See you in 40 days or so!
In the meantime, check out the Catholic Carnival! And buy Mystic Monk Coffee! And enjoy my 3 "Quick Lenten Meals" suggestions from last year!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Happy Mardi Gras -and- an short academic aside
I had to squeeze in a last post before midnight. Happy Mardi Gras! Have a spiritual Lent! (You can't wish someone a "happy Lent," can you?) I will be away, but you know where to find me (psst! the profile). Also, for the record, I received some bad news today that in the perverse nature of academia, I'm probably supposed to regard as good news. A chapter of my dissertation in article form was rejected. Well, what at first read as a rejection was actually a fairly enthusiastic revise and resubmit. The problem? With all of their good submissions (which vex me because they are doing a special topic on--what else?--reading), they can't wait around for me to make the revisions, which will be very easy since my whole project deals with exactly what they're asking me to clarify. This is part of trying to take something out of a larger work and make it stand alone. However, they returned the results to me 5 months later than they were supposed to. Now their "schedule won't permit"--thanks, guys. On the other hand, once I get over being deflated, I should really have something to work with.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Baptism Reflections. . .
On Sunday, during Mass, we witnessed the Baptism of three infants, and while the addition of half an hour or so is typically not the best thing with a temperamental toddler who is, nevertheless, getting better about staying in the pew, the Rite was very well integrated into the Mass and oriented those present towards the meaning of the Sacrament in a quiet yet profound and even scholarly way. It was nice to see the Baptism, as it always is, though I was a bit sad to note that all of the babies seemed younger than mine, whose Baptism we have been planning for. . . well, months now, but our plans have really been coming together in the last few weeks. I sometimes forget, now, that the importance of Baptism was something that I rejected initially as a mere display--an impression I received from other churches--then because I did not hold with the idea that a newborn could be "tainted" by anything. But I grew gradually to doubt my own certainty, losing faith in my skepticism, until fear that Baptism might be necessary to Salvation gave way to acceptance and faith. It was the biggest step in my conversion process to accept the necessity of Baptism, and I first considered the possibility of its truth for the sake of my family--particularly my son. I couldn't have anticipated the fullness of what it came to signify for me. . .
Apart from the Grace of the Sacrament, Baptism is a gift that I give to my children so that they will always have the Church as a spiritual home--a place where they belong. I know that there are many who were raised Catholic who don't now feel this way, never have felt this way, or never will again. But in the stories of Catholics who have returned to the Church after being away for a period of time, there is always the sense of returning home. I felt this way myself, though I was not baptized Catholic as an infant. I knew that both of my parents were raised Catholic, that my aunts and uncles were raised Catholic, that my grandmother was devoutly Catholic in her way, that many of the older adults I encountered were Catholic, their houses adorned with the trappings of Catholicism. So when I decided, finally, to become Catholic myself, I had a sense of returning home--of being where I belonged.
We have scheduled my little daughter's Baptism for March 1--an oasis in the desert of Lent--and this is what I wish for her: to be initiated into the Catholic Church as a spiritual home, where she can belong, to which she can always return, and where she can learn (about God), and grow (towards God), and thrive (in His Grace).
Apart from the Grace of the Sacrament, Baptism is a gift that I give to my children so that they will always have the Church as a spiritual home--a place where they belong. I know that there are many who were raised Catholic who don't now feel this way, never have felt this way, or never will again. But in the stories of Catholics who have returned to the Church after being away for a period of time, there is always the sense of returning home. I felt this way myself, though I was not baptized Catholic as an infant. I knew that both of my parents were raised Catholic, that my aunts and uncles were raised Catholic, that my grandmother was devoutly Catholic in her way, that many of the older adults I encountered were Catholic, their houses adorned with the trappings of Catholicism. So when I decided, finally, to become Catholic myself, I had a sense of returning home--of being where I belonged.
We have scheduled my little daughter's Baptism for March 1--an oasis in the desert of Lent--and this is what I wish for her: to be initiated into the Catholic Church as a spiritual home, where she can belong, to which she can always return, and where she can learn (about God), and grow (towards God), and thrive (in His Grace).
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Fall Plans Dashed
I realized with glee recently that next fall my toddler would be the right age to start school at the Montessori school that my son attending from pre-K through 3rd grade. (I consider 3 yrs to be a good age to start preschool.) I called the school and spoke to the headmistress. She was very pleased, asked about my son, and said she would send the application. The application arrived in the mail several days later, I opened it, and my jaw nearly dropped. There is a one-time application fee of $250!!! That's on top of the $100 registration fee and the advance payment of the last month's tuition, which in our case would have been $245 for 3 half-days a week. Surely, I thought, this must be a typo!! I remembered a fee of $25. So I wrote an email and asked. She confirmed that there was, indeed, a $250 application fee, and hoped it would not change my plans. This will indeed change my plans. I can only conclude that she must have needed to institute that fee to limit applicants. I understand about the last months' tuition, the supply fees, and the registration fees, but had I had to pay $350 for merely applying and registering in addition to the last month's tuition (which in our current case would have been $245 for 3 half-days), I would never have been able to send my son in the first place, and he would have missed a wonderful experience because of it. I am assuming that we simply don't have the income level of most of the families who currently attend that school. And I told her so. In no uncertain terms. Perhaps that is the point. But this makes me very sad, as I can't imagine an alternative that would be as attractive. Clearly, my selectivity is exceeding my income. :(
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Random Bullets before Lent
Things I should give up for Lent for wholly unspiritual reasons:
Thing(s) I want to give up for Lent for wholly unspiritual reasons:
Things I should do more of during Lent (in no specific order):
Things I have thought about recently (in wholly unconnected ways):
What have you been thinking about?
*In fact, I think we owe it to the brothers to step up our coffee consumption during Lent so that we will need to purchase more, thus contributing more to help them to establish their monastery in the mountains of Wyoming.
- French fries
- Chocolate
- Coffee (unless it's Mystic Monk coffee*)
- Dr. Pepper
- eBay
- Sewing!!
Thing(s) I want to give up for Lent for wholly unspiritual reasons:
- Housework!!
Things I should do more of during Lent (in no specific order):
- Pray
- Write a dissertation
- Play with a toddler
- Spend time with a 'tween (I only use the term as a tribute to Tolkien)
- Read (anything, really)
- Meditate
- Exercise
- Cook (especially meals from monastery cookbooks!)
- Think happy thoughts!
- Recognize the beauty around me (physical and spiritual)
Things I have thought about recently (in wholly unconnected ways):
- The very natural-seeming portrayal of Tevye's relationship with God in Fiddler on the Roof
- Whether the Tevye stories would be worth finding & reading
- Undergraduate & graduate education and the right relationship between the two
- More job market issues
- Children's media and the very excellent show "Charlie and Lola"
- Breastfeeding & NFP
- Hormones, mental health& genetics, and panic attacks (little ones)
- The beauty of children
- The difficulty of children
- All that stuff about children & relationships that didn't seem relevant until child #3
- Upcoming Baptism plans (March 1!)
What have you been thinking about?
*In fact, I think we owe it to the brothers to step up our coffee consumption during Lent so that we will need to purchase more, thus contributing more to help them to establish their monastery in the mountains of Wyoming.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Another Book Meme!!
Courtesy of Chris, who didn't know if I'd be able to finish this one before Lent. Clearly he underestimates my procrastination! ;) This one's easier than it looks. But I have to ask those people I tag to pleeease answer it before Lent so I can read it!!! ;) Either that, or email the answers! So this is Eva's Reading Meme:
Which book do you irrationally cringe away from reading, despite seeing only positive reviews?
Ulysses? No, that's not irrational. . . I know there's one that I'm not thinking of, but I can't put my finger on it.
Perhaps House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. . .
There are more, I'm sure of it!
If you could bring three characters to life for a social event (afternoon tea, a night of clubbing, perhaps a world cruise), who would they be and what would the event be?
The vengeful answer: I would bring Stephen Daedalus, Leonard Bast, and Septimus Smith for a class in literary theory taught by a professor who deserves the "challenge." (suppresses wicked laughter)
I was trying to think of some wise, long-lived characters. . . Treebeard, Oisin (Celtic, from Yeats' poetry), but I get stuck on #3. . .
I know! Orlando, Dorian Grey and Lazarus Long at a Revival meeting or on Boubon Street for Mardi Gras. . .
Clearly, my mind is a bit warped right now!
(Borrowing shamelessly from the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde): you are told you can’t die until you read the most boring novel on the planet. While this immortality is great for awhile, eventually you realize it’s past time to die. Which book would you expect to get you a nice grave?
Moby Dick.
Come on, we’ve all been there. Which book have you pretended, or at least hinted, that you’ve read, when in fact you’ve been nowhere near it?
Toni Morrison's Beloved. Even tried to read it while teaching it one semester. Didn't happen. And oh so many things that have been assigned over the years, from Death of a Salesman in high school on down to the Ph.D. reading list. Usually I admit to not reading them, but not always--especially when grades are involved. There. Now you know what a slacker I am!!!
As an addition to the last question, has there been a book that you really thought you had read, only to realize when you read a review about it/go to ‘reread’ it that you haven’t?
I always get Love in the Time of Cholera confused with Of Love and Other Demons. Specifically, I told Chris I had read the former, thinking that it was the latter. Oops!!
You’re interviewing for the post of Official Book Advisor to some VIP (who’s not a big reader). What’s the first book you’d recommend and why? (if you feel like you’d have to know the person, go ahead and personalize the VIP)
Lord of the Rings. I know, probably not fair using the same one twice (see below). Not because it's practically useful. Then I might choose The Republic or The Prince, or even Mill's On Liberty. But there's a sense of heroism, amid almost certain defeat, or victory that contains elements of defeat, that is simply unfathomable to so many people today. I was actually thinking about this as a Disney preschool show was coming on this morning (before I could get to the remote control): "Higgleytown Heroes." The premise is that everyone--even those who do the most mundane jobs--are heroes because they provide a service to other people. Ummmm. . . in a word, No. Just no.
A good fairy comes and grants you one wish: you will have perfect reading comprehension in the foreign language of your choice. Which language do you go with?
I would have to go with Spanish. I sneered at Spanish and was a French snob in high school and college, before meeting my husband, who is fluent and has an M.A. in Spanish. When we were dating, he introduced me to Spanish literature, poetry in particular. So many times when he was in his Master's program, I wished that I could have taken the classes he was taking--again, mostly poetry, but also nineteenth and twentieth century Peninsular literature (as in, from the Peninsula--Spain--in case you didn't think I was still a European language snob!) and Octavio Paz. I would also like to do some comparisons between Spanish and English literature within my time period.
A mischievous fairy comes and says that you must choose one book that you will reread once a year for the rest of your life (you can read other books as well). Which book would you pick?
Ahem. Lord of the Rings. I practically do this anyway (though I'm not teaching myself to speak elvish or anything. . .) I find it an inspirational book in many ways. I first read it as an adult--rather recently, actually--so my attachment to it is different from the books I read/reread as a child/adolescent (The Chronicles of Narnia and The Mists of Avalon, in case you were wondering--all fantasy; hmmm. . .) Should I expound? Naaah. There's just so much there. Besides, I would get to pick out the misprints in different editions.
I know that the book blogging community, and its various challenges, have pushed my reading borders. What’s one bookish thing you ‘discovered’ from book blogging (maybe a new genre, or author, or new appreciation for cover art-anything)?
Well, while book blogs tend to remind me, sadly, of when I was young and not in graduate school and liked to read and read profusely, making me painfully aware that I don't read nearly enough, especially for someone in my discipline (though many people in my discipline arguably read more criticism than primary works) there are two books I learned of recently from bloggers that I would like to read:
The History of Our World Beyond the Wave by R. E. Klein (sadly out-of-print) reviewed here by Darwin
Kristin Lavransdatter by Sigrid Undset, discussed recently by Melanie.
That good fairy is back for one final visit. Now, she’s granting you your dream library! Describe it. Is everything leatherbound? Is it full of first edition hardcovers? Pristine trade paperbacks? Perhaps a few favourite authors have inscribed their works? Go ahead-let your imagination run free.
Without a doubt, a first edition of The Hobbit before Tolkien revised the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter. In fact, first editions of Lord of the Rings, too. I'm well on my way to having all interesting illustrated editions, so that's a given. I would like a collection of really extravagant art books--specific eras, artists, and overviews, all with extensive color plates. And some small press books with woodcuts, from Kelmscott Press, for example.
As for nominations--Darwin, Mrs. Darwin, Melanie, and whoever else would like to join in! (I would tag some others--you know who you are--but isn't there some kind of rule about waiting a reasonable time before tagging the same person?)
Which book do you irrationally cringe away from reading, despite seeing only positive reviews?
Ulysses? No, that's not irrational. . . I know there's one that I'm not thinking of, but I can't put my finger on it.
Perhaps House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. . .
There are more, I'm sure of it!
If you could bring three characters to life for a social event (afternoon tea, a night of clubbing, perhaps a world cruise), who would they be and what would the event be?
The vengeful answer: I would bring Stephen Daedalus, Leonard Bast, and Septimus Smith for a class in literary theory taught by a professor who deserves the "challenge." (suppresses wicked laughter)
I was trying to think of some wise, long-lived characters. . . Treebeard, Oisin (Celtic, from Yeats' poetry), but I get stuck on #3. . .
I know! Orlando, Dorian Grey and Lazarus Long at a Revival meeting or on Boubon Street for Mardi Gras. . .
Clearly, my mind is a bit warped right now!
(Borrowing shamelessly from the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde): you are told you can’t die until you read the most boring novel on the planet. While this immortality is great for awhile, eventually you realize it’s past time to die. Which book would you expect to get you a nice grave?
Moby Dick.
Come on, we’ve all been there. Which book have you pretended, or at least hinted, that you’ve read, when in fact you’ve been nowhere near it?
Toni Morrison's Beloved. Even tried to read it while teaching it one semester. Didn't happen. And oh so many things that have been assigned over the years, from Death of a Salesman in high school on down to the Ph.D. reading list. Usually I admit to not reading them, but not always--especially when grades are involved. There. Now you know what a slacker I am!!!
As an addition to the last question, has there been a book that you really thought you had read, only to realize when you read a review about it/go to ‘reread’ it that you haven’t?
I always get Love in the Time of Cholera confused with Of Love and Other Demons. Specifically, I told Chris I had read the former, thinking that it was the latter. Oops!!
You’re interviewing for the post of Official Book Advisor to some VIP (who’s not a big reader). What’s the first book you’d recommend and why? (if you feel like you’d have to know the person, go ahead and personalize the VIP)
Lord of the Rings. I know, probably not fair using the same one twice (see below). Not because it's practically useful. Then I might choose The Republic or The Prince, or even Mill's On Liberty. But there's a sense of heroism, amid almost certain defeat, or victory that contains elements of defeat, that is simply unfathomable to so many people today. I was actually thinking about this as a Disney preschool show was coming on this morning (before I could get to the remote control): "Higgleytown Heroes." The premise is that everyone--even those who do the most mundane jobs--are heroes because they provide a service to other people. Ummmm. . . in a word, No. Just no.
A good fairy comes and grants you one wish: you will have perfect reading comprehension in the foreign language of your choice. Which language do you go with?
I would have to go with Spanish. I sneered at Spanish and was a French snob in high school and college, before meeting my husband, who is fluent and has an M.A. in Spanish. When we were dating, he introduced me to Spanish literature, poetry in particular. So many times when he was in his Master's program, I wished that I could have taken the classes he was taking--again, mostly poetry, but also nineteenth and twentieth century Peninsular literature (as in, from the Peninsula--Spain--in case you didn't think I was still a European language snob!) and Octavio Paz. I would also like to do some comparisons between Spanish and English literature within my time period.
A mischievous fairy comes and says that you must choose one book that you will reread once a year for the rest of your life (you can read other books as well). Which book would you pick?
Ahem. Lord of the Rings. I practically do this anyway (though I'm not teaching myself to speak elvish or anything. . .) I find it an inspirational book in many ways. I first read it as an adult--rather recently, actually--so my attachment to it is different from the books I read/reread as a child/adolescent (The Chronicles of Narnia and The Mists of Avalon, in case you were wondering--all fantasy; hmmm. . .) Should I expound? Naaah. There's just so much there. Besides, I would get to pick out the misprints in different editions.
I know that the book blogging community, and its various challenges, have pushed my reading borders. What’s one bookish thing you ‘discovered’ from book blogging (maybe a new genre, or author, or new appreciation for cover art-anything)?
Well, while book blogs tend to remind me, sadly, of when I was young and not in graduate school and liked to read and read profusely, making me painfully aware that I don't read nearly enough, especially for someone in my discipline (though many people in my discipline arguably read more criticism than primary works) there are two books I learned of recently from bloggers that I would like to read:
The History of Our World Beyond the Wave by R. E. Klein (sadly out-of-print) reviewed here by Darwin
Kristin Lavransdatter by Sigrid Undset, discussed recently by Melanie.
That good fairy is back for one final visit. Now, she’s granting you your dream library! Describe it. Is everything leatherbound? Is it full of first edition hardcovers? Pristine trade paperbacks? Perhaps a few favourite authors have inscribed their works? Go ahead-let your imagination run free.
Without a doubt, a first edition of The Hobbit before Tolkien revised the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter. In fact, first editions of Lord of the Rings, too. I'm well on my way to having all interesting illustrated editions, so that's a given. I would like a collection of really extravagant art books--specific eras, artists, and overviews, all with extensive color plates. And some small press books with woodcuts, from Kelmscott Press, for example.
As for nominations--Darwin, Mrs. Darwin, Melanie, and whoever else would like to join in! (I would tag some others--you know who you are--but isn't there some kind of rule about waiting a reasonable time before tagging the same person?)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Overdue Meme
I was tagged by Darwin! This may have been my first meme, but it bears repeating every 6 months or so, I think. So here goes:
Book Meme Rules
1. Pick up the nearest book ( of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.
Aldous Huxley's Proper Studies is the nearest book. My husband checked it out of the library for me (handy that he works there) after it was mentioned in an article I was reading. Page 123 is in the middle of an essay titled "Education":
"A child may grow into a mental cripple or paralytic without suffering anything worse than boredom and fatigue. The fact is unfortunate. If children suffered agonies from the process of mental distortion at the hands of their pastors, if the stupid and mechanical teaching of German grammar or arithmetic actually made them scream with pain, we should by this time have learned something about right education. Finding themselves liable to prosecution by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, bad teachers would soon mend their ways."
[Okay, I cheated and copied 4 sentences! But really, that last one was hard to resist.]
So because the dissertation deals with literacy, which wasn't always talked about as such, "education" is a relevant topic for me, though often discussed more generally than is useful.
So I tag: Entropy at Sphere of Influence, Sarah at just another day of Catholic pondering, Jen at Et-tu? (oops, Darwin tagged her, too!), Anastasia, and Chris at Stuff as Dreams are Made On!
Book Meme Rules
1. Pick up the nearest book ( of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.
Aldous Huxley's Proper Studies is the nearest book. My husband checked it out of the library for me (handy that he works there) after it was mentioned in an article I was reading. Page 123 is in the middle of an essay titled "Education":
"A child may grow into a mental cripple or paralytic without suffering anything worse than boredom and fatigue. The fact is unfortunate. If children suffered agonies from the process of mental distortion at the hands of their pastors, if the stupid and mechanical teaching of German grammar or arithmetic actually made them scream with pain, we should by this time have learned something about right education. Finding themselves liable to prosecution by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, bad teachers would soon mend their ways."
[Okay, I cheated and copied 4 sentences! But really, that last one was hard to resist.]
So because the dissertation deals with literacy, which wasn't always talked about as such, "education" is a relevant topic for me, though often discussed more generally than is useful.
So I tag: Entropy at Sphere of Influence, Sarah at just another day of Catholic pondering, Jen at Et-tu? (oops, Darwin tagged her, too!), Anastasia, and Chris at Stuff as Dreams are Made On!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
An Ambiguous Sacrifice
Well, like so many Catholic bloggers this Lent and last, I am planning to give up blogging for Lent. I figure, everyone will lose interest & forget about me and my sitemeter stats will drop, but vanity is certainly not a good reason enough reason to stop me. I may get blogworthy ideas, but if they don't keep, perhaps I will focus on other things. Which brings me to the ambiguity. . .
No doubt I will miss blogging, and reading blogs (since that occupies more of my time than writing), and I will feel cut off from the community and the friends I have found, but when I considered posting about this a few days ago, I was thinking about my reasons for giving up blogging. Do I think that by giving up blogging and blog-reading, that I will devote more time to prayer, meditation and contemplation? Will this sacrifice bring me closer to God? Not to shock the Catholic blogging community, but no. Not even remotely. Not blogging will not make me saintlier, and that was nowhere in my motives for giving it up. Which caused me to pause. Was I giving up blogging the way others (like myself in the past) give up favorite food items--because it'll be healthier overall, kind of hard, and perhaps have the unanticipated benefit of weight loss? Well, it was true that I figured I would make my life more productive--I would be focusing on what I really should be doing--taking care of two little girls, a big brother, and (dare I say?) my husband and the house, working on the dissertation, and working for my assistantship--but isn't this more of a New Years resolution? Perhaps not, since I don't want to give it up permanently, but going cold turkey might help me regulate it more when I start back up after Easter. But isn't the Lenten sacrifice about turning back to God and making oneself holier? Reading the Catholic blogs probably makes me think about God more in a given day, albeit in a more cerebral or smug way (depending on the blog--mostly the ones whose authors don't read mine) than humble and spiritual. Well, this is what I figured. . .
I have talked a bit about vocation on this blog, here and there, from time to time. I am certainly called to motherhood and marriage, but there is this small matter of the dissertation, and the fact that I need to complete it in order for my family to move on from here, and for us to be able to pay the loans that have allowed us to pay the other bills and. . . well, you get the idea. And as for the argument (and I've seen it around the blogs) that the husband should be the provider, sometimes you have you go with the person who can do the narrowest job search instead of trawling the country for any job within a certain salary range for which one is qualified, and moving one's family accordingly. So the way I figure, the dissertation, at this point in time, is part of the family vocation. And, well, blogging is a kind of guilty pleasure in the middle of all of this. I really need to channel my creative energy into the dissertation, and these 40 days or so of Lent give me a chance to do that in an intense way, with few distractions. So how does this relate to a path to holiness? Because it relates to my vocation. And perhaps even to discernment of vocation, which I see as an ongoing process, though we've got to be settled sometime, right? My family just can't keep waiting indefinitely for the rest of our lives to begin.
So perhaps I will discover some spiritual elements in the pursuit of intellectual activity that is the dissertation, instead of the pursuit of intellectual activity that is the blogosphere for me. And perhaps by getting closer to my family vocation, I will move closer to God. Or maybe this is just my rationalization to force myself to do some work this Lent. You decide!!
P.S.--I will still be doing email, so if you feel like emailing, I wouldn't mind! (Please email me!!) ;)
P.P.S.--I will still be updating the family blog.
No doubt I will miss blogging, and reading blogs (since that occupies more of my time than writing), and I will feel cut off from the community and the friends I have found, but when I considered posting about this a few days ago, I was thinking about my reasons for giving up blogging. Do I think that by giving up blogging and blog-reading, that I will devote more time to prayer, meditation and contemplation? Will this sacrifice bring me closer to God? Not to shock the Catholic blogging community, but no. Not even remotely. Not blogging will not make me saintlier, and that was nowhere in my motives for giving it up. Which caused me to pause. Was I giving up blogging the way others (like myself in the past) give up favorite food items--because it'll be healthier overall, kind of hard, and perhaps have the unanticipated benefit of weight loss? Well, it was true that I figured I would make my life more productive--I would be focusing on what I really should be doing--taking care of two little girls, a big brother, and (dare I say?) my husband and the house, working on the dissertation, and working for my assistantship--but isn't this more of a New Years resolution? Perhaps not, since I don't want to give it up permanently, but going cold turkey might help me regulate it more when I start back up after Easter. But isn't the Lenten sacrifice about turning back to God and making oneself holier? Reading the Catholic blogs probably makes me think about God more in a given day, albeit in a more cerebral or smug way (depending on the blog--mostly the ones whose authors don't read mine) than humble and spiritual. Well, this is what I figured. . .
I have talked a bit about vocation on this blog, here and there, from time to time. I am certainly called to motherhood and marriage, but there is this small matter of the dissertation, and the fact that I need to complete it in order for my family to move on from here, and for us to be able to pay the loans that have allowed us to pay the other bills and. . . well, you get the idea. And as for the argument (and I've seen it around the blogs) that the husband should be the provider, sometimes you have you go with the person who can do the narrowest job search instead of trawling the country for any job within a certain salary range for which one is qualified, and moving one's family accordingly. So the way I figure, the dissertation, at this point in time, is part of the family vocation. And, well, blogging is a kind of guilty pleasure in the middle of all of this. I really need to channel my creative energy into the dissertation, and these 40 days or so of Lent give me a chance to do that in an intense way, with few distractions. So how does this relate to a path to holiness? Because it relates to my vocation. And perhaps even to discernment of vocation, which I see as an ongoing process, though we've got to be settled sometime, right? My family just can't keep waiting indefinitely for the rest of our lives to begin.
So perhaps I will discover some spiritual elements in the pursuit of intellectual activity that is the dissertation, instead of the pursuit of intellectual activity that is the blogosphere for me. And perhaps by getting closer to my family vocation, I will move closer to God. Or maybe this is just my rationalization to force myself to do some work this Lent. You decide!!
P.S.--I will still be doing email, so if you feel like emailing, I wouldn't mind! (Please email me!!) ;)
P.P.S.--I will still be updating the family blog.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Chickenpox!!!!!!!!!
We have had an infectious January. Two weeks ago, my toddler came down with Coxsackievirus, commonly (or uncommonly!) known as Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease. Very unpleasant. I caught it after her, then my son. Last week, while my son & I were still feeling the effects (which luckily didn't hinder our enjoyment of king cake & ice cream cake too much), I took my daughters to the doctors, and the Chiclette received some immunizations. This week, my son, who was not immunized against chicken pox, who we thought had had 2 milder cases when he was younger, came down with a full-blown case. Remember those? So it's Aveeno & Calomine for him! And another 3-4 days off of school. And the 4th copay in 3 weeks! This gave me the opportunity to ask the doctor about the vaccine. He brought it up, actually.
I really like my son's PCP. I like the girls' PCP also, as she believes in parental judgment, but I never feel as comfortable around female pediatricians as I do around a certain type of male pediatrician--the "old school" variety. This is quite different from how I feel about male vs. female OBs. But it's nice to have--for once--two pediatricians I trust.
So the doctor brought up the old cliche that chicken pox used to be a "rite of passage," that there were (ill-advised) chicken pox parties, etc., before the vaccine. He asked if the toddler was vaccinated (she is) and said that she could still get it (!!) but that it would be mild if she did. The baby should still be protected by maternal antibodies. So I asked about the vaccine--since there are reports of breakthrough infections, increased instances of shingles, and need for booster shots. He said that they always knew that a booster would be needed (!!). He hasn't heard of increased cases of shingles. And then he told us a few interesting things:
The Japanese have been vaccinating against chicken pox for about 20 years to our 15.
When my son was little, it had not yet become routine to vaccinate them at 1 yr., and that was only 10 years ago. By the time he was school age, the chicken pox vaccine was mandatory, but we skirted the issue.
Our current pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine when it was new for a few years, until the sample size was larger than the original test subjects.
He had a friend whose son (now 23 and an animator for Cartoon Network) had chicken pox induced meningitis. He was on the phone with the father when the boy had a seizure. It was at that point that he began to take chicken pox seriously as a disease.
The real reason that they vaccinate against chicken pox is not the disease but the secondary infections. The secondary staph infections landed 8,000 in the hospital on average, and would result in 40-50 deaths a year (which he whispered to avoid causing anxiety in the 11-year-old). With antibiotic resistant strains of staph, this is a valid concern to my mind.
I value such frankness in a doctor. It gives me much more to work with hearing these things from an informed person whom I trust.
Interestingly, the local news was reporting increased cases of chicken pox in spite of the vaccines only days before he came down with it. Picking up my son's homework today, my husband told one of the teachers that he had chicken pox. She said that a number of people do. It's "going around." Hmmm. . . I though that wasn't supposed to happen now!!
I really like my son's PCP. I like the girls' PCP also, as she believes in parental judgment, but I never feel as comfortable around female pediatricians as I do around a certain type of male pediatrician--the "old school" variety. This is quite different from how I feel about male vs. female OBs. But it's nice to have--for once--two pediatricians I trust.
So the doctor brought up the old cliche that chicken pox used to be a "rite of passage," that there were (ill-advised) chicken pox parties, etc., before the vaccine. He asked if the toddler was vaccinated (she is) and said that she could still get it (!!) but that it would be mild if she did. The baby should still be protected by maternal antibodies. So I asked about the vaccine--since there are reports of breakthrough infections, increased instances of shingles, and need for booster shots. He said that they always knew that a booster would be needed (!!). He hasn't heard of increased cases of shingles. And then he told us a few interesting things:
The Japanese have been vaccinating against chicken pox for about 20 years to our 15.
When my son was little, it had not yet become routine to vaccinate them at 1 yr., and that was only 10 years ago. By the time he was school age, the chicken pox vaccine was mandatory, but we skirted the issue.
Our current pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine when it was new for a few years, until the sample size was larger than the original test subjects.
He had a friend whose son (now 23 and an animator for Cartoon Network) had chicken pox induced meningitis. He was on the phone with the father when the boy had a seizure. It was at that point that he began to take chicken pox seriously as a disease.
The real reason that they vaccinate against chicken pox is not the disease but the secondary infections. The secondary staph infections landed 8,000 in the hospital on average, and would result in 40-50 deaths a year (which he whispered to avoid causing anxiety in the 11-year-old). With antibiotic resistant strains of staph, this is a valid concern to my mind.
I value such frankness in a doctor. It gives me much more to work with hearing these things from an informed person whom I trust.
Interestingly, the local news was reporting increased cases of chicken pox in spite of the vaccines only days before he came down with it. Picking up my son's homework today, my husband told one of the teachers that he had chicken pox. She said that a number of people do. It's "going around." Hmmm. . . I though that wasn't supposed to happen now!!
Yoga is Good
I have to remind myself of this periodically.
So I have this toddler who likes to imitate me when I stretch, shows a natural inclination toward dance, and has good rhythm & coordination. I have been wanting to get my son interested in yoga for years, but he was soured on it when he fell over while I was trying to help him with a pose. :( I bought a Yoga kids 2-pack at Target, and put the "From Silly to Calm" DVD in today, and we (mostly I) did some yoga. Even though it is geared toward 3-6 year olds, I still feel like I had a bit of a workout (sad commentary), and my daughter was interested long enough to try a downward dog--she likes that one, and did it a few times. I have to say, it's one of my favorites. I rather objected when the teacher told the kids to stretch their legs out to the side like a dog marking his territory. Please!! And there were one or two other things. . . Think I could substitute pacem for the sanskrit word shanti (peace)?
So I have this toddler who likes to imitate me when I stretch, shows a natural inclination toward dance, and has good rhythm & coordination. I have been wanting to get my son interested in yoga for years, but he was soured on it when he fell over while I was trying to help him with a pose. :( I bought a Yoga kids 2-pack at Target, and put the "From Silly to Calm" DVD in today, and we (mostly I) did some yoga. Even though it is geared toward 3-6 year olds, I still feel like I had a bit of a workout (sad commentary), and my daughter was interested long enough to try a downward dog--she likes that one, and did it a few times. I have to say, it's one of my favorites. I rather objected when the teacher told the kids to stretch their legs out to the side like a dog marking his territory. Please!! And there were one or two other things. . . Think I could substitute pacem for the sanskrit word shanti (peace)?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Nature of the Job Market -or- Why I Won't Be Hired -or- A Coffee-Inspired Digression
Let me preface this by saying that I'm having a little debate with myself about coffee--whether I should have more of the stuff or avoid it altogether. You see, when I have more of it, I get agitated, but when I get agitated, I write stuff--sometimes even the stuff I'm supposed to be writing. When I have less coffee, I am calmer but less productive. Incidently, the best coffee in the world is made by monks.
So I received an email today about a job candidate to whom we've offered a position. This person is being hired in a marginal subfield related (somewhat) to my marginal subfield, but also intersects with many hot-topic subfields (some related to marginal groups)--hear: really attractive to a field trying to redefine itself as interdisciplinary, non-Western, and socially and politically "relevant." This person would also help the minority profile of the department, and comes from a somewhat more high-profile state school than the one that has offered him a position--also a state-school better known for liberal arts than the one that has offered him a position. He is a self-described "activist"--attractive to some segments of the faculty and grad student body, though the university is not located in a place that one would necessarily consider an ideal locale for activism (unless he painted tiger-stripes on himself and posed naked with the PETA chicks who protested the Barnum & Bailey circus a few years back. . .). He also has extensive creative publications, which would add a possible creative writing instructor to the faculty. His publication record is impressive, albeit limited to journals and book chapters in his particular, very specific, not very prominent ethnic literature specialization--the equivalent to me publishing in the fictitious Journal of Literacy in British Literature of the Early Twentieth Century. No wait--that's less specific. Oh well! He is in the process of being wined & dined by numerous other departments who want him for the exact same reasons I have outlined: well-qualified & looks good politically. So what's the problem?
Well, as I see it, and as the faculty has presented it, he is one of the best qualified new scholars currently on the market, and has other benefits besides. Every department hiring for anything related to his specialties wants him. He's got lots of people fighting for him, and unless we're making him a really sweet deal, he might not be willing to settle for "flagship" school in Texas miles outside of civilization. I mean, another department in liberal arts had a candidate turn them down because the local high school didn't have a good enough tennis team. Yeah. Neither the climate of the school nor the faculty in general nor the majority of the student body are really activism-friendly. (Okay, you all know where I live now. C'est la vie!) So why make him an offer he's likely to refuse? Naivete? Ambition? Have the faculty who are here convinced themselves that it's a really great place? After all, we've got the minimum number of Starbucks to be considered civilized now, a definite improvement on 10 years ago--oh wait, do activists like Starbucks? Hmmmm. . . But what do I have against making him an offer? If he refuses, we just move on an no one has lost anything, and there is the snowball's chance in hell that he will accept.
Well you see, I'm thinking about this as a grad student approaching a firing committee--oh wait, that's "hiring committee," "firing squad". . . Sorry! In the "professionalization and publication" class I took, we talked a bit about the "culture" of a department/university, and how we should make sure we would be a good fit, and how we should learn about the university's/department's "culture" in order to make a convincing application to that department. Anyway, this "culture" thing is supposed to be a deciding factor for search committees. At least in theory. A candidate can be bumped for not fitting in with the "culture"--it's permissible. Clearly, I don't think he quite fits, but this is not about me. Well at least I wasn't the one giving input (for many very good reasons). In theory, someone who is well-qualified but not as high-profile--say, someone from a lesser state-school or one not particularly well-known for liberal arts--can win out over someone who looks more attractive initially based on a well-crafted argument concerning fitting in with the school's "culture." There are other strategies, too, and admittedly it's probably not best to play up a connection with the "culture" of a school with decidedly non-intellectual "culture," but presumably being much more suited for a more cosmopolitan area could influence the decision of a hiring committee in a less cosmopolitan area.
Because, you see, if the top, kind of wacky candidate is not offered all of the 10 positions open in the field (or 6, or whatever), but the positions s/he is most likely to accept (or where s/he is most likely to feel comfortable, not leave within 5 years, etc.), then the second-best, still excellent 2 or 3 candidates might be offered 2-3 positions in the first cycle of offers, which basically means that the hiring process will be completed sooner and the second- and third choice candidates get offers sooner. After all, there are so many people in this discipline who are really well-qualified but lack the academic pedigree of a certain university, I'm not sure the top candidate really is the best candidate--at least, I hope not.
By all accounts, the job search is expensive, grueling, anxious, miserable, and often unfair. And did I mention a load of laughs? If you're from a lesser school, you really need to start padding the vita against guys like the one described above from day one. But if you don't quite have the same list of pubs, does it really mean that you're less worthy? (Working on politically correct subject matter often helps, too. This guy has it all!) A lot of the misery of the job search could be lessened--at least for some candidates--if the hiring committees would be a little more realistic & rational about the whole process. I mean, what if their own students were competing against Mr. Star Candidate? Would they feel like their own students had the chance that they deserved, or that the decks were stacked against them? Would they (and their students) appreciate being left on the back burners while the top few were treated to the grand tour, even by schools whose offers they were least likely to accept? And what about the committees themselves? Are their resources best spent making offers to 4-5 candidates before one accepts? And isn't it just a little nicer for everyone involved to know that the first candidate to receive an offer accepted it?
So I received an email today about a job candidate to whom we've offered a position. This person is being hired in a marginal subfield related (somewhat) to my marginal subfield, but also intersects with many hot-topic subfields (some related to marginal groups)--hear: really attractive to a field trying to redefine itself as interdisciplinary, non-Western, and socially and politically "relevant." This person would also help the minority profile of the department, and comes from a somewhat more high-profile state school than the one that has offered him a position--also a state-school better known for liberal arts than the one that has offered him a position. He is a self-described "activist"--attractive to some segments of the faculty and grad student body, though the university is not located in a place that one would necessarily consider an ideal locale for activism (unless he painted tiger-stripes on himself and posed naked with the PETA chicks who protested the Barnum & Bailey circus a few years back. . .). He also has extensive creative publications, which would add a possible creative writing instructor to the faculty. His publication record is impressive, albeit limited to journals and book chapters in his particular, very specific, not very prominent ethnic literature specialization--the equivalent to me publishing in the fictitious Journal of Literacy in British Literature of the Early Twentieth Century. No wait--that's less specific. Oh well! He is in the process of being wined & dined by numerous other departments who want him for the exact same reasons I have outlined: well-qualified & looks good politically. So what's the problem?
Well, as I see it, and as the faculty has presented it, he is one of the best qualified new scholars currently on the market, and has other benefits besides. Every department hiring for anything related to his specialties wants him. He's got lots of people fighting for him, and unless we're making him a really sweet deal, he might not be willing to settle for "flagship" school in Texas miles outside of civilization. I mean, another department in liberal arts had a candidate turn them down because the local high school didn't have a good enough tennis team. Yeah. Neither the climate of the school nor the faculty in general nor the majority of the student body are really activism-friendly. (Okay, you all know where I live now. C'est la vie!) So why make him an offer he's likely to refuse? Naivete? Ambition? Have the faculty who are here convinced themselves that it's a really great place? After all, we've got the minimum number of Starbucks to be considered civilized now, a definite improvement on 10 years ago--oh wait, do activists like Starbucks? Hmmmm. . . But what do I have against making him an offer? If he refuses, we just move on an no one has lost anything, and there is the snowball's chance in hell that he will accept.
Well you see, I'm thinking about this as a grad student approaching a firing committee--oh wait, that's "hiring committee," "firing squad". . . Sorry! In the "professionalization and publication" class I took, we talked a bit about the "culture" of a department/university, and how we should make sure we would be a good fit, and how we should learn about the university's/department's "culture" in order to make a convincing application to that department. Anyway, this "culture" thing is supposed to be a deciding factor for search committees. At least in theory. A candidate can be bumped for not fitting in with the "culture"--it's permissible. Clearly, I don't think he quite fits, but this is not about me. Well at least I wasn't the one giving input (for many very good reasons). In theory, someone who is well-qualified but not as high-profile--say, someone from a lesser state-school or one not particularly well-known for liberal arts--can win out over someone who looks more attractive initially based on a well-crafted argument concerning fitting in with the school's "culture." There are other strategies, too, and admittedly it's probably not best to play up a connection with the "culture" of a school with decidedly non-intellectual "culture," but presumably being much more suited for a more cosmopolitan area could influence the decision of a hiring committee in a less cosmopolitan area.
Because, you see, if the top, kind of wacky candidate is not offered all of the 10 positions open in the field (or 6, or whatever), but the positions s/he is most likely to accept (or where s/he is most likely to feel comfortable, not leave within 5 years, etc.), then the second-best, still excellent 2 or 3 candidates might be offered 2-3 positions in the first cycle of offers, which basically means that the hiring process will be completed sooner and the second- and third choice candidates get offers sooner. After all, there are so many people in this discipline who are really well-qualified but lack the academic pedigree of a certain university, I'm not sure the top candidate really is the best candidate--at least, I hope not.
By all accounts, the job search is expensive, grueling, anxious, miserable, and often unfair. And did I mention a load of laughs? If you're from a lesser school, you really need to start padding the vita against guys like the one described above from day one. But if you don't quite have the same list of pubs, does it really mean that you're less worthy? (Working on politically correct subject matter often helps, too. This guy has it all!) A lot of the misery of the job search could be lessened--at least for some candidates--if the hiring committees would be a little more realistic & rational about the whole process. I mean, what if their own students were competing against Mr. Star Candidate? Would they feel like their own students had the chance that they deserved, or that the decks were stacked against them? Would they (and their students) appreciate being left on the back burners while the top few were treated to the grand tour, even by schools whose offers they were least likely to accept? And what about the committees themselves? Are their resources best spent making offers to 4-5 candidates before one accepts? And isn't it just a little nicer for everyone involved to know that the first candidate to receive an offer accepted it?
Where have all the green potato chips gone?
I started wondering about this after seeing an Arthur episode in which D.W. thinks she's going to die from eating a green potato chip. I remember seeing green ones all the time when I was a child, then they just. . . disappeared. I supposed that quality control has improved that much, or that the green ones had been genetically modified away. I never really missed them; they were a little disturbing and tasted a little funny, too. But today, eating some McDonald's french fries, I saw it--a fry with a GREEN TIP! Aaaaaaaaaah!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Class & Privilege in the Blogs
Recently, my academic and Catholic blog reading has collided in a weird way--in my mind, anyway. There has been this meme hopping around the Catholic blogs, answered here by Entropy and here by Mrs. Darwin, that measures privilege. Sort of. I have been tempted--sorely tempted--to answer it. But something has prevented me. Perhaps the same thing that tempts me to turn off comments on this post--not sure what that is, though.
Then, I have been following a series of posts on Anastasia's blog here, here, here and here--about the role of one's socio-economic background in one's academic success and, ultimately, one's success in Academia. I actually don't like to use the word "class" here, because, as Anastasia points out, there is more to class than money, and "class" is often very narrowly--or conveniently--defined, depending on one's agenda. As several of my dissertation chapters do deal with class (ugh), my dissertation director & I have discussed class a teensy bit, his opinion being that it is more relevant in Britain than the U.S., since class is actually a very different thing in the U.S. than in Britain--dependent on more independent factors, which I write at the risk of sounding circular. I have not commented on the posts because I'm not entirely sure I want to read what other people have said on the topic. (You know when you just want to resist getting bogged down in the debate? That's where I am. . .) So I have relied on Anastasia's accounts of what others have said, and her responses make a lot of sense to me. Our circumstances intersect at times(check the comments for an explanation of this).
All of this called for a response. So whadya think? How privileged am I? Have I mentioned recently that my mother is living with my little brother in a house without plumbing? Or that when growing up I knew more about Catholic Charities than most Catholics? There's a long history here, but I have a disclaimer: People thought of these things differently in New Orleans when I was growing up than how they are perceived elsewhere, now. I didn't feel less privileged than my peers. Though I did have a "friend" remark that, unlike her, I wouldn't have to worry about competitive scholarships 'cause I could qualify for financial aid. Nice. So I have perhaps too many comments on this, but here goes:
From What Privileges Do You Have?, based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)
Bold the true statements.
1. Father went to college Think so, but I didn't know him. My mother's second husband was a high school drop out.
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college I don't think it counts if she finished after me. We were in school at the same time and alternated days so I could babysit while she was in class.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers. Tough call. Not according to household income.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent I could read for as long as I can remember, though that may be a cognitive effect of literacy. I'm sure my mother probably read to me when I was little & she had time. I read to everyone when I was older!
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively Tough call, but we dressed well. Better than others. My mom sewed & believed that you could always afford to dress nicely. We were all well spoken.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs Ummmm. . . No. She was getting loans too. My grandmother paid my summer tuition as a graduation present, allowing me to enroll & get dual credit to graduate from high school a year early.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels No vacations since I was 4.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Even though I was the oldest, no. I wore aunts' old clothes.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child My mother's--she was an art major.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house When I was 8 or 9 they bought the house that currently has no plumbing & is still being paid. 800 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 1 bath for as many as 2 adults and 6 children at a time.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Does "owned" mean paid? It was still an undivided community when I left. . .
25. You had your own room as a child
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school It only worked for video games--really old. If it even still worked by then. . .
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16 To New York at 15 to work at a Christian Camp, which ruined me for organized Christianity for a while
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
8/34 = 23.5%
My husband scored 50%. I married up! Hahaha
I think perhaps family size could be a factor, but I wouldn't know how to factor for it. I might have asked about free/reduced lunch at school. That can carry a stigma.
My mother grew up perhaps a bit more privileged than I did. My grandfather provided for his family very well working for a large oil company. He stayed in New Orleans with said oil company even when many of his friends there moved over to Houston. My grandmother was the daughter of sharecroppers. There were some issues about what was appropriate for girls re:education. At least, my mother was not helped at all, which is why her first college experience ended quickly. But my grandfather did value education, and bitterly regretted his own lack of college, while regarding it a bastion of liberalism (fairly, I think). This was also a positive influence on me when I was growing up. My mother had a high value for education. So while economically we were below the poverty level, our values were not what are typically considered working class values. I did not doubt that I would attend college, though I did not expect anyone else to pay for it. My mother was questioning and taught us to question. And you know, class just wasn't a big thing. I learned to rely on my abilities.
Which may not have served me as well as you might think. . .
You see, I didn't know how to play the game. In fact, I was decidedly opposed to the game. You know, the connections game. Could I have gotten into a non-commuter non-state or flagship-state school? Maybe. Could I have gone? Practically? No. At least, I don't know how I would have gotten there. My mother didn't even have a major credit card. But in my stubbornly economically disadvantaged ignorance, I didn't think it mattered. I believed that I would get just as good an education as at a big name school. And in many ways, I think I did. But that's not really what matters, as I learned later. Because unless you know people with connections or have a school name to back you up, or are privileged or disadvantaged in the right ways, you don't advance the same way. So I have bopped from state school to state school, and while I have gained a bit--I am in a higher "tier" than I used to be--it is not a school known for liberal arts, which means that even though it's a big name, it's a big name for the wrong things. That's going to hurt. And the ways to overcome that--conferences and publications--I really haven't done. Because, you see, besides not liking to travel by myself and having kids (though I could have left the one behind with my husband more than I did when he was an only child, I just didn't like to!!), I really can't afford to travel to conferences!! Even if you're reimbursed, you need a way to pay for it in the first place, and with student loans filling in where the income leaves gaps, there's no room for extras. Except that I did sacrifice to send my son to some private schools. For better or worse, really, but for better in terms of his self-esteem.
Like Anastasia, I wanted to study classical languages sooner. I wanted to attend the all-boys Catholic high school my husband attended to have the educational advantages I associated (correctly) with that school. I made the "get out while the scholarship is paying" choices rather than the "prepare for grad school" choices, so I was never able to acquire the languages necessary for comparative lit. But growing up in my income bracket paradoxically gave me determination, but a false sense of confidence in my abilities alone, and deprived me of the connections and credentials (i.e. school names) that I now know go a loooooooong way. I wish I didn't believe that, but I really do. And I think it will cost me academically.
I'm wondering, though, what my son will put down as his answer to the same questions. How privileged is he by comparison? Let's see. . .
1. Father went to college
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor God willing
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school Let's just say yes (and you know, I almost think homeschooling would merit a 'yes' for this. It doesn't prove anything about economics, but it does demonstrate a dedication to quality of education that could fit a certain definition of privilege).
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels (Did you know that parents going to a conference is a family vacation? At any rate, there aren't many, but staying in hotels is the only option.)
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Pretty much
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them Not gonna happen
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child Ummm. . . My mom's. . .
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house For a few years. . .
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Doubt it
25. You had your own room as a child Yup. For now.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course What if he doesn't need it? Or a tutor?
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up When we can
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
17/34 = 50% Hmmm. . .
Does materialism = privilege necessarily, or vice versa? There needs to be a distinction between monetary and intellectual privilege here. Know what? That distinction is important to the dissertation, which, despite any obstacles to the contrary--money, family situation--I am indeed writing! (albeit slowly)
Then, I have been following a series of posts on Anastasia's blog here, here, here and here--about the role of one's socio-economic background in one's academic success and, ultimately, one's success in Academia. I actually don't like to use the word "class" here, because, as Anastasia points out, there is more to class than money, and "class" is often very narrowly--or conveniently--defined, depending on one's agenda. As several of my dissertation chapters do deal with class (ugh), my dissertation director & I have discussed class a teensy bit, his opinion being that it is more relevant in Britain than the U.S., since class is actually a very different thing in the U.S. than in Britain--dependent on more independent factors, which I write at the risk of sounding circular. I have not commented on the posts because I'm not entirely sure I want to read what other people have said on the topic. (You know when you just want to resist getting bogged down in the debate? That's where I am. . .) So I have relied on Anastasia's accounts of what others have said, and her responses make a lot of sense to me. Our circumstances intersect at times(check the comments for an explanation of this).
All of this called for a response. So whadya think? How privileged am I? Have I mentioned recently that my mother is living with my little brother in a house without plumbing? Or that when growing up I knew more about Catholic Charities than most Catholics? There's a long history here, but I have a disclaimer: People thought of these things differently in New Orleans when I was growing up than how they are perceived elsewhere, now. I didn't feel less privileged than my peers. Though I did have a "friend" remark that, unlike her, I wouldn't have to worry about competitive scholarships 'cause I could qualify for financial aid. Nice. So I have perhaps too many comments on this, but here goes:
From What Privileges Do You Have?, based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)
Bold the true statements.
1. Father went to college Think so, but I didn't know him. My mother's second husband was a high school drop out.
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college I don't think it counts if she finished after me. We were in school at the same time and alternated days so I could babysit while she was in class.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers. Tough call. Not according to household income.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent I could read for as long as I can remember, though that may be a cognitive effect of literacy. I'm sure my mother probably read to me when I was little & she had time. I read to everyone when I was older!
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively Tough call, but we dressed well. Better than others. My mom sewed & believed that you could always afford to dress nicely. We were all well spoken.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs Ummmm. . . No. She was getting loans too. My grandmother paid my summer tuition as a graduation present, allowing me to enroll & get dual credit to graduate from high school a year early.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels No vacations since I was 4.
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Even though I was the oldest, no. I wore aunts' old clothes.
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child My mother's--she was an art major.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house When I was 8 or 9 they bought the house that currently has no plumbing & is still being paid. 800 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 1 bath for as many as 2 adults and 6 children at a time.
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Does "owned" mean paid? It was still an undivided community when I left. . .
25. You had your own room as a child
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school It only worked for video games--really old. If it even still worked by then. . .
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16 To New York at 15 to work at a Christian Camp, which ruined me for organized Christianity for a while
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
8/34 = 23.5%
My husband scored 50%. I married up! Hahaha
I think perhaps family size could be a factor, but I wouldn't know how to factor for it. I might have asked about free/reduced lunch at school. That can carry a stigma.
My mother grew up perhaps a bit more privileged than I did. My grandfather provided for his family very well working for a large oil company. He stayed in New Orleans with said oil company even when many of his friends there moved over to Houston. My grandmother was the daughter of sharecroppers. There were some issues about what was appropriate for girls re:education. At least, my mother was not helped at all, which is why her first college experience ended quickly. But my grandfather did value education, and bitterly regretted his own lack of college, while regarding it a bastion of liberalism (fairly, I think). This was also a positive influence on me when I was growing up. My mother had a high value for education. So while economically we were below the poverty level, our values were not what are typically considered working class values. I did not doubt that I would attend college, though I did not expect anyone else to pay for it. My mother was questioning and taught us to question. And you know, class just wasn't a big thing. I learned to rely on my abilities.
Which may not have served me as well as you might think. . .
You see, I didn't know how to play the game. In fact, I was decidedly opposed to the game. You know, the connections game. Could I have gotten into a non-commuter non-state or flagship-state school? Maybe. Could I have gone? Practically? No. At least, I don't know how I would have gotten there. My mother didn't even have a major credit card. But in my stubbornly economically disadvantaged ignorance, I didn't think it mattered. I believed that I would get just as good an education as at a big name school. And in many ways, I think I did. But that's not really what matters, as I learned later. Because unless you know people with connections or have a school name to back you up, or are privileged or disadvantaged in the right ways, you don't advance the same way. So I have bopped from state school to state school, and while I have gained a bit--I am in a higher "tier" than I used to be--it is not a school known for liberal arts, which means that even though it's a big name, it's a big name for the wrong things. That's going to hurt. And the ways to overcome that--conferences and publications--I really haven't done. Because, you see, besides not liking to travel by myself and having kids (though I could have left the one behind with my husband more than I did when he was an only child, I just didn't like to!!), I really can't afford to travel to conferences!! Even if you're reimbursed, you need a way to pay for it in the first place, and with student loans filling in where the income leaves gaps, there's no room for extras. Except that I did sacrifice to send my son to some private schools. For better or worse, really, but for better in terms of his self-esteem.
Like Anastasia, I wanted to study classical languages sooner. I wanted to attend the all-boys Catholic high school my husband attended to have the educational advantages I associated (correctly) with that school. I made the "get out while the scholarship is paying" choices rather than the "prepare for grad school" choices, so I was never able to acquire the languages necessary for comparative lit. But growing up in my income bracket paradoxically gave me determination, but a false sense of confidence in my abilities alone, and deprived me of the connections and credentials (i.e. school names) that I now know go a loooooooong way. I wish I didn't believe that, but I really do. And I think it will cost me academically.
I'm wondering, though, what my son will put down as his answer to the same questions. How privileged is he by comparison? Let's see. . .
1. Father went to college
2. Father finished college
3. Mother went to college
4. Mother finished college
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor God willing
6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children's books by a parent
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
16. Went to a private high school Let's just say yes (and you know, I almost think homeschooling would merit a 'yes' for this. It doesn't prove anything about economics, but it does demonstrate a dedication to quality of education that could fit a certain definition of privilege).
17. Went to summer camp
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels (Did you know that parents going to a conference is a family vacation? At any rate, there aren't many, but staying in hotels is the only option.)
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 Pretty much
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them Not gonna happen
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child Ummm. . . My mom's. . .
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house For a few years. . .
24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home Doubt it
25. You had your own room as a child Yup. For now.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18 Not gonna happen
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course What if he doesn't need it? Or a tutor?
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
31. Went on a cruise with your family
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up When we can
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family
17/34 = 50% Hmmm. . .
Does materialism = privilege necessarily, or vice versa? There needs to be a distinction between monetary and intellectual privilege here. Know what? That distinction is important to the dissertation, which, despite any obstacles to the contrary--money, family situation--I am indeed writing! (albeit slowly)
Family blog-new post
This might be really bad form, but I have a family-only blog that feed readers can't read, so I may announce a new post every now & again. Like now.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Gardasil--for the record
While chatting with the "clinic nurse" (as the badge stated) who stuck 4 syringe needles into my sweet little baby this afternoon, the subject of the pain caused by certain vaccinations arose. The baby did not cry at all with the first, but the second, the polio, causes all of the children discomfort. In the second leg, the same happened, and I believe it was the DTaP that made her cry. Well, the tech (as I suppose we should call her) told me casually that she went in to her GYN the other day to get her Gardasil shot. She gives this shot regularly and is told by all of the girls how incredibly, intensely painful it is. She gave it to a 17-year-old the other day and the girl "said the 'f' word" because it was so painful. After getting the shot herself, she doesn't blame the girl for her exclamation. It seems that "official" sources have recorded Gardasil as being the single most painful "childhood" vaccine.
So what I figure is, some good might come out of this after all--as a threat: "If you're caught doing XYZ again, I'm going to make you get the Gardasil injection!!"
So what I figure is, some good might come out of this after all--as a threat: "If you're caught doing XYZ again, I'm going to make you get the Gardasil injection!!"
More Medical Questioning: Cough & Cold Meds
Okay, so I've written about the vaccination thing. I have my reservations. And questioning vaccinations is a countercultural thing, certainly. The FDA doesn't readily give statistics on deaths from vaccinations, and if they did, it wouldn't be reported in the media. So consider this, from CNN:
In 2007, the FDA completed a review that found there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006.
It is part of the ever-increasing hype about over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In the past several years, we have seen Phenylpropylalamine pulled completely as a decongestant because some people who were abusing it had heart attacks. Then, we have witnessed as Pseudoephedrine (which has always had mild-to-serious heart problems as a side effect--it makes my heart race horribly; I can't take it) has been restricted, put under lock & key, anyone who wishes to purchase it subjected to a near background-check, and now gradually it is being replaced by Phenylephrine--so that we don't go make Meth out of it. And now we're being told that none of it is safe or (possibly) effective.
Well, I don't particularly want to give a child under 2 all of these drugs anyway. And when I do use medicines, even for myself, I tend to use moderate doses, I do not tend to re-dose on schedule, usually waiting at least 6 hours--really as the symptoms dictate, and I tend to wait until the symptoms are really uncomfortable before dosing. So I am not a pill-poppin' momma by any means. But I do think that there is a little too much hysteria in this case. I believe that what is happening is that the safest stuff is being taken off the market, leading to more prescriptions & doctor's visits, and also leading to rash actions--perhaps the administration of a larger dose to a smaller child out of ignorance. But mostly, I believe that this is inspiring false panic.
Consider: there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006. Okay, let's do the math. That means that in 37 years, of all of the millions of children who received multiple doses several times a year, 54 children died of decongestants and 69 died from antihistamines. That's 1.46 deaths per year from decongestants and 1.86 from antihistamines. Most were in children under 2 years. Well, for starters, take the fact that as long as I can remember, the package labels said, "under 2 consult a doctor" or "not to be given to children under 2." Then, control for overdosing (I was twice given overdoses of cold medicines when I was young--once I was under 4 years) and re-dosing too soon, or too may times in a 24 hour period. Consider that two medicines containing the same drug or different ones in the same category may have been administered simultaneously. Then (and only then) consider the possibility of allergic reactions. How many people do you think died of peanut allergies in the same time frame? Perhaps we should remove peanuts from the market. Or strawberries. Or milk. Now consider that they group "decongestants" together for the purpose of the analysis and "antihistamines." Well, let's see. . . In the time frame mentioned, at least 3 different decongestants were available, one of which has been taken off the market and one is increasingly difficult to get. So which one(s) caused the deaths? As for antihistamines, I can name Diphenhydramine, Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Brompheniramine Maleate off the top of my head. Again, to which one(s) are they attributing the deaths? And why was it necessary to group them all together? Hyperbole? To make their results statistically significant? And why are they vilifying cough meds, too?
Let me reiterate. . . I am cautious about medicines. Very cautious. Others may not be. If they are not effective, that's different. But why are the same people who say that vaccinations are unequivocally safe trying to scare me about my medicine cabinet?
In 2007, the FDA completed a review that found there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006.
It is part of the ever-increasing hype about over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In the past several years, we have seen Phenylpropylalamine pulled completely as a decongestant because some people who were abusing it had heart attacks. Then, we have witnessed as Pseudoephedrine (which has always had mild-to-serious heart problems as a side effect--it makes my heart race horribly; I can't take it) has been restricted, put under lock & key, anyone who wishes to purchase it subjected to a near background-check, and now gradually it is being replaced by Phenylephrine--so that we don't go make Meth out of it. And now we're being told that none of it is safe or (possibly) effective.
Well, I don't particularly want to give a child under 2 all of these drugs anyway. And when I do use medicines, even for myself, I tend to use moderate doses, I do not tend to re-dose on schedule, usually waiting at least 6 hours--really as the symptoms dictate, and I tend to wait until the symptoms are really uncomfortable before dosing. So I am not a pill-poppin' momma by any means. But I do think that there is a little too much hysteria in this case. I believe that what is happening is that the safest stuff is being taken off the market, leading to more prescriptions & doctor's visits, and also leading to rash actions--perhaps the administration of a larger dose to a smaller child out of ignorance. But mostly, I believe that this is inspiring false panic.
Consider: there were 54 reported child deaths from decongestants and 69 from antihistamines between 1969 and fall 2006. Okay, let's do the math. That means that in 37 years, of all of the millions of children who received multiple doses several times a year, 54 children died of decongestants and 69 died from antihistamines. That's 1.46 deaths per year from decongestants and 1.86 from antihistamines. Most were in children under 2 years. Well, for starters, take the fact that as long as I can remember, the package labels said, "under 2 consult a doctor" or "not to be given to children under 2." Then, control for overdosing (I was twice given overdoses of cold medicines when I was young--once I was under 4 years) and re-dosing too soon, or too may times in a 24 hour period. Consider that two medicines containing the same drug or different ones in the same category may have been administered simultaneously. Then (and only then) consider the possibility of allergic reactions. How many people do you think died of peanut allergies in the same time frame? Perhaps we should remove peanuts from the market. Or strawberries. Or milk. Now consider that they group "decongestants" together for the purpose of the analysis and "antihistamines." Well, let's see. . . In the time frame mentioned, at least 3 different decongestants were available, one of which has been taken off the market and one is increasingly difficult to get. So which one(s) caused the deaths? As for antihistamines, I can name Diphenhydramine, Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Brompheniramine Maleate off the top of my head. Again, to which one(s) are they attributing the deaths? And why was it necessary to group them all together? Hyperbole? To make their results statistically significant? And why are they vilifying cough meds, too?
Let me reiterate. . . I am cautious about medicines. Very cautious. Others may not be. If they are not effective, that's different. But why are the same people who say that vaccinations are unequivocally safe trying to scare me about my medicine cabinet?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Vaccination Concerns: Just a Mom Thing?
So on my last post, we were speaking purely from the maternal perspective, mentioning "mommy guilt" and discussing whether or not we--as women and mothers--underestimate our importance in decision-making for the health of our families. But what about Dads? My husband is sympathetic to my concerns, wary of new vaccines, but even more than me, perhaps, he supports the old standbys. So what do other husbands say? If husbands are more in favor of the vaccines, why? Just curious!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
HIB, Hep B, and Chicken Pox, Oh My!!
The Chiclette goes in for her 2 month check-up on Thursday, the one on which they bombard this little developing immune system with all kinds of nasties--all for her good, of course. Now, I have mentioned before that I exercise caution with the recommendations of doctors. I have a skepticism about--well, everything, but about medicine in particular. I am not against all vaccines, however. I am merely cautious. The vaccines I received as a child are familiar territory, though they are questioned by many, and even linked to onset of autism in some children. Measels, Mumps, Rubella, Diptheria, Pertussus, and of course, Polio, are vaccines I tend to consider "safe," though I know many would question this. At any rate, I know that the vaccines have been around for a long, long time, and have been studied, and judged to be as safe as 50+ years of research can make them. My son, to be 11 on Friday, received all of the recommended vaccines. Until the chicken pox vaccine. I had heard the cautions about vaccines even then, but thought that the benefit was worth the slight risk. Until the chicken pox vaccine.
You see, in my mind, vaccines were reserved for childhood illnesses that killed children--polio, whooping cough--and posed a genuine public health risk. But chicken pox was only a mild nuisance for most children, keeping them out of school for a week or two, which wasn't really an issue, I guess, unless there was no one available to care for them at home. So my son did not receive the chicken pox vaccine. He got two very mild cases of chicken pox from exposure to children at school who had been vaccinated recently and were "shedding" the virus. That strengthened my opinion that the vaccine was not really advisable.
When I was in the hospital after having my Doodle, I read in the papers about the vaccine against Human Papillomavirus and was instantly against the idea of vaccinating pre-teen girls for an STD. It seemed hasty, unnecessary, inadvisable. Not to mention discriminatory--to subject the girls to a vaccine, the safety of which is not entirely known, when presumably they were getting the virus from boys. Besides the fact that this was hardly an air-borne illness. Let's face it, STDs are highly preventable. So my attitude towards vaccinating my daughters with Gardasil? Over my dead body, thanks.
I relaxed my vigilance some when it came time to vaccinate my Doodle. I don't know why, but I shrugged and did a "What the heck" when it came to the chicken pox, possibly because it was easiest at the time, or perhaps because my son had felt the adverse affects of not being vaccinated in a culture where vaccination was the norm--and was infected as a consequence of this being the norm. So I figured I would skip a step or two and make it easier when she had to go to school (eventually). Of course, I did not realize that Texas allows parents to opt out of any vaccine. Evidently all one has to do is file the paperwork. So Doodle has had all of the "mandatory" vaccines, but has not had the ones that are only required if she happens to attend daycare. Since her last round, I have read more about adverse affects of Gardasil (HPV) and the vaccination for chicken pox, and it makes me wonder about all of this all over again. Not to mention that link Jen posted about the use of aborted fetal tissue to make vaccines. Great. So here I am, wondering what to do. . . again.
Because this is no easy matter. Any time we refuse medical treatment or tests, we are going against the grain. It feels like gambling, and health is nothing to gamble with. I have less of a problem when it's just me--but when it's my children and I take a risk, it feels, well, wrong. Culturally we are told that doctors are superior to just about everyone, and should not really be questioned. This changes from place to place. I have to say that people in New Orleans that I knew seemed to question medical practitioners more--even before something went wrong--than they do in this corner of Texas. I'm sure there's another corner of Texas I could name where the questioning is more intense still--at least in some circles. But that's decidedly countercultural. And so if I follow my instincts and refuse one or more of the vaccines, I feel like a bad parent. For what? For doing what I feel is right, and for gambling on the chance that my child will not contract whatever they are vaccinating against. The last time I faced a decision like this, I was deciding whether to treat my child for an enzyme deficiency that I knew she didn't have while they retested her after botching the first screening so that she and 3 other babies came out positive. She was about 3 weeks old. I won that bet, but it was agonizing.
This week, she faces several vaccines, and I am not particularly comfortable with all of the vaccines, the fact that they are given simultaneously, the fact that they will be administered even if the baby has a cold, or the fact that parental consent is generally assumed, and that these vaccines are deemed "mandatory" for my children by state boards. At two months they receive: Prevnar, DTaP, HIB, Polio, and Chicken Pox. Possibly Rotavirus also. She has not had any vaccines at this point. I refused the one in the hospital--Hep B--because, well, I don't see it as necessary, as it is transmitted sexually or through a transfusion. I can't say I know much about Prevnar or HIB. I believe both of my earlier ones had them. I feel like a cop out admitting that I haven't done the research. DTaP is familiar territory, as is the Polio. Chicken pox--well, you know how I feel about that one. And I don't feel comfortable with the Rotavirus vaccine. It sounds like a daycare vaccine to me. You know, so the workers don't get sued for not washing their hands. I just can't see that it's more crucial now than it was 2 years ago. The main goal seems to be to prevent trips to the hospital and the doctor's office. So it's an insurance company vaccine, too--it saves them money.
And you know what socialized medicine means to me? More of this shoved down our throats, with less recourse if side-effects occur, and less choice in the matter!
You see, in my mind, vaccines were reserved for childhood illnesses that killed children--polio, whooping cough--and posed a genuine public health risk. But chicken pox was only a mild nuisance for most children, keeping them out of school for a week or two, which wasn't really an issue, I guess, unless there was no one available to care for them at home. So my son did not receive the chicken pox vaccine. He got two very mild cases of chicken pox from exposure to children at school who had been vaccinated recently and were "shedding" the virus. That strengthened my opinion that the vaccine was not really advisable.
When I was in the hospital after having my Doodle, I read in the papers about the vaccine against Human Papillomavirus and was instantly against the idea of vaccinating pre-teen girls for an STD. It seemed hasty, unnecessary, inadvisable. Not to mention discriminatory--to subject the girls to a vaccine, the safety of which is not entirely known, when presumably they were getting the virus from boys. Besides the fact that this was hardly an air-borne illness. Let's face it, STDs are highly preventable. So my attitude towards vaccinating my daughters with Gardasil? Over my dead body, thanks.
I relaxed my vigilance some when it came time to vaccinate my Doodle. I don't know why, but I shrugged and did a "What the heck" when it came to the chicken pox, possibly because it was easiest at the time, or perhaps because my son had felt the adverse affects of not being vaccinated in a culture where vaccination was the norm--and was infected as a consequence of this being the norm. So I figured I would skip a step or two and make it easier when she had to go to school (eventually). Of course, I did not realize that Texas allows parents to opt out of any vaccine. Evidently all one has to do is file the paperwork. So Doodle has had all of the "mandatory" vaccines, but has not had the ones that are only required if she happens to attend daycare. Since her last round, I have read more about adverse affects of Gardasil (HPV) and the vaccination for chicken pox, and it makes me wonder about all of this all over again. Not to mention that link Jen posted about the use of aborted fetal tissue to make vaccines. Great. So here I am, wondering what to do. . . again.
Because this is no easy matter. Any time we refuse medical treatment or tests, we are going against the grain. It feels like gambling, and health is nothing to gamble with. I have less of a problem when it's just me--but when it's my children and I take a risk, it feels, well, wrong. Culturally we are told that doctors are superior to just about everyone, and should not really be questioned. This changes from place to place. I have to say that people in New Orleans that I knew seemed to question medical practitioners more--even before something went wrong--than they do in this corner of Texas. I'm sure there's another corner of Texas I could name where the questioning is more intense still--at least in some circles. But that's decidedly countercultural. And so if I follow my instincts and refuse one or more of the vaccines, I feel like a bad parent. For what? For doing what I feel is right, and for gambling on the chance that my child will not contract whatever they are vaccinating against. The last time I faced a decision like this, I was deciding whether to treat my child for an enzyme deficiency that I knew she didn't have while they retested her after botching the first screening so that she and 3 other babies came out positive. She was about 3 weeks old. I won that bet, but it was agonizing.
This week, she faces several vaccines, and I am not particularly comfortable with all of the vaccines, the fact that they are given simultaneously, the fact that they will be administered even if the baby has a cold, or the fact that parental consent is generally assumed, and that these vaccines are deemed "mandatory" for my children by state boards. At two months they receive: Prevnar, DTaP, HIB, Polio, and Chicken Pox. Possibly Rotavirus also. She has not had any vaccines at this point. I refused the one in the hospital--Hep B--because, well, I don't see it as necessary, as it is transmitted sexually or through a transfusion. I can't say I know much about Prevnar or HIB. I believe both of my earlier ones had them. I feel like a cop out admitting that I haven't done the research. DTaP is familiar territory, as is the Polio. Chicken pox--well, you know how I feel about that one. And I don't feel comfortable with the Rotavirus vaccine. It sounds like a daycare vaccine to me. You know, so the workers don't get sued for not washing their hands. I just can't see that it's more crucial now than it was 2 years ago. The main goal seems to be to prevent trips to the hospital and the doctor's office. So it's an insurance company vaccine, too--it saves them money.
And you know what socialized medicine means to me? More of this shoved down our throats, with less recourse if side-effects occur, and less choice in the matter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)