Friday, January 25, 2008
Chickenpox!!!!!!!!!
We have had an infectious January. Two weeks ago, my toddler came down with Coxsackievirus, commonly (or uncommonly!) known as Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease. Very unpleasant. I caught it after her, then my son. Last week, while my son & I were still feeling the effects (which luckily didn't hinder our enjoyment of king cake & ice cream cake too much), I took my daughters to the doctors, and the Chiclette received some immunizations. This week, my son, who was not immunized against chicken pox, who we thought had had 2 milder cases when he was younger, came down with a full-blown case. Remember those? So it's Aveeno & Calomine for him! And another 3-4 days off of school. And the 4th copay in 3 weeks! This gave me the opportunity to ask the doctor about the vaccine. He brought it up, actually.
I really like my son's PCP. I like the girls' PCP also, as she believes in parental judgment, but I never feel as comfortable around female pediatricians as I do around a certain type of male pediatrician--the "old school" variety. This is quite different from how I feel about male vs. female OBs. But it's nice to have--for once--two pediatricians I trust.
So the doctor brought up the old cliche that chicken pox used to be a "rite of passage," that there were (ill-advised) chicken pox parties, etc., before the vaccine. He asked if the toddler was vaccinated (she is) and said that she could still get it (!!) but that it would be mild if she did. The baby should still be protected by maternal antibodies. So I asked about the vaccine--since there are reports of breakthrough infections, increased instances of shingles, and need for booster shots. He said that they always knew that a booster would be needed (!!). He hasn't heard of increased cases of shingles. And then he told us a few interesting things:
The Japanese have been vaccinating against chicken pox for about 20 years to our 15.
When my son was little, it had not yet become routine to vaccinate them at 1 yr., and that was only 10 years ago. By the time he was school age, the chicken pox vaccine was mandatory, but we skirted the issue.
Our current pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine when it was new for a few years, until the sample size was larger than the original test subjects.
He had a friend whose son (now 23 and an animator for Cartoon Network) had chicken pox induced meningitis. He was on the phone with the father when the boy had a seizure. It was at that point that he began to take chicken pox seriously as a disease.
The real reason that they vaccinate against chicken pox is not the disease but the secondary infections. The secondary staph infections landed 8,000 in the hospital on average, and would result in 40-50 deaths a year (which he whispered to avoid causing anxiety in the 11-year-old). With antibiotic resistant strains of staph, this is a valid concern to my mind.
I value such frankness in a doctor. It gives me much more to work with hearing these things from an informed person whom I trust.
Interestingly, the local news was reporting increased cases of chicken pox in spite of the vaccines only days before he came down with it. Picking up my son's homework today, my husband told one of the teachers that he had chicken pox. She said that a number of people do. It's "going around." Hmmm. . . I though that wasn't supposed to happen now!!
I really like my son's PCP. I like the girls' PCP also, as she believes in parental judgment, but I never feel as comfortable around female pediatricians as I do around a certain type of male pediatrician--the "old school" variety. This is quite different from how I feel about male vs. female OBs. But it's nice to have--for once--two pediatricians I trust.
So the doctor brought up the old cliche that chicken pox used to be a "rite of passage," that there were (ill-advised) chicken pox parties, etc., before the vaccine. He asked if the toddler was vaccinated (she is) and said that she could still get it (!!) but that it would be mild if she did. The baby should still be protected by maternal antibodies. So I asked about the vaccine--since there are reports of breakthrough infections, increased instances of shingles, and need for booster shots. He said that they always knew that a booster would be needed (!!). He hasn't heard of increased cases of shingles. And then he told us a few interesting things:
The Japanese have been vaccinating against chicken pox for about 20 years to our 15.
When my son was little, it had not yet become routine to vaccinate them at 1 yr., and that was only 10 years ago. By the time he was school age, the chicken pox vaccine was mandatory, but we skirted the issue.
Our current pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine when it was new for a few years, until the sample size was larger than the original test subjects.
He had a friend whose son (now 23 and an animator for Cartoon Network) had chicken pox induced meningitis. He was on the phone with the father when the boy had a seizure. It was at that point that he began to take chicken pox seriously as a disease.
The real reason that they vaccinate against chicken pox is not the disease but the secondary infections. The secondary staph infections landed 8,000 in the hospital on average, and would result in 40-50 deaths a year (which he whispered to avoid causing anxiety in the 11-year-old). With antibiotic resistant strains of staph, this is a valid concern to my mind.
I value such frankness in a doctor. It gives me much more to work with hearing these things from an informed person whom I trust.
Interestingly, the local news was reporting increased cases of chicken pox in spite of the vaccines only days before he came down with it. Picking up my son's homework today, my husband told one of the teachers that he had chicken pox. She said that a number of people do. It's "going around." Hmmm. . . I though that wasn't supposed to happen now!!
Yoga is Good
I have to remind myself of this periodically.
So I have this toddler who likes to imitate me when I stretch, shows a natural inclination toward dance, and has good rhythm & coordination. I have been wanting to get my son interested in yoga for years, but he was soured on it when he fell over while I was trying to help him with a pose. :( I bought a Yoga kids 2-pack at Target, and put the "From Silly to Calm" DVD in today, and we (mostly I) did some yoga. Even though it is geared toward 3-6 year olds, I still feel like I had a bit of a workout (sad commentary), and my daughter was interested long enough to try a downward dog--she likes that one, and did it a few times. I have to say, it's one of my favorites. I rather objected when the teacher told the kids to stretch their legs out to the side like a dog marking his territory. Please!! And there were one or two other things. . . Think I could substitute pacem for the sanskrit word shanti (peace)?
So I have this toddler who likes to imitate me when I stretch, shows a natural inclination toward dance, and has good rhythm & coordination. I have been wanting to get my son interested in yoga for years, but he was soured on it when he fell over while I was trying to help him with a pose. :( I bought a Yoga kids 2-pack at Target, and put the "From Silly to Calm" DVD in today, and we (mostly I) did some yoga. Even though it is geared toward 3-6 year olds, I still feel like I had a bit of a workout (sad commentary), and my daughter was interested long enough to try a downward dog--she likes that one, and did it a few times. I have to say, it's one of my favorites. I rather objected when the teacher told the kids to stretch their legs out to the side like a dog marking his territory. Please!! And there were one or two other things. . . Think I could substitute pacem for the sanskrit word shanti (peace)?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Nature of the Job Market -or- Why I Won't Be Hired -or- A Coffee-Inspired Digression
Let me preface this by saying that I'm having a little debate with myself about coffee--whether I should have more of the stuff or avoid it altogether. You see, when I have more of it, I get agitated, but when I get agitated, I write stuff--sometimes even the stuff I'm supposed to be writing. When I have less coffee, I am calmer but less productive. Incidently, the best coffee in the world is made by monks.
So I received an email today about a job candidate to whom we've offered a position. This person is being hired in a marginal subfield related (somewhat) to my marginal subfield, but also intersects with many hot-topic subfields (some related to marginal groups)--hear: really attractive to a field trying to redefine itself as interdisciplinary, non-Western, and socially and politically "relevant." This person would also help the minority profile of the department, and comes from a somewhat more high-profile state school than the one that has offered him a position--also a state-school better known for liberal arts than the one that has offered him a position. He is a self-described "activist"--attractive to some segments of the faculty and grad student body, though the university is not located in a place that one would necessarily consider an ideal locale for activism (unless he painted tiger-stripes on himself and posed naked with the PETA chicks who protested the Barnum & Bailey circus a few years back. . .). He also has extensive creative publications, which would add a possible creative writing instructor to the faculty. His publication record is impressive, albeit limited to journals and book chapters in his particular, very specific, not very prominent ethnic literature specialization--the equivalent to me publishing in the fictitious Journal of Literacy in British Literature of the Early Twentieth Century. No wait--that's less specific. Oh well! He is in the process of being wined & dined by numerous other departments who want him for the exact same reasons I have outlined: well-qualified & looks good politically. So what's the problem?
Well, as I see it, and as the faculty has presented it, he is one of the best qualified new scholars currently on the market, and has other benefits besides. Every department hiring for anything related to his specialties wants him. He's got lots of people fighting for him, and unless we're making him a really sweet deal, he might not be willing to settle for "flagship" school in Texas miles outside of civilization. I mean, another department in liberal arts had a candidate turn them down because the local high school didn't have a good enough tennis team. Yeah. Neither the climate of the school nor the faculty in general nor the majority of the student body are really activism-friendly. (Okay, you all know where I live now. C'est la vie!) So why make him an offer he's likely to refuse? Naivete? Ambition? Have the faculty who are here convinced themselves that it's a really great place? After all, we've got the minimum number of Starbucks to be considered civilized now, a definite improvement on 10 years ago--oh wait, do activists like Starbucks? Hmmmm. . . But what do I have against making him an offer? If he refuses, we just move on an no one has lost anything, and there is the snowball's chance in hell that he will accept.
Well you see, I'm thinking about this as a grad student approaching a firing committee--oh wait, that's "hiring committee," "firing squad". . . Sorry! In the "professionalization and publication" class I took, we talked a bit about the "culture" of a department/university, and how we should make sure we would be a good fit, and how we should learn about the university's/department's "culture" in order to make a convincing application to that department. Anyway, this "culture" thing is supposed to be a deciding factor for search committees. At least in theory. A candidate can be bumped for not fitting in with the "culture"--it's permissible. Clearly, I don't think he quite fits, but this is not about me. Well at least I wasn't the one giving input (for many very good reasons). In theory, someone who is well-qualified but not as high-profile--say, someone from a lesser state-school or one not particularly well-known for liberal arts--can win out over someone who looks more attractive initially based on a well-crafted argument concerning fitting in with the school's "culture." There are other strategies, too, and admittedly it's probably not best to play up a connection with the "culture" of a school with decidedly non-intellectual "culture," but presumably being much more suited for a more cosmopolitan area could influence the decision of a hiring committee in a less cosmopolitan area.
Because, you see, if the top, kind of wacky candidate is not offered all of the 10 positions open in the field (or 6, or whatever), but the positions s/he is most likely to accept (or where s/he is most likely to feel comfortable, not leave within 5 years, etc.), then the second-best, still excellent 2 or 3 candidates might be offered 2-3 positions in the first cycle of offers, which basically means that the hiring process will be completed sooner and the second- and third choice candidates get offers sooner. After all, there are so many people in this discipline who are really well-qualified but lack the academic pedigree of a certain university, I'm not sure the top candidate really is the best candidate--at least, I hope not.
By all accounts, the job search is expensive, grueling, anxious, miserable, and often unfair. And did I mention a load of laughs? If you're from a lesser school, you really need to start padding the vita against guys like the one described above from day one. But if you don't quite have the same list of pubs, does it really mean that you're less worthy? (Working on politically correct subject matter often helps, too. This guy has it all!) A lot of the misery of the job search could be lessened--at least for some candidates--if the hiring committees would be a little more realistic & rational about the whole process. I mean, what if their own students were competing against Mr. Star Candidate? Would they feel like their own students had the chance that they deserved, or that the decks were stacked against them? Would they (and their students) appreciate being left on the back burners while the top few were treated to the grand tour, even by schools whose offers they were least likely to accept? And what about the committees themselves? Are their resources best spent making offers to 4-5 candidates before one accepts? And isn't it just a little nicer for everyone involved to know that the first candidate to receive an offer accepted it?
So I received an email today about a job candidate to whom we've offered a position. This person is being hired in a marginal subfield related (somewhat) to my marginal subfield, but also intersects with many hot-topic subfields (some related to marginal groups)--hear: really attractive to a field trying to redefine itself as interdisciplinary, non-Western, and socially and politically "relevant." This person would also help the minority profile of the department, and comes from a somewhat more high-profile state school than the one that has offered him a position--also a state-school better known for liberal arts than the one that has offered him a position. He is a self-described "activist"--attractive to some segments of the faculty and grad student body, though the university is not located in a place that one would necessarily consider an ideal locale for activism (unless he painted tiger-stripes on himself and posed naked with the PETA chicks who protested the Barnum & Bailey circus a few years back. . .). He also has extensive creative publications, which would add a possible creative writing instructor to the faculty. His publication record is impressive, albeit limited to journals and book chapters in his particular, very specific, not very prominent ethnic literature specialization--the equivalent to me publishing in the fictitious Journal of Literacy in British Literature of the Early Twentieth Century. No wait--that's less specific. Oh well! He is in the process of being wined & dined by numerous other departments who want him for the exact same reasons I have outlined: well-qualified & looks good politically. So what's the problem?
Well, as I see it, and as the faculty has presented it, he is one of the best qualified new scholars currently on the market, and has other benefits besides. Every department hiring for anything related to his specialties wants him. He's got lots of people fighting for him, and unless we're making him a really sweet deal, he might not be willing to settle for "flagship" school in Texas miles outside of civilization. I mean, another department in liberal arts had a candidate turn them down because the local high school didn't have a good enough tennis team. Yeah. Neither the climate of the school nor the faculty in general nor the majority of the student body are really activism-friendly. (Okay, you all know where I live now. C'est la vie!) So why make him an offer he's likely to refuse? Naivete? Ambition? Have the faculty who are here convinced themselves that it's a really great place? After all, we've got the minimum number of Starbucks to be considered civilized now, a definite improvement on 10 years ago--oh wait, do activists like Starbucks? Hmmmm. . . But what do I have against making him an offer? If he refuses, we just move on an no one has lost anything, and there is the snowball's chance in hell that he will accept.
Well you see, I'm thinking about this as a grad student approaching a firing committee--oh wait, that's "hiring committee," "firing squad". . . Sorry! In the "professionalization and publication" class I took, we talked a bit about the "culture" of a department/university, and how we should make sure we would be a good fit, and how we should learn about the university's/department's "culture" in order to make a convincing application to that department. Anyway, this "culture" thing is supposed to be a deciding factor for search committees. At least in theory. A candidate can be bumped for not fitting in with the "culture"--it's permissible. Clearly, I don't think he quite fits, but this is not about me. Well at least I wasn't the one giving input (for many very good reasons). In theory, someone who is well-qualified but not as high-profile--say, someone from a lesser state-school or one not particularly well-known for liberal arts--can win out over someone who looks more attractive initially based on a well-crafted argument concerning fitting in with the school's "culture." There are other strategies, too, and admittedly it's probably not best to play up a connection with the "culture" of a school with decidedly non-intellectual "culture," but presumably being much more suited for a more cosmopolitan area could influence the decision of a hiring committee in a less cosmopolitan area.
Because, you see, if the top, kind of wacky candidate is not offered all of the 10 positions open in the field (or 6, or whatever), but the positions s/he is most likely to accept (or where s/he is most likely to feel comfortable, not leave within 5 years, etc.), then the second-best, still excellent 2 or 3 candidates might be offered 2-3 positions in the first cycle of offers, which basically means that the hiring process will be completed sooner and the second- and third choice candidates get offers sooner. After all, there are so many people in this discipline who are really well-qualified but lack the academic pedigree of a certain university, I'm not sure the top candidate really is the best candidate--at least, I hope not.
By all accounts, the job search is expensive, grueling, anxious, miserable, and often unfair. And did I mention a load of laughs? If you're from a lesser school, you really need to start padding the vita against guys like the one described above from day one. But if you don't quite have the same list of pubs, does it really mean that you're less worthy? (Working on politically correct subject matter often helps, too. This guy has it all!) A lot of the misery of the job search could be lessened--at least for some candidates--if the hiring committees would be a little more realistic & rational about the whole process. I mean, what if their own students were competing against Mr. Star Candidate? Would they feel like their own students had the chance that they deserved, or that the decks were stacked against them? Would they (and their students) appreciate being left on the back burners while the top few were treated to the grand tour, even by schools whose offers they were least likely to accept? And what about the committees themselves? Are their resources best spent making offers to 4-5 candidates before one accepts? And isn't it just a little nicer for everyone involved to know that the first candidate to receive an offer accepted it?
Where have all the green potato chips gone?
I started wondering about this after seeing an Arthur episode in which D.W. thinks she's going to die from eating a green potato chip. I remember seeing green ones all the time when I was a child, then they just. . . disappeared. I supposed that quality control has improved that much, or that the green ones had been genetically modified away. I never really missed them; they were a little disturbing and tasted a little funny, too. But today, eating some McDonald's french fries, I saw it--a fry with a GREEN TIP! Aaaaaaaaaah!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Class & Privilege in the Blogs
Recently, my academic and Catholic blog reading has collided in a weird way--in my mind, anyway. There has been this meme hopping around the Catholic blogs, answered here by Entropy and here by Mrs. Darwin, that measures privilege. Sort of. I have been tempted--sorely tempted--to answer it. But something has prevented me. Perhaps the same thing that tempts me to turn off comments on this post--not sure what that is, though.
Then, I have been following a series of posts on Anastasia's blog here, here, here and here--about the role of one's socio-economic background in one's academic success and, ultimately, one's success in Academia. I actually don't like to use the word "class" here, because, as Anastasia points out, there is more to class than money, and "class" is often very narrowly--or conveniently--defined, depending on one's agenda. As several of my dissertation chapters do deal with class (ugh), my dissertation director & I have discussed class a teensy bit, his opinion being that it is more relevant in Britain than the U.S., since class is actually a very different thing in the U.S. than in Britain--dependent on more independent factors, which I write at the risk of sounding circular. I have not commented on the posts because I'm not entirely sure I want to read what other people have said on the topic. (You know when you just want to resist getting bogged down in the debate? That's where I am. . .) So I have relied on Anastasia's accounts of what others have said, and her responses make a lot of sense to me. Our circumstances intersect at times(check the comments for an explanation of this).
All of this called for a response. So whadya think? How privileged am I? Have I mentioned recently that my mother is living with my little brother in a house without plumbing? Or that when growing up I knew more about Catholic Charities than most Catholics? There's a long history here, but I have a disclaimer: People thought of these things differently in New Orleans when I was growing up than how they are perceived elsewhere, now. I didn't feel less privileged than my peers. Though I did have a "friend" remark that, unlike her, I wouldn't have to worry about competitive scholarships 'cause I could qualify for financial aid. Nice. So I have perhaps too many comments on this, but here goes:
From What Privileges Do You Have?, based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)
Bold the true statements.
1. Father went to college Think so, but I didn't know him. My mother's second husband was a high school drop out.
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college I don't think it counts if she finished after me. We were in school at the same time and alternated days so I could babysit while she was in class.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers. Tough call. Not according to household income.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent I could read for as long as I can remember, though that may be a cognitive effect of literacy. I'm sure my mother probably read to me when I was little & she had time. I read to everyone when I was older!
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively Tough call, but we dressed well. Better than others. My mom sewed & believed that you could always afford to dress nicely. We were all well spoken.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs Ummmm. . . No. She was getting loans too. My grandmother paid my summer tuition as a graduation present, allowing me to enroll & get dual credit to graduate from high school a year early.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels No vacations since I was 4.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Even though I was the oldest, no. I wore aunts' old clothes.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child My mother's--she was an art major.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house When I was 8 or 9 they bought the house that currently has no plumbing & is still being paid. 800 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 1 bath for as many as 2 adults and 6 children at a time.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Does "owned" mean paid? It was still an undivided community when I left. . .
25. You had your own room as a child
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school It only worked for video games--really old. If it even still worked by then. . .
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16 To New York at 15 to work at a Christian Camp, which ruined me for organized Christianity for a while
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
8/34 = 23.5%
My husband scored 50%. I married up! Hahaha
I think perhaps family size could be a factor, but I wouldn't know how to factor for it. I might have asked about free/reduced lunch at school. That can carry a stigma.
My mother grew up perhaps a bit more privileged than I did. My grandfather provided for his family very well working for a large oil company. He stayed in New Orleans with said oil company even when many of his friends there moved over to Houston. My grandmother was the daughter of sharecroppers. There were some issues about what was appropriate for girls re:education. At least, my mother was not helped at all, which is why her first college experience ended quickly. But my grandfather did value education, and bitterly regretted his own lack of college, while regarding it a bastion of liberalism (fairly, I think). This was also a positive influence on me when I was growing up. My mother had a high value for education. So while economically we were below the poverty level, our values were not what are typically considered working class values. I did not doubt that I would attend college, though I did not expect anyone else to pay for it. My mother was questioning and taught us to question. And you know, class just wasn't a big thing. I learned to rely on my abilities.
Which may not have served me as well as you might think. . .
You see, I didn't know how to play the game. In fact, I was decidedly opposed to the game. You know, the connections game. Could I have gotten into a non-commuter non-state or flagship-state school? Maybe. Could I have gone? Practically? No. At least, I don't know how I would have gotten there. My mother didn't even have a major credit card. But in my stubbornly economically disadvantaged ignorance, I didn't think it mattered. I believed that I would get just as good an education as at a big name school. And in many ways, I think I did. But that's not really what matters, as I learned later. Because unless you know people with connections or have a school name to back you up, or are privileged or disadvantaged in the right ways, you don't advance the same way. So I have bopped from state school to state school, and while I have gained a bit--I am in a higher "tier" than I used to be--it is not a school known for liberal arts, which means that even though it's a big name, it's a big name for the wrong things. That's going to hurt. And the ways to overcome that--conferences and publications--I really haven't done. Because, you see, besides not liking to travel by myself and having kids (though I could have left the one behind with my husband more than I did when he was an only child, I just didn't like to!!), I really can't afford to travel to conferences!! Even if you're reimbursed, you need a way to pay for it in the first place, and with student loans filling in where the income leaves gaps, there's no room for extras. Except that I did sacrifice to send my son to some private schools. For better or worse, really, but for better in terms of his self-esteem.
Like Anastasia, I wanted to study classical languages sooner. I wanted to attend the all-boys Catholic high school my husband attended to have the educational advantages I associated (correctly) with that school. I made the "get out while the scholarship is paying" choices rather than the "prepare for grad school" choices, so I was never able to acquire the languages necessary for comparative lit. But growing up in my income bracket paradoxically gave me determination, but a false sense of confidence in my abilities alone, and deprived me of the connections and credentials (i.e. school names) that I now know go a loooooooong way. I wish I didn't believe that, but I really do. And I think it will cost me academically.
I'm wondering, though, what my son will put down as his answer to the same questions. How privileged is he by comparison? Let's see. . .
1. Father went to college
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor God willing
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school Let's just say yes (and you know, I almost think homeschooling would merit a 'yes' for this. It doesn't prove anything about economics, but it does demonstrate a dedication to quality of education that could fit a certain definition of privilege).
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels (Did you know that parents going to a conference is a family vacation? At any rate, there aren't many, but staying in hotels is the only option.)
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Pretty much
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them Not gonna happen
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child Ummm. . . My mom's. . .
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house For a few years. . .
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Doubt it
25. You had your own room as a child Yup. For now.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course What if he doesn't need it? Or a tutor?
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up When we can
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
17/34 = 50% Hmmm. . .
Does materialism = privilege necessarily, or vice versa? There needs to be a distinction between monetary and intellectual privilege here. Know what? That distinction is important to the dissertation, which, despite any obstacles to the contrary--money, family situation--I am indeed writing! (albeit slowly)
Then, I have been following a series of posts on Anastasia's blog here, here, here and here--about the role of one's socio-economic background in one's academic success and, ultimately, one's success in Academia. I actually don't like to use the word "class" here, because, as Anastasia points out, there is more to class than money, and "class" is often very narrowly--or conveniently--defined, depending on one's agenda. As several of my dissertation chapters do deal with class (ugh), my dissertation director & I have discussed class a teensy bit, his opinion being that it is more relevant in Britain than the U.S., since class is actually a very different thing in the U.S. than in Britain--dependent on more independent factors, which I write at the risk of sounding circular. I have not commented on the posts because I'm not entirely sure I want to read what other people have said on the topic. (You know when you just want to resist getting bogged down in the debate? That's where I am. . .) So I have relied on Anastasia's accounts of what others have said, and her responses make a lot of sense to me. Our circumstances intersect at times(check the comments for an explanation of this).
All of this called for a response. So whadya think? How privileged am I? Have I mentioned recently that my mother is living with my little brother in a house without plumbing? Or that when growing up I knew more about Catholic Charities than most Catholics? There's a long history here, but I have a disclaimer: People thought of these things differently in New Orleans when I was growing up than how they are perceived elsewhere, now. I didn't feel less privileged than my peers. Though I did have a "friend" remark that, unlike her, I wouldn't have to worry about competitive scholarships 'cause I could qualify for financial aid. Nice. So I have perhaps too many comments on this, but here goes:
From What Privileges Do You Have?, based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)
Bold the true statements.
1. Father went to college Think so, but I didn't know him. My mother's second husband was a high school drop out.
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college I don't think it counts if she finished after me. We were in school at the same time and alternated days so I could babysit while she was in class.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers. Tough call. Not according to household income.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent I could read for as long as I can remember, though that may be a cognitive effect of literacy. I'm sure my mother probably read to me when I was little & she had time. I read to everyone when I was older!
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively Tough call, but we dressed well. Better than others. My mom sewed & believed that you could always afford to dress nicely. We were all well spoken.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs Ummmm. . . No. She was getting loans too. My grandmother paid my summer tuition as a graduation present, allowing me to enroll & get dual credit to graduate from high school a year early.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels No vacations since I was 4.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Even though I was the oldest, no. I wore aunts' old clothes.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child My mother's--she was an art major.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house When I was 8 or 9 they bought the house that currently has no plumbing & is still being paid. 800 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 1 bath for as many as 2 adults and 6 children at a time.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Does "owned" mean paid? It was still an undivided community when I left. . .
25. You had your own room as a child
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school It only worked for video games--really old. If it even still worked by then. . .
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16 To New York at 15 to work at a Christian Camp, which ruined me for organized Christianity for a while
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
8/34 = 23.5%
My husband scored 50%. I married up! Hahaha
I think perhaps family size could be a factor, but I wouldn't know how to factor for it. I might have asked about free/reduced lunch at school. That can carry a stigma.
My mother grew up perhaps a bit more privileged than I did. My grandfather provided for his family very well working for a large oil company. He stayed in New Orleans with said oil company even when many of his friends there moved over to Houston. My grandmother was the daughter of sharecroppers. There were some issues about what was appropriate for girls re:education. At least, my mother was not helped at all, which is why her first college experience ended quickly. But my grandfather did value education, and bitterly regretted his own lack of college, while regarding it a bastion of liberalism (fairly, I think). This was also a positive influence on me when I was growing up. My mother had a high value for education. So while economically we were below the poverty level, our values were not what are typically considered working class values. I did not doubt that I would attend college, though I did not expect anyone else to pay for it. My mother was questioning and taught us to question. And you know, class just wasn't a big thing. I learned to rely on my abilities.
Which may not have served me as well as you might think. . .
You see, I didn't know how to play the game. In fact, I was decidedly opposed to the game. You know, the connections game. Could I have gotten into a non-commuter non-state or flagship-state school? Maybe. Could I have gone? Practically? No. At least, I don't know how I would have gotten there. My mother didn't even have a major credit card. But in my stubbornly economically disadvantaged ignorance, I didn't think it mattered. I believed that I would get just as good an education as at a big name school. And in many ways, I think I did. But that's not really what matters, as I learned later. Because unless you know people with connections or have a school name to back you up, or are privileged or disadvantaged in the right ways, you don't advance the same way. So I have bopped from state school to state school, and while I have gained a bit--I am in a higher "tier" than I used to be--it is not a school known for liberal arts, which means that even though it's a big name, it's a big name for the wrong things. That's going to hurt. And the ways to overcome that--conferences and publications--I really haven't done. Because, you see, besides not liking to travel by myself and having kids (though I could have left the one behind with my husband more than I did when he was an only child, I just didn't like to!!), I really can't afford to travel to conferences!! Even if you're reimbursed, you need a way to pay for it in the first place, and with student loans filling in where the income leaves gaps, there's no room for extras. Except that I did sacrifice to send my son to some private schools. For better or worse, really, but for better in terms of his self-esteem.
Like Anastasia, I wanted to study classical languages sooner. I wanted to attend the all-boys Catholic high school my husband attended to have the educational advantages I associated (correctly) with that school. I made the "get out while the scholarship is paying" choices rather than the "prepare for grad school" choices, so I was never able to acquire the languages necessary for comparative lit. But growing up in my income bracket paradoxically gave me determination, but a false sense of confidence in my abilities alone, and deprived me of the connections and credentials (i.e. school names) that I now know go a loooooooong way. I wish I didn't believe that, but I really do. And I think it will cost me academically.
I'm wondering, though, what my son will put down as his answer to the same questions. How privileged is he by comparison? Let's see. . .
1. Father went to college
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor God willing
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school Let's just say yes (and you know, I almost think homeschooling would merit a 'yes' for this. It doesn't prove anything about economics, but it does demonstrate a dedication to quality of education that could fit a certain definition of privilege).
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels (Did you know that parents going to a conference is a family vacation? At any rate, there aren't many, but staying in hotels is the only option.)
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Pretty much
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them Not gonna happen
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child Ummm. . . My mom's. . .
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house For a few years. . .
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Doubt it
25. You had your own room as a child Yup. For now.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course What if he doesn't need it? Or a tutor?
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up When we can
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
17/34 = 50% Hmmm. . .
Does materialism = privilege necessarily, or vice versa? There needs to be a distinction between monetary and intellectual privilege here. Know what? That distinction is important to the dissertation, which, despite any obstacles to the contrary--money, family situation--I am indeed writing! (albeit slowly)
Family blog-new post
This might be really bad form, but I have a family-only blog that feed readers can't read, so I may announce a new post every now & again. Like now.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Gardasil--for the record
While chatting with the "clinic nurse" (as the badge stated) who stuck 4 syringe needles into my sweet little baby this afternoon, the subject of the pain caused by certain vaccinations arose. The baby did not cry at all with the first, but the second, the polio, causes all of the children discomfort. In the second leg, the same happened, and I believe it was the DTaP that made her cry. Well, the tech (as I suppose we should call her) told me casually that she went in to her GYN the other day to get her Gardasil shot. She gives this shot regularly and is told by all of the girls how incredibly, intensely painful it is. She gave it to a 17-year-old the other day and the girl "said the 'f' word" because it was so painful. After getting the shot herself, she doesn't blame the girl for her exclamation. It seems that "official" sources have recorded Gardasil as being the single most painful "childhood" vaccine.
So what I figure is, some good might come out of this after all--as a threat: "If you're caught doing XYZ again, I'm going to make you get the Gardasil injection!!"
So what I figure is, some good might come out of this after all--as a threat: "If you're caught doing XYZ again, I'm going to make you get the Gardasil injection!!"
More Medical Questioning: Cough & Cold Meds
Okay, so I've written about the vaccination thing. I have my reservations. And questioning vaccinations is a countercultural thing, certainly. The FDA doesn't readily give statistics on deaths from vaccinations, and if they did, it wouldn't be reported in the media. So consider this, from CNN:
In 2007, the FDA completed a review that found there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006.
It is part of the ever-increasing hype about over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In the past several years, we have seen Phenylpropylalamine pulled completely as a decongestant because some people who were abusing it had heart attacks. Then, we have witnessed as Pseudoephedrine (which has always had mild-to-serious heart problems as a side effect--it makes my heart race horribly; I can't take it) has been restricted, put under lock & key, anyone who wishes to purchase it subjected to a near background-check, and now gradually it is being replaced by Phenylephrine--so that we don't go make Meth out of it. And now we're being told that none of it is safe or (possibly) effective.
Well, I don't particularly want to give a child under 2 all of these drugs anyway. And when I do use medicines, even for myself, I tend to use moderate doses, I do not tend to re-dose on schedule, usually waiting at least 6 hours--really as the symptoms dictate, and I tend to wait until the symptoms are really uncomfortable before dosing. So I am not a pill-poppin' momma by any means. But I do think that there is a little too much hysteria in this case. I believe that what is happening is that the safest stuff is being taken off the market, leading to more prescriptions & doctor's visits, and also leading to rash actions--perhaps the administration of a larger dose to a smaller child out of ignorance. But mostly, I believe that this is inspiring false panic.
Consider: there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006. Okay, let's do the math. That means that in 37 years, of all of the millions of children who received multiple doses several times a year, 54 children died of decongestants and 69 died from antihistamines. That's 1.46 deaths per year from decongestants and 1.86 from antihistamines. Most were in children under 2 years. Well, for starters, take the fact that as long as I can remember, the package labels said, "under 2 consult a doctor" or "not to be given to children under 2." Then, control for overdosing (I was twice given overdoses of cold medicines when I was young--once I was under 4 years) and re-dosing too soon, or too may times in a 24 hour period. Consider that two medicines containing the same drug or different ones in the same category may have been administered simultaneously. Then (and only then) consider the possibility of allergic reactions. How many people do you think died of peanut allergies in the same time frame? Perhaps we should remove peanuts from the market. Or strawberries. Or milk. Now consider that they group "decongestants" together for the purpose of the analysis and "antihistamines." Well, let's see. . . In the time frame mentioned, at least 3 different decongestants were available, one of which has been taken off the market and one is increasingly difficult to get. So which one(s) caused the deaths? As for antihistamines, I can name Diphenhydramine, Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Brompheniramine Maleate off the top of my head. Again, to which one(s) are they attributing the deaths? And why was it necessary to group them all together? Hyperbole? To make their results statistically significant? And why are they vilifying cough meds, too?
Let me reiterate. . . I am cautious about medicines. Very cautious. Others may not be. If they are not effective, that's different. But why are the same people who say that vaccinations are unequivocally safe trying to scare me about my medicine cabinet?
In 2007, the FDA completed a review that found there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006.
It is part of the ever-increasing hype about over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In the past several years, we have seen Phenylpropylalamine pulled completely as a decongestant because some people who were abusing it had heart attacks. Then, we have witnessed as Pseudoephedrine (which has always had mild-to-serious heart problems as a side effect--it makes my heart race horribly; I can't take it) has been restricted, put under lock & key, anyone who wishes to purchase it subjected to a near background-check, and now gradually it is being replaced by Phenylephrine--so that we don't go make Meth out of it. And now we're being told that none of it is safe or (possibly) effective.
Well, I don't particularly want to give a child under 2 all of these drugs anyway. And when I do use medicines, even for myself, I tend to use moderate doses, I do not tend to re-dose on schedule, usually waiting at least 6 hours--really as the symptoms dictate, and I tend to wait until the symptoms are really uncomfortable before dosing. So I am not a pill-poppin' momma by any means. But I do think that there is a little too much hysteria in this case. I believe that what is happening is that the safest stuff is being taken off the market, leading to more prescriptions & doctor's visits, and also leading to rash actions--perhaps the administration of a larger dose to a smaller child out of ignorance. But mostly, I believe that this is inspiring false panic.
Consider: there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006. Okay, let's do the math. That means that in 37 years, of all of the millions of children who received multiple doses several times a year, 54 children died of decongestants and 69 died from antihistamines. That's 1.46 deaths per year from decongestants and 1.86 from antihistamines. Most were in children under 2 years. Well, for starters, take the fact that as long as I can remember, the package labels said, "under 2 consult a doctor" or "not to be given to children under 2." Then, control for overdosing (I was twice given overdoses of cold medicines when I was young--once I was under 4 years) and re-dosing too soon, or too may times in a 24 hour period. Consider that two medicines containing the same drug or different ones in the same category may have been administered simultaneously. Then (and only then) consider the possibility of allergic reactions. How many people do you think died of peanut allergies in the same time frame? Perhaps we should remove peanuts from the market. Or strawberries. Or milk. Now consider that they group "decongestants" together for the purpose of the analysis and "antihistamines." Well, let's see. . . In the time frame mentioned, at least 3 different decongestants were available, one of which has been taken off the market and one is increasingly difficult to get. So which one(s) caused the deaths? As for antihistamines, I can name Diphenhydramine, Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Brompheniramine Maleate off the top of my head. Again, to which one(s) are they attributing the deaths? And why was it necessary to group them all together? Hyperbole? To make their results statistically significant? And why are they vilifying cough meds, too?
Let me reiterate. . . I am cautious about medicines. Very cautious. Others may not be. If they are not effective, that's different. But why are the same people who say that vaccinations are unequivocally safe trying to scare me about my medicine cabinet?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Vaccination Concerns: Just a Mom Thing?
So on my last post, we were speaking purely from the maternal perspective, mentioning "mommy guilt" and discussing whether or not we--as women and mothers--underestimate our importance in decision-making for the health of our families. But what about Dads? My husband is sympathetic to my concerns, wary of new vaccines, but even more than me, perhaps, he supports the old standbys. So what do other husbands say? If husbands are more in favor of the vaccines, why? Just curious!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
HIB, Hep B, and Chicken Pox, Oh My!!
The Chiclette goes in for her 2 month check-up on Thursday, the one on which they bombard this little developing immune system with all kinds of nasties--all for her good, of course. Now, I have mentioned before that I exercise caution with the recommendations of doctors. I have a skepticism about--well, everything, but about medicine in particular. I am not against all vaccines, however. I am merely cautious. The vaccines I received as a child are familiar territory, though they are questioned by many, and even linked to onset of autism in some children. Measels, Mumps, Rubella, Diptheria, Pertussus, and of course, Polio, are vaccines I tend to consider "safe," though I know many would question this. At any rate, I know that the vaccines have been around for a long, long time, and have been studied, and judged to be as safe as 50+ years of research can make them. My son, to be 11 on Friday, received all of the recommended vaccines. Until the chicken pox vaccine. I had heard the cautions about vaccines even then, but thought that the benefit was worth the slight risk. Until the chicken pox vaccine.
You see, in my mind, vaccines were reserved for childhood illnesses that killed children--polio, whooping cough--and posed a genuine public health risk. But chicken pox was only a mild nuisance for most children, keeping them out of school for a week or two, which wasn't really an issue, I guess, unless there was no one available to care for them at home. So my son did not receive the chicken pox vaccine. He got two very mild cases of chicken pox from exposure to children at school who had been vaccinated recently and were "shedding" the virus. That strengthened my opinion that the vaccine was not really advisable.
When I was in the hospital after having my Doodle, I read in the papers about the vaccine against Human Papillomavirus and was instantly against the idea of vaccinating pre-teen girls for an STD. It seemed hasty, unnecessary, inadvisable. Not to mention discriminatory--to subject the girls to a vaccine, the safety of which is not entirely known, when presumably they were getting the virus from boys. Besides the fact that this was hardly an air-borne illness. Let's face it, STDs are highly preventable. So my attitude towards vaccinating my daughters with Gardasil? Over my dead body, thanks.
I relaxed my vigilance some when it came time to vaccinate my Doodle. I don't know why, but I shrugged and did a "What the heck" when it came to the chicken pox, possibly because it was easiest at the time, or perhaps because my son had felt the adverse affects of not being vaccinated in a culture where vaccination was the norm--and was infected as a consequence of this being the norm. So I figured I would skip a step or two and make it easier when she had to go to school (eventually). Of course, I did not realize that Texas allows parents to opt out of any vaccine. Evidently all one has to do is file the paperwork. So Doodle has had all of the "mandatory" vaccines, but has not had the ones that are only required if she happens to attend daycare. Since her last round, I have read more about adverse affects of Gardasil (HPV) and the vaccination for chicken pox, and it makes me wonder about all of this all over again. Not to mention that link Jen posted about the use of aborted fetal tissue to make vaccines. Great. So here I am, wondering what to do. . . again.
Because this is no easy matter. Any time we refuse medical treatment or tests, we are going against the grain. It feels like gambling, and health is nothing to gamble with. I have less of a problem when it's just me--but when it's my children and I take a risk, it feels, well, wrong. Culturally we are told that doctors are superior to just about everyone, and should not really be questioned. This changes from place to place. I have to say that people in New Orleans that I knew seemed to question medical practitioners more--even before something went wrong--than they do in this corner of Texas. I'm sure there's another corner of Texas I could name where the questioning is more intense still--at least in some circles. But that's decidedly countercultural. And so if I follow my instincts and refuse one or more of the vaccines, I feel like a bad parent. For what? For doing what I feel is right, and for gambling on the chance that my child will not contract whatever they are vaccinating against. The last time I faced a decision like this, I was deciding whether to treat my child for an enzyme deficiency that I knew she didn't have while they retested her after botching the first screening so that she and 3 other babies came out positive. She was about 3 weeks old. I won that bet, but it was agonizing.
This week, she faces several vaccines, and I am not particularly comfortable with all of the vaccines, the fact that they are given simultaneously, the fact that they will be administered even if the baby has a cold, or the fact that parental consent is generally assumed, and that these vaccines are deemed "mandatory" for my children by state boards. At two months they receive: Prevnar, DTaP, HIB, Polio, and Chicken Pox. Possibly Rotavirus also. She has not had any vaccines at this point. I refused the one in the hospital--Hep B--because, well, I don't see it as necessary, as it is transmitted sexually or through a transfusion. I can't say I know much about Prevnar or HIB. I believe both of my earlier ones had them. I feel like a cop out admitting that I haven't done the research. DTaP is familiar territory, as is the Polio. Chicken pox--well, you know how I feel about that one. And I don't feel comfortable with the Rotavirus vaccine. It sounds like a daycare vaccine to me. You know, so the workers don't get sued for not washing their hands. I just can't see that it's more crucial now than it was 2 years ago. The main goal seems to be to prevent trips to the hospital and the doctor's office. So it's an insurance company vaccine, too--it saves them money.
And you know what socialized medicine means to me? More of this shoved down our throats, with less recourse if side-effects occur, and less choice in the matter!
You see, in my mind, vaccines were reserved for childhood illnesses that killed children--polio, whooping cough--and posed a genuine public health risk. But chicken pox was only a mild nuisance for most children, keeping them out of school for a week or two, which wasn't really an issue, I guess, unless there was no one available to care for them at home. So my son did not receive the chicken pox vaccine. He got two very mild cases of chicken pox from exposure to children at school who had been vaccinated recently and were "shedding" the virus. That strengthened my opinion that the vaccine was not really advisable.
When I was in the hospital after having my Doodle, I read in the papers about the vaccine against Human Papillomavirus and was instantly against the idea of vaccinating pre-teen girls for an STD. It seemed hasty, unnecessary, inadvisable. Not to mention discriminatory--to subject the girls to a vaccine, the safety of which is not entirely known, when presumably they were getting the virus from boys. Besides the fact that this was hardly an air-borne illness. Let's face it, STDs are highly preventable. So my attitude towards vaccinating my daughters with Gardasil? Over my dead body, thanks.
I relaxed my vigilance some when it came time to vaccinate my Doodle. I don't know why, but I shrugged and did a "What the heck" when it came to the chicken pox, possibly because it was easiest at the time, or perhaps because my son had felt the adverse affects of not being vaccinated in a culture where vaccination was the norm--and was infected as a consequence of this being the norm. So I figured I would skip a step or two and make it easier when she had to go to school (eventually). Of course, I did not realize that Texas allows parents to opt out of any vaccine. Evidently all one has to do is file the paperwork. So Doodle has had all of the "mandatory" vaccines, but has not had the ones that are only required if she happens to attend daycare. Since her last round, I have read more about adverse affects of Gardasil (HPV) and the vaccination for chicken pox, and it makes me wonder about all of this all over again. Not to mention that link Jen posted about the use of aborted fetal tissue to make vaccines. Great. So here I am, wondering what to do. . . again.
Because this is no easy matter. Any time we refuse medical treatment or tests, we are going against the grain. It feels like gambling, and health is nothing to gamble with. I have less of a problem when it's just me--but when it's my children and I take a risk, it feels, well, wrong. Culturally we are told that doctors are superior to just about everyone, and should not really be questioned. This changes from place to place. I have to say that people in New Orleans that I knew seemed to question medical practitioners more--even before something went wrong--than they do in this corner of Texas. I'm sure there's another corner of Texas I could name where the questioning is more intense still--at least in some circles. But that's decidedly countercultural. And so if I follow my instincts and refuse one or more of the vaccines, I feel like a bad parent. For what? For doing what I feel is right, and for gambling on the chance that my child will not contract whatever they are vaccinating against. The last time I faced a decision like this, I was deciding whether to treat my child for an enzyme deficiency that I knew she didn't have while they retested her after botching the first screening so that she and 3 other babies came out positive. She was about 3 weeks old. I won that bet, but it was agonizing.
This week, she faces several vaccines, and I am not particularly comfortable with all of the vaccines, the fact that they are given simultaneously, the fact that they will be administered even if the baby has a cold, or the fact that parental consent is generally assumed, and that these vaccines are deemed "mandatory" for my children by state boards. At two months they receive: Prevnar, DTaP, HIB, Polio, and Chicken Pox. Possibly Rotavirus also. She has not had any vaccines at this point. I refused the one in the hospital--Hep B--because, well, I don't see it as necessary, as it is transmitted sexually or through a transfusion. I can't say I know much about Prevnar or HIB. I believe both of my earlier ones had them. I feel like a cop out admitting that I haven't done the research. DTaP is familiar territory, as is the Polio. Chicken pox--well, you know how I feel about that one. And I don't feel comfortable with the Rotavirus vaccine. It sounds like a daycare vaccine to me. You know, so the workers don't get sued for not washing their hands. I just can't see that it's more crucial now than it was 2 years ago. The main goal seems to be to prevent trips to the hospital and the doctor's office. So it's an insurance company vaccine, too--it saves them money.
And you know what socialized medicine means to me? More of this shoved down our throats, with less recourse if side-effects occur, and less choice in the matter!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Catholic Capricorns
I find it very cool that in the course of reading blogs, I have found several bloggers within, well, 0-5 years of my own age who write about things we're all interested in. As Jen writes here, it's good to be a Catholic convert and a blogger, because you have a built-in support network. I hesitate to attribute too much to the web in general in this, because on the internet--as in parenting magazines--one can find someone with a web site to support whatever weird perspective one chooses to hold, and the subject of Catholicism is no exception! But I've heard it said by those who are exploring Catholicism (and here I would include myself when I look up answers online) that they could recognize the truth when they saw--read--perhaps "felt" it: I believe this* is related to the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit. Those who sincerely seek truth will find it, however long the journey. But I digress. . .
This month, I have become increasingly aware of the number of like-minded bloggers, and readers of blogs, who have birthdays in January! (Not that I have any particular reason to note this, mind you. . .) Sarah at just another day of Catholic pondering celebrated her 31st birthday on January 10th, Jen at Et-tu, Jen? also turned 31 this month, on January 12th. One of Sarah's readers turns 31 along with me on the 17th. ('77 was a good year for Catholics or, in many of our cases, Catholics-to-be!) I know of someone else who drops by occasionally whose birthday rings in the New Year. And my son's birthday is January 18th! So happy birthday to all of the Catholic Capricorns**!
*My dissertation director's favorite thing to do in my drafts is to circle every use of the word "this" in order to force me to be more explicit about the reference, which obviously makes perfect sense in my own mind. In this case, "this" refers to the ability of prayerful, truth-seeking Catholics to recognize the truth in representations of Church teachings.
**And to all the non-Catholic Capricorns, too!!--It was just funny, you know, "Catholic Capricorn." I know, I know--too self-consciously clever. . . :P
This month, I have become increasingly aware of the number of like-minded bloggers, and readers of blogs, who have birthdays in January! (Not that I have any particular reason to note this, mind you. . .) Sarah at just another day of Catholic pondering celebrated her 31st birthday on January 10th, Jen at Et-tu, Jen? also turned 31 this month, on January 12th. One of Sarah's readers turns 31 along with me on the 17th. ('77 was a good year for Catholics or, in many of our cases, Catholics-to-be!) I know of someone else who drops by occasionally whose birthday rings in the New Year. And my son's birthday is January 18th! So happy birthday to all of the Catholic Capricorns**!
*My dissertation director's favorite thing to do in my drafts is to circle every use of the word "this" in order to force me to be more explicit about the reference, which obviously makes perfect sense in my own mind. In this case, "this" refers to the ability of prayerful, truth-seeking Catholics to recognize the truth in representations of Church teachings.
**And to all the non-Catholic Capricorns, too!!--It was just funny, you know, "Catholic Capricorn." I know, I know--too self-consciously clever. . . :P
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Housework & Me
The problem with knowing & reading so many great stay-at-home-mom bloggers is that I read more than my fair share of posts about housework. Particularly in January, it seems, as everyone is trying to get their households under control as part of New Years' Resolutions. Me--not so much. Or if I am, my definition is different: arrange to have the car daily in order to pick the soon-to-be-eleven-year-old up from school, make sure that all of the bills get paid in any given month, learn to get an infant and a toddler in the car by myself. I've been doing pretty good with two of the three--I'll leave you to guess which ones.
My standards of housework perfection are simultaneously high and low. When I read the blogs of stay-at-home moms, I think, "Gee, if this person does this stuff all day while I sit at the computer & read blogs while trying to find the 'correct mental state' for dissertation writing, how must my house compare and should I care a teensy bit more about it?" I frequently feel like I haven't done a single productive thing in a day (don't ask what my definition of "productive" is--I couldn't tell you, except when the mood hits!) I don't feel like I'm an adequate housekeeper--or houseworker (that is, "doer of housework")--though I do, paradoxically, perhaps, feel myself to be an adequate homemaker. Perhaps that's where the contrast comes in, I'm not sure. . . But home maker seems to imply an attitude and an overall effort to make a house--and a household--home like, which seems to be something beyond mere neatness or organization.
So anyone who actually pledges to stay home & take care of cleaning, etc., as a full time job has my admiration, and if I imagine myself in comparison to these individuals, I will almost certainly feel that I come up short. I think of my grandmother, who had a task for each day of the week, including weekly vacuuming and dusting (!), and whose house always seemed perfect. (Vacuuming and dusting are only to be done if guests are expected, pine needles accumulate, or dissertation writing is being put off.) I was illustrating her system of washcloth folding to my son over the weekend: the washcloths had to be folded in fourths, but all in the same direction, so that the stripe was on the top of the folded towel and parallel to the folded portion. Everyone who took a bath at her house had to wipe out the bathtub afterward to maintain a clean tub! Obviously, I will never strive to that kind of perfection. But I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, I am that much worse than my peers, or if we merely harbor different goals. . .
In a given day, I know there are things I need to accomplish. I need to drop off my husband and son in the morning so that I have the car in order to pick them both up in the afternoon. I need to make sure that the toddler has at least 2 meals (or as close to two meals as I can manage) before picking up Brother and Daddy. I need to feed myself a reasonable amount of fairly-nutritious food. I need to give the toddler a nap. I need to bathe myself, either before the dropping off or during the napping. I need to change at least 2 toddler diapers before the nap. I need to accommodate the needs of the infant, allowing her or helping her to sleep when necessary, feeding her on demand, changing diapers as necessary. Those are the essentials! I may give some thought to dinner early in the day, but by the time supper preparation time rolls around, I may have changed my mind! Other tasks happen when they happen, and are governed by necessity: if someone has worn all of their pants this week, pants need to be washed. If the dirty clothes is overflowing the dirty clothes receptacles, multiple batches are in order (they used to be washed on the weekends, but laundry is no longer something that can be accomplished all at one time. . .). If the clutter is becoming overwhelming, straightening up is on the agenda. If bills need to be paid, I wash some more clothes--you get the idea! ;) During semesters when I teach, papers are graded before they need to be returned, and class prep is accomplished during the days on which I teach if I teach in the evening. The point being, I prioritize tasks. Often if I want to accomplish one particular thing, like cooking a pot of soup or two from my favorite Monastery Soups cookbook, making blankies or some other sewing project, or baking a king cake, for example, something else (hopefully not toddler meals) gets pushed aside. Hey! Some things can wait! I put it down to a quality of life issue. And I'm not always this laid back about it, as my husband, who does a considerable amount of "what needs to be done" can attest. But I am opposed to scheduling my day. I don't think it would make things less overwhelming or make my day seem more productive. Rather, it would emphasize what I have been unable to accomplish in an unhealthy way. I do enough of that on my own!
I am not what most would consider organized, but I have enough of my grandmother in me that I could be--really obsessively organized. (The perfectionist gene manifests itself differently in each generation. I received more than my share.) So when I organize, I really organize. When I wash clothes, my batches include darks, blue jeans, lighter mediums, darker mediums, lights, white clothes, reds, light towels, colored towels, and baby clothes. So I stay away from opportunities to organize like the child of an alcoholic avoids alcohol. 'Cause daily life doesn't have to be that perfect, especially if sanity and happiness (yours and others') are lost in the process. I scoff at visiting picture-perfect professors' houses (yeah, like those children's books would be stacked just. so. on that antique chair if any real children lived here!!) Mess is part of life, as long as it's not unsanitary.
Now, clearly I do not think of myself as a stay-at-home mom. I share a lot with stay-at-home moms. For starters, I am usually home with my children all day during the week. I do not choose to put my children into others' care while they are small. In fact, I don't like to put them into childcare until preschool--part time--at age 3, if I can arrange it. Even then, we start with 2 or 3 half days a week, and I am very selective of the facility, preferring Montessori. My son only went to kindergarten part time. And yet, although I am home a lot, I do work outside of the home. I am not currently full-time, and I hope not to be (2-3 classes is enough!!). I choose my hours as much as possible to make things convenient for me to stay with my family. But I am not a stay-at-home mom. And I wonder if this influences my perception of housework. I really don't think of housework as part of my vocation--it's just something unpleasant that needs to be done, and everyone pitches in to keep everything running fairly smoothly. And it works! There are frustrations, and a certain big brother needs to become accustomed to his share, but it does work. In a given day, I--or we--accomplish enough to be able to sit down in the evening and relax a little knowing that the tasks that will not wait are taken care of. And at the end of the day, that's what's important.
My standards of housework perfection are simultaneously high and low. When I read the blogs of stay-at-home moms, I think, "Gee, if this person does this stuff all day while I sit at the computer & read blogs while trying to find the 'correct mental state' for dissertation writing, how must my house compare and should I care a teensy bit more about it?" I frequently feel like I haven't done a single productive thing in a day (don't ask what my definition of "productive" is--I couldn't tell you, except when the mood hits!) I don't feel like I'm an adequate housekeeper--or houseworker (that is, "doer of housework")--though I do, paradoxically, perhaps, feel myself to be an adequate homemaker. Perhaps that's where the contrast comes in, I'm not sure. . . But home maker seems to imply an attitude and an overall effort to make a house--and a household--home like, which seems to be something beyond mere neatness or organization.
So anyone who actually pledges to stay home & take care of cleaning, etc., as a full time job has my admiration, and if I imagine myself in comparison to these individuals, I will almost certainly feel that I come up short. I think of my grandmother, who had a task for each day of the week, including weekly vacuuming and dusting (!), and whose house always seemed perfect. (Vacuuming and dusting are only to be done if guests are expected, pine needles accumulate, or dissertation writing is being put off.) I was illustrating her system of washcloth folding to my son over the weekend: the washcloths had to be folded in fourths, but all in the same direction, so that the stripe was on the top of the folded towel and parallel to the folded portion. Everyone who took a bath at her house had to wipe out the bathtub afterward to maintain a clean tub! Obviously, I will never strive to that kind of perfection. But I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, I am that much worse than my peers, or if we merely harbor different goals. . .
In a given day, I know there are things I need to accomplish. I need to drop off my husband and son in the morning so that I have the car in order to pick them both up in the afternoon. I need to make sure that the toddler has at least 2 meals (or as close to two meals as I can manage) before picking up Brother and Daddy. I need to feed myself a reasonable amount of fairly-nutritious food. I need to give the toddler a nap. I need to bathe myself, either before the dropping off or during the napping. I need to change at least 2 toddler diapers before the nap. I need to accommodate the needs of the infant, allowing her or helping her to sleep when necessary, feeding her on demand, changing diapers as necessary. Those are the essentials! I may give some thought to dinner early in the day, but by the time supper preparation time rolls around, I may have changed my mind! Other tasks happen when they happen, and are governed by necessity: if someone has worn all of their pants this week, pants need to be washed. If the dirty clothes is overflowing the dirty clothes receptacles, multiple batches are in order (they used to be washed on the weekends, but laundry is no longer something that can be accomplished all at one time. . .). If the clutter is becoming overwhelming, straightening up is on the agenda. If bills need to be paid, I wash some more clothes--you get the idea! ;) During semesters when I teach, papers are graded before they need to be returned, and class prep is accomplished during the days on which I teach if I teach in the evening. The point being, I prioritize tasks. Often if I want to accomplish one particular thing, like cooking a pot of soup or two from my favorite Monastery Soups cookbook, making blankies or some other sewing project, or baking a king cake, for example, something else (hopefully not toddler meals) gets pushed aside. Hey! Some things can wait! I put it down to a quality of life issue. And I'm not always this laid back about it, as my husband, who does a considerable amount of "what needs to be done" can attest. But I am opposed to scheduling my day. I don't think it would make things less overwhelming or make my day seem more productive. Rather, it would emphasize what I have been unable to accomplish in an unhealthy way. I do enough of that on my own!
I am not what most would consider organized, but I have enough of my grandmother in me that I could be--really obsessively organized. (The perfectionist gene manifests itself differently in each generation. I received more than my share.) So when I organize, I really organize. When I wash clothes, my batches include darks, blue jeans, lighter mediums, darker mediums, lights, white clothes, reds, light towels, colored towels, and baby clothes. So I stay away from opportunities to organize like the child of an alcoholic avoids alcohol. 'Cause daily life doesn't have to be that perfect, especially if sanity and happiness (yours and others') are lost in the process. I scoff at visiting picture-perfect professors' houses (yeah, like those children's books would be stacked just. so. on that antique chair if any real children lived here!!) Mess is part of life, as long as it's not unsanitary.
Now, clearly I do not think of myself as a stay-at-home mom. I share a lot with stay-at-home moms. For starters, I am usually home with my children all day during the week. I do not choose to put my children into others' care while they are small. In fact, I don't like to put them into childcare until preschool--part time--at age 3, if I can arrange it. Even then, we start with 2 or 3 half days a week, and I am very selective of the facility, preferring Montessori. My son only went to kindergarten part time. And yet, although I am home a lot, I do work outside of the home. I am not currently full-time, and I hope not to be (2-3 classes is enough!!). I choose my hours as much as possible to make things convenient for me to stay with my family. But I am not a stay-at-home mom. And I wonder if this influences my perception of housework. I really don't think of housework as part of my vocation--it's just something unpleasant that needs to be done, and everyone pitches in to keep everything running fairly smoothly. And it works! There are frustrations, and a certain big brother needs to become accustomed to his share, but it does work. In a given day, I--or we--accomplish enough to be able to sit down in the evening and relax a little knowing that the tasks that will not wait are taken care of. And at the end of the day, that's what's important.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
First Post of the New Year
The new year arrived quietly at the Literacy-chic household. I was on the computer perusing the blogs and my mother was on the floor cuddling the toddler before she had to leave today to return to New Orleans. The 10-year-old was trying to get to sleep, while my brother was in the shower. The Chiclette was, I believe, in her bed, and I seemed to have misplaced my husband in this memory. . . We only realized that the new year had begun, bringing and end to a pleasant holiday visit, when we heard a small cacophony of fireworks and realized that the "Happy New Year"s were in order.
I have relaxed my attitude towards New Years over the past couple of years--as the family has grown and staying home & spending a normal, comfortable evening has become more attractive. I guess I'm growing into my age and my family. (hahaha) When I was an undergraduate, I had a friend in a French class whose family was Vietnamese. She told me something about Vietnamese culture and belief about the new year that I will never forget, and which made the new year more significant: that what you are doing when the old year passes into new is what you will be doing the entire year. I believe that the New Year's Eve after I heard that was not a very interesting one--I likely spent my time moping, being lonely, and generally feeling sorry for myself. All I got out of the following year were some poems--go figure. However, the year after that, as 1995 faded into 1996, I spent New Years' Eve with my husband. It was our third date. The first, which I initiated, we went to my favorite pub, which I knew (through mutual acquaintances) that he liked also, to see a Celtic Christmas performance by Danny O'Flaherty. Afterwards, we went to see the lights at Christmas (now Celebration) in the Oaks in New Orleans' City Park--again, something we both enjoyed. We talked the whole night, and even as early as that first night, he mentioned marriage (mostly conversationally, once more specifically--in a joking way), and I was surprised that I was not put off by the mention of the word, as I had been with other dates. Our second date was much less formal and came after our mutual interest was reestablished after a few weeks incommunicado during a bout of bronchitis that left me concerned about his interest since the ball was clearly in his court!! So our third date found us, on New Year's Eve, at dinner, and a movie, and roaming around New Orleans trying to find an open coffee shop(!), then on the levee watching fireworks. That New Years' did not hold significance for that year alone, but for a lifetime. So we have this to smile about every year, whatever else we might do to celebrate.
The past year has been both difficult and, in retrospect, amazing, as I might say of our married life in general--difficult because of circumstances (and, sometimes, my attitude towards them), but amazing because of love. A large part of the year was occupied by a emotionally and physically exhausting pregnancy, the anxieties of which I have chronicled here. I have had toddler trials and ten-year old trials, and I believe that I am learning to learn in a new way from God's Grace and the wonders of my children. In addition to my own wonderful birth and amazing daughter, I have been more or less involved in the pregnancies of several friends--and for the first time in my life I have friends with whom I can share motherhood. I have also found friends with whom I share faith--and Faith--and I have had the almost surreal experience of making friends online--including getting to know more closely or keep up with people I knew only in passing, or could not keep in touch with easily. The year has seen a number of spiritual obstacles, which I suppose are natural. Someone should tell new converts that the euphoria of conversion is difficult to sustain and to live up to. This may be for the best, or we would all abandon our families to pray all day and night--and then when would we blog? ;) But in the challenges of my growing family, I have found time for meditation and prayer--as I am rocking my toddler. So while the growth may not always have been apparent, I enter 2008 with the hope that the insights I have gained from difficulties encountered will blossom in the new year. Although it feels like the dissertation has remained pretty much the same, I realize that I finished revising 2 chapters in the spring and almost completely rewrote the introduction from only the proposal, which was not yet fully realized, and wrote a new chapter this fall that is almost complete. I have ideas for the conclusion, and have begun the second-to-last chapter. It sounds like a lot when I think about the finished product rather than the process. In spite of the exhaustion of the pregnancy, I taught 2 classes, one in the heat of the summer, and one in the last months of pregnancy, showing (to myself if not to others) that it can, indeed, be done. Our family has a new life in our midst, and a new home in which to nurture her. Newness speaks of hope, and it is with prayerful hope--especially for my mother and my grandmother, and my aunt who has cancer not likely to be cured--that I greet the new year. I pray that I can remember this side of difficulties as I face them in 2008.
My hopes for the new year include being able to maintain my family's finances, finishing the dissertation, finding employment that allows me to keep my baby-friendly schedule. I hope to balance my time with my children, remembering that even self-sufficient ten-year-olds need their parents' time and attention, to keep a clear path to walk through the apartment at all times, and to cook meals at home consistently. I want to renew my spirituality, whether that means finding a path to spirituality at home or deepening my connection with God through the sacraments or C/church more generally. I am looking forward to being able to schedule our daughter's baptism--hopefully for this month. I want to renew my personal devotion to the Eucharist in particular, and to learn what that means exactly!
A side note: I find myself keeping baby names in reserve. Has this birth made me more "open to life" than I had been? Do I understand that better now? I do think that 2008 will be a pregnancy-free year, but after that, who knows?
That's as close to New Years' resolutions as I will get. . . I am surprised at how much I have learned, and how blessed I feel looking back, though it did not always seem so at the time. Wishing you all blessings and all of the hope that a new year implies!
~Literacy-chic
I have relaxed my attitude towards New Years over the past couple of years--as the family has grown and staying home & spending a normal, comfortable evening has become more attractive. I guess I'm growing into my age and my family. (hahaha) When I was an undergraduate, I had a friend in a French class whose family was Vietnamese. She told me something about Vietnamese culture and belief about the new year that I will never forget, and which made the new year more significant: that what you are doing when the old year passes into new is what you will be doing the entire year. I believe that the New Year's Eve after I heard that was not a very interesting one--I likely spent my time moping, being lonely, and generally feeling sorry for myself. All I got out of the following year were some poems--go figure. However, the year after that, as 1995 faded into 1996, I spent New Years' Eve with my husband. It was our third date. The first, which I initiated, we went to my favorite pub, which I knew (through mutual acquaintances) that he liked also, to see a Celtic Christmas performance by Danny O'Flaherty. Afterwards, we went to see the lights at Christmas (now Celebration) in the Oaks in New Orleans' City Park--again, something we both enjoyed. We talked the whole night, and even as early as that first night, he mentioned marriage (mostly conversationally, once more specifically--in a joking way), and I was surprised that I was not put off by the mention of the word, as I had been with other dates. Our second date was much less formal and came after our mutual interest was reestablished after a few weeks incommunicado during a bout of bronchitis that left me concerned about his interest since the ball was clearly in his court!! So our third date found us, on New Year's Eve, at dinner, and a movie, and roaming around New Orleans trying to find an open coffee shop(!), then on the levee watching fireworks. That New Years' did not hold significance for that year alone, but for a lifetime. So we have this to smile about every year, whatever else we might do to celebrate.
The past year has been both difficult and, in retrospect, amazing, as I might say of our married life in general--difficult because of circumstances (and, sometimes, my attitude towards them), but amazing because of love. A large part of the year was occupied by a emotionally and physically exhausting pregnancy, the anxieties of which I have chronicled here. I have had toddler trials and ten-year old trials, and I believe that I am learning to learn in a new way from God's Grace and the wonders of my children. In addition to my own wonderful birth and amazing daughter, I have been more or less involved in the pregnancies of several friends--and for the first time in my life I have friends with whom I can share motherhood. I have also found friends with whom I share faith--and Faith--and I have had the almost surreal experience of making friends online--including getting to know more closely or keep up with people I knew only in passing, or could not keep in touch with easily. The year has seen a number of spiritual obstacles, which I suppose are natural. Someone should tell new converts that the euphoria of conversion is difficult to sustain and to live up to. This may be for the best, or we would all abandon our families to pray all day and night--and then when would we blog? ;) But in the challenges of my growing family, I have found time for meditation and prayer--as I am rocking my toddler. So while the growth may not always have been apparent, I enter 2008 with the hope that the insights I have gained from difficulties encountered will blossom in the new year. Although it feels like the dissertation has remained pretty much the same, I realize that I finished revising 2 chapters in the spring and almost completely rewrote the introduction from only the proposal, which was not yet fully realized, and wrote a new chapter this fall that is almost complete. I have ideas for the conclusion, and have begun the second-to-last chapter. It sounds like a lot when I think about the finished product rather than the process. In spite of the exhaustion of the pregnancy, I taught 2 classes, one in the heat of the summer, and one in the last months of pregnancy, showing (to myself if not to others) that it can, indeed, be done. Our family has a new life in our midst, and a new home in which to nurture her. Newness speaks of hope, and it is with prayerful hope--especially for my mother and my grandmother, and my aunt who has cancer not likely to be cured--that I greet the new year. I pray that I can remember this side of difficulties as I face them in 2008.
My hopes for the new year include being able to maintain my family's finances, finishing the dissertation, finding employment that allows me to keep my baby-friendly schedule. I hope to balance my time with my children, remembering that even self-sufficient ten-year-olds need their parents' time and attention, to keep a clear path to walk through the apartment at all times, and to cook meals at home consistently. I want to renew my spirituality, whether that means finding a path to spirituality at home or deepening my connection with God through the sacraments or C/church more generally. I am looking forward to being able to schedule our daughter's baptism--hopefully for this month. I want to renew my personal devotion to the Eucharist in particular, and to learn what that means exactly!
A side note: I find myself keeping baby names in reserve. Has this birth made me more "open to life" than I had been? Do I understand that better now? I do think that 2008 will be a pregnancy-free year, but after that, who knows?
That's as close to New Years' resolutions as I will get. . . I am surprised at how much I have learned, and how blessed I feel looking back, though it did not always seem so at the time. Wishing you all blessings and all of the hope that a new year implies!
~Literacy-chic
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Not so Bad After All. . .
FYI--Things have been going well on the 10-year old front through the weekend. I believe there might have been some misunderstanding and embarrassment making the disrespect seem worse than it was. So when my mother departs, we will discuss things further, but a lesser punishment (or an earlier reprieve) may be in order. However, the threat of present confiscation has produced a more conscientious child. Maybe he & I are okay after all! However, there have been lessons learned all around about how your words and actions influence how you are perceived as a person. And about balancing honesty with tact, for want of a better word!
Friday, December 28, 2007
Pre-Teen Discipline Strategies. . .
I've mentioned before that I've been having ten-year old trouble (and toddler trouble. . . in fact, I seem always to be complaining about something). It is escalating into almost 11-year old trouble. Not even the pre-Christmas threats seemed to make a temporary impression. Admittedly, we have had some special circumstances over the past several weeks. My brother has been staying with us until my mom could come back up from Louisiana, and they are 2 1/2 years apart. My brother also has rather a challenging personality. So they did tire of each other's company. But my son has adopted the attitude that he is better than everyone everywhere--an attitude he likely gets from his parents, both from our example and from messages we have given him. He is unkind to his sister, his uncle, and disrespectful to his parents and (especially) to my mother. This has me perplexed. I am a lot of things, but I always show respect to my mother and family and others' parents in particular. Basically, I am respectful to those whom I consider deserving of that respect, or to whom I am expected to show respect. I know, I've just incriminated myself. But I have always tried to teach him to be respectful. I have also always considered him very empathetic. Not so. In fact, he has very little regard for others' feelings, especially his sister's and my mother's. Now, my own siblings are very disrespectful towards my mother, but I have never been. I have, however, been honest--too honest, I now believe--with my critiques of teachers in particular. I felt like I should be honest with him about what I felt were their shortcomings so that he did not feel like teachers were always right. I have, in short, created a monster, and it is coming back to bite me. Perhaps I was too young to know the consequences of these child-rearing choices and attitudes towards others, though my intentions were good--I have mellowed in the past few years in particular, especially since becoming Catholic. But I am left with a problem child who can please when it suits him and he needs to put on a show--or at least that's how I feel, and what my mother thinks. There are certainly those who tell me that he is a good child. I have always wanted to believe that--and have been successful. After all, I have been defending his existence in my mind since he was conceived. But I am no longer sure. Yesterday, he acted and spoke to my mother--currently my house guest--in a way that suggested that he had an authority in my house that was above hers. And then, as damage control, he gave me a significantly slanted version of the story. In the process, he has lost all of his Christmas gifts, including his brand-new iPod Nano, his one big present. Christmas Eve I was lamenting his behavior and feeling unenthusiastic about giving him presents. He has disappointed me greatly, but my standards are high--not impossibly so, but high. I don't expect him to be any more than I was at his age: helpful, respectful, responsible, generous. I spent $61 on a fundraiser for orchestra in November so that he could get a free candle. I thought he would give it as a present. He did not. Heavily pregnant, I made a pair of pants for his Halloween costume in an afternoon. He expressed no gratitude. A few months ago, I was able to buy the one thing he wanted most for Christmas--a Nintendo Wii. I bought one on the spot when I happened upon them at Target. I kept it overnight and returned it the next morning. There were many reasons for the return--cost, not wanting fights over the television, thinking the living room was too small, dreading the toddler's frustrated attempts to play, not wanting to feed the obsession. But had he been better behaved these past few months, most of those things would have been overlooked. See? Santa doesn't give naughty children the same consideration. That iPod was a luxury, though, and I debated whether it was appropriate. It was at least more "serious."
I hate posting things like this, really. Such posts leave out the big picture. Unfortunately, the bad attitude has clouded my perception of a host of positives, including his near straight-A grades, his loving moments (which are only moments, and are select), and his occasional willing help (which is too infrequent), much as his arrogance about his cello-performance clouds (in my mind) his accomplishments (the line between pride and arrogance is painfully thin). I hope that all who read this, in particular the bloggers we will soon meet, do not judge him (or me) too harshly. I only post this now because of my proposed resolution. . .
Because this was a serious offense, we debated about punishment. Taking away treasured things or privileges for a set period of time (or indefinitely) is ineffective--he simply waits out the punishment with little attempt at reform. Guilt is temporarily effective. I hate to use the Church and Sacraments as a child-rearing crutch, though I was thinking that weekly confessions might not be out of order. What else is there? Well, I don't like the rhetorical strategy of saying, "I prayed for an answer," but, well, I did. I had already decided to take away the Christmas gifts, but for how long? And what would be accomplished besides causing hurt and resentment? I found a web page that suggested rewards for positive behavior. It sparked an idea: He will earn the return of the gifts--slowly, through acts of kindness, generosity, respect, responsibility, and reparation. I plan to make a chart listing the items and how many stars will be required to earn an item. At the end of the day, his efforts will be analyzed collectively, and stars may (or may not) be awarded. I do not anticipate a star every day. In this way, the items will be recovered through his own efforts, and the behavior might become habitual. Hopefully, the acts will be genuine--a real "turning away." Anyway, that is my theory. Any thoughts?
I hate posting things like this, really. Such posts leave out the big picture. Unfortunately, the bad attitude has clouded my perception of a host of positives, including his near straight-A grades, his loving moments (which are only moments, and are select), and his occasional willing help (which is too infrequent), much as his arrogance about his cello-performance clouds (in my mind) his accomplishments (the line between pride and arrogance is painfully thin). I hope that all who read this, in particular the bloggers we will soon meet, do not judge him (or me) too harshly. I only post this now because of my proposed resolution. . .
Because this was a serious offense, we debated about punishment. Taking away treasured things or privileges for a set period of time (or indefinitely) is ineffective--he simply waits out the punishment with little attempt at reform. Guilt is temporarily effective. I hate to use the Church and Sacraments as a child-rearing crutch, though I was thinking that weekly confessions might not be out of order. What else is there? Well, I don't like the rhetorical strategy of saying, "I prayed for an answer," but, well, I did. I had already decided to take away the Christmas gifts, but for how long? And what would be accomplished besides causing hurt and resentment? I found a web page that suggested rewards for positive behavior. It sparked an idea: He will earn the return of the gifts--slowly, through acts of kindness, generosity, respect, responsibility, and reparation. I plan to make a chart listing the items and how many stars will be required to earn an item. At the end of the day, his efforts will be analyzed collectively, and stars may (or may not) be awarded. I do not anticipate a star every day. In this way, the items will be recovered through his own efforts, and the behavior might become habitual. Hopefully, the acts will be genuine--a real "turning away." Anyway, that is my theory. Any thoughts?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Family Dynamics
. . . are a complete mystery to me. And I sometimes wonder if they are influenced by heredity. Birth order has always been interesting to me as well. And I don't have to tell anyone that I was concerned about my own family dynamic--so far, so good, but time will tell. . . But as the oldest of 6 children, and the only one from a first marriage, I have found myself feeling, well, different the older we all get. I am also the only one married and with children, and I was born just about 6 years before my oldest sister, and 17 years before my youngest brother. So I have always been the responsible sister, not the fun sister. This is more awkward since I'm not taking care of everyone (well, maybe I took care of my 13-year-old brother for a little while recently, but it feels different since I'm not a teenager myself anymore. . .), and now that they are all old enough to "go out" and "hang out." *sigh*
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Merry Christmas!
I'm 33 minutes late (sort of) and severely sleep deprived, but I wanted to wish everyone a happy and peaceful Christmas throughout the Christmas season! Wishing blessings to you & your families!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Secret of the Universe
Evidently, it's getting up early. Who knew? Legions of morning people, apparently. So that's going to have to be the routine. :P
I am an evening person. My most productive hours for writing have traditionally been between 11 P.M. and 2 A.M. Even if I get up early, I can't go to bed before 11:30. In the mornings when my toddler was smaller, I would drop my husband off at work (one car) for somewhere between 8 and 8:30 (which required leaving the house between 7:45 and 8:15), then return home (most mornings) and climb in bed with her & snuggle. This was also her favorite time to nurse until after she was a year. The pattern (minus the nursing) remained constant while I was pregnant, and since the baby was born, I have not really had to get up; I merely relinquished the car. Since I allowed my permit to lapse, however, parking has been rather pricey for my husband, and we can't really afford that. Sleeping in is a hard habit to break. And yet. . .
This morning, I wasn't necessarily planning to get up & take the car. Yesterday I was planning on it, but my alarm clock (aka husband) didn't know the plan. I was also exhausted from a busy day on Tuesday. But this morning, Chiclette woke up to eat, and Doodle, who was in our bed after a Post-Nemo Traumatic Stress Nightmare (we have to be very careful what she watches or she wakes up yelling "Help! Help! Momma! Daddy!"--very sad) woke up, too. So I figured, what the heck? I knew it would be a challenge if Doodle fell asleep on the way home to get both babies in the house from the car, but I did it! Carrying a 35 lb. or so toddler with an infant car seat over one's arm is not the easiest thing in the word, but it is doable! That is something I was dreading, frankly. But I now realize that I can get both children in and out of the car by myself under various conditions. (Small triumphs)
So I got home with both babies asleep, put Doodle in her bed, took a bath, ate a PB & J, sorted clothes, started a batch, pinned a blanket front to the fleece back & stitched around the perimeter, and sewed two 4-square rows of a Christmas blanket (adult sized) that I'm making--all before Doodle & Chiclette woke up at around 10 A.M. Yay!! Now I'm ready for a nap. :P I can see this being a good time to work on the dissertation. I don't do intellectual activity well in the mornings, but that's what Limited Edition bottled Peppermint Mocha Frappuccinos (from SAM'S Club) are for!
So there you go. Most of you caught on to the Secret of the Universe before I did, but I generally have to be dragged kicking & screaming into these things. I'm still not completely happy about this, but at least Chiclette sleeps from 6-8 hours in a typical night! (So yes, it is possible for breast fed babies. She'll make up for it when she hits a year, I'm sure.)
Incidently, the Secret of the Universe for Toddlers is different, and consists of two words said often in rapid succession: "NO! MINE!!"
I am an evening person. My most productive hours for writing have traditionally been between 11 P.M. and 2 A.M. Even if I get up early, I can't go to bed before 11:30. In the mornings when my toddler was smaller, I would drop my husband off at work (one car) for somewhere between 8 and 8:30 (which required leaving the house between 7:45 and 8:15), then return home (most mornings) and climb in bed with her & snuggle. This was also her favorite time to nurse until after she was a year. The pattern (minus the nursing) remained constant while I was pregnant, and since the baby was born, I have not really had to get up; I merely relinquished the car. Since I allowed my permit to lapse, however, parking has been rather pricey for my husband, and we can't really afford that. Sleeping in is a hard habit to break. And yet. . .
This morning, I wasn't necessarily planning to get up & take the car. Yesterday I was planning on it, but my alarm clock (aka husband) didn't know the plan. I was also exhausted from a busy day on Tuesday. But this morning, Chiclette woke up to eat, and Doodle, who was in our bed after a Post-Nemo Traumatic Stress Nightmare (we have to be very careful what she watches or she wakes up yelling "Help! Help! Momma! Daddy!"--very sad) woke up, too. So I figured, what the heck? I knew it would be a challenge if Doodle fell asleep on the way home to get both babies in the house from the car, but I did it! Carrying a 35 lb. or so toddler with an infant car seat over one's arm is not the easiest thing in the word, but it is doable! That is something I was dreading, frankly. But I now realize that I can get both children in and out of the car by myself under various conditions. (Small triumphs)
So I got home with both babies asleep, put Doodle in her bed, took a bath, ate a PB & J, sorted clothes, started a batch, pinned a blanket front to the fleece back & stitched around the perimeter, and sewed two 4-square rows of a Christmas blanket (adult sized) that I'm making--all before Doodle & Chiclette woke up at around 10 A.M. Yay!! Now I'm ready for a nap. :P I can see this being a good time to work on the dissertation. I don't do intellectual activity well in the mornings, but that's what Limited Edition bottled Peppermint Mocha Frappuccinos (from SAM'S Club) are for!
So there you go. Most of you caught on to the Secret of the Universe before I did, but I generally have to be dragged kicking & screaming into these things. I'm still not completely happy about this, but at least Chiclette sleeps from 6-8 hours in a typical night! (So yes, it is possible for breast fed babies. She'll make up for it when she hits a year, I'm sure.)
Incidently, the Secret of the Universe for Toddlers is different, and consists of two words said often in rapid succession: "NO! MINE!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)