Things I've Been Thinking About (September Edition)

I realize my posts have been rather slim lately. That's because I've primarily been focused on the dissertation (I'm almost finished the D. H. Lawrence chapter, which will leave only 2 chapters to go--yay!!), the class I'm teaching (we have been discussing Rossetti's "Goblin Market," which is a fun one--they truly enjoy it, which is rare), anything I might want to finish sewing before the new baby comes, and generally staying on top of cooking and cleaning (things I rarely do, but I've been cooking in a renewed effort to economize and by "cleaning" I mean keeping up with tidiness on a day-to-day basis--or almost). You might call it extended nesting. I've been very domestic. :P I'm also a little concerned about the fact that my son wants a Wii for Christmas and there's very little chance that "Santa" will be able to find one. :( At least by itself rather than in a "bundle" for $540. (Lest you think I routinely buy my son $250 Christmas presents, I don't. It would be a "family" present--for ALL of us!--and never the first year out! Generally I wait for prices to go down on game systems, so maybe in 2009. . .)

So what other lofty thoughts have been going through this mind? Well, I'll tell you. . .

1) Harry Potter -- I recently read The Half-Blood Prince when my son checked it out from the school library. I feel slightly guilty about that. I have an ongoing problem with Rowling, and since I have not really seen this one articulated, I will mention it in brief. Basically, it's the goodness or evilness (?) of a given character, and how this personality trait is determined. While Rowling ostensibly resists determinism by giving lip service to how one character could have easily substituted for Harry as the "chosen one," it's not believable. Characters do not really seem to be counted good or evil according to their actions. Whether Harry does good or evil (let's call it "bad," since he is never quite allowed to do evil, just cheating, dark arts spells and the like, which nevertheless go beyond the antics of Fred & George), he is untouchably good. Whether Snape does good or evil, Dumbledore trusts him implicitly, yet the reader is constantly encouraged to judge him as evil (a fact that has bugged me since book 2--I know, I'll read the last book, but the inconsistency is the point). No matter what a Malfoy might do, he's evil (and a little snot, to boot). And yet we are kind of expected to see people as defined by their actions--well, unless you count the bad things that James and Sirius did. Hmmm. . . Well, this Good or Evil predestination or determinism rather comes to a head in Voldemort, who not only does bad things, he is genetically determined to be evil, being last of Slytherin's line and the product of serious inbreeding, a half-blood at that (and resents it) and is raised in an orphanage so he doesn't know nurturing (which means his Slytherin traits really are inbred and not the product of upbringing). Basically, there was never an opportunity for Tom Riddle to say, "You know, I don't think I'll be evil today." And you know what? I find that disturbing.

2) My family is outgrowing our vehicle and our bed. How to fit 2 carseats and a 10-year old in the backseat of a Hyundai Tuscon? Not a clue. And what exactly will we do when a newborn wants to nurse in bed with Momma while a toddler wants to climb in bed for an hour or so? (The bed is a queen and Momma and Daddy aren't really small people.) No, the correct answer isn't turn the toddler out of bed. My husband has speculated that he will be sleeping on the futon in the living room. I don't see that happening. After all, he & I squeezed in a twin with our son when he was a month or so old (long story)! We were arguably a lot smaller then--I know I was, at least!! The toddler bed is making things a lot better, but she still has nights when she isn't comfortable for one reason or another--sometimes gas, sometimes hunger, sometimes overtired or not enough exercise. Who knows? She might go back in her bed more often if I had the inclination to lug 30 lbs. of sleeping toddler across the room, but really, the belly's getting to be enough to carry around! I did read an interesting Mothering article about having a toddler sleep with you--you can find it here. I don't personally like to force young children to sleep in their own beds--or their own rooms. As I see it, they still need us for a while. And if the Von Trapp children hadn't run into Maria's room when they were scared of the storm, we wouldn't have "A Few of Our Favorite Things"!

3) Braxton-Hicks. Lots of them. I don't remember them making it hard to walk. Is this O.K. at this stage?? I realize they get more noticeable each pregnancy, but geez!!

4) Applying for jobs. One in particular. At a Catholic college in Indiana in the middle of nowhere (as far as I can tell). High course load, but it sounds pretty flexible. I could probably end up teaching all over the board--not getting pigeonholed and not teaching theory instead of lit. I can teach theory, but I don't want it to be the focus of my teaching, which means I should go somewhere where I won't have to teach grad students--not really something I feel the need to do anyway. I'm not sure I see the appeal. I mean, really--I wouldn't want to teach someone like me!! ;) But I'm not going to worry about job apps much. I'd love to have a job next year, but I need to do what I'm doing right now without any more distraction than absolutely necessary, and I won't be able to go to major national conference meat market this year anyway (no great loss to my mind).

5) Something morbid (and potentially judgmental) about motherhood in Texas, but I don't really want to write about it or speculate on it. I did once comment to someone--many years ago--that crimes seemed weirder in Texas, or more extreme, or something, and the sheer list of occurrences cited here seems to substantiate that. But the scope of crimes has gotten so weird anyway that I don't know if I would have made that observation today.

6) I love Crocs!!!-- And I'm not terribly worried about them making news recently. We have reached a point recently where each member of the family has a pair of genuine Crocs (imitations can't come close!) and I boast 3 pair. I barely wear anything else. Especially pregnant, and especially since they have relatively "feminine" styles--I don't have the "garden variety" clog (ha ha). But consider this:

According to reports appearing across the United States and as far away as Singapore and Japan, entrapments occur because of two of the biggest selling points of shoes like Crocs: their flexibility and grip. Some report the shoes get caught in the "teeth" at the bottom or top of the escalator, or in the crack between the steps and the side of the escalator.

The reports of serious injuries have all involved young children. Crocs are commonly worn by children as young as 2.

Yup, my baby has a cute little pair of Mary Jane Crocs. But I ask you--which is more unnatural? Having a baby (or even a young child) walk on an escalator (people have gotten stuck in those things before Crocs!), or having her feet wrapped in flexible material that molds to her feet and doesn't restrict her movement? She has yet to have a pair of "traditional" shoes. Because you know what? Bare foot is natural, and soft shoes are the next best thing!!

7) Frequently, I'm thinking about sleep or caffeine. . . Or the fact that my baby will be the first of 3 to be born caffeine-addicted (only by comparison to the other 2). This probably explains why I seem to be unable to come up with anything else I've been thinking about. Bed time!! But anyway, apart from the tired, I've been feeling really well, and I've been better able to keep up with everything that's going on lately than during the entire pregnancy. I'm feeling a bit unwieldy (I'm carrying this baby a bit oddly), but feeling good about where I am right now!

It's not Just for Breastfeeding Mothers Any More!!

But this article about Southwest Airlines rather explains the loophole that allows airlines to get away with telling breastfeeding mothers to do. . . well. . . whatever it is that the flight attendants tell them to do on a given flight--cover up, stop feeding, whatever. It seems that, while Southwest claims not to have a dress code, they also reserve the right to censor passengers' outfits for various reasons, with the result that two women have brought complaints against Southwest for addressing their wardrobe choices:

Setara Qassim said a flight attendant confronted her during the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Burbank, California, and asked whether she had a sweater to go over her green halter-style dress.

Qassim, 21, told KNBC-TV in Los Angeles she was forced to wrap a blanket around herself for the rest of the flight. She complained that if Southwest wants passengers to dress a certain way, it should publish a dress code.

Last week, 23-year-old Kayla Ebbert said a Southwest employee pulled her aside as she was preparing to board a plane departing San Diego for Tucson in July and told her she was dressed too provocatively to fly.

Ebbert, who took her case to NBC's "Today Show," said she was allowed on the plane after adjusting her sweater and short skirt. She said she was humiliated and felt the stares of other passengers who had overheard the verbal dressing-down.

Now, do you think these women were wearing anything that you haven't seen in Church? Okay, unfair question! ;)

What strikes me first is the rationale behind the censure. One was "dressed too provocatively." There clearly isn't an objective standard for this. I would like to know if the airline employees imposing these guidelines were male or female, fundamentalist, or personally turned on by the passengers' attire. (This reminds me of discussions I've seen on other blogs about whether a sexily dressed woman is responsible for others' "occasions of sin"!) But this is the passage that seemed relevant to breastfeeding in the air:

American Airlines claims the right to refuse to carry passengers for a variety of reasons, including being drunk, barefoot, having an offensive odor or being "clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

That's pretty broad. The example given is offensive graphics on a t-shirt, but it's not tough to see how breastfeeding falls under this jurisdiction--even if the mother is discreetly covered. (But then, some passengers (and flight attendants) find the presence of children offensive enough anyway. . .) Of course, breastfeeding is an act, not a manner of dress, but certainly if the breast were all or partially exposed, one could anticipate this regulation being invoked. I have breastfed without incident on an airplane, but it was years ago (a bit over 10 years ago, to be precise). It was probably Southwest. But then, I don't like sitting by other people anyway, so there was likely no one there but my husband, and he wouldn't have complained!

The Stupidity of Women

This post is, in a way, a follow-up to my "horrible news" post. It seems that the missing pregnant woman whose young son gave cryptic and disturbing remarks about her disappearance, has been found. Her "boyfriend" has been charged with two counts of murder. One report suggests that a new girlfriend of the suspect--a suspect who had a wife with a child, had a previous girlfriend who also had his child, this now-dead woman with two of his children--wanted the woman out of the way, and assisted in some way with the events that resulted in her death.

When I was in high school, I had a teacher who was very opinionated about social issues. All we had to do was think of a subject in advance and she would talk about it for the entire hour so that we could get away with not reading. (Never trust an honors class!!) We prolonged Huck Finn for an entire 9-weeks using this strategy. During one of these digressions, she remarked that she couldn't understand women who take up with a married man, assuming that he would faithful to her when he wasn't faithful to his wife. What makes her so darned special? Why does any woman think that any given unfaithful man will be faithful to her rather than another woman? Clearly, this is logic that has always remained with me. In this case, in addition, if he would commit violent acts against another former girlfriend, why should this new woman think that he would not, eventually, turn on her?

This is, on a level, an anti-feminist statement in a way, I guess. For once, I'm not really sure where feminist theory would fall in relation to this kind of situation. I mean, even if she had aborted one or both of the children (which seems like one possible feminist answer), this may have been what the father wanted, in which case, would it have been acting like a strong feminist woman to preserve one's autonomy by aborting a child (or children) that she wanted to keep but whom the father wanted to kill? It does seem that the situation of the dead, pregnant girl should be viewed with sympathy by feminists, who would see her as a victim of society that views her worth in terms of men. On the other hand, one might note (not necessarily from a feminist perspective) that in a society in which women's sexuality was viewed more restrictively and regulated more closely, she would not have been living openly with one--perhaps two--children of an married man, and so, in a sense, she would have been protected--by shame--from this horrible situation. Would social ostracism have been worse than what actually happened to her? By being sexually liberated, able to choose her own sexual partners freely without reference to social convention, she is placed in a position that has led to her death and the death of her child. On the other hand, a feminist might note that, though she seems to have been fairly independent, by returning to a man who had betrayed other women, and allowing herself to become pregnant twice (or perhaps becoming pregnant on purpose?), she was acting foolishly herself, sacrificing herself for the sake of a man. I'm not actually sure a feminist would hold that last opinion. I think she would likely be regarded as a victim of patriarchy. But haven't we moved beyond that tired argument yet?If women haven't come far enough yet (baby--Virginia Slims) that "patriarchal society" (instead of a deranged man) has to be blamed for tragedy, then what exactly has feminism accomplished? Okay, enough with the rhetorical questions, already.

A number of things disturb me about the way this case is being reported. First, that while the new baby was initially said to have been fathered by the same man as her first child (by the "suspect," that is), in subsequent reports, the baby was "perhaps" fathered by the same man--"may have been" fathered by the suspect, etc. And this was when he wasn't even a suspect! So while he had a history of impregnating various women, he was somehow entitled to his reputation. Meanwhile, the woman was missing, likely dead, and she was being represented as someone who slept around. So much for sexual liberation there! The implication was pretty clear--he may not have been involved, and she, as an unwed mother, might as well have had a different father for each child. Where were the media feminists? They weren't upholding either her reputation or her right to act as a sexually liberated woman and a strong independent mother.

Another question I had was why the 2-year-old son's references to his mother did not include references to his "father," with whom he presumably had a relationship.

Finally, the girl's family is being portrayed in a respectfully positive light, which is appropriate. But I do wonder what their true feelings were about this situation--here is their daughter, sister, whatever, pregnant for the second time with the child of a man who has a wife and two other children by two different women. Did they feel constrained by the "new" social convention that dictates that a woman choose her own expression of her sexuality when she becomes an adult (or even sooner)? Did they find nothing amiss in this relationship? Or did they express their disapproval?

The appearance of the possible accomplice, the "new girlfriend" leads to the title of the post. How can women be so stupid--for obviously worthless men? For sex? But at the same historical moment when women were told that it’s okay to make these choices, they were deprived of the frameworks that allowed them to choose morally and, in the end, to choose wisely and make choices that preserved their dignity.

Horrible Stories in the News and other thoughts. . .

I don't read the news. I don't watch the news. Everything I need to know about the world generally filters down to me accidentally, or through my husband. I choose my blogs carefully, and the ones that report news of any sort generally have a particular slant, avoiding the more sensationalist and horrible stories. They report the kind of stories that allow for a healthy amount of thought about the current state of society with just a hint of righteous indignation. And they almost always avoid graphic descriptions--even when discussing the recent rulings on partial-birth abortion. I unfortunately was given the descriptions, which haunted me for days, but that's the problem with such a topic--it's bound to filter down. As it is, when I was many years younger--perhaps in high school--I saw something on a local PBS (or possibly religious--Catholic) channel in New Orleans with an elderly woman (perhaps a nun) describing the process. The Supreme Court verdict evidently gave even more detail.

The reason I avoid the general news sites that my husband frequents is the phenomenon I've mentioned before that causes me to visualize--willingly or unwillingly--horrible, painful scenes of graphic violence. Some examples--a case in Beaumont that was proclaimed from billboards in which a woman was raped and strangled by her (ex?) husband, a politician; terrorist executions; you get the idea. Something in me wants to imagine the unimaginable motive of the attacker and to feel the pain of the victim. Sometimes I even wish that the images could/would be shown on TV to prevent my imagination from recreating endless possible scenarios.

So recently, I have been subjected to the news because the internet provider at the apartment complex, which requires login through a browser, feels the need to give the customer a list of all the day's (hour's) top news stories. The bland ones--prosecutors disbarred & whatnot--are not a risk to me. But others. . . well. . . Stories in the news about sex are nothing new, and there is a new case of statutory rape--generally female teachers and male students, or young girls (or boys) having rendez-vous with much older (usually male) internet predators--every day. Now, I have some issues with statutory rape. While clearly I hope that my children make better decisions, and there are some cases in which the exploitation and coercion--the inequality of the power distribution in the situation--are clear-cut--other cases are less so. I was 16 when I started college. My "peers" were much older. While I did not make all of the right decisions, I do believe I was within my rights to act as an adult (albeit a misinformed adult)--after all, I was in college. My decision-making skills and maturity were equal to any 18-year-old. And I do believe there is a difference between seduction--even involving deception (it happens every day among adults) and the kind of power dynamic (although there is an unequal power dynamic in most seduction situations among "equals"--everyone is different in life experience and situation) that should be classified as statutory rape. Again, it is not what I would wish for my young teenager, but while I would regard a sexual relationship between, say, a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old (as long as no coersion was involved) as a serious misjudgment, a mistake, an immoral act--and I hope to give my children good grounds to which to judge all of these things!!--I would not necessarily pursue it as "statutory rape." I hope that, by teaching my children about sexuality--that it is not something to be indulged in when they feel the "time is right," that "being true to oneself" (or what seems "true to oneself" at the time) is not enough, that whether or not you think at the time that you will have regrets, the time will come when you do (and I'm not talking about the risks of pregnancy and STDs, but the misplaced trust, feelings of betrayal, knowledge of having been used)--that I will avoid this issue--and my children will avoid these situations--altogether. Many of the news stories involving underage teens and adults are the sort that raise eyebrows--it's why they're in the news--and suggest exploitation by someone in a superior position of authority or power, but they don't affect me like the stories I've seen lately.

The litany of crimes appearing this week just seem much more disturbing: 700 busted in pedophile ring investigation--31 children recovered, some only a few months old!!, internet sites offering child molestation on demand!!, pregnant woman missing in Ohio amidst cryptic and chilling remarks from her 2-year-old son, a woman drawing up a contract to ensure that her boyfriend has sexual access to her 15-year-old daughter while the mother recovers from abdominal surgery!! (as if any man is THAT worth keeping!!). . . And then, by following a link about the death penalty in some states for child rape, I found more. That's the problem with linked text--it draws you in and you get lost in the labyrinth of horrific stories. The first, for me, was the worst. It was awful to look at my sweet daughter and imagine the crimes committed against those like her. Not that I didn't know it happened, but the scale of this story just made me consider it differently. And the thought of infants!! It has been too much for me. It's gotten better, and I'm trying not to think about the missing woman in Ohio. Did you know that more pregnant women die from homicide than any other cause? Rather convenient that the people who want to kill the woman to take their babies can now choose gender (I'm still a little ambivalent about the ultrasound gender thing, though I am glad to know in my case). (Not even mentioning the cases when the killer is the father.) I find it both comforting and horrifying that most of the cases of child sexual abuse involve someone the child knows--at least for my children's sake. But I guess we all feel confident that those we know will be innocent of such intentions. And I do harbor the belief--illusion?--that I am very careful with my children--not leaving them alone in resort hotel rooms while on vacation in foreign countries, for example. This does not mean that I do not pity the parents, but I do question their judgment.

I'm not sure I believe that these are problems unique to our moment in history, just problems that have been exacerbated by technology. We can now hear of such things instantly. Technology facilitates the crime. Our scope is larger because our news is global. But I do believe that most horrific acts were historically confined more to (channeled into) acts of war--albeit acts committed against civilians. And that many of the criminals would have been too busy trying to survive--to find food and sustain themselves--to allow the leisure to indulge in their perversions. This may be true for any lesser, non-criminal perversions (I use the term very loosely) that any one of us may harbor. However, I do believe that the decline of the patriarchal horror--organized religion--has something to do with all of this also. When people believed in objective morality, this at least provided some kind of deterrent to some (though not all). And when everyone was Catholic, in particular, one knew when one stood in relation to morality--quite different from the church- or pastor-of-the-hour. I believe that it is currently possible to find a sect to accommodate any inclination one might have. One wonders about the sincerity of those who seek this kind of justification. Pre-Christian peoples who did horrific things were, at least, sincere in their beliefs--or well, we hope so.