, awaiting their magnificent transformations. I
was utterly alone and it was lovely. I turned on some music and
picked up the sander. Then the power went out and Liam started
screaming.
By the time painting actually occurred
the following evening, I had ordered two new slipcovers for the couch
and commissioned the man who actually makes the money for this stuff
to repaint the living room walls, too. We put the kids to bed and
worked together over glasses Shiraz (me) and Jones soda (him),
Smartfood, and pretzel M&Ms. It turned into a pretty sweet little
date night. Jake and I truly like to work on projects together, which
is probably on my top ten list of favorite things about our
relationship. Also, it makes up for our disparate tastes.
By the following weekend, I was looking
with pride upon a whole new room. What an accomplishment. It felt
worthy of Better Homes and Gardens, I thought. I was a domestic
goddess, I thought. And then, Ohmygoodnesswhathashappenedtome, I
thought. Because I don't do domesticity.
I thought.
My mother spent years trying to get me
to cook. My sister and I made meatloaf for dinner one night when I
was 10, which went so well that she's now a vegetarian for life. When
I was 14, I made chili, coolly chatting with a boy I knew while
dumping in approximately ¼ cup of basil. Yes, basil. In chili. For
years afterward I avoided cooking expressly because older generations
had considered it woman's work, and I intended to be above all that.
(You might think sucking at it would come in to play, too, but no.)
In truth, I didn't get into cooking until we made friends with men
who cooked, and then I decided I could do so without being subject to
traditional gender roles. By then I had developed an interest in
nutrition and clean eating, too, so cooking felt like a healthy
lifestyle choice, not a domestic chore.
The state of the laundry in our house
is perpetually pathetic. The bathrooms are cleaned only when company
is expected. Dusting doesn't even cross my mind. Ever. I think that
deep down, I've always kind of liked that about myself. I have
generally regarded domestic chores as petty, and low on the priority
list. As in, there are bigger concerns in the world, and I have no
desire to be bogged down by the very, very small ones like window
cleaning.
Yet there I was, exulting in my newly
light and airy living room, loving this corner of our home that I had
made into something nice. Wondering, who is this person? And facing a
dawning realization – again – that my motivations, my
expectations, and even my life decisions are influenced by so many
things I would rather not see factor. I like decorating. I
like cooking. Yet for years I resisted either – and the
reason was so that I wouldn't be a “type”? Seriously? Yikes.
Okay, actually that revelation came
several days later, and was the point at which I began to reconcile
myself to loving the living room – and myself – without
reservation. I can't help but feel like I'm in the midst of a
significant paradigm shift which has very little to do with the
living room, and with much left to be worked out. The ramifications
of it all are simultaneously exciting and intimidating. Yet
incredibly - dare I say it? - liberating.
To be continued . . .
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Brainwashing and Other Responsibilities
“Religious indoctrination of children
is child abuse.” Read this gem on, where else, a Facebook page
yesterday. The discussion had something to do with circumcision.
(Save it for another day, folks. One dogma-spewing topic at a time,
K?)
Well, by golly, that offends me. Also,
it's stupid. It's almost too
stupid a claim to bother writing about, but what the heck, I feel
like addressing it.
Personal
opinion here, as one guilty of indoctrination or abuse or
brainwashing or whatever synonym you prefer: It is far more damaging
to raise your children with zero exposure to the spiritual than it is
to raise them with a belief in a higher power. No, I will not tell my
children they are nothing more than their brains and the rest of
their bodies, and that this whole existence is a crap shoot. Oh, but,
uh, be nice, because I guess that still kind of matters, at least
until you die. Then, you know, whatever.
Pardon
the sarcasm. I fully realize, and in fact greatly appreciate, that
there are atheists and agnostics with a much higher view of humanity
than the one described above. I count many of them among my friends.
They are thoughtful individuals and not really the type for
commenting with wild accusations on message boards, though. (Or if
they are, I am unaware of it.)
I
firmly believe, having been a child and known one or two others along
the way, that children have a thriving sense of the spiritual. I also
believe that as parents we have a responsibility to honor that
spirituality and to respond to it, allowing them to develop it
further. If I am helping my child become a thinking, caring,
responsible adult in every other aspect, then ignoring their
spirituality is tantamount to sending them out in the snow without
pants: It's incomplete parenting.
I
know enough children to believe they're innately spiritual. Soulful,
if you prefer. I know enough adults to believe even more firmly that
there is a right and a wrong way to teach your kids about religion.
If you train up your children in a narrow way that dictates exactly
what they must believe, and threaten to alienate them if they deviate
from it - and then follow through when they do! - then yes, I could
easily be convinced that such behavior is really bad parenting.
Actually I would just say you are an asshole. I might even
say that presenting religion in an overly dogmatic fashion deprives
your child of the opportunity to develop their own personal
relationship with God and therefore equates to spiritual abuse. I
might.
I
grew up in a deeply religious household. It was strict. With six kids
and Bible study in the mornings, we probably qualified for our own
reality show. However, what I love about my upbringing is that no
questions were forbidden. Doubting God? Okay, we can talk about it.
Thinking about voting Democrat? Less tolerated, but they gritted
their teeth and got through those conversations too. In politics, in
religion, and in everything else, I knew that my parents
would always love me no matter what I chose to believe.
Jake and I are raising our kids essentially the same way, and with
the same emphasis (albeit less political): We will love our kids no
matter what, and we tell them so. More importantly, God
will love them no matter what. Our love is not contingent upon what
they believe, whom they love, or what they do, and neither is God's.
If it's abusive to raise our children in such a manner, with an
understanding that the love of the creator of the universe is
absolute and unconditional, then we're guilty. Imagine their
suffering.
This
morning Laney asked me, “How old is the world?” We had a long
talk, and I presented my position the way I present most of the big
questions: Some people believe it's young. Other people believe it's
old. There is evidence for both positions, and personally, I find the
evidence supporting the idea that it's old to be more compelling.
That's what I believe. We can talk about it and research it as much
as you want.
An
hour later, Liam wanted to know if we would die when the world ends.
We talked about the fact that our bodies will stop working, but our
souls will live on, and go to be with Jesus if we love him and
believe in him. Yep, that's some shameless hardcore indoctrination
right there. I'm teaching it to my child not because I can prove it,
but because I believe it and recognize that the best evidence, which
I have critically evaluated, points in this direction. Could I be
wrong? Quite possibly. Will he have to decide what he believes for
himself as he grows? Absolutely, and I will encourage him to do so.
In the meantime, I refuse to leave him floundering with nothing more
than an “I don't know” or even a “here's what I think”
because I can't tell him something that can be proven. Okay for the
age of the world. Less okay for what happens at the moment of death.
Some kid questions warrant a concrete answer, even if the details are
fuzzy.
It's
possible that the individual quoted above, and others who share his
mindset, take the position that each one of us can believe what we
want, but should let our kids decide for themselves. Or, to use the
usual terminology, we shouldn't take our beliefs and shove them down
our kids' throats. To which I respond, if your faith isn't worthy of
sharing with those you hold dear, it must be a pretty flimsy faith. I
teach my kids about faith the way I teach them about gravity: It's
all theory. There's really strong supporting evidence. Therefore, I
will present this idea to you as truth. Explore it all you want, and
please, I pray, reach a conclusion that is personal and truthful to
you. God gave you a brain, now use it to its fullest.
You
still prefer the alternative, oh omniscient Facebook commenter? Okay,
go ahead. Teach your kids only that which you can prove. Have fun
talking about, um . . . uh . . . Oh. Right.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Goodnight, Dragon
“I'm afraid I'll wake up different
tomorrow.”
He stood beside me at the dining room
table, frowning. Before I could begin to guess at the context, his
sister swooped in with an arguably comforting, “No no, buddy, don't
worry. That just happens to dragons.”
Dragons, you see, transform when they
get all the things they want, then turn nasty and greedy, and then
they grow bigger and meaner. Or something.
Liam persisted. “I don't want to get
different."
I joined in the reassurance. No, he
would not wake up scaly or monstrous in the morning. (Well . . .)
That was just dragons. I stopped before I got to the part that I really wanted to say,
that he will wake up different. That every morning when he wakes up,
he's different than he was the day before, and the rest of us are
too. Every moment we're learning and growing and changing, each of us
moving forward on our own path. It's beautiful. It's mysterious. And
it makes me sad.
Jake often says he doesn't want the
kids to grow up. That they're so cute now, and in a few years they
won't want to cuddle, and they'll think we're embarrassing instead of
awesome. But I love the idea of seeing them grow up. I can't wait to
find out who they become.
At the same time, I agree with Liam. I
don't want him to wake up different. This beautiful little boy, my
middle child, the one I don't mention as often simply because I don't
question myself with him. Unlike the other two, I just get
him. He's a deep thinker and stubborn as hell and can barely control
himself around ice cream. It's like he's a piece of my soul.
I dread him losing his sweetness. I'm already bracing myself for the moment he figures out superheroes are purely fictional, and for the day
he no longer runs into the kitchen asking for something to help him
stick himself to the walls. I wonder if there's a way to help him
preserve the sense of magic, the feeling that the whole world is
amazing.
When I kissed him goodnight I noticed
how big his hands are growing. He is slowly, slowly moving out of
little boyhood. He gave his two-year-old cousin the cuddly stuffed
tiger he doesn't want anymore. He likes cars and tools and legos –
even trains have become a bit passe.
I look at my family, and Jake's, and
everyone else's, and the pattern seems so clear: Girls come back home.
They grow up, and eventually, if you're lucky, become your friends. But boys, it seems, carve out
their own separate lives. They're around. They love you still. Maybe a little less than they used to. At any rate, they need you less.
I can't help but note the contradiction
here. For my girls, I'm attempting to model this mom as
multi-dimensional human being idea. I want them to know there's more
to me, so that they feel free to explore their own myriad roles and
relationships as they grow. With my boy, it's so much less enlightened. For him, I
would consider dropping all the ideals if I knew that I would just
continue to be his mommy. But that would be wrong. That wouldn't be
healthy. That's how Norman Bates' mother's bones wound up in a
rocking chair in the basement.
So yes, I will let him go when I need
to. But I hope he doesn't wake up different for a long time yet.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Mommy is a Verb
I went running because I was cranky. And because some days, let's face it, kids are just annoying.
I happened to jog by a woman holding a toddler and speaking firmly to a five-year-old. Clearly a mom, her clothes said. You know. Mom clothes.
I've always had, like, this thing about looking like a mom. A friend once told me she took out her nose ring after someone assumed she was her son's nanny. My first thought was, Isn't that a compliment? I found my old blog recently, and apparently I've been dealing with this since Laney was a newborn and I cut my hair short. After a few weeks, I cut it even shorter so that it couldn't possibly be mistaken for a "mom cut." Somehow I didn't like the idea of having my hairstyle determined by the existence of offspring. I don't know, maybe it's weird. But there it is.
In the same way, I've always bristled at the whole stretch mark quote about being a tiger and a tiger earning its stripes. No, dammit, I don't want stripes. Shut up and stop trying to make me feel better about it.
So as I jogged past this woman, I thought, What is my issue with this? Why do I dislike the idea that my clothes or some other element of my appearance reveals me as a mother? It's not like I don't want anyone to know. I'm proud of my kids. Annoying moments aside, I like being their mother.
But it isn't about them. It's about the fact that when we talk about mom jeans, or mom haircuts, or mom cars, or when we refer to someone as a soccer mom (or, for that matter, a M.I.L.F.), we are defining that person. We are oversimplifying all the pieces of their life into the generic M-O-M, like there's some specific set of characteristics that accompany the designation.
So what?
So I'm starting to think it's dangerous.
When I have "mom hair" - which I frequently do - isn't that another way of saying it's my kids' fault I look like a slob? Isn't it an opportunity for me to blame them for my sub-par appearance? They aren't responsible for pulling my hair into a ponytail nearly every morning, I am.
What if instead, we shrug our shoulders and say, Yeah, a lot of mothers have messy hair. Funny correlation there. Or hey, maybe some women have messy hair and some don't, and nobody cares. That would be even better.
Of course, it's not really about appearance. But it causes me to wonder how we see ourselves. When Rowan was born, when I came home from the hospital knowing that for the next year, at minimum, I was neither working nor in school, my thinking was, Well, now I'm just a mom. I even said it a bunch of times: "I don't have to be anybody else. Just mom."
Well, no. False. If I am created as a multi-dimensional individual who is many things to many people, if I have a set of skills that are meant to be shared with the world, then why am I going to reduce myself to only one of those roles and allow it to consume my entire identity? Isn't that kind of, you know, wrong?
To be clear: "Mommy" is without question the most important role I have ever played, and most likely will ever play. That is, it's the most significant thing I do. But it's just a small piece of who I am. And what kind of regard are we showing for the other people in our lives, the people with whom I honestly believe that God had connected us, if we define ourselves purely as mothers? Doesn't that mean these other non-offspring people don't count for a whole lot?
So here's my project for the next few months: I am going to avoid the use of the word "mom" as an identity. Instead, I'd like to think of it as an action word: To mommy. To mother. In the same way that Christians have - rightfully, in my opinion - emphasized that love is a verb, not a feeling, I want to forget that mom can be used as a noun. I will not use it to define anyone, myself included. My kids deserve better than that, and so does everyone else I know. So do I.
I happened to jog by a woman holding a toddler and speaking firmly to a five-year-old. Clearly a mom, her clothes said. You know. Mom clothes.
I've always had, like, this thing about looking like a mom. A friend once told me she took out her nose ring after someone assumed she was her son's nanny. My first thought was, Isn't that a compliment? I found my old blog recently, and apparently I've been dealing with this since Laney was a newborn and I cut my hair short. After a few weeks, I cut it even shorter so that it couldn't possibly be mistaken for a "mom cut." Somehow I didn't like the idea of having my hairstyle determined by the existence of offspring. I don't know, maybe it's weird. But there it is.
In the same way, I've always bristled at the whole stretch mark quote about being a tiger and a tiger earning its stripes. No, dammit, I don't want stripes. Shut up and stop trying to make me feel better about it.
So as I jogged past this woman, I thought, What is my issue with this? Why do I dislike the idea that my clothes or some other element of my appearance reveals me as a mother? It's not like I don't want anyone to know. I'm proud of my kids. Annoying moments aside, I like being their mother.
But it isn't about them. It's about the fact that when we talk about mom jeans, or mom haircuts, or mom cars, or when we refer to someone as a soccer mom (or, for that matter, a M.I.L.F.), we are defining that person. We are oversimplifying all the pieces of their life into the generic M-O-M, like there's some specific set of characteristics that accompany the designation.
So what?
So I'm starting to think it's dangerous.
When I have "mom hair" - which I frequently do - isn't that another way of saying it's my kids' fault I look like a slob? Isn't it an opportunity for me to blame them for my sub-par appearance? They aren't responsible for pulling my hair into a ponytail nearly every morning, I am.
What if instead, we shrug our shoulders and say, Yeah, a lot of mothers have messy hair. Funny correlation there. Or hey, maybe some women have messy hair and some don't, and nobody cares. That would be even better.
Of course, it's not really about appearance. But it causes me to wonder how we see ourselves. When Rowan was born, when I came home from the hospital knowing that for the next year, at minimum, I was neither working nor in school, my thinking was, Well, now I'm just a mom. I even said it a bunch of times: "I don't have to be anybody else. Just mom."
Well, no. False. If I am created as a multi-dimensional individual who is many things to many people, if I have a set of skills that are meant to be shared with the world, then why am I going to reduce myself to only one of those roles and allow it to consume my entire identity? Isn't that kind of, you know, wrong?
To be clear: "Mommy" is without question the most important role I have ever played, and most likely will ever play. That is, it's the most significant thing I do. But it's just a small piece of who I am. And what kind of regard are we showing for the other people in our lives, the people with whom I honestly believe that God had connected us, if we define ourselves purely as mothers? Doesn't that mean these other non-offspring people don't count for a whole lot?
So here's my project for the next few months: I am going to avoid the use of the word "mom" as an identity. Instead, I'd like to think of it as an action word: To mommy. To mother. In the same way that Christians have - rightfully, in my opinion - emphasized that love is a verb, not a feeling, I want to forget that mom can be used as a noun. I will not use it to define anyone, myself included. My kids deserve better than that, and so does everyone else I know. So do I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)