Good morning Dana!

I wanted to reach out and thank you for posting your thoughts and comments about TD Bank’s new financial literacy survey. We feel financial literacy is a topic that MUST be addressed in every household in the U.S. in order to make sure our kids are financial fit once they become adults.

In regards to your comments as to why we didn’t include same-sex families in our poll, please note that this survey wasn’t put together to study different families, instead it was to study how genders teach their kids financial literacy skills. However, this is not our first poll on this subject and it probably won’t be our last. We feel you gave us a potential good idea for our next poll and studying how different families teach their kids financial literacy skills might be worth looking into. So I wanted to reach out and thank you for the suggestion.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions on this matter or anything else you think we may be able to help you with.

Cheers,

Jimmy Hernandez
TD Bank
856-397-5550

I appreciate the speedy response. I’d still argue that any survey purporting to study “how genders teach their kids financial literacy skills” should include the LGBT community, whose conceptions of gender sometimes vary—but I don’t believe it was TD Bank’s intention to slight the LGBT community. In that vein, I should also note that a senior vice president of TD Bank, Robert Pompey, was one of a number of business leaders to convene in San Francisco today under the auspices of Out & Equal, the LGBT workplace advocacy organization, to “strategize around issues of workplace equality.”

The usual outrage has ensued from the usual parties. I say they should get a few Poäng chairs and relax.

IKEA has a long history of LGBT-positive ads and imagery, as evidenced by the elevator doors at my local store. If we didn’t already have Expedit shelving in almost every room in the house, I’d rush out right now to buy some more.

Michael has also pointed out a touching video of mother and grandmother Randi Reitan, who is making a statement by shopping at Target one last time and then returning the merchandise. Her son is gay, and she says, “A number of the items were for my grandchildren, and they love their Uncle Jake so much, and Jake is gay. They wouldn’t want to have things come from a store that contributes to a campaign that would have a governor candidate with the anti-gay views that Tom Emmer has.”

A Target spokeswoman told Minnesota Public Radio that the company gives funds not based on party, but rather on matters that “directly effect [sic] the company’s retail agenda.” With more mothers like Reitan, they might have to reevaluate exactly what political donations to make in that regard.

Watch after the jump:

Photo credit: Cote

• “Keep these Holiday offerings in mind for that special guy in your life . . . For the rogue dandy and romantic heart . . . . these gifts stand alone and right next to the one you’re with.” I’m thinking they don’t mean my son or my dad. PR fail.
• “How many times have you grappled with sick children and family members during the holidays?” Only when they don’t sit still to take their medicine.
• “Divulge into a budget-friendly, cost-cutting, super-sexy lifestyle approach that allows you to accomplish your goals and be a great mom. . . . This book is specifically tailored for a super, sexy mom lifestyle.” First: Divulge: to disclose or reveal. Second: I wasn’t aware that a super-sexy lifestyle approach would allow me to be a great mom. A great spouse, perhaps. Besides, I’m not sure I need any more sexy in my lifestyle. The whole “homosexual” thing pretty much has me covered.
• “[Product] is the first battery-powered Nasal Aspirating Kit.” Eeep! Keep anything battery powered away from my child’s nose, thank you very much. Nothing wrong with the good ol’ squeeze bulb we got from the maternity ward, although it does lead to grappling with my sick child.
• ” Kim Clijsters [sic] story is an inspiration to mothers who struggle to balance motherhood and their livelihood.” True. But what are they pitching? “Get Kim Clijsters US Open Look,” by which they mean we should wear the same brand of clothing. Damn. I was really interested in learning about her workout routine.
• “Sexy Boys of Hockey Exclusive Photo Galleries . . . I thought you and your readers at Mombian would enjoy the following photo gallery links.” Um. No. Well, maybe a few of the gay dads who stop by.
• “[Product] is the first adhesive silicone nipple cover that is thin and matte, making it undetectable under clothing and swimsuits. The adhesive and non-adhesive versions are washable/waterproof/reusable, making it a budget-friendly find that you can wear during the day at the pool or out to dinner with your hubby.” PR fail redux.
• And no, there’s really nothing on my site that would indicate an interest in Las Vegas buffets or the dangers of tanning beds. If Nevada upgrades domestic partnerships to marriage, get back to me on the former. I’m sure a lot of queers will be heading to town. Ah, the sanctity.

There’s a reason they call it public relations. Know your target. My thanks to the PR professionals who do. I was in marketing myself, and I’d just like to see a certain standard for the profession. (And apologies if you’ve pitched appropriately and I haven’t responded. Fact is, I don’t tend to do a lot of product reviews, beyond books and other media. Even if I did, I’d couldn’t cover everything. Your clients could, however, always buy an ad.)

This is not an isolated case. All over the country, smaller LGBT organizations are struggling for donations and survival in a tough economy. Some in the LGBT community put part of the blame on the massive amounts of money sucked into marriage battles such as that of California’s Prop 8.

One could debate for hours the merits of fighting for marriage vs. other rights. My intent is not to do so here. (I refer you to the many relevant conversations at Bilerico and Pam’s should you wish to do so.) Whatever the correct answer (if indeed there is a single correct answer), I believe the LGBT community as a whole has too much invested in the marriage struggle. I honestly don’t think it is reasonable to expect we will drop it now.

I would like to propose, however, that if you are planning a marriage in one of the states where it is now legal (or even a commitment ceremony in a state where it is not), consider asking your guests for donations to a local LGBT organization, in lieu of buying you things through a wedding registry. With many same-sex couples getting married after living together for years, do we really need more toasters or crock-pots? (Some of us may also have compiled our fair share of toasters in other ways. Ahem.) Consider, too, asking your caterers, florists, etc. if they will donate a certain percentage of the price of your order to the same organization. (Better yet, see if they will do so for any same-sex wedding. It could be good marketing.)

For those already married, consider making a donation to the organization on your anniversary. (If you have young kids, like I do, you’ll know it’s often hard to find a sitter anyway. Stay home, light some candles, and donate the cost of a dinner out.)

Will this be enough to save all our hard-working local organizations? Probably not. Might it save some? Perhaps. I think it is worth a try. It is shameful that within the same few weeks, LGBT people in New Hampshire can win marriage equality but lose a valuable resource for LGBTQ youth, the next generation of our community. Putting some of our wedding funds towards this and other local LGBT organizations seems like the right thing to do.

For information on the effort to keep Seacoast Outright operating, call 603-431-1013 or visit seacoastoutright.org.

(And yes, there was another elevator next to it with a “man” and a “woman” and a child—or a butch and a femme, depending on your perspective. One of the figures was in a dress. Interpret it as you will. That seemed less extraordinary, however, and since my son was dragging me away for meatballs, I didn’t grab a photo.)

(Thanks, Sara.)

Amidst all the talk of potential progress for LGBT rights under President Obama, one opportunity has made few headlines: the prospect of more LGBT inclusive children’s programming on public television. Talk with almost any LGBT parent, and she or he will bemoan the dearth of LGBT families in children’s media. There is a clear need—and a new chance.

Commercial children’s programming could, of course, be more LGBT inclusive as well. So far, however, public television has made the only move in this direction, albeit a controversial one. In the 2005 “Sugartime!” episode of PBS Kids’ Postcards from Buster, produced by Boston’s WGBH, rabbit Buster visits Vermont to learn how maple-sugar and cheese are made. His tour guides are children from two different families, one of which is headed by two moms. Buster’s one comment on their family structure after meeting them briefly was “That’s a lot of moms!” Nevertheless, U. S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings denounced the episode and asked the producers to return all federal funding. The conservative American Family Association launched a campaign to support her decision.

PBS pulled the episode. WGBH aired it, however, and offered it independently to PBS stations. Fifty-seven stations, representing more than half of PBS viewers, chose to broadcast it. Producer Jeanne Jordan told the New York Times in 2006, however, that the controversy made it difficult to find funds for a second season.

In contrast, the new secretary of education, Arne Duncan, has garnered praise from PFLAG’s communications director, Steve Ralls, who called Duncan a “very promising political appointee,” on Huffington Post. As head of the Chicago Public Schools, Ralls says, Duncan was well aware of the need to combat homophobic bullying and harassment, and was a strong supporter of safe-schools initiatives. One imagines Duncan would not take action like Spelling.

To date, however, other than the one Buster episode, we have to scrounge to find even the merest hint of LGBT families on PBS Kids. Out lesbian moms like singer Melissa Etheridge and chef Cat Cora have been guests on early-reading show Between the Lions, also produced by WGBH, although there was no mention of their orientation or family structure.

Other LGBT family connections are even more vague. Out lesbian Maile Flanagan has won a Daytime Emmy for voicing protagonist Piggley Winks on Jakers!, but few know the name behind the character. Sesame Street’s Alan Muraoka (who plays the proprietor of Hooper’s Store) has entertained LGBT families on the R Family cruises. On Curious George, The Man in the Yellow Hat acts like a single dad to the eponymous monkey. He is never shown dating, and could be gay, for all we know (assuming we ignore the 2006 movie, in which he falls in love with the character voiced by Drew Barrymore).

The time is ripe for a public television children’s show to include LGBT families, and the possibilities are many, even without the need to create a new series. Mama Mirabelle’s Home Movies, which introduces preschoolers to the natural world, could show a male penguin pair raising chicks, given the several documented real-life examples. Reading Rainbow could select the recent Uncle Bobby’s Wedding as an episode’s featured book. The tale of a little girl guinea pig who worries that her uncle won’t have time for her after he marries his boyfriend offers the perfect way both to portray same-sex couples but also to discuss the universal theme of children trying to figure out their own relationships with the adults in their lives.

Perhaps Sesame Street could have two gay Muppet monsters bring their child to a playdate with character Gina the Veterinarian’s son, adopted from Guatemala in a 2006 episode. The episode was notable not only for showing an international adoption, but also for portraying an intentional single mom. That in itself shows progress in acceptance of diverse families since 1992, when then-Vice President Dan Quayle railed against Candice Bergen’s portrayal of single mom Murphy Brown.

Sesame Street has indeed always led the pack in tackling issues of acceptance and diversity, including race, language, and physical ability. They have, however, shied away from overtly LGBT characters. (Bert and Ernie are still deep in the closet, although rumors persist.) In the episode where Gina adopts her child, they come as close as they ever have to acknowledging our families, with the song, “Doing the Family Thing”: “Any group of people/Living together/And loving each other/Are doing the family thing. … A family can be/What it wants to be/’Cause there’s all different leaves/On the family tree/And there’s all different types/Of families.” In between those inclusive verses are examples of different types of families. They don’t include ones with LGBT parents, but it wouldn’t be a large step to add them to a new version.

Aside from federal funding, though, money from private foundations and public corporations also helps support public television. Some might pull their support rather than back LGBT inclusion. Between the Lions’ national corporate sponsor, for example, is Chick-fil-A, a family-owned fast-food chain whose founder and CEO has been honored by the ultra-conservative group Focus on the Family.

Producers must therefore make a point of reaching out to open-minded foundations as well as corporations like Subaru and Campbell’s Soup, which have already targeted LGBT families through other media. That, in combination with a tolerant federal administration, could set the stage for showing children with LGBT parents positive representations of families like their own.

The impact would be greater than just our children’s improved self-esteem, though. LGBT-inclusive shows would give all children a truer and more complete view of modern families, and could contribute to the reduction of homophobic bullying and harassment in schools.

Children’s public television is synonymous with educational TV. Isn’t preparing children to understand their society and respect fellow citizens an important part of that? Which shows are up to the challenge?

Yikes. It’s enough to make one move to a cabin in the woods and subsist on berries while your kids play games with rocks and sticks.

Nina, the mother of a three-month-old, says, “I’m already wondering how we stop all the stuff from taking over,” and observes, “It is shocking how much stuff a baby can acquire in a mere 90 days – of course, it’s the result of well-meaning friends and family members.”

I don’t want to break it to her that it only gets worse. Somehow, birthdays and the winter holidays occur faster than kids outgrow toys. Once they hit school, too, the exposure to outside influences, such as the kid who only ever wears Power Ranger shirts, can be overwhelming. Suddenly the child who has never watched a Power Rangers episode is lunging for the branded cereal boxes at the grocery store.

I tend to agree with Best Life writer, Paul Scott, however. He says, “I don’t want Parker to grow up without any cultural references, so I’ve been picking my battles.” That’s the approach we try to take as well, and so far, it seems to work.

I wonder, however, if we as lesbian moms (and other LGBT parents) feel any extra pressure to give in to our children about TV shows and branded items in order to help our kids “fit in” more with their peers. It can be tough enough as the only kid in school with two moms. Would it be tougher also being the only kid who doesn’t own a Star Wars Lego set or who hasn’t watched Hannah Montana? Do we try to minimize the ways in which our kids are “different,” or do we figure that if they’re going to be seen that way anyway, it doesn’t matter if they don’t have SpongeBob underwear? Or does our family structure have nothing to do with our consumer decisions for our kids?

Your thoughts on the matter? If you have younger kids, do you think any of this drives your own purchase decisions? If you have older kids, how do they balance fitting in with standing out? Do you think any of it is driven by your family structure, or is it other aspects of their personalities?

(On a side note, Scott’s article ends with a dialogue between him and his daughter about Dora the Explorer. If you haven’t yet read Dorothy Snarker’s piece at After Ellen on the new, tween Dora, you really should. Snarker’s makeover of the makeover is priceless.)

She would also be the first lesbian mom. She and her partner have two teenage children.

Not surprisingly, Arnold is on my list of Most Powerful Lesbian Moms in America. More impressively, she has been on Forbes Magazine’s list of the world’s most powerful women for five years, Bloomberg notes, and last year ranked 49th, above Queen Elizabeth II. (That might say more about the decline of monarchy than about Arnold, but still.)

The Wall Street Journal says, however, that Arnold may take time off for her family rather than jump into a new power job:

Ms. Arnold is among the most prominent gay executives in corporate America—colleagues say she neither hides nor makes a point of her sexual orientation—and she and her partner have a teenage son and daughter. “I think she’ll take some time off,” because “she really had wanted more time for family,” one Arnold acquaintance suggested. “She doesn’t need the money.”

Whatever her decision, I think it’s a huge sign of progress that the WSJ is reporting so matter-of-factly both about the significance of her rise to the top and about her family.