Facebook Parents

D.N. asks, "I read the following on an old high school friend's Facebook status update this week.

'My daughter just came home from school and ran to her room, slamming the door. Even though she's got the music turned up pretty loud, I can still hear her heartbreaking sobs of anguish through her door. I try and I try to get her to talk to me, but she just asks me to leave her alone no matter how many times I tell her to confide in me. All I can think is that something horrible happened to her at school today. Doesn't she know that I went to high school too and could probably solve whatever her silly little problem is? Somebody please tell me what to do!'

What followed was an exceptionally long list of comments, all of which empathized with the mother before going off on their own kids' selfish behavior.

No one, especially the mom in this case, stopped to think that, gee maybe something horrible DID happen at school that day. Maybe it was all the young woman could do to simply 'hold it together' until the end of the day where she could (supposedly) seek refuge in the only 'safe' place she has to go to. Maybe the only thing that could be possibly WORSE than whatever happened is to have her mom -- IN A PUBLIC FORUM -- THAT HER 'FRIENDS' FROM SCHOOL CAN EASILY ACCESS -- complain about her level of distress and her supposed selfishness for not wanting to immediately share the 'silly' details of her 'silly' problem.

My question, I guess, is this. Are Facebook parents the most narcisistic generation of parents in the history of the world? Or are we just the dumbest?

D. N."

Hi, D.N.

I don't think this is necessarily a case of Narcissism or stupidity. Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up. Buttercup is marry Humperdink in little less a half an hour. All we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, and make our 'scape. After I kill Count Rugen.

Sorry, got a little distracted there. Back on track.

I think we need to look at this in the proper context. Parents today have to deal with all sorts of things that parents of previous generations didn't have to think about at all. The whole concept of "adolescence" is only about 100 years old - prior to that, you were a kid who became an adult. That's it. And the more we explore adolescence, the more confusing it becomes. Nowadays, you're Satan's Mistress if you spank your child, but not so long ago, children received regular beatings all in the name of "teaching them good manners." Children used to go to school and then come directly home to help out with the chores on the farm (or around the house) instead of sleeping through classes and then coming home to play World of Warcraft for six hours before bed. I'm not saying things like drugs and alcohol and sex weren't as big a deal back then, but the way we handle our children and their problems is different now. The way our children behave in school is different than it used to be, too. How many girls do you see in photographs from the 1880's wearing cut-off t-shirts and mini skirts? Not so many, right? But the way girls dress now invites all kinds of fun new slurs, taunting remarks, and derogatory terms. And we, as parents, need to learn how to help our kids through the torture chamber known as the public education system.

So your friend's kid came home all upset about something and not wanting to talk about it. Okay. Your friend wanted to talk to her kid and try to help and that is a good thing. She should be commended for her impulse. The kid should not be lambasted for her choice to not want to talk to her mom. What if the problem is that the other kids at school were teasing her for some rumor that the mom is a slut? Or what if she was found in the janitor's closet with a varsity football player and neither of them was wearing any pants? These are not the sort of things you want to talk to your mom about. In the case of the first thing, nobody wants to have to ask their mom if she is a slut because neither answer is a good one. If she's not, you look like an ass for asking in the first place and if she is, you get to have nightmares for the rest of your natural born life. And no teenage girl wants to talk to her mom about her super secret sex life for fear her mother will chime in with some story about her super secret sex life when she was a teenager and we're back to having nightmares for the rest of your natural born life again.

I guess it is possible that the issue at school was something that might not be completely mortifying to talk to one's own mother about. Maybe she got a bad grade on a test or tripped on her own shoelace walking down the hall. But what the mom needs to realize is that everyone processes things in their own way. Maybe what the kid needs is to curl up in bed and listen to music for a while until the embarrassment dies down a bit and she can talk about it. The simple fact that the mother considers whatever is causing her daughter's "heartbreaking sobs of anguish" is a "silly little problem," means that there is some sort of disconnect happening here. And maybe the daughter knows her mom will think the problem is silly and wants to be a little more composed before they chat about it so she can show her mom that really, she is fine as opposed to her mom laughing it off with, "I was in high school once, too, you know."

And the other thing about the "I was in high school once, too, you know," defense. Yes, you were. But you have not been in high school for several years. You may remember that "the love of your life" dumped you two weeks before the prom, but since that time, you met your husband who proved to be the real love of your life and you've had kids and you have a mortgage now and have been to seventeen fancy dress fundraisers so the whole prom thing isn't that big of a deal anymore. It's called "healing and moving on." Yes, you lived through it and came out on the other side. No, you don't actually remember what it was like when it happened. You have the luxury of looking at the event through Detachment Glasses. When you remember it, you look back on a younger version of yourself who you know has great things in store. But you have forgotten what it felt like to not see good things in store for you down the line. So in order to understand what your daughter is going through, you need to put it in terms of your own life where you are now. Maybe her boyfriend dumped her. Imagine your husband came home one day, packed a suitcase, and left you for his secretary. That is how she's feeling now. Empathize with that, as opposed to minimizing her problem as some silly high school trifle.

Which brings us back around to Facebook. I think the mom has the right to ask her friends for help in this situation, because I'll let you in on a little secret: none of us know what we're doing. Parents (the good ones, anyway) always think they're going to fuck up their kids and that is the most terrifying thought in the world. Your friend is wondering if she's a bad mom for letting her daughter cry, or if she's a bad mom for trying to force her daughter to talk. It feels like a no-win situation. She wants to help and doesn't know how. So she asks her friends for advice. I think that's okay. I think the problem is that the friends take sides. They should know better than to bash a kid on Facebook for having a bad day.

So to answer your question, Facebook parents are not narcissistic, nor are they dumb. They're confused and lost and reaching out for help, just like the rest of us. And no, the daughter is not being selfish because she wants to process her horrible day in her own way. The mom is right to be concerned, but at the moment, it probably best for her to let her daughter know that she is there, she loves her no matter what, and then wait for the daughter to come talk to her in her own time. But yeah, the mom's friends are probably making things worse in their attempts to comfort the mom. They should watch that.

Thank you, D.N. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

License Plates

M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty
Do think that personalized license plates might have secret messages in them?"

No. I think they have very blatant messages in them. For example:

• This one says, "My wife used to drive this car, but took the other one in the divorce."


• This one says, "I'm never getting any, ever, ever again."


• This is an obvious cry for help and I wish I knew where the person lived so the next time those lovely people in orange robes come to my door, I can point them his way instead.


• I like this guy's honesty and would subscribe to his newsletter if he had one. Which he probably does. Online somewhere.


• This one is most likely a lie, though, because I'm guessing most people who are, don't want to advertise it.

So as you can see, M.C., the world of the license plate is not quite as mysterious as one might think. Though I will say that the time I was leaving my mom's house and there was a car parked in front of mine with the license plate "TARDIS," that was a sign. A sign from god.

Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Books vs. Technology

J.C. asks, "Hello great and powerful Miss Kitty

My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?

-JC (not Jesus Christ)

ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"

Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.

Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?

When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.

I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.

And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.

So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.

Yay books!

Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Cat Training

D.H. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,

One of my kittens is growing at an exponential rate and seems to be suffering from 'species confusion.' When she was little, my grey kitten began to perch on my shoulder to sleep as I sat in my bean bag chair -- not unlike a pirate's parrot. As she has grown and continues to grow, she continues to try to perch on my shoulder but since she no longer fits, more often than not she ends up sprawled across my chest or wrapped around my neck. My question is: how do I gently modify this behavior without rejecting her love or 'giving her a complex' about her weight?

D.H."

I have to admit, D.H., that I am at the same time very touched and very confused by what is going on in your household. I think it is adorable that your cat likes to perch on your shoulder, but I'm concerned for your posture if you spend a lot of time sitting in a bean bag chair in such a way that a cat can perch on your shoulder and then wrap itself around your neck. I'm guessing you are mostly reclined at this point? I know that seems comfy, but you're really not doing your lower back any favors. I fully expect to get a question in a few weeks about where to find a good chiropractor.

Which actually presents a rather simple solution to your problem - sit up straight. This will make it harder for your growing cat to get comfortable on your shoulder and she may instead opt for your lap (or your head, but that's usually only if they're playing "evil"). If there is no comfortable shoulder space, she will not sleep there.

I will say, too, that cats are more "trainable" than one might think, if you have the patience for it. See, she likes sleeping on you because you are warm. Your nice hot breath is probably at least part of the draw, and if you eat lots of tuna, all the more. But if you can show her that there are other comfy, warm places to sleep, and give her good reason to try them, she will eventually move away from your shoulder to the new spot.

For example, when I got my cat, he was NOT A LAP CAT. He liked attention (and still does), but would wriggle and squirm out of my lap within two seconds of me even attempting to put him there. Until one day, I picked him up, sat down, put him in my lap, and scritched his ears for as long as he would let me. The next time, I pet his ears, and scritched his face. The next time, ears, face, and the top of his head. I'm sure you can see where this is going. He eventually learned that when he sits in my lap, he gets attention. Oh, and it just happens to be warm and soft, too. Now, my lap is his favorite place in the house to sit. And all it took was a little patience and a lot of positive reinforcement.

So as you transition your cat from parrot to feline, just remember to work at her speed and to show constant, consistent affection when she behaves the way you want her to.

Good luck!

Thank you, D.H. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Potty Time Santa

J.R. asks, "Where does Santa pee on Christmas Eve, on his round the world circuit?"

That's actually a really good question, J.R., and there are a couple of theories on that. See, nobody has ever thought to ask him. Sure, you hear the random story about some kid seeing his mom make out with Santa, or some guy who happens to see Santa do his thing and then gets a personal "Merry Christmas" out of him, but in all of these encounters, does anyone ever think to ask Santa if he need to pop into the loo? No, they don't. Most of them don't even bother to say, "Thanks for the gifts, and for squishing your innards to get them to us," because if you know anything about the physics of Santa, you know he is traveling at approximately 650 miles per second, which subjects him to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. If that doesn't squish your innards, I don't know what will.

So there are a couple of theories on where Santa might take a pit stop if he needs one.

The first is that he is visiting millions of homes with large, bushy trees in them. Much better than using the trees outside, I must say, mostly because it can get cold outside which can make the mechanics of the deed tricky. This also explains why people are usually pretty quick to get rid of their trees once Christmas is over, and it is a pretty good, solid argument for real trees vs. fake trees.

The second, which is one I hold very dear, is that he uses whatever household restroom he needs to. Hell, we all leave cookies and milk out for him, so why not help himself to the toilet as well? In my house, this led to the tradition of the Christmas Morning Toilet Scrub, where we would gather around the toilet with our brand new scrubbing brushes and toilet bowl cleaner that smelled of gingerbread and get rid of any traces of the Santa who had also stopped at goodness knows how many other toilets around the world that were not nearly as sparkling clean and disease-free as ours. Good times. Good times.

And the third theory takes us back to the whole physics thing mentioned earlier. See, if a person is traveling at 650 miles per second, and is subjected to 17,500.06 times the force of gravity, one needs EXTRAORDINARY amounts of energy to withstand that. It's like when they're teaching pilots to withstand Mach 3 speeds and they tell them to clench down as tight as they can. Times 5,833. So Santa is burning up a LOT of calories on his journey around the world (not alot 'cuz that's something totally different), and all he gets to eat along the way is cookies and milk. In short, Santa gets dangerously dehydrated on his trip around the world and as such, he doesn't need to pee. Why do you think he does this only once a year? You'd think a guy as benevolent as Santa would be making appearances at charity functions and whatnot throughout the year to keep on giving. And why do you think he's always pictured as fat? He needs to build up some padding because he's going to burn through all of it on his journey around the world. No, Santa doesn't need to pee on his journey around the world because he is subjecting himself to the most brutal test of physical endurance ever imagined by human or superhuman being. Even worse than bicycle bog snorkeling. And then he has to take the following year to rest, recover, and prepare to do it all over again.

So may I recommend that this year, you leave out, say, a pot roast for Santa instead of the usual milk and cookies? Dude could use some protein.

Thank you, J.R. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Tolerance

J.M. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty:
I believe that I'm intelligent enough to know that the deeply-ingrained nature of a large chunk of the US that is "against" LGBT rights, such as same-sex marriage and elimination of DADT, is that they are not actually "homophobic," per se, in that they
literally have a "fear of homosexuals," but rather that they simply have an aversion to homosexuals or the idea of same-sex activity.

I understand that there is a religious justification to be "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity, but many of the folks "against" LGBTs neither "fear" them, nor use religious justification for persecution.

So my question is, what other justifications are there for the social "othering" and persecution of LGBT Americans, does sexuality and sexual attraction have a moral standard outside of religion, and why is the resistance to LGBT acceptance so intense even in secular America?"

Hi, J.M.

First of all, I don't think there are any legitimate justifications for being "against" homosexuals and/or same-sex activity.

None.

I'm saying that right out at the front so everyone knows what kind of post this will be. If you disagree with me on that point, you may want to stop reading right now because I will offend you. But that is my opinion, one I hold very dear, and I am allowed to have that opinion as much as you are allowed to disagree with it.

Now, that being said, there are a lot of people out there who still feel kind of ooky when they see two men kiss (and for those of you who have no problem with it, those are three separate links, for which I will just say, "You're welcome"). Okay, they have a hang-up. That's their business.

I think the larger issue here is that America is, really, a very sexually repressed country. We like to think we are advanced, but we're not. I would go so far to say that it is only in the last few years that the idea of heterosexual sex with the woman on top became mainstream. Prior to that, it meant she was a crazy sex-fiend lunatic and that poor man she's with had better watch out because there's no telling what she'll do to him.

We are taught from a very young age to be ashamed of our bodies. Keep everything hidden. Don't touch anyone or let anyone touch you because it might lead to something bad. And certainly don't let anyone that you like know that you like them because that means opening yourself up to someone which means you will get hurt and oh dear god, we should never ever ever allow ourselves to get hurt!

But even when they try to be open about it and teach us about sex in school, it is done from a very sterile, clinical perspective. "When the man becomes aroused, he experiences increased blood flow to the penis, which then becomes hard." There is absolutely no discussion about what happens to make him become aroused. And all of those poor little boys running around wearing corduroy pants that just feel so good start to think they are crazy because their own pants turned them on. There is nobody to tell them that this is normal, and that it doesn't mean they are in love with corduroy pants and need to marry corduroy pants someday to have little half-human half-pants children, that it's all just a matter of their hormones going ape shit at the moment. And, of course, since he's too embarrassed to say anything, it becomes a shameful secret, which (oddly) then makes him get more turned on by his own pants and it becomes this vicious cycle wherein he asks all of his adult sexual partners to invest in corduroy undergarments. All because we were taught only the mechanics of heterosexual sex in school, but none of the other physical, spiritual, or emotional components of intimacy.

So we're weird about sex in general. It's how we are. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad. It is the state of our culture right now. Americans are weird about sex. We're fine with watching people blow one another up in movies and video games, but as soon as there is intimacy involved, that shit gets an NC-17 rating and your friends and colleagues look at you funny if you express any interest in seeing that film or playing that video game.

What makes this so hard for the LGBT community, then, is that for people who are not LGBT, that is a completely foreign kind of sex. Completely. A lot of them can't even figure out the mechanics of it. Yes, it is true that a lot of people out there are also unfamiliar with things like bondage, but they can at least try it on a smaller scale in the comfort of their own bedroom and they get to feel all naughty for using silk scarves in their basically missionary sex. It is close to the realm of the imaginable. For men who are sexually repressed, the idea of things going into or coming out of certain orifices is just not imaginable. Therefore anyone who likes that sort of thing must be really friggin' weird. And seeing as the man in question is really repressed in the first place, he's not too keen on being anywhere near anyone who is really friggin' weird. Which is probably better for us weirdos. He just happens to be really loud, too, which is annoying.

I think that that same sexually repressed man is also weirded out by people with fetishes, exhibitionists, any person whose sexual experience isn't exactly like his. He thinks he knows what sex is and what sex is supposed to be and anyone who does anything else is wrong. Because if there is the possibility that they are right in what they are doing, then he must be wrong and a deviant and all of that stuff, which just really doesn't fit in with his world view.

The thing is, people with fetishes and exhibitionists and the like aren't as vocal as the LGBT community. I'm not saying that if the LGBT community would just shut up that things would be fine - I am not advocating that AT ALL. If anything, I'm saying the exhibitionists should speak up more. Sex is a very personal thing. A VERY personal thing. I might even go so far as to say that people's sexual preferences are like snowflakes - no two people are turned on by exactly the same thing. And maybe if as a society, we were more aware of just how diverse everyone's tastes are, we'd be more accepting of all of them. And more accepting of ourselves.

I kind of have to thank the LGBT community for being the trailblazers here. It's not easy to be the first to say, "We like something that is different to what you like," so thank you for doing that. Hopefully someday we'll all be able to talk openly about sex and preferences and such without anyone getting hurt.

Thank you, J.M. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Adult Education

J.R. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,

Why is it so difficult to apply to graduate school at UCLA? I spent 12 hours at my computer and $120 dollars today!

Bonus question: Do you like the Hall & Oates song referenced in the subject line?

Cheers,

JR"

Hi, J.R.

I think your problem is that you are applying to the school that everyone in the known universe wants to attend. I mean, really, think about it. What city is more glamorous than Los Angeles? From the outsider perspective, anyway. If you've never been, you think it's all glitz and fancy cars and famous people and it's always sunny and warm and nothing bad ever happens in LA that can't be solved in 30-55 minutes. Sure there is traffic and smog, but those things seem so minor compared to the chance that you might meet your hero while walking down the street.

True, those of us who have been there a while know it is expensive and overdone and very cliquish (and I was only there for three months) and it can feel heartless and sterile if you don't have millions of dollars to spend, but they don't show you that in the movies. They show you the hooker who meets the filthy rich guy who saves her in a limo.

So you've just graduated high school, or you've just graduated college, or you've been out of college for a while and are frustrated with your life so you think the best course of action is to go back to school and learn more so you can get a better job and make more money and hopefully be happy someday. And while you're building up this super happy future, you try to picture yourself in some super happy place that is always warm and sunny and it's clean and glamorous and there are exciting people all around you and...UCLA! You're going to apply to UCLA! They have a fun campus and great sports teams and it's a beautiful location and hey, people actually learn things there, too! What more could you want in a school?

The sad thing is, everyone else thinks that way, too, so poor UCLA gets approximately 8,750,342,976 applications per year for 39 spaces (actually, it's closer to 58,000 applications for 4,000 spaces, but you get my point). That is a lot of application materials to wade through, my friend. So they have to make the process difficult. That is the first test you have to pass - can you complete the application? I'm sure more than 58,000 people start the application process, but only 58,000 finish it. That's the first cut. So if it took you 12 hours and $120, you're 12 hours and $120 closer to the second cut. You've already beaten out those lazy bastards who couldn't think of a good reason why they wanted to apply there in the first place and gave up writing their essays after, "Since I was seven years old, my dream has been to live in California..."

So hang in there. It's tough. I know. And now you get to play the waiting game, which sucks even more. But I have my fingers crossed for you. If for no reason because I'm still hoping you write that sequel someday (but starring Zoe and Dean this time).

Bonus answer: I honestly didn't know there was a Hall & Oates song called "Adult Education," so I had to go look it up on YouTube. I'm guessing that if it had been on the radio in about 1986, I might have listened. I am a little bit confused by the half-naked Egyptian style wedding/sacrifice ceremony with a mentally challenged janitor and dudes in masks in the video. And I'm kind of scared by Oates' high-waisted pants. It's not a bad song. Probably not one I'm going to rush out to buy, though. But I do have to give you credit for random pop-culture references in your question. Kudos for that.

Thank you, J.R. for your question! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com