In other news… the sky is blue and snow is white.
For days I have resisted responding to the now infamous New York Times article, “To Buy Children’s Gifts, Mothers Do Without.” But the brouhaha that has followed its printing has become so phenomenal I figured I might as well add my two-cents worth.
As you can imagine the article with the extremely trite title received a backlash of vicious replies from mothers around the world.
“To Buy Children’s Gifts, Mothers Do Without.”
DUH!!
When don’t mothers do without?
Before I continue on my soapbox I should note that the Times reporter who wrote the piece was trying to illustrate that with the economy as pitiful as it is right now, people are spending less on holiday gifts. The article highlights information from a recent study that shows moms tend to put aside personal spending in order to afford gifts for their children more than dads do.
Of course, part of the reason for this is that women traditionally spend more on apparel and other personal items than men. The Times piece cited a recent survey, which showed that sales for women dropped almost 20% in the months of September and October, compared to just over 8% for men. According to the survey, 61% of mothers said they would be curbing their holiday spending versus 56% of women in general and 45% of men.
It’s all very interesting information, but it’s not what incited the negative reaction by readers. That came in the article’s first sentence when writer Stephanie Rosenbloom described a Florida mother’s Christmas “sacrifice” for her daughter. Apparently, mom Kristen Hunt will be going without the designer jeans she covets so she can buy her kid a play kitchen and Elmo doll… along with a ton of other holiday goodies.
In case you missed that let me repeat: the Florida mom plans to bypass purchasing expensive designer jeans so she can gift her child with a mountain of toys.
And that, my dear readers, is what set off New York Times fans.
Hunt isn’t sacrificing food, clothing, water, shelter, or blood (as plasma donors duly noted) to purchase goods for her offspring; rather, she is giving up wearing a couple strips of overpriced denim.
To say the article insulted moms across the country would be a severe understatement. In fact, I would guess that the moms (or parents in general) who really know what it means to sacrifice for their children probably don’t even read the New York Times.
Why?
Because they are too busy working four jobs. Too busy transferring from one mode of public transportation to another. Too busy keeping a roof over their kids’ heads and food on the table. Too busy making sure their children know that love is not measured by the amount of gifts under the tree. Too busy trying to survive one day so they can live to see another.
I wonder if Ms. Rosenbloom considered what those mothers do without on a daily basis?
Related Articles:
Stay-at-Home-Mom Says Record Game Show Win “Lessens Guilt”
Sarah Palin: Supermom or In Way Over Her Head?
A Father’s Touching Tribute to His Infant Son
Desperate Dad vs. Unsympathetic Electric Company
Parents Coming to Their Children’s Defense
A Father’s Touching Tribute to His Infant Son
Has Becoming a Parent Made You a Better Person?
Can You Miss Your Kids Too Much?