And, here we go again. Brace yourselves, Persephoneers, it’s a doozy.
The question: “Recently, my husband’s best friend knocked up his ‘shack-up honey’ after dating her for three months. This is his first child, her third and all her kids have different dads. A few people are throwing a baby shower for the girlfriend. I refuse to go and don’t want to even give them a gift since this does not seem like a ‘joyous arrival’ to be celebrating under these circumstances. I am being criticized for my stance from several others and even from my husband. How should I handle their negative remarks? Or am I in the wrong, and I should give a gift at the baby shower?”
Dr. Laura’s advice:
“1. You shouldn’t go.
2. You’re exactly right.
3. One of the reasons this bimbo gets away with cranking out babies with different dads is because everybody’s going, ‘Isn’t this cute? We have to support it’
4. Is this in the best interest of any one of the kids?
I mean, your husband’s best friend isn’t even marrying her, just knocked her up and now they’re having a shower. Like this is a celebration? This hurts children! This destroys children’s lives. So the answer to the question of why you don’t want to celebrate: ‘Because this is the 3rd child with no substantial, committed home around her to embrace her heart.’
And your husband is worrisome. You have him listen to this; you have him watch this:
Dear husband, is it that important to play golf or go drinking and play poker with your buddy that you would uphold and support this total lack of compassion for the needs of children? Is it really? I mean, you’re married, you have a covenant, and you are protecting your wife and kids. If you’ve got a best friend that’s a bum…we are known by our friends.
I’m Dr. Laura Schlessinger, until next time on our YouTube channel, go do the right thing.”
Ooh ooh ooh! For once, Dr. Laura and I are in agreement!
Whatever you do, do not go to the baby shower. Do not interact with the woman, and do not give any sort of dripping-with-judgment gift that she will be obligated to act grateful for. Keep your assholery to yourself, let it settle down around you. Marinate yourself in sanctimony, simmer in it and let any real connections you have with people fall apart until you are left with empty, meaningless friendships based on mutual smugness and feelings of superiority. There is no need to poison others with your unbelievable holier-than-thou bullshit.
Dr. Laura is right, too, when she worries about the damage that this kid faces. She is wrong about the source of of the damage, though. Kids don’t need a certificate between their biological mother and father to protect them from harm. They don’t have to be related by blood to every person in the household. Contrary to the crap that Laura spouts off, living with two parents will not form an impenetrable force field which, on its own, guarantees health and happiness for the offspring.
Kids need love.
This baby’s parents want to celebrate her (Dr. Laura refers to the baby as a girl; I will, as well) life. They are prepared to love her regardless of circumstance, and they are holding a party to shower her with love and support before she has even drawn her first breath. Love is a force field against damage.
Love protects babies from people like you.
You are the damaging influence with your tragically misguided beliefs about right and wrong. You are the threat to the child’s well-being, and you are working as a force of evil in this baby’s life.
Dr. Laura thinks that this “bimbo” “gets away with” “cranking out babies” because people act like it’s cute. Dr. Laura has a child. She has presumably been through a baby shower. A baby shower is an afternoon of fun and gifts, while a child comes with decades of sacrifice and hard work. The “bimbo” in question has two other children, and it is absurd to think that people supporting and loving her children make her hungry for more. My guess is that Dr. Laura wanted to use the word “bimbo” somewhere, and this was as good a place as any. The argument is too ridiculous for her to mean it in seriousness.
By the way, Dr. Laura is emphatically pro-life. Well, that’s how she refers to herself. I would call her emphatically anti-choice. I’m not sure what she expects the woman in this situation to do, now that she’s pregnant, because abortion is not an option that Dr. Laura would consider, and she obviously thinks bringing the baby into the world is a bad idea. This viewpoint is so confusing to me – she considers herself to be “pro-life” but clearly hates this child before she is even born. “This hurts children! This destroys children’s lives.” So the child’s life is destroyed before she has been born, by the fact that her parents have not been together for a long time. And yet every life is sacred, and abortion is always wrong. And yet this particular child’s life is worthless. And yet every life is sacred. Except this one, which should be shamed and bullied.
If you’re going to be pro-life, be pro-life. Be in favor of life, and support life when it exists.
Laura’s last bit of advice, that you should judge your husband based on those he holds dear, is also true to a certain extent. Have him listen to that bit by Dr. Laura, and maybe it will make him think long and hard about whom he associates with. And file for divorce.
Nobody needs this toxicity in their life. Not the unborn child, not your “friend,” not your husband. Not you. What do you gain from smearing your hate and judgments all over everyone who has different circumstances than you? Is the artificial boost of self-esteem from downward social comparison worth the pain you cause others and the alienation you are inviting for yourself? If you think it is, if you aren’t willing to reconsider your completely indefensible and horrible viewpoints, the best thing you can do is follow Dr. Laura’s advice, and just stay away.Related
Latest posts by Susan (see all)
- WIC Up My Sleeve: How it Feels to Use Government Assistance - July 28, 2014
- Entitled - July 7, 2014
- Ten Reasons I Breastfeed in Public - June 25, 2014