Barnmaven

Internet, I cringe

I must start by making one thing...no, TWO things clear:

1.  I am a half-assed copyeditor.  I type fast, and make typing errors that I very often don't catch until well after I've hit the "Publish Now" button.  Just one more reason I'll never be a "brand."  Sue me.  HOWEVER:  Typos are not spelling errors.

2.  When I rant about spelling & grammatical errors I'm not talking about your Facebook updates or personal emails.  I'm not even really that concerned about personal pages and blogs.  What sends me into apoplexy are the errors I find crawling through "professional" websites like ants at a picnic, the kind that seem to regularly make it past copyeditors on major internationally-read news sites and web magazines.  So unless you write for or copy edit for one of them you are not the subject of this post and I love you dearly even if you do murder the written word on a daily basis. 

 

I've considered making one day a week an official "Rant & Rave" day here at Barnmaven.com, but one of the many things I've discovered I lack as a blogger is the ability to maintain a regular (or coherent) schedule. 

If, however, today were Rant & Rave Monday, it would be the perfect day to talk about words and what they mean and how words that sound the same mean very different things and how important it is to your audience that you use words in the proper context.

I read once that avid readers make better spellers, since the frequency with which we see words naturally increases our familiarity with the proper spelling and meaning of them.  I can only apply this anecdotally to myself, since I fell in love with the printed word at the tender age of three and have only narrowly managed to escape reading my way into poverty by garnering incrementally better-paying employment every step of my career.  If I didn't make what I make today, books & horses would have me filing bankruptcy a thousand times a thousand (Except they don't let you file that often, in which case I'd just be sitting under a mountain of debt and scrounging family dinners out of restauarant garbage cans or begging for change on freeway off-ramps).

If the digital media outlets I read are any indicator, the proofreading and copyediting professions are dying a very painful and slow death.  Is it simply that the proliferation of written media has created an amplified venue for such errors, or is it an even worse situation in which the lack of professional editing creates a compounded situation where people read works with mistakes and proliferate those mistakes honestly because they trusted websites like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal to present professionally written and edited articles?  I mean, if the WSJ can't spell "depository" correctly, can ANYONE?  Or when CNN's front page article says that "Conversationalists" aren't concerned about the environmental impact of golf balls in Loch Ness, should we  dismiss it with a "hey, its a mistake anyone can make"?  Sure, anyone can make that mistake; NOT everyone is writing headliness for one of the largest news outlets in the first world.

Is the deterioration of the ability to properly spell and to use words properly a natural phenomena?  Am I simply unwilling to let go of an art that was doomed from its infancy?  Maybe someone with a masters in linguistics could enlighten me, but until then, I vow to go down swinging.

Personally, I think that blogging itself and the mass proliferation of bloggers into media outlets has something to do with the problem.  Many legitimate news outlets have recognized the value and power of the blogger's voice; however many also seem to be taking a pass at doing more than eyeballing submissions for spelling and grammatical errors.  Hint:  Huffpo, if you want your writers to be taken seriously, help them with their words.  Please.  When one of your bloggers writes about the "hoards of visitors" that came to see her new baby, I don't think she meant that she's hoarding the people who came by and perhaps saving them for a rainy day.  I think you might have kindly told her that the word she was looking for was "hordes" and that one word is something that TLC has a regular show about and the other is the pillaging throng she probably thought she was referring to.

To another writer who was recently touched by a story in the news:  It didn't strike a 'cord' with you unless you meant it hit the thing you pull your drapes with.   The phrase you are reaching for is "struck a chord," because the metaphor is a musical reference.

And while I'm at it, Huffpo, please fire whoever is writing your front page top news story headlines.  They make you sound like the National Enquirer.  Half the time I wonder if you haven't been hacked by Anonymous and set up to sound like a third-rate gossip rag.

Writers, you really do have a reponsibility, if you are submitting work for consideration or writing because you are paid to, to ensure the clarity and accuracy of your words.  Don't assume the media outlet is going to do a good job of editing your work; if you want to come across to your audience as a professional and a subject matter expert, you only help yourself by making sure your work is correct in its substance and its form.  If you are not strong on spelling and grammar, do yourself a favor and hire a copyeditor who is.  Pay them a few bucks per piece to make you look and sound as good as you'd like to. 

What I do for a living, what I'm paid for, I must do well.  I was hired for my expertise and experience in my field, and the people who pay me expect me to be the subject matter expert in my skillset.  The same goes for those of you who make a living crafting with your words.  Writers in digital and print media not only carry the responsibility of producing good work; you have an additional and not-small task to be the arbiters of our language.  The words you produce will influence those who read them now and in the future.  You are either helping to preserve good spelling and form or you are helping to destroy them.

I remember being young and reading so many words I'd never heard spoken aloud.  On many occasions I would attempt to use them in conversation.  Sometimes I'd get laughed at, but I truly appreciated those who made the effort to correct me.  They saved me from much future embarassment.   In the same spirit, I leave comments when I can for those writers who have erred, not to embarass you, but to save you from imprecision; may you now go forth and do the same for others. 

 

And in Other News, Being Born causes DEATH

A newly released study has determined a link between influenza and high fevers during pregnancy to children with autism.

As if we needed another theory.

A since-debunked but long-held theory supposed that autism was caused by distant mothers.  Since then, we've managed to link autism to:

• Genetics
• Vaccines
• Diseases
• PCB's
• Solvents
• Diesel exhaust
• Pthalates
• Phenols
• Pesticides
• Flame retardants
• Alcohol
• Smoking
• Prenatal Stress

And now?  The flu.

I'm left to wonder what doesn't cause autism.

Predictably, the internet is going insane with rampant conspiracy theory and in-fighting between the anti/pro vaccine crowd. 

I'll clarify that I do not have a foot in the anti-vaccine camp.  I am supportive of parents who choose not to vaccinate or to selectively vaccinate their children, but I hope that those parents understand clearly the risk of not having certain vaccines administered to their children.  Thanks to research, many diseases which used to have incredibly high fatality rates are now a distant memory.  However, bacteria and viruses like to evolve, requiring the scientific community to continue to study and to stay ahead of potential outbreaks with newer vaccines. 

I'm a parent who believes that exposure to lots of things helps to limit the number of things that will actually make us sick.  I think there's "good" dirt and there's "bad" dirt.  "Good" dirt has any normal number of bacteria and allergens in it.  For the average child or adult, contact with "good" dirt exposes them to just enough of what's out there for them to develop an immune response.  For healthy adults, this acquired immunity is enough to keep them mostly healthy.  Children, who are more susceptible to viral and bacterial outbreaks, will develop enough of an immunity to either keep them healthy or at least keep their active stage minimal. 

What's "bad" dirt?  Dirt that's got measurably high amounts of toxins, environmental or man-made.  Fertilizer.  The manure pile. Anything on the property of a manufacturing plant.  DON'T EAT THAT SHIT, KIDS.

Vaccinations recommended for children today cover a wide range of potential diseases.  While they are all truly optional, there is plenty of evidence to support administering them to as much of the population as possible, particularly to children.  The current standards recommend childhood vaccines for:

• Hepatits A
• Hepatitis B
• Diptheria
• Tetanus
• Pertussis
• Meningitis
• Polio
• Pneumococcal disease
• Measles
• Mumps
• Rubella
• Influenza

Newer guidelines recommend inoculating girls against Human Papilloma Virus at age 11.

Now I'm not going to tell you which of these disesases you oughtto vaccinate against.  Presumably you're all adults and presumably you either already know what these diseases do and what they affect and what the case-mortality rates are, and even if you don't you surely know how to use Google and Wikipedia.  I simply wish to illustrate that though there is theory that vaccines cause harm, what gets lost in that argument is what amazing things vaccines have done, such as pretty much eradicating smallpox, which killed about 30% of the Native American population on the West Coast in the 1700's, and killed somewhere between 300 and 500 million peopleduring the 20th century.  Today the only known smallpox viruses in the world are in petri dishes in labs somewhere.  We hope, anyway.  The important thing to know, though, is that inoculations do an incredible amount of good. 

Do drug companies have a responsibility to do everything possible to insure their procucts are safe?  Absolutely. 

There are those that believe that vaccines cause autism and there are those that don't.  I fall into the category of "it hasn't been proven but it could be possible but at the same time there are big risks and small risks and I don't want my kid to get polio" camp.  There was a time when vaccines were stabilized using a mercury based substance known as Thimerosal, and this is the most often cited reason why "vaccines are bad."  Now, my son has autism, and none of his vaccines were stabilized with Thimerosal.  In fact, Thimerosal is being phased out of most vaccine programs in the US and Europe simply because people do not really want to have microsopic amounts of mercury being shot into them along with their vaccines.  The vaccines my children received were stabilized with egg protein.    The thing is, vaccines DO need to be protected against infection growth.  In 1928, 21 children recieved vaccines that had been placed in a preservative and of those 21 children, 12 died of a staph infection. 

Do we really need vaccines?  I think so, but only you can decide that for yourself and your children.    But vaccines aren't the only thing being blamed for autism.  If you really want to prevent autism, so far as I can tell, you pretty much need to stop breathing, eating, drinking, driving, walking outside and living in your home, because all of these things/environments have been linked to autism at some point.

So here's my point and its one I've made before but God knows I love repeating myself (just ask my husband and children):

To all the people who are now going to send me articles about how my prenatal influenza (which I didn't have, by the way) or the chemicals in the chewing gum or the vaccines or the WHATEVERTHEFUCKANYTHING caused my son's autism?  Please JUST DON'T.

Let the science community work on finding the causes of autism and begin to form programs to help prevent it. 

MY interest is not in the why of autism, but in the how,  as in, how to support my child with autism.  How to make sure he gets all the classroom- and home-based assistance possible in order to be the best self that he can possibly be.  To do all of the possible interventions to help drive down the likelihood that he will become dependent on alcohol or drugs to cope with his condition.  To normalize autism for the rest of the world so that they see my son as a person, not as a thing.  To advocate for children and adults with autism and spread awareness that there are many, many people among us whose behaviors we might not understand but who have amazing minds and amazing abilities.  To help others recognize the breathtaking beauty in the simplest of developmental gains for people who are affected with autism.   To be a support system for other parents who are coping with autism in their lives. 

That's the important stuff, right there, folks.

My problem with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I have “left-of-center” stamped on my very bones.  In every argument or discussion I’ve ever had about politics, my question has always been “how do we care for those who can’t care for themselves?”  It is truly one of my biggest concerns.  I love underdogs, I hate bullies, I wish desperately to live in a world where the powerful don’t enrich themselves by sucking life, energy and money from the weak.   I want to live in a world where sick adults don’t molest, rape or murder children.  I want to live in a world where its OK to be whatever color/culture/religion/orientation/gender/size you happen to be and you don’t get points docked for not fitting a cultural norm.

No, that world will never exist.  I will nonetheless always seek to support a reality where people care for one another, where the ideals we live by whether we are Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Jews or Pagans include at the top of the list ”LOVE ONE ANOTHER.”

I love the idea of ensuring health care for every man, woman and child in this country.  It’s an ideal well-rooted in humanitarian principle.  But, my dear friends, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act doesn’t ensure health care for everyone.  It ensures everyone has health insurance.

Insurance is not care.  Having health insurance doesn’t mean we get quality health care – or affordable health care, for that matter.  In fact:

A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Medicine found that in 2007, 62% of people declaring bankruptcy had over $1000 of unpaid medical expenses.  92% of those cases had medical expenses over $5,000, and 80% of people filing for bankruptcy had medical insurance.  What does this tell us?  That even people who have medical insurance cannot afford their medical bills.

The costs of basic medical procedures have risen dramatically since 1943, when Congress passed a new tax policy making employer-provided medical insurance tax-free.  This subsidization caused the employer-provided-insurance model to become the dominant system of medical insurance in the U.S.

So why has this caused medical costs to rise?  A lot of reasons.  For a start,  if the employer is paying 80% of the bill for my annual exam, I as an individual have nearly zero incentive to price-shop amongst medical providers for the most efficient and cost-effective practitioner.  My selection criteria becomes one of convenience:  How soon can you schedule me and will you bill my insurance company directly so I don’t have to waste time filing a claim? 

When consumers no longer see cost as a factor, costs will naturally rise.     Spending on healthcare has risen at more than three times the rate of the consumer price index since the 1970's. 

I think it becomes even more complicated when doctors are required to offer certain discounts to private insurance enlistees.  In order to keep their bottom line, the list price of the procedure must rise.  This means that any individual who doesn’t have health insurance or for whom that doctor isn’t in their network will pay more for the same procedure than the person whose insurance network the doctor belongs to. 

So cost of care is a big issue that isn't really solved by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because the system that caused prices to inflate over time is left intact.  But that's not my biggest problem with the insurance companies.  The biggest problem I see with Obamacare, or any legislation that attempts to overhaul healthcare whilst leaving Big Insurance intact, is in effect leaving the cat in charge of the creamery.

Over time, the insurance companies, not our doctors, have gained control over most of the decisions to be made about what courses of treatments, medications and number of visits or treatments the patient may have.   When my doctor recently prescribed thyroid medication for me, the insurance company didn’t want me to take the dessicated pig thyroid my doctor wanted me to have, andwhich costs considerably less than the synthetic form.  They wanted me to take synthetic thyroid medication and would only provide benefits if I got the synthetic instead.  I ended up buying the natural thyroid and paying for it out of pocket.  Likely my copay on the synthetic product would have been about the same as paying in full for the naturally obtained medicine, but why would I take a more expensive, synthetic product just so my employer could pay money to the pharmaceutical company?  Furthermore, how could an insurance company claims analyst who has never met me have more power to determine what medication I should take than my own doctor?

They don’t, really, but over time what’s going to happen, now that insurance coverage is a mandate, is that the doctors who have heretofore been able to maintain discretion in the treatment of their patients because they don’t participate in network plans will either become tools of the Big Insurance or they will go out of business.

The other problem with Employer-provided medical insurance is the lack of choice to the consumer.  We are paying for group plans with coverages some of us will never use.  I’m pretty sure my single coworker Bob would rather not pay additional premium for an annual gynecological exam and birth control coverage.  I’d prefer not to have part of my premium going for obstetrical care, since I’m all done with the baby-having, but since its part of our “plan” I don’t have a choice. 

Thanks to the plan passed by our President and our Congress, Big Insurance is still fully in control of our health care.  That means our health care costs will continue to rise, even more dramatically once there is no longer any competition in the market.  All doctors will march to the orders given to them by non-medically trained personnel who process claims based on complicated algorithms about which procedure or medication is more profitable for the insurance company.

So we're stuck with  a nightmare of mounting insurance costs, mounting medical costs, and more people not getting the care they really need because they can’t afford it.   

If the Republicans succeed in their vow to repeal Obamacare, you can be assured that they will craft a plan equally as heinous.  It might not contain an individual mandate, but you can bet your bippy it won’t address Big Insurance either.  After all, Big Insurance spends millions of dollars (if not more) helping our leaders in Congress to get elected.  Politicians don’t bite the hand that feeds them – and trust me, that hand doesn’t belong to you or to me.

True healthcare overhaul would deconstruct the health insurance system as it exists.  It would put the power of treatment back into the hands of doctors.  It would create a competitive market for healthcare providers so that doctors could choose what to charge for their services.  Charge too much, you limit the number of people who will seek treatment from you, particularly if any number of equally good doctors are charging less for the same.  It would reward practitioners with low costs and high success rates.  It would allow consumers to choose what kinds of medical insurance they would like to carry, and provide pools of funding for the poor and the currently unemployed to obtain basic medical care.  It would seek ways to assist patients with catastrophic medical issues in finding appropriate care and having some power in making decision about the courses of treatment they wished to pursue.  It would address and alter the relationship between Big Pharma and the FDA.  

Big Insurance has no compassion for the patient.  Big Insurance cares only about profit margins.  Sick people aren’t profitable, so they’ve found a way to make well people pay more all the while raking in the money while patients continue to receive substandard care and grapple with out-of-pocket costs that set them back or make them go bankrupt.

What, you ask, about the people who can now get insurance that couldn’t before because they were already sick?  They’ll benefit from the pre-existing conditions clause of Obamacare, won’t they?  Yes and no.  I know plenty of people who have pre-existing conditions who are thrilled right now because they can finally get health insurance.  But is health insurance what they really need?  Or is it affordable health CARE?    Wouldn’t they benefit more if the costs of the procedures they needed costs only hundreds or thousands of dollars instead of tens and hundreds of thousands?  Wouldn’t they benefit more if we allowed them to see the doctors they were comfortable with rather than the doctors the insurance company says they must?  With properly funded pools for the uninsured, they’d have financial support for the treatment they needed, and that treatment need not come at a grossly inflated cost.

The concept and the dream behind Obamacare, that I get.  I agree and I applaud.  Everyone who needs medical care should be able to obtain it.  

The reality of the plan that has now passed the scrutiny of SCOTUS frightens and worries me.  Our government keeps getting bigger and costlier and keeps feeding the giant corporations that are chewing up and spitting out people like you and me as if we were simply more fodder for their coffers.  They grow fatter and wealthier while I put off getting my own medical needs met so I can care for my children, because our insurance isn’t so great on the mental health and autism issues, and I have two children who need a psychiatrist to manage their medications.  I should have better choices than this.  Thanks to legislation that continues to put all the power into the hands of my insurance company, I probably never will.

War? or Distraction? Part 2

This is a continuation of my post from yesterday.  Read that first, if you hadn't already, then come back here.  I'll wait.

Caught up?

OK.

Now. Let's talk for a minute about this godawful mess.

Its pretty straightforward, really.  TIME's circulation numbers are declining.  The sensationalizing of a mother nursing a toddler was about nothing more than selling magazines by using a racy cover and getting women all fired up about attachment parenting and breastfeeding.  Breastfeeding's a hot topic, we all know that.  How better to stop the heavy bleeding than to boost your popularity with a Mommy War? 

Not to be out-wankered by TIME, Dell gave IT professionals in Copenhagen a remarkably transparent view of its company's disregard for women.  Christiane Vejlo's article in Elektronista provides a compelling narrative of a professional event where the invited speaker provided delightful entertainment with such cutting-edge statements as, "The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy” and "We can thank women for the rolling pin."  He closed his speech by encouraging the men in the room to go home and employ the phrase "shut up bitch."

(Not that I'd buy a crappy Dell or that I was even thinking about buying a crappy Dell, but any potential prospect of me purchasing a Dell product has now dwindled from "improbable" to "over my dead, menstruating body.")

Why Dell would consider having Mads Christensen, a so-called "inspirational speaker" who is apparently infamous for his misogynistic views on women a) give a keynote at a conference sure to be attended by both men and women and b) not have any potential keynote address vetted for suitability? If they were trying to lend credibility to the notion that Dell is s corporation without a clue.  Or perhaps they're hoping to pick up some sales from US Senators and employees at TIME?

Two of these recent stories illustrate rather well how women continue to be marginalized and disregarded by our government, by corporations and by society in general.  I don't believe for one second, though, that we are in immediate danger of being shoved back into the kitchen with bare feet, at least unwillingly.  Maybe in our current economic situation we don't have as much choice about our careers and our families as we would like to, but in contrast with women who lived in a world where they were considered to be the property of men, our choices are vast and endless.  What's important is that we don't allow ourselves to be distracted from our long and diligent assault on the barriers that patriarchal and religious leaders have erected to prevent us from taking power. 

But the other two stories, these stories and the aftermath of them represent an enormous problem. 

Women, what the hell is wrong with us?  We are smarter than this and yet we are still allowing ourselves to be pulled into competition with other women over which of our choices as women and mothers are the right choices.

Why are we so eager to criticize and judge each others parenting choices?  Why do we even for one moment buy in to the notion that the Mommy Wars must exist?   Are we so defensive about our individual parenting choices that we must react every time the media attempts to tell us we're "not good enough?"

We are letting ridiculous conversations about how long we should be nursing our babies to drown out the conversation we should be having about how we make sure that our choices as women and as mothers are respected and upheld in society.  We should be talking about how over 50% of the middle managers in corporate America are women and how great it is that corporate America finally figured out what families have known forever, that women are terrific at herding cats.  (Kids, cats, administrative assistants, what's the difference?)  We should be talking about how we support families and children in this economy, when the line between eating and starving is growing wafer-thin.  We should be talking about how to ensure that our children are healthy and educated, in an environment where our politicians are taking money away from schools and children's services.  We should be talking about how to make sure our young men and women have an opportunity to have an affordable college or trade school opportunity.

If you look at the media these days, we're not having any of these conversations.  We're standing on either side of dividing lines that, relative to the actual problems we have, don't really mean anything.

Does it hurt you if Jamie Grumet nurses her three year old?

Does it hurt you if one mom goes to work and one mom doesn't?

No.

Change has been happening for a long time when it comes to respecting and acknowledging the rights of women and the contributions that women make in our world.  Not all change comes fast, and sometimes we see the archaic remnants of old and irrelevant attitudes tottering around and trying to get people to believe they're still in the game.  They're not. 

Unless we let them, which is exactly what happens when we  allow ourselves to mindlessly engage in finger pointing at other women because of invented controversies crafted by in increasingly irresponsible media.

If you really want to waste your precious time being mad about something, be mad at the media that manipulates us with their garbage.  Because being mad at other women just because they aren't being the women you think they should be is about as useful as an umbrella to a duck.

War or distraction, Part I.

First it was the national conversation around birth control, which brought us the absurd photographs of a mostly male, mostly white group of senators debating contraception was a necessary part of insurance coverage.  Next it was the Ann Romney/working moms vs stay at home moms debate.

 

 

This week we've got the gratuitously sensational TIME cover of Jamie Lynne Grumet breastfeeding the largest three year old I've ever seen, and an outcry over Dell's choice of Mads Christensen, a notoriously misogynist "inspirational" speaker to give a speech at a partner event in Copenhagen.

It seems no matter where you look these days, we are being drawn into a discussion about women's choices, women's work, women's parenting, women's competence. 

What's difficult to discern, though, is whether we are looking at an escalating war on women or whether we are looking at some major confluence of interests attempting to distract us from the very real problems facing us as the international financial crisis deepens and governments, corporations and families find themselves in a desperate struggle to pay the bills.

I made a new friend this last week.  She just moved here from Arizona.  She remarked today how nice it was to talk to people here in the Tri-Cities because so many people were bottom-line happier than people in Arizona.  "People up here have jobs.  They have income.  They're not, as a whole, struggling the way people down in Arizona are doing.  Its horrible down there, and everybody is depressed and miserable.  Its so bad you don't even want to talk to anyone there."

Is there a conspiracy to sidetrack us from some of the most important national conversations we will have in the last thirty years in this country or are we really so on the rails about women and their roles as parents and workers that we feel compelled to engage in this type of debate?  Are these conversations about women being started by women?  Because they are certainly being carried on by women.

Lets start with birth control.  The real debate isn't over whether women should have access to birth control, because let's face it, we really DO want to live in a world where families do better economically, and statistically they do when women have easy and affordable ways to manage their fertility.  The real debate, the one that the contraception issue effectively distracted us from, is over how health care should be managed in this country.

I want everyone to have access to affordable health services and to affordable insurance, if that's what they want.  But what we've ended up doing is giving even more power to the big insurance agencies, requiring everyone to carry health coverage on plans that are broad-based rather than a la carte, and the only people who are going to profit from this are the insurers.  Health care reform should have begun with removing insurance conglomerates and their power over our health care choices from the playing field entirely.  Medical services cost far more than they ought to for a variety of reasons having to do with liability coverage and mandates from insurers. 

Patients ought to have the ability ot choose medical coverage that provides benefits for the services they need, and basic preventive health care should be so affordable that people don't need to have an insurance plan to obtain it.  

Drug prices should be based on what the competitive market will sustain, not what prescription drug plans will cover.  The price of birth control pills, particularly generics, would decline pretty immediately in such a market, as would the cost of other methods of controlling fertility, such as IUD's and implants.

I don't even feel like I should have to discuss whether its better to be a mom who has a job outside the home or a mom who manages her home and family or has a job that she can perform from her home.  Most women don't have a choice in this regard, and most families who make the decision to have one parent stay at home make great sacrifices financially to do so.  The majority of families don't have the easy luxury of having one parent not work.  Even so, a man or woman who spends their days managing a household isn't separated from the economics of the real world and real business. 

A mother homeschooling her children and performing most of the tedious chores involved in keeping a house running is a busy woman.  She is engaged, she is productive, she has to manage her family's time and finances.  A mother who is working a job outside the home also has to manage time and finances.  Lets not even get into the plight of single parents, shall we?   Because single parenting is its own special hell at times.

Yes, some people have a greater income and therefore a real choice about whether or not one spouse becomes a full-time household manager.  And?  Life's not fair.  I'm not going to waste time worrying about what my reality is not, and I'm not going to waste time debating with you on who is a better mother or what you think a stay-at-home mom does or doesn't have to add to debate on the national debt.  WE ALL LIVE HERE, PEOPLE.  This problem belongs to all of us, and if this economy fails, we are all going to suffer.  It won't help much to be a billionaire if your billion dollars will buy you nothing more than a six-pack and a pack of hamburger buns when the dollar has imploded.

To be continued.

 

 

 

 

With or against the current

I noticed a post while idly cruising Blogher written last week by Emily Kingsley, an autism mom who blogs at Our Holland.  Blogher featured one of her posts, a reaction in writing to an encounter with a woman who doesn't believe children with autism should be mainstreamed.  At all.  Because she believes its "not fair" to the normal kids.

The post itself had my hackles up, but reading some of the comments has got me feeling indignant as well.  Of course there were a majority of commenters who expressed their outrage at such outright ignorance.  But there were a few commenters, especially one in particular from the Facebook stream, who also believe children with autism or other disabilities don't belong  in the mainstream classroom.  "They're a distraction," said one.  "Its not fair to the other kids," said another.

I simply do not accept that these parents' children have more of a right to an appropriate learning experience than my son does simply because he has autism and they don't.

I believe that my son benefits when he is in his autism classroom AND when he is in the mainstream classroom for academics.  I also believe that the time he spends in the mainstream classroom benefits his neurotypical peers.  My belief is somewhat instinctual, but it is also an informed belief based on results and research.

Someday my son will be an independent adult.  He will need to function in a world where the majority of his coworkers and peers are neurotypical.  His time in the classroom and on the playground with his mainstream peers gives him many opportunities to learn the behaviors that make his interactions with others less frustrating and more rewarding.  The time he spends learning how to interpret social cues and how to interact appropriately with other people his age enhances his ability to succeed not just now, in school, but later in life as well.  This has been our experience, but various studies over the years on inclusion programs statistically support inclusion.  Children with autism who regularly interact in a mainstream environment (with appropriate controls and support) show marked improvements in their social skills and peer-to-peer interactions.

At the same time, spending time with other children who share many of his differences provides him an environment where he fits in.  In his other classroom he is less likely to be bullied for his autism.  He has the benefit of learning under the direction and care of teachers and other professionals who know how to help him gain better control over his behaviors.  He isn't the 'weird' kid in the class, he's one of the crowd, just another kid with autism.

I don't think my son needs to "act normal."  His autism doesn't need to be "cured," it is a part of who he is, it contributes to the many qualities that make him a wonderful and unique person.  The goal of mainstreaming him is rather to help him become adept at surviving in a world where the majority of people he encounters do not share his non-neurotypical traits.  For him to have the best chance of success in the workplace, he needs to have as much time as possible learning how to read social cues, how to regulate his behavior and emotions, how to navigate change and disruption.  These are the same skills all children, normal or differently abled, need to learn in order to be successful adults, really.

I have a firm opinion that children - all people, really - benefit greatly by learning to have compassion and empathy for others.  Very often people fear what is unfamiliar, and fear and ignorance create division and hostility.  We are not so many generations removed from a society that segregated the different and the disabled to an extreme.  Fortunately many parents, educators, medical providers and opinionated and outspoken people who are differently abled have made huge strides in gaining access to education, to the workplace and to the public consciousness.

When children have the opportunity to interact regularly with other children who are differently abled, the perception of difference diminishes.  A wheelchair becomes not something strange to stare at, its just the way your friend with CP gets around.  A text-to-speech device becomes the normal way your friend with apraxia of speech talks to you.  Kids can learn early that people's behaviors are sometimes a direct result of the way their brain processes information, and that kids who have difficulty in social situations aren't just being naughty or mean, they are having a hard time managing their reactions to stimuli or unable to understand social cues.  Kids with Tourette's aren't saying things to get attention or be disruptive, their brains are sending them signals they may not be able to control.

I'm a mom.  I love my kids and I want the best for them.  I want them to be happy and healthy people who have strong, loving relationships and who do work that satisfies them emotionally.  I want them to be productive, contributing members of our society.

Segregating children with differences only serves to create adults who don't function as well in society, who are more likely to have difficulty interacting with their coworkers or the guy who sells them groceries or the lady who collects their rent.  I don't want to see my child's potential diminished to suit the attitudes of another parent who doesn't have the first clue about what it is like to walk a mile in my son's shoes.

Just as my son ought to learn how to navigate a world that doesn't function the way his brain thinks it should, so does that other parent's child need to learn to navigate a world where not all of the poeple he interacts with will be just like him. 

 

No quarter

I may or may not have had a wee lil' bit of wine this evening.

This perhaps does not bode well as a prelude to a blog post, but I have it on good authority that you haven't filled your bucket list until you've written a blog post after one (mebbe two) too many glasses of cheap chardonnay.

You know, I write here about my personal life, and people are nice enough to stop by and comment here and there, and there are some folks who come by and almost never comment but stop every day or so and give my words a gander.  And that's so incredibly nice.  It feels good.  We all like to have someone pay attention to us.  Sometimes I think that blogging is my way of garnering a "hey girl" and a shoulder pat from time to time when my real-time life seems slow on handing out such badges.  And blogging keeps me from focusing my efforts on any sort of real adult writing effort, because everyone who has ever wanted to write "for real" but wasn't sure how, likely shares the same fear I carry that I'm not really as good a writer as I want to be and I lack the time/energy/resources to really focus myself on becoming as good a writer as I want to be.  This is my little outlet, this small wee blog toddling along in the margins of the world wide web.  It gives me the illusion that I'm doing something worthwhile with my words, but the reality is that it just allows me to piss away time better spent doing other things.  There are stalls to be cleaned, lawn to be mowed, dishes to be washed and floors to be scrubbed.  So instead of going to bed at 9:30 when I actually should, I go to bed at 11 so I can do the chores and still have time to see what's happening on the damn internet.

Some people who are better writers than I, and some who are both marginally worse and sometimes (I know, this is not nice) terribly worse, these people have found a way to make an actual living blogging.  They heavily pursue ad networks, they run giveaways and contests, they write more sponsored posts than original content, they bend whichever way the internet winds do bloweth, because at heart they all want to be the next Heather Armstrong or Jessica Gottlieb or Penelope Trunk.  And before there were such things as sponsored posts and giveaways and ad networks, those bloggers were out there creating the path that eventually made it possible for them and for others to make a crapload of money by putting their words up on the web. And others came along and saw the way the wind was blowing and took note.  The path to the Emerald City was glowing golden before them, and they hesitated not a moment before they embarked on their merry way to internet riches and fame (hopefully).

Hey, there's nothing wrong with having a goal, folks. 

But success inevitably breeds contempt.  And I have written before my feelings on the value of criticism and the necessity for strength in ones own beliefs and opinions as a precursor for successfuly surviving the inevitable negativity that presenting ones' life and opinions in a massively open and public forum will inevitably engender.

Just like here at home, though, no one ever listens to me.

I follow the drama and while at times it provides a respite from the actual serious drama of the minutiae of raising two very special people and trying to make sure every hungry animal on this small farm is fed  before it starts feeding on the other animals on this small farm, sometimes it just makes me want to put my face in my hands and weep.

This fall we will vote for the next President.  And while for most of us there is a clear distinction and a clear choice, I think we all know that the reality is we are choosing someone who, for us, is the lesser of evils, because our two-party system does not afford us the ability to effect real change by voting for this presidential candidate or that or by supporting this senator or that congressman.  We all must realize, deep down, that our government is a vast wasteland and our country is in terrible crisis. 

In our own cities and suburbs, in our country, around the world, there are men, women and children who are coping with violence, with hunger, with poverty.  We have more able-bodied people than we have jobs.  We have an environment in flux, whether you believe it is caused by humans or by a natural shift in the earth's weather patterns is irrelevant, because there are whole regions and millions of creatures who will be required to undergo significant change - perhaps even die out as a species - because they environment they have adapted to live in is disappearing.  It doesn't really matter WHY the problem exists, it only matters that it does exist and that it will affect us, affect our children and our childrens' children.

This world is painfully full of parents who are struggling financially, emotionally, phsyically.  Parents trying to raise a family on too little income, or parents trying to get services for kids who have needs beyond what most insurance companies and school systems can meet, parents trying hard to take an active role in their children's lives but who are struggling just to pay the bills and God knows its hard to find time to help with homework when you've worked all day and had a long commute, and then you've had to make dinner and do baths and do homework and yet you still feel like shit because you should have also gone to the PTO meeting like the rest of the parents who ARENT single or who have spouses who work locally.

And yet, the drama on this internet, it carries on.  It supplants our very real and personal dramas, it tries to distract us from the deeper thing.  We bloggers, we open our veins and bleed our lives out here for all and sundry to read.  We relate truths or we invent truths, we have terrible problems which always result higher pageviews whether that was the intent or not.  And yes, some bloggers invent drama just to create pageviews.  I look for the good in people but we all know that this happens.  And there are people who have bullshit meters or who don't buy into the fairy glitter of A list blogging, and they have the need to vent their spleens, and from time to time there is an event where the Ghostbusters accidentally cross the streams and the internet explodes.  

Don't cross the streams.

Why?

It would be bad.

Thank you, Egon.

(And thank you Ghostbusters)

We need our entertainment.  We love our celebrities and we love to hate them.  We need sports and violence and for HBO and network TV to come up with the next hottest show because Oh My God if we don't have the distraction we won't be able to cope with our scary and difficult lives.  We don't want to think about the million ways that humanity is suffering, because we can't do that 24/7 and still function in our lives.  We need the drama like we need our oxycontin and our crack.

I am not taking sides.  Or maybe I am taking both sides. I just don't get the need for the posturing.

And it all just makes me feel so jaded and cynical and tired.

I don't FUCKING CARE about your drama.  I don't care. 

You all make me so fucking exhausted sometimes.

 

 

If you've read this and you have no clue what I'm talking about, GOOD FOR YOU.  The internet has not yet had its way with your innocence and beauty and I respect you so much for being innocent and pure that I want to kiss you on your face and throw rose petals at your feet, because you're still pure and you represent what we all were before Eve ate the apple.  Don't you ever EVER change.

 

 

 

Hollwood is grossed out by Kelly Preston's boobs.

But only because they're full of milk.

Kelly Preston's name has been cropping up this week in articles with her comments about how much she loves breastfeeding her 16 month old son Benjamin.  Most of the articles have simply presented her interview statementswithout much editorializing, but leave it to the Hollywood snarkbags to react with shock and horror.

Bruna Nessif's article yesterday at E! Online suggests Preston should be added to E!s TMI Mom's Club.  Nessif writes, "Preston has been openly expressing how much she still enjoys breastfeeding her - wait for it - 16 month old son Benjamin, who shares a bed with her and hubby John Travolta."

Wait for what, exactly?  I'm not sure which Nessif, who describes herself in her Twitter profile as "surprisingly smart and witty," (really??) feels is more egregious - the fact that the Preston/Travolta family co-sleeps or that Preston's still nursing her kid.

Interestingly, a quick peruse of the comments to the article reassured me that the majority of people who are paying attention to this story fully have Preston's back when it comes to extended nursing.

More than one commenter (by which I mean something like five or six of them) referred to the W.H.O. standard, which recommends women nurse their infants for at least two years. 

The shrinking and highly vocal contingent that still finds nursing repugnant isn't going to go away anytime soon, but they're being met toe to toe consistently and (mostly) calmly by an increasingly educated public.  And for the most part, I like tenor of how people are expressing themselves about this issue.  Not always, but mostly.

The Mommy Psychologist has recently begun a series of postsabout Attachment Parenting.  Like a lot of people, TMP has an inborn resistance to being preached at.  She shares her experience of being sat down and lectured to ad nauseaum by her husband's best friend and his wife on all of the things they MUST do when their baby was born.  Let's be honest, a lot of the Dr. Sears crowd can come across as, well, overzealous. 

There has to be a middle ground between "If you don't cloth diaper, breastfeed for 6 years, feed your child only whole, organic foods, never spank, never CIO and homeschool then you're a terrible parents" and "Breastfeeding is gross, if formula/plastic diapers/spanking/Ferberizing was good enough for me then its good enough for my baby." 

Isn't there?

Personally I don't get the whole visceral reaction to breastfeeding.  Breasts were making food for babies thousands of years before some premodern dude figured out that drawing pictures of them on the cave wall gave him and his buddies a little stiffie.  And it wasn't that many generations ago that most babies in even modern society received their primary nutrition from breastmilk.   Modern technology has brought us a lot of amazing things, but it still hasn't created an equal replacement for that magic liquid mama makes.  

And nursing in public?  For crying out loud, you see more exposed flesh on an Abercrombie & Fitch billboard than you do when a nursing mama pops her little one on for a nice spot of lunch.  I remember being really offended by the people who insisted on glaring at me when I nursed my children.  Hell, its not like I was getting up and squirting them in the eye with my boob juice!

At the same time, those well-meaning but overbearing Boob Nazis need to back off on moms who feed formula.  I don't need a PhD in anything to know that the happiest and healthiest families are those that make informed and educated decisions about what works best for them.  Sometimes nursing doesn't work the way its supposed to.  Sometimes work schedules make it hard and stressful to have a successful go at breastfeeding.  And you know, sometimes formula is just what a particular parent is comfortable with.  Nobody ever learned much of anything from someone who insisted on standing there screaming at them about how wrong they are.    As I said in my comment on The Mommy Psychologist's blog, I don’t think you should have to preach to anyone about something whether it is parenting or religion. If the style of parenting you follow is so amazing and awesome then you shouldn’t have to “convert” anyone.  

About eight years ago I found a small online community of moms where I found I could fit in.  We varied in lots of ways, and not just geographically.  We have members across oceans and continents, we have made a lot of different choices about feeding, vaccinating, diapering, schooling and disciplining our kids.  To this day we are a solid community and we rally round our own when any one of us needs support.  I can't talk about the lovely box I got in the mail after I lost my brother from my moms-in-the-box without starting to tear up. 

The reason - the ONLY reason - that we have stayed together so long and that our little community works for us is that none of insists that OUR way is the ONLY way.  Every bit of advice comes with a disclaimer:  your mileage may vary.  Unless my kid is bleeding to death, these moms are the first place I go to for parenting advice.

It is really unfortunate that articles like Nessif's continue to widen the gulf and misinform people about breastfeeding and attachment parenting in general.  I have faith that the ever-growing public understanding about breastfeeding and its benefits will eventually take over until the squeamish amongst us find something else to freak out about.  I also have faith that we can, as a whole, understand that when it comes to parenting, no one "method" but the one that works for each of us and our families is the "right" one.   There's no need for such polarization amongst parents.  How we feed, sleep, clothe, educate and discipline our children is up to each of us to determine.  Sharing what worked for you is terrific; berating another family because they make different choices than you did is simply asinine.

Rant over.

Carry on.

So sensitive

I think of the bloggers I follow as friends.  Some of them know that, and perhaps feel the same way about me.  Some don't.  I feel they are friends because I have shared in their lives through the medium of their words and in them I have recognized myself. 

But sometimes I don't understand their sensitivity to the slightest insult. 

Perhaps my experience as a blogger doesn't lend to understanding.  It helps to have a small audience.

It helps to not be (s0) sensitive (anymore, after years of therapy and, one must say, getting old).

It helps that in almost five years of blogging I have probably only had one truly negative comment on this blog and one or two on posts elsewhere.

Even so.  I've had negative comments in other places that mattered way more than this space.  At work.  From friends or in organizations I belong to.  I'm no stranger to hearing really remarkable things being said about me - some true, some not.  Some nice, some ugly.  Whatever.

I don't care if you want to criticize me.  It's fine.  Go ahead.  I can take it.  If I weren't prepared to be disagreed with I wouldn't be putting my words on the internet for the world to view.  Offering opinion invites scrutiny.  Invites differing opinions.  Invites others to be amused, outraged, insulted, offended, enraged. (With any luck, not so much of the enraged. One hopes.)

Rarely am I critical of other bloggers, at least publicly.  I tend to be a supportive person, and I think that life's challenges for other people are for them to work out.  I think most people know what they really need to do to solve their problems, and the best way I know to help them is to just let them know I care.  I might have my own opinions about why they're in the pickle they're in, but personally I don't know that its helpful to share those opinions.  Besides, unless I know the person intimately, there are details of their particular situation that are invisible and unknowable to me.  That's the point where sharing an uninformed opinion might just make me an asshole. 

But just because someone's being an asshole doesn't make them a troll.

Very rarely will I leave a negative comment on another's personal blog, with the notable exception of Penelope Trunk, who absolutely makes me want to weep in frustration.  Other than that, mostly I believe I'm benign.  But I believe very firmly in the value of the critic. 

Insulting for the sake of insult is childish.  Taking umbrage or offering a different opinion is something different.  Perhaps others don't dialogue the way one would like them to, always, but the opinion that is offered is nonetheless often quite legitimate. 

 My sincerest advice to any blogger ( or friend on facebook or person on Twitter or coworker or RL person I love) is to let the voices of the angry horde blow by you like so much dust in the wind.  Listen to your own heart.  Do what you think is right.  It might not be right for me, it might be a bad choice that you make, but you have the right to make it and you have the right to ignore all advice to the contrary.  This is, though, only a first step.  Learning to put your life out there for the world to comment on means starting at step one:  Let it go. 

You could stay there forever at step one, learning to let what others think mean just what it does.  Staying at the first step is an option, certainly.  There's another place to grow, though, if you're up to it.  If you are secure enough to handle a little criticism, hear what is offered.  Receive it from a different place than one of defensiveness.  Listen to criticism with ears that are not  emotionally engaged.  Sometimes the simple act of doing this will grant you the ability to garner insight out of what you might have one time dismissed.  You don't have to take everything to heart, you don't have to take anything to heart. But don't be afraid to sift through it.  Dismiss what doesn't resonate, accept what might be worth digging in to a little deeper.  Do it without apology, without anger, without judgment.  Without EGO.

I appreciate the sense of community that being online offers.  I have a deep and abiding sense of gratitude to so many bloggers who have made me laugh, made me cry, made me think, made me mad.  Every interaction I've had has helped me to know myself better, helped me to grow.

But I think many times some of us fail to make the distinction between those that are critical of us and those that only wish to make us be quiet or be hurtful.  I think it is too easy to lump all negative commentary into one big cooking pot and label it "troll soup."

Yes, there are those that simply leave nasty words because for whatever reason at the time they wrote them, they felt joy in being destructive.  So what?  Unless they're threatening you bodily harm, their words mean nothing.  Hell, when I wrote the piece a couple of years ago about my daughter punching a boy  in the junk, the secondary syndication of that post on a nationally read platform actually had one commenter suggesting readers look me up via my BlogHer profile and pay me a visit.  (You bet, pal, I welcome you into my yard, so long as you're fine with really big dogs and if you don't mind the police officer who lives across the street may wish to handcuff you if you get out of hand.)  That kind of crap is out of line.  But whatever.  Someone calling me a jerk or a bitch or saying I'm a terrible parent or a terrible human being?  Those are just words.  Those words don't carry any more power than I lend them.  The ability to cope with the virulence of others, the responsibility to cope with the opinions of others , lies not with others.  It belongs to me.

Those who put their words in the court of public opinion have known this truth for as long as the written word has existed.  People will never as a whole respond to my words in the manner I hope they will.  I can deal with that.

I don't have to be angry with people because their opinions of me or my writing aren't what I hoped they would be.  Neither do you. 

Being Girly

Sometimes I think I write too much about dealing with my kids and their issues.  This morning, for instance, could have provoked yet another thousand word essay on the joys of trying to get out of the house on time and why it never ever happens and how I'll never qualify as Mother of the Year because I keep losing my temper and my son hates me because he doesn't get TV, DS or laptop time tonight.  But...his medicine got in him.  So I assume his teacher will have a better day than my morning was.  But this isn't about that.

This post is about being a girly girl.  Or being not a girly girl.  Or about being both all at the same time, and reconciling the picture of who I am in my mind with the reality of me.

With all due respect - and apologies - to the ultra-feminine among us:  I have never felt I was one of you.  I was the girl who wanted to get the most offensive rebounds in the basketball game, not cheer the team on from the sidelines wearing a tight sweater and a skimpy skirt.  I was the girl who collected snakes and dug clams and spent most of her weekends on or around her horse and who only wore dresses if threatened with death or disinheritance. 

It wasn't that I didn't want to be pretty.  I did want to be pretty, oh so very much.  But I knew that I wasn't.   I knew, deep inside of me, that I was never going to earn peer acceptance for being cute or petite or having a feminine voice or a sweet laugh.  I could only be good at certain things, and those weren't necessarily the things that purchase a pass into the world of beautiful girls.  And I liked the things I was good at, even if they weren't considered truly feminine pursuits. 

I sailed along through high school and college mostly feeling like Marmaduke trapped in a china shop.  Eventually, finally, I started figuring out that I had assets that went beyond being able to beat the average guy in an arm wrestling match, and more importantly, learned to enjoy making the most of them.  I would guess its taken me about twenty years altogether to become more at ease with the woman inside me who wants to look pretty.  I finally had to understand that pretty and smart don't have to be mutually exclusive.  I finally get it, that I can change the oil in my car by myself and that doesn't disaqualify me from putting on a pretty dress and some makeup and a dab of perfume on my wrists and being attractive in a more conventional way. 

I've learned that there is NOTHING WRONG with wanting to look attractive.  And the most interesting thing about it all is that I reached a point in my life where I don't do it for anyone but myself.  I don't get dressed up to impress a man, I get dressed up because I want to.  And I dress down because I want to.  Dressing down doesn't make me a dirty mom.  Its just one aspect of who I am.

And to clarify, "attractive" to me doesn't mean looking like Angelina Jolie or Grace Kelly or any of those skanky Jersey Girls on television.  It means looking like me, all dressed up.  Beautiful is the way you see yourself, beautiful is the way love sees you.  Likewise, ugly comes from inside too.  Ugly is the way some people act, not the way they look. 

I don't worry what people will think of me in the grocery store if I've been on my horse and I'm covered in dust and hair and I'm wearing my boots and I have hat head.  Go right ahead and stare at me disapprovingly if you must, I don't notice it and even if I did you lack the power to make me feel bad.  The flip side of that coin is that when I make the effort to dress up and look pretty, I don't need you to approve of me for me to know I look good.  That comes from me, not you.

One physical trait that I've always not liked about myself are my fingernails.  The women in my family of origin have very sturdy, very strong hands.  Functional hands. But - terrible nail beds.  Short, wide nail beds, not the nice long oval ones I so admire.  The nails grow out splayed and split and not so very nicely.  I am also not good about caring for my hands.  I never wear rubber gloves when I'm cleaning house or doing dishes.  So I have these short fingernails and they're always getting broken and cracked.  They're ridged, my cuticles are an embarassment.

I have mostly accepted that these are the hands I have, but I don't necessarily have to like them.  And it does feel strange when I go and pay for a pedicure and come out of the shop with lovely toes and newly de-calloused feet in sharp contrast to the mangy cuticles and chopped off nails on my hands.

I have talked myself into and out of artificial nails for years.  I had them briefly in my twenties.  I even bought nail polish the exact shade of my red Nissan Pathfinder.  But they didn't last, I split one painfully due to my clumsiness, I was terrible about getting fills done.  And then with my current lifestyle, horses and dogs and cleaning stalls and all...it didn't seem like something I could - or should - do.

Except I have this one index finger where the nail is splitting.  And it won't stop.  Its been split for over two months now, and as it grows, it just keeps splitting.  I've tried polish, I've tried special plastic "bandaids" just for fingernails, I've tried acrylic nail polish.  I've tried nail treatments.  In the end, I just keep cutting it back farther and farther and no matter how far down to the quick I get it, it still splits and the edges of the split catch on things like my saddle pad or my shoelace and it splits farther and more painfully every time.

So I gave it some thought.  Artificial nails don't have to be long nails.  They can be as long or as short as I want them to be.  Even if the nail technician thinks they should be longer, it doesn't really matter.  I'm the customer, I get to ask for what I want.  And yes, artificial nails are harder than hell on your real nails.  But my real nails are complete crap anyway, so honestly, does it really matter if they get thin and brittle and crack?  They do that anyway!  Artificial nails require maintenance.  I'm notoriously bad at taking care of myself.  So now I have a compelling excuse to go take some time for myself and spend it on something that looks nice.  Artificial nails look fake.  Yes, but even fake looking nails look a thousand percent better than the ones God graced me with.

Wow, I had an argument with myself and I WON. 

Lookie here:

Girly hands. 

I can still beat you at arm wrestling, though.