you put it so much more nicely than I did

I'm working on my hostile reactions to people who say/do things I find ludicrous and/or dumb, but I still have a long way to go

You say you aren't anti-reading, but you did say that you were "sickened" by the number of books in your house, and by how much your kids read. I'm deeply confused.

Of course everyone has his own way of succeeding, and of course there's a point at which more harm than good will be done by forcing a kid to read, and active play is great. But it really is pretty indisputable at this point that reading is good. For everyone. Fostering a love of reading in your kids is just plain one of the best things to do for them.

My point about medieval attitudes towards reading was that it was viewed negatively by authorities for common people and women to read because reading conferred on common people benefits and power that authorities didn't want them to have. Things that are not imparted similarly by television. So the hostility towards reading of hundreds of years ago bears very little resemblance to the hostility towards television of today. They're not comparable phenomena, and enthusiasm for the benefits of reading is not a childrearing fad.

I believe it was firefly who said that reading the bible used to be thought of as a bad thing (this was back when it was transcribed for common interpretation and a few versions of it came out and it allowed people to make up their own minds about things as opposed to hearing a sermon about it). So that's what I was getting at. And there are a lot of people who do view TV as bad for children - of course! (It isn't recommended by our government for children under 3 and that's a good thing I think.)

Anyway, I am not anti-reading. I myself am a reader and always have been. I actually have a book that was just published so I hope there are some other readers out there. :)BUT my point is that we are too focused on it as a cure-all for our kids. One mom asked my own mom a few years ago for advice. She said she was so worried about her 8 year old son not wanting to read. My mom replied, "He's an 8 year old! Of course he'd rather play than read." So the point is it is perfectly normal for a child to want to play rather than to read and it would probably not be wise to force it too much (beyond what's required to learn to read.) My own sibling hated reading. My sib preferred active play/adventure to reading about adventure. My sibling is now a perfectly successful person. I think we all have our own ways of succeeding in life. Our role as parents is to be mindful of the minimum learning experiences they need but beyond that to encourage their own individual style of growing up.

I certainly know the economy is in a tailspin, and what the heck is a "wifey moo"? Are you suggesting that responsible middle-aged women who support their own children and live independently are somehow "cow-like"?

I did not say that Ms. Mooney had to run out and marry the first jerk she met, in order to have a holy wedding band on her finger. I said "where is the biological father of this child?" Surely somehow he figures into the equation, even if they are not married. Why isn't he supporting this infant? If he's around -- if he's not a turkey baster -- then he is responsible for leaving this mother and child in such poverty that they cannot live in an apartment or afford basic things like toys.

It is Nan Mooney who describes her parents are tight-lipped, harsh and judgemental of her unwed pregnancy. They don't sound like idyllic grandparents, and the whole setup reminds me of the Carl Sandburg poem "home is where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in" -- they have allowed Nan to stay (in the BASEMENT) but they don't seem happy or grateful to have their baby grandson around.

Surely being stuck in a BASEMENT with bitter, judgemental parents cannot be better than a small, clean apartment where you can live your own life. It sounds like Ms. Mooney is crammed into one tiny space with the crib in the same room -- how is this better than an apartment? Not to mention she is subject to shaming and criticism in order to "pay the rent".

She also doesn't sound like the kind of disadavantaged, deprived teenager who has to work service jobs at minimum wage. She sounds an awful like a white, upper-class, educated MIDDLE-AGED (39) adult who has a college education and skills, but who perhaps has chosen to be a "freelance writer" (job classification of about 80% of all Salon contributors, no surprise there) when it is very rare to be able to support a family on that kind of sporadic income.

If you want to live like that as a single -- straggling between freelance assignments, living hand-to-mouth -- that's your own choice and welcome to it. But it's shockingly inappropriate for the single mother of AN INFANT, who needs round-the-clock care, diapers, baby food, TOYS, pediatric care, health insurance and so on.

Please tell me how Nan Mooney is providing health insurance and quality medical care for this infant when she has (presumably) no regular employment or insurance and lives in her parent's basement? Sorry, but that is IRRESPONSIBLE and it didn't "just happen" to a mom with older kids -- this baby was born in 2008. It's pretty obvious she just "wanted a baby!" and didn't give two seconds of thought to how she'd manage on her own, who'd pay the bills or how she would provde even toys for her little one. (See: subject of article.)

Deering, it's Ms. Mooney herself who describes the living situation as wretched -- not me. If she said she was happy, and living in a supportive extended family, would there even be an article? Wouldn't Grandma and Grandpa Mooney be providing support, toys, etc. or allowing Nan to LIVE UPSTAIRS like one of the family????

Any sensible advice would be: get a good Legal Aid attorney (free, assuming she is this poor) and demand your son's right to support from his biological father. A decent man ought to be able to provide enough to allow her to at least give the poor kid a couple of pieces of the plastic crap she craves so badly she's writing about it. In the event he doesn't exist or can't be found, or is as bad off as she is -- then she ought to qualify for a variety of welfare programs including WIC, ADC and so on. This is bare bones, but other women with far fewer advantages and NO FAMILIES TO HELP have managed to survive on this before her.

And they were not cashing a big check for whinging from Salon.