I don't normally use this blog to post personal stories and diatribes about life in wifehood and mommyhood, but for the sake of keeping a record, I'd like to share a list of things I learned in the first six months since having Austin.
1. The first two weeks with a newborn are very hard, and you won't know how hard, until you actually have a baby. They sleep most of the day but yet they seem to consume all your time. Until you "figure" things out, it is rough.
2. The newborn stage is very short. I was really worried about getting Austin to sleep at night for the first month. Now, I realize, all too soon that cuddly, I just want to be held stage ends. Enjoy it while it lasts.
3. Most toys are a waste of money at this age. Austin prefers water bottles to all the exspensive toys I've bought him.
4. You don't need a fancy bedding set. You're not supposed to use a bumper or blanket for the first year and sleepsacks are much more convenient than blankets anyway.
5. Huggies overnight diapers are the most awesome invention. No more nighttime leaks.
6. Going back to work is hard, but it isn't impossible. You learn to get through the day.
7. Routine is your friend. Start a bedtime routine around 6 weeks and stick to it. It really helps with sleeping.
8. Ok. Huggies Nighttime diapers AND the Sleep Sheep are the best inventions in the world. Get one.
9. Don't buy an exspensive swing. They are only in them for a very short time. (3-4 months.)
10. Don't over-read baby advice. (Ironic isn't it?) It can drive you nuts and make you paranoid.
11. To stay sane, try to do a load of laudry every other day and keep up on household tasks so they don't pile up. You will never have a full day to clean again.
12. If breastfeeding doesn't work in the begininng, try, try again. If it still doesn't work, do not feel guilty for giving formula.
13. They crawl soon enough. Enjoy the immobile stage while you can. I now have to chase Ausin all over the house.
14. Incorporate baby into your exercise routine so you stay active. Take a walk/job around the block with baby in the stroller.
15. Take some time for yourself once in a while. A couple hours away from the house/work/responsibilities recharge you and that is good.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The New Feminist
As a feminist, I believe women are equal to men. I firmly believe women should have the same rights, opportunities, and advantages. I am a proponent of women's reproductive rights, and I am a firm supporter of women's pursuit of education. As a feminist though, I am a bit disturbed at the new attitude of those that also ascribe themselves to my group. There seems to be a certain faction of feminists that believe all formerly deemed "female" pursuits are to be avoided, and that men should be the newly appointed slaves of the world.
I know of one couple in particular in which the wife doesn't work while her husband holds 2-3 jobs at a time. She will not be told what to do, even to the point of refusing his requests to stop spending from the shared checking account. She consistently over-drafts the account and seems to have no apologies. When he tries to persuade her to work, she says that she can't possible be degraded to work in jobs less than her supposed status even though they greatly need the money.
At home, the woman refuses to do any work around the house and uses as her defense the guise of feminism. If she cooks, she feels she is surrendering to the will of her husband. I resent women such as this one using feminism as an excuse for their apparent laziness. Feminism does not mean sitting idly back while your partner shoulders all the work and home burdens. To do this is to commit the same crimes that men were guilty of committing for so many years.
What is more, I think that women who refuse to do all housework or other formally deemed female jobs are really putting themselves at a disadvantage. The skills of the home are important and useful ones that both men and women should be able to possess. Not being able to boil a hot dog for fear of being put upon makes you sad, not admirable in my opinion.
Why can't women be masters of both the home and the workplace? I admire women like my mother who are able to sew, decorate, cook, clean, etc. with such ease and efficiency. There is something to be said for these talents. They have worth. When we scoff at them, we are no better than the men of the past generations that we fought against.
Feminism is not an excuse for us to enslave the male race or for us to sit idly by gaining no skills on the home front.
I know of one couple in particular in which the wife doesn't work while her husband holds 2-3 jobs at a time. She will not be told what to do, even to the point of refusing his requests to stop spending from the shared checking account. She consistently over-drafts the account and seems to have no apologies. When he tries to persuade her to work, she says that she can't possible be degraded to work in jobs less than her supposed status even though they greatly need the money.
At home, the woman refuses to do any work around the house and uses as her defense the guise of feminism. If she cooks, she feels she is surrendering to the will of her husband. I resent women such as this one using feminism as an excuse for their apparent laziness. Feminism does not mean sitting idly back while your partner shoulders all the work and home burdens. To do this is to commit the same crimes that men were guilty of committing for so many years.
What is more, I think that women who refuse to do all housework or other formally deemed female jobs are really putting themselves at a disadvantage. The skills of the home are important and useful ones that both men and women should be able to possess. Not being able to boil a hot dog for fear of being put upon makes you sad, not admirable in my opinion.
Why can't women be masters of both the home and the workplace? I admire women like my mother who are able to sew, decorate, cook, clean, etc. with such ease and efficiency. There is something to be said for these talents. They have worth. When we scoff at them, we are no better than the men of the past generations that we fought against.
Feminism is not an excuse for us to enslave the male race or for us to sit idly by gaining no skills on the home front.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Importance of Teachers
Due to the recent drive to reduce teachers' rights and take away their ability to negotiate for benefits and pensions, I have come to realize that lack of importance many in this country place on teachers. Perhaps I am biased, but I think teachers have a tremendous stake in the overall current and future success of this country. Teachers, from kindergarten through college, instruct our youth and impart to them the knowledge that keeps America running. The education of our young people directly impacts our economic success. Therefore, I find it perplexing when people are lamenting how much public school teachers make. How much is too much to give the people that shape the future doctors, lawyers, writers, politicians, etc?
I find it comical that people believe public school teachers make so much. On average, in my area, school teachers make 40,000 dollars per year. This does not seem like an exorbitant wage. It seems like a decent wage, far less than people make in many other professions. While there are some teachers making more, a lot of people don't take into account what area of the country they are living in or for how long they have been teaching.
Now, I should address the argument of those that say the teachers of this world are unsuccessful and should not be paid if they are ineffectual. I would have to agree with this. I do agree that teachers should be held accountable because their position is that important. However, lowering the amount of money teachers make, or reducing their pensions and benefits, is only going to encourage people who would make outstanding teachers to seek more lucrative employment elsewhere.
It seems that this country is very short-sighted. To save money in the now, we cut the livelihood of teachers without seeing that this paralyzes the economy of the future. Without quality education our children have no foundation on which to build the success of the United States.
I find it comical that people believe public school teachers make so much. On average, in my area, school teachers make 40,000 dollars per year. This does not seem like an exorbitant wage. It seems like a decent wage, far less than people make in many other professions. While there are some teachers making more, a lot of people don't take into account what area of the country they are living in or for how long they have been teaching.
Now, I should address the argument of those that say the teachers of this world are unsuccessful and should not be paid if they are ineffectual. I would have to agree with this. I do agree that teachers should be held accountable because their position is that important. However, lowering the amount of money teachers make, or reducing their pensions and benefits, is only going to encourage people who would make outstanding teachers to seek more lucrative employment elsewhere.
It seems that this country is very short-sighted. To save money in the now, we cut the livelihood of teachers without seeing that this paralyzes the economy of the future. Without quality education our children have no foundation on which to build the success of the United States.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Greed, an American Epidemic
Greed, an American Epidemic
In my Introduction to Literature course, I teach the play Death of a Salesman. It is the story of Willy Loman’s slow decent toward suicide due to his constant pursuit of the “American Dream.” Loman measures his worth in dollars and cents and is unable to deal with his decline in the business world. He can no longer keep up with the “Jones’” and this causes him to ferry into madness. At the end of the play, after Willy’s suicide, it is made known that his wife has paid off the last of the payments on their house. She says over and over again, “We’re free. We’re free.”
The American capitalist system is making a Willy Loman out of all of us. Daily, we are surrounded by advertisements that beckon us to buy more, spend more. We are raised on the idea that to own a home is the measure of success. This pressure to be the ultimate consumer might be fine if wages and the lifestyle of the average worker could support it. We are living in the age of the diminishing middle class and, for that matter, the upperclass. The vast majority of workers make little, their raises do not keep up with the rising cost of products, and their wages cover few of luxuries we’re constantly told we need to pursue to be a good American.
The problem with the American economy is greed. The few upperclass want to maintain and keep increasing their money and power. So, they offer their workers small raises and wages and continue to increase the cost of products sold. This is good for their bottom line. Of course, that is until we bottom out. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and, to be honest, a large number of people who deem themselves middle class are operating under a delusion. “61 percent of American households always or usually live paycheck to paycheck” (Snyder). This is not the comfortable standard of living required for a person to title themselves middle class.
There are those that argue that the people in power, the people holding the purse strings, deserve to call all the economic shots. They are the successful ones. They are the ones that “worked hard for their money.” They have the education, the know how. They deserve to be on top. The people who argue this are America’s perfect patsies. They take food from their own mouths when they say this and perpetuate the cycle of poverty in this country. We were founded under the idea that everyone is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As more and more people slip from any semblance of economic comfort and fewer and fewer people control the wealth in this country, perhaps we should revise that phrase to be “existence, liberty, and the pursuit of the next meal.”
In my Introduction to Literature course, I teach the play Death of a Salesman. It is the story of Willy Loman’s slow decent toward suicide due to his constant pursuit of the “American Dream.” Loman measures his worth in dollars and cents and is unable to deal with his decline in the business world. He can no longer keep up with the “Jones’” and this causes him to ferry into madness. At the end of the play, after Willy’s suicide, it is made known that his wife has paid off the last of the payments on their house. She says over and over again, “We’re free. We’re free.”
The American capitalist system is making a Willy Loman out of all of us. Daily, we are surrounded by advertisements that beckon us to buy more, spend more. We are raised on the idea that to own a home is the measure of success. This pressure to be the ultimate consumer might be fine if wages and the lifestyle of the average worker could support it. We are living in the age of the diminishing middle class and, for that matter, the upperclass. The vast majority of workers make little, their raises do not keep up with the rising cost of products, and their wages cover few of luxuries we’re constantly told we need to pursue to be a good American.
The problem with the American economy is greed. The few upperclass want to maintain and keep increasing their money and power. So, they offer their workers small raises and wages and continue to increase the cost of products sold. This is good for their bottom line. Of course, that is until we bottom out. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and, to be honest, a large number of people who deem themselves middle class are operating under a delusion. “61 percent of American households always or usually live paycheck to paycheck” (Snyder). This is not the comfortable standard of living required for a person to title themselves middle class.
There are those that argue that the people in power, the people holding the purse strings, deserve to call all the economic shots. They are the successful ones. They are the ones that “worked hard for their money.” They have the education, the know how. They deserve to be on top. The people who argue this are America’s perfect patsies. They take food from their own mouths when they say this and perpetuate the cycle of poverty in this country. We were founded under the idea that everyone is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As more and more people slip from any semblance of economic comfort and fewer and fewer people control the wealth in this country, perhaps we should revise that phrase to be “existence, liberty, and the pursuit of the next meal.”
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
What's in a Name?
What’s in a Name?
When I married my husband I made the shocking decision not to change my last name to his. This decision, which I did not imagine causing controversy, has caused several women to question my dedication to my partner, my femininity, and quite possibly my sanity. To be honest, I chose to keep my name for two reasons. One, I find the act of going through the rigmarole of name change completely un-appealing. (In order for a woman to change her name, she must pay for a new driver’s license, contact half a dozen people and order a new social security card.) My second reason for maintaining my name is for a sense of identity. It does not make sense in the modern world for a woman to surrender the name she has had since birth because she decided to get married. I have two degrees under my maiden name and quite a few experiences associated with it. Why must I give that up?
One of the opponents of my “crazy” decision not to take my husband’s name said, “How will people from high school know you’ve gotten married?” GASP. What if they didn’t know? Obviously, anyone who knows me closely will know my marital status. For those I don’t know well enough for them to have that knowledge, why do I care?
Another opponent told me that it is tradition to change your name to your husband’s. It is. However, lots of things have been tradition at one time. For instance, it was once tradition to pay a man for marrying your daughter. (In some ways, this still remains with the assumption that the wife’s family will pay for the marriage.) Slavery was also once a tradition in America. Does the fact we have always done something, or have been doing it for a long while make it justified? I don’t think it does.
The original reason for changing names when you got married to your husband’s was so you could be identified as his, as property. Women are no longer thought of as property so the changing of the name should be stricken as a tradition in my opinion.
I should clarify that I have no problem with women changing their name when they get married. It is an independent decision. I do, however, have a problem with being treated as socially leprous because I have decided to keep mine. When I entered into marriage, I chose to publicly pledge myself to my husband, and he chose to do the same for me. We love each other and have entered into an adventure together. Neither of us though, chose to abandon ourselves or our identities for each other. My taking his name simply for the sake of it makes as much sense as him taking mine!
When I married my husband I made the shocking decision not to change my last name to his. This decision, which I did not imagine causing controversy, has caused several women to question my dedication to my partner, my femininity, and quite possibly my sanity. To be honest, I chose to keep my name for two reasons. One, I find the act of going through the rigmarole of name change completely un-appealing. (In order for a woman to change her name, she must pay for a new driver’s license, contact half a dozen people and order a new social security card.) My second reason for maintaining my name is for a sense of identity. It does not make sense in the modern world for a woman to surrender the name she has had since birth because she decided to get married. I have two degrees under my maiden name and quite a few experiences associated with it. Why must I give that up?
One of the opponents of my “crazy” decision not to take my husband’s name said, “How will people from high school know you’ve gotten married?” GASP. What if they didn’t know? Obviously, anyone who knows me closely will know my marital status. For those I don’t know well enough for them to have that knowledge, why do I care?
Another opponent told me that it is tradition to change your name to your husband’s. It is. However, lots of things have been tradition at one time. For instance, it was once tradition to pay a man for marrying your daughter. (In some ways, this still remains with the assumption that the wife’s family will pay for the marriage.) Slavery was also once a tradition in America. Does the fact we have always done something, or have been doing it for a long while make it justified? I don’t think it does.
The original reason for changing names when you got married to your husband’s was so you could be identified as his, as property. Women are no longer thought of as property so the changing of the name should be stricken as a tradition in my opinion.
I should clarify that I have no problem with women changing their name when they get married. It is an independent decision. I do, however, have a problem with being treated as socially leprous because I have decided to keep mine. When I entered into marriage, I chose to publicly pledge myself to my husband, and he chose to do the same for me. We love each other and have entered into an adventure together. Neither of us though, chose to abandon ourselves or our identities for each other. My taking his name simply for the sake of it makes as much sense as him taking mine!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Employee Morale- The most under-rated concept in American Business
Employee Morale- The most under-rated concept in American Business
I have commented on the topic of job satisfaction in America before, but I feel it needs to be revisited. I cannot contemplate why so many American business owners treat their employees as if they are simply machines built for service. The American job force is pressured to work long hours, for little return, and with little hope. You are likely to be fired before ever reaching a decent 401K, and you are offered little over two weeks out of 52 vacation per year. Sure… Most companies will claim piousness. They will claim that they do everything in their power to ensure their workers are happy, satisfied, and free to enjoy the comforts of family. It is all a façade though. Few companies do anything to demonstrate a true concern for the well-being of the worker.
The attitude in this country is “shut your mouth, or we will find some other sucker to do it.” The sad fact is, there is another person, desperate for money, willing to take anything, waiting in the wings. We do not work together in one cohesive unit in the United States. We do not fight together. It is the plague of individualism. We don’t strike. We don’t rally. We don’t try to make a difference. We are so afraid that taking a stand would risk our own necks that we make no stand at all. Since we don’t work together, nothing is accomplished. We are all taught, from an early age, worry about yourself, not others. It is, unfortunately, the American way. So, nothing is changing.
It is my opinion that hyper-nationalism is the biggest hindrance to the advancement of this country. We are taught that we live in the best place in the world. We are taught that to disagree with this is to forgo your patriotism. People always argue, “If you don’t like it over here: Move.” I am of the opinion that to recognize the faults of this country is to love it. I recognize the problems, and I hope for us to improve, to learn, to evolve. I do not wish to see America cement itself to a road going nowhere.
We do not have the best system for workers in the world. We do not live in a country that encourages a balance between work and home life. This causes us to have high rates of depression, divorce, and general unhappiness in our population. To those who say change is impossible, that to give more vacation to workers per year, or less hours would bankrupt Wallstreet, I say, look at other businesses in European countries. Are they poverty stricken? Are they unable to pay their electric bills? No, the working world will keep on moving, even with giving people six weeks off per year. Even those few American companies that have changed their policies to be more worker friendly such as Microsoft and Google are among the most profitable here. Happiness is not a deterrent to profit.
The biggest joke in this country is that the powers that be have convinced those without power that this is as good as it gets. They have convinced the lowly worker that he/she is living in lap of luxury, the highest point in the world. What the worker does not recognize is, as Ayn Rand wrote,
“The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, talks of slaves and masters and wishes to be the master.”
I have commented on the topic of job satisfaction in America before, but I feel it needs to be revisited. I cannot contemplate why so many American business owners treat their employees as if they are simply machines built for service. The American job force is pressured to work long hours, for little return, and with little hope. You are likely to be fired before ever reaching a decent 401K, and you are offered little over two weeks out of 52 vacation per year. Sure… Most companies will claim piousness. They will claim that they do everything in their power to ensure their workers are happy, satisfied, and free to enjoy the comforts of family. It is all a façade though. Few companies do anything to demonstrate a true concern for the well-being of the worker.
The attitude in this country is “shut your mouth, or we will find some other sucker to do it.” The sad fact is, there is another person, desperate for money, willing to take anything, waiting in the wings. We do not work together in one cohesive unit in the United States. We do not fight together. It is the plague of individualism. We don’t strike. We don’t rally. We don’t try to make a difference. We are so afraid that taking a stand would risk our own necks that we make no stand at all. Since we don’t work together, nothing is accomplished. We are all taught, from an early age, worry about yourself, not others. It is, unfortunately, the American way. So, nothing is changing.
It is my opinion that hyper-nationalism is the biggest hindrance to the advancement of this country. We are taught that we live in the best place in the world. We are taught that to disagree with this is to forgo your patriotism. People always argue, “If you don’t like it over here: Move.” I am of the opinion that to recognize the faults of this country is to love it. I recognize the problems, and I hope for us to improve, to learn, to evolve. I do not wish to see America cement itself to a road going nowhere.
We do not have the best system for workers in the world. We do not live in a country that encourages a balance between work and home life. This causes us to have high rates of depression, divorce, and general unhappiness in our population. To those who say change is impossible, that to give more vacation to workers per year, or less hours would bankrupt Wallstreet, I say, look at other businesses in European countries. Are they poverty stricken? Are they unable to pay their electric bills? No, the working world will keep on moving, even with giving people six weeks off per year. Even those few American companies that have changed their policies to be more worker friendly such as Microsoft and Google are among the most profitable here. Happiness is not a deterrent to profit.
The biggest joke in this country is that the powers that be have convinced those without power that this is as good as it gets. They have convinced the lowly worker that he/she is living in lap of luxury, the highest point in the world. What the worker does not recognize is, as Ayn Rand wrote,
“The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, talks of slaves and masters and wishes to be the master.”
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
From the Exciting World of Teaching. . .
Currently, I am teaching a Composition I class for Freshmen level college students. Traditionally, it is one of my least favorite classes to teach. I prefer to teach Literature above all but Composition II is also nice because the basic foundations of writing have already been taught.
When I teach Comp I, I always struggle with a way to get students excited about writing. Most of them have learned to hate writing through bad experiences in high school. They have had teachers who made the subject boring or didn't allow them to explore subjects they were really interested in. To counteract this, I try and come up with fun and inventive ways to illustrate my lessons.
On Monday, we were learning about how to incorporate good details in writing. The students are going to be turning in a personal narrative soon and I told them it was important for them to paint a picture not write a list of things that happened to them. (This is what I normally get. Students write a long list of activities they participated in but the stories lack all sensory details and interest.) The students normally try to turn in a 3-4 page narrative that covers several years of their life. I try to explain that you cannot properly detail several years of a person's life in a few pages. I instruct them that it is better to pick a small moment, for instance, a few hours of their life.
To get them thinking creatively, I had the students write a character sketch. They were to create a character and give me the who, what, when, where, why, and how of that person. They weren't supposed to simply list traits but illustrate them through a short narrative. The students really seemed to have fun with this and came up with better ideas than they probably could have imagined.
I did the project along with them... Here is what my idea of what the project looked like.
Talio Stewart was a rotund, squat man in his early fifties. He had smooth hands though, from never doing a hard days work in his life, and they reminded him of his youth when he looked at them. He rarely smiled and his mouth had been turned down so long there were permanent lines on either side. His friends liked him, but only in the way you might like a mystery you can never figure out. They asked him often, "Have you ever been happy?" He would always sigh, force a chuckle, and say, "Sure. . . You know."
The truth was he had been happy at one time. He remembered being a kid and dreaming of everything adventurous. Then, it was all possible. What had happened though? He could not remember when the lines formed or when he took the first step on the easy route. When he took the safe job, the safe wife, the safe LIFE for that matter. . .
Now, it was all gone, and where did it go, his youth? It clung to his damned hands, a bitter reminder and he often though that reminder of something better, and not a true happiness for what was kept those lines on either side of his mouth, ad kept his friends wondering. It was a vicious circle of remembrance.
All in all, I think the assignment worked to at least show the students that creating a character can be fun, which in turn, might coax them into believing that writing is not the worst possible class for them to be in.
As a teacher, it is very important to keep students engaged in an active process of learning. Lecturing about writing does not help students improve. It is vital that they actually practice it and participate in writing as much as possible. Even with this, writing is a difficult lesson for students to grasp.
When I teach Comp I, I always struggle with a way to get students excited about writing. Most of them have learned to hate writing through bad experiences in high school. They have had teachers who made the subject boring or didn't allow them to explore subjects they were really interested in. To counteract this, I try and come up with fun and inventive ways to illustrate my lessons.
On Monday, we were learning about how to incorporate good details in writing. The students are going to be turning in a personal narrative soon and I told them it was important for them to paint a picture not write a list of things that happened to them. (This is what I normally get. Students write a long list of activities they participated in but the stories lack all sensory details and interest.) The students normally try to turn in a 3-4 page narrative that covers several years of their life. I try to explain that you cannot properly detail several years of a person's life in a few pages. I instruct them that it is better to pick a small moment, for instance, a few hours of their life.
To get them thinking creatively, I had the students write a character sketch. They were to create a character and give me the who, what, when, where, why, and how of that person. They weren't supposed to simply list traits but illustrate them through a short narrative. The students really seemed to have fun with this and came up with better ideas than they probably could have imagined.
I did the project along with them... Here is what my idea of what the project looked like.
Talio Stewart was a rotund, squat man in his early fifties. He had smooth hands though, from never doing a hard days work in his life, and they reminded him of his youth when he looked at them. He rarely smiled and his mouth had been turned down so long there were permanent lines on either side. His friends liked him, but only in the way you might like a mystery you can never figure out. They asked him often, "Have you ever been happy?" He would always sigh, force a chuckle, and say, "Sure. . . You know."
The truth was he had been happy at one time. He remembered being a kid and dreaming of everything adventurous. Then, it was all possible. What had happened though? He could not remember when the lines formed or when he took the first step on the easy route. When he took the safe job, the safe wife, the safe LIFE for that matter. . .
Now, it was all gone, and where did it go, his youth? It clung to his damned hands, a bitter reminder and he often though that reminder of something better, and not a true happiness for what was kept those lines on either side of his mouth, ad kept his friends wondering. It was a vicious circle of remembrance.
All in all, I think the assignment worked to at least show the students that creating a character can be fun, which in turn, might coax them into believing that writing is not the worst possible class for them to be in.
As a teacher, it is very important to keep students engaged in an active process of learning. Lecturing about writing does not help students improve. It is vital that they actually practice it and participate in writing as much as possible. Even with this, writing is a difficult lesson for students to grasp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)