That’s what the Gymboree onesies say. Yeesh. You can sign the petition asking them to stop with the gender stereotyping here.
And when the “Pretty Like Daddy” ad “Smart Like Mommy” onesies make it to Cafe Press, do send us a link! (I feel very confident that one of our talented readers will create them.)
Note to speakers of UK English: “Smart” means clever in American English, which is the language of these onesies.
The title of this post is lifted directly from this Salon.com article, in which we learn that Katie Roiphe has reaffirmed her position on the list of otherwise intelligent, accomplished people who just don’t get the notion of sexual harassment. Her NYT article which prompted the Salon post is here. The real problem with sexual harassment, according to her, is “the creativity and resourcefulness of the definitions” dreamed up by “feminists and liberals”, under which all sorts of innocent behaviour count as harassment. Sigh.
A thoroughly good thing to do. I vividly remember the terror I felt when my partner had to leave the ward at 9 PM, leaving me alone post-caesarean with a screaming hungry baby for whom my milk had not yet come in. (No babymoon for us! And I confess I desperately longed for the US-style baby nurseries I’d seen on TV. In the UK, they rightly work hard to promote bonding and breastfeeding, even after caesareans. But, to my mind, they wrongly prioritise this above the mother’s recovery and sanity.) I also remember all the NHS brochures on parenting that seemed designed exclusively for single mums– not a word about any other adult presence, but lots of homilies on the importance of constant skin to skin contact with mum. So yes, great move!
But do you have to suggest scheduling ante-natal visits around football matches, and getting men’s mags in waiting rooms? Why not go instead with “scheduling around the needs of both parents”, and “catering for a broader variety of interests in the waiting room?” (I’d certainly have liked something other than women’s mags.)
Today’s post on What is it Like asks a good question.
All the literature on interviewing suggests that it is best done in a structured setting where each candidate gets an equal chance to speak and the effects of bias are kept to a minimum, so what do we think is going to happen when we conduct a second round of “informal” interviews, now late at night, over drinks, and in a dimly lit room?