I've been promoted to Parenting Expert (and you can be too)!

I strongly believe titles are important. While they aren’t always necessary, they do validate. They represent a commitment to a craft, a level of expertise. Some titles are protected like doctor, lawyer, accountant etc. That means before you can use it, you need to earn a piece of paper that says you’ve met the criteria society has deemed necessary to do the job. Other titles can simply be claimed by people engaging in certain activities, like farmer, entrepreneur, artist, bartender, author. Regardless of whether it’s protected, people with titles rarely introduce themselves as “just a doctor, plumber, entrepreneur, photographer…”. A title gives a person the language to effectively communicate their strengths, interests, and/or passion. As an at home parent, I struggle with my title because parent can mean different things to different people and at home does not effectively communicate my strengths, interests, or passions. As a parent I’m a jack of all trades, but am not a master of none, I’m a master of many.  

Recently, I’ve done some emergency educational assistant (EA) supply work at the kids’ school. While I can’t call myself an EA, my background in occupational therapy (OT) allows me to help out in an emergency capacity. In fact, my education and experience in child development and educational accommodation more than qualifies me to fill this role. However, to onlookers, I’m a helpful mom who happens to be at the school on days where behaviours are minimal. The other day, while working in my oldest’s class, I had a particularly good day working with a student I have worked with a few times before. When we got home, I excitedly reflected on the day with my husband. My son nonchalantly stated, “well, it’s a good thing you weren’t in the school yesterday, they had a really bad day with the other supply, with a bunch of major meltdowns.”

In that moment, I could have agreed and moved on, validating the “just got lucky” narrative. But I didn’t. I decided to challenge him. I asked him “Why do you think they had a good day today? What was different from yesterday?”. 

He shrugged his shoulders, “I don’t know.” 

So I continued, “Did you know that their computer was frozen for the last 45 minutes of school today?”

“What?!” he exclaimed. 

You see, the student I was working with has an extremely hard time transitioning, especially from their computer to other work. If they so much as see someone else using their computer, they tantrum, often becoming aggressive. It’s one of the most difficult behaviours to navigate with this student as they become extremely disruptive to others. So you can imagine how deep I had to dig into my OT and parenting skills, and how hard I had to work to redirect this student for the better part of an hour. My son got it. He’s been in class with this individual for 4 years, so the success was not lost on him.

“Wow, I had no idea. I’m going to tell Mrs. S. tomorrow.” he responded.

Why am I telling you this story? Because it parallels my experience as a parent.

Parenting is a profession that doesn’t require any formal education. Nevertheless, it is hard work and people can be good, and less good at it. However, like any craft, you can work to develop your skills, or you can just go through the motions. Regardless of parenting style or strategy, purposeful parenting can always be recognized by those paying attention. 

The number of times I hear “you’re so lucky” tagged on to almost anything I work hard on with my kids “... that your kids are so well behaved”, “... that your kids sit to listen to stories”, “... that your kids sit and eat at the table”, “... that you can take your kids out to eat”, the list goes on and on. There is a crazy tendency for society to attribute parenting successes to “good kids”, as if nurture plays no role in child-rearing. As if we haven’t worked out butts off, putting in the hours to teach or facilitate the skills needed to succeed in any of these realms. 

You wouldn’t look at a successful police detective and surmise that the cases simply solved themselves, or a designer that the furniture just placed itself, or an accountant that their books just balanced themselves, so why is this the case for parents? 

As someone who chooses to be an at home parent this phenomenon is particularly frustrating, because at this time, this is literally my profession. Like any job, there are days where I nail it, and days when I simply shit the bed (those are typically the days where someone actually shits the bed); but like any job, it feels good to be recognized for the work you do and the outcomes you produce. 

Some may argue that watching your children grow into happy, healthy, and successful members of society should be more than enough validation for parents, but those are often people who believe that parents simply watch children become (and the same people who believe that dads babysit their kids). It’s important for parents, and society, to understand that parenting is active. We can influence and shape the environments our kids grow in and activities they participate in, and we can model behaviour we want them to engage in. 

Acknowledging the active role parents play when things go well supports these same parents when things are challenging. We do not always have success while parenting, there are days where we feel like we have no idea what we’re doing, when we feel like we’ve messed everything up. But the important thing to remember is that, we have the ability to influence the direction our families head; we are not simply at the mercy of good luck or bad circumstances. 

Titles indicate expertise, but expertise doesn’t mean you know everything. It means you understand that there’s always more to learn. It means you consciously choose to continually seek out new information and use that to inform your actions. So by that definition, I’ve earned the (unprotected) title of Parenting Expert and will use that title to identify the role I play in society, and encourage others who feel the same to rightfully claim their title, especially my fellow at home parents. We’ve got this. Enjoy the promotion!

Sex, Drugs and Apples Whole

As a new parent, I read somewhere that giving babies and toddlers whole apples is safer and better for development than cutting them into pieces. The reason being, a whole apple is easier to pick up and hold on to; and babies and toddlers tend to only bite off as much as they can safely chew, versus pre-cut pieces that might be too big or too small. I can’t remember where I read this, or why it stuck, but it did. I took this approach to apples with all three of my kids. When they were small, I peeled the apples to further minimize their risk of choking, but also to prevent the mess they inevitably made by spitting skin out all over the floor. As they’ve grown, I peel them less often since they are quite capable of chewing and swallowing, and the skin is full of nutrients. But what does this have to do with sex and drugs?

Almost any subject, issue or event can be likened to an apple. You can either give it to your kids whole, or break it into pieces. As a parent, if you give it to them whole, they decide how much they bite off, and how much of it to consume. If presented in pieces, you decide the size of the bites; but you also run the risk of the pieces being too big or too small. Neither approach is wrong, and perhaps there are situations that call for one approach over the other, or even a combination of the two. However, more often than not, I’ve taken the whole-apple approach to parenting.  

When it comes to sex and sexuality, we are very open with our kids. My kids know about the different ways babies are made and born. They know about penetrative sex, IVF and adoption; they know about vaginal births, c-sections, surrogate and still births. Similarly, they know that love is love; and that people identify as men, women, both or neither and love others regardless of how they or their loved ones identify. But just as important, they know that none of the above occurs in a vacuum. They know that while our family (and for the most part, the law) embraces any combination of the above, people are discriminated against for how they have babies, how they identify and who they love. 

Taking a whole-apple approach to this topic leaves space for kids to ask us questions when things don’t quite add up, but it also allows them to problem-solve on their own when confronted with incompatible narratives. For example, I overheard a conversation between my 5 year old daughter and her best friend the other day. She excitedly told her friend that they could get married one day and her friend replied “No we can’t. We’re both girls.” Instead of arguing, shutting down, or coming to me, I heard her reply, “Yes we can! We haven’t always been able to and some people still think we can’t, but we can. Girls can marry girls!”. It might seem small and insignificant; but by giving my kids the whole apple, not just the piece about same-sex marriage being legal, but that it hasn’t always been, and that some people still think it’s wrong, it allowed my 5 year old to not only understand her friend’s point of view but to educate when she encountered an incongruency. It gave her power. 

Similarly, we’ve taken the whole-apple approach with drugs. With a doctor dad, and a mom who takes medication daily due to a missing thyroid, we felt it important to be really clear when it comes to drugs. My kids know that there are prescription and recreational drugs, some drugs are legal, some are not, and any can be used inappropriately or abused. By acknowledging that the use of drugs is complicated, we avoid the “drugs are bad therefore the people who use them are bad” black and white thinking that we were fed as kids. While some drugs are bad, an important piece of the apple; how we discuss drugs around kids informs how they think about and understand them going forward. The “drugs are bad” piece of the apple may seem like a good approach, but can be confusing for kids if they or someone they know takes medication, or they have a loved one with a substance use disorder. It also contributes to and perpetuates the stigma around drug use and substance use disorders. A whole-apple approach to drugs gives kids a framework for understanding big topics like the opioid-crisis and legalization of marijuana. 

Taking the whole-apple approach to drugs gave us space to discuss drug safety with our 7 year old. The reality of parenting in 2021 is that marijuana is legal and available in all sorts of appealing candies and baked goods; and these tasty treats are found in cupboards, drawers and on top of fridges of good people all over the country. Because he already knows that marijuana is used recreationally, similar to alcohol. We can explicitly say to our son “don’t eat candy that you and your friends “find” at their house because there could be marijuana in it and it will make you sick” vs. “don’t eat candy that you and your friends “find” at their house.” The latter leaves an air of mystery, a challenge or simply confusion. Kids will inevitably ask “why” anyway, so it’s also just easier to answer their questions up front. So in this case, instead of having to do mental gymnastics around the topic of recreational drug use, we got to listen to my son talk about how it’s hilarious that adults want candy flavoured drugs at all, and then we moved on to an in depth discussion about Lego. 

As a parent, it can be scary to give our kids whole apples, especially at a young age; but the reality is, it can also be safer and better for their development. Similarly, being upfront and comprehensive with them when discussing touchy subjects, issues, and events, gives your kids more control over how they process and consolidate both the information and their feelings. It also transfers the power from the topic itself to them; and for growing minds trying to make sense of a complex world, that is invaluable. That being said, there will be times when you might want, or they might ask you, to peel the skin or cut it up for them and that’s ok, but whenever possible, give the apple whole.

Covid, Causes and Convenience Advocates

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the line that separates the "haves" from the "have nots" is not fixed; and individuals who straddle the divide can find themselves on either side without warning. Financial stability is often used to determine whether you are a "have" or a "have not"; however most would agree that physical and mental health and wellbeing are equally as important to quality of life. That being said, we also know that physical and mental health are intimately linked to financial stability. It's one giant Venn diagram. Now why does this matter? 

The pandemic has forced each of us to reflect on and define what it means to be a "have" or a "have not". Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, our definitions differ, sometimes greatly. What I believe constitutes a "have", may not meet your "have" criteria; and likewise my definition of a "have not" may be more in line with your "have" criteria. These discrepancies create rifts in the, already strained, social fabric of our communities. They also give rise to a phenomena I call convenience advocacy. 

Convenience advocacy, for the purpose of this post, means using an actual cause to further an agenda for individuals outside of the cause. I'm not saying that individuals outside of a cause cannot advocate for causes they don't personally identify with, absolutely they can and should. But! When people only seem to care when they have something to gain, that is not advocacy, that's opportunism. 

The pandemic highlights where we have failed to support the most vulnerable as a society, including those experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders, those in for-profit long-term care homes, survivors of and those currently experiencing domestic abuse and anyone who needs to access to mental health services. However, what the media headlines often fail to include is the fact that these issues have plagued our communities since long before Covid, and without actual change, will continue to do so long after. 

Convenience advocates often regurgitate these headlines as if they are breaking news, or a simple byproduct of the pandemic, and more specifically it's restrictions. They float out "increased rates of suicidal ideation" as an argument to open ski hills and "the tragic death of an individual due to a shuttered homeless shelter" as an argument to end lock downs. These arguments rarely include action beyond "opening the ski hill" or "easing restrictions". Most times there is no mention of addressing the root cause of these issues, which, spoiler alert, is NOT the pandemic or its restrictions. Rather, as a society we need to increase access to mental health services, safe and affordable housing and regulated long-term care beds. How do we do that? By properly funded them. That's the story. That's what needs advocating.  

Anyone can make a post, paint a sign, circulate a petition, but until you start voting for people who prioritize the health and wellbeing of vulnerable populations and properly fund the services needed to prevent or eliminate disparities, you, my friend, are a convenience advocate; and your efforts do not help the vulnerable, the ones not straddling the line, the ones firmly on the "have not" side of society, the ones who will not benefit from elimination of Covid, or its restrictions. 

While the pandemic did shift a large chunk of our population over the line to the "have not" side of society; there is a large group of people who equate a restricted lifestyle with living as a "have not". I acknowledge that the struggle, frustration and hardship that comes with living through a global pandemic is real; but the reality is, if the easing of restrictions or opening of ski hills can flip you back to the "haves", in my opinion, you are not truly a "have not". This is where differing definitions of "haves" and "have nots" can create tension. If someone truly feels they are a "have not" and advocate for change to remedy that, and change happens, is that opportunistic? No. I suppose not; but many of the causes being used to support these claims cannot be remedied by the gentle flicker of a neon OPEN sign.  

All that being said, nothing would make me happier than for these "convenience advocates" to prove me wrong. I hope there truly has been a societal enlightenment about the importance of caring for our most vulnerable. I hope people continue to petition and rant and post and demand more of politicians and those in power when it comes to properly funding organizations that support the vulnerable members of our communities; because the pandemic will end, life will return to a semblance of normal, but inequalities and injustices will remain.