Sunday, June 12, 2011

Who is Bone Doctor?

It is not often I am perplexed. The world holds little for me in the future. Not too much surprises me.

However, and isn't there always one?

We were out for brunch at a local cafe in Prahran with Bone Doctor and Little Jo. Bone Doctor had an early appointment in the city with a financial advisor. Apparently an education fund must be set up for Little Jo to avoid breaching the loss of Part whatever of the family tax act when you earn more than $150,000. Don't we just adore middle class welfare? Whatever, we ran out of change and it was a hard job to extract a dollar coin from the Bone Doctor for Little Jo to have a ride on a merry go round.

R and I subsequently bought a bottle of whisky for tonight and puzzled about how much we earn. Seems to be somewhat less than $150,000 a year. R suggested I work six days a week at work and he retires on his superannuation. I gave him a good hard smack in the mouth.

Ah, am off on tangents.

In spite of my and Bone Doctor's watchful eyes, R and Little Jo disappeared after the merry go round ride. Buying flowers at the market, I told Bone Doctor. I was right. They returned with flowers for us at home and a bunch of roses for Bone Doctor. Little Jo was insistent about flowers being for Bone Doctor. For the purposes of the rest of the post, I will call Bone Doctor, J.

These are for you J, Little Jo said so sweetly and handed her a bunch of roses.
(I piped in, J you can give these to sister and get some benefit or pretend they are for sister from Little Jo)

But there is a puzzlement and I would like my readers help. I have already emailed the Muriels for their experience, but their situation is slightly different. What a nice reply they sent though.

The thing is Little Jo was asked by the florist who R was. He is my Uncle R. That is odd in itself because Little Jo does not normally call R or myself Uncle. We did not even know that Little Jo knew us as uncles. Who are the flowers for, the florist asked Little Jo. For my J was the response. Who is your J?, the florist asked.

Both Little Jo and R were stumped.

Who is J, aka Bone Doctor, in relation to Little Jo? J is Little Jo's parent, her provider, her carer, someone who has been with her for all of her life. I think R is third on the list of important people in Little Jo's life, but J is the second most important person, but how does one describe J? J is nearly ten years younger than sister, slim and boyish and not a mother looking figure. As well as her doctor work, she umpires football, is a team doctor for a football team, jogs and swims in the sea midwinter. Second mother or other mother does not suit at all. Mum J is absurd.

Modern families in the twenty first century. So hard for me. We need to work out some nomenclature.

Suggestions for J's title most welcome.

22 comments:

  1. a smart retailer does not muddy the transaction pond by interrogating toddlers.

    anyone understands
    "I have 2 Mummies"

    Do not give R any more good hard slaps - he might like it and then it will become a task.

    If Dr J earns $150k+ and won't waste a dollar this is very good for YOU because little Jo will inherit it all and visit YOU in the luxury Home For The Terminally Bewildered that she has funded in gratitude for your major contribution to her happy environment.
    The Muriels are darlings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the nice nod in your post and also the commenter above!

    If I'm right about the situation, J does not consider herself a "mum" and nor does Little Jo consider her "mum", so it wouldn't be a natural progression for her to say, "my other mother" or refer to them as "my two mums".

    Is this right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank2:44 pm

    Don't fool yourself, these are not 'modern families' in the 21st century; lesbians are what they've always been: curiosities.

    There are moral imperatives.

    They never change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Francis darling, lesbians have been around as long as time has been measured, and it is well documented that homophobes are people with serious self-doubt sexually.
    How did you suddenly land here when none of us knows you?
    Got an Alert set up for any mention of non-straight life.
    This is a nice place for nice people so please rack off and get a life of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its all sooo confusing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. And hear hear Marshall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why not just call J whatever name Little Jo calls her. Mum, Auntie, whatever.
    Your comment about not earning as much as $150,000 had me adding up my yearly income so far. A fraction over $20,000. A little less than last year, but not too bad considering I don't have dependants.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just the nerve of that salesperson to ask all those questions is beyond me.

    J. is everything Litlle Jo wants to call her, in good and bad times.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Emstacks, the woman was only being friendly. J is my second mummy just does not work. J is not a mummy figure, she is just J. The $150k I am not sure about but if so, it would be combined income. Sister is now back at the posh private school in Geelong.

    Kelly and Sam, precisely. I can only think 'my other parent'. So formal.

    'Frank' always hones in on anything gay Emstacks. Perhaps he was molested by a priest when he was a kid.

    MC, it is something that needs to be worked out because Little Jo will get asked the question many times in the future.

    Ozfemme, she is indeed.

    River, Little Jo calls her J. To Little Jo J is her J. She has no other name so far as Little Jo knows. See above about how much they earn. I know they were really struggling a year ago when they bought their house, but Bone Doctor's income has improved greatly and Sister is back at work.

    Peter, I am not sure how it works in your country, but these are quite natural questions that a shopkeeper might ask of a young child. Just being friendly and engaging. Although perhaps Emstacks agrees with with you. More likely that I expressed what was said badly. It was just friendly chit chat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Francis11:46 pm

    Why bring priests into it? What a weak response. The catholic church is full of gay priests, they meddle with boys. That's your shame not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What Marshall Stacks' said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Francis, Of course the're gay priests and not only in the catholic church.

    The ones that meddle with boys are NOT gay, they're pedophiles which is a completely different branch of mankind.

    As a gay man myself I don't want to be associated with pedophiles.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Darling Andrew... I have many different names that Little Jo could refer "J" as. Firstly, I wanted to say that I feel that a lesbian relationship can be a little confusing to younger children. As in this case with Little Jo.But, Little Jo is just so smart (as you already know being her awesome Uncle)and she realizes that "J" is not her father and yet she is not her "girlie" mother either... but what "J" is- is as is a great "Mum". :)
    So, you could have Little Jo's Mummy (your sister) and "J" is just Mum.
    I know in other mixes of relationships where there is, say a transgendered lady (who is the biological father transitioned into female) they are called Maddy- not Daddy.
    So, if "J"'s name is say Janine.. she could be called Jaddy.
    But, I dare say Mummy for your sister and Mum for "J" is less confusing and will stay throughout Little Jo's growing years.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have lots more I could share too, sorry I have to get back to work my break is over... I just love reading your blog on my break.. you know, I may not comment as much anymore but I am lurking xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  15. I tried writing a comment, but I'm not sure if it went through. So excuse me if I sound like I'm repeating myself.

    Anyway....

    I'm sorry that you're getting offensive bigoted comments. It's totally uncalled for.

    As for names...I think it's the love that matters, not the title. Jack usually calls Tim by his first name. He doesn't love his dad any less than a child who says "Dad" or "Daddy"

    If someone asks Little Jo who J is, could she just say "my parent". I don't know if that would work or not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cheers Kath.

    Quite so Peter.

    Thanks Cazzie. I think it is too late now for Little Jo to refer to J as anything else but J. 'Other Mum' might work in answer to who she is. Sweet as you always are.

    Dina, many kids now do refer to their parents by name. Parent is a pretty good response I think.

    ReplyDelete
  17. pfft, titles, who needs 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Francis.11:30 am

    Peter, best regards to you, this was not a personal attack, yet the response I've received is nasty (usual case) from gays and in-vogue supporters. Gays and non-gays share a common humanity: strengths and weaknesses, there are gay pedophiles, just as there are gay murderers and robbers.
    A large number of gays enter the catholic church for reasons you'd be aware of.

    That's the last I have to say about this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Society seems to Fen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Children love their step-parents.

    Could she not be a step-mum?

    Step-mums and biological mums can be friends.

    So can step-mums and adoptive mums. Perhaps J cares for Little J just as a step-mum or adoptive mum would.

    Unfortunately not everyone is ready to understand the love side of non-heterosexual relationships.

    Like all types of 'mums', all types of people can love each other.

    I love my puppy and give him lots of pats. He is a part of my family because he loves me with all his heart. How can you deny someone when they love you so much? It is not about sex or gender. It is about what we give to one another, and it is about care.

    Perhaps people who are angry about love are worried about something being taken away. Love with respect can only be a good thing, can it not?

    Be gentle with your intentions dear writers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. P&C, I have spoken to my sister since I wrote this and she did not have an easy answer. Step-mum seems to imply a later knowledge of the child, which isn't correct.

    ReplyDelete