Broke Harvard Graduate

THE THREATENING EMERGENCE OF TEENAGE SEXUALITY

2006-11-21T07:25:00.000-08:00

I have to write this just to get it out there. I have witnessed a very disturbing trend in our local small school district, and it's not the kids who are having trouble with sex--it's the parents. "Arguments" have broken out between the parents since their girls have turned 12-13 years old. It's a new dynamic: one of sexually-based fear. The parents have already assigned sexual characteristics to children whom appear to have never had sex. They don't know as much as their parents, but their parents are quickly making them shamed.

At one private school, a girl was twice told to change her shoes, with a claim by the school principal that they were inappropriate. One day the girl wore red flats, and on another dress up day, she wore some low heels with buttons on them. The girl was humiliated; her parents were called. All of this over shoes. I don't know why the female administration didn't focus on the fact that this young girl (an avid athlete) would find out at the end of the school day that heels are horribly uncomfortable. She might have even declined to wear them on her own. The crazy thing about this is how negatively other parents have reacted.

New talk has been made about whether or not the girls can wear "hoodie" sweatshirt, skirts without tights, and any kind of dress shoes. The boys' attire has never been mentioned. Other parents now feel free to comment on the dress of the young girls in the class. They comment to the principal about impropriety. They comment on "bad influences" and "keeping these kids in line." This has just started since the girls entered 8th grade.

For the girls, even if their skirts are "too short" or "too sexy," they'd no knowledge of it until school administration pounced. Now they are nervous about what they are wearing. They have become worried when they get dressed. Mind you, there is a uniform policy at the school, but administrators and parents have now declared the dress issues a public forum, with these young girls at the center.

Some parents have forbade their girls to play with the "now-troubled" girls with uniform woes. The forbidding parents cite issues like: lack of parental discipline, lack of limits, and inappropriate behavior. All of sudden, the dress of these children has become a battleground, and the girls' emerging sexuality is an issue:
"Well, X doesn't have anything yet to show anyway..."
"I know that, but Y has developed, and she looks 16..." (which early pubertal development suddenly becoming something that should be controlled)
"Those skirts are way too short. I can see your butt."

And now what might have been simply skirts that are "too short" has been turned into a lobbying cry about how developed the other girls are and how it should be covered. The principal even stated recently that one of the girls' mothers "had problems in high school." So, at this point, the parents are being attacked too.

I keep reminding myself that in this stage of political conservativism and religious zealots, this sort of thing shouldn't surprise me anymore, but I must confess to losing sleep over it. Those girls didn't fully understand that short skirts or red heels= associations with sexual promiscuity, but they do now. They have been attacked for it. They didn't understand that they should want to hide their burgeoning breasts and hips with oversized shirts and pants until the school administration (composed of younger-student parents) told them to be ashamed.

These 8th grade girls didn't realize they were entering a battle zone over red shoes or heels. They had no idea that other parents would alienate them or talk about them disparagingly. It's so sad to watch. I am also worried about the parents who have started this smear campaign against 13-year olds. What kind of people do this?

Of course, I ask myself this, and then I read about Bush's new political appointment. Eric Kerouak talks about the evils of birth control and the damage of premarital sex. Here is the kicker: he has been working with "women and girls in crisis." I just wonder where the crisis starts. Does it start with sex? Does it start with birth control? Does it start with red shoes?

New Bush Appointee

2006-11-21T07:21:00.000-08:00

Bush has appointed a new doctor to his staff, one that lectures that women will lose their ability to bond after having repeated premarital sex. The new appointee states that birth control is dangerous, and I believe this man has just exited his cave to injure women. Thank God our president appointed him! What would we do without Bush appointing people like that to our large health organizations.

In other related health news, I have recently read that Target and Wal-Mart can't introduce $4 generic drug prices in some areas DUE TO STATE LAWS. How is it that state laws mandate that drug prices can't be reduced? Sad morning for health-watch persons.

Mama Is Okay with Baby in Kindergarten

2006-09-25T09:48:00.000-07:00

I thought that I would be really depressed with my daughter in kindergarten, that this time has ended for us at home, that life would somehow irrevocably change for the worst. I was unprepared for the amount that I still do daily, and I was unprepared for the enjoyment I take in having some time to myself. I still grapple with feeling selfish about it.

I am involved in my daughter's school, in the classroom a couple of times a week. I also tend to forget things: her lunch, the gym shoes, that she needs a different coat, the picture envelope, etc. I am at her school more than I would have anticipated.

At times it feels as though all I do is load and unload bags and cars. Pack her up with her lunch, the forms from the teacher, permission slips, her shoes, the coat, the sweater, the kleenex and cough drops for the cold, the note to the teacher about the apples I will bring in, etc. It's much more organization than I realized. She wears uniforms, so I also have to make sure her two pairs of pants are clean, that the uniform shirt is ironed, that I am put together enough to look somewhat normal, and that is just to get her to school. Then the running begins after she gets out. (And that's if I haven't forgotten the lunch box, or money, or God knows what else I forget...) We run to soccer practice, the grocery store, an eye appointment, the dentist. I unload the car, the bags, the forms, the envelopes, the homework, the lunch box. Then I try to load it all up the same night to go again in the morning. Since my partner is gone roughly 4-5 days a week, I do this by myself.

Perhaps it is just my lack of experience at this sort of thing. Maybe it will get easier, but it seems that adding this schedule has just added multiple things to do. I had no idea that kindergarten was so taxing!

I am okay with her being in school. She clearly loves her teacher and classroom. She runs and skips to come and see me when she is through. She wants to stay and play with her friends on the playground. She is happy, and that is such a relief for me. I am happy too. I am excited to experience the firsts: a Barbie lunch box with surprise chocolate pudding, watching a butterfly hatch, getting her own desk space and drawer. I had forgotten how marvelous all those firsts can be when one is 5. She is happy, and I am happy. Now what to do about becoming the bag-Mama? I can't say for sure with this one, and I am applying for jobs as I write this. I thought it would be easy to start school and have me start work. In reality, it was a lot more than I had anticipated. Any suggestions?

BABY STARTING KINDERGARTEN

2006-09-06T06:13:00.000-07:00

The second day of kindergarten has been harder for me than the first. I am not sad that my daughter won't be home, at least not after the final week before school. I realized that I am not enough to introduce my daughter to the entire world, and while the realization had always been there, it evidenced itself in full, exhausting force last week. So, I am rather happy my daughter is going to kindergargten this week. She loves her classroom. She loves her teacher, and I am very comfortable dropping her off. So, why am I crying this morning?

It seems everything makes me cry. Having to drive my sister's car this morning makes me cry, with BITCH scratched into the door (courtesy of my sister's ex-boyfriend). Talk about feeling self-conscious driving that up to a parochial school door. Seeing notes from my sister, whom I just let go of to send to college makes me cry. Perhaps that, more than anything, makes me cry. I am not sure this morning. I am 12 years older than my sister, and while I have called her, it's highly evident that I am way too OLD to really understand the complexities of freshman existence. So, like a true parent, I give encouraging messages. I tell her she will love school, and I cry later.

I am upset that my partner will be going back on the road to New York again in a week. I will become a single parent again for 4-5 days a week. And much as we preach about being there for your family, we would also have to declare bankruptcy if this job didn't come up. I struggle with being a single parent for those times; it's exhausting. I feel a huge responsibility to be everything. I have done this before, and in the course of our life together, I have done it for years at a time. This morning, it makes me cry again. Sometimes there is something to be said for knowing you can do soemthing alone, but really wishing you didn't have to. Long ago I lost the idea that I had to prove I could do everything myself. There is something very powerful in making the choice that you would rather do something with a partner than do it all alone.

Growing up, my mother was always quick to point out how I could do everything myself. I never thought of myself as having any doubts about my idea to do things independently; I had doubts about whether I could allow someone else into that sphere. It's been tough at times, but it's also been surprising to realize that sometimes doing everything yourself isn't just about proving something. I have just felt tired lately, and it makes me feel old.

I have been with my partner for over 10 years now, just starting on 11. It doesn't seem like it's been that long, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I still struggle with doing things as a couple, at times, but I struggle even more with the idea that I am ready to go it alone by choice. I have agreed for my partner to take this position. I have agreed that it is good, or more, necessary for an adult life. I just sometimes feel like I am running backward. Perhaps I am not grateful. I am not sure , but it all makes me want to cry today.

THE ONION ARTICLE-TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

2006-09-06T06:08:00.000-07:00

Just to clarify, I do know The Onion article is a joke. It's a sick joke, and my other post on it was designed to see if people would comment on the comparison between the joke of women giving birth in China in 15 minutes and women's lack of birth options here in the U.S. But just as some people don't realize The Onion is a joke, some people didn't realize that I would post in a voice other than what reflected my own knowledge base. Note to self: It's rather hard to develop a voice of self on a anonymous blog. Okay, lesson learned there. In any any case, I would rather people focus on the abilty to make a sick joke about women's treatments in China AND realize that we have roughly the same equivalent here. Check some AMA guidelines for normal labor progression if this is unknown for you. Women here might as well have 15 minutes in a bathroom.

HARVARD DEGREE AS A LIABILITY?

2006-08-24T08:38:00.000-07:00

Well, since my moniker is BrokeHarvardGrad, one might realize that having a Harvard degree doesn't guarantee income. And, in fact, as I have found out painfully in small towns, small businesses, and small companies, having a Harvard degree can be a liability. I have interviewed for 3 separate jobs over the past year, in different companies and areas. Once my interviewers realized I had a Harvard degree, I was criticized for everything: why I stayed home for two years with my daughter (even though that was before I got my degree), why I chose to live in a small town "with a degree like that" (even though I live in the same city as these other people), why I would be interested in part-time work with a Harvard degree, etc. It seems as if the degree is enough to make people so uncomfortable that they attack me.

I can understand some questions regarding the choices I have made, such as where I might be in 5 years, but asking why I moved to a small town? For some reason, criticizing someone based on their school seems socially acceptable. Harvard brings out the ugliness. I have spoken with other friends, and they report similar experiences. And the funny thing is, that most of these jobs were part-time, poorly-paying, and doing things that I am overqualified for. I readily admit that, but they also had the potential to keep me involved in my field, allow me to earn some extra money for my child's school tuition, and all kinds of other things I find myself valiantly defending just because of where I went to school. Either there are incredibly high expectations and derision for what I am not doing, or there is pity for what I am not doing but somehow should be. I don't even always know what I am supposed to be doing with my profession right now, but I get a lot of barbed questions about essentially why I am "not living up to my potential because I chose to stay home with my daughter part-time." It's maddening.

The last interview I went on was pretty obnoxious anyway, with the male and female interviewer slapping one another's arms, teasing about body issues and bumping into one another. If I had had the presence of mind, and seeing that this was my third interview, I should have walked out. I didn't. I hoped it would get better. I listened while they critiqued my work history, the book I am working on, my reading methodology, and then tried not to laugh when the woman interviewing me for a literacy consultant said: "I don't know much about reading. I just taught 1st grad for 12 years."

Dear God, it was so sad. She didn't even know what an ass she made of herself. By the time I left the interview, I knew it wouldn't work out. I wasn't supposed to tell any of the school districts what reading programs would be better or had research to support them, even if I found problems. I wasn't to tell anyone that phonics instruction is considered a necessity for children with reading delays and learning issues. In short, I wasn't supposed to tell anyone anything. And maybe I was supposed to play footsie with the jackass who walked in commenting about how fat he was before even introducing himself. Tip: Never start an interview by commenting on your body size as you walk through the door.

Small town life has been rife with complications about my degree. The local university said I would have to take their courses before teaching part-time, because I had studied in MA. (This was not, by the way, a requirement for other instructors.) Of course, the local university hasn't been able to keep and Education Chair for the past 2 1/2 years. No one has wanted to stay. I remember the woman who hired me originally looking at me quite seriously and saying: "You can't like it here, can you? You need to start doctoral work somewhere else. They will chew you up and spit you out here. You're too pretty. They will tell you that you have big-city ideas and be mean to you..." She said many other things, but those are what I remembered because she was so very right. I wasn't upset when she said it, but I did think she might be exaggerating a tad. She wasn't, and she ended up taking a deanship at another school in the middle of the semester. The department has been in turmoil ever since.

Of course, this woman was one of a kind. I do remember congratulating her on her move upward and she said: "Well, taking the position of a dean is a mixed bag, because now this is all I will be able to do. They won't let me teach again." I remember telling her that it surely couldn't be that bad, but she said that becoming a dean really was the end of the road as far as upward mobility, so maybe she would do that until she wanted to drop out of education entirely and take up something "old ladies" weren't supposed to do, like whitewater rafting. I still miss her.

Now that I have 3 instances of blatant aggression against where I studied, I have begun to wonder if everyone in our small town will address me in the same way. I admit to being a bit gun shy. I even had Harvard rub off on the editor of my book, with whom I am no longer working. Once she found out that I had gone to Harvard, she wanted to get one of my Harvard profs to write a chapter of my book and call them a co-authour, as she was sure this would sell more copies. I pointed out that my book, a non-fiction about learning disabilities, is a massive project. I have been working on organizing it and collecting research alone for 2 years now. She said that was the price I would have to pay for publishing a book as an unknown. A Harvard degree in this case isn't enough if there is a Harvard prof lurking.

It did become evident that this editor didn't know what she was doing, and she admitted as much when she started. She had done work as a business editor, and in those scenarios, it's common to have co-writers and ghost authors. In the field of education, a book can make a career, as opposed to the other way around in the business publishing arena--a book coming at the height or end of a career. This same editor has been trying to get another educator to do the same sort of thing. The educator refused the editor's deal as well, but now I am searching for publishers yet again. I may just self-publish as I have waiting list of names put together for people who have requested a copy already. (Now, to finish the book...)

I am not the only one realizing that Harvard isn't all it's cracked up to be. I have read a number of the news publications criticizing Harvard. In some respects they are correct. In others, they have just begun to comment on what will happen when a student graduates with a Harvard degree.

Should we get rid of summer vacation?

2006-07-20T10:58:00.000-07:00

I have read this op ed in numerous newspapers over the years, and it goes something along the lines of: summer break is too long, and students lose too much knowledge over the summer, so we should to school all year long.

I read another article about this recently, and this time, I feel compelled to write about it. I get so disgusted every time I hear this argument. As an educator, I do think that some children fall behind during the summer. Some children could possibly benefit academically from going to school all summer, but I think, as is often the case with education, that most of these people are not going far enough with their inquiries into what is really necessary for children. It's as though they are driven to produce the perfect student.

My area of inquiry moves along the following pathways:
1) Some students "lose" progress over the summer, but I wonder what they may gain during the summer by being with family, at camps, swimming, and other activities. Does progress for people only refer to the 4 R's? And might some of the students who struggle for the year ever have a break?

2) People often lose sight of the fact that children are overscheduled. In our cultural acceptance of exposing children to all things, people lose sight of the fact that all of it may not be necessary. It may not matter one way or another if a child is in school all summer any more than it may matter that the child takes tennis. School is not the only or final education for children.

3)I really question the people who don't realize that summer break can also mean a break for the parents. There is a break from getting up everyone very early every day, on the bus, with lunches, and backpacks and clean coats and books. Sometimes parents need the break to just move more slowly. I know many parents who love summer break just as much as their children. No one should underestimate how much work good parents have in getting their children ready for school with completed homework.

4) I get nervous when people talk about how children might be better off going to school all year round, because it also sounds suspiciously like hypervigilance and competitive feelings from the parents. So the children become A+ students. They get the best grades, go to the best schools and stay in them year round. What does that make as an adult? Some of our success stories in American culture are about the children who didn't have it all, so is it right to assume that having it all equals success for our children? I don't think so. I don't think that we should start denying our children just for the sake of not giving everything, but I do think that we should really consider the types of adults our children might want to be. Will great grades mean your child lands a great job and happy family? Maybe, but odds are that those are the only things that determine a child's success.

5) I also think that it's splendid to offer schools to children who may need them, and I am talking about stability, food, safety, etc. but there is that thorny issue the illustrious educators hate to discuss, and that is payment. Who is going to pay for the additional fiscal costs of keeping schools open, keeping teachers in school all year round, keeping people cleaning the schools, making lunches? That's a lot of extra money that education is notoriously short of.

In essence, I don't necessarily feel school all year would be the panacea that many others believe. I wonder why people are so driven to push children out of time with families and vacations and such. And really, this does affect families if it's a state law to attend school. Since education, as in institution, has such a profound effect on families and children's lives, I think it wise to delve past mere academic issues when considering schooling year round.

Mystery Writer Givers Herself Away

2006-07-14T08:58:00.000-07:00

I was grouchy this morning as I finished my mystery novel. I love mystery novels, and in this one, the plot was fairly well orchestrated. She didn't deal with death as though it happened every day and never affected her characters. Nor did the author try to spout a bunch annoying "wisdom" about the meaning of death through her characters, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. She did give herself away through the food though.

Hear this: when women write about food, you can tell something about their age and origin. This woman wrote that a high-end buffet function in the Northeast served broccoli with peanut butter and crab au gratin. I didn't live in Boston long, but I am somewhat of a food junkie, and I pay attention to what people eat where. New Englanders wouldn't be caught dead serving broccoli with peanut butter, even if it is a Southern dish. Crabs are boiled, not made into au gratin, unless one is serving truly old crab meat. I was so disappointed.

The plot was decent, characters engaging, but the food choices of the characters dated the author and placed her unerringly in the South. Now why would that matter, even though she did get the ocean currents wrong, and backflips with salt water in the eyes, nose and mouth? Probably because I would like to get published. Probably because I wonder what dumb editor would miss those things. Probably because I have been fighting with my editor over whether or not my business can support book sales. (How does one argue that it could???) Probably because I am severely annoyed that I don't have a career in writing that I wish to have. Probably about all of it, but mostly because food seems like such a key detail to characters and the scenery.

I know that writers and even authors try to extend their limits at times (so do actors if you ask about the origins of the actors in Memoirs of a Geisha), but come on, the food? And this woman has tons of books in print? What about that seems fair? What about my books about education, which I can't seem to find a publisher interested in anything but various forms of textbooks? What about my partner's book on critiquing the George Bush dynasty and the myths of politicians that are used to convey fact? What about our wonderful writing that doesn't get published?

Well, I surmise that a good portion of this must have to do with the fact that my partner has never sent in his manuscript. And I refuse to publish a text book for the learning disabled, because I know they won't read it. And, maybe it has to do with the fact that most mystery writers don't give a damn if the food is authentic. Maybe it has to do with fact that most people who write blogs really want to write in a larger context and this is as close as they get to being published. I'll keep posting...

NEW WOMAN TO WATCH--FEATURED ON SALON

2006-06-22T10:25:00.000-07:00

Natalie Jeremijenko is a scientist worth watching. She is currently featured in an article in Salon magazine: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/22/natalie/index.html

Although the author of the article seems to find Ms. Jeremijenko's ideas a bit off the wall, it is still an illuminating article about a woman who refuses to see other peoples' reasons. It's completely refreshing, and it's about time smart women got recognized for their ideas. It's spectacular, really, the idea of woman who is willing to move against convention for fish on Zoloft. (Read the article; it's worth it.)

This is for all the women who apparently don't participate in science, politics, or art in any meaningful way. (Just as President Summers at Harvard. Sorry, obnoxious, I know, but I have to take a dig at him any time I can. Call it a result of my alma mater.) For all of the people who are unsure about how to incorporate science education in meaningful way, check out Ms. Jeremijenko's site. It's a stunning example of a combination of a selection of supposedly separate subjects that presents a weatlh of information. Congrats to Ms. Jererkijenko.

Boys Doing Poorly in School Because of Girls?

2006-06-20T10:32:00.000-07:00

There is a media frenzy lately over the whole issue of boys versus girls in school. Rumor has it that if girls succeed, boys are somehow pushed back. There is talk of creating boys' schools (to all of you for whom this is new, there have been gender-based schools for millenia) to keep up with boys' poor performance in school. Since boys are now being compared to girls and apparently found lacking, it is now appearing in news articles and magazines that all the resources have gone to the girls.

Every time I think that I might decide this week not to write about gender, or maybe find some way to avoid a gender discussion, stupid talk like this comes up. And, well here is the result. The most frightening thing lately is the fact that others seem to believe this stuff. All of a sudden, this is a new crisis in education.

Of course, we don't talk about African American boys, who have been suffering in schools for decades. We aren't talking about other minority groups either, at least not specifically. When the gossip comes out, watch for an illusion to race. It's missing. Now it seems that little white boys not be performing on standardized tests, and the media goes wild.

Forgive me for sounding brash and obnoxious, but this is certainly no emergency. There is no dire prediction for the boys that is any more fear-mongering than saying that they won't grow up to be good men. We have legions of men in prison, and suddenly everyone is worried about test scores? Hmm, seems a little irrational to m. In addition, Ladies and Gents, I have a wonderful book to sell you that has perfect instructions about raising a man. (I also have a snake oil and property in Florida to sell you too.)

While this is going to be too short to offer any sorts of predictions or fixes, I would say that we have to look beyond the test scores before we panic about what kind of men we will have in 10 years. Human growth is a lot more plastic than test scores. I am worried about school performance, but perhaps this one more area of male underachievement shouldn't be blamed on the girls. Because, for once it seems, the girls are doing fine, and it has nothing to do with the boys. Hell, if beating boys at reading scores gets girls to places of power, this would have worked years ago. Too bad Ladies, looks like you will have to look elsewhere for your toehold into the arena of politics. Little girls have long scored higher than boys on reading and verbal tests, but no one ever thought that meant boys were in danger before. Hmm, maybe President Summers has a commentary???

Can San Francisco School Board Really Desegregate Public Schools?

2006-06-06T08:00:00.001-07:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/29/MNG17J42S01.DTL

The link above relates to an article about how CA should desegregate the public school system. It discusses the effects of legislation regarding segregation and race relations, and it discusses school board members' responses to issues of assigning students to schools based on race. It's ridiculous.

I love the way that these people continually talk about segregated schools as either massive conspiracy theories or incomprehensible acts of nature. People always fail to talk about the parental issue of race: parents may still act along race lines and send their children to schools in which they themselves would feel more comfortable. In other words, white parents may send their children to schools with more white students. Black and Latino parents may send their children to schools with a higher percentage of black students and Latino students respectively. It's amazing to me that the California School Board assumes that by assigning children to schools based upon their devised system that this will somehow wipe out the racism of the parents.

There is also talk about how more upper and middle class parents will "flee" to other private schools. When one really looks at the issue at a deeper level, the social dynamics get even uglier. Why is it that the public schools worry about these upper and middle class parents leaving? Does the school board worry about minority students and parents leaving, maybe all of the minorities will now attend private schools? The short answer is: No!

There are two issues here: money and racial equality. The school board members could be worried about upper and middle class parents and children leaving public schools because these are the people who have money. They are the stability factor which works by spreading out risk, the same way insurance does. The schools want to keep these students and parents because they tend to be involved in their children's education, lifestyle and the school itself. There is a lot to be gained from these social groups, but money and stability are the key issues. Notice no one mentions race here, which could mean that it doesn't matter what the racial divide is as long as the parents have money, are involved, and support productive and high-achieving students.

The next issue is racial equality. Parents of minority students have said that their children don't get the same education, based on test scores and money in a schoold district. The risk in these schools is much higher for a multitude of reasons, and in great part because of a lack of having the "stable" student and parental units in these schools. It also doesn't hurt to have money either. But, are we saying that schools with a majority of minority students don't perform well because of lack of money? Are we saying minority-based schools don't do was well on standardized tests because of racial bias on the tests? If there were more non-minority scores averaged in, would the scores be higher because of the absence of racial bias on tests? What is really the assumption behind all of this? Is this just a reflection of a social dynamic of lowered stability among minority populations because of the way that they fit into society? If the minorities are not given equal measure access to society, then this will show up in broad demographic populations like public grade school students? Maybe the stability factor is missing simply because minorities don't have as much stability society as a whole.

It is foolish reductionism to state the schools will simply fare better by desegregating them. This is a school board response to a social problem of minorities lacking access to the same social structure all the way across the spectrum. Minorities (and the poor) have lowered access to health care, financial advice, social services, pay equalization, etc., etc. This is not just a problem with the schools. This is a problem with society. What do the schools reflect as a societal pattern?
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/05-29-1999/0000951833

The link above gives numerous editorial pieces about how a black family's economy is different from a white family's. It discusses why school children perform the way they do, and it talks about how civil rights activists still offer only guarded optimism. It's a a discussion of the social issues that play out in the large public eye of public schools. How do we change things?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I don't think changing a bus schedule and school assignment will fix larger societal issues. While I am all for the school institution addressing these issues, I don't think it should be done in isolation. Schools must be responsible for social issues, fixing racism, sexual politics of teenagers (and sexual politics in general), the politics of testing, the issues surrounding healthcare, the arts, the sports, the scholarships, the community centers, and even how we humans were even created (God or Evolution). Is it that we come together better for the better of our children, or is that we fight more when it comes to our children? In either scenario, the social issues school systems are forced to address without other social support systems are staggering, and this doesn't even come close to discussing reading and writing.

I have looked at the standardized tests. I have studied them. I have graded them. I gave scores. I still think they can hold racial bias. I think they are gender-biased. I don't think they should be used to determine high school graduation, and I don't think they should be used as a tool to determine which children go to which schools. Part of the problems with these schools are just reflections of the problems in the neighborhoods too. How can one have a safe school in an unsafe neighborhood? Why would good teachers be attracted to poorly performing schools? What incentive is there in this to fix anything.

I think a big part of the answer can also be applied to an economic theory that delineates the differences between public and private goods. Let me tell you the fast and simple summary: people take better care of things that they pay for because they have a sense of ownership about them. This is true in schools too. Public schools that no one can take ownership of will follow some of the economic principles of public and private property.

Think for just a moment about this: if you were poor and told to take a certain amount of money to feed yourself and family, just whatever you thought fit, from a bank account, how much would you take? How much would you take if you were told that others would have access to this account and once the money was emptied, it would be unavailable to anyone? Would you take everything you could if you were the first person to access the money, or would you save some for other poor families to have some too? What if you family's education, food, or welfare depended on that money, then how much would you take? What if your school system were the same way? What if you could place your children in one school, but you were told that there were others who might want access too. Would you weaken your position, or would you fight to be there? Would you take care of the school you were assigned to if you didn't like it? Or, would you take and take from that "account," because you have no control over it? If all of this was free, would you feel less entitled to that "money/school" or less?

I can't offer any immediate answers, but using race as determining factor in student assignments ignores the larger social issues of racial disparity and gives control to those very people that minorities seem to be fighting against.

Can San Francisco School Board Really Desegregate Public Schools?

2006-06-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

Killing Pregnant Women in Iraq Bird Flu "Explosions"

2006-05-31T14:04:00.000-07:00

Today is a day of making, making myself do things I haven't wanted to do. And all of it seems like things I don't want to do. Those days that seem to just add up to a spectacular sense of being overwhelmed. I had to take a break from the computer and my digital news reading because of an eye injury this weekend, and today was the day slated for re-entry into the news world and work world. It's depressing.

Some days I don't make myself read the news, because I just can't handle one more depressing store about people over which I have no control and therefore no way to help. Today was the day I made myself read and found out soldiers may or may not have killed a pregnant woman in Iraq. It is the same story: car of speeding people driving, claim not to hear soldier warnings, car inhabitants get shot, innocent people are killed, American military seen as animals. The story keeps repeating itself, except this time, the woman shot was ostensibly pregnant and in labor, with a husband waiting for her at the hospital. Once again, the pregnant woman is the power piece in this story.

I am torn between feeling sorry for the soldiers faced with speeding cars that may or may not be suicide bombers and the anguish of a family that has lost both mother and baby. It seems there are no easy answers here. The power piece is the pregnant woman, and there are no stories of American troops saving pregnant women or delivering babies. Instead, the troops are presented as baby killers.

It is a day of making, making myself read these stories, because I feel I ought to feel connected to the world but want to shut it out. Do we really need to know every single tragedy to befall humans planetwide, or is it information overload? Does this really desensitize us to the deaths of people when we hear of earthquakes, tsunami, and hurricane disasters? Does it make us better people to know the depths of others' suffering?

Another example of this information is the supposed "explosion" of bird flu in Indonesia. Apparently lots of birds are dying, and a few humans are dying in suspiciously bird-flu conditions (whatever those may be). It seems the world has less of an idea of how to fix these things than how to spread the hysteria. How did the humans contract bird flu? If most people avoid butchering random birds in the area, will that protect them? Can bird flu be spread through processing plants? Do we need to worry about it here in the U.S.? Will the flu survive the harsh temperatures and variant bird species?

There is so much to stress about lately that I feel that the information can be a battering ram. It is a day of making when I have to jump back in and follow it all. I know there are others who would say that one doesn't have to do all this, but then they drive home listening to NPR or watch the evening news. Are we Americans addicted to this stuff? It seems like it could be a trend fast approaching, that we must be filled in all the time...

For the woman, the soldiers, and the people with illnesses, I am sure today is a day of reckoning, and it may be the day that they make the decisions without information that could have saved their lives. If the soldiers had but known it was a pregnant woman... If the woman's relatives had known what to do at a checkpoint... If we knew how bird flu was spread or how to treat it...
So, I suppose, I will continue to have days of making, because I don't know what I might need.

Lots of Celeb C-Sections and Chinese Women Give 15 Minutes to Birth in Bathroom

2006-05-30T13:23:00.000-07:00

It was striking to me today to read of the births of Angelie Jolie and Gwen Stefani's babies being born amid much pomp and cirmcustance, along with the requisite celeb C-section and compare that to a memo on a news site that claims that Chinese factory workers get 15 minutes to give birth in an employee bathroom and then come back to work the floor.
Check out the description of the Chinese birthing stories:http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48743

The story sounds too insane to be true, but if it is, it's a cruel form of irony. I didn't do a background check on this story to see if it's for real, but it certainly is disturbing even at a joke level. It's cruel to joke about how women give birth in poverty, in dirt, and inhumane surroundings.

I was brought back again to this concept I have been hearing more and more about regarding the subject of birth and a woman's choice. In America, we generally assume that women get all the choices they want regarding birth. In fact, if you ask any medical specialist, they all assume the U.S. tops the charts with prenatal and pregnancy care. You can do anything you want, right?

Tricky answer here. Watch out. You can only do whatever you want if you birth in a hospital, with the requisite physician accompaniment, and "best medical care." You could be prosecuted if you have a home birth, if you fight the doctor's interventions (even if you don't agree with them), if you decide that you want to do something without the AMA approval, if you hire a midwife, etc. The list goes on and on. Really in America, the only thing guaranteed is that you must give birth within the standard medical model, accept any consequences as God's interventions which must be completely beyond human control, and then if it doesn't go right, you may sue. You might not have any documentation because some hospitals have gotten wise enough to refuse to allow documentation of births (to protect their doctors and staff), but go ahead and sue. You will be blamed for rising insurance rates, for the cost of medical care being unaffordable for the poor, and you will have a terrible time finding a doctor; however, if those risks sound amenable, and you still feel you have the power, sue.

Never mind that we in America have plenty of freedom of choice. Never mind that women can be prosecuted for child sexual abuse for nursing past the age of 3 (an AMA recommendation, and you can verify criminal charges against a rather "famous" woman in TX). Never mind that the mean age worldwide for weaning is age 5, and that most other countries don't have women routinely give birth in hospitals AND have better survival rates. This is the home of the free and the brave.

I guess this all raises my ire, because if this story is true, it's one of the most gross violations of human rights I have seen, but if it's a joke, it still goes to show how far women have yet to come. Either way, women giving birth in 15 minutes is akin to slavery, but women giving birth in the U.S. don't have many real choices either. Of course, American women are better off than these Chinese women, but it doesn't go too far. Watch out, American women, because the AMA also mandates that women must dilate their cervix at 1cm an hour, or they are dysfunctional. There must be some sort of intervention. Women can only have pain relief at certain times, and this varies from hospital to hospital. Women must obey all rules in the hospital and agree to only a few support personnel. If American women think they have freedoms, they can compare themselves to the Chinese women "quoted" in the Onion, but real freedom in childbirth apparently goes to the wealthy, famous, and fabulously popular.

Burnt Out Adjunct: What Is A Scholar? I

2006-05-24T13:05:00.000-07:00

Burnt Out Adjunct: What Is A Scholar? I

Why does it matter what a scholar is? Doesn't it matter what the scholar does? Is the real argument what constitutes a scholarly work? Or is it how one acts as a scholar? Perhaps the idea of a scholar has to be separated from the ideological viewpoint of what it is from what it does.

Do Women in Politics or Journalism Take More Heat Than Men?

2006-05-24T12:27:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post today from a women's news group that states that female opinion editors take more heat than men from misogynistic readers, mostly male.
Female Pundits Could Use Help With Hate Mail - title of the article on womensenews.org

I read this with some curiosity, because I have noticed this trend happening in other arenas as well. I have noticed it in reality TV (Jessica Simpson is an idiot. All young sexual women on reality t.v. shows are condemned by 50-something women. Even make-over shows criticize young women for "trying to look too sexy.") So I have focused some time trying to decide how this might happen. I have come to a startling conclusion:

ALL YOUNG AND SEXUALLY OPEN WOMEN WILL BE CRITICIZED ON TELEVISION DUE TO FEAR OF WOMEN'S SEXUALITY.

I think this takes place on many levels, with women who work in an arena with public exposure. It always comes back to a sexual attack, and generally in a very frightening way. Start to watch, if you will, any instance of a young 20-something woman coming into a television show, a radio show, working as an opinion writer, or any other situation in which a woman speaks her mind, and you will see an overwhelming sexual response. One could say that this gives women power, but I wonder if it in fact is an attempt to silence them. Of course, everyone knows that the worse thing a woman can be called is a slut. So, since that is the "worst" barb, sexuality always comes into play.

I even read an article in a business magazine( maybe Entrepreneur) about women should be careful about the ways in which they showcase their "sexual appeal." If I hadn't already paid for a subscription, I would have cancelled it. Mary Kay has a web page devoted to "dress code" for it's big "Seminar," with instructions about child care and appropriate business etiquette. In my opinion, these are all degrading to women. It assumes that women don't have the innate knowledge about how to dress appropriately, care for their children appropriately or "use" their sexuality appropriately in the business world. And this is where we run into trouble. This is where we see everything come back to a woman's sex appeal.

When everything always comes back to sexuality with women, is it any surprise that these women who make a living by writing would come under attack? There are men who don't want to see women with freedom, with voice, with whatever else they find offensive. Since most of these men are disgusting to begin with, they attack with a form of verbal rape and aggression. (Read here that rape is again about control, a form of intimate control.) No wonder the women who receive hate mail like this feel attacked.

What can we do about it? Well, I would love to tell mainstream population to stop being so afraid of young women's sexuality, that it won't hurt them, really! I don't think they will buy it though, because even other women seem to be afraid of this. (Did you know you can tell a slutty woman by her red lipstick? According to one woman, this is a reason to avoid hiring someone.)

If slut is the worst insult, we won't ever move into a critique of a woman's work as a writer, a politician or any other type of work she does. How do we even deal with "slut?" (you can substitute whore here as well.) I think more people need to condemn these attacks and mention that there is more to women than their gender. Striking revelations for some people, I know! I also think that these women need to write about their attackers, maybe not name them, but definitely report them to the police every time. Then they need to come up with a policy at the newspaper offices or work places to stop this type of harassment and provide protection for the women who have been threatened. This needs to be at an organizational and institutional level to stop the gender gap.

I really believe though that the majority of men don't agree with these types of attacks and to show support, an organization needs to come behind women that are the target of attacks and talk about it. They need to write about, from both a man and woman's perspective. Guys, how do you feel when you read about some other man doing hurtful and destructive things like this? Women, how do you feel when you read that other women have become a target for deranged sexualized attacks? Why is this kept quiet? Don't we feed shame when we keep abuse, particularly sexual abuse quiet?

How do you think that the news, political and media organizations could help support women who are the recipients of such attacks?

Should Universities Only Hire Doctoral Degreed Instructors?

2006-05-24T07:07:00.000-07:00

At our local little university there has been a lot of talk about the new policy of hiring only those with a doctoral degree to teach anything, any subject. This decision, made by the new president, whom most agree is an ass, has the whole academic and local community in argument. Many academics who come here to teach and have worked to receive their doctoral degrees argue that this is just and fitting. Automotive techs who have worked in shop for 30 years and are working in the 2-year auto mechanic program think it's ludicrous. The mechanics are not alone in their disgust. Local said university currently offers no doctoral programs to students and so can not hire any of their own graduates until they go study elsewhere. In a small town, midwestern values, with lots of people who consider getting a college education an extravagance, this decision to only hire doctoral graduates is causing lots people to re-think the value of the education.

To people who don't immediately see the value of a 4-year (or lately 5-year) degree, the idea that this whole education "scheme" seems never-ending, misses the point of education entirely: you get an education to work. These people see the installation of a policy decree like this as underhanded and dishonest. After all, if you can't even be hired by the school that educated you, who else will want you? What good are you?

There are those who critique the new president by saying that he is a Harvard grad with a hopeless ivory tower syndrome. I have to agree that this can happen. I am a Harvard grad, and I met many ivory tower professors. (My favorite was a former math instructor who critiqued one of my lesson plans for writing as "insincere," because I was checking high school work for plagiarism. "Writing," she told me, "should be about expressing the soul. I don't know what you are doing teaching basic structural essays. How will the students ever learn to write their true feelings? Real writers already know argument structure, and I don't believe any high school students ever plagiarize.") While this type of ivory tower syndrome exists, and very vividly among some in education who seem to forget that teachers have the real job of teaching grammar and punctuation because somebody has to do it, I wasn't entirely convinced that his might translate to an academic president. Or does it?

Our town is small, with a population of about 12-14,000 inhabitants, not counting the student population. The university started out as a land-grant college with an open enrollment policy to allow everyone to get in, not just those with a storied money background. It was placed in farmland, and it initially offered 2-year degrees in very practical subjects like automotive and secretarial. It moved toward 4-year degrees and became a rather respected teacher-education program (which has since been heavily tarnished) and morphed into a well-recognized plastics and pharmacy school. This is what the current president focuses on when he speaks.

This university has had its share of funding issues, and I know of cases when the president of the university was literally reviled among the local town population. The presidents have made foolish decisions about which areas to cut funding, taking out one highly profitable sports program that local private donors later replaced. But this decision about the teachers is more troubling, and I genuinely think it hits a deeper issue. At what point does a university, or any school for that matter, set goals for instructors that it can't produce as an institution?

Many local students are angry, wishing they had known of this policy decision when they began their master's programs, because now they have two choices: go to a different school to get a doctoral degree (and move) or find a job somewhere else and hope that the next school will accept them even if their alma mater doesn't (and they still have to move). For people who chose a local school simply to be local and work and live near family, their options have suddenly been cut.

I realize that a school can't hire all its own, nor do I think it should, but not hiring any? Is this president really suffering from ivory tower syndrome?

Why are British men living longer than American men?

2006-05-23T07:17:00.000-07:00

Why do British men live longer than American men?
http://www.slate.com/id/2141648/?GT1=8190

The above-mentioned article enters the fray concerning life-expectancy, and American men appear to come out the losers. Is this really true? Do we in the all-freedom-loving country of America really live shorter lives than our Brit counterparts? Kind of amazing that we might, but at the same time, is it a surprise?

The study cites healthcare related issues as main problems with American health, but that seems a long way from being fixed. What's a sturdy American man to do? Well, the article helpfully says that the authors of the study "can't account" for the differences in lifespan. Hmm, so what is it about the American lifestyle that makes men's lives shorter, but also women and infants (check with WHO for maternal and infant mortality rates--US is in the 25th or 26th range)? Why is it that we brag about the state of healthcare and its innovations, and yet we still lag behind other countries in life-expectancy?

Can modern medicine ameliorate poor dietary influences and lack of exercise? In the case of women and children, can the US medical system ever raise rates of infant and maternal survival? Amazing that we have all of this technology available to a few upper-class echelon types, while the rest of the country remains out-of-mind for the majority of health care, and we still are dying earlier and at higher rates?? Hmm, what does that mean?

I don't know that socialized medicine is the answer, but it appears that the idea of health insurance through employers and Medicare just don't seem to make us live longer. The article mentioned above states that perhaps Americans should focus more on preventative care. This seems reasonable since most insurance companies don't cover Pap smears and routine gynecological care, but they cover the PSA test, don't you think? Most health insurance carriers don't cover well-baby visits or immunizations, but they cover colonoscopies. Maybe most health insurance carriers are starting their "coverage" too late. Also interesting to note that health insurance carriers will cover Viagra but the birth control pill. Anyone seeing conflicting interests here?

Well, then, what are American men and women going to do about? One suggestion would be to follow MA example of making hospitals publish their costs for all their procedures. Hospitals balk at this because they don't' want anyone to know the "details" of what patients pay for, like that $5 box of Kleenex or the $10 hospital footies.

Check out the smattering of articles detailing hospital
billing practices:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp
http://blog.medbilladvisor.com/?p=76&print=1
http://blog.medbilladvisor.com/?p=97
http://blog.medbilladvisor.com/?p=45
http://www.erwaxman.com/

I am sure there are more postings on this, but you could spend days checking them out. They all stem from the same article that cites 10 ways to protect yourself from hospital overcharges.
What is wrong with our healthcare system?

We look pretty good in the following article, until you compare this with studies like the one that I first mentioned that show that even if our death rates have decreased, others still live longer that we do>
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/finaldeaths03/finaldeaths03.htm

Perhaps it's my innate sense of competiveness that drives this discussion, but really, why do other people in other countries live longer than we do?

Women fight Back- Holla Back Girls All the Way to India

2006-05-23T07:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2734

The above link details an article about women who are fighting back against street-yelling men who make them feel as though they are being sexually harassed. These women are taking pictures and taking names, and then, they are posting these on a web site. While I love the idea of empowering women to take pictures of their harassers (and this movement is spreading internationally), I am a little nervous about posting photos on the internet.

What do you think? Should the women be allowed to post photos of those who annoy them or harass them, or does this open the door to anyone being able to post photos of people they find offensive? I think there will come a time when there will be legislation governing the posting of on-line photos. I also think there will come a time when postings like this could be considered libelous. Perhaps I am thinking cynically, but I wish that there were a way to address this that was a bit more proactive.

Of course taking pictures makes these women feel more powerful, and photos have been used historically to make others aware of imbalanced power positions; however, photos published on the internet seem to be causing catastrophic issues. Is putting a photo of someone who yelled at you on the street then make you vulnerable to a lawsuit? Is this just jumping the gun?

I really wish there existed a method to help these women speak out against the men who make them feel uncomfortable that wouldn't put them at risk. I know, I know. There is no easy solution to something like this. There is no immediate way to make women safe as they walk the streets. There are so many larger social issues at play here that it can make a person overwhelmed just thinking about , but it worries me.

For a scenario like this work, the men who are doing the harassing must know that their pictures will be posted in order for it to work as a deterrent. They also must have the wherewithal to refrain from making inappropriate comments because they fear having their pictures posted in a way that will harm them. Perhaps I am making gross assumptions, but are the men who make disgusting comments to women on the street web-savvy to the point of knowing what is going on?

I am in full support of women standing up to people making them uncomfortable. I am in full support of women having more safety on the streets and lowered feelings of intimidation. I agree that taking pictures of power imbalances has, historically, brought injustices to light. I am afraid it will backfire. What solutions might there be?

High school Drop-outs

2006-04-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

I read a Time article out this week that says that up to or over 30% of our nation's students are dropping out of high school before they finish. While this has long been known in educational circles, it seems new to mainstream public. I find this amazing that anyone is actually surprised by this. While I am a champion of education, and I have advanced degrees, I must admit that I too am a drop-out. I chose to drop out of the higher education competition, because in short, I couldn't stand the fact that I would spend the next 4 years of my life "playing" a student, a kid, again.

Being a student in the current educational system is, in a myriad of ways, being powerless.

I can totally understand why our children/adults are dropping out, especially as high schools move more and more toward higher academic standards for graduation. I don't think that we should lower our expectations for graduates, but I also think that items like mandatory graduation tests are just the things to push these at-risk students out the door. In order to graduate, a student with lesser skills simply has to absorb more punishment, and why would any burgeoning adult accept this?

This speaks to a much greater cultural norm of treating children and adult learners like factory workers. From a very young age, educators focus on not speaking without raising a hand, not stepping out of line, not moving from a desk. How is this different from a factory manager ruling a crew? I mean, we are literally telling our children that they can not speak until their hands have made the proper signal, and even then, the teacher retains editorial privileges. How is this any surprise that our students then go to work in factories, as opposed to going to school? They are simply following what they know.

I know that anyone reading this will jump to the defense of education immediately and decry that I am not an advocate of education here, so let me be clear: I am not an advocate of our current factory-model educational system; however, I fully support having an educated population. How can this be, you might wonder? What do I support, if not for the status quo? I want an educational system that can accept and embraces change.

We also have to take some of the burden of social education off of the educational institution. As a vessel, the educational system can reach its capacity of roles to fulfill, especially if there is a limited budget available. Most people assume that they deserve the best quality education, and they want it free, oh, and they don't want to have to pay for it. Besides, they want the top scholars, and they want the most up-to-date computers for their kids. Include in that top-notch food and excellent service, well-rounded and socialized staff. Hey, they want everything. Did I mention that they don't want to have to pay for it?

The government's response to this has been to issue the lowest-grade education available for the masses, and this means staying in line. If a factory model sets the precedent, then the factory rules for controlling people apply. Be nice. Wear the correct attire. Fit in. Don't make waves, and excel or fail within in your small sphere of influence. All in all, if you do either one, excel or fail, it won't matter a whole lot to the next person in line. There is always competition and a lack of resources with this mentality, just by the sheer number of students that schools must process. No wonder our children have a well-developed sense of fending for themselves.

One could really argue that the 30% that drop out are doing exactly as they have been taught--fending for themselves without the responsibility of having a choice over their futures. We don't bring our children up in school to feel as though they can make their own decisions. God forbid the students rebel and study something not in the standardized manual.

We don't encourage our students to speak up if something is wrong at school; teachers encourage the students to be quiet and do their work. We don't tell our students that they may not need or want college, if they choose not to go, for fear that no one will attend. And so, our students really exit school (by dropping out or graduating) terribly unprepared to make adult choices and decisions. The entire school experience has been managed for them, even down their bathroom breaks and eating times. Is it any wonder that children are dropping out and seemingly unable to make responsible decisions as adults?

We have this strange element to our culture that emphasizes adulthood at the age of 18, and yet it fails to allow this "adult" to have an alcoholic beverage. A person can vote for a president and die in combat but not be allowed into a bar. A person can graduate from high school, have to make complex "adult" decisions, and he or she would never have made any choices about their areas of study or preparedness until graduation. There is this dichotomy between growing responsible adults and "keeping the kids in line." Perhaps our society does a rather poor job of transitioning our kids to adulthood, especially since even we can't decide on a legal age for both war and beer that matches. My first instinct when I see these kids that have dropped out is to rail against them that they have limited their own choices. They have made poor choices, and now they will have to pay as adults. The rational parent in me says that these children-almost-adults are only getting to make a choice part-way through the decision process. If your only choice is to quit and do what you want or stay and do what everyone else tells you to, what choice is that?

I, too, am a drop-out. I don't want to work as a teacher, where I am merely told what to teach by a principal. I think there is an extreme lack of respect for teachers, and as result, there is a lack of respect among students and administration. I don't want to work at a university where my every decision has been micromanaged by a small-minded dean. (And, hey, I know there are exceptions to this rule, but that is not the main point of this posting.) I simply don't want to spend the rest of my life "playing" in an adolescent role: here, I listen to what you say, and you get to chastise me if you think I did wrong. Meanwhile, parents complain, students misbehave, and the rest of the world thinks that you must be making good money with the summers off.

I found the whole field unfulfilling, and now I am stuck with an ivy-league education that won't get me much academically unless I go further. It all makes me so tired. Who wants the bother?? So, why go back? I still work in an area of education, but I have chosen to focus on the students as a consultant. I don't follow rules enough to attend.

Flanagan's Feminism and Commentary

2006-04-12T06:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/04/12/flanagan/--

I keep reading about this Flanagan, as a woman who hates feminism, but supposedly profits by it. She writes full-time, with rather cush gigs out there for writers who might otherwise talk about how wonderful men are, and I can't understand what all the fuss is about.

She is not a bright woman, a person who understands herself very well (even if she can manipulate thousands of others to anger or joy), and yet everyone who is all in a lather seems not to realize that her goals may have already been reached. So she wants to worship at the domes of domesticity. So she is not honest when it comes to taking care of her own children and her own home. The fact that women still feel the need to get into this debate astounds me. Uncover the woman for the liar she is and leave it at that.

Why torture the argument any further. Some women will go to work and not want to. Some women will stay home and not want to. Some people will go hungry and not want to. What are we saying when the topic of the discussion is still about staying home or not? Crazy talk!

I agree that there may be a bias against women who work, as evidenced by Ms. Flanagan's cushy writing gig. Even though I am loathe to admit it, she did publish a book already though. Maybe hiring her is just support for the Worship Men Culture. It could be, but then again, it may not. It may be that she does a very good job of making people angry and talking about it. Remember when you were a kid and threw a totally politically incorrect tantrum, but your parents took you out of the dumb party and at least talked to you? Maybe you don't remember but your 3-year old does. Maybe that is what is going on with her op ed pieces. Maybe she is just a morbidly unhappy woman professing to be otherwise and out to change everyone around her.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell her deal is, but here is the kicker: I DON'T CARE! That's right up there for me with the whole Brangelina debacle. In all reality, we are getting a view of someone else's personal life and then asked to look at our own in comparison. And, when you put it that way, you have a choice about comparing yourself to liars, celebrities, otherwise strangers who have no real impact on your life. Flanagan stands to have as much impact on your life as Jennifer Aniston. Flanagan is somewhat of a celebrity now, and here is where the going gets rough. EVERYONE REALLY SECRETLY LOVES TO HATE CELEBRITIES.

Hey, I know it's news to everyone out there, but any time a person climbs out of the proverbial crab bucket, someone always wants to pull them back in. Jennifer Aniston must be truly unhappy without a husband. Flanagan must be an unhappy mother. Condi Rice must be a real bitch in person. There, and that person has been pulled back into the crab bucket. To everyone else who plays into this, I would offer the following advice: stop being a crab.

Flanagan is undoubtedly less than truthful about the glories of her life or feminism, but this whole discussion of feminism is flawed. Feminism is not a mute brute force that has an overarching dictatorial control over women, and then by extension, their families. Feminism is not the person we love to hate. Feminism is not even an object, nor a political party. FEMINISM IS A DISCUSSION. Some people try to blame a discussion for action, but it is the action that makes the difference. Others want to say that feminism, as though personalizing it, has ruined all things male. It's strange that something that started out as women's opinions has become this immovable, brute force capable of all kinds of things. Lest we all forget, feminism is not tangible, nor readily defined--it can't do anyting on its own.

Women are the acting forces in their own lives. Who cares what roles people define for other people in books? Really, in order to free ourselves from these ideas, we need to focus on the true problems in our lives, not just ideals someone discusses. Now, if women are harassed for breastfeeding, attack that action. If women are pushed out of jobs for sexist reasons, attack that, but for God's sake, don't believe everything you read in a book.

Bitch Ph.D.The Bra Post

2006-04-11T13:03:00.000-07:00

Bitch Ph.D.
I can't believe that a whole page has gotten sucked into writing about bras. I have to agree with the author that it's exhausting, and still it's informative. A friend recommended this page, so I am linking it to my site. I like women with attitude, and a bra article seems innocuous enough. I find it amusing that a college prof is once again getting her ideas out with blog and then goes into a bra discussion. Really, I like it. It's incredibly human, and I wish I knew of more profs who did this. By the way, any posts on economics that are this entertaining?

The Existence Machine

2006-04-11T12:55:00.000-07:00

The Existence Machine

Funny that the space on this page looks like I think a NYTimes page appears. Interesting that this page looks like the page of a university prof. I am wondering just how many profs out there are looking to publish their ideas with blogs. It looks like lit crit to me, and basically well-done. Perhaps some day I will reach this point, but if you're looking for another view on literature, this might be the place to go...

Drug Baby

2006-04-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

You know those family members that every one has but no one wants to acknowledge? Well, ours had 2 children. The second baby was born drug-addicted. Her mother claims that she showed no signs at all of drug addiction; however, she was removed from her mother's custody and placed in foster care.

As a relation to the woman giving birth to children she can't care for (both children have been removed), there is not much I can do but watch. I have been accused of trying to take the baby, but I am not so sure I could care for her even were I to gain custody. I am torn, angry with myself that I can't say yes to a baby who might need intensive care. And I am also feeling guilty that this is a member of our family, even removed as she is, that bespeaks of dysfunction.

Eveyone knows that no one has a perfect family, and ours is no different. I am not in the position where the courts have even offered to place the baby with us, but I feel guilty for feeling relieved that she is not our responsibility. As I write this, we have decided to try for our second child, and I am confronting all of my issues about wanting a perfect child.

I know it sounds ugly. I know it's not politically correct, but I think we all want perfect children. I work in the field of education, and I know first hand the difficulty parents face when they have to admit their children have problems. I would be the first to say that we welcome any child into our household, and yet this guilty niggling keeps reminding me that there are strings attached.

Do we want a baby who has been addicted to drugs the entire time she was in utero? Do we want the drama that goes along with dealing with her biological mother? The easy answer is "no," but the right answer seems to be "yes." I can't seem to get around the fact that I am, for all practical purposes, broke.

We are are part of the vast majority of middle-class people, well-educated (hence my blog name), and still yet un-insured for health crises. We are working on it. We pay our medical expenses up front. We swim in student loan debt and in and out of employment, and here comes this baby into the picture. We make ends meet, just barely right now, and I feel vulnerable enough as it is with this precarious position. One trip to ER could blow us out of the "middle class" bracket and straight into poverty.

It seems an unsolvable riddle. I have been following my family politics like Springer show, and yet I am uncomfortably aware that this is real life, not on television. The baby was most likely conceived in prostitution; no one knows whom the father might be. We are supposed to keep quiet about this, not tell anyone. It is supposedly shameful, secretive, and kept within the family. And yet, this baby is still a little person, even if she is "damaged," or addicted and developmentally delayed. She didn't ask to be born into this, had no choice in the matter, and now she is at the mercy of adults who don't know anything about her except the statistics.

A part of me separates myself from the situation, because the baby's mother is still an addict. She is still a member of the family. Everyone has a separate opinion, and yet no one really knows anything. It's that concept of public goods versus private, and I know the privately cared for goods tend to be better cared for. Except, now this baby has been made public property.

She "visits" with her mother once a week, for two hours. If the mother shows up to the visits with anything but methadone in her system, her parental rights will be terminated. And yet, if they are, the baby goes up for adoption, but if not, the infant stays in limbo.

There are no clear-cut answers to this problem. The problems of an addict are far-reaching and extensive. I have no answers...

Broke Harvard Graduate

2006-04-11T12:26:00.000-07:00

Broke Harvard Graduate

First post

2006-04-11T07:21:00.000-07:00

This is a test