Everything is going very well, but in every free moment during the week, I'm prepping to teach or getting things settled with the family. On MWF, Doodle has been in our parish's Child Development Center from 9:30-2:30. Today was our third day, and things are going well. I wasn't too sure until today about her teacher, who is very hard to "read," but today I got a better "feel" for her dynamic with Doodle in particular, and it put me at ease quite a bit. It's really not a lot of time for her to be away--by the time I'm finished teaching, it's just about time to pick her up! Still not sure where she'll be for the fall, but I've got a few weeks. It depends on the potty training situation, which is going well. We have largely overcome the fear of the toilet flushing underneath her, mainly by taking it slowly. Accidents are minimal these days. That's quite a relief. On the days when Doodle is at the CDC, Chiclette and big brother (BB) are with my husband at work--one little 8-month-old doesn't cause too much of a disruption--for about 2 hours, give or take. On Tuesdays, they all stay home with my youngest sister to watch them, and on Thursdays they are with a friend, playing with her 3! They always have fun when they're together. BB is a big brother to all of them--and is introducing her 5-year-old to Pokemon!
I'm enjoying teaching children's lit. I am teaching it like a cross between "children's literature criticism & theory" and an intro to lit or genre course. I find myself covering some of the same ground as intro to lit because they just haven't had the stuff. It's a small class, which is good, and I will be able to do some more tweaking for the fall. We have covered a general intro to children's lit, including a "how critics talk about this stuff," then talked about picture books and alphabets. Next is verse. The Norton Anthology is good, but leaves a lot of room for supplementation. You know, picture books get heavy when you carry enough of them!!
I'm starting to think that this is really what I want to do--to teach children's lit, fantasy, science fiction--all of that marginal stuff that doesn't get much attention. It's fun, and there's nothing I really HAVE to do--I can have fun with it, and for me, the "fun" is treating it like an advanced lit course by incorporating criticism & having them write analyses of the books. I'd also like to teach Brit Lit, but I'll be looking for children's lit positions.
I am trying to sew in my spare time. I have a "chicken dress" cut out and partially assembled for Doodle, who is at the perfect age for me to make dresses. It will have 3 ruffled tiers. The bodice is a brown fabric with chickens. The first tier is wheat & grasses. The second is black with chicken wire, and the third is EGGS! :) Sadly, they're not free range chickens. . . It is an Ottobre pattern. So nice to sew with my new machine! But I have to restrain myself.
I missed a Saturday of research in the Science Fiction archives (they were closed 7/05), and still haven't posted all of my notes & analysis (see other blog), but plan to get back on track this weekend.
Chiclette is growing by leaps & bounds (and I'm totally failing to chronicle it all)! She has had 2 teeth for several weeks now, is scooting & almost crawling, sitting up by herself, kneeling up & thinking about standing. Trust me, I can tell! ;) Her hair is past her eyes. When I think about it, I put it up in a Pebbles ponytail. She eats solids twice a day--had to step that up recently--and still nurses regularly. She now contests Doodle for the right to sleep next to me. :P Knew the sleeping wouldn't last.
So that's life, and you will forgive me if I grow neglectful. I hope to catch up with everyone one day!! Until then, well, this life is fun, too.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
No, really. . . Stanley Fish is my hero!
Check out his own words, here and here. I understand his position perfectly.
A couple of things, though. . .
First, I just love that the inventor of Reader Response Theory has this to say:
Bob reports that he was not able “to obtain a grade above a ‘C’ until I changed my political views when interpreting, say, a Robert Frost poem.” But why should your political views have anything to do with the interpretation of a Robert Frost poem? You’re trying to figure out where Frost stands, politically or otherwise; where you stand is simply not to the point.
First thing--DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. We might try to figure out what discourses Frost's poem is tapping into, or historicize it according to issues of his day. We are absolutely NOT "trying to figure out where Frost stands" (anymore). You should know that, Mr. Fish! Second thing--Aren't the students' political views part of what they "bring to the table" in the act of interpretation in which the reader and the author collaborate through the written text in the creation of a separate but more valid text that is the result of the reading process (since how can a text exist unless it is read)? Or was all that kind of thing just an exercise in theoretical loop-de-loops?
Then, there's this piece of loveliness:
It would be no more difficult for a neo-Nazi or a Klu Kluxer to set aside his or her views and concentrate on the pedagogical task than it would be for a devout Catholic or a militant atheist.
I object to "devout Catholic" being named alongside a "a neo-Nazi or a Klu Kluxer" (admittedly, not terms supplied by Fish himself, merely repeated from comments), since the latter terms are anti-social, hate-filled ideologies and extremist positions. If one should object that "devout Catholic" was being equated, rather, with a "militant atheist," the objection doesn't improve matters. Observe the term, "militant." Is "devout" even analogous? Only if one assumes that both positions are equally invalid, and even so, devotion does not imply domination of others through belief. Or if one thinks that religious belief itself, or perhaps the beliefs of certain religions (not Islam, for example) is inherently extremist. (Anastasia has some interesting thoughts on extremism. . .)
This choice of comparisons also introduces something that Fish does not address, namely, whether the "leave personal beliefs out of the classroom" admonition applies equally to all types of colleges/universities, since religious belief is clearly included. The implementing of curricula at Catholic colleges, hence, the organization of syllabi and selection of texts may be (but isn't always, I understand) done according to a Catholic perspective. What then? I guess if you accept that a university may explicitly contextualize itself within a certain worldview (or intellectual tradition), the goal of the educational experience might shift a bit, being framed within a religious context, so one might expect to find Joyce taught a bit differently, for example. I would still consider teaching Joyce within a context appropriate to the specific intellectual tradition or worldview represented by the university focusing on the task at hand, but the task is defined somewhat differently.
Which brings me to the conclusion of this piece:
Sarah touches on what is perhaps the most urgent question one could put to the enterprise of liberal education. What, after all, justifies it? The demand for justification, as I have said in other places, always come from those outside the enterprise. Those inside the enterprise should resist it, because to justify something is to diminish it by implying that its value lies elsewhere. If the question What justifies what you do? won’t go away, the best answer to give is “nothing.”
I like this, really. I've said before that I believe that reading and analyzing text is inherently valuable, in spite of the fact that it does not directly impact the "real world"--whatever that is. And a contemplative life (which I do not claim to live) may be valuable for the individual and those he/she touches, if intangibly so. I think that some colleges and universities are able to more openly acknowledge that not only "useful" subjects are "useful." And I think that some colleges and universities are able to couch this inherent worth by framing the learning process within the context of religious belief--at least, that's how I would imagine it would work. Does that mean that I would feel confident saying in the classroom that I find Obama morally repugnant? Not a bit of it. Does this mean I would feel comfortable comparing aspects of the worldview in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to a papal encyclical? Yup.
A couple of things, though. . .
First, I just love that the inventor of Reader Response Theory has this to say:
Bob reports that he was not able “to obtain a grade above a ‘C’ until I changed my political views when interpreting, say, a Robert Frost poem.” But why should your political views have anything to do with the interpretation of a Robert Frost poem? You’re trying to figure out where Frost stands, politically or otherwise; where you stand is simply not to the point.
First thing--DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. We might try to figure out what discourses Frost's poem is tapping into, or historicize it according to issues of his day. We are absolutely NOT "trying to figure out where Frost stands" (anymore). You should know that, Mr. Fish! Second thing--Aren't the students' political views part of what they "bring to the table" in the act of interpretation in which the reader and the author collaborate through the written text in the creation of a separate but more valid text that is the result of the reading process (since how can a text exist unless it is read)? Or was all that kind of thing just an exercise in theoretical loop-de-loops?
Then, there's this piece of loveliness:
It would be no more difficult for a neo-Nazi or a Klu Kluxer to set aside his or her views and concentrate on the pedagogical task than it would be for a devout Catholic or a militant atheist.
I object to "devout Catholic" being named alongside a "a neo-Nazi or a Klu Kluxer" (admittedly, not terms supplied by Fish himself, merely repeated from comments), since the latter terms are anti-social, hate-filled ideologies and extremist positions. If one should object that "devout Catholic" was being equated, rather, with a "militant atheist," the objection doesn't improve matters. Observe the term, "militant." Is "devout" even analogous? Only if one assumes that both positions are equally invalid, and even so, devotion does not imply domination of others through belief. Or if one thinks that religious belief itself, or perhaps the beliefs of certain religions (not Islam, for example) is inherently extremist. (Anastasia has some interesting thoughts on extremism. . .)
This choice of comparisons also introduces something that Fish does not address, namely, whether the "leave personal beliefs out of the classroom" admonition applies equally to all types of colleges/universities, since religious belief is clearly included. The implementing of curricula at Catholic colleges, hence, the organization of syllabi and selection of texts may be (but isn't always, I understand) done according to a Catholic perspective. What then? I guess if you accept that a university may explicitly contextualize itself within a certain worldview (or intellectual tradition), the goal of the educational experience might shift a bit, being framed within a religious context, so one might expect to find Joyce taught a bit differently, for example. I would still consider teaching Joyce within a context appropriate to the specific intellectual tradition or worldview represented by the university focusing on the task at hand, but the task is defined somewhat differently.
Which brings me to the conclusion of this piece:
Sarah touches on what is perhaps the most urgent question one could put to the enterprise of liberal education. What, after all, justifies it? The demand for justification, as I have said in other places, always come from those outside the enterprise. Those inside the enterprise should resist it, because to justify something is to diminish it by implying that its value lies elsewhere. If the question What justifies what you do? won’t go away, the best answer to give is “nothing.”
I like this, really. I've said before that I believe that reading and analyzing text is inherently valuable, in spite of the fact that it does not directly impact the "real world"--whatever that is. And a contemplative life (which I do not claim to live) may be valuable for the individual and those he/she touches, if intangibly so. I think that some colleges and universities are able to more openly acknowledge that not only "useful" subjects are "useful." And I think that some colleges and universities are able to couch this inherent worth by framing the learning process within the context of religious belief--at least, that's how I would imagine it would work. Does that mean that I would feel confident saying in the classroom that I find Obama morally repugnant? Not a bit of it. Does this mean I would feel comfortable comparing aspects of the worldview in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to a papal encyclical? Yup.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Stanley Fish is My Hero
From the man who brought us Reader Response Theory comes some really useful advice: Save The World on Your Own Time! And Good Lord, do I hope it catches on! At the very least, it should cause a stir. I have not had time to blog around to see what others are saying. This hat tip goes to my husband, who referred me to a blog he frequents, Instapundit, and here's the quote:
Now Stanley Fish has in the past drawn a skeptical response from me, as he seems, elsewhere, to advocate the "anything goes" method of teaching literature, and I have never seen the use for that. It seems to me that we must have the text as a common ground, and even if we can't refer back to the author, we should at least be able to refer back to the text and assume that multiple readers, while each bringing something else to the table, can still agree on the essential elements of that text. The text, for me, does not exist somewhere "out there"--discourse surrounding the text and about the text exists "out there," but that's different; rather, it exists in the book in front of us. However, Fish posited (a while ago, this is old news) that it is the reader's engagement with the text, including what the reader brings from his/her own background, that creates a separate thing, the "text" that is the result of a collaboration between the reader and the author. I don't buy it. And I'm not alone, but it was all the rage for a while--before my time. I think the idea was to liberate something from something--the text from critics, the author from biography, the students from professors.
So as a guy who wants to liberate, and transfers this to the classroom, the advice seems odd, no? Except that he remains the champion of the student, in a way. Why do we have to steamroll their opinions and values--all that they bring to the table? Why should we automatically assume that we are the enlightened ones in all matters--including individual values/beliefs? When we alter their ways of thinking, must we alter their consciences? At any rate, Fish has tapped into exactly why I don't want to go into Rhetoric/Comp, although I'm technically qualified and have been groomed for it, more or less. I don't want to hang around these guys and be subjected to the enlightened assumption that everyone does or should agree with their views of the world. And--by the way--teach from their textbooks. If the meaning of a literary text depends on the reader, and if the professor should keep that in mind, then how much more should we stay out of their responses to politics, since that's not what we're called upon to teach?
[Of course, I am coming at this from a very different perspective from Mr. Fish, who scorns neoconservative blah blah blah, etc. and really thinks this king of thing only happens a small percentage of the time. But if that's so, why can't I find a decent composition text?]
STANLEY FISH'S ADVICE TO PROFESSORS: Save the World on Your Own Time.
More on that here. "Whether anyone notices it or not or comments on it or not, the teaching of writing in universities is a disaster. [There is] the conviction on the part of many composition teachers that what they are really teaching is some form of social justice, and that the teaching of writing ... takes a back seat. And in fact in many classrooms the teaching of writing as a craft as something that has rules with appropriate decorums ... is in fact demonized as an indication of the hegemony of the powers that be. This happens over and over again in classrooms and it’s an absolute disaster."
Can I just say thank you?? I have been skeptical of professors' agendas since I was an undergrad, but since I was an undergrad when Clinton was pres. and at a university where no one really cared anymore, I was spared the more overtly political preaching. There was no Ph.D. program, either, so I didn't have activist grad student types (sorry, guys, you know they're out there) telling me what to think. And I've been the fly on the wall for too many "reprogram the Conservative Christian Students" conversations to dismiss the activism as myth. And I'm not just talking about the current generation of Ph.D.s in the department, most of whom I don't know. This stuff has been bantered about since I got here, and got worse when the fear of 9/11 wore off and after Bush won reelection. Perhaps the only thing that would come of a democratic victory would be that we could go back to teaching literature and composition and back off of the politics. (I don't believe this for one minute, btw.) Now, I do think that there can be a political dimension to literary criticism, but it's being hit a little hard, ya know?Now Stanley Fish has in the past drawn a skeptical response from me, as he seems, elsewhere, to advocate the "anything goes" method of teaching literature, and I have never seen the use for that. It seems to me that we must have the text as a common ground, and even if we can't refer back to the author, we should at least be able to refer back to the text and assume that multiple readers, while each bringing something else to the table, can still agree on the essential elements of that text. The text, for me, does not exist somewhere "out there"--discourse surrounding the text and about the text exists "out there," but that's different; rather, it exists in the book in front of us. However, Fish posited (a while ago, this is old news) that it is the reader's engagement with the text, including what the reader brings from his/her own background, that creates a separate thing, the "text" that is the result of a collaboration between the reader and the author. I don't buy it. And I'm not alone, but it was all the rage for a while--before my time. I think the idea was to liberate something from something--the text from critics, the author from biography, the students from professors.
So as a guy who wants to liberate, and transfers this to the classroom, the advice seems odd, no? Except that he remains the champion of the student, in a way. Why do we have to steamroll their opinions and values--all that they bring to the table? Why should we automatically assume that we are the enlightened ones in all matters--including individual values/beliefs? When we alter their ways of thinking, must we alter their consciences? At any rate, Fish has tapped into exactly why I don't want to go into Rhetoric/Comp, although I'm technically qualified and have been groomed for it, more or less. I don't want to hang around these guys and be subjected to the enlightened assumption that everyone does or should agree with their views of the world. And--by the way--teach from their textbooks. If the meaning of a literary text depends on the reader, and if the professor should keep that in mind, then how much more should we stay out of their responses to politics, since that's not what we're called upon to teach?
[Of course, I am coming at this from a very different perspective from Mr. Fish, who scorns neoconservative blah blah blah, etc. and really thinks this king of thing only happens a small percentage of the time. But if that's so, why can't I find a decent composition text?]
Catching Up (sort of)
Well, it's been a busy (hectic, stressful) couple of weeks, but also good, and somewhat productive. I have managed to complete almost all of the necessary paperwork to graduate in August, order regalia (or at least reserve the rental), submit the dissertation, etc. I have been going to research in the archives library every Saturday to work on a research project for which I received an award for the summer. I have also managed to spend my way pretty well through that grant, mainly on basics and incidentals, so this month will be tricky. I did buy a few nice things on sale this past week so I could look nice teaching--did I mention that that starts today?? Potty training has been going well, and my Doodle is even able to use the bathroom in public, so long as she doesn't touch the seat (better for her anyway, really. . .) She starts child care ("school"?) 3x a week this week, and I hope she does well. She likes the classroom--we visited yesterday. The lead teacher is an older woman who is nice, but seems out of touch--particularly out-of-touch with potty training issues, which is bad. She was also a little pedantic in her dealings with Doodle yesterday--I have some vague apprehensions that my little girl will not be seen for what she is--spirited and very intelligent--but will be regarded as willful and defiant. We'll see. . . I clearly need to forget my fears and hope for the best, here. After all, a 10 minute meeting doesn't reveal all, right?
My mom was in town last week (and part of this week) with my youngest brother. That is always a delight and a challenge, but there's too much to be said about that, really. My youngest brother is very unique in many ways and being with him is always an experience unto itself. We had some good times this week. My mom was able to treat us to pizza, and we made taco salads. I met my mom & sister at the mall one day, which was when I bought my teaching outfits. My mom even bought me 2 shirts! I can't tell you how long it's been since she did that--or was even able to do that! She has been awarded some money, and all she can think about is what she can do for us--her children. Which makes me feel bad in a way.
She bought me a new sewing machine!! A shop in New Orleans was going out of business, and he marked down all of his Elna sewing machines. She bought herself a good machine, a backup machine, and a serger (Did I mention that she's a seamstress? She's also doing alterations these days. She makes a mean slipcover & pillows & roman shades, too!). Then she bought me a more basic model--which is just what I wanted!! It's wonderful. Basic for her, but with many more features than my hundred-dollar on-sale-at-Target model (keep in mind that Target does not sell patterns, fabric, thread. . .). It was one of those things that I looked at, thought about, but never would have bought for myself, and so is greatly appreciated. I did manage to make another blanket using the new machine, for a little boy whose first birthday was over the weekend:
One day early last week, we made buttonholes!! It does so automatically, or just about. YAY!! That was one of the things I feared the most! So now, although I have a MILLION things I would like to sew, including a three-tiered "chicken dress" for my Doodle, I have to put it aside indefinitely.
I'm not sure how much blogging I will be able to do, either. I learned during Lent that I get more done if I put the blog away. *sigh* I have a couple of posts in the works for my other blog, Booknotes from Literacy-chic, that will cover my research and perhaps some teaching ideas, too. Hope to see you there! (If I can catch up & keep up!!)
My mom was in town last week (and part of this week) with my youngest brother. That is always a delight and a challenge, but there's too much to be said about that, really. My youngest brother is very unique in many ways and being with him is always an experience unto itself. We had some good times this week. My mom was able to treat us to pizza, and we made taco salads. I met my mom & sister at the mall one day, which was when I bought my teaching outfits. My mom even bought me 2 shirts! I can't tell you how long it's been since she did that--or was even able to do that! She has been awarded some money, and all she can think about is what she can do for us--her children. Which makes me feel bad in a way.
She bought me a new sewing machine!! A shop in New Orleans was going out of business, and he marked down all of his Elna sewing machines. She bought herself a good machine, a backup machine, and a serger (Did I mention that she's a seamstress? She's also doing alterations these days. She makes a mean slipcover & pillows & roman shades, too!). Then she bought me a more basic model--which is just what I wanted!! It's wonderful. Basic for her, but with many more features than my hundred-dollar on-sale-at-Target model (keep in mind that Target does not sell patterns, fabric, thread. . .). It was one of those things that I looked at, thought about, but never would have bought for myself, and so is greatly appreciated. I did manage to make another blanket using the new machine, for a little boy whose first birthday was over the weekend:
One day early last week, we made buttonholes!! It does so automatically, or just about. YAY!! That was one of the things I feared the most! So now, although I have a MILLION things I would like to sew, including a three-tiered "chicken dress" for my Doodle, I have to put it aside indefinitely.
I'm not sure how much blogging I will be able to do, either. I learned during Lent that I get more done if I put the blog away. *sigh* I have a couple of posts in the works for my other blog, Booknotes from Literacy-chic, that will cover my research and perhaps some teaching ideas, too. Hope to see you there! (If I can catch up & keep up!!)
Monday, June 16, 2008
As a 1930s Wife, I'm. . .
 | 49 As a 1930s wife, I am |
I'm surprised I did this well, actually. . . In this area, I aspire to "average"! Heck, I aspire to "barely passable" in some of these categories!!
The test felt biased as I was taking it, as if it were trying to make some kind of feminist point while being cute. But really, I'm not so sure it isn't sort of accurate. At any rate, I can't complain. What do you think (all of you)? How did you score? There's a test for husbands, too, incidently. . .
The test felt biased as I was taking it, as if it were trying to make some kind of feminist point while being cute. But really, I'm not so sure it isn't sort of accurate. At any rate, I can't complain. What do you think (all of you)? How did you score? There's a test for husbands, too, incidently. . .
New Post, Other Blog
At Booknotes from Literacy-chic: I've actually posted something!! Amazing! I'm also trying this out to see if the trackback feature really works. . .
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Speaking of Body Spray. . . [This post is rated PG-13]
Why take a bath if you can use Axe and get laid? My husband got the most offensive postcard ad that I think I've ever seen for Axe Body Spray. I don't even like to think of the implications--of what KIND of body smell you're trying to cover up before you *ahem* "make your move." The interesting thing about Axe is that my husband says the name, for him, evokes wild Norsemen (not "perfumed parlorsnakes"--or prettyboys). Well, they made their move, too. Not too consensual, you know?
Here is some of the rhetoric:
--"Act fast--Don't let opportunity pass you by."
--"Make a move. . . In record time."
--"Now, you'll never miss an opportunity."
--"Keeping these items [Axe body spray, Stride gum] in your pocket will make sure you're always prepared for a spontaneous hook-up." [ED: The safe-sex crowd must love that, too!]
Apparently, Axe has a new "bullet" size. Funny, there's a vibrator and a blender that also share that name.
Don't send ads for casual sex to my home, please. I have an 11-year-old boy, thanks. I know I live in an apartment complex in a college town but you know, I would prefer if you didn't send ads for casual sex to the apartments around me, either. I already worry about living with children in a complex when more than a few couples are "shacking up." *sigh* To think we moved here to be in a better school district.
Here is some of the rhetoric:
--"Act fast--Don't let opportunity pass you by."
--"Make a move. . . In record time."
--"Now, you'll never miss an opportunity."
--"Keeping these items [Axe body spray, Stride gum] in your pocket will make sure you're always prepared for a spontaneous hook-up." [ED: The safe-sex crowd must love that, too!]
Apparently, Axe has a new "bullet" size. Funny, there's a vibrator and a blender that also share that name.
Don't send ads for casual sex to my home, please. I have an 11-year-old boy, thanks. I know I live in an apartment complex in a college town but you know, I would prefer if you didn't send ads for casual sex to the apartments around me, either. I already worry about living with children in a complex when more than a few couples are "shacking up." *sigh* To think we moved here to be in a better school district.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Grumpiest Momma in the World
-or- Why Doesn't Lysol Make a Body Spray??
I have been babysitting a friend's children, ages 3, 5, and 13 mos. on Monday and Tuesday while she teaches, from about 9:15 to 11:45 A.M. I alternate between feeling like this is a real challenge, and that it is pretty cool. I have those "losing my mind" moments. My days of watching 5-7 children at one time are long gone, and while none of the children were mine (they were cousins and siblings), they were known entities, and I was familiar with the dynamic between them all. There is a difference watching non-related children! On the other hand, it is really not difficult, just busy, and there is something vaguely comforting to know that there are kids all over one's house playing.
So on Tuesday, she proposed lunch. Now, I was raised by a mother who avoided playplaces like the plague. In fact, she avoided them in part because of the plague. And if we ever did venture into places like Chuck-e-Cheese's, she knew that (although the kids were certain to get sick afterward) at least I was there to make sure they weren't lost or trampled. So I am a total germophobe. I am deeply suspicious of other children--ones whose parents I don't know. And I am not thrilled with play area precipices and climbing walls and giant tubes that swallow up toddlers. I can't do like so many parents and "let the kids play," particularly when I don't know the kids in question. So I end up watching my own child and monitoring every body else's. This makes for a very stressed momma. I don't think my son went on public play equipment until he was 6. I may exaggerate, but not much.
Now, my friend is very laid-back with this sort of thing. Because of her, I have taken Doodle to a "splash park" (for a birthday party)--unfortunately, my friend's mother will forever think of me as "the one with the little girl who ran and ran and it took three of them to keep track of her." I have taken Doodle to a children's museum with my friend, who laughed while I trailed my too-young-for-most activities toddler. I have taken Doodle to an egg hunt with other kids AND let her play on playground equipment. And, finally, I have taken her to McDonald's. *sigh* It is because of this friend that "fry" was among Doodle's first words!! It's a good influence, in a way. I have been venturing to parks (especially sparsely populated ones) with my three lately, and I am not sooooo paranoid. . . But I still find these situations incredibly stressful.
So we went to McDonald's. With a HUUUUUGE play area. And, as my husband points out, those things really aren't cleaned. At least with outside equipment, the sun is beating down on them, and rain, and some germs are cleaned off. Gee, thanks, hon. Have I mentioned that he & I think a lot alike? ;)
This McD's is newer (hence, cleaner) than some. It has separate (though not divided) areas for ages 3 and under and for bigger kids. When we got there, after eating, the place was positively overrun, and yet many kids had left while we were eating (!!). Being with someone else means that you can't turn tail and run, however, unless the other person shares your particular brand of paranoia.
The first thing I did--before putting down the baby in the carseat--was run the 7-13 year olds (who were using it for "base"--and that means "recipe for rowdiness") off of the toddler area. I asked them, "How old are you? Then leave this part for the smaller kids!" I asked on little boy of 6 or 7, "Are you 3 years old? No? Then go play over there!" People thought I was insane, but no one could argue. A parent or two came over to see what the crazy lady was up too, and why she didn't leave the other kids alone. After surveying the situation, they instructed the older ones to keep to the other area. Then, I just had to make sure no one ran UP the toddler slide, careening into descending toddlers.
A few little girls were being more calm, so I relaxed my vigilance, although they were older. They took an interest in the toddlers and set up "house" on the toddler side. One took Doodle for a "walk" to an area where a video game had once been, and I followed (and was advised by other mothers that there was no outlet there--yeah, but some little girl has my toddler by the hand!!) I had to interfere with the game (predictably, perhaps) when "house" became a bit too aggressive. Seems they had to prevent her from going down the slide as "discipline" because she wouldn't listen to them. I set them straight. Fast. "Ummm, no. She's my little girl and she doesn't have to listen to you. She is too young for this kind of game. Move aside so she can slide." I was always the playground crusader for justice--the "we don't have to play your game if it involves paying money to go down the slide" kind of kid. Yeah, the stick-in-the-mud.
I did fuss at a boy of about 13 who had been playing rowdy and bounded onto the toddler set, but he was going to check on his little sister of about 18 months. So I said I was sorry, and felt a bit foolish, but when we got there, he was one of the ones I had to kick off.
The moment I relaxed my vigilance and talked to another mother, Doodle either escaped to the "big" side, or little girls "grounded" her. But she had a good time (and had her clothes changed and was wiped down with Baby Magic before her nap) and only my son was conscious of his mother's hyper-attentiveness (which she has imparted successfully to him, but more so. . .) You've never seen an 11-year-old so disapproving. Except me. But I'm trying to encourage him to have fun and leave the worrying to me! And maybe worry less myself in the process. Or not. . . There are definite benefits to keeping an eye one's children in public spaces.
I have been babysitting a friend's children, ages 3, 5, and 13 mos. on Monday and Tuesday while she teaches, from about 9:15 to 11:45 A.M. I alternate between feeling like this is a real challenge, and that it is pretty cool. I have those "losing my mind" moments. My days of watching 5-7 children at one time are long gone, and while none of the children were mine (they were cousins and siblings), they were known entities, and I was familiar with the dynamic between them all. There is a difference watching non-related children! On the other hand, it is really not difficult, just busy, and there is something vaguely comforting to know that there are kids all over one's house playing.
So on Tuesday, she proposed lunch. Now, I was raised by a mother who avoided playplaces like the plague. In fact, she avoided them in part because of the plague. And if we ever did venture into places like Chuck-e-Cheese's, she knew that (although the kids were certain to get sick afterward) at least I was there to make sure they weren't lost or trampled. So I am a total germophobe. I am deeply suspicious of other children--ones whose parents I don't know. And I am not thrilled with play area precipices and climbing walls and giant tubes that swallow up toddlers. I can't do like so many parents and "let the kids play," particularly when I don't know the kids in question. So I end up watching my own child and monitoring every body else's. This makes for a very stressed momma. I don't think my son went on public play equipment until he was 6. I may exaggerate, but not much.
Now, my friend is very laid-back with this sort of thing. Because of her, I have taken Doodle to a "splash park" (for a birthday party)--unfortunately, my friend's mother will forever think of me as "the one with the little girl who ran and ran and it took three of them to keep track of her." I have taken Doodle to a children's museum with my friend, who laughed while I trailed my too-young-for-most activities toddler. I have taken Doodle to an egg hunt with other kids AND let her play on playground equipment. And, finally, I have taken her to McDonald's. *sigh* It is because of this friend that "fry" was among Doodle's first words!! It's a good influence, in a way. I have been venturing to parks (especially sparsely populated ones) with my three lately, and I am not sooooo paranoid. . . But I still find these situations incredibly stressful.
So we went to McDonald's. With a HUUUUUGE play area. And, as my husband points out, those things really aren't cleaned. At least with outside equipment, the sun is beating down on them, and rain, and some germs are cleaned off. Gee, thanks, hon. Have I mentioned that he & I think a lot alike? ;)
This McD's is newer (hence, cleaner) than some. It has separate (though not divided) areas for ages 3 and under and for bigger kids. When we got there, after eating, the place was positively overrun, and yet many kids had left while we were eating (!!). Being with someone else means that you can't turn tail and run, however, unless the other person shares your particular brand of paranoia.
The first thing I did--before putting down the baby in the carseat--was run the 7-13 year olds (who were using it for "base"--and that means "recipe for rowdiness") off of the toddler area. I asked them, "How old are you? Then leave this part for the smaller kids!" I asked on little boy of 6 or 7, "Are you 3 years old? No? Then go play over there!" People thought I was insane, but no one could argue. A parent or two came over to see what the crazy lady was up too, and why she didn't leave the other kids alone. After surveying the situation, they instructed the older ones to keep to the other area. Then, I just had to make sure no one ran UP the toddler slide, careening into descending toddlers.
A few little girls were being more calm, so I relaxed my vigilance, although they were older. They took an interest in the toddlers and set up "house" on the toddler side. One took Doodle for a "walk" to an area where a video game had once been, and I followed (and was advised by other mothers that there was no outlet there--yeah, but some little girl has my toddler by the hand!!) I had to interfere with the game (predictably, perhaps) when "house" became a bit too aggressive. Seems they had to prevent her from going down the slide as "discipline" because she wouldn't listen to them. I set them straight. Fast. "Ummm, no. She's my little girl and she doesn't have to listen to you. She is too young for this kind of game. Move aside so she can slide." I was always the playground crusader for justice--the "we don't have to play your game if it involves paying money to go down the slide" kind of kid. Yeah, the stick-in-the-mud.
I did fuss at a boy of about 13 who had been playing rowdy and bounded onto the toddler set, but he was going to check on his little sister of about 18 months. So I said I was sorry, and felt a bit foolish, but when we got there, he was one of the ones I had to kick off.
The moment I relaxed my vigilance and talked to another mother, Doodle either escaped to the "big" side, or little girls "grounded" her. But she had a good time (and had her clothes changed and was wiped down with Baby Magic before her nap) and only my son was conscious of his mother's hyper-attentiveness (which she has imparted successfully to him, but more so. . .) You've never seen an 11-year-old so disapproving. Except me. But I'm trying to encourage him to have fun and leave the worrying to me! And maybe worry less myself in the process. Or not. . . There are definite benefits to keeping an eye one's children in public spaces.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Remembering my Grandfather
He would have been 83 years old today. He died from complications following a heart attack a week after my brother, whose birthday is June 5th, was born--in 1994, after being in the hospital since my birthday for almost 6 months. I was in my first year of college. He bought me a $50 French dictionary while in the hospital. I was taking French, which he, like my grandmother, spoke fluently from childhood. I had a particularly distinguished and knowledgeable professor--older, I think, than my grandfather--who gave me a recommendation (at my grandfather's request) for a good unabridged French dictionary. A friend found it at the Yale bookstore (in the days shortly before Amazon.com), and though unable to speak for the tubes, he wrote that she should buy two.
I visited him once in the hospital. I went to read to him from Fitzgerald's translation of The Odyssey, which I had read recently. I was overwhelmed, and had to leave as I grew cold and developed the tunnel-vision that I understand precedes fainting. I promised to return but never had another opportunity to visit.
We shared a love of learning and of books. As the oldest of his grandchildren, he would talk to me about ideas. He admired the Southern Agrarian writers, and found T. S. Eliot because of writers like Alan Tate and Cleanth Brooks. I would learn more about two of these authors after his death. I believe he would have liked to talk with me about Modernism. I believe that he is proud that I will be graduating with a Ph.D. in August. He would have liked to read my dissertation, I think. And though he may not have approved of some of my actions along the way, he would be--is, perhaps--proud of where I am now, with my husband and my children.
He was an important influence on my conversion, albeit posthumously. When I was in high school, he showed me a book that surprised me--about Catholic teaching on sexuality--and told me that he would give it to me to read when I was ready. Unfortunately, I have never read the book, which is packed away now in the house my uncle built for my grandmother after he died so that she would be closer to the family. She is no longer able to live there. If I knew which book it was, I would like to read it now. I remember his desire for me to have that perspective, and, knowing so much more about it now, I have so many questions about that book. I have not thought about it in years.
After he died, years after and for years after, I had dreams--that he was still alive, that he had not really been dead, that he recovered from his illness. I still have dreams about him sometimes. I believe that in some ways I was closer to him intellectually and in temperament than any of his family, at least in the latter years. In more than one of the dreams, he urged me to convert to Catholicism. It sounds irrational to say that those dreams influenced me, but they did. Besides my grandmother, I am probably the only family member who offers prayers for him, and then not as diligently as I should. Perhaps he knew that I would one day offer prayers for him.
So many answers are lost to me now. I wonder so much about his faith. I remember that he would receive brochures from Thomas Aquinas College. Had I graduated more conventionally instead of early, he might have had me apply there, though I was skeptical of not being able to major in English. He had volumes of classic texts that he would buy from what I believe was a small Catholic press. I have no idea, now, what the press was. I remember that the endpapers were designed with their repeating insignia, but as it had no significance to me then, I can't recall whether it was a symbol of Catholic significance. I believe it was.
If he went to Mass when I would have been old enough to remember, I can't say. I think he was among those disappointed by the changes following Vatican II. He was certainly disenchanted with the local Archbishop and the administration of the Archdiocese. He had no visible signs of his faith that I can pin down, unlike my grandmother, who had her rosary--and should still. I will hold in my heart always my image of her, sitting on her porch with her rosary, waiting in case my mom and I were able to visit her with my Doodle, but thinking that it was too late for us to come. I have wondered if he received Last Rites. I hope so. I believe my grandmother would have seen to it. I was disappointed for his sake that his funeral, sadly presided over by a painfully nontraditional priest. My aunt, Hispanic Catholic-turned-Protestant-Evangelical (off & on), liked the service. She felt that the funeral was for the survivors rather than the deceased. I think that a traditional Catholic funeral would have healed many of us more effectively. . . Certainly, it would have moved me closer to the Church sooner.
I have so many memories that I can't contain them all here. I remember as a very small child, I would always tell him "bonsoir" as I was leaving his house. It was the special word that I associated with him. I remember his stubbly cheek, and the smell of red wine on his breath in the evening. I remember running as a child of 5 or 6 to bring him a Budwieser from the old fridge on the "next door" side of the shotgun double when he came home from work. I remember his retirement party when I was in 5th grade--a year younger than my son is now. How he would sit on his porch swing on the back porch. How he hated the squirrels who ate the cypress balls and caused the sticky cypress mess to fall on the bricks of the backyard. I was recently reminded of this by some responses to this post about Darwin's lost tomato. My grandmother would tie homemade "sacks" around the figs in her fig tree to keep the birds from getting them before they were ripe; my grandfather would shoot the squirrels with a b-b gun to keep them out of the cypress tree.
I wrote this poem as an undergraduate in response to his death:
I visited him once in the hospital. I went to read to him from Fitzgerald's translation of The Odyssey, which I had read recently. I was overwhelmed, and had to leave as I grew cold and developed the tunnel-vision that I understand precedes fainting. I promised to return but never had another opportunity to visit.
We shared a love of learning and of books. As the oldest of his grandchildren, he would talk to me about ideas. He admired the Southern Agrarian writers, and found T. S. Eliot because of writers like Alan Tate and Cleanth Brooks. I would learn more about two of these authors after his death. I believe he would have liked to talk with me about Modernism. I believe that he is proud that I will be graduating with a Ph.D. in August. He would have liked to read my dissertation, I think. And though he may not have approved of some of my actions along the way, he would be--is, perhaps--proud of where I am now, with my husband and my children.
He was an important influence on my conversion, albeit posthumously. When I was in high school, he showed me a book that surprised me--about Catholic teaching on sexuality--and told me that he would give it to me to read when I was ready. Unfortunately, I have never read the book, which is packed away now in the house my uncle built for my grandmother after he died so that she would be closer to the family. She is no longer able to live there. If I knew which book it was, I would like to read it now. I remember his desire for me to have that perspective, and, knowing so much more about it now, I have so many questions about that book. I have not thought about it in years.
After he died, years after and for years after, I had dreams--that he was still alive, that he had not really been dead, that he recovered from his illness. I still have dreams about him sometimes. I believe that in some ways I was closer to him intellectually and in temperament than any of his family, at least in the latter years. In more than one of the dreams, he urged me to convert to Catholicism. It sounds irrational to say that those dreams influenced me, but they did. Besides my grandmother, I am probably the only family member who offers prayers for him, and then not as diligently as I should. Perhaps he knew that I would one day offer prayers for him.
So many answers are lost to me now. I wonder so much about his faith. I remember that he would receive brochures from Thomas Aquinas College. Had I graduated more conventionally instead of early, he might have had me apply there, though I was skeptical of not being able to major in English. He had volumes of classic texts that he would buy from what I believe was a small Catholic press. I have no idea, now, what the press was. I remember that the endpapers were designed with their repeating insignia, but as it had no significance to me then, I can't recall whether it was a symbol of Catholic significance. I believe it was.
If he went to Mass when I would have been old enough to remember, I can't say. I think he was among those disappointed by the changes following Vatican II. He was certainly disenchanted with the local Archbishop and the administration of the Archdiocese. He had no visible signs of his faith that I can pin down, unlike my grandmother, who had her rosary--and should still. I will hold in my heart always my image of her, sitting on her porch with her rosary, waiting in case my mom and I were able to visit her with my Doodle, but thinking that it was too late for us to come. I have wondered if he received Last Rites. I hope so. I believe my grandmother would have seen to it. I was disappointed for his sake that his funeral, sadly presided over by a painfully nontraditional priest. My aunt, Hispanic Catholic-turned-Protestant-Evangelical (off & on), liked the service. She felt that the funeral was for the survivors rather than the deceased. I think that a traditional Catholic funeral would have healed many of us more effectively. . . Certainly, it would have moved me closer to the Church sooner.
I have so many memories that I can't contain them all here. I remember as a very small child, I would always tell him "bonsoir" as I was leaving his house. It was the special word that I associated with him. I remember his stubbly cheek, and the smell of red wine on his breath in the evening. I remember running as a child of 5 or 6 to bring him a Budwieser from the old fridge on the "next door" side of the shotgun double when he came home from work. I remember his retirement party when I was in 5th grade--a year younger than my son is now. How he would sit on his porch swing on the back porch. How he hated the squirrels who ate the cypress balls and caused the sticky cypress mess to fall on the bricks of the backyard. I was recently reminded of this by some responses to this post about Darwin's lost tomato. My grandmother would tie homemade "sacks" around the figs in her fig tree to keep the birds from getting them before they were ripe; my grandfather would shoot the squirrels with a b-b gun to keep them out of the cypress tree.
I wrote this poem as an undergraduate in response to his death:
In the Garden of the House
on Dublin Street
on Dublin Street
Monet never painted one like this:
How the colors follow no pattern.
How within the chaos each leaf has
Its discernable place, and therefore
No one is very surprised to see
The cypress tree that is their brother;
Not surprised by the year, chipped in stone.
This garden swallows the dead. I know
When my grandfather died, he became
A porch swing, wooden, or an oak, life.
How life is dull, while death and still-life
Are colored alive, like the flowers.
How he never painted brown swallows
Dying on stone fences in gardens.
How the colors follow no pattern.
How within the chaos each leaf has
Its discernable place, and therefore
No one is very surprised to see
The cypress tree that is their brother;
Not surprised by the year, chipped in stone.
This garden swallows the dead. I know
When my grandfather died, he became
A porch swing, wooden, or an oak, life.
How life is dull, while death and still-life
Are colored alive, like the flowers.
How he never painted brown swallows
Dying on stone fences in gardens.
He had seven children, six of whom survive. He has 13 grandchildren, 10 of whom he knew, and 3 great-grandchildren who were not fortunate enough to meet him. He is strong in many of us. My siblings and I--all except one--inherit his eyes. My Doodle inherits more than that. She favors that side of my family, perhaps more than I do. I inherit his fear of death--especially, of a painful or lingering death, which is exactly what he had. I hope to be able to greet him one day. I pray that we will be reunited. When I was younger, growing up without a grounding in formal Catholicism, I was convinced that relatives who had died before I was born, specifically, my grandfather's parents and my mother's older brother, were looking down on my actions, taking an interest in or being proud of me. I wonder how I had a sense of the Communion of Saints--it was not something I learned from the Protestant churches I had attended. I never imagined that they had become "angels," as popular culture would have it, and I did "pray" to them in a way. I hope that he is looking down on me, on my children, and on all of my family. When I pray for the souls in Purgatory, I pray for his especially. If you could, please offer a prayer for him for his birthday, so close to the anniversary of his death.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Politicians and Morality
I like to say that I consider "personal integrity" important in a candidate. By that, I mean accepting the consequences of one's affiliations, words, and actions--standing clearly for something and sticking with it, or else being able to admit when one realizes that one is wrong, has been proven wrong, or discovered to be wrong. Now, this is not to be confused with morality. I can respect a candidate's personal integrity while considering his or her morality suspect. However, I consider that to be a separate issue. And if I feel that a candidate is suspect morally, but has personal integrity, well, the next question is in what areas the suspect morality comes into play, and how it will affect his or her execution of duties and things like national security. I don't expect any candidate to be spotless morally. I might expect his or her moral weaknesses to exist outside of the realm of public duties, but that's different. I think there are differences of scale when it comes to politicians' moral transgressions even when it becomes public. I don't necessarily think that every politician who cheats on his wife and is found out should automatically resign, though 'fessing up and accounting for oneself and taking responsibility for actions are on the menu, and the higher up one gets in government the more accountability I require. Illegal actions are another matter. Actions that interfere with one's execution of office are another matter. Actions that undermine the integrity of the government in power need close examination. Now, "morally suspect" and "morally abhorrent" are different things entirely. Even if there is some measure of personal integrity, I can not support someone whom I find morally abhorrent. I wouldn't like it, but I would support someone morally suspect with little personal integrity to keep out someone morally abhorrent. So yeah, I'd take John Kerry over Obama.*
*Though I do hold politicians who publicly declare themselves to be Catholics and imply their full Communion with the Church to a different standard. But you know, there are enough people out there to point out the wrongs of their behavior. On what grounds do you criticize someone who will claim no distinct belief?
*Though I do hold politicians who publicly declare themselves to be Catholics and imply their full Communion with the Church to a different standard. But you know, there are enough people out there to point out the wrongs of their behavior. On what grounds do you criticize someone who will claim no distinct belief?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Potty Training Questions--and Some Tentative Answers
In response my plea for potty training advice and encouragement, here, which refers back to my potty training despair post, here, Lilybug and Melanie have raised some interesting questions about readiness. Lilybug has been contemplating potty training Lilybaby and observing the much invoked "signs of readiness," while Melanie asks:
"How do you know when your child is ready? What are good books to read? Should I even be worrying about this now or should I just wait and see?"
Well, I've never been one for reading lots of parenting books. I just kind of "wing it"!--you know, like teaching. ;) Actually, I've always had a lot of parenting advice courtesy of my mom, and having seen her in action, I have trusted her advice. So I can't recommend any books on potty training. It went off without a hitch with my son--and that was a long time ago, so I don't really remember the details. Having said this, I have heard potty lore, and I guess I've stubbornly decided not to try the quick & easy gimmicks of potty training.
I still think I'm a decent gauge of readiness. Readiness for me means
1) They show a conscious awareness of bodily functions
2) They are reasonably capable of communicating the need to use the bathroom
3) They show an inclination to use the bathroom.
The only one I question is that last one. Why, you might ask? Because an inclination to use the bathroom is maybe not developmental. Especially if they can "regress" in the way I'm seeing. Surely, she is developmentally ready, since she was almost there. But she's not particularly inclined right now.
Forgetting for a moment my "not reading parenting books" policy, Doodle has made me issue a plea for parenting books in the past. Blog-friend Sarah R. lent me her "baby whisperer" books--which I am long overdue in returning (sorry!!). The books are sensible, readable, and amusing. Here are some tidbits about potty training from Secrets of the Baby Whisperer for Toddlers:
--"I don't believe in pushing little ones into doing anything their bodies aren't ready for them to do, but at the same time, we need to present opportunities for children to learn. Sadly, too many parents are confused between two issues: behavior that needs to be taught and natural progressions (developmental milestones that automatically happen)."
[insert helpful metaphors]
--"Physical readiness for toilet training depends partially on your child's sphincter muscles. [. . .] It was once believed that these muscles didn't mature until the ace of two, but research is now divided on the subject. In any case, training is both a matter of physical readiness and practice."
--"A three- or four-year-old whose parents keep waiting for him to come 'round on his own already has control over his sphincter muscles, but he might never show an interest in 'going potty' unless he's given the right kind of guidance, encouragement, and sufficient opportunities to learn."
--"You must be observant . . . so as to identify the best 'window' for starting potty training--when your child's body and mind are ready and yet before the inevitable child/parent power struggles begin. For most children, the optimal time to begin is between eighteen months and two years." [proceed to guidelines with helpful acronym]
I want to pause there for a moment. I have never heard it phrased quite like this. Especially this phrase, which means so much for me with Doodle: "before the inevitable child/parent power struggles begin." I've clearly covered THAT topic before. In short, I missed the optimal window. But that's because of other received wisdom on potty training. You've all heard it--don't potty train when there is some major upheaval, life or family event. So what was going on last summer, when Doodle was about 18 months? I was pregnant and we were moving. Common wisdom says don't potty train around a move or when a sibling is expected. Which was fine for me, because I was exhausted from pregnancy and teaching and didn't think I would be able to do it effectively. However, a few times last summer, she did use the bathroom. On her own. No prompting from us, only assistance. Hello!! Window of opportunity!! And in retrospect, the birth of a new sibling was not traumatic for her as I feared it would be. We might have had a bit of potty training regression, but how would that be different from now?? So I waited. First mistake. *sigh*
I don't know if this helps with the readiness questions. I'm not sure it would necessarily have helped me, clouded as I was with anxiety and pregnancy hormones. You know the cliche about hindsight.
So more from the "baby whisperer." Here is her Help-ful acronym (ha ha):
H--Hold back until you see signs that your child is ready [She explains the signs that the child is aware of the sensation of peeing, etc.]
E--Encourage your child to connect bodily functions with words and actions
L--Limit your child's time on the potty
P--Praise the Lord and pass the toilet paper! [She extols the virtue of silliness and parental encouragement.]
Now, most of these I have known, but it's helpful to be reminded. Apart from missing the readiness window that would have lessened the conflict of the process, I have gotten a bit weak in the "Praise" category. 'Cause you know, after a while, it's just not that exciting. And life intervenes with all of its frustrations, and the newly mobile infant is eating paper in the living room, and "YAAAAAAAY!!!" changes to "yay. now wipe," and well, what the heck is the point if Momma isn't excited, right? Then I started getting impatient with accidents, since she was already doing it and at some point it should become expected behavior, right? So the rewards system came to seem more like punishment, I guess. *sigh*
The baby whisperer further offers the "Four Ps of Potty Training": Potty (as in potty seat), Patience (which I am sorely lacking), Practice, and Presence ("sit with him and cheer him on"--I've been remiss on this one sometimes, too, and I just couldn't wait until she would take the initiative to go & try herself).
So where do we go now that I've botched 2 of the signs? Well, this morning, as she clung to the nighttime pullup, I rather unceremoniously ripped it off. To stop her indignant wails, I changed the subject, and we went to look for the Cinderella panties that I bought recently. (No, it's not the same as Disney princesses. Trust me. It's a matter of marketing.) She has a sing-along with the mice from Cinderella singing about fixing Cinderella's dress for her. So when we found the panties, we sang the song, and she went to the bathroom without a fight. We haven't repeated that success this morning, but no accidents either. She simply has never wanted to "go" before the point of crisis. At least, not for a while. Perhaps because for 1/2 of the time, her efforts were spoiled by bubble bath irritation. Perhaps because of sheer toddler stubbornness. My first was never so toddler-y.
To deal with the not wanting to stop & use the bathroom, Academama suggested a timer. I may have to try this. There should be some novelty & excitement to hearing the buzzer or chime and saying, "Potty time! Potty time!" Perhaps we can circumvent the stubbornness. M&Ms as rewards don't work for her. She'd just as soon do without them as submit to someone else's will. I just hope that the battles of wills that have already occurred won't have any lasting effects.
So these are some preliminary answers and my revised strategies. Any thoughts? I'll keep you posted. . .
A Post-Script
In all of this, I have been bothered by the rhetoric of potty-training, in which "the earlier the better" is the standard mentality. This usually has to do with the convenience of the parents, the expense of diapers, the convenience of the day care workers, and other things that are absolutely irrelevant to the toddler or his or her well-being. The other problem I have with this is that it sets expectations for the parent and the child, to which they are held accountable. I'd like to stop being such an over achiever and not let it bother me, but truth is, I'm judging both of us because of it, and that's the last thing we need right now. :( So I'll be working on that, too.
And Another. . .
Inspired by Jen, I decided to see what I was blogging about last year. On June 11, my post-ultrasound and post-move post contained the following observation:
Overall, now that the major part of the stress is behind me, I can declare, tentatively, that the move was a success. The baby is much freer and happier, albeit getting banged up from running around boxes. She goes to sleep much earlier because she exerts more energy during the day. We take occasional walks around the complex and have even gone swimming once. It is a bit hard to keep track of her sometimes, but she has some little designated play places and is exploring new (old) toys (courtesy of brother and aunts & uncles)--like dishes & Potato Heads. She is also expressing interest in potty training, but I don't know if I'm ready for that. . .
Yeah. Window of opportunity. Missed it.
"How do you know when your child is ready? What are good books to read? Should I even be worrying about this now or should I just wait and see?"
Well, I've never been one for reading lots of parenting books. I just kind of "wing it"!--you know, like teaching. ;) Actually, I've always had a lot of parenting advice courtesy of my mom, and having seen her in action, I have trusted her advice. So I can't recommend any books on potty training. It went off without a hitch with my son--and that was a long time ago, so I don't really remember the details. Having said this, I have heard potty lore, and I guess I've stubbornly decided not to try the quick & easy gimmicks of potty training.
I still think I'm a decent gauge of readiness. Readiness for me means
1) They show a conscious awareness of bodily functions
2) They are reasonably capable of communicating the need to use the bathroom
3) They show an inclination to use the bathroom.
The only one I question is that last one. Why, you might ask? Because an inclination to use the bathroom is maybe not developmental. Especially if they can "regress" in the way I'm seeing. Surely, she is developmentally ready, since she was almost there. But she's not particularly inclined right now.
Forgetting for a moment my "not reading parenting books" policy, Doodle has made me issue a plea for parenting books in the past. Blog-friend Sarah R. lent me her "baby whisperer" books--which I am long overdue in returning (sorry!!). The books are sensible, readable, and amusing. Here are some tidbits about potty training from Secrets of the Baby Whisperer for Toddlers:
--"I don't believe in pushing little ones into doing anything their bodies aren't ready for them to do, but at the same time, we need to present opportunities for children to learn. Sadly, too many parents are confused between two issues: behavior that needs to be taught and natural progressions (developmental milestones that automatically happen)."
[insert helpful metaphors]
--"Physical readiness for toilet training depends partially on your child's sphincter muscles. [. . .] It was once believed that these muscles didn't mature until the ace of two, but research is now divided on the subject. In any case, training is both a matter of physical readiness and practice."
--"A three- or four-year-old whose parents keep waiting for him to come 'round on his own already has control over his sphincter muscles, but he might never show an interest in 'going potty' unless he's given the right kind of guidance, encouragement, and sufficient opportunities to learn."
--"You must be observant . . . so as to identify the best 'window' for starting potty training--when your child's body and mind are ready and yet before the inevitable child/parent power struggles begin. For most children, the optimal time to begin is between eighteen months and two years." [proceed to guidelines with helpful acronym]
I want to pause there for a moment. I have never heard it phrased quite like this. Especially this phrase, which means so much for me with Doodle: "before the inevitable child/parent power struggles begin." I've clearly covered THAT topic before. In short, I missed the optimal window. But that's because of other received wisdom on potty training. You've all heard it--don't potty train when there is some major upheaval, life or family event. So what was going on last summer, when Doodle was about 18 months? I was pregnant and we were moving. Common wisdom says don't potty train around a move or when a sibling is expected. Which was fine for me, because I was exhausted from pregnancy and teaching and didn't think I would be able to do it effectively. However, a few times last summer, she did use the bathroom. On her own. No prompting from us, only assistance. Hello!! Window of opportunity!! And in retrospect, the birth of a new sibling was not traumatic for her as I feared it would be. We might have had a bit of potty training regression, but how would that be different from now?? So I waited. First mistake. *sigh*
I don't know if this helps with the readiness questions. I'm not sure it would necessarily have helped me, clouded as I was with anxiety and pregnancy hormones. You know the cliche about hindsight.
So more from the "baby whisperer." Here is her Help-ful acronym (ha ha):
H--Hold back until you see signs that your child is ready [She explains the signs that the child is aware of the sensation of peeing, etc.]
E--Encourage your child to connect bodily functions with words and actions
L--Limit your child's time on the potty
P--Praise the Lord and pass the toilet paper! [She extols the virtue of silliness and parental encouragement.]
Now, most of these I have known, but it's helpful to be reminded. Apart from missing the readiness window that would have lessened the conflict of the process, I have gotten a bit weak in the "Praise" category. 'Cause you know, after a while, it's just not that exciting. And life intervenes with all of its frustrations, and the newly mobile infant is eating paper in the living room, and "YAAAAAAAY!!!" changes to "yay. now wipe," and well, what the heck is the point if Momma isn't excited, right? Then I started getting impatient with accidents, since she was already doing it and at some point it should become expected behavior, right? So the rewards system came to seem more like punishment, I guess. *sigh*
The baby whisperer further offers the "Four Ps of Potty Training": Potty (as in potty seat), Patience (which I am sorely lacking), Practice, and Presence ("sit with him and cheer him on"--I've been remiss on this one sometimes, too, and I just couldn't wait until she would take the initiative to go & try herself).
So where do we go now that I've botched 2 of the signs? Well, this morning, as she clung to the nighttime pullup, I rather unceremoniously ripped it off. To stop her indignant wails, I changed the subject, and we went to look for the Cinderella panties that I bought recently. (No, it's not the same as Disney princesses. Trust me. It's a matter of marketing.) She has a sing-along with the mice from Cinderella singing about fixing Cinderella's dress for her. So when we found the panties, we sang the song, and she went to the bathroom without a fight. We haven't repeated that success this morning, but no accidents either. She simply has never wanted to "go" before the point of crisis. At least, not for a while. Perhaps because for 1/2 of the time, her efforts were spoiled by bubble bath irritation. Perhaps because of sheer toddler stubbornness. My first was never so toddler-y.
To deal with the not wanting to stop & use the bathroom, Academama suggested a timer. I may have to try this. There should be some novelty & excitement to hearing the buzzer or chime and saying, "Potty time! Potty time!" Perhaps we can circumvent the stubbornness. M&Ms as rewards don't work for her. She'd just as soon do without them as submit to someone else's will. I just hope that the battles of wills that have already occurred won't have any lasting effects.
So these are some preliminary answers and my revised strategies. Any thoughts? I'll keep you posted. . .
A Post-Script
In all of this, I have been bothered by the rhetoric of potty-training, in which "the earlier the better" is the standard mentality. This usually has to do with the convenience of the parents, the expense of diapers, the convenience of the day care workers, and other things that are absolutely irrelevant to the toddler or his or her well-being. The other problem I have with this is that it sets expectations for the parent and the child, to which they are held accountable. I'd like to stop being such an over achiever and not let it bother me, but truth is, I'm judging both of us because of it, and that's the last thing we need right now. :( So I'll be working on that, too.
And Another. . .
Inspired by Jen, I decided to see what I was blogging about last year. On June 11, my post-ultrasound and post-move post contained the following observation:
Overall, now that the major part of the stress is behind me, I can declare, tentatively, that the move was a success. The baby is much freer and happier, albeit getting banged up from running around boxes. She goes to sleep much earlier because she exerts more energy during the day. We take occasional walks around the complex and have even gone swimming once. It is a bit hard to keep track of her sometimes, but she has some little designated play places and is exploring new (old) toys (courtesy of brother and aunts & uncles)--like dishes & Potato Heads. She is also expressing interest in potty training, but I don't know if I'm ready for that. . .
Yeah. Window of opportunity. Missed it.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Being More Direct. . .
. . .Than in my "woe is me" potty training post. . . Anyone have any similar experiences to share, tips, advice, encouragement? I'd love to hear from you. Really. Please. I know you're out there--I have Sitemeter!!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Utter and Complete Failure. . .
That's where we are with potty training. After 2 months. After Easter, things were going great. We were almost completely potty trained at the beginning--heck, in the MIDDLE of May! No pullups except at night, and then, they often stayed dry. Then, we had setbacks. First, the pullups stopped staying dry at night--no big deal. Then the nervousness about public toilets flushing turned to all-out terror. That transferred to fear of all toilets--at least, sitting on them with the water beneath. We have to put a potty-seat on the home toilet with the potty-chair insert inside of it. The fuuny thing is that she still likes to flush it herself. When the terror reached its peak, we lit a candle at church on a particularly difficult Sunday and realized later that day that most of the extreme difficulty had started when we switched bubble baths. And I even bought Burt's Bees!! All natural my foot--yeah, natural except for the perfume!! :( We took care of that, and she stopped fighting us. And then, she got sick. Toilet kind of sick. The kind you don't want to clean up so you put the pullups back on. It only lasted about 24 hours, but that seems to be enough. We have total and complete not-caring-if-we-wet-ourselves kind of regression. At least, today. Twice. She did make the effort a couple of times, but I'm still totally frustrated. At least we don't have the pressure of fall child care riding on this. Maybe I'll go petition St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.
And then have a beer.
And then have a beer.
Monday, June 2, 2008
My Tenuous Relationship with Alcohol
-or- The Post in which Literacy-chic Reveals Herself as a Complete Lightweight!
(so go easy on me, Darwin)
I was married with a child before I turned 21. This little fact cut in to my party days considerably, you might say, though I never missed the experience. Truthfully, I would never have had the opportunity living with my mother while going to college. Not that she objected to alcohol. I remember when I was a very young child, probably about 3 or 4, that she would always have a glass of Lancer's red wine. I would get tastes sometimes. I didn't like it as much as Lipton tea with milk. Around the same time, when it was just the two of us, my mom would often take me to the lakefront after school and sit by the levee eating Cheetos (which I always called "chee-wees" and she would drink a Heineken.
Beer was something different. I never liked it. But I was around it. When I would stay with my grandparents during the summer, or after school, or whenever, I would always bring my grandfather a cold Budweiser. It was a privilege. My grandfather always had a glass of red wine with dinner, and even made his own wine on occasion--dandelion, elderberry. . .
Alcoholics were a part of everyday life, though I never demonized alcohol because of it. One aunt's boyfriend, one uncle, probably my grandfather, my mother's second husband--his poison was Jack Daniels. One aunt was known to be less-than-sensible with alcohol, and another coped with high school with a bottle of vodka in her locker, but only drank wine to try to dull the pain of her immobilizing headaches by the time I was conscious of it all.
Although "tastes" were a-plenty in my family, I never really liked beer. When I was old enough to go to pubs and have others buy drinks for me (roughly 17), I came to like Guiness. I could actually handle a pint with little problem, and only a little tingly feeling in knees. I was never trusting enough of other people to let myself get more buzzed than that. When my husband and I were dating, I would sometimes try a new beer (sips--confidentially, I have rarely had a whole beer to myself). At this point, there are a few distinctive ones that I like, though I am much more the connoisseur of red wines--particularly Spanish reds ( I like Tempranillo and Garnacha) than beer. Recently, I have become enamored of a couple of brews--Blue Moon Belgian Ale is about the lightest I will go. I bought their summer brew last night--can't wait to try it. While their standard brew has orange citrus notes, the summer one has lime. I was also impressed lately by the Shiner Hefeweitzen, though I don't like their Boch. Shhhh! I could get kicked out of Texas for admitting that! I prefer Ziegen Boch, though I don't like it enough to buy a whole 6-pack. Confidentially, time was that a 6-pack would last 6 months in my fridge. We once had one in for so long that the whole thing turned to foam before we tried to drink it. Not so lately. . .
Now, that's not to say that they move quickly. Chiclette was baptized on March 1st. We just polished off the last of the 2 6-packs we bought that weekend--umm. . . yesterday. Pathetic, no? We've gone through a bottle or two of wine in that time, but that's used for cooking. And as wine goes, we've got a 7 year-old bottle of sweet Greek wine in the back of the fridge. Dessert wines are a bit different, though. Now, as for the Irish cream. I didn't drink it because I found out I was pregnant with Doodle--February of 2005. (I will do occasional wine when pregnant, but nothing more.) Does that stuff go bad? And my mom gave us a bottle of Champagne in December of the same year. I'm thinking of making a soup out of it.
Cooking with beer, I have found, is tricky. I tried to make a St. Lioba Beer & Mushroom soup from my Monastery Soups cookbook with a darkish beer that I would have LOVED to drink. Instead, the whole thing got flushed. It was bitter beyond belief. *shudder* I bet that Pumpkin Ale we got a few years ago (and kept for almost a year) would be good in a recipe!
In recent weeks, I have stepped up my beer and wine consumption--somewhat dramatically--to one (bottle or glass, respectively) every day or two. I wonder about this a bit. It also corresponds to a drastic increase in my coffee consumption. I drink the coffee in the morning to wake up--mentally & physically. In the evenings, I drink a glass of wine or have a beer to de-stress & unwind. Who needs yoga when you can foster a little chemical dependency? While I know this is still light-to-moderate, I wonder at myself a bit, more because of what it indicates about my mental state. On the other hand, if it works. . . *shrug*
When I start switching the times of the coffee and alcohol, then I'll worry.
(so go easy on me, Darwin)
I was married with a child before I turned 21. This little fact cut in to my party days considerably, you might say, though I never missed the experience. Truthfully, I would never have had the opportunity living with my mother while going to college. Not that she objected to alcohol. I remember when I was a very young child, probably about 3 or 4, that she would always have a glass of Lancer's red wine. I would get tastes sometimes. I didn't like it as much as Lipton tea with milk. Around the same time, when it was just the two of us, my mom would often take me to the lakefront after school and sit by the levee eating Cheetos (which I always called "chee-wees" and she would drink a Heineken.
Beer was something different. I never liked it. But I was around it. When I would stay with my grandparents during the summer, or after school, or whenever, I would always bring my grandfather a cold Budweiser. It was a privilege. My grandfather always had a glass of red wine with dinner, and even made his own wine on occasion--dandelion, elderberry. . .
Alcoholics were a part of everyday life, though I never demonized alcohol because of it. One aunt's boyfriend, one uncle, probably my grandfather, my mother's second husband--his poison was Jack Daniels. One aunt was known to be less-than-sensible with alcohol, and another coped with high school with a bottle of vodka in her locker, but only drank wine to try to dull the pain of her immobilizing headaches by the time I was conscious of it all.
Although "tastes" were a-plenty in my family, I never really liked beer. When I was old enough to go to pubs and have others buy drinks for me (roughly 17), I came to like Guiness. I could actually handle a pint with little problem, and only a little tingly feeling in knees. I was never trusting enough of other people to let myself get more buzzed than that. When my husband and I were dating, I would sometimes try a new beer (sips--confidentially, I have rarely had a whole beer to myself). At this point, there are a few distinctive ones that I like, though I am much more the connoisseur of red wines--particularly Spanish reds ( I like Tempranillo and Garnacha) than beer. Recently, I have become enamored of a couple of brews--Blue Moon Belgian Ale is about the lightest I will go. I bought their summer brew last night--can't wait to try it. While their standard brew has orange citrus notes, the summer one has lime. I was also impressed lately by the Shiner Hefeweitzen, though I don't like their Boch. Shhhh! I could get kicked out of Texas for admitting that! I prefer Ziegen Boch, though I don't like it enough to buy a whole 6-pack. Confidentially, time was that a 6-pack would last 6 months in my fridge. We once had one in for so long that the whole thing turned to foam before we tried to drink it. Not so lately. . .
Now, that's not to say that they move quickly. Chiclette was baptized on March 1st. We just polished off the last of the 2 6-packs we bought that weekend--umm. . . yesterday. Pathetic, no? We've gone through a bottle or two of wine in that time, but that's used for cooking. And as wine goes, we've got a 7 year-old bottle of sweet Greek wine in the back of the fridge. Dessert wines are a bit different, though. Now, as for the Irish cream. I didn't drink it because I found out I was pregnant with Doodle--February of 2005. (I will do occasional wine when pregnant, but nothing more.) Does that stuff go bad? And my mom gave us a bottle of Champagne in December of the same year. I'm thinking of making a soup out of it.
Cooking with beer, I have found, is tricky. I tried to make a St. Lioba Beer & Mushroom soup from my Monastery Soups cookbook with a darkish beer that I would have LOVED to drink. Instead, the whole thing got flushed. It was bitter beyond belief. *shudder* I bet that Pumpkin Ale we got a few years ago (and kept for almost a year) would be good in a recipe!
In recent weeks, I have stepped up my beer and wine consumption--somewhat dramatically--to one (bottle or glass, respectively) every day or two. I wonder about this a bit. It also corresponds to a drastic increase in my coffee consumption. I drink the coffee in the morning to wake up--mentally & physically. In the evenings, I drink a glass of wine or have a beer to de-stress & unwind. Who needs yoga when you can foster a little chemical dependency? While I know this is still light-to-moderate, I wonder at myself a bit, more because of what it indicates about my mental state. On the other hand, if it works. . . *shrug*
When I start switching the times of the coffee and alcohol, then I'll worry.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Decisions, Decisions
I have been stressing about the child care issue for the fall. If you've been hanging around here, you know that I don't much like to have my babies in child care when they're little. I'm all about working with kids arounds--I've been doing it for as long as I can remember. But I'm also O.K. with having them in preschool programs when they're 3 & up. Two if I'm really pressed, and I did actually enroll my Doodle when she was almost a year, though I only kept her in for a day. Because I'm protective, germ-conscious, and not really very trusting. Go figure. So we decided that the fall would be a good time to start Doodle in preschool, and my son's old Montessori school would take Doodle in the 3-year-old class even though she won't be 3 until October, as long as she's potty trained. Well, that has been going pretty well, but it's a long, slow journey with lots of stops along the way. Most recently, after months of increasing success, she has become scared of flushing toilets--first in public bathrooms, then at home. We uncovered an irritation due to bubble bath that probably made things worse. Meanwhile, I have been getting increasingly frustrated--and the baby who has decided that sleeping is overrated is not helping (turns out there are teeth involved, and she probably needs more solids!). I've been feeling a lot of pressure about the potty training thing, in part because of the success-turned-failure aspect, but also because plans for the fall rest on potty training success. That's a lot of pressure to put on a toddler and her parents. Also, let's face it, I'm super-maniacally ambitious for my children, and what I see as realistic goals are not always realistic. *whew* Glad I got that out!! (Yeah, 'cause you didn't know that, right? Literacy-chic? Overambitious? Naaaaah. . .)
Meanwhile, I had two other issues. First: the summer. Because in July I'll be teaching every day. Then: the fact that the Montessori school wouldn't really accommodate my fall teaching schedule. In fact, it would be afternoons only, so it would actually make things worse, since I would literally have to kick the friend who would be watching the two girls out of the house after I taught so that I could bring Doodle to school. Besides that it would destroy nap time and make for a really weird schedule otherwise. All of this for Doodle-free office hours? Not worth it. Then, I've got the person I'll be working closely with in the fall making cracks about not getting involved in my schedule because it's too complicated (perhaps with a touch of disdain--not sure. . .). Yeah, try it from my end!!
I had considered sending her to my parish child development center, but they're the ones that didn't work out before. Too many things to go into, really, but all made me very uneasy. They have a new director now, and my main reservations had to do with the fact that Doodle, who will be 3 years in October, would be in the 2 year class to keep her in line with public schools. Now, I'm not particularly interested in what public schools do. I went to a private school when I was in K-1 so that I could circumvent those rules and start Kindergarten at 4, and I would not hesitate to do so for my children. In fact, I would love to do so for my children! But I don't know if I have to start just yet.
Doodle is a very intelligent child, which is making the toddler years particularly difficult. She resents all constraints on her activities. She is a good child, but stubborn, and spirited. Sensitive, but strong-minded. I was very different when I was a young child, but I can't help but see her as combining some of the more--umm--troublesome characteristics of myself and my husband! And yet she is empathetic and sweet and smart, kind and loving. She doesn't understand punishment. It hurts her feelings and accomplishes nothing. She has the endurance of the most stubborn of martyrs. It's incredible. She doesn't pitch the same kinds of tantrums that other toddlers pitch, she simply does not yield to anyone else's will. So while I think she would be fine in the 3-year-old class for a number of reasons, I'm not sure if she is ready in other respects.
You know, it goes against every fiber of my being to admit that I need a break from my strong-willed child--the one I worry about the most. I remind myself that my brother, whom I helped raise when he was her age--was much more difficult. But I think the fact is, it would be good for both of us for her to start school relatively soon. So I am going to start her in the parish's child development center in their summer program part time, and continue part-time in the fall. Next summer, I plan to be off (if I can distribute my 9-month salary over 12 months) so I can spend that time with my children full-time.
It's funny how a blog makes you confront your beliefs and practices. I am not wholeheartedly in favor of child care, especially for my young children. I don't like the idea that I need a "break" from my children. I am totally not on board with the idea that school can give them things that I can't. Yet there it is. What can school give her that I can't? Playtime. Not much else, but I just can't stand to watch a child outside. I hated it when I was young and I really have to be in the mood now that I'm a parent and obligated. Playgroups don't work for me because I can't sit back and let the kids play. It's not in my nature. Things happen on playgrounds. Don't those parents know that?? There are bugs and fire poles on playground equipment and other people's kids!! Oh, the humanity! But Doodle needs that. And I really need the girls to take naps at the same time so I can recover my sanity.
So my Doodle will be at school 3 days in July. Now, Chiclette is another matter. She's still small and roly and docile, with limited (but ever-increasing) mobility. So she'll get some mommy-only time, and sister can share germs with her when she gets home! *sigh*
Meanwhile, I had two other issues. First: the summer. Because in July I'll be teaching every day. Then: the fact that the Montessori school wouldn't really accommodate my fall teaching schedule. In fact, it would be afternoons only, so it would actually make things worse, since I would literally have to kick the friend who would be watching the two girls out of the house after I taught so that I could bring Doodle to school. Besides that it would destroy nap time and make for a really weird schedule otherwise. All of this for Doodle-free office hours? Not worth it. Then, I've got the person I'll be working closely with in the fall making cracks about not getting involved in my schedule because it's too complicated (perhaps with a touch of disdain--not sure. . .). Yeah, try it from my end!!
I had considered sending her to my parish child development center, but they're the ones that didn't work out before. Too many things to go into, really, but all made me very uneasy. They have a new director now, and my main reservations had to do with the fact that Doodle, who will be 3 years in October, would be in the 2 year class to keep her in line with public schools. Now, I'm not particularly interested in what public schools do. I went to a private school when I was in K-1 so that I could circumvent those rules and start Kindergarten at 4, and I would not hesitate to do so for my children. In fact, I would love to do so for my children! But I don't know if I have to start just yet.
Doodle is a very intelligent child, which is making the toddler years particularly difficult. She resents all constraints on her activities. She is a good child, but stubborn, and spirited. Sensitive, but strong-minded. I was very different when I was a young child, but I can't help but see her as combining some of the more--umm--troublesome characteristics of myself and my husband! And yet she is empathetic and sweet and smart, kind and loving. She doesn't understand punishment. It hurts her feelings and accomplishes nothing. She has the endurance of the most stubborn of martyrs. It's incredible. She doesn't pitch the same kinds of tantrums that other toddlers pitch, she simply does not yield to anyone else's will. So while I think she would be fine in the 3-year-old class for a number of reasons, I'm not sure if she is ready in other respects.
You know, it goes against every fiber of my being to admit that I need a break from my strong-willed child--the one I worry about the most. I remind myself that my brother, whom I helped raise when he was her age--was much more difficult. But I think the fact is, it would be good for both of us for her to start school relatively soon. So I am going to start her in the parish's child development center in their summer program part time, and continue part-time in the fall. Next summer, I plan to be off (if I can distribute my 9-month salary over 12 months) so I can spend that time with my children full-time.
It's funny how a blog makes you confront your beliefs and practices. I am not wholeheartedly in favor of child care, especially for my young children. I don't like the idea that I need a "break" from my children. I am totally not on board with the idea that school can give them things that I can't. Yet there it is. What can school give her that I can't? Playtime. Not much else, but I just can't stand to watch a child outside. I hated it when I was young and I really have to be in the mood now that I'm a parent and obligated. Playgroups don't work for me because I can't sit back and let the kids play. It's not in my nature. Things happen on playgrounds. Don't those parents know that?? There are bugs and fire poles on playground equipment and other people's kids!! Oh, the humanity! But Doodle needs that. And I really need the girls to take naps at the same time so I can recover my sanity.
So my Doodle will be at school 3 days in July. Now, Chiclette is another matter. She's still small and roly and docile, with limited (but ever-increasing) mobility. So she'll get some mommy-only time, and sister can share germs with her when she gets home! *sigh*
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Dollies, revisited
I've heard of it before, but I've never seen it. I'm not sure I entirely believed that children did it. Doodle breastfed her babydoll (named "Baby B. . .") this morning. Very seriously, very discretely, very affectionately, in a "house" (made from my cardboard cutting board) on a bed of pillows. :)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A New Blog
In my never-ending attempt to trick myself into working, I have created a new blog, Booknotes from Literacy-chic. Since some of what I will be writing on that blog is closely tied to my topics of scholarly research, I have decided not to make it Google-able, but I don't want it to be private, either. So it is listed with Blogger, but not with search engines, and it is completely and freely open to the public. Blogging and professional scholarship can be a tricky issue, but the blog will really represent my thoughts on what I'm reading--not ready-made research ideas, but notes. Here is part of the introductory post:
"Booknotes from Literacy-chic" will (hopefully) be a record of the various books I want to read in the coming weeks, months, even--who knows?--years, as I gather material for future scholarship and teaching. I don't promise reviews; this will be more "thoughts that occur to me" with a wrap-up when I finish the book. But if I'm posting thoughts on the book all along, it might keep me honest--you know, I might actually finish the book lest the blog be disappointed.
More of my "plans" for my first-reads follow. Hope some of you decide to stop by!
"Booknotes from Literacy-chic" will (hopefully) be a record of the various books I want to read in the coming weeks, months, even--who knows?--years, as I gather material for future scholarship and teaching. I don't promise reviews; this will be more "thoughts that occur to me" with a wrap-up when I finish the book. But if I'm posting thoughts on the book all along, it might keep me honest--you know, I might actually finish the book lest the blog be disappointed.
More of my "plans" for my first-reads follow. Hope some of you decide to stop by!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Politics of Baby Dolls
I was thinking--why is it that little children sleep with baby dolls? Don't they know that sleeping with babies is dangerous? Pillows and covers and parental warmth & such increase the risk of suffocation, and we should take the baby dolls away from the little ones at bedtime so that they learn this important lesson about child care--after all, that's what playing with dollies is all about. Right?
I started thinking about this as my toddler, who has Christened her baby doll "Baby B. . ." (named for her sister), made a playhouse out of my cardboard cutting board and filled it with pillows, then snuggled down with "Baby B. . ." There is a lot of banter out there about children's toys and gender rolls. I didn't withhold baby dolls from my son, he just wasn't interested. And even for Doodle, Buzz Lightyear and Pokemon get equal time with the dollies, not to mention Legos and blocks. Am I an irresponsible academic parent if I admit that the issue doesn't interest me at all? That I played with Barbies and wasn't even remotely traumatized by it? That I want Barbie to have a big bust and small waist like she used to because she looks better that way? (Just don't get me started on Bratz and Disney Princesses--ugh!)
Anyway, I was thinking "Awwww, she must be thinking about how [Chiclette] sleeps with us sometimes!" But well, sleeping with baby dolls is pretty universal, no? It seems to give the same kind of comfort as a stuffed animal, according to the child's preference, regardless of the sleeping arrangements of the child's family, and no one really questions when a child plays with a stuffed animal. So should we accept that an anthropomorphic toy, identifiable with the most vulnerable stage of the species, offers equal comfort to a small child as a cuddly bunny rabbit? There is a case to be made that caring for the dolly is modeled behavior, possibly gendered, maybe socially conditioned--I can talk the talk, you know (also learned behavior). But what about cuddling? Is that learned or instinctual? Yes--the child learns to display affection based on the affection shown to him or her. But beyond that? What about the object that is chosen as suitable for cuddling? (Doodle's preferences change nightly, daily, hourly. . .)
Consider this: Children's preferences for toys to cuddle are impulsive, subject to a myriad of whims, learning opportunities and emotional variations that as adults we have left behind and so can't even begin to understand. Yet, children see the image of a baby as equally cuddly and comforting as, say, a puppy dog. And yet there are adults who would see no contradiction in considering a dog a more fitting, loving, desirable, and comforting companion than a baby. Might we learn something in this area from our children? That while we care for our children, and they depend on us, they are also a source of comfort for us. We hope in and because of them. We feel ourselves to be loved by them, and fulfill ourselves in loving them. The same could be said to apply to moms or dads, if the truth were known.
I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the unfortunate, horrific story out of Austria about the girl who was kept by her father in an underground bunker, repeatedly raped, abused, impregnated. Most of the emphasis has--rightly, I think--been on the inconceivable (to most) evil of the man's actions. But in all of the discussion and coverage, I was amazed at the strength of the woman, to have survived all of the abuse, in the most seemingly hopeless of circumstances. Why did she not give up? Why did she continue to exist? And how did she endure repeated pregnancies stemming from that abuse? Think of the two most oft-cited reasons for permitting abortion: rape and incest. Both present in this case. But we have no evidence that she resented her poor children--trapped in the dungeon-apartment as she was. I am certain that she had to have clung to a faith in God, first of all. But I also feel certain that her children were an unimaginable comfort--that she clung to them instinctively as the only source of love in her dark world.
I started thinking about this as my toddler, who has Christened her baby doll "Baby B. . ." (named for her sister), made a playhouse out of my cardboard cutting board and filled it with pillows, then snuggled down with "Baby B. . ." There is a lot of banter out there about children's toys and gender rolls. I didn't withhold baby dolls from my son, he just wasn't interested. And even for Doodle, Buzz Lightyear and Pokemon get equal time with the dollies, not to mention Legos and blocks. Am I an irresponsible academic parent if I admit that the issue doesn't interest me at all? That I played with Barbies and wasn't even remotely traumatized by it? That I want Barbie to have a big bust and small waist like she used to because she looks better that way? (Just don't get me started on Bratz and Disney Princesses--ugh!)
Anyway, I was thinking "Awwww, she must be thinking about how [Chiclette] sleeps with us sometimes!" But well, sleeping with baby dolls is pretty universal, no? It seems to give the same kind of comfort as a stuffed animal, according to the child's preference, regardless of the sleeping arrangements of the child's family, and no one really questions when a child plays with a stuffed animal. So should we accept that an anthropomorphic toy, identifiable with the most vulnerable stage of the species, offers equal comfort to a small child as a cuddly bunny rabbit? There is a case to be made that caring for the dolly is modeled behavior, possibly gendered, maybe socially conditioned--I can talk the talk, you know (also learned behavior). But what about cuddling? Is that learned or instinctual? Yes--the child learns to display affection based on the affection shown to him or her. But beyond that? What about the object that is chosen as suitable for cuddling? (Doodle's preferences change nightly, daily, hourly. . .)
Consider this: Children's preferences for toys to cuddle are impulsive, subject to a myriad of whims, learning opportunities and emotional variations that as adults we have left behind and so can't even begin to understand. Yet, children see the image of a baby as equally cuddly and comforting as, say, a puppy dog. And yet there are adults who would see no contradiction in considering a dog a more fitting, loving, desirable, and comforting companion than a baby. Might we learn something in this area from our children? That while we care for our children, and they depend on us, they are also a source of comfort for us. We hope in and because of them. We feel ourselves to be loved by them, and fulfill ourselves in loving them. The same could be said to apply to moms or dads, if the truth were known.
I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the unfortunate, horrific story out of Austria about the girl who was kept by her father in an underground bunker, repeatedly raped, abused, impregnated. Most of the emphasis has--rightly, I think--been on the inconceivable (to most) evil of the man's actions. But in all of the discussion and coverage, I was amazed at the strength of the woman, to have survived all of the abuse, in the most seemingly hopeless of circumstances. Why did she not give up? Why did she continue to exist? And how did she endure repeated pregnancies stemming from that abuse? Think of the two most oft-cited reasons for permitting abortion: rape and incest. Both present in this case. But we have no evidence that she resented her poor children--trapped in the dungeon-apartment as she was. I am certain that she had to have clung to a faith in God, first of all. But I also feel certain that her children were an unimaginable comfort--that she clung to them instinctively as the only source of love in her dark world.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
When the Babies Decide LIfe is Too Boring. . .
--The infant hits the 6 month mark and wants to nurse every 45 minutes one day after only nursing 4 or 5 times the previous few days. . .
--The baby who slept through the night since she was WEEKS old decides to compete with the toddler who has almost ALWAYS joined Momma & Daddy by crying and wanting to nurse 2 or 3 times a night(!). . .
--The toddler, who was potty training admirably and treated every store as the potential locale for an exciting adventure to the bathroom has decided that her bottom can never touch a commercial toilet again--and arches her back and cries to support this theory (having just asked to use the bathroom). . .
*sigh*
--The baby who slept through the night since she was WEEKS old decides to compete with the toddler who has almost ALWAYS joined Momma & Daddy by crying and wanting to nurse 2 or 3 times a night(!). . .
--The toddler, who was potty training admirably and treated every store as the potential locale for an exciting adventure to the bathroom has decided that her bottom can never touch a commercial toilet again--and arches her back and cries to support this theory (having just asked to use the bathroom). . .
*sigh*
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Another Pro-Life Post
"The greatest act of evil was the murder of the second person of the Blessed Trinity. But this greatest act of evil wad turned to the greatest good."--Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, in a homily on EWTN on the feast of St. Isadore, about the importance of the Cross to Christianity
It's been haunting me lately. It's always all around us--the problem, the "issue" of abortion. I want it to Go. Away. I'm weary, weary, weary of thinking about it. Worrying about it. Visualizing it. Being sad. Being emotionally involved with it. And this is not to say that I want to stop worrying, because it's obvious--I have choice when it comes to my own emotions. Clearly I could choose to stop worrying about it and being emotionally caught up in the wrong--wrong--wrong rhetoric in favor of abortion, but to do so would be to go against all of my moral principles. I used to feel as though the issue was very much removed from me. After all, I knew that I would never, no matter the circumstances, choose to have an abortion. And what others did, well, that was subject to their own beliefs, right? I think in part I did not realize that abortion was so hugely important to some people. I was appalled by the news of anti-abortion activists committing murder. I wasn't sure that something that was a moral question could be enforced by law. I didn't think that I should be paying for what was obviously someone else's immoral choice, but I just didn't see that it impacted me otherwise. I have always felt that abortion was an act of desperation, and so didn't want to judge women who were in such a horrible state that they would consider what must seem like a grievous evil to anyone, right? I'm not so sure anymore that abortion is always considered regrettable, unless the testimonies I have heard are not genuine, but to say that someone might be misled in their choices, not capable of making the choice, misrepresenting their feelings about the choice, etc., etc., is implying all sorts of bad things about the individuals involved. So, believing their own testimony, I have come to see that abortion can indeed be a very casual choice to some. And this saddens me. It was a gradual conversion of the heart to move from "always regrettable, but. . ." to "always regrettable and shouldn't happen--ever."
Someone who is tired, tired, tired of being emotionally involved in pro-choice/pro-abortion arguments (and I don't think the two are necessarily the same, as I was not "pro-abortion" when I considered myself "pro-choice by default"--though they frequently are, as in my examples below) has no business being on the internet. At all. And 'lest anyone get their knickers in a bunch, I don't (unfortunately) see the "right" to abortion being taken away, or a certain court interpretation being overturned. I think anything we can do must be done culturally rather than politically. Save not supporting politically those who believe that abortion is an inalienable right. 'Cause it's not. Even "choice" is a better term than "right," though I suppose it comes to the same thing, inevitably. But I am on the internet, too often for my own good. And I stumble across and into things that hurt and upset me.
Last week, for example, I was first discovering the new blog I've been mentioning, Stuff Christians Like. I took a look at a post about being honest in pre-marital counseling about one's past sins. It kind of throws into sharp relief the beauty of Catholicism's teaching about sexuality. Like, ummm, what part of "never outside of marriage" did you not understand? Meanwhile, poor Protestants find themselves able to stumble around and make their own theological justifications for this or that sexual encounter. Not all do, but it is something that can happen. And as many of the comments on the post imply, that causes hurt--to more than oneself. My first impression of the post about confessing one's past sins to one's spouse was, "Hey! This is exactly how Catholics feel about Confession! Cool! This is an opportunity to explain the concept to some who might misunderstand--as I did when I was not Catholic!" Well, that part of my comment was never addressed, and the comments devolved into a discussion of the evils of abstinence-only education and, finally, an overt pro-choice/pro-abortion statement, which I answered only by saying (in a nutshell), "No, not all Christians think that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest," "Some arguments can't be won, but we could at least try to listen to one another," and "Where there is Life, there is Hope." Although I was restrained, I am always the most disturbed by so-called Christian justifications of abortion. In this case, the commenter who led the thread astray said, "My God has a plan and a will and it's bigger than doctors and lawyers and scary teachers waiting to seduce your children into satans arms (or whatever)."
Well, I put off addressing this until my daughter turned on the TV this morning, which was on EWTN and happened to be in the middle of the homily quoted above. And well, doesn't that say it all? The fact that God can turn an evil act to his own purpose and make of it the greatest possible good does not make the initial act any less evil. Free will and God's omniscience play into this, too: While God knows what choices we will make, He does not endorse our wrong choices, and we are free to make them--just as we are ultimately free to reject Him, though He desires our love. I was reminded of Tolkien's discussion of the great song of the Valar with Illuvatar in the beginning of time, in which the Valar were co-creators, along with Illuvatar of what would be Middle Earth, without realizing the significance of the song they were helping to create. Melkor would try to introduce discordant melodies, but each time, Illuvatar would weave the discord into ever greater and more beautiful melodies. God does not endorse evil; rather, He supersedes it and sanctifies it by His Grace and what wonders he works after, out of, and upon it.
Case two that I wish to mention is Sitemeter. I would be much better if I would just remove it from my sidebar. You see, many, many people find my site while doing Google searches relating to being pregnant in Grad School. That, as I see it, is likely a good thing. But they also find the Berkeley Parenting Network. Most often, they find the thread relating to terminating a pregnancy because one is in grad school. They find advice like the following:
"Safe, legal, and rare"? I think not!
I debated about quoting these. However, they are on a public forum, searchable through Google. I will not post a link. I also think it is a crime that this is the second or third hit that someone gets when searching for information about pregnancy in grad school--depending on the search terms entered. So while I realize that I am offending the sensibilities of some, I feel the need to offer some contradiction to these sentiments.
What tore me apart were the mothers who have 2 children--or any children, really--who have chosen to kill a child because of the other children. Not wanting the second to be a "middle" child? My God! What if I had felt this way??? I struggled with these concerns, too. Not wanting her to be jealous, resentful, etc. But when abortion is not a "choice" that's even on the radar, you have to accept the situation and work within it! And what about the other children, those children whose welfare was the determining factor in the elimination of their sibling(s)? Their families have been deprived of the moments when they show their tender affection to their siblings, loving , learning and playing with and alongside them, yes. But I wonder about something else. . .
When a pro-choice mother teaches her child about abortion as a valid choice, does she share her own experience? And what does her child think? Does s/he think that could have been me? Glad I was the one Mommy wanted? Am I the reason I don't have a younger sibling? I have wondered about this for some time. Unless the fact is hidden from the children, which is probably preferable. But one can't hide something and pretend it's no big deal, even to oneself. Admittedly, not everyone thinks it's no big deal to have or to have had an abortion. But some do. And they shouldn't.
I think I need comments off for this one. I had to get that off of my chest so I could stop composing it in my head, but I don't need to be checking back obsessively. In fact, I might take a blogging holiday and edit my dissertation. Or read a book. See you in a week or so.
It's been haunting me lately. It's always all around us--the problem, the "issue" of abortion. I want it to Go. Away. I'm weary, weary, weary of thinking about it. Worrying about it. Visualizing it. Being sad. Being emotionally involved with it. And this is not to say that I want to stop worrying, because it's obvious--I have choice when it comes to my own emotions. Clearly I could choose to stop worrying about it and being emotionally caught up in the wrong--wrong--wrong rhetoric in favor of abortion, but to do so would be to go against all of my moral principles. I used to feel as though the issue was very much removed from me. After all, I knew that I would never, no matter the circumstances, choose to have an abortion. And what others did, well, that was subject to their own beliefs, right? I think in part I did not realize that abortion was so hugely important to some people. I was appalled by the news of anti-abortion activists committing murder. I wasn't sure that something that was a moral question could be enforced by law. I didn't think that I should be paying for what was obviously someone else's immoral choice, but I just didn't see that it impacted me otherwise. I have always felt that abortion was an act of desperation, and so didn't want to judge women who were in such a horrible state that they would consider what must seem like a grievous evil to anyone, right? I'm not so sure anymore that abortion is always considered regrettable, unless the testimonies I have heard are not genuine, but to say that someone might be misled in their choices, not capable of making the choice, misrepresenting their feelings about the choice, etc., etc., is implying all sorts of bad things about the individuals involved. So, believing their own testimony, I have come to see that abortion can indeed be a very casual choice to some. And this saddens me. It was a gradual conversion of the heart to move from "always regrettable, but. . ." to "always regrettable and shouldn't happen--ever."
Someone who is tired, tired, tired of being emotionally involved in pro-choice/pro-abortion arguments (and I don't think the two are necessarily the same, as I was not "pro-abortion" when I considered myself "pro-choice by default"--though they frequently are, as in my examples below) has no business being on the internet. At all. And 'lest anyone get their knickers in a bunch, I don't (unfortunately) see the "right" to abortion being taken away, or a certain court interpretation being overturned. I think anything we can do must be done culturally rather than politically. Save not supporting politically those who believe that abortion is an inalienable right. 'Cause it's not. Even "choice" is a better term than "right," though I suppose it comes to the same thing, inevitably. But I am on the internet, too often for my own good. And I stumble across and into things that hurt and upset me.
Last week, for example, I was first discovering the new blog I've been mentioning, Stuff Christians Like. I took a look at a post about being honest in pre-marital counseling about one's past sins. It kind of throws into sharp relief the beauty of Catholicism's teaching about sexuality. Like, ummm, what part of "never outside of marriage" did you not understand? Meanwhile, poor Protestants find themselves able to stumble around and make their own theological justifications for this or that sexual encounter. Not all do, but it is something that can happen. And as many of the comments on the post imply, that causes hurt--to more than oneself. My first impression of the post about confessing one's past sins to one's spouse was, "Hey! This is exactly how Catholics feel about Confession! Cool! This is an opportunity to explain the concept to some who might misunderstand--as I did when I was not Catholic!" Well, that part of my comment was never addressed, and the comments devolved into a discussion of the evils of abstinence-only education and, finally, an overt pro-choice/pro-abortion statement, which I answered only by saying (in a nutshell), "No, not all Christians think that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest," "Some arguments can't be won, but we could at least try to listen to one another," and "Where there is Life, there is Hope." Although I was restrained, I am always the most disturbed by so-called Christian justifications of abortion. In this case, the commenter who led the thread astray said, "My God has a plan and a will and it's bigger than doctors and lawyers and scary teachers waiting to seduce your children into satans arms (or whatever)."
Well, I put off addressing this until my daughter turned on the TV this morning, which was on EWTN and happened to be in the middle of the homily quoted above. And well, doesn't that say it all? The fact that God can turn an evil act to his own purpose and make of it the greatest possible good does not make the initial act any less evil. Free will and God's omniscience play into this, too: While God knows what choices we will make, He does not endorse our wrong choices, and we are free to make them--just as we are ultimately free to reject Him, though He desires our love. I was reminded of Tolkien's discussion of the great song of the Valar with Illuvatar in the beginning of time, in which the Valar were co-creators, along with Illuvatar of what would be Middle Earth, without realizing the significance of the song they were helping to create. Melkor would try to introduce discordant melodies, but each time, Illuvatar would weave the discord into ever greater and more beautiful melodies. God does not endorse evil; rather, He supersedes it and sanctifies it by His Grace and what wonders he works after, out of, and upon it.
Case two that I wish to mention is Sitemeter. I would be much better if I would just remove it from my sidebar. You see, many, many people find my site while doing Google searches relating to being pregnant in Grad School. That, as I see it, is likely a good thing. But they also find the Berkeley Parenting Network. Most often, they find the thread relating to terminating a pregnancy because one is in grad school. They find advice like the following:
- Remember, though, that you made that choice because you're a responsible parent who wanted to make sure your two existing children received the attention and support they're entitled to, as well as ease any blows to the marriage from the stress of the an additional pregnancy and new baby. I had the same experience. Two wonderful little children and I got pregnant with a 3rd. At the time, my second was a terror---- tempermental to the max. It was very demanding, emotionally. I didn't want #2 to become an ignored, middle child and make my future life more miserable, due to lack of attention from child #3. I chose abortion.
- Just because everyone else is having 3 kids doesn't mean you have to, too. There seems to be a bit of peer pressure/keeping up with the Joneses to have 3 kids. Pro-choice isn't just for non-marrieds
- I had an abortion earlier this year-- totally the right decision for our family (we decided long ago to only have one)
- I'm not in your situation but I felt that I needed to respond because I remember that aching. I have always wanted children. I got pregnant when I was 20 and felt very connected to that child. I new it would be a girl, I knew what she would look like. I was in a stupid relationship and really felt that I had no option but to terminate the pregnancy. I am now in my 30s with a wonderful toddler.
- I commend you in taking consideration all the consequences of bringing another into your family. I beleive it is a wholeheartedly selfless act on your part to want to maintain the preservation of your household and family by not adding to it. Bringing a child into this world should always warrant such consideration--everyone should want their children to be raised in optimal conditions
"Safe, legal, and rare"? I think not!
I debated about quoting these. However, they are on a public forum, searchable through Google. I will not post a link. I also think it is a crime that this is the second or third hit that someone gets when searching for information about pregnancy in grad school--depending on the search terms entered. So while I realize that I am offending the sensibilities of some, I feel the need to offer some contradiction to these sentiments.
What tore me apart were the mothers who have 2 children--or any children, really--who have chosen to kill a child because of the other children. Not wanting the second to be a "middle" child? My God! What if I had felt this way??? I struggled with these concerns, too. Not wanting her to be jealous, resentful, etc. But when abortion is not a "choice" that's even on the radar, you have to accept the situation and work within it! And what about the other children, those children whose welfare was the determining factor in the elimination of their sibling(s)? Their families have been deprived of the moments when they show their tender affection to their siblings, loving , learning and playing with and alongside them, yes. But I wonder about something else. . .
When a pro-choice mother teaches her child about abortion as a valid choice, does she share her own experience? And what does her child think? Does s/he think that could have been me? Glad I was the one Mommy wanted? Am I the reason I don't have a younger sibling? I have wondered about this for some time. Unless the fact is hidden from the children, which is probably preferable. But one can't hide something and pretend it's no big deal, even to oneself. Admittedly, not everyone thinks it's no big deal to have or to have had an abortion. But some do. And they shouldn't.
I think I need comments off for this one. I had to get that off of my chest so I could stop composing it in my head, but I don't need to be checking back obsessively. In fact, I might take a blogging holiday and edit my dissertation. Or read a book. See you in a week or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)