Calm down, I'm not advocating incest. I'm merely suggesting that some of the same identity-obscuring, affect-flattening nostrums found in modern dating guides can be useful when interacting with Grandma, Uncle Ted, and that one cousin who always wants to talk about guns. Sure, you could watch the 1950 short "A Date With Your Family" (above) to learn about how it's your duty to dress attractively for your male relatives (ew?). But for more up-to-date advice, check out the following tips:

1. Don't talk about yourself too much.

Personal information — like your political views, religious beliefs, or the fact that your name is not actually "Becky" — shouldn't be revealed until the second or third date with your family. Or better yet, not at all. You know the old rule about letting a man talk two-thirds of the time, while you talk one-third? This works well for your family, too, except that the two-thirds portion should be filled by the television.

2. Don't try to cook anything new or complicated.

You know how the way to a man's heart is through a simple yet delicious man-brisket? Families have similarly conservative tastes. This Thanksgiving, my mom made a pie with whole-wheat crust. Three aunts and six cousins broke up with her right away. Don't let this be you.

3. Just agree with everything anyone says.

Many great relationships have ended because of superfluous opinions on the part of the woman — and these opinions can be just as damaging to a family gathering. Instead of saying what you actually think, simply smile and nod, or at most say, "Interesting!" Will it really kill you to pretend you don't believe in the moon landing? No, it won't.

4. Choose inoffensive entertainment.

People have different tastes, and as a woman, your job is to satisfy all of them. Just like a romantic date, an evening with your family isn't about what you want to do — it's about what's least likely to piss off someone else. Family-friendly films include Miss Congeniality, Miss Congeniality 2: Armed & Fabulous, and any biopic that does not involve drugs. Family-friendly music includes nothing.

5. Don't talk about healthcare reform.

This one should just be obvious.

These tips may seem difficult to follow, but over years of subsuming your true thoughts and feelings, they will become second nature. And once you've mastered them, you too can land a family who loves you for who you pretend to be.

My first reaction was, admittedly, confusion, and also a sense that perhaps maternity leave was being played up as a vacation of sorts, as opposed to a time of adjusting to having a new child in the home and recovering from pregnancy and giving birth. However, Sam Baker of Red Magazine tells Wallop: "This isn't a working mum versus working non-mums argument. Nobody thinks maternity leave is a holiday. Employers, especially now, need to incentivise their staff in imaginative ways and that could involve offering leave. Some companies are already doing this."

Wallop sites one company, BT, that "offered its staff the right to take a year off, in return for taking a 75 per cent pay cut," a move that allows a "maternity leave" of sorts, for an extremely reduced salary, in order to cut costs for the company, allow workers to opt for time off and still maintain a job to return to—hopefully in a better economic climate. However, there is nothing in Wallop's piece about the benefits given to these employees, and I"m still not sure how, exactly, this matches up with a traditional maternity leave.

What do you think, commenters? Should a leave of absence be made available to all women, or does this make maternity leave seem like a vacation instead of a time of stress and physical recuperation? [Women Without Children Should Be Allowed Maternity Leave, Survey Says [Telegraph]

[Image via CPSU]

On Friday night, James Harrison and his eldest daughter went looking for her mother, Angela. By tracking her through a GPS feature in her phone they found her with another man at a nearby convenience store, reports CBS News. Angela said she wasn't coming home and was leaving for the other man. The father and daughter got upset and returned to their mobile home in Graham, Washington.

After the children went to sleep, Harrison entered their bedrooms and shot them multiple times. Four died in their beds and one died in the bathroom after a struggle. "He wanted the kids dead," said Ed Troyer, spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff. "It wasn't like he shot a few rounds. He shot several rounds."

He then returned to the area near the convenience store and shot himself with a rifle in his car. "We think he was going to go back to kill the wife," Troyer said. "He probably didn't find her and realized the gravity of what he'd done and shot himself."

The mother's aunt, Candy Johnson, said that Harrison was strict and controlling and didn't let Angela make decisions without asking him first. She added that Harrison impregnated Angela when she was 13. "My niece has been so controlled from the time she was young," she said.

Harrison was put on a parenting plan by child welfare officials in 2007 after a "minor assault" on one of the children. Ron Vorak, who lived across the street from the family, said, "He was always hollering at the kids. He seemed to be strict with them," according to the Associated Press.

The oldest daughter, Maxine, was in 10th grade at Orting High School. Jamie was in eighth grad and her sister Samatha was in sixth grade at Orting Middle School. Heather and James were in the second grade at Orting Primary school. "We're going to try to get through this the best we can given the circumstances," said Jeff Davis, Orting School District superintendent. "In a small community like this, we know these kids. Teachers know the kids. All the kids know the kids."

The children's mother was informed of the shootings and is being counseled by a chaplain.

Man Killed 5 Kids Because Wife Was Leaving [CBS News]
Police: Dad Killed 5 Kids Because Wife Was Leaving [AP]

Candy starts her article in the Daily Mail with the somewhat disturbing claim that, as the editor of a women's magazine, she knows all about young women, "from what they wear to who they want to date" (if that's true, I apparently enjoy putting candle wax in my boyfriend's anus and slapping ruching on everything to give myself a bust). Then she says that today's thirtysomething women "are happiness hunters; they have abandoned career ambition and decided to choose love over work, contentment above the stress of success, marriage and kids above jobs, friends above status."

First of all, like so many articles about opting out, balancing family and career, and the like, this ignores the many women who have to work at jobs that are not necessarily high-powered careers, and don't really have a choice between friends and status. Secondly, the idea that career is about drudgery, dues-paying, and obligation while true happiness comes only from family and friends is kind of a strange one coming from Candy. Why did she and her 40-something friends bother "climbing the career ladder" if it didn't make them, in some way, happy? This is an article about women with the luxury of choosing between a fun personal life and an intellectually demanding job — is she really saying only one of those choices is fulfilling?

It's also not true that everyone has to choose. Candy acknowledges that the 30-year-olds she talks to don't "believe a woman's place is with her babies or her boyfriend" — they just want a balance between family and career. And she points out that women her age may have been afraid to ask for such a balance. She says, "I didn't tell my bosses that I was pregnant until I was nearly five months gone, so worried was I about the response." She and other women her age and older "have probably paved the way" for younger women to ask for reasonable hours, family leave, and the like. Candy and those who came before her proved something that shouldn't need proving — that women can work just as hard and well as men. If women truly feel that they don't have to prove that anymore (and unfortunately, we doubt that this is always true), it doesn't necessarily mean their priorities are different from those of women before them — it just means they feel more comfortable expressing them.

So there's really nothing strange about the 30-something "happiness hunters" Candy describes. Everybody wants happiness. And the freedom to balance work and family is good for everyone, even if you pick work. We should be striving to make this freedom available to more women — and men too. When people get a little flexibility in their lives, we shouldn't be surprised when they exercise it — and we shouldn't assume that their desire to take a day off means they only care about love.

Why I envy Generation Me who choose love over career - and children above status [Daily Mail]

photo by Ben Lister for the Daily Mail

Given Mom's outburst, it's no surprise to me that moms use car trips as a chance to talk to their kids. According a study by insurance company Sheilas' Wheels [we don't get the placement of the apostrophe either — maybe it's an Australian thing?], 11 percent of moms have give their kids a ride somewhere just to get a chance to talk to them. And 56 percent say it's easier to talk in the car than other places. Some mothers cited limited eye contact as helpful when bringing up sensitive topics, but the article also brings up another perk of the car conversation: kids are trapped. Unless you want to jump out at fifty miles an hour, you have to listen — or, in my case, promise. [Telegraph]

The moms take care of each other's kids when needed, and provide a tight social network Bazelon refers to as "a kind of monastic motherhood." Fran McElhill, single mom to girls MeiLin and Lili, says, "If I had a great job opportunity somewhere else, I wouldn’t move now. If I went somewhere else, I’d have to reform what we have here, and I don’t know if I could." And Eileen Fishman describes her routine with friend and fellow single mom Tammy thus: "She calls at 6, and I’ll bring my kids over in their pajamas, or they’ll all take a bath together. It’s like what I’d do if my sister who has kids lived here."

Most of the women eschew dating in order to provide complete stability for their kids. Fran says, "my children don’t worry, Will Mommy get married, will he love us, does he like us, will he want to stay?" And most don't miss it. Single mom Anne-Marie (who didn't want her last name used) says, "for me, it seems like adding on a big mess to something that’s comparatively stable." Bazelon points out that, with no partners to negotiate with, the moms she spoke with "have the autonomy to raise their kids the way they want to."

But the women do struggle to find male role models for their kids. And Fran's limp — she needs a knee replacement, but put it off because "who would have taken care of MeiLin while she was laid up for weeks?" — shows that even though these women may have more financial means than other single moms, their job is still a hard one.

The most affecting part of the story comes when Bazelon watches Fran's daughter Lili play with her dolls. "This is the little sister," she says. "She broke her leg, so the doctors are operating on her [...] She is going to be O.K. Look, she has a lot of sisters. And friends. These are all sisters and friends." Some people never learn what Lili already seems to know — that love and support, not gender, are what make a family.

2 Kids + 0 Husbands = Family [NY Times]

Carol, the youngest of four children, says it was helping type mother Mary's novels that inspired her own career. "That's really what got me into [writing], because I'd talk to her about the characters and the plot...It was great for me to learn about how to write." As to the inherent tension of writing in the same genre, Carol says, "Oh, we wouldn't steal from each other. We actually fax each other pages as we're working on our separate books, just to get feedback." Adds Mary, "You need fresh eyes you can count on to say, 'That's fine. What are you worried about?'" [NPR]

ProActiv Solution



Potpourri


Deodorant


Chia Pet


Nose Hair Clipper


Scrunchie


Love: Poems by Danielle Steele

Earlier: Ultimate Terrible Gift Guide: Part 1

Picture of Yourself



Gift Certificate For "Meal With Me, On You"



Salad Spinner



Unsolicited Gym Membership



Socks



Book of Limericks



Things People Are Allergic To



Uncut Sheet Of $1 Bills



Nips

As people spend more and more time at the office, workplace relationships have grown closer and more fraught - in short, more family-like. An increasing number of companies are actively analyzing family dynamics to help manage office interactions. says one shrink,

Work is nothing more than an entirely complex set of relationships. You have partners that are your equals, subordinates, superiors...It’s parents and siblings. All of these dynamics that are exactly the same in the workplace, just the titles are different.”

As is so often the case, things come down to birth order:

Firstborns...tend to be fearful of losing their position and rank, so they may be extremely anxious at a time of layoffs and downsizing. Second-born children tend to be most adventurous and open to change, he said. In fact, [psychologist] Dr. Dattner said that companies he had worked with found that when sending employees overseas, second-born children tended to fare better than older ones. As the older of two daughters, Ms. Frankel said she sometimes feels competitive with Ms. Delio, which reminds her of competing with her sister for their parents’ attention.

Of course, as a composition teacher might say, where's the "so what?" To a degree, all interaction can probably be reduced to familial dynamics - which in turn can likely be explained by some biological imperative. At its worst, can overanalysis of this kind of pre-determining absolve us of adult responsibility? And to a certain degree, isn't what they're describing, at the end of the day, just your "personality?" For the most part, it seems moot: I'm scared of losing my job not because I'm the elder of two, but because we're in a recession; probably any responsible employee craves a boss's approval. What's more interesting is the degree to which an office life can allow someone to break out of his or her assigned roles, building new relationships and dynamics that in a sense give you a chance to do it better. To be crassly pop cultural, Don Draper may be a philanderer in the suburbs, but his commitment to his job is unstinting; where the character of Peggy may be one of a large crowd at home, her experience with dealing with a lot of people allows her to navigate the work "family" and promote herself. To the extent awareness of your proclivities makes you better able to harness them, I suppose this kind of knowledge is useful. But to the extent the formality of an office setting imposes structure and a certain professional courtesy, it seems like that, conversely, can inform home life. Those of us who work from home can just morph into spoiled only children and throw tantrums...with no one to hear.

Family and Office Roles Mix [New York Times]

Apter claims that the tension between female in-laws is often linked to competition for the "mother" role in the family: While a daughter-in-law expects that she will be the decision maker in traditionally female areas like housework and child-care, a mother in law may expect deference because of her established maternal expertise. As she explains, "Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law conflict often emerges from an expectation that each is criticising or undermining the other, but this mutual unease may have less to do with actual attitudes and far more to do with persistent female norms that few of us manage to shake off completely."

Apter also claims that "an element of romance" often present in the mother/son relationship is also part of the problem. When the daughter-in-law enters the picture, she expects to be the most important woman in her husband's life, which may make the mother feel that she is trying to sever her maternal relationship with her son. Rather than battling with their wife's mother, more men are having problems maintaining and differentiating their relationships between their own mothers and their wives. "The only realistic way to approach marriage is to accept that there will be six people in the marriage bed," advises Apter. Sounds... hideously kinky!

In-Law tensions Hit Women The Hardest [The Guardian]

In a survey by the Down Syndrome Association, 35% of parents who chose to have babies with Down's thought that the world had become a better place for children like theirs. Anecdotal evidence from parents seems to bear this out. Carol Boys, CEO of the Down's Syndrome Association, says,

When I and others had our babies it was a very different world – those with Down's syndrome were treated very differently. Now there is much greater inclusion and acceptance, with mainstream education having a huge role. We think this plays a part in the decisions parents make – there's even been a baby with Down's syndrome on EastEnders [a popular British soap].

And there's now a baby with the syndrome in the Details "Power 40" — Trig Palin, who, along with his brothers stands for "two (or three, depending on whom you believe) generations of the American male." (When he grows up, though, Trig may be less than happy with Details's description of him as "pro-life billboard and helpless justification for knowing absolutely nothing about foreign policy.")

However, some imply that it's not just easier to have a child with Down's these days — it's harder not to have one. Dominic Lawson says,

While people might understand a parent saying they are too young to have a child it's becoming much less acceptable for mothers who might be having a baby later in life to say 'I want a child but not this one'.

It's great that public perception and support of people with Down syndrome is improving, and that more people understand that, as parent Frances Dine says, the syndrome "doesn't need to hold you back." Families who choose to raise kids with Down's deserve all the help they need so that their kids can lead full and happy lives. But do those who don't make this choice really deserve censure? It's easier to slap something with the eugenics label, as Lawson does, than to consider all the individual ramifications of raising a special needs child. Not every woman, not every family, has the financial or personal means to care for a kid with Down's. Lawson's words contain a glimmer of prejudice — women who have babies "later in life" still face stigma. But their choices are just as valid as anyone's, and a prenatal diagnosis of Down's isn't some kind of moral test to be passed or failed. It's information that women should use to determine what to do next — information that is hopefully more positive than it once was.

Down's Syndrome: Parents Think Again [Independent]
Are We Really More Accepting Of Down's Syndrome? [Guardian]
Many Keeping Babies With Down's [BBC]
'I Can't Imagine Her Any Other Way' [BBC]
Parents Who Give Up Their Down's Syndrome Children [Times Online]
The Power 40 [Details]

Of course, difficult mother/son relationships exist in art and in life, but the mother/daughter dynamic seems the more fraught one. Sarler says social conventions put extra pressure on mother/daughter relationships: "sons are on loan and will eventually leave for another woman; a daughter, by contrast, is for ever – we ask so very much of two women and criticise so very harshly when they appear to fall short." And women's behavior may have a greater effect on their daughters than on their sons — a new study shows that motherly manipulation and "mind games" increase depression risk in African-American girls, but not in boys.

Sarler thinks it's a problem of expectations. She quotes advice columnist Virginia Ironside:

The mother is all-powerful to start with; she is your survival. You fall over: Mummy, Mummy, make it better. She does. You put her on a pedestal. But she cannot live up to this for ever; you see that she has feet of clay after all; you are disappointed.

But why should this disappointment be any worse for girls than for boys? Perhaps because girls are supposed to model themselves after their mothers; when Mom falls short, there's the danger that we will too. On the other side, mothers may see themselves in their daughters, and be harder on them as a result. Sarler says the solution is for both mother and daughter to accept imperfection:

Contrary to the romantically high expectations as nurtured by wider society, there is no such thing as a perfect mother, nor a perfect daughter, nor yet a perfect relationship between them. Some – most? – women eventually realise this, allowances are made and gratitude for what there is takes precedence over fury for what there is not.

Sure, moms and daughters should make allowances for each other. But those "romantically high expectations" need a reality check too. It's not just that women are expected to be perfect nurturers and are punished disproportionately if they fall short. Western culture still thinks of women as the primary custodians of relationships — or at least the ones responsible for feeling bad about them. Women's magazines assume we're constantly worrying about our partners, parents, and kids. Sarler contributes to this problem with her "note to male readers: "guilt" is the name of the fluid that runs through the umbilical cord." Note to everyone: men feel guilt too — it just gets less press. When we stop assuming that women care about others more than men do, and that women should be the ones questioning themselves when things go wrong, maybe moms and daughters will get along a little better.

Judge's mother denies calling her a 'dirty little whore' [Telegraph]
Judge tells court she paid for plastic surgery because of mother's 'ugly' taunts [Telegraph]
Mother accused of scarring 'wimp' daughter [UPI.com]
Mothers and daughters, locked in bitter battles that none can ever win [Independent]
Mothers' mental games increase depressive symptoms in daughters [Eurekalert]

Earlier: Is Being A Bad Mother The Most Heinous Crime Of All?

And yet, as we know, not everyone is. Some very dear friends and relatives and other assorted grinches are glum and, however inexplicable this may seem, these encounters can't be avoided indefinitely. I learned this the hard way this morning, and ended up in tears of frustration and rage. So listen up: however tempting it may be to do a victory dance and rub their faces in the mud and toss "loser!" around like grass seed, here's a better idea.

I read through a slew of old-timey manuals — A 1938 Emily Post, my trusty Miss Manners 1940's Today's Etiquette, The Amy Vanderbilt Complete Book of Etiquette and 1937's Etiquette for Every Day, to bring us advice on this subject and created a digest of sorts.* The etiquette books are right about one thing: try to avoid it. Put it off as long as possible. Wait until passions have cooled. Avoid calls. Don't pretend solicitude, don't try to be adult, don't try to convince anyone or assume anybody's mind has been changed by the outpouring of joy and enthusiasm that's swept you up. This isn't only to preserve family harmony; rather, it's a way for you to enjoy things for a little while before reality intrudes.

-Stick to a Script. As with any tricky conversation, this is invaluable advice. Stick to talking points: this is what I did last night; yes, I'm happy; I know this isn't what you wanted but let's all try to be optimistic. (This last bit of inclusive language sounds extra-mature.)

-Keep It Short. THIS IS ESSENTIAL. Things can only go in one direction and that's pear-shaped. Holidays are coming and big fight should be avoided at all costs. Manufacture an excuse to end the call beforehand if possible.

-Do. Not. Gloat. Nearly impossible, true. But empathy is essential here. There's nothing worse than a bad winner.

-Have an exit strategy. This comes courtesy of Anna Post, who advises lines like, "I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye; or: I'll have to consider that; or: For me, it's private."

-End on a good note. If it's a family member, "love" is always a good option. If not, a warm "take care," shows you to be a mature adult who's a fitting representative for her candidate.

*It should be said this all presupposes a certain degree of reason on the part of your conversational partner.

Willetts's rhetoric is annoying, but his subtext is truly disturbing. His problem isn't with the romantic difficulties of Bridget and her ilk — it's with their independence. Willetts points out that college-educated women may want to marry college-educated men. And it's true that a smaller percentage of British women are married by 30 than were 30 years ago (horrors!). But he seems less concerned with those oh-so-unlucky British girls who can solve quadratic equation but can't find a man, than with those who land a man but then break up with him. He cites research suggesting that male unemployment is the biggest factor in the rise of single-parent families. Then he says:

Of course the family is an emotional and personal thing, but it is also an economic institution and what we are describing is the collapse of the economic circumstances that hold families together. [...] The man who can't go out and command a decent wage is not going to be able to hold a family together.

"Economic circumstances that hold families together" sounds like a nice way of saying "women's financial dependence." It may be harder for a man to "hold a family together" now because women are more free to leave unhappy marriages, or to have children without marrying the fathers. Willetts makes it sound like he's worried about those poor Bridget types who can't seem to find domestic happiness, but he's really concerned about men's loosening grip on women's lives. It's all just a British version of that familiar threat that women can change, but men are locked into the same roles forever, and we'd better let them do what they want or we'll all be very unhappy.

Bridget Jones generation 'to blame for breakdown of the family' [Daily Mail]

Single mothers by choice are often second-guessed by people who think they can't handle the job. Turns out men come in for such second-guessing too. Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute says that men run into the stereotype that “Women are better nurturers. Why would a man want to raise a child?” So while single mothers get pegged as lonely or selfish, single fathers are chromosomally unprepared or possibly unmanly.

Single dad Gene Flanders says strangers are likely to assume he doesn't know how to raise his son. When he let his baby boy taste some butter from his finger at a restaurant, “one woman almost reached up to stop me — little slights like that.” Of course, women get plenty of criticism for how they raise their kids. But it's worth noting that the same annoying stereotypes that make men out to be Neanderthals who can't make their own dinner may also damage their ability to be fathers.

And we should be supporting this ability! Why? Well, because experts say that single parents "can still raise children successfully, if they enlist the support of family and friends to help provide a nurturing environment and structure." And because supporting single fatherhood means affirming men's capacity to raise kids without a woman in the house, which is good for gay couples.

But this is Jezebel, and since we are feminazis who only care about women, let's get to the point! Take a look at that picture above. It's lawyer Steve Harris wearing a business suit, sitting in a posh office — with his baby. If that were a woman, the article would probably be about how impossible it is to juggle personal and professional responsibilities, and how she's worried her child will grow up damaged because of their high-powered career. But the NYT offers the following description of Harris's lifestyle: "His office now looks different. He’s brought in a playpen; there are toys and books, all there in case the nanny calls in sick." So, uh, he adapted to his situation and somehow manages to balance family and career (albeit with a nanny)? Shocking!

Single parenthood is still associated with a disempowered group in society — women, and often poor women at that. But if a powerful group — professional men, often the only ones who can afford six-figure surrogacy fees — joins in, perhaps raising a child on one's own will receive much-needed legitimacy. If besuited dudes in Manhattan juggle story hour and billable hours, perhaps society will wake up to the fact that women have been doing this for years, and doing it without raising a generation of axe murderers. And more importantly, perhaps when more men become single parents, less fortunate single parents will get more of the resources they badly need — like child care, health care, and other services that can be difficult to afford when you're raising a kid on your own. So kudos to the Steve Harrises of the world, not only for doing a tough job all by themselves, but for potentially making that job a little easier for others.

The Bachelor Life Includes A Family [NY Times]