The Real Chinese Factory Worker

 

I liked this speaker because I believe she has the authority to say what she does after two years of immersion. I also love this rare opportunity to hear the voices of the workers in these storied factories. 

The idea that other cultures have values we American's don't understand is something that resonates with me personally. I care that people don't view India as a pathetic place where many people are poor but happy: a lesson to their American kids that they should be grateful they don't have to play with sticks in the dirt. India is far more complex than that. Children everywhere experience joy, selfishness, sadness, excitement, most everything American kids experience, simply to different triggers. This talk seems to indicate that workers in these Chinese factories are more than slaves forced by "big brother" into an evil machine for our benefit. They are people with dreams, like us. It is just that their dreams don't resemble ours, and their environment is not one most of us understand. 

Many Americans, even those who think they are doing poor Chinese or Indian people a favor by demanding certain wages or conditions for them, are behaving with an attitude of American arrogance. We Americans have the power to demand the kind of life we feel the rural Chinese should have. We think they deserve I-phones, and we think we should do our best to keep jobs away from them if those jobs do not provide the opportunities we are used to in America. 

We need to accept the fact that they will live in conditions we would never tolerate and be joyful. Similar to the way the American rich may look down on the family living in the 1000 square foot single family home and not be able to imagine their lives in it. When we were in our 1000 square foot single family ranch we were grateful for it. It was much better than our single wide trailer. Likewise, when we first moved into our single family ranch Todd took a job that paid $10 an hour for a while, and we were grateful for it. He would never even think about working for that now. 

The Chinese are not wanting to make these wages forever, but it seems to be a stepping stone they are grateful for. As long as they are entering into these factories of their free will let's not rob them of jobs because we think we know better a world away. Let's listen to their voices and respect that they are people who can make their own decisions. 

Female Chauvinist Pigs and the state of women in society

This is one of my latest reads. The book was ok. I would have preferred more solutions and less setting the stage, but I found some perspectives that interested me and added my take on the topics below.  

Lose your inhibitions!

Pg 198

"We are still so uneasy with the vicissitudes of sex we need to surround ourselves with the caricatures of female hotness to safely conjure up the concept "sexy" When you think about it, it's kind of pathetic."

One thing that is made clear in this book is that sex is still one of the things that make grown men and women giggle in awkwardness. Inhibitions, or squeamishness about sex is one of the things that seem to make it exciting.  In strip clubs and other places we hear phrases like "lose your inhibitions". But I think in reality if we did lose them: if being naked in public was no big deal, if seeing a girls boobs was just like seeing her big toe, we wouldn't care about it as much, and the sex industry would be in big trouble. Besides the fact that men would have nothing to talk about in locker rooms, and women would have to think and talk about something other than what men want.  

Here is what would be left. We would still want sex, but we wouldn't need it to show off to our friends or to have a story to tell. We would need sex because humans want sex. We would be more in tune with our own needs and wants and sex would satisfy more of our real needs. Society is so loud about stories of what we should want, what is taboo, that it is very hard to hear what we want and what we need. Maybe the thing that would satisfy you the most is doing it missionary style with someone you love. Maybe the thing that would really make your life worth living is doing it in a group in public. Maybe the thing you really want is just to imagine doing it in a group in public. In a similar way to how wanting to be a mother is excluded from true feminist options, wanting what will really make you happy sexually seems questionable. It seems that if you tout the feminist line you must sacrifice some of your own pleasure for the cause, or delude yourself into thinking you have what you want. Most of these feminists will never know because their sex messages are so loud they can't hear what their soul is really crying for. 

Just don't do it! (sex education)

Another thing mentioned in this book is politics. The far right wants abstinence education and nothing else. "Just don't do it!" This has been shown to not help anything. Alternatively, the left primarily wants to hand out condoms and tell kids, "Good Luck". Giving them the freedom to express their sexuality at a time when they have no idea what they are doing. According to this book, this works out great for boys wanting blow jobs. 

The author pointed out that neither of these plans is truly helpful to teens wanting to know what to do with these new sexual urges they are experiencing and the new sexual currency they have to bargain with. She doesn't say exactly what she thinks would be helpful, but I like the fact that she seems to take a balanced approach. 

My theory about sex education is that sex, for the most part, is a reflex. Good, exciting, adventurous sex is learned, but what this is varies depending on who is involved so it really can't be taught in a class. And if you don't learn about good sex in an environment where you are allowed to fail, you can easily develop a skewed view of what sex should be.  I think a more effective approach would be relationship education. When you know how to find a good mutually loving relationship, you have a safe arena to perfect your sexual practices without rejection, or unnecessary baggage that can inhibit your sexual life and ability to love forever. 

The men and the girly girls

This author tends to group modern feminists into either the women who want to be like men or the ones who want to be what men want. The ones who want to be like men are very often not sexy dressers. They feel angry when they see women posing nude or waitressing in short shorts. These women are also the ones who feel like they should be able to love and leave just like men can. If they can't do this they feel the demeaning, prissy, 50's woman specter creeping up on them and do whatever is necessary to suppress any need for companionship they might have. "If men can be casual about sex, then so can I." Is their mantra. Because to them equality includes having identical sexual needs and wants. 

     The opposite side of todays feminists feel that "Fine, if men want my boobs they can have them, but I am going to call the shots.". So they get attention with videos, and other forms of public nudity and sexual gestures. They feel temporarily wanted, and not at all in connection with the weak part of them that may want to be loved for who they are and not how much skin they show. While the author doesn't come right out and say this as bluntly as I would have liked, she basically implies that both of these reactions, which are sanctioned by society,  are too limiting for women to really express and demand what they need. Both of these roles are based on a foundation of fear, and ironically, insecurity. The insecurity comes from thinking that "If people really knew I want a guy to settle down and have a family with, they would see me as weak. Both women and men would be ashamed and disgusted by me. I wouldn't be living up to my potential." When in reality, women who are secure in themselves are not afraid to admit that they value family, or that they want a solid relationship before they give sex. They are not afraid to really truly know themselves, and say. "I wish I could be casual about sex, but I just can't." Or say, "I am just not interested in easy sex because it doesn't seem that exciting to me when I consider the cost." Or, "I don't really care about the cost, I just want to have sex with that guy or girl or both or everyone in the room." I agree with the author when she indicates that women will really have sexual freedom when feminists don't divide themselves into two narrow camps, neither of which truly represents the breadth of female desire. And neither of which even comes close to portraying what is truly beneficial for women or what they really want for the most part. Both camps are a pendulum swing reaction, and both are meant as a message to men, not freedom for women. When we can quit fixating on how men see us, and truly discover what we want and go for it, whether that means being a monogamous stay-at-home-mom, or a highly paid porn star, then women will be free. 

Pg. 200

"If we believed that we were sexy and funny and competent and smart, we would not need to be like strippers or like men or like anyone other than our own specific selves."

Gabby, Claressa and their racial status

Gabby Douglas

After Gabby won her gold medal in Women's All around, Bob Costas tried to make a comment referring to her race and not piss a bunch of people off. That is an incredibly difficult task for a successful white guy to do. This was what that endeavor sounded like:  

"You know, it's a happy measure of how far we've come that it doesn't seem all that remarkable, but still it's noteworthy, Gabby Douglas is, as it happens, the first African-American to win the women's all-around in gymnastics. The barriers have long since been down, but sometimes there can be an imaginary barrier, based on how one might see oneself." 

He was only moderately successful at not pissing people off. I liked his comment, because I think it mentions a new paradigm we are seeing in relations specifically with African American people and, well, basically every other race. Overall, there was very little mention of what color Gabby was over the course of the Olympic coverage up until that point. She wasn't hampered with the burden of raising the respectability of those with her skin color. She was just another girl struggling to do her best in an elite sport. The truth was, I believe most people didn't spend much time at all worrying about what color she was (except for those voicing deep concerns about her hair), because these days it is not uncommon to see African American people in any position, from Walmart cashier, to banker, to artist, to President, to elite athlete. Most of us are used to it. We are all happy for her because she did a great job. Which is a much more beneficial spreading of the glory than having to assign glory to someone merely because they are a certain color and do a good job. What we need to realize is that these days, having to dwell too long on which person is the first African American to do so-and-so can be in itself racist. These days I think bigger separators of people are income, and culture. Culture that almost kept Claressa Shields from becoming the Olympic boxer she is. To paraphrase a recent "Essence," article in my own words. Her mother was a drunk, who associated with men who objectified Claressa, and her father almost completely refused to allow her to train for boxing because he was concerned it would make her less physically attractive. She felt like everyone was against her and her family almost kept her from attaining amazing heights in her sport. I know this is only one instance but this is a perfect example of culture keeping a person from excelling. It wasn't money that put Claressa's future in jeopardy, it was a lack of belief in her dreams by those closest to her. THAT, I think is a bigger deterent to future success than money or race. Something I see over and over in Olympic coverage are images of the families behind the players, and the joy players feel in having their families be there for them and support them. Some families put themsleves in financial hardship in order to see their children in the Olympics. I think we need to shift our thinking. We need to realize that race in and of itself is not the great divider. Money and culture: as in the attitudes we come at life with (ie, Claressa's family's disbelief in her) are going to be the big dividers as we move forward. And yes, these are big problems that need to be addressed. If we keep acting like race is an issue, we will jeopardize African Americans' future advancement. White people will, and sometimes are afraid of stepping on black toes, so they sometimes separate themselves or force themselves to have "token"  acquaintances, rather than see African American people as potential equals and friends. 

Claressa Shields

Gabby did well. Good for her. Good for America. And if the black community now wants to claim her as theirs that is fine, but they must understand the more they distinguish themselves by pointing out that they are different in color the more they encourage others to see them that way. The more they act like it is not normal for them to excel the more people will see it as exceptional when they do. On the other hand, the more they expect their children to do well, even to do the amazing, the less people like Claressa will have to beg and plead their own families for a chance. Who knows how many African American kids or even low income kids of any race didn't have Claressa's tenacity, and were stifled in their dreams by their own community? I hope one day we will be able to admit the flaws in the attitude of racial separation, so that more poeple can truly benefit and excel, even if it is in a way that their culture of birth doesn't sanction. Color is a separator of the past, and the more whites or blacks dwell on what is expected or not expected of the African American community as a group, the more we do young African Americans a disservice by limiting their opportunities. 

Global Warming and the state of Earth Improvement

I have been looking into global warming a bit lately. It was spawned by the random act of checking out "What's the Worst that Could Happen?" by Greg Craven. He is not an expert, but he plays one in the high school science classes he teaches. He wrote this book to help people think more objectively about, not who is right and wrong, but whether we should take action or not. He is obviously under the opinion that taking massive action immediately is the right way to go. I didn't find his book particularly helpful, but I would agree with one of his thoughts. The truth about what global warming is, how it works, and most of all what it will do to us in the future is not nearly as important as the actions we take or don't take. What I mean is that finding an alternative to using gas in cars is a good thing no matter why you are doing it. Trying to watch and clean what our power plants are spewing into the atmosphere can only be good,  and looking into a variety of types of power sources can only be better for our future. Freaking out and rushing changes onto the likely causes of CO2 emissions may do more harm than good if our alternatives use more energy, or loads of money. 

My first reaction to the whole thing is a natural skepticism. There is money on one side and politics on the other, neither of which I trust, and in some instances those are both on both sides. I also find myself a bit at odds with some environmentalists. I know they mean well most of the time, but my natural bent is to help people, not plants. In this case they would probably say that planting more trees would help us all. From the little research I have done it looks like what would help the most is if everyone in the world would give up their cars, and electricity, and even then it would only be about half of the cut in CO2 we would need to return to pre-warming temperatures. I am not ready pretend the industrial revolution never happened and return to pioneer days yet. 

There are many things about this issue that are very tricky. I have heard that the best way to actively push for the measures we need to combat future global warming is to lobby governent. The slow, plodding, bipartisan government. I know that most of the government is aware of the environmental lobby, and reacts to them when it needs to to maintain their votes, but I worry about the reliability of the outcome. And I personally am not a big fan of bigger government. Ok, so let's take global warming to the personal level. What can I do other than vote and annoy my congress person? It seems that it is hard to move in the right direction without moving in the wrong direction in another area, very likely canceling out the good I did. Like maybe I grow a good bit of my own food, therefore lowering CO2 that would have come from the trucks delivering vegetables to the grocery store, but then I own an SUV. Or maybe I try my best to eat organic, and not eat meat, to help eliminate methane and such, but then I love to take long trips to cool destinations in my car. And then there is me. I try to buy local at the farmers market, which helps reduce CO2 emissions from long deliveries, and I use florescent bulbs, but I shop at Walmart and use plastic bags and disposable diapers. I am sure not helping things. I do try to re-use my Walmart bags for other things, but that really isn't an excuse. I do adopt children rather than put more people on the earth, but I did up the population by three personally. I just can't win. So if all of us are doing things like composting, but yet driving an old car that doesn't have very modern exhaust upgrades, how much are any of us going to help? It sure doesn't seem like it will amount to much, and I think a lot of people who know alot about climate change agree. That is why we come back to government, because power companies aren't going to fix themselves, right. Lately I have been rather scared by the realization of how much the government actually funds in this country. Almost all of science can trace at least part of it's money back to the government, (which, again, I don't trust). So where does that leave us. It seems to me that we have a tangled web that is extremely hard to navigate, and vulnerable to the whim of popular opinion. 

So what about global warming. It does seem to be warming. Are we causing it. Possibly, probably, in part, who knows. I don't. I think we know too little about the long history of the earth to truly be able to fathom what is going on here. What should we do? What we have been doing. Let's try to pollute less. Let's try to make the energy we use more efficient, and develop cleaner sources of it. Let's think outside of the box. I like the oddball ideas I have read about like capturing this excess carbon in the atmosphere and re-useing it for energy. I even read an idea that involved deploying giant mirrors into orbit to deflect some heat from the sun. Sure, these ideas may be crazy and may not work, but they may lead us to ideas and ways of thinking that will. Let's not get hung up on specifics, and not get caught up in angry debates. there are a lot of things that neither side knows for sure. But I think we know enough to be grateful for what we have, and know that we can't just coast along doing whatever we want to our planet and think things will always be fine. I for one will probably keep buying local, and then turning around and buying Walmart. I will vote for the guy that I think represents my views on most issues in general, but I probably won't annoy him for much. Maybe a midwife issue here, an adoption issue there. Things that affect my immediate family, just like most people. I won't give up my car, but I will try not to make extra trips, or long trips if I don't feel I have to. Will government and power companies and car companies do what I need them to do with out my hand at their wheel? I don't know. I don't even know exactly what I would ask them for if I could, because I don't know the difficulties behind making less polluting cars work, and then making them at a price I am willing to pay. Though I would be happy to buy an environmentally friendly mini-van if I could afford it next time. I will just send out my hope, that if we are contributing we can figure out what we can do to help before it is too late. The other thing I realize is that the world was not specifically made to accommodate me. There very likely could come a catastrophe to humans that we didn't cause, or didn't cause completely. We have been very lucky up until this point. The earth has been through many time periods that would not have been so comfortable for us, and may go through more. There is no law saying the universe must be nice to us, unless there is, and that would lead to an entirely different understanding of the universe to debate. 

The Beach

We made our first visit to Topsail, and had a good time. We did the normal beachy things. Collecting shells, getting wet, salty and sandy, and then resting in between, which these days I count as a thing to do on vacation. We got to spend a little time with old friends and make some new ones. Evan and Nina learned how to dig up sand fleas (those weird clawless crab-like things they are holding) from some new friends they met. We met and rescued our first blue bottle (or Portuguese Man of War) jellyfish. And we all had a blast in the tide pools and on the sandbar for the few hours a day it was available. Enjoy the beach with us below. 

Artsplosure 2012

We just barely made it to Artsplosure this year, but it was worth it. Arin and Nina made lots of crafts, Cory danced to some great music, and Evan whipped the butt of a man we didn't know in giant metal contraption chess. Here are some highlights, so you can feel like you were there with us. 

Our Babies, Ourselves

In her book, Our Babies, Ourselves, Meredith Small drives home how unique Western culture, American culture especially, is in the independance it demands from infants. Being the anthropologist she is there are many stories about how infants are treated in other types of cultures and societies from the present day hunter-gatherer to the urban Japanese household. Most of these cultures are more baby centric than the hospital delivery intervention promoting, daycare loving culture America encourages for the most part. 

     One of her primary points is that while there may be a push toward independance when it comes to the ability to compete in a western job market, babies themselves are much more in the control of evolutionary rather than societal values. She asserts that when it comes to babies we may be providing the best and healthiest environment for them if we listen to some aspects of less advanced cultures. The scientifically proven advantages of breast feeding that many of us have heard already found their way into Small's chapter on the subject. She also posits many possible connections between infant health and co-sleeping, even going to far as to suggest co-sleeping may reduce the risk of SIDS. 

     I think there is something to be said for the creative thinking that American individuality promotes. But I can understand that babies may not yet be ready for that aspect of our culture. After reading this book I have been put face to face with how much my culture affects what I value as a parent. I saw that the neediness of babies is such an affront to our western sensibilities that we actually make things more difficult for ourselves in some ways. Did you realize that only in western modern culture is lack of milk production a major breast feeding problem? Small suggests this may be due to separation at birth, or possibly anxiety on the part of the mother, who often doesn't have a ready support network to aid and encourage her. Small also points to infrequency of feeding as a possible problem, stating that in some cultures babies feed every 15 minutes. 

     So a question becomes how much should we bend culture for the comfort and well being of our babies or do we continue to require them to adjust to our demands? I think most families are struggling to find a happy medium among the loud advice of society and family, their own instinct and the new information science is providing. I think the future will hold interesting compromises for the benefit of our babies. 

Happiness and Homeschoolers

By now you know I love studies and facts. Yet I know they are fallible. That is what I found when I looked for studies about homeschoolers and happiness. There are about two studies, both done by homeschool related agencies. That would deem them biased, although I do tend to trust homeschoolers more than some people. But at the same time I don't blame people for not trusting the information. I wondered if homeschoolers, when they get to be adults are any more happy, well adjusted, giving citizens than your average person. I tend to think it may be true for a number of reasons. 1. Homeschoolers have more downtime to look into themselves and their own interests. I think this is vitally important to really know what will give you satisfaction out of life and out of your relationships. 2. Homeschoolers tend to have less peer pressure. In my experience with my kids, most of the kids they associate with are securely grounded in their place with their family. They feel they belong, and therefore are secure, lessening the need to put others down, pick on others, and participate in other activities associated with insecurity, making them more confident to be who they are. 3. Homeschoolers can have amazing access to personalized experience. My kids have petted so many animals, been on so many tours of so many places, and in general experienced so much of life first hand it is just amazing. Surely this would help them visualize their future likes, abilities, and opportunities. 4. Homeschoolers have more time to invest in philanthropy. My kids have sorted shoes for people in Haiti, helped in a garden, and we visit a nursing home monthly. Besides the fact that whenever they are curious we can talk about living conditions anywhere on the earth, I can tell them about the loans we do through KIVA, and if they want to help anyone anywhere, we can work on doing it. They have a wonderful opportunity for a global perspective.


That is my theory. More time to know yourself, your family, your community, your world, and the opportunity to participate in it, makes for a happier, more giving person. I don't know many adult homeschoolers. The ones I do know tend to confirm that theory. The couple of biased studies out there tend to confirm my theory. But my experiment won't be complete for quite a few years, and I can't wait to see the outcome. Well, I can, I am in no rush for everyone to grow up and leave me, but I will be happy for them to find their place in this world. I hope my contribution to their lives will outweigh the baggage I leave them with, and that they will confirm the satisfaction theory I am inflicting on their lives.

This is a relatively old American study of homeschoolers.

This is an article about a newer Canadian study of homeschoolers.

Feminine Mystique and the Single Dimension

I began thinking about putting this into words when I came back from visiting Indiana for Christmas. I had spent a good bit of time there without internet, working hard to keep my one-year-old occupied and out of trouble. After my baby turned one in October I had decided to give up my social life. Previously, I had been carting my little one around to book clubs and philosophy meetups, and girls nights out for his first year. Normally he would be cute for 30 minutes, and then sleep and I would be home free, but then locomotion began, and my sweet sleepyhead became a busy wiggly butt. I tried to leave him home, but things began coming up. Todd's schedule was unpredictable, Cory was whiny, and I decided it was better to give up than be disappointed. I was really very happy with that decision for several months, but I coasted along a few months too many before being mindful of the toll my one-dimentional-ness was taking on me. It was on the way home from Christmas that I decided I needed to salvage my social life.

The single dimension is a place a few moms can be and still be very happy with themselves. It can be rewarding when your children are young and really in need of you, making you feel important. The single dimension is what happens when you are one thing. For me it was mother, but if your single dimension leaves you with only being an auto mechanic, I can't imagine that being very satisfying either. We all are saddled with the main thing we are. Whether that be a career, or a relationship. And while many people take great pride in their main vocation, few people are satisfied being defined only one way. Take the group of people I tend to run with. They are mostly women, and a man or two, who have chosen to educate their own kids, so they are with their kids alot of the time, but rarely is "Mom", "Dad", or "Home educator " their only dimension. I have mom friends who are runners, like me, lobbyists, artists, dancers, teachers (in a classroom, I mean), and many other things. They are immensely interesting people.

Since I have become mom to yet another toddler. My "mom" dimension has become somewhat overwhelming. I can no longer have long conversations with the other interesting women at home school groups. I can't take Cory to book club, I can't take him to philosophy meetup, or a movie. I feel chained to wiggly butt. I realized when we were driving back from Indiana how much my brain had suffered from intense immersion with a toddler for just that week. It was a week after the Christmas trip before my brain could function well enough to formulate an interesting thought, let alone string a few solid sentences together to express it to others, and I felt diminished.

Which brings me to the Feminine Mystique. This is one of the key books that spawned the feminist movement in America. It was written in 1963 by Betty Friedan, and while I am rather disconcerted by modern feminism, this original feminist treatise has loads to say about my one-dimensional condition. I won't even get into most of those gems here (so please read it). Some people have said that in this book Friedan tells all women to go out and get a job. Some people have taken this encouragement and run with it, pressuring women to leave their kids and get mundane, unsatisfying jobs they don't care about, and then expecting them to feel fulfilled. That is completely missing the point. Take the quote below:

pg 344 "But a job, any job, is not the answer - in fact, it can be part of the trap. Women who do not look for jobs equal to their actual capacity, who do not let themselves develop the lifetime interests and goals which require serious education and training, who take a job at twenty or forty to 'help our at home' or just to kill extra time, are walking , almost as surely as the ones who stay inside the housewife trap, to a nonexistent future. If a job is to be the way out of the trap for a woman, it must be a job that she can take seriously as part of a life plan, work in which she can grow as part of society."

Friedan doesn't specify which kind of job or how many hours or the pay. We women, and society have put our own pressure on ourselves to be engineers and CEOs. Women should have those opportunities, but we should not have to balance out men in those positions if we choose not to. I personally would hate the life of the CEO. I know my calling is to work with kids in foster care or in the context of adoption. I want kids to get good stable homes, because I think that is vital to societies all over the world. Being a CEO of some fortune 500 company would distract me from what I feel is really important, but doing paper work for my own personal adoption, or volunteering with Guardian Ad Litem, would make me feel closer to the work I find so important. Yes, maybe when my kids are older I will get a masters in social work, and get an actual paying job in such a field, but I never see myself as a full time career person. Honestly, if I felt like I had to punch a clock and put in 40 hours somewhere in order to further the cause of feminism, I would abandon it. I think it is wonderful that women have choice these days. My husband does as well. He knows that if I do work in the future it will very likely never be full time, or normal. I want to be available to my kids, have a flexible schedule, and do unique things with my time that I feel really make a difference. I would even do without material possessions for such an opportunity. My husband is good at making money for us. I am not. It would detract from both of our lives if I insisted that I go out and have a job.

Right now making myself a multidimensional woman is having the chance to put together thoughts that I find interesting and sharing them with others on my blog. It is getting a babysitter and going to the philosophy meetup to talk about interesting things with educated people. It is running more than once a week. It is making sure I always have a book on hand to expand my knowledge of the world around me and then reading it. It is giving Todd the kids and going out with just the girls. It is making sure I know I have plans for the future, and that my toddler will not dominate my life forever. Yes, I do have to make certain sacrifices for the sake of todderhood. He will drag out all of my measuring cups just after I put away all the pots and pans he previously drug out. But his mama is not all that I am. And thanks to teamwork, with a really understanding husband, I am becoming more in touch with all of my dimensions.

Arin

Last week I sent off the final report to our adoption agency regarding the welfare of the child we adopted through them from India. We were required to send reports that would make their way to the Indian government for five years after we brought him home. When Arin first came to us that seemed like a long time. I could never have imagined then what our life would have been like when I sent off that last report five years later. I could not have imagined that concurrent with sending the report I would have been sending our I-600A to US Citizenship and Immigration in anticipation of another child or children entering our family. I would not have guessed that I would be working on yet another dossier for yet another adoption. I would not have guessed I would be presently trading e-mails with the same social worker (the best ever) whom I peppered with questions about the first batch of adoption paperwork I ever made my way through. The social worker that told me that YES, Arindam was ours, may soon tell us that another child will be ours as well.

We are getting ready to celebrate Arin's 8th birthday. At the back of my head, though I have the awareness that right now over in Ghana a child or children who will one day live in my house, and be my kid may be having a birthday now, or any day now. It is an amazing place to be. I kind of compare it to imagining the potential the baby in my tummy will bring with it when it emerges, except that my new adopted children have already been born. There is worry, anticipation, but also confidence. Arin has been through a good bit of adjustment with us. He has been basically our first born adopted child, and we all survived up until this point. I am proud of the loving sensitive, eager-to-please-others, kid he is now, and I am glad we can include more kids into our family the same way he came

My Unpopular View on Adult Beauty Pageants

I recently read a blog post a woman wrote that expressed her revulsion for beauty pageants and connected them to most evils that were ever done to women. As a matter of fact the writing of women ragging on pageants is very plentiful on the internet. I just checked. The thing I was most interested in, however is an actual link between beauty pageants and violence against women, or low self esteem, or any negative outcome for women. I like proven facts. In this case, there appear to be very little proven connection between any of the above. I believe this is one of those cases where feminism has done women a disservice, limited their options and unfairly pitted women against each other. Let me elaborate.

1. If my daughter desired to be in a beauty pageant I would completely understand. As a matter of fact two good friends of my husbands' were in a pageant years ago and they had a good time buying new clothes, making new friends, and for a short time enjoying the limelight. It was fun for both women. Similarly, I could completely understand the draw my daughter would see in being able to buy new fancy clothes, do her hair and makeup and act like a superstar for an hour. She would also get to practice public speaking and hone a specific talent. What a unique experience! Neither I nor my husband would force her to, and we would be completely happy with whatever the outcome was. We would encourage her to do her best, just like in anything. Whether she chose to to it again would be up to her. Do I think she would be more likely to be raped because she participated, No. Do I think others might be raped because she participated, No. Do I think she would feel worse about herself if she participated, not if her father and I helped her understand her feelings if any self esteem issues came up, but I believe more than likely she would see the other girls involved in the pageant and realize that she had advantages over some and not over others. Just like all of us women see in real life. I don't think she will participate in a pageant and then suddenly fall victim to a high pressure world of constant pageant performance, especially if I am a responsible parent and help her understand society and her emotions. As far as parents who do pressure young girls to participate in the pageant circuit, I think there are many negative affects to that scenario on children, but those effects are as much related to the parental pressure as the pageants themselves. Also, I feel she would be most likely to be raped if I didn't educate her on male/female relationships, which leads to my second point.

2. If we expect society to teach our girls what to be proud of and how to act we will be disappointed. Society pays actors and models much more than humanitarians, and loves to publicize scandals. Our girls will have to be in charge of their own self esteem just like the rest of us. My daughter will have to choose to be happy, or dwell on her shortcomings, and I will have to show her how to do that. All of us fall somewhere on the beauty continuum, and we have to come to terms with that place, whether it is fair or not. Some of the aspects of our position we can change. We may choose to drop some pounds to help our appearance and our health, or try a new makeup to even out our complexion. We may not. Regardless, it is a choice we make, and it is something we can choose to work within or to obsess over. My job as a mom is to help my daughter navigate all of the input she is getting from the world, pageants included, and teach her confidence no matter what she hears and sees. The same applies to my boys.

3. One thing that is rather disturbing is that this attitude toward pageants and women who compete in them brings to light one of the negative aspects of womanhood. The fact that sometimes women hate beautiful women. I know that there are girls who look good who are lonely and hurting because others assume these girls have their lives put together just because their appearance is. It is a sad form of war against our own kind. We ought to be confident and proud of our own style choices and celebrate the fact that others are free to express themselves through fashion as well. If they rock an outfit better than we do, or use fashion to help them win a scholarship rather than just to clothe themselves for a trip to the store we should accept their freedom to do so.

Yes, the women do wear swimsuits, but pageants have tried to show other sides of women besides poise and fitness as well. We gloss over the fact that women in pageants are often talented, well-spoken, and care about philanthropy, all of which is usually displayed in the pageant. Pageants are not for everybody, and they are not an opportunity open to everyone. In our current equality loving state of affairs in America we tend to want to impose mediocrity on those who have too much potential for our own comfort. As a 5'2", ok-looking, thirty-something I am fully aware that pageants are not an option for me and I am good with that, GREAT, actually because the whole prissy makeup and hair-do part of the pageant is not my style. I think pageants present great opportunities to those who want to and can participate in them, however. Women need to take responsibility for their own self-esteem, teach their children to do the same, and let fellow women pursue their dreams, whatever they are.

The Beginning of Modern School, and How Little Has Changed

One of the more fascinating of the chapters in what is becoming a favorite book of mine: "American Childhoods" by Joseph E. Illick is the chapter about urban middle class childhood in industrial America. There are quaint facts about how children were raised in this environment and how the roles of the family members were changing from the farm families of the previous generation. Interesting, but the most intriguing information to me was about school. These institutions were just coming in from their farm community existence. While they used to be someplace to send the kids in winter to do some basic learning of reading, arithmetic and respect, they were now coming into the city to have a unique function in forming the community necessary for factory life. Along the way some sacrifices were made.

Pg 69: "The family, which in earlier centuries had been the primary economic, educational, and emotional unit in its residents' lives, was diminished and mutated by these losses; its major function became an emotional and nurturing one. Meanwhile, schools were assigned a mission they could seldom fulfill."

Schools from the beginning were facing a daunting challenge and the most effective and efficient way they knew to fulfill their mission became a strict hammering of knowledge into stationary, quiet children:

Pg. 69: "Historian Pricilla Clement observes: 'Classrooms were scenes of military-like drill and were staffed by teachers who commonly attributed 'intellectual failure' to 'moral laxity'."

The schools quickly became, not just the imparter of knowledge but the molder of the entire lives of students and the changers of American youth for the foreseeable future, for better or worse.

Pg. 71: " High schools emulated the social as well as the academic practices of colleges, and in extending control over extracurricular life they did even more to undermine student autonomy. Simultaneously, the young people's movements that already existed in the churches were greatly expanded, and in the course of this growth every effort was made to take over the spare time activities of youth."

Pg. 73: "Schools could, however, be places of order and discipline. This would not be an easy achievement in high schools if adolescents were the turbulent creatures described by Hall, yet that was the rationale for taking charge. It is clear that control was an important issue. But given American frugality when it came to funding education, order and discipline would have to be achieved in heavily populated classrooms, usually by undereducated teachers.

The critiques of this first government organization of school are eerily similar to critiques we hear regularly in the present.

Pg. 73: " Educator John Dewey, addressing what he saw as a conflict between liberty (for creativity) and order, in 1900 condemned the suffocating regimen, the enforced passivity, the mass audience approach of the typical classroom and called for an ideal school as an enlargement of the ideal home: ' The life of the child becomes the all-controlling aim.' Psychologist Arnold Gesell, once a student of G. Stanley Hall's, argued in 1912: 'Nature endowed the six-year-old with an impulse to investigate, pry into and discover. Some primary schools are veritable tombs of deadened curiosity and initiative.'"

Pg. 74: "Characterized by testing and the consequent categorization of student, a practice running counter to the ideals of Dewey and Gesell, schools focused on reading, arithmetic, language, spelling, penmanship, and geography. 'We went to school for facts and got them,' recalled Henry Seildel Canby. Students sat still and silent. Corporal punishment was on the decline, at least officially, but the atmosphere was repressive."

Pg. 74: "If schools simulated society in some ways, they contributed to changing it in others, most notably by age grading students. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the high school. Despite class, ethnic, and gender differences, the isolation of peers together at a time in the student's life when identity was in process of formation led to group conformity and homogenization of thought: by providing mutual reassurance through mutuality if interests, it also eased the way from childhood to adulthood. "

Reading this the first time and realizing that the problems we find in schools now have always been present was eye-opening for me. It is lovely that reformers have ideas that will be good for students, and make them more productive citizens. Am I going to wait around for schools to implement these changes? No. Apparently reformers have never been taken seriously when it comes to education. I don't see the point in expecting reform during my lifetime. I also don't know how effective mere reform could be on a institution that has never accomplished its goal very well, and now in current times is completely outmoded. It seems to me that school needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. I love learning, and I think it is vital, but these days we must take a different approach. School relies on students memorizing facts, and becoming adults that are homogenous, and agreeable to an industrial societal system, but this is no longer useful in the world today. Every fact we could want to know is at our fingertips. It is a complete waste of time to memorize the year North Carolina became a state when every one of our kids will have a smart phone capable of isolating this information in seconds. Our kids now need to learn how to get to that information and what to do with it in a variety of situations so they are relevant to the job world. The theme I keep hearing when I look at information about the modern job market is flexibility. Take this quote I read recently in the modern business magazine "Fast Company". pg. 66 "From classrooms arranged in rows of seats to tenured professors, from the assembly line to the way we promote executives, we have been trained to expect an orderly life. Yet the expectation that these systems provide safety and stability is a trap." This came from an article by Robert Safian called "Generation Flux". The whole point of this extensive article was that the current generation is facing competition in businesses that blow through business models like like my kids go through Cheetos. Individual people are switching from jobs in the private sector to government to self employment to working for a major corporation, and this is normal. People are not just teachers or lawyers or factory workers. They evolve and change. While this idea completely freaks out people from my parents generation, those in my generation are getting used to it, and our kids will find it normal. What does the current school situation have to contribute to people facing careers that are undefined. Very little.

I know everyone has had that stimulating teacher they still remember: that glimpse of hope in the dismal cavern that is school, and that is great. I know there is that wonderful freedom-writer type teacher who is willing to buck the system and sacrifice her marriage to inspire some lucky kids to write. That is great, but that is the exception. Even with these glimmers, there are huge problems in the current system of education, and I don't have all the answers. I think one step in the right direction would be to allow parents to choose where the money that is attached to their children is spent, because parents often see what their kids need to succeed better than the slow, rutted system. I think competition among schools may inspire some of the creative thinking that is necessary to help our modern children compete. I believe that charter and magnet schools are a good sign, but just a beginning. I know that the kid in a home where the parents don't care about his education is going to have a tough time of it no matter what. His parents won't encourage him now in the current system, and they won't choose to send him to a better school in the voucher system. That is a tough one. Maybe his poor school will shut down and force his parents to send him to a better school because that is the only place the bus is going. Some kids will have it tough no matter what system we have. I am sorry for those kids, and I wish I could help their parents understand that their kid needs their support, even if all that means is they take five minutes between their work shifts to show an interest in what their kid is doing in school.

I know how hard parents who care have to advocate for their children in the current system. So I can imagine how hard it is for the kid who doesn't have an advocate. I am one of the lucky parents. I married a guy who has chosen to work hard and make enough to allow me to teach my own kids. I am really blessed and I know it. I would love for all kids to have the freedom to learn that my kids have. There are people who do have faith that schools can rise to the challenge. One example is this essay written by Seth Godin. It goes into the history of school a bit, gives critiques of the current system and then some suggestions. It is a bit redundant, but it has good insight if you want another perspective.

School has become a roadblock to success that parents these days are forced to combat as much as anything. As with most things entwined with the government, the road to making it a real contribution to kids' lives is going to be long and rough. I hope one day the reformers will win out and every kid will have equal access to an education that truly unlocks their potential in a quickly changing world.