I met up a few weeks ago with Only-Mama, another single mom blogger. After chatting for a bit, we decided that we were two peas in a pod and decided to swap guest posts. I’ve had this idea on the back burner for a while, so I decided to write this post about how I’m continually explaining my relationship with Toyin to new people I meet.
“… Over and over again, I have to tell people, “He’s not my husband. He’s not my ex-husband.”
It’s not exactly complicated, but for a private introvert/extrovert (I’m pretty friendly, but don’t go asking me personal questions) it is a continual source of mild distress because I hate to explain things to people I barely know. I wish there could be a convenient name we can give people in this situation, if only for my own convenience and comfort level. Because, since we are living now a few generations into the sexual revolution, I think that it’s highly likely we are not the only people in this country with this problem.”
In general, the study quoted in the article showed that overall dads are more involved with their kids than ever before. Even though there are more dads living out of the home than previously, the dads in the homes are more actively involved with their kids and dads outside the home are getting better at staying involved with their children through phone calls, emails, and outside activities.
Single black dads are doing better than their white counterparts too.
“But of the fathers living apart from their children, black dads were the most involved in their kids’ lives,” according to the CNN article.
I smiled to read that part even though Toyin doesn’t fit any of the negative stereotypes that come associated with being a black man. I sometimes worry that people who don’t know us, might assume he’s a deadbeat dad, or less than stellar based on common assumptions of single black dads.
Toyin is a rock star single dad.
He is super active in Annika’s life. Whenever she is missing him, he steps up and takes her more. He calls her. They hang out. He takes her overnight two nights a week. We swing by and see him when she’s needing a dose of daddy. She is a huge priority in his life. And she knows it.
Sometimes I worry that having two single parents instead of a cohesive unit will have negative effects on her psyche. Perhaps she will grow up feeling left out, or anxious, wishing for something that she can’t have. That’s the thing I hear from adults who grew up with single parents. It’s innate. Children want their parents together. That’s what I’ve heard.
But then I wonder if perhaps it’s not so much that kids want their parents to be married, just that they want both parents around. The evolutionary part inside of people wants two parents to attach to, to learn from, to be connected with. I don’t think that parents have to live in the same household to accomplish those goals. They just have to be more creative than married parents.
I worry about this stuff, but when I look at it from the latter point of view, I think, in some ways, she has it better than some kids who live at home with both parents.
Although, it’s definitely changing, I think a lot of dads who live at home with their wives and kids often don’t spend as much quality time with their kids as some who don’t live with their children. And even the ones who do spend quality time with their kids do it inconsistently because their kids are just always there when they come home.
Not the case for us single parents.
Annika gets concentrated daddy/daughter time regularly and consistently. Sure, there are times when Toyin goes out of town or we have meetings or other obligations during our regular hours. But instead of Annika missing out when that happens, we just switch times that she’s with us.
I’m not bashing traditional families. I see evidence all around me that families really are becoming more of a priority for this generation of dads. I see dads at the playground. I know stay-at-home dads. It’s not just evidenced by a Pew Research study, dads really are just more involved these days.
It’s just nice to see that single dads are getting better at it too. I know that the general assumption is that children are better off with two parents in the home. But I think that single parents can make it work too.
I wouldn’t say that one of my main problems in life is putting too much effort into anything. For the most part, my life has consisted of me sitting around during bad times and going, “Man this sucks, but making it better would take too much effort.” And during good times, going, “Yeeah, that’s right.”
Then when it gets bad again. “Aw crap. This sucks.”
But motherhood has been a different story. During my pregnancy and the first few months I was hellbent on doing everything right.
Then I realized that I would never do everything right and when I gave up that ideal, I found myself doing better under stressful circumstances, and cutting myself some slack when I couldn’t live up to my ideals.
So, after reading the last part of A Secure Base, where Bowlby essentially says that parents under less-than-ideal conditions are pretty much bound to mess it up and leave their children hopeless and bereft of love, it makes me go what the fuck.
I mean, seriously, does that mean no matter what I do, Annika is pretty much screwed anyway? I guess it’s all a matter of just how screwed she is.
Bowlby says that single parenting is a huge no-no. Well, I am a single mom, but I’m not parenting solo. Toyin is more active than most single dads.
We live in a society where bad parenting advice saturates our way of life and nobody seems to have come to a consensus on what good parenting is.
We’re pretty much all shitting in the wind when it comes to this gig.
When I think about all the mistakes I’ve already made in the 2+ years of Annika’s life, I wonder if those are irreparable mistakes. I don’t think so.
I think it’s a matter of putting just the right amount of effort into it and also learning when to back off and just let your child be.
That’s hard for me because I’ve never learned just how to put the right amount of effort into things.
I’ve always either sat back and put more effort into not making an effort. Or I’ve taken things so seriously that people go, “Dude, lighten the fuck up.” Let’s just say that finding middle ground is not one of my talents.
But when it comes to mothering you have to find middle ground sometimes. Most of the time it’s when you’re really pissed off, so that makes it harder.
You’re never going to be perfect. But thinking that just because you can’t be perfect, that there’s no point in trying is not a good idea either.
So, try, fail. Try again. Keep connecting with your kid. Apologize when you screw up. Take steps toward fixing your mistakes. Don’t be a whiner. Don’t take too much shit from them. And keep on trying. At least, that’s my plan. Here’s hoping it’s a good one.
I love Texas. It’s my home. Even though I moved to Japan, then Montana, then settled in Detroit for nine years, I always knew that I would come back to Texas someday. As much as I love Texas and feel like it is my home, there has always been this little bit of me that feels like I don’t quite belong here. See, Texans, at least, small-town Texans, believe that you are only a “true” Texan if you’re born in Texas.
I have a feeling that Annika will travel a lot during her life, but I’m glad that she was born in Texas, so that she will always have someplace to call home.
She’s already got loyalty toward her home state. Check this out (My apologies to my Facebook friends for the repeat):
This is the fourth part in a series on attachment theory. I am summarizing my reading of A Secure Base, by John Bowlby. Bowlby was one of the premier researchers on attachment theory, which is the basis for attachment parenting.
This is the second part of Chapter 2. If you need to catch up you can read the first three parts here, here and here.
We left off with a new finding of an alternative theory to why babies seek to be close to their mothers. An alternative model had been found. Ducklings and goslings who clearly were attached to their mothers and yet, the need for food was not an issue.
Using this new framework to define attachment, Bowlby began to examine traditional psychoanalysis regarding the phenomena that Freud pointed to: love relations, separation anxiety, mourning, defense, anger, guilt, depression, trauma, emotional detachment, sensitive periods in early life, etc.
Instead of working backward, from adults with these diagnoses, Bowlby began to trace childhood traumas toward these adult states. Additionally, instead of making leaps from his subjects’ thoughts and feelings, Bowlby instead made observations of children in certain settings, including their own expressions and from there built a theory of personality development.
In formulating a new theory, Bowlby added to his research a study by Harlow that said in a study of Macaque monkeys, a soft doll was preferred over a hard one, the only noticeable difference was the texture of the doll.
While attachment behavior is most obvious during childhood and more clearly articulated during times of sickness, fatigue or stress, it is always present. Knowing that a there is another person available who will be sensitive and responsive gives a secure feeling, thus allowing world exploration without anxiety. At any age, it is an important part of human development and acts like an insurance policy.
Because Bowlby approached his new theory with observation of behavior, it was regarded by some as simply another form of behaviorism. One reason for this is that attachment and attachment behavior is not always distinguished. Attachment is the predisposition by one person to seek proximity to another person and especially under certain conditions. Attachment behavior is any behavior that is engaged in order to maintain that proximity. Attachment behavior may change based on differing conditions, but an enduring attachment is usually reserved to only a few people. When children fail to show discrimination with attachment behavior that is a clear sign that the child is disturbed. The reason for this is that the behavior is not being activated. This results in an emotionally detached child and, eventually, adult.
This emotional detachment results in what cognitive psychologists call a “false self” or narcissism. This behavior is caused by certain information being blocked, thus leaving the person without the use of attachment behavior and results in the inability to love or experience the feeling of being loved.
While developing his new framework, Bowlby learned of another physician, Margaret Mahler,who was interested in how people arrive at the self. Not comparing the two frameworks, but instead, using her theories to strengthen his own, Bowlby noticed the closeness in which they related. Mahler’s theories include some of Bowlby’s that children need to “refuel” in order to develop.
Bowlby describes his research on maternal deprivation as extremely rewarding and finds that the amount is not just ample, but extensive. In the late 1970s, a principal finding was the two or more adverse events multiplied many times over the potential for psychological disturbance. One example was a study of depressive disorders in women. The group of researchers, Brown and Harris, continued this research on into the 1980s. The findings showed that not only were numerous adverse events likely to cause psychological disturbance, but they just continue to multiply. For example, people brought up in unhappy or disrupted homes were more likely to have illegitimate children, become teen mothers, or have unhappy marriages and/or get divorced. These adverse events snowball, one making the next one more likely. While the earlier events were set apart from the later ones, they were found to be the cause of personality disturbances that caused the adverse events to happen initially.
These patterns of maternal deprivation were traced to psychological disturbances from generations past. For example, a mother who grows up to be anxiously attached, would likely seek care from her own child, thus causing that child to become anxious, guilty and perhaps, phobic. These generational leaps were found to be most serious.
Research on how parents’ childhood experiences effect the way they treat their own children began in the 1980s, but Bowlby estimated that it seemed likely to be one of the most fruitful areas of research.
Bowlby spent much time developing his theory because, as a peer told him, “‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory, and, of course, nothing so handicapping as a poor one.'” His hope was that eventually his theory would prove useful in helping parents learn, for certain, how to best promote healthy personality development. Once that is known, then parents will know what is best for their children and then society will be able to provide it.
Woo hoo. That is some heavy stuff. Good, but heavy. Sorry I’m a day late. I’m off to go find something silly to even this out with.
I’ve finished chapter one ofA Secure Base, by John Bowlby and I’m looking forward to getting started on chapter two. Hope y’all are enjoying this with me. I know it’s a bit dense, but I think the information is good and solid. I already feel more secure in my parenting having read some of this and I think it will continue to enlighten me.
In the 1930s and 40s, a number of clinicians made independent observations about the negative effects in on personality because of institutionalization and/or frequent changes of a mother figure.
In 1949 the chief of the mental health section of the World Health Organization (WHO) requested to contribute to a United Nations study of the needs of homeless children. Bowlby was asked to be a consultant for the project. He wrote a report called Maternal Care and Mental Health, which offered enormous evidence regarding the adverse influences on personality development of inadequate maternal care during early childhood. In his report, Bowlby recommended ways to avoid or mitigate long-term ill effects. The report was translated into a dozen other languages in addition to English.
In the 1950s, two movies were released, Grief: A Peril in Infancy andA Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital. These movies had much influence in the professional world where infant care was involved.
Because of the changes implemented, controversy over attachment theory continued, which had initially stemmed from early publications.
Critics trained in more traditional psychology and in the learning-theory approach pointed to lack of evidence and proper explanation as to how these experiences could effect personality development.
Research continued and the field continued to change.
In 1963, a WHO publication was released with several articles that reassessed the term, deprivation of maternal care. One articles by Mary Ainsworth pointed to some controversial evidence that needed more research.
Around the same time, another study was released by Harry Harlow on maternal deprivation in rhesus monkeys. In the UK, Robert Hinde released complementary studies.
Between these two scientists and Mary Ainsworth’s work, the opposition was undermined. After that, criticism became more constructive.
Questions remained, however. Uncertainties like: Why do these ill-effects persist throughout life? Which features or combination of features cause the distress? Is there a way to account for persistent ill-effects? Why do some children come through negative life experiences relatively unharmed, while others do not? How important is a principal caregiver? Some critics pointed out that it was common in some less developed societies to find multiple mothering (although, this turned out to be untrue).
In addition to the questions raised by its own researchers, there were common misconceptions surrounding attachment theory. A common inaccuracy was that the primary caregiver must be the child’s natural mother (the blood-tie theory). Another wrongly held account of the theory was that the mother must be with her child 24 hours a day with no relief.
A new look at the theory was necessary. This was pointed out by several reviewers of Bowlby’s publication, Maternal Care and Mental Health, who said that the term maternal care was too broad. At the time it was assumed that the reason children are attached to their mothers because they feed them. Food was considered a primary drive, with dependency being a secondary drive.
Bowlby did not believe this theory to be accurate. Another theory posited that food, being the primary drive, and dependency at the mother’s breast, were interwoven. Bowlby did not accept either theory because, he said, that if these were true, children would easily cling to anyone who fed them. This was not his experience with any children.
He learned of a new theory by Lorenz on the responses of ducklings and goslings. This study caught his interest because these animals were obviously particular to their mothers, and yet, they fed themselves.
I’m going to stop there, because, well, I love a good cliffhanger. Have a lovely week! (And yes, that is one of my bras. She likes to use it as a sling.)
When I was pregnant one of my biggest fears regarding becoming the mother of a Bi-racial child was the thought that she would identify with one half of her racial identity. I worried (for obvious reasons) that the half she identified with would not be mine, thus denying our mother/child bond.
I don’t think this is an unfounded fear. In this country, if you look Black, you are Black. No matter if you are half, or one quarter, Black is Black. White is White. I’m White. As far as I know, the majority of my ancestry is British, with a little German, French and Irish, but most likely 100 percent European. Except that there was a suspicion amongst my mother’s family that my great grandfather may or may not have been at least partially Native American. He was suspected of “passing.” The only reason anyone thought that, though, was because he never grew facial hair. He didn’t look the part and he didn’t pass on any ethnic qualities to his children.
In addition to this country’s history of dividing the races by color, even the Black community doesn’t let Bi-racial folks get away with being a mixture of both.
It’s pretty common to hear Black people make fun of Bi-racial folks, saying they aren’t insert-other-half here, they’re just Black. A couple of high profile Bi-racial men come to mind, our president, Barack Obama and golfer Tiger Woods.
Even though President Obama was raised by a White mother and his White grandparents, he enlisted his Black/African half while running for president.
Tiger Woods has been given a lot of shit by Black people for saying he’s Cablinasian, (half Asian — one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Thai –, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch) thus standing up for his Bi-racial identity. Technically, he’s more Asian than anything else.
I don’t blame Obama for using his skin color to get votes. Hell, he was just playing the game. And he played it well. Even though Tiger Woods is no longer America’s sweetheart because he turned out to be a flawed human being, I still give him props for insisting that he not deny his Asian roots.
Now that Annika is here, my old pregnancy fears have lessened because I have started thinking about how I will talk to her about her roots and her skin color.
I think the world is more tolerant now than it was when I was growing up. And I think as Annika ages, it will become even more so. Kids today are more tolerant and open-minded than my generation. Today we have people who refuse to identify with a gender identity, people who identify with both, people who look one way and feel another.
I see racial identity following the same trends as sexual identity heading toward more gray (or should I say, tan) areas. More and more people will refuse to pick one or the other. More and more people are refusing to say they are simply one thing.
Human beings are complex to the core. Using color to identify people, is, in my opinion, just as antiquated as defining life roles and fashion choices based on a person’s genitalia.
Choosing a more complex racial identity is a common thought process amongst plenty of mothers of Bi-racial children.
I was browsing a Bi-racial mom forum recently, and the topic of choosing racial identity at school caught my attention. Will my daughter feel pressured to choose a racial identity that isn’t consistent with who she really is?
One mom said when she signed her daughter up for school, instead of choosing one of the pre-filled racial identities, she chose Other and wrote in Bi-racial. She was told that she was not allowed to do that and must choose only one race.
Those boxes may seem insignificant, if you fit into one of them, but if you don’t, they are not boxes anymore, they are fences.
Ever since Annika was born, I’ve thought a lot about a boy I knew in high school.
His name was Charles. He was a Bi-racial boy being raised by a single White mother, his father was Mexican. Charles’ skin was as white as snow. He had thick black hair, straight as a board. He did not speak with an accent in class. But when surrounded by his Spanish friends, he laid it on thick, using Spanish slang and affecting an accent. Even back then, I knew this kid wasn’t confused. He was ashamed. I could see it in his eyes. He was defensive about anyone calling him White. He was damn proud of being a Mexican and he did all he could to make sure everyone knew he was proud of his heritage.
The only problem was, it was only part of his heritage.
I used to wonder how it made his mother feel that he was so ashamed of his White half, especially since she was the one raising him, alone. He was forced to choose. For whatever reason, he felt that his Latin roots were the better choice.
I don’t see why anyone has to choose. That’s not a choice I want Annika to have to make. That’s like asking someone to choose between an arm or a leg. It’s like asking someone to choose air or water.
As part of my (personal) study on attachment, I am reviewing the book, A Secure Base, by John Bowlby. Bowlby was the premier researcher on attachment theory. His research spanned approximately five decades. His work is the basis for the parenting style, Attachment Parenting. This post is a summary of the second half of chapter one.
We have made dramatic advances in our knowledge of the importance of early interaction between mother and child. The famous studies of Klaus and Kennell observe how mothers interact with their newborns when allowed to proceed naturally. Immediately after birth, mothers tend to hold her child close, stroking the baby’s face, and touching the baby’s body with her hands and palm. Within a few minutes, she will put the baby to her breast. Mother’s tend to be in a state of ecstasy and observers also tend to become elated simply by watching them. Mother’s often spend the next few days cuddling her baby and she will typically have a moment when she feels the baby is her very own, usually within moments after birth, but this feeling can be delayed by as much as a week for some (typically a minority).
Within the first few weeks, the mother and her child will alternate between lively interaction and phases of disengagement. The sensitive mother will adjust her behavior according to her child’s movements, creating a dialogue that fits the baby’s pace. The baby also joins in spontaneously, responding to the mother. These behaviors show that the mother and child are developing a partnership. During feeding time, the same type of pace develops. During heavy suckling, the mother is generally silent, but will engage with her child during pauses at the breast.
As the child ages, and begins to play with toys, the relationship continues, with mother following the baby’s lead. When a child shows interest in a toy, the mother will follow suit, commenting on the toy, naming it, playing with it, thereby promoting a shared experience.
In another example, pre-verbal vocal exchange shows the ability to take turns and avoid overlapping within very young infants and continues as they age up to age 2. The evidence shows that the mother’s interaction plays a major part as the leader in smooth transitions between speakers.
Most of this stuff seems like common sense. But the next part is pretty exciting. It says, essentially, that how we treat babies sets the stage for their personalities and how they treat us, as they age. It’s one piece of evidence that proves, in my mind, that attachment parenting advocates aren’t a bunch of wackos, like we are portrayed in the media.
Bowlby says that what has emerged from all these studies is the evidence that by responding with sensitivity (a principle of API) the mother has already begun to enlist the cooperation of her child. Babies are pre-programmed to be socially adaptable, but (and here’s the BIG but) “whether they do so or not turns in high degree on how they are treated.” Of course, this finding means that the way mainstream parenting has been taught for centuries is wrong on many counts, additionally, it means that the role of the parents must change dramatically in order to instill a solid attachment.
The role of each parent is typically that of the mother being the primary attachment figure and the father being more of a playmate. However, the child can be firmly attached to both parents if both parents make the effort to fill the role of attachment figure. In several studies, the findings showed that the approach to new people and new tasks were based on confidence and security. The children studied were graded on levels of confidence and security. The children who graded highest on confidence and security were attached to both parents. The next down were children who were only attached to one parent. And the children with the lowest confidence and security were attached to neither parent.
In providing a secure base, (the basic premise of Bowlby’s entire work) the role of the parent must be similar to that of an officer at a military base where one can retreat in the event of a setback. (Bowlby’s analogy, not mine.) Basically, the parent must BE the base. The place where the child can go to be welcomed, nourished, both physically and emotionally, and helped out, but only if actively needed.
Bowlby goes to say that unless a parent has an intuitive understanding of their child’s attachment behavior, they will not be able to provide the secure base. Attachment behavior is often seen as dependency and the mainstream dubbing dependency as regressive is not only incorrect, but an “appalling misjudgment.”
There are certain conditions that foster satisfying relationships between parent and child. One condition that fosters a mutually satisfied relationship is an atmosphere where the mother (or main attachment figure) is supported so that she (or he) can focus solely on the child. Another condition is the support a woman receives during her labor. Women who had another female figure with her during labor were shown to have labors lasting half as long as women who were left to labor alone. An easier and supported labor provides better conditions for a mother to bond with her baby for a longer period after labor, thereby giving a good start to a healthy lifelong bond.
The influence of the mother’s own mother also influences the relationship between the mother and her new child. Children whose mothers responded with sensitivity to them, were more likely to respond with sensitivity to their own children.
Further studies show that women whose families were disrupted before age 11interact less with their newborns.
Parents who come from physically abusive families were more likely to have a number of parenting problems, such as becoming batterers themselves or have negative views about parenting. One of the most disturbing trends among mothers who had been abused was the tendency to expect their children to care for them, thus inverting the relationship. Children who come from homes where the mother inverts the relationship experience such psychological problems as school refusal, agoraphobia and depression.
Bowlby recommends one way to stop these abusive trends is to set up programs where new parents can observe first-hand how to parent with sensitivity.
That’s the end of chapter one. I think I’m totally addicted to this book and I can’t wait to delve into it further. I will start on chapter two next Monday.
In the past two years of being a parent, I’ve grown abnormally fond of the style of Attachment Parenting. Because it is my nature to delve deeply into the roots of anything I am enamored with, I have decided to do a series on Attachment Theory, the roots of Attachment Parenting. There are lots of great books that were spawned based on this theory. I like many of those books, but I also like to know where my information is coming from, to make sure it is consistent with the original ideas.
The leading researcher in attachment theory is John Bowlby. About a year ago I read one of his works called, Attachment. It is a tome. Although my brain felt like it was glazed in an honey dijon sauce for most of it, I did glean some good information out of it, but I decided that I needed to read something a little more digestible. I picked upA Secure Base, which is a compilation of Bowlby’s work that spanned a half a century. It is eight chapters long and each Monday, I will summarize a portion of the book. I am doing this for two reasons. One, so I will understand it better. And two, so that anyone who is interested, but is not nearly as masochistic as I am, can get a glimpse into this theory.
Many people choose to take on the job of parenting, but it is a high stakes game. Successful parenting is the key to the health of the next generation. It is a 24/7 job, which means giving up other interests. Many people do not wish to believe this, however, based on numerous studies, the evidence points to the same result. Successful adults come from stable homes in which “both parents give a great deal of time and attention to the children.”
Single parenting is a not a good option, all parents must have help. The current society is a product of evolution, and a peculiar one. It is worrisome that we might adopt mistaken norms. Children living with inadequate parenting is just as bad as to leave them starving for food.
The study of attachment is an ethological one. A child’s dependency on its mother is partially pre-programmed based on the expected environment. These behaviors assume that a child needs to be near his/her mother in order to be safe from predators. Attachment behavior activates especially during times of pain, fatigue or anything frightening. At low intensity, the child may need to see or hear his/her mother. At high intensity, the child may require physical closeness.
Attachment behavior is not apparent only in children, just more obvious. We see it in adolescents and adults during stressful times. It is common, for instance, to see it activate in a pregnant woman, or a mother of young children.
Attachment behavior is represented by the emotional state of the person. If the attachment is going well, the emotional state is joyful and has a sense of security. If it is not going well, there is grief and depression.
Parenting can be approached from the same ethological viewpoint. In order for attachment theory to be correct, it is implicit that at least, some, parenting behaviors are instinctual, like soothing a crying baby, keeping the baby warm, protected and fed. Obviously, not all of these behaviors activate in every parent. Most of the way parents learn to behave is learned by observing other parents, starting during their own childhoods, observing one’s own parents.
The modern view of parenting contrasts sharply with two differing viewpoints. One viewpoint is that of instinctual versus learned parenting. The other overemphasizes learned parenting over instinctual. Parenting is not the product of instinct, nor is it something that is simply learned. It is a mixture of biological behavior and learned behavior. Parenting behavior is one of a class of biological behaviors that change based on environment, just like attachment, sexual behavior, exploratory behavior, and eating. In this framework, Bowlby acknowledges that some psychological theories link all of these behaviors together, but he chooses to separate them based on their own biological function and the fact that each action is so distinctly different.
Okay, so that is approximately one third of the first chapter, but this seems like a good stopping point.. I am going to go ahead and quit for now, I will finish the first chapter next week.
Even though I’ve tried over and over to get Annika to listen to various, kid appropriate, adult music, she will only listen to kid music. Specifically, Sesame Street sound recordings. Well, that and a couple of other random kid music that I’ve had since she was an infant.
Right now her favorite is the Sesame Street Platinum album, which is filled with classic Sesame Street songs, like Bein’ Green, by Kermit, C is for Cookie, by (obviously) Cookie Monster, Happy Tappin’ With Elmo, and one my personal favorites, Fuzzy and Blue (and Orange) sung by Grover, (and Harry Monster) and Cookie Monster.
Annika’s newest favorite song off this album is People in Your Neighborhood and the Sesame Street theme song.
I’ve been forced to listen to several of the Sesame Street albums over the past several months and this is by far the best one.
Don’t bother listening to the ones sung by actual people. When I have checked out various CDs from the library, and popped them in the CD player, Annika just stares at me like, “Who the f is that?” That sounds like a washed up old drug addict. Last time we discussed this, I mentioned to you that I like fuzzy monsters, not washed up celebrities.”
I gotta agree with her on this one.
If you had asked me before I had a kid if I thought it was cool to listen to rock stars sing Sesame Street music I would have said a resounding hell yeah! But listening to Steven Tyler sing I Love Trash, is just creepy and Rosie O’Donnell singing I Nearly Missed a Rainbow makes me want to vomit, although, pretty much anything Rosie O’Donnell does makes me want to vomit. I almost forgave her for being so gross when I saw her once on Curb Your Enthusiasm as a guest star, but after hearing her sing on the Sesame Street album, I have relegated her back to her gross celebrity status.
We had to return this CD to the library a couple of days ago after six weeks and it was on hold, so I couldn’t renew it. So, I’m off to buy it on Amazon. We just can’t live without it.