Yelling & Spanking: Our Family's Decision

The Caterpillar is approaching an age where discipline is going to be necessary. Actually, it is necessary. She stares me in the eye as I explain to her that we don't dig up mama's plants, and then laughs, and then digs them up, throws them, and feels pretty dang good about her newfound rebellion. No matter how many times I hold her arm, say No, or remove her from the situation, the plants inevitably become up-dug. I get it, sister. It feels good for now.

But we're going to sort out how to make it not feel good.

To start this conversation I should let you know that our family is pursuing a No Yelling, No Spanking approach to discipline. For families with the self-control and self-discipline enough to carry it out effectively without going overboard... do what you gotta do. For families whose kids only respond to aggression... do what you gotta do. I've seen some of my friends spank their kids before and it works for them: the kids are just fine, they live, they aren't hurt, they learn their lesson, they love mommy & daddy just as much as ever, they move on, and I don't judge. But for us, yelling and spanking is not an option that's on the table.

Here's why: I grew up in a family whose discipline methods were on the aggressive side; who had a tough time separating themselves from anger when something really pushed them to the edge, and had a rough go with keeping their cool in those situations. And because of that upbringing, it's quite simple for me to slip into an over-the-top yelling match with intimate objects (vacuums, etc) if I'm not careful. And what if I opened up that door with my child? Do I want to talk to her like I talk to my annoying vacuum that unplugs itself every time I get in a cleaning groove? (And do I want to talk to my vaccuum like that?) (Seriously though, it's like my vacuum has a stinking mind of its own. It just unplugs from the wall. When I'm vacuuming  No matter how much cord is available. But I digress.)

Two days ago, The Caterpillar got all mixed up in my legs while I was trying to prepare dinner. She got stuck and threw something because she was frustrated and tried to bite my legs. Way uncool, Caterpillar. And I yelled. I said "STOP! MOMMY IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING!" and I picked her up and put her in a corner and... then I felt like a pile of poop. Way uncool, mama. Immediately I apologized, to her and to myself, and vowed that would not be happening again.

A few months ago I read about The Orange Rhino Challenge, which really confirmed the decision to avoid yelling & spanking at all costs. The Orange Rhino Challenge was made by a mama who decided to go 365 days without yelling after being totally embarrassed when caught screaming at her kids by a handyman.

Sometimes I think it takes something kind of drastic - something that stops us in our tracks to say, "hey, is this who I really want to be?" - that inspires that kind of change. Getting caught in the act by a stranger in your home? That would do it.

Encouragingly, this previously fly-off-the-handle mom has now gone 497 days without yelling. With four kids! You know what that means? It means that she has disciplined four kids (four BOYS) without yelling, for 497 days. And that with one child, one little rebellious sweet girl, I can definitely do it too.

And instead of waiting until something drastic happens to stop me in my tracks, I'll just stop before I start.

So there we are: a big decision. There will be no yelling at, and no spanking The Caterpillar.

Phew. That one's done. Now to put it into action.

What is your family's decision when it comes to discipline? Have you tried to avoid spanking & yelling? What worked? What didn't? I'd love to know!

PS: Like I said above, if you do choose to yell/spank, power to ya. There is no judgement or criticism from this end of the table. Let's unite as parents and support each other's choices: as long as the health & safety of our kiddos is our no. 1 priority, we're doing it right.

The Problem With Lululemon's Search for a CEO

In the last few days, it has come to transpire that Lululemon is seeking a new CEO. For those who aren't sure what this means, because you've presumably been living under a tightly hairsprayed rock for the last twenty years of your life, a CEO is passionate about "stuff like making decisions, having a vision and being the head boss person." (Not my words).

Essentially, their online job posting for a CEO pegs the 23-26 year old female would-be totally awesome yogi/company lead, prepared to take shots of tequila and/or wheatgrass at any given Friday afternoon (citing "work/life balance").

The intention of the Lululemon job posting is to be quirky and fun, edgy in a world of droning career want-ads, and to target the exact type of person they need to represent their brand. And I get it: brand representation is crucial to any organization, inside and out. It is important that your company breathes its brand, wears its brand, and takes showers in its brand. The confidence of knowing exactly who you are (or who your company is) tends to be what brings like-minded consumers your way.

I get it. I get it.

But as I read the job posting for the Lululemon CEO circa 2013, I couldn't help but feel kind of... sick to my stomach. Offended. What was intended to be a fun slap in the ass came out a little more like a crude slap in the face.

The post, which you can read here, of course places priority on athletic young women. Nothing wrong in that: it's an athletics brand.

The age group is made quite clear by the "vote for Pedro" finer print which anyone currently over the age of 30 is likely to misinterpret or entirely not understand: It's unlikely that anyone over the age of 24 at the time of the movie's release watched Napoleon Dynamite, let alone sported the VfP t-shirt that will forever be burned into our memory as the signifier of the Good Old Days. To truly have voted for Pedro you had to be 14 years old and laughing on.the.floor while Mom took a glimpse of your new fave movie and declared that the Future of Our Country Is Going Down the Drain.

That said, candidate must not only understand early 2000s pop culture references, but must be thoroughly hipster enough to strut The Mansy with enough confidence and sass as to sink a job as the CEO of a multi million dollar company.

Here is the part where I let out a big sigh.

Yes. What we're looking at is a job posting for women under the age of 30. Yes, most of it is a joke; of course you don't expect Chip Wilson, Bill Clinton, Ellen & Oprah on the candidate's speed-dial. But you're trying to communicate something to us under-30s.

Alright, Lululemon, I'm listening.

What you're saying to me is that I don't take work seriously. That you're looking for someone who doesn't take work seriously. You're looking for someone with maximum 10 years of field experience, 3 or 4 of those likely in junior or intern positions. As your CEO. Is that right?

Sure, I wouldn't consider myself as even slightly a potential candidate for the job. Unfortunately I can't hold a headstand for at least 10 minutes.

However, if this post is real life, I fear that you would scare away any woman (or.. man..) that would be a suitable candidate for the job. (It's likely that Lululemon has an inside hire to consider, or someone already lined up and rearing to go. It's likely that this "quirky" job posting is a cute publicity stunt, another thumbs up in the brand.)

But trying to lighten the mood of the job-search world is a cruel nail in the coffin of many recent BAs' dreams of immediate post-graduation success. We've been told since we were children that "what you do" is you go to school, and then you go to more school, and then you go to more school, and you then get a job that pays off that school, and then you're happy. And you find the man (or woman) of your dreams and get married and fill your house with small hands and feet and post the white picket fence and you live FOREVER. And it's becoming increasingly clear that we were lied to - not because anyone was out to hurt us, but because nobody really knew better. Maybe it was that easy for our parents.

So many of us have undergraduate degrees. Less of us, but still many, have beautiful MA or MBA certificates to hang on their wall (good for you, by the way, that's actually awesome). And how many of us have solid careers? And how many of us would like to be patronized by being told that a CEO is the "head boss person" who "knows the secret to how they got the caramel in the Caramilk bar"? (You think we don't know that?)

Lululemon, you are perpetuating the problem. You're making the act of securing the position of CEO seem so simple that you're advertising it to people who are highly unlikely to even be a consideration for upper management, let alone "report[ing] to no one". You understand that it's hard enough to get a job at a bank with a university degree, right? And that with a Master's, many of us start out as research assistants - and not necessarily because being an RA has been a lifelong passion?

I am furious that this job posting is considered quirky and fun. I'm furious that us under-30s are having a rough go. I'm upset that we're considered lazy, or perpetuating of our own problems, and that it's being blamed on us that some of us live with our parents. I'm aware that it's a cyclical process: I'm not calling for a 1% revolution here, I'm calling for you to give us a chance at being Grown Ups. (And I'm talking to you, government of Ontario, RE Making Life Harder for Young Teachers.)

Because then, eventually, when we're over 30, we'll have the skills to "elevate and cultivate the level of talent within the senior leadership team". (That quote, by the way, is the only sentence in the job posting to speak to the reader as though she was an adult. And then it falls down the drain. Really, really far down the drain.)

But, if being talked down to is something you're looking for, apply here.