GoneTrending

To a stranger I met at a coffee shop a few years ago who introduced me to what my life as a parent would be like:

My “welcome to black fatherhood moment” happened five years ago, and I remember it like it happened yesterday.

I doubt you’ll remember it, though — so let me refresh your memory.

It was a beautiful Saturday morning in Los Angeles in 2011, and I decided to walk my then 3-month-old daughter to the corner Starbucks. That’s when I met you — a stylish older white woman who happened to be ahead of me in line.

You were very friendly and offered up many compliments about how cute my daughter was, and I agreed wholeheartedly with you. She’s cute.

But after you picked up your drink, you delivered this parting shot:

“No offense, but it’s not often that I see black guys out with their kids, but it’s such a wonderful thing,” she said. “No matter what happens, I hope you stay involved in her life.”

And then you put on your designer sunglasses and left.

Meanwhile, I was like…

Here’s the thing: I’m not angry with you, but I want you to understand the impact you had on my life.

Do I think you’re a mean-spirited racist? No, I don’t. Actually, I bet you’re a really nice lady.

But let’s be real for a second: Your view on black dads was tough for me to stomach, and I want you to know a few things about what it’s really like to be me.

1. I want you to know that we have challenges that other dads don’t experience.

I know what you’re thinking: “Oh boy — let me brace myself while he ‘blacksplains’ how hard his life is while shaming me for ignoring my white privilege.”

But that would be missing the point. We all have our challenges in life, and I’m not about to bring a big bottle of whine to a pity party.

Instead, as you probably know, today’s dads are trying to shed the stigma of being clueless buffoons.

But black dads have an additional obstacle to hurdle in that we’re often seen as completely disinterested in fatherhood. Trust me, it gets old when people automatically assume you’re not good at something because of the color of your skin.

Our encounter was the first of many examples of this that I’ve witnessed, directly or indirectly, in my five and a half years of fatherhood, and I’m sure there will be more to come.

2. I want you to know that I’m not a shiny unicorn. There are plenty of black men just like me who love fatherhood.

During the months that followed our brief meeting, I felt a need to prove that you — a complete stranger — were wrong. I needed to prove there were plenty of black men just like me who loved being dads.

I knew a lot of these great men personally: My dad, my two brothers, and many others embraced fatherhood. But could any data back up how much black dads embraced fatherhood? Because the examples in mainstream media were few and far between.

Thankfully, the answer is yes.

A few years after I met you, a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that 70% of black dads are likely to engage in common child-rearing activities such as diaper changing, bathing, toilet training, etc., on a daily basis. That’s a higher percentage than white or Hispanic fathers.

Full stop.

This isn’t about black dads being “the best” because parenthood isn’t a competition. It’s about showing that we’re not even remotely as bad as society makes us out to be.

And outside of the CDC study, I saw firsthand how hands-on black dads are when I was thrust into the public eye, too, because a lot of them reached out to me to tell their stories.

We nurture our kids.

We’re affectionate with our kids.

And we do whatever our kids need us to do.

And none of that should come as a surprise to anyone.

3. I want you to know that I believe you meant well when you praised me for being involved in my daughter’s life, but that’s what I’m programmed to do.

I will always be there for her and her baby sister.

Even though I just described how black dads are different from many dads, I hope the takeaway you have from this is that we have a lot of similarities, too.

Please don’t fall into the trap of saying that you want to live in a colorblind world because it makes it harder to identify with inequality when it happens. Instead, I hope you can recognize that we have the same hopes, dreams, and fears as other parents, but the roads we travel may not be the same.

And no, I don’t want an apology.

But I hope when you pick up your next latte and see a dad who looks like me that you’ll smile knowing he’s the rule rather than the exception.

This article originally appeared on 06.15.16

Nearly 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty. That’s more than one in ten Americans—and the percent is even higher for children.

If you’re not up on the current numbers, the federal poverty line is $12,760 for an individuals and $26,200 for a family of four. If those annual incomes sound abysmally low, it’s because they are. And incredibly, the Trump administration has proposed lowering the poverty line further, which would make more poor Americans ineligible for needed assistance.

However, debates over the poverty line don’t even capture the full extent of Americans struggling to make ends meet. For many people, living above the poverty line is actually worse. These are the folks who make too much to qualify for aid programs but not enough to actually get by—a situation millions of working American families find themselves stuck in.

Amy Jo Hutchison is a single mother of two living in West Virginia, and a community organizer for West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families and Our Future West Virginia. She has also lived in poverty and been part of the working poor herself. In an impassioned speech, she spoke to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about what poverty really looks like for working families—and even called out Congress for being completely out of touch with what it takes for a family to live on while they’re spending $40,000 a year on office furniture.

Watch Hutchison’s testimony here (transcript included below):

Ms. Hutchison Testimony on Proposed Changes to the Poverty Line Calculation

“I’m here to help you better understand poverty because poverty is my lived experience. And I’m also here to acknowledge the biased beliefs that poor people are lazy and the poverty is their fault. But how do I make you understand things like working full-time for $10 an hour is only about $19,000 a year, even though it’s well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?

I want to tell you about a single mom I met who was working at a gas station. She was promoted to manager within 30 days. She had to report her new income the DHHR within 60 days. Her rent bumped from $475 to $950 a month, she lost her SNAP benefits and her family’s health insurance, so she did what poor people are forced to do all the time. She resigned her promotion and went back to working part-time, just so she and her family could survive.

Another single mom I know encouraged her kids to get jobs. For her DHHR review she had to claim their income as well. She lost her SNAP benefits and her insurance, so she weaned herself off of her blood pressure medicines because she—working full-time in a bank and part-time at a shop on the weekends—couldn’t afford to buy them. Eventually the girls quit their jobs because their part-time fast food income was literally killing their mother.

You see the thing is children aren’t going to escape poverty as long as they’re relying on a head of household who is poor. Poverty rolls off the backs of parents, right onto the shoulders of our children, despite how hard we try.

I can tell you about my own with food insecurity the nights I went to bed hungry so my kids could have seconds, and I was employed full time as a Head Start teacher. I can tell you about being above the poverty guideline, nursing my gallbladder with essential oils and prayer, chewing on cloves and eating ibuprofen like they’re Tic Tacs because I don’t have health insurance and I can’t afford a dentist. I have two jobs and a bachelor’s degree, and I struggle to make ends meet.

The federal poverty guidelines say that I’m not poor, but I cashed in a jar full of change the other night so my daughter could attend a high school band competition with her band. I can’t go grocery shopping without a calculator. I had to decide which bills not to pay to be here in this room today. Believe me, I’ve pulled myself up by the bootstraps so many damn times that I’ve ripped them off.

The current poverty guidelines are ridiculously out of touch. The poverty line for a family of three is $21,720. Where I live, because of the oil and gas boom, a 3-bedroom home runs for $1,200 a month. So if I made $22,000 a year, which could disqualify me from assistance, I would have $8000 left to raise two children and myself on. And yet the poverty guidelines wouldn’t classify me as poor.

I Googled ‘congressman salary’ the other day and according to Senate gov the salary for Senators representatives and delegates is $174,000 a year so a year of work for you is the equivalent of almost four years of work for me. I’m $24,000 above the federal poverty guidelines definition of poor. It would take nine people working full-time for a year at $10 an hour to match y’all’s salary. I also read that each senator has authorized $40,000 dollars for state office furniture and furnishings, and this amount is increased each year to reflect inflation.

That $40,000 a year for furniture is $360 more than the federal poverty guidelines for a family of seven, and yet here I am begging you on behalf of the 15 million children living in poverty in the United States—on behalf of the one in three kids under the age of five and nearly 100,000 children in my state of West Virginia living in poverty—to not change anything about these federal poverty guidelines until you can make them relevant and reflect what poverty really looks like today.

You have a $40,000 dollar furniture allotment. West Virginia has a median income of $43,000 and some change. People are working full-time and are hungry. Kids are about to be kicked off the free and reduced lunch rolls because of changes y’all want to make to SNAP, even though 62 percent of West Virginia SNAP recipients are families with children—the very same children who cannot take a part-time job because their parents will die without insurance. People are working full-time in this country for very little money.

They’re not poor enough to get help. They don’t make enough to get by. They’re working while their rationing their insulin and their skipping their meds because they can’t afford food and healthcare at the same time.

So shame on you. Shame on you, and shame on me, and shame on each and every one of us who haven’t rattled the windows of these buildings with cries of outrage at a government that thinks their office furniture is worthy of $40,000 a year and families and children aren’t.

I’m not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I’m asking you to see past it. There are 46 million Americans living in poverty doing the best they know how with what they have and we, in defense of children and families, cannot accept anything less from our very own government.”

In addition to Hutchison’s testimony, a coalition of 26 patient organizations, including the American Cancer Society Action Network, American Heart Association, and United Way, wrote a joint letter opposing the proposed lowering of the poverty line, stating:

“The current Official Poverty Measure (OPM) is based on an old formula that already does not fully capture those living in poverty and does not accurately reflect basic household expenses for families, including by underestimating child care and housing expenses. The proposed changes to the inflation calculation would reduce the annual adjustments to the poverty measure and therefore may exacerbate existing weaknesses, putting vulnerable Americans – including those with serious and chronic diseases – at great risk. Further lowering the poverty line would also give policymakers and the public less credible information about the number and characteristics of Americans living in poverty.”

This article originally appeared on 03.10.20

Laughter is one of the most natural impulses in humans. Most babies start to laugh out loud at around 3 to 4 months, far earlier than they are able to speak or walk. Expressing enjoyment or delight comes naturally to us, but we’re not the only creatures who communicate with giggles.

Researchers at UCLA have identified 65 species of animals who make “play vocalizations,” or what we would consider laughter. Some of those vocalizations were already well documented—we’ve known for a while that apes and rats laugh—but others may come as a surprise. Along with a long list of primate species, domestic cows and dogs, foxes, seals, mongooses and three bird species are prone to laughter as well. (Many bird species can mimic human laughter, but that’s not the same as making their own play vocalizations.)

Primatologist and UCLA anthropology graduate student Sasha Winkler and UCLA professor of communication Greg Bryant shared their findings in an article in the journal Bioacoustics.

The authors explored various play vocalization sounds, recording them as noisy or tonal, loud or quiet, high- or low-pitched, short or long, a single call or rhythmic pattern.

But really, what we want to see is what animal laughter sounds like from various species, right? While the researchers said that it can be hard to document laughter in the wild, especially among animals with quieter vocalizations, we do have some examples captured on video.

Check out these foxes laughing like little kids:

Or maybe little kids on helium. How fun is that?

Ever seen a bonobo chimp laugh? Just as cute.

I’m not sure if tickling a baby bonobo is sweet or torturous, though these researchers surely know what they’re doing. It’s always delightful to see the instinctual playfulness of primates.

Laughter in some animals isn’t as audibly apparent as it is in these foxes and chimps, though. Researchers from Humboldt University of Berlin found that rats laugh when they are tickled—and appear to enjoy tickling, as they seek it out—but their vocalizations are ultrasonic, so it’s hard to hear them without special instruments.

The UCLA researchers shared that the study of laughter in animals can help us better understand our own evolutionary behavior.

“This work lays out nicely how a phenomenon once thought to be particularly human turns out to be closely tied to behavior shared with species separated from humans by tens of millions of years,” Bryant said, according to UCLA.

“When we laugh, we are often providing information to others that we are having fun and also inviting others to join,” Winkler said. “Some scholars have suggested that this kind of vocal behavior is shared across many animals who play, and as such, laughter is our human version of an evolutionarily old vocal play signal.”

Raise your hand if you just want to see a cow laughing for real now.

This article first appeared on 1.14.22

Evian, Fiji, Voss, SmartWater, Aquafina, Dasani—it’s impressive how many brands we have for something humans have been consuming for millennia. Despite years of studies showing that bottled water is no safer to drink than tap water, Americans are more consuming more bottled water than ever, to the tune of billions of dollars in bottled water sales.

People cite convenience and taste in addition to perceived safety for reasons they prefer bottle to tap, but the fear factor surrounding tap water is still a driving force. It doesn’t help when emergencies like floods cause tap water contamination or when investigations reveal issues with lead pipes in some communities, but municipal water supplies are tested regularly, and in the vast majority of the U.S., you can safely grab a glass of water from a tap.

And now, a new study on nanoplastics found in three popular bottled water brands is throwing more data into the bottled vs. tap water choice.

Researchers from Columbia University used a new laser-guided technology to detect nanoplastics that had previously evaded detection due to their miniscule size. The new technology can detect, count and analyze and chemical structure of nanoparticles, and they found seven different major types of plastic: polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene, polymethyl methacrylate, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and polyethylene terephthalate.

In contrast to a 2018 study that found around 300 plastic particles in an average liter of bottled water, the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in January of 2024 found 240,000 nanoplastic particles per liter bottle on average between the three brands studied. (The name of the brands were not indicated in the study.)

As opposed to microplastics, nanoplastics are too small to be seen by microscope. Their size is exactly why experts are concerned about them, as they are small enough to invade human cells and potentially disrupt cellular processes.

Columbia researchers found that bottled water contains hundreds of thousands of previously uncounted plastic particlesu2014particles small enough to pass into the bloodstream and travel directly into our organs.nhttps://t.co/NoC70dLakV

— (@)

“Micro and nanoplastics have been found in the human placenta at this point. They’ve been found in human lung tissues. They’ve been found in human feces; they’ve been found in human blood,” study coauthor Phoebe Stapleton, associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Rutgers University’s Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy told CNN Health,

We know that nanoplastics are making their way into our bodies. We just don’t have enough research yet on what that means for our health, and we still have more questions than answers. How many nanoplastics does it take to do damage and/or cause disease? What kinds of damage or disease might they cause? Is whatever effect they might have cumulative? We simply don’t have answers to these questions yet.

That’s not to say there’s no cause for concern. We do know that certain levels of microplastic exposure have been shown to adversely affect the viability of cells. Nanoplastics are even smaller—does that mean they are more likely to cause cellular damage? Science is still working that out.

According to Dr. Sara Benedé of the Spanish National Research Council’s Institute of Food Science Research, it’s not just the plastics themselves that might cause damage, but what they may bring along with them. “[Microparticles and nanoparticles] have the ability to bind all kinds of compounds when they come into contact with fluids, thus acting as carriers of all kinds of substances including environmental pollutants, toxins, antibiotics, or microorganisms,” Dr. Benedé told Medical News Today.

Where is this plastic in water coming from? This study focused on bottled water, which is almost always packaged in plastic. The filters used to filter the water before bottling are also frequently made from plastic.

Is it possible that some of these nanoplastics were already present in the water from their original sources? Again, research is always evolving on this front, but microplastics have been detected in lakes, streams and other freshwater sources, so it’s not a big stretch to imagine that nanoplastics may be making their way into freshwater ecosystems as well. However, microplastics are found at much higher levels in bottled water than tap water, so it’s also not a stretch to assume that most of the nanoplastics are likely coming from the bottling process and packaging rather than from freshwater sources.

The reality is, though, we simply don’t know yet.

“Based on other studies we expected most of the microplastics in bottled water would come from leakage of the plastic bottle itself, which is typically made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic,” lead author Naixin Qian, a doctoral student in chemistry at Columbia University, told CNN Health. “However, we found there’s actually many diverse types of plastics in a bottle of water, and that different plastic types have different size distributions. The PET particles were larger, while others were down to 200 nanometers, which is much, much smaller.”

We need to drink water, and we need to drink safe water. At this point, we have plenty of environmental reasons for avoiding bottled water unless absolutely necessary and opting for tap water instead. Even if there’s still more research to be done, the presence of hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics in bottled water might just be another reason to make the switch.

Senators grilled the top executives from TikTok, Meta, X, Discord and Snapchat on Capitol Hill Wednesday for a U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing about the impact of social media on children. The hearing examined child sexual exploitation online and featured the testimony of children who have suffered abuse and bullying online.

The hearing was a rare time when Republicans and Democrats fought on the same side of an important issue.

“Elizabeth [Warren] and I see an abuse here that needs to be dealt with,” Republican Senator Lindsay Graham told the committee. “Senator Durbin and I have different political philosophies, but I appreciate what you’ve done on this committee. You’ve been a great partner. To all my Democratic colleagues, thank you very, very much. To my Republican colleagues, thank you all very, very much.”

“There is pretty clearly a bipartisan consensus that the status quo isn’t working,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez told the hearing. “When it comes to how these companies have failed to prioritize the safety of children, there’s clearly a sense of frustration on both sides of the aisle.”

BREAKING: Zuckerberg stands up, turns to survivors and parents who lost kids to social media, apologizes to them for harms caused by Meta.

— (@)

During the hearing, Senator Graham highlighted the story of South Carolina State House Rep. Brandon Guffey, whose son died by suicide after being a victim of sexual extortion.

When asked if he had any response to the victims whom his products have harmed, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, was apologetic.

“I’m sorry for everything you have all been through,” Zuckerberg said. “No one should go through the things that your families have suffered, and this is why we invest so much and we are going to continue doing industry-wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things your families have had to suffer.”

At one point, Zuckerberg stood up and faced a group of parents who were holding pictures of their children who were victims of online harassment.

We’re dealing with a fundamental decision as to whether social media companies should be able to face lawsuits like any other company in America. 

Weu2019re dealing with a fundamental decision as to whether social media companies should be able to face lawsuits like any other company in America.nnWe must say they can be held responsible in court for their wrongdoing.

— (@)

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin was clear that he believes social media companies are a significant cause of many of the problems facing America’s youth. “They’re responsible for many of the dangers our children face online,” Durbin said in his opening statements. “Their design choices, their failures to adequately invest in trust and safety, their constant pursuit of engagement and profit over basic safety have all put our kids and grandkids at risk.”

The tech CEOs continuously touted their companies’ online safety features throughout the hearing. Zuckerberg noted that Meta spent $5 billion on security and safety in 2023.

Graham suggested that Congress work to repeal Section 230 which would give social media companies greater accountability. The federal law protects social media companies from being responsible for lawsuits arising from user-generated content.

“You have a product that’s killing people … You can’t be sued, you should be!” Graham said. “It is now time to repeal Section 230.”

The purpose of the hearing was to work toward legislation that would make social media safer for young people. But it’s unclear whether the hearings will result in anything meaningful.

Things don’t always go our way, and sometimes people have a way of making you feel pretty bad about yourself. Whether it’s because of how you dress, laugh or how you fixed your hair that day, there are some people that will just try to find a way to make you feel badly. During those moments, it’s great to have a friend that will remind you of who you truly are.

A little girl was having one of those days and her classmate, Mason, knew just how to support her. A video was uploaded to social media by Unklearold that showed the little girl on a school playground, upset. Another child had called her dumb, obviously hurting her feelings. But her friend was not going to stay silent so he gave her the most heartfelt pep talk his little body could muster causing the internet to collectively sigh, “aww.”

“Don’t listen to a guy that called you dumb,” Mason says in his little voice. “Listen to yourself. Ignore this guy, whoever it is just stop talking to people that called you dumb.”

The little boy says it with so much conviction that you don’t have a choice but to believe him and it was just what his friend needed to hear. While he was reminding the girl to listen to herself, she became overcome with emotion and hugs his neck, “you’re such a nice friend.”

Of course people are just feeling all of the things in the comments of the video. It’s such a sweet moment that changed the girl’s day for the better.

One person says, “Whew. Who is raising him?! They’re pouring into him and equipping him to be a kind & loving human who pours into other people. Just imagine the world we would have if this was ubiquitous! Wow. Bless him. ‘You’re such a nice friend!'”

Another writes, “Mason out here building and uplifting everybody’s spirit with that sermon on the playground!”

Someone else comments, “This is a lesson we have to learn over and over into adulthood. Remember, what someone says about you has ABSOLUTELY NO DOMINION over who you are. Who YOU say you are is the only thing that holds power over you. Great job young man.”

Watch the beautiful moment below:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by AGF (@unklearnold)

Sheep are hardy, resilient animals. Depending on the breed, they thrive in the driest of desserts and snowiest of planes. But being highly social animals, one thing they cannot tolerate is isolation.

So imagine poor Fiona, a sheep who spent more than two years in solitude at the bottom of a cliff in Scotland.

Dubbed Britain’s, then the world’s “loneliest sheep,” Fiona had become something of a local legend—first spotted by a kayaker in 2021, and then again two years later, not malnourished and in good condition, but with badly overgrown fleece and in need of a good shearing.

How exactly Fiona became stuck at the bottom of a cliff was a mystery. But hauling her out was an even more confounding problem.

Despite over 50,000 people signing a petition to rescue Fiona, the Scottish SPCA called the safety logistics “incredibly complex” due to the terrain being so inaccessible, not to mention any human interaction likely causing extreme stress for the stranded rescuee.

That’s when a group of five farmers—including sheep farmer and BBC presenter Cammy Wilson, and Youtube star Graeme Parker— took things into their own hands.

With a whole lotta rope, and a whole lotta patience, the team successfully found Fiona in a cave (a little overweight, perhaps eating her lonely feelings a bit) and hoisted her up the steep cliff to safety.

Watch the harrowing resc-ewe mission below. Gotta say, the drone footage makes it look even more epic.

Fiona was then taken to Dalscone Farm Fun, a new forever home, where her new owner, Ben Best, dubbed her healthy and relaxed, even if she “could lose a few pounds.” (“As it Happens, CBC Radio)

Though animal rights activists did show concern with Fiona’s new living situation, likening it closer to a “petting zoo” than the sanctuary she deserved, Best affirmed that was not the case, saying “It’s effectively a farm where people can go and visit the animals, but they don’t go in amongst the animals.”

He also added that she would be kept away from the public eye for five-to-six months, and not step into the limelight until she’s ready for it.

And there you have it, folks. Fiona might have once been the world’s loneliest sheep, but now she’s living it up like the star she is.

This article originally appeared on 11.14.23

It hasn’t even been a year since the beloved series “Ted Lasso,” which told the story of a kind hearted, folksy football coach and his team of believers, came to its final episode.

And yet, since the series ended, fans have yearned to have any type of chance to see some of their favorite characters come together again—which is what makes a surprise rock-n-roll duet between Jason Sudeikis, Ted Lasso himself, and Hannah Waddigham, who played boss and bestie Rebecca Welton.

A video quickly making the rounds online starts with Sudeikis sharing the stage with fellow “Saturday Night Live” star Will Forte, telling him “there’s nobody I would rather be singing this song with. ”

Then the recognizable guitar intro to “Shallow,” originally sung by Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga for the 2018 film “A Star is Born,” begins to play. Cue crowd applause.

Sudeikis, singing Cooper’s part, completely delivers the perfect blend of twang and rock needed for the tune—but then has one more trick up his sleeve. For just as Forte opens up his mouth to sing in place of Lady Gaga, a woman’s voice is heard instead.

Not just any woman, in fact. But ‘Ted Lasso’ costar and Broadway legend Hannah Waddingham.

Waddingham playfully shoos Forte away to take her rightful place on stage, where both she and Sudeikis finish out the iconic song.

Needless to say, viewers were beside themselves. Especially “Ted Lasso” fans.

“I can never ever properly put into words how much this video (of two of my LITERAL favorite human beings from my VERY favorite show) brings me the most joy I may have ever felt. Thank you times infinity for this!!!!!!” one person wrote on Youtube.

Another added, “This is perfect in all levels! 💜💜💜”

Perhaps the only thing better than seeing these two widely loved actors singing together, is the reason behind their surprise duet. Sudeikis was hosting for THUNDERGONG!, a benefit concert held by Steps of Faith, which helps amputees gain access to prosthetic limbs.

Brendan Hunt, aka “Coach Beard,” also made a guest appearance, making it a wholesome “Ted Lasso” reunion for a great cause.Watch. And enjoy Waddingham’s out-of-this-world belting ability:

If you’d like to make a donation, text STEPS to 44321 or visit https://stepsoffaith.kindful.com.

This article originally appeared on 11.13.23

There are multiple reasons why kids might start experimenting with a curse word…or two…or three. It might be because the word sounds funny, or they’re imitating their parents (oops), or because they’re trying to vent some intense feelings and that word seems to feel right. It’s all part of exploring language.

But even though this phase is innocent and natural, it can still make for some pretty awkward moments for adults.

For Tina Midkiff, that moment came while teaching daycare. Midkiff was “trying to resolve cussing issues” with a young girl in her class, especially since Midkiff didn’t want the other kids hearing it.

Getting creative, she found the perfect place for her adorable pottymouth—the bathroom.

In a video posted to Midkiff’s TikTok, we see the plan in action. Midkiff tells the girl “we’re only going to cuss in the bathroom. We’re not cussing anywhere but in the bathroom. And we’re not going to give the finger anywhere but in the bathroom.”

Midkiff also confirmed that this was a “mother approved” strategy for getting it out of the little girl’s system.

The little girl complies with sweet little “otays,” and is clearly ancy to let it all out. As soon as her teacher leaves the room, the expletives start flying.

Mid rant, Midkiff asks “are you unfinished?” but the little girl yells back “No!” and more F-bombs pour out in a clandestine whisper.

Then as the end of her swear session approached, the little girls instruct herself to only use those words in the bathroom.

“Did you get it out of your system?” Midkiff asks as she comes back in, to which the girl replies “yeeeeaaaah,” before frolicking off to her class.

Watch:

@mommaevilone

Mom approved post!

♬ original sound – Tina15

Nearly 15 million people watched Midkiff’s video, and found the clip kind of precious, if not incredibly relatable.

One viewer quipped, “Me when I’m rehearsing fights in my head.”

Another added, “Her whispering her bad words is so cute.”

Just about everyone seemed in agreement that the little girl did indeed simply need to let it out.

“She needed to release this, daycare buds getting on her nerves. Lol,” one person commented .

In a follow-up video, Midkiff explained that she posted the video to highlight the importance of giving kids a “safe space” to express themselves. In this case, it proved to be more effective than punishment, which the little girl wasn’t responding to.

“We had to go outside the box…to see what was the best [thing] for the child,’ Midkiff said, adding that sometimes adults can get stuck in a rut of redirecting or doling out punishment, which keeps the situation from actually being dealt with.

Other adults seemed to agree with Midkiff’s reasoning.

One person wrote, “This! Every child is different. You made it work for her—you didn’t shame her. You let her express it so she can move on with her life.”

Another added, “I will now use this method for my child. Thank you Ms. Tina.”

Just as Midkiff was able to find success by uncovering why this little girl felt the need to cuss, so too can others find a solution once they know the specific underlying motivation of their own kid. For instance, if the curse words are to get attention, it might be recommended to ignore the pleas as to not encourage that kind of behavior. If it’s from repeating what’s heard at home, then perhaps being more mindful of your own swear habit is key.

Bottom line: kids are individuals, and might need an individual approach. Even when it comes to expletives.

There are multiple reasons why kids might start experimenting with a curse word…or two…or three. It might be because the word sounds funny, or they’re imitating their parents (oops), or because they’re trying to vent some intense feelings and that word seems to feel right. It’s all part of exploring language.

But even though this phase is innocent and natural, it can still make for some pretty awkward moments for adults.

For Tina Midkiff, that moment came while teaching daycare. Midkiff was “trying to resolve cussing issues” with a young girl in her class, especially since Midkiff didn’t want the other kids hearing it.

Getting creative, she found the perfect place for her adorable pottymouth—the bathroom.

In a video posted to Midkiff’s TikTok, we see the plan in action. Midkiff tells the girl “we’re only going to cuss in the bathroom. We’re not cussing anywhere but in the bathroom. And we’re not going to give the finger anywhere but in the bathroom.”

Midkiff also confirmed that this was a “mother approved” strategy for getting it out of the little girl’s system.

The little girl complies with sweet little “otays,” and is clearly ancy to let it all out. As soon as her teacher leaves the room, the expletives start flying.

Mid rant, Midkiff asks “are you unfinished?” but the little girl yells back “No!” and more F-bombs pour out in a clandestine whisper.

Then as the end of her swear session approached, the little girls instruct herself to only use those words in the bathroom.

“Did you get it out of your system?” Midkiff asks as she comes back in, to which the girl replies “yeeeeaaaah,” before frolicking off to her class.

Watch:

@mommaevilone

Mom approved post!

♬ original sound – Tina15

Nearly 15 million people watched Midkiff’s video, and found the clip kind of precious, if not incredibly relatable.

One viewer quipped, “Me when I’m rehearsing fights in my head.”

Another added, “Her whispering her bad words is so cute.”

Just about everyone seemed in agreement that the little girl did indeed simply need to let it out.

“She needed to release this, daycare buds getting on her nerves. Lol,” one person commented .

In a follow-up video, Midkiff explained that she posted the video to highlight the importance of giving kids a “safe space” to express themselves. In this case, it proved to be more effective than punishment, which the little girl wasn’t responding to.

“We had to go outside the box…to see what was the best [thing] for the child,’ Midkiff said, adding that sometimes adults can get stuck in a rut of redirecting or doling out punishment, which keeps the situation from actually being dealt with.

Other adults seemed to agree with Midkiff’s reasoning.

One person wrote, “This! Every child is different. You made it work for her—you didn’t shame her. You let her express it so she can move on with her life.”

Another added, “I will now use this method for my child. Thank you Ms. Tina.”

Just as Midkiff was able to find success by uncovering why this little girl felt the need to cuss, so too can others find a solution once they know the specific underlying motivation of their own kid. For instance, if the curse words are to get attention, it might be recommended to ignore the pleas as to not encourage that kind of behavior. If it’s from repeating what’s heard at home, then perhaps being more mindful of your own swear habit is key.

Bottom line: kids are individuals, and might need an individual approach. Even when it comes to expletives.