Teaching The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen, and other things. . .

If you haven't read the original, you can read it here. I assigned an essay on "The Moral Simplification of Disney's 'The Little Mermaid,'" and had them read the original text. I don't think any of them had read it before.

My first surprise was when it was argued that the Disney version was better by virtue of its simplicity because without the immortality of the soul as a subtext, it would be more accessible to those who were atheist or agnostic, and so did not wish for their children to be exposed to difficult questions that would then require explanation. Also, the replay value of a text with such an unhappy ending--one that instructed rather than amusing--was called into question. This rather put a damper on the prospect of discussing Andersen's text on its own terms, but then, with such a popular version as a comparison, I guess the original was at a disadvantage. The essay argued that the happy ending does rather a disservice to the reader, creating expectations that wishes will always be fulfilled, and attributing misfortune to the will of a single malevolent force. We wound up discussing the issue of representation of parental authority, and why parents feel threatened when fictional characters disobey (and get away with it)--not an issue in the original. Another point was that it contains more relevant topics--like not to talk to strangers--than the immortality of the soul. I tried to compare the complexity of the two issues. Even if you're not interested in the immortality of the soul, you can still concede that the question is more complex, no? The issue of why the mermaid could not achieve both a soul and true love was raised--the dichotomy was seen as a false one.

I admit that I felt a bit at a disadvantage because the Andersen text was being charged with not being politically or socially relevant. Maybe that's why it was excluded from the anthology!! But then, I think it's a problem when the expectation is that the world should be fair, and fiction is expected either to create a safehaven where the world looks fair, or becomes more fair (just), or acknowledges its unfairness in a way that places blame or suggests a remedy. I never had a problem with the notion that toils and suffering could be fruitless, even as a child--except that her toils were not fruitless, as she was granted the opportunity to gain for herself an immortal soul. But if that consideration is alien to your worldview, it's rather difficult to entertain that as a concrete gain. So how to discuss texts with a Christian subtext in a secular university context?

I was particularly interested in the nature of love and the representation of marriage. Observe this passage:

“So I shall die,” said the little mermaid, “and as the foam of the sea I shall be driven about never again to hear the music of the waves, or to see the pretty flowers nor the red sun. Is there anything I can do to win an immortal soul?”

“No,” said the old woman, “unless a man were to love you so much that you were more to him than his father or mother; and if all his thoughts and all his love were fixed upon you, and the priest placed his right hand in yours, and he promised to be true to you here and hereafter, then his soul would glide into your body and you would obtain a share in the future happiness of mankind. He would give a soul to you and retain his own as well; but this can never happen. Your fish’s tail, which amongst us is considered so beautiful, is thought on earth to be quite ugly; they do not know any better, and they think it necessary to have two stout props, which they call legs, in order to be handsome.”

In this characterization of marriage, we approximate the Catholic concept of a Sacramental Marriage, I think. At least, that would be a productive way to discuss a marriage that is so bound in the Judeo-Christian notion of the soul. The Biblical imagery--or analogy--is obvious: as Adam leant his rib to make Eve, so the husband of the mermaid (who is not human, and so is not the same as a human wife would be) lends part of his soul so that she might partake with him of Eternity. Pretty profound, actually. I managed to tease out the Adam & Eve reference, but had to quickly abandon the topic (which I did not introduce in the terms described above, though I would have liked to be teaching in a context that would have allowed for that kind of discussion). Now, even wanting to talk about the story in this way is new for me, much less having the context to do so, so I did not embark on an attempt to have the students define Sacramental Marriage through the story or evoke Catholic teaching. No waaaaay I'm THAT naïve! But still, I couldn't help wondering where that kind of discussion would lead. I planted the Adam & Eve seed, though. I didn't ask why there were all of those priests & incense & ritual in this Protestant, Danish text, but I wondered to myself. . .

In order to have something to discuss, I did ask what a feminist perspective might be, but that was too easy, really. She is dehumanized--being non-human in the first place doesn't really matter, or rather, it does because the female protagonist is alienated from the patriarchal world from the very nature of her being (or non-being)--and depends on finding a husband for her very soul. Her identity depends on him. Now, the Disney version does not really vary from this--rather, it validates that Ariel's existence depends on the prince. We learn that that's O.K. I'm not happy with seeing the Andersen version as negative in this way, and I don't think Disney's rebellion theme redeems their dependence on the handsome prince to justify Ariel's transformation. I presented this poem by Judith Viorst as an alternate "take" on the story; I liked this one in high school, but (point being taken--don't change who you are, yadda yadda), it doesn't exactly satisfy me in its interpretation of the story:

A Mermaid's Tail (Tale)

I left the castle of my mer-king father,
Where seaweed gardens sway in pearly sand.
I left behind sweet sisters and kind waters
To seek a prince's love upon the land.

My tongue was payment for the witch's potion,
And never would I sing sea songs again;
My tail became two human legs to dance on,
But I would always dance with shards of pain.

I risked more than my life to make him love me.
The prince preferred another for his bride.
I always hate the ending to this story:
They lived together happily; I cried.

But I have some advice for modern mermaids
Who wish to save great sorrow and travail:
Don't give up who you are for love of princes.
He might have liked me better with my tail.

For all the validating of identity for girls, it is an oversimplification--likely by design. So how to avoid that kind of oversimplification in classroom discussion? We discussed (briefly) ecofeminism, which is so over the top that it's really about use of language rather than perceived oppression, and so is fun for me. Briefly, briefly we discussed Matthew Arnold's "The Forsaken Merman." I think that comparison could have been fruitful on the religious front, with the contrast between nature/paganism and humanity/religion, and all of the various associations. But we wasted too much time talking about Disney. :P

My previous post about politics, perspectives, worldviews in the classroom was kind of poking (admittedly smug) fun at myself, though it did culminate in a very real frustration with what I see as the limitations and expectations of my teaching in my discipline. I worry about including texts that I don't like or with which I don't feel familiar enough to teach simply in order to represent a diversity of voices. I worry that when I include multi-ethnic selections or female authors as an afterthought, that I'm being a phony--or that I will come across that way. And that's a lot of baggage to add to the already considerable pressures of teaching.

And what about Catholicism? If to teach is my vocation (or part of my vocation), and I'm supposed to live my Faith, how do those things work together? As far as I can tell, it doesn't mean that I have to be nicey-nicey in the classroom (or on the blog, for that matter). I certainly DO have to engage with these questions, and this is a good format for me to do so. But what about subject matter of research and teaching? Surely I shouldn't shy away from the Christianity, though I can't really pursue the themes in more than superficial terms in my current position. And I have a problem with texts being taught simply for their Christian elements (usually in a simplified form)--like is done with the Chronicles of Narnia, which are typically embraced or rejected by scholars or teachers for their Christian elements. That is a bit simplistic on both sides.

With research, it is easier than teaching, I think. If we are selective in our research, well, that's part of being specialized. And I'm not sure how we can live the Faith through academic publishing, unless it means not publishing that thing I wrote about S & M in the films of a certain Spanish director. Yeah, that topic has been shelved permanently for a few years now.

It's a funny thing about my last post. . .

They don't really have me pegged. At least, they don't think twice about any of what I mentioned in my previous post. I rather knew that. I'm speaking to my own recognition that I'm ideologically at odds with my discipline--and my own discomfort about representing perspectives that I'm supposed to believe (on a level), but don't. I had this interesting conversation with a student (yes, the same one) after class in which she admitted that she has difficulty getting outside of her own contemporary perspective when she reads about women, and love, and mer-people lacking souls. Then we continued to discuss representations of female complexity as a historical literary development. Go figure.

They Have My Number. . .

I didn't do anything to announce my personal views. I try to avoid the kinds of discussions that reveal how at odds I am with the presumed politics of my discipline--the kind that my students expect from English profs and (especially) grad students. But they know--perhaps because of my avoidance. I can talk the talk, I assure you. I took ALL of those graduate classes & played along. Truthfully, I used to be better at the playing along than I am now. I find myself giving lip service to the theories, while my attitude is subtly dismissive. I can't teach Herland anymore because there's too much that I find disturbing. I can't say, theoretically, "Well, under what circumstances MIGHT it be good for the babies to be raised by someone other than their mothers?" without betraying that I can't really entertain this as a valid possibility except in the most extreme of cases, which is not what Charlotte Perkins Gilman had in mind.

So the other day, one student told me about a news story in which a child was suspended from school for playing cowboys & Indians, or cops & robbers, or some equally politically incorrect game and making a handgun motion with his hand. I incredulously asked where this occurred, and she replied that it was in Texas. Then she asked, "You would have felt better if I had said California, wouldn't you?" Yes, yes I would. How did she know? Not that I think Texas wins any kind of prize for just discipline of children, or leads the nation in healthy attitudes toward violence, but I would have been comforted to know that the incident was further removed from where I am now. Of course, a harsh backlash is usually the strategy to correct something that's seen as an extreme problem, and some administrator probably meant to nip "Texas gun culture" in the bud. But that's not the point. How did she have me pegged??

I gave admirable lip service to the notion that the canon should be deconstructed. I mean, I put in some good words for the traditional canon. But for the most part, I think I gave a pretty convincing account of why the canon (or the notion of a canon) should be questioned, and I talked about representing a multiplicity of voices to more accurately represent who was, indeed, writing. I don't think they believed me. Truthfully, I like models that acknowledge the influence of certain writers on others, though this is admittedly uneven representation. I do not believe in including mediocre works just to add diversity, or because they represent marginal opinions. I am all for diversity when it is appropriate, and I do see value in exploring cross-cultural perspectives, but not simply for the sake of doing so. There are times when we are all talking about the same things, albeit from different perspectives, and it's good to compare, as long as you acknowledge a basis for comparison--typically, Western Culture, since that's the tradition our discipline grows out of. I don't see why ANYONE should have to read Gloria Anzaldua. Or Kate Chopin, for that matter.

I brought in very inclusive picture books! But only the best examples. Okay, some of the environmentalist titles were bad. Really bad. But I've published in ecocriticism and children's lit, so I'm entitled.

Today, we were talking about fairy tales. I encouraged them to retell a story with emphasis on some "-ism." I guess this was inviting mockery. So one group took a proto-feminist tale with some ambiguities and complexities and suggested removing the complexities to make it a more blatantly feminist text. The female character was more self-sufficient, did the accounting for her father, opened her own business after being rejected in marriage. When she admired her beloved, she noted that he had a nice butt. Nice. So I blurted out, "You're objectifying him!" Well, one of my group members, English major, the same one who made the California crack (above), BURST out laughing--and was joined by the rest of the class. Including myself.

I can't help thinking that I'm actively working against what others in my department--er, discipline--are trying to accomplish. Not sure what that is or how I'm undermining it, but you know. . .

Earlier in the class, I argued with a student that to use "proletariat" to mean "peasantry" or "lower class" or "working class" was inappropriate because it invoked a specific theoretical perspective or methodology. You can't talk like Marx without invoking Marx in my class, especially when discussing "Beauty and the Beast" (the 18th Century version). Umm, yeah. So he argued that he just thought that Marx was pretty accurately representing history (see Literacy-chic's head explode), at which point I corrected him and said that Marx was using the term to describe his perception of history, but when you say "proletariat" it is not a neutral term, and does not merely invoke Marx but all who come after Marx.

They have so totally got me pegged. I don't know how I'll ever find an academic job in my field.

Vertical and Verbal

My Chiclette, of course!! She is now standing up! At 8 1/2 months! I figure we're basically in a lot of trouble and she will be chasing her sister around very, very soon--much sooner than I like to think about! Doodle didn't walk until she was around 15 months, and then she RAN. This one has a jump on her, I think. . .

And for the other half of the equation, I think Chiclette is going to be an early talker. It took her a while to make many sounds at all--I think she was just looking around & listening & taking it all in. But for a while now (and I always try to have my suspicions confirmed before making any pronouncements about whether she has reached a milestone early. . .) she has been making more "focused-sounding" sounds--specifically, for the past week or two, when I pick her up or when she wants me, I hear "Mamamom." When Daddy walks by, a similar "Dadada." I even thought Brother got a "Buh" the other day. The Momma one has definitely been confirmed. It's too uncanny to be coincidence.

She claps, too! And waves! She sits or kneels up in her little play yard, affectionately called "The Cage" since her brother's day (or possibly before), and looks at one of us, opening and closing her little hand. She learned that trick when my mom was here a few weeks back, and there were many goodbyes. She sings now, too. Whenever she hears someone singing or hears music that she likes, she sings with a little, "Aaaaaaaaaaah." (I love that!!) Meanwhile, Doodle likes to sing along to "The Flight of the Valkyries," and dance and conduct! Such cuties!!

Of course, I didn't mention the teensy bit of separation-anxiety clinginess that results from my being gone a couple of hours a day to teach. She doesn't cry when I leave, just when I come back! And Doodle? Doesn't mind my leaving at all, so long as there's an adventure to be had. On school days, I ask if she wants to go "play," and she's excited. We've finally made a decision for the fall--she is ready for the 3-year-old class at my son's old Montessori school. Yay! :)

Okay, so I discovered Etsy. . .

. . . Courtesy of the Ottobre Group I joined on Yahoo! Am I the last person in the world to hear of this or is it a well-kept secret for those in the know? At any rate, it looks like there's some very cool stuff. Looks more trustworthy and reliable than eBay--that is, you seem to know more up front, and there's less of a sense that someone is out to cheat you. The merchants set their own prices--no "auction"--and the items are largely (completely?) hand made. Neat! I bought each of my girls some non-slip hair-bow clippies! You can see them here and here.

Meanwhile, I cut Doodle's hair--short. I was just trying to trim the whispies!! She kind of looks like Haley Mills in The Parent Trap. . . It's cute, and still kind of flippy, but I miss the whispy curls.

Not a Poem

There isn't a time
when I'm away from you
that I don't think about you in some way--
Some thing that I want to say to you,
some thing we could do if you were here.
Things have grown so complex over time--
there is an intricate balance
to our lives
that we upset
time and time again
and almost maintain
for precious seconds at a time.
So many variables,
so many variables,
so many, many quirks in a day of turning
again and again to the same tasks, but still together.
And you know when I am angry
with you
and you are angry
with me,
the largeness of my self-righteousness
shrinks
to
pain
and
my anger
melts to sadness
as I try to think of ways
to make it right again.
There is an anger in you
that I think is always with you
that I can't soothe
with words or touch,
that lurks behind your eyes
and in the corners of your mouth
that haunts your eyebrows, waiting
waiting, waiting. . .
Hopping
from object to object
mutating,
waiting, waiting, waiting. . .
And I?
I have my indignation.
I have my notion
of how things ought to be
but aren't
and probably never could be.
And if in your anger I don't perceive
the qualities that made me love you,
neither in my hurtful pride
do I endear myself to you.
So we separate
for a few hours,
dwelling, perhaps, in things said
perhaps meant,
perhaps meant to hurt with a grain of truth.
I would take the hurt and keep the truth
before seeing you again.
If I could simplify an hour
to remember, with you,
how being with you
was an escape from the intricacies
that we otherwise had to balance,
negotiations
we would rather not perform,
if I could melt
your anger into peace
and share a quiet time with you alone,
I would.

Chicken Dress!!

I finished it last night, and Doodle wore it to Mass this morning. Unfortunately, she wasn't feeling good and developed a fever midway through Mass, so her cute exterior concealed a crummy-feeling interior. Poor Doodle!

Less anonymous pics are on the family blog, here!

NOTE: I wanted to add a note about the family blog--I keep pictures of my daughters fairly closely guarded online, so the family blog (above) is not open to the public--sorry for that! BUt thanks for visiting and looking at my version of this very cute dress! :)

Too Tired to Post, Too Busy to Read

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.

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.

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:

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!!)

As a 1930s Wife, I'm. . .

49 As a 1930s wife, I am Average Take the test!

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. . .

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. . .

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.

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.

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:

In the Garden of the House
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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!

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.