![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Last Sunday, someone briefly spoke about the goals of our UU fellowship. She seemed to think it was obvious that we would all want to increase the "power and influence" of UU in our cultural discourse.
I hate to say it, but I totally disagree.
I want people to know about UU, I want UU's voice to be heard, and I want to foster connections between UUs and other religious or community organizations. And sure, I would love it if a suddenly a large majority of people decided to become UU. That said, I worry very much that more power and influence for Unitarian Universalism would change it into something totally unrecognizable, and not in a good way.
This is not to say that power and influence are inherently bad things. Maybe it's the pursuit of it that would do harm to UU. (In other words, the quest for power would stifle dissent and make the fellowship more like a business with a "mission". To a small degree, this is already true.)
I believe that patience is called for, that people should be satisfied with the endurance of UU, and a degree of slow, but solid and steady growth. What I don't like is the implicit assumption that if I feel this way, it's because I'm not as committed, or perhaps, "excited" about UU. Or that I want to "keep it all for myself"/"afraid of change". I don't think anyone would ever consciously intend to convey this message. However, it really gets conveyed quite strongly, when I think about it. I may be one of the many who feels this way at my fellowship, but the few who articulate it (even to themselves).
Hmm... I should probably speak up at some point.
I'm now just remembering how I felt during one of the services where the Board of Trustees did a little skit about how they envisioned the fellowship in 5 years. It was jokey and cute - the fellowship had an exaggerated amount of fame & growth & were having a press conference about their accomplishments. At the end of the skit, the person being "interviewed" had to leave so they "meet with the governor in Harrisburg" about some issue. And I was like... ?? This is not MY goal or vision, even in jest. That sounds like the religious right. So uncool.
Yet, there's still a small part of me that wonders if I'm being a bit too idealistic in this matter. But it's pardoxical to embrace pragmatism in the promotion of such an idealistic vision as UU. So I guess no.
I hate to say it, but I totally disagree.
I want people to know about UU, I want UU's voice to be heard, and I want to foster connections between UUs and other religious or community organizations. And sure, I would love it if a suddenly a large majority of people decided to become UU. That said, I worry very much that more power and influence for Unitarian Universalism would change it into something totally unrecognizable, and not in a good way.
This is not to say that power and influence are inherently bad things. Maybe it's the pursuit of it that would do harm to UU. (In other words, the quest for power would stifle dissent and make the fellowship more like a business with a "mission". To a small degree, this is already true.)
I believe that patience is called for, that people should be satisfied with the endurance of UU, and a degree of slow, but solid and steady growth. What I don't like is the implicit assumption that if I feel this way, it's because I'm not as committed, or perhaps, "excited" about UU. Or that I want to "keep it all for myself"/"afraid of change". I don't think anyone would ever consciously intend to convey this message. However, it really gets conveyed quite strongly, when I think about it. I may be one of the many who feels this way at my fellowship, but the few who articulate it (even to themselves).
Hmm... I should probably speak up at some point.
I'm now just remembering how I felt during one of the services where the Board of Trustees did a little skit about how they envisioned the fellowship in 5 years. It was jokey and cute - the fellowship had an exaggerated amount of fame & growth & were having a press conference about their accomplishments. At the end of the skit, the person being "interviewed" had to leave so they "meet with the governor in Harrisburg" about some issue. And I was like... ?? This is not MY goal or vision, even in jest. That sounds like the religious right. So uncool.
Yet, there's still a small part of me that wonders if I'm being a bit too idealistic in this matter. But it's pardoxical to embrace pragmatism in the promotion of such an idealistic vision as UU. So I guess no.
It occurred to me today that very strict religious people are not seeking to be better, kinder, people. Rather, they are seeking a sense of control in a chaotic world. They want to make sure that God is happy with them, or at least that they will know what to expect based on a certain set of behaviors.
That may be obvious to many, but this insight really hit me today for some reason. There's this cultural narrative that religion makes people nicer somehow. It's completely false. Strictly religious people (as I've encountered them) seek purity and order, and love comes incidentally.
And what I'm describing about my experience thinking this thought is that I felt it on a gut level as opposed to merely agreeing with it intellectually. It's like the time a number of months ago where I said "hey, all this anti-gay stuff in religion is REALLY about HATE - there's really NOTHING else to it" I had (more or less) agreed with that intellectually for years. But oddly, I had not felt it on such a visceral level - a hot anger toward anyone who would continue to justify their hatred with stupid blathering.
I guess when I think about things, I often hold back my passions even when I come to certain conclusions. But once in a while, I get to a point where something just becomes crystal clear to me, and I just feel on fire about it.
I'll let you know if I get in any trouble today shooting off my mouth.
That may be obvious to many, but this insight really hit me today for some reason. There's this cultural narrative that religion makes people nicer somehow. It's completely false. Strictly religious people (as I've encountered them) seek purity and order, and love comes incidentally.
And what I'm describing about my experience thinking this thought is that I felt it on a gut level as opposed to merely agreeing with it intellectually. It's like the time a number of months ago where I said "hey, all this anti-gay stuff in religion is REALLY about HATE - there's really NOTHING else to it" I had (more or less) agreed with that intellectually for years. But oddly, I had not felt it on such a visceral level - a hot anger toward anyone who would continue to justify their hatred with stupid blathering.
I guess when I think about things, I often hold back my passions even when I come to certain conclusions. But once in a while, I get to a point where something just becomes crystal clear to me, and I just feel on fire about it.
I'll let you know if I get in any trouble today shooting off my mouth.
In the past few years, I've started to have this attitude of really not liking getting gifts that are too expensive. Like, I actively dislike the gift, even if I might enjoy it if I thought it were cheaper. It's because I feel a sense of obligation with an expensive gift. It's even worse if I have the impression that the gift was given to me out of a sense of obligation, but the giver seems to have little understanding of what I might actually want.
I hold back my negative attitude toward everyone but B. He of all people should have some clue, especially when I tell him directly what I want and don't want. One year, I specifically said I might like a cheap set of poker chips and then to actually have a fun family game. That was the gift I wanted: "a cheap set of poker chips and then to actually have a fun family game". What did I get instead? An expensive (and very heavy, and very numerous) set of fancy poker chips from some actual casino which we have not actually used for about 3 years. Of course Bill was hurt that I was pissed. Didn't I see how much money he paid for that set? I warned him this year that if he gets me anything expensive, I'll be pissed. Also, no DVDs, video games, electronics or the kind of things he's into. (Nice Christmas sentiment there, huh?) For my birthday I asked that he sell the &%$# tires he has lying in the garage. (No joke. It was a direct request. Let's see if he takes the "hint"!)
I don't think it's really a form of "reverse greediness" as much as it is a (possibly petulant) sense of being woefully misunderstood. While I won't be quite so blunt with others as I was with B (nor have as high expectations), I still do feel a sting of disappointment when someone just gets something goofy for me, unless it's a "token"/"fun" (i.e. inexpensive) kind of item. I would much rather they give the $ they would have spent to a good cause (and even fine if they don't use my name, so I don't have to receive junk mail in the future).
I'm trying to put things in perspective though. I know that I am not necessarily some kind of mind-reading awesome gift-giver and I have erred in the very same ways that irk me when others do it. And hey, there's always ebay or freecycle!
C and M seem to be vying for the #1 "making my heart melt" position lately. (Better than the times they are competing for the #1 "drive me nuts" position.)
C had to list "qualities of a good leader" for girl scouts. Mostly, they are typical words you would expect like "wise/smart" and "courageous". She also wrote some (unprompted) things like "country before self" (which sounds very adult) and "don't do something until asking parent or guardian" (which sounds not so adult! LOL).
The interesting ones are "love bad guys" and, later down the list, "hate no one". I'm pretty sure for the first one, she forgot the word "enemies", so she meant "love your enemies". Can I just say that I find it amazing that she has learned to be a Christian in a UU fellowship? And this really touches me, despite the fact that I am supposedly not Christian. Do we ask this of our leaders? That they love their enemies? Yet we (majority of Americans) insist they must be "Christian".
C had to list "qualities of a good leader" for girl scouts. Mostly, they are typical words you would expect like "wise/smart" and "courageous". She also wrote some (unprompted) things like "country before self" (which sounds very adult) and "don't do something until asking parent or guardian" (which sounds not so adult! LOL).
The interesting ones are "love bad guys" and, later down the list, "hate no one". I'm pretty sure for the first one, she forgot the word "enemies", so she meant "love your enemies". Can I just say that I find it amazing that she has learned to be a Christian in a UU fellowship? And this really touches me, despite the fact that I am supposedly not Christian. Do we ask this of our leaders? That they love their enemies? Yet we (majority of Americans) insist they must be "Christian".
Two nights ago, I got M ready for bed by "reading" a book with him. He sat very quietly with me while we looked at it, which was unusual. When I went to put him in his crib, I decided to let him hold on to the book (since I figured I didn't want to have to yank the book AND chuck him in the crib at the same time). I also left the door open, so there was some light coming in from the hallway.
So I went downstairs, and in about 10 minutes I listened carefully, and everything was quiet. I went upstairs to check, figuring he had fallen asleep. But when I peeked in, he was sitting up, paging quietly through the book, pointing at things. He was SOOO cute!
Oh, and he's now able to take steps across the room, and can say the word "cat". Possibly, he's said other words, but we didn't understand them so "cat" is his official first word. We know he's saying cat because he says it whenever one of the cats are around and when he sees a picture of a cat in a book.
So I went downstairs, and in about 10 minutes I listened carefully, and everything was quiet. I went upstairs to check, figuring he had fallen asleep. But when I peeked in, he was sitting up, paging quietly through the book, pointing at things. He was SOOO cute!
Oh, and he's now able to take steps across the room, and can say the word "cat". Possibly, he's said other words, but we didn't understand them so "cat" is his official first word. We know he's saying cat because he says it whenever one of the cats are around and when he sees a picture of a cat in a book.
I was thinking this morning about some stuff related to abortion. I came up with some things that (I believe) would challenge pro-lifers. Not directly in the sense of winning them over completely. More like bringing to light the complexity of the issue. And injecting a feminist perspective like a little seed...
So: Imagine that very early in a pregnancy, say, around 6-12 weeks, an embryo/fetus could be easily and safely removed from a woman's body and placed in a sort-of "brave new world" type of incubation machine to grow until it is ready to be born. (I chose 6-12 weeks because this is the time that most abortions happen.)
I realize this is very sci-fi, BUT it's not SO unreasonable the way that teleporters or time machines would be. Really, if you look at technology from 100 years ago (especially health-related technology) and compare it to today, you can easily imagine that in 100 more years we might be pretty solidly entrenched in that "brave new world". (That is, assuming we are not in a new dark age, but never mind!)
Anyway, anyway - the QUESTION is: If this "transplantation" (for lack of a better word) became the standard in place of abortion, then who should be responsible for any costs incurred?
Admittedly, such a feat is impossible now, and in the near future, the first types of these would be prohibitively expensive. But let's say that over time, it lessens to an expensive but not completely ludicrously-priced option - say, around $20,000 in today's dollars.
Assuming that it would be totally unreasonable to let the fetus/embryo die under such circumstances (and I would think it WOULD be unreasonable at around 10 weeks gestation), should it be the state who pays? What about the fact that both the man and woman contributed to the creation of this person? In practical terms, it seems that if the state pays 100%, it could lead to many people (both women and men) not taking responsibility for their sexual choices, and becoming a huge cost burden. Also, who would be obliged to support the child when it "becomes viable"? (Saying it's "born" doesn't make a whole lot of sense when grown in an incubator - LOL imagine celebrating your "day of viability")
Currently, men are obliged to support a child financially if his female partner decides to keep the baby. (I'm not sure what options he has to relinquish his parental rights - probably varies by state.) I also don't know what happens if a man decides to take primary care for a baby born from his female partner - does she owe child support? I suppose she would, if things were fair.
I guess ultimately my point is that if this theoretical really played out, opinions about the value of an embryo or fetus would change MIGHTY QUICK. That, and opinions about sexual behavior. Presumably, whatever $$ responsibility each partner has, if any, should be equal. Thus, men would have almost as much to risk from a sexual encounter as a woman would. I can imagine that suddenly, better birth control options (including a male birth control pill) would become a high-priority, "real" issue (as opposed to the current, low-priority, "women's" issue that it currently is) I also imagine that men would be much more careful in dating situations with women, and that culture would evolve in such a way that men would (gradually) lose the stereotype that they are sex-hounds. Parents would be more equally concerned about their sons as they would be about their daughters in potential sexual situations, so boys would have less of a feeling of free license (not to mention the pressure that they feel now).
I would have to agree that in my hypothetical, it would be COMPLETELY unreasonable for the state to FORCE a woman to carry a child since it would have another option, even if that option were second-best (like formula vs. breastmilk)
That said, a woman might choose to carry a baby rather than pay her $$ share. Stands to reason, though, that the man should pay his $$ share to HER if she makes that choice. So....maybe he should be doing that now? Paying her some (non-trivial) amount to carry the child, even if she places for adoption? Maybe the state should? Seriously, it's something to consider.
Anyway, after all this rambling:
I far prefer to think about abortion in these terms, and working backwards towards "real life". It helps to piece apart the different aspects of the issue, and to stand squarely in the feminist camp on some of the pieces (i.e. attitudes about sexual behavior & birth control, who is truly responsible for the child created) while staying open to my more malleable opinion on the true value/right to life of a fetus or embryo.
Also, I think it's a good vision to pursue - that rather than limiting the choices to killing or forced childbearing, that our society puts its resources toward providing more options. (Imagine if all the resouces put into fighting about abortion could be used for this cause!)
I realize that this post is mega-rambly. Ah, well. I won't be graded on it!
So: Imagine that very early in a pregnancy, say, around 6-12 weeks, an embryo/fetus could be easily and safely removed from a woman's body and placed in a sort-of "brave new world" type of incubation machine to grow until it is ready to be born. (I chose 6-12 weeks because this is the time that most abortions happen.)
I realize this is very sci-fi, BUT it's not SO unreasonable the way that teleporters or time machines would be. Really, if you look at technology from 100 years ago (especially health-related technology) and compare it to today, you can easily imagine that in 100 more years we might be pretty solidly entrenched in that "brave new world". (That is, assuming we are not in a new dark age, but never mind!)
Anyway, anyway - the QUESTION is: If this "transplantation" (for lack of a better word) became the standard in place of abortion, then who should be responsible for any costs incurred?
Admittedly, such a feat is impossible now, and in the near future, the first types of these would be prohibitively expensive. But let's say that over time, it lessens to an expensive but not completely ludicrously-priced option - say, around $20,000 in today's dollars.
Assuming that it would be totally unreasonable to let the fetus/embryo die under such circumstances (and I would think it WOULD be unreasonable at around 10 weeks gestation), should it be the state who pays? What about the fact that both the man and woman contributed to the creation of this person? In practical terms, it seems that if the state pays 100%, it could lead to many people (both women and men) not taking responsibility for their sexual choices, and becoming a huge cost burden. Also, who would be obliged to support the child when it "becomes viable"? (Saying it's "born" doesn't make a whole lot of sense when grown in an incubator - LOL imagine celebrating your "day of viability")
Currently, men are obliged to support a child financially if his female partner decides to keep the baby. (I'm not sure what options he has to relinquish his parental rights - probably varies by state.) I also don't know what happens if a man decides to take primary care for a baby born from his female partner - does she owe child support? I suppose she would, if things were fair.
I guess ultimately my point is that if this theoretical really played out, opinions about the value of an embryo or fetus would change MIGHTY QUICK. That, and opinions about sexual behavior. Presumably, whatever $$ responsibility each partner has, if any, should be equal. Thus, men would have almost as much to risk from a sexual encounter as a woman would. I can imagine that suddenly, better birth control options (including a male birth control pill) would become a high-priority, "real" issue (as opposed to the current, low-priority, "women's" issue that it currently is) I also imagine that men would be much more careful in dating situations with women, and that culture would evolve in such a way that men would (gradually) lose the stereotype that they are sex-hounds. Parents would be more equally concerned about their sons as they would be about their daughters in potential sexual situations, so boys would have less of a feeling of free license (not to mention the pressure that they feel now).
I would have to agree that in my hypothetical, it would be COMPLETELY unreasonable for the state to FORCE a woman to carry a child since it would have another option, even if that option were second-best (like formula vs. breastmilk)
That said, a woman might choose to carry a baby rather than pay her $$ share. Stands to reason, though, that the man should pay his $$ share to HER if she makes that choice. So....maybe he should be doing that now? Paying her some (non-trivial) amount to carry the child, even if she places for adoption? Maybe the state should? Seriously, it's something to consider.
Anyway, after all this rambling:
I far prefer to think about abortion in these terms, and working backwards towards "real life". It helps to piece apart the different aspects of the issue, and to stand squarely in the feminist camp on some of the pieces (i.e. attitudes about sexual behavior & birth control, who is truly responsible for the child created) while staying open to my more malleable opinion on the true value/right to life of a fetus or embryo.
Also, I think it's a good vision to pursue - that rather than limiting the choices to killing or forced childbearing, that our society puts its resources toward providing more options. (Imagine if all the resouces put into fighting about abortion could be used for this cause!)
I realize that this post is mega-rambly. Ah, well. I won't be graded on it!
The "quadrant cleaning" idea is actually going pretty well. And ironically, I'm not actually doing much of it. (to my credit, I do some upkeep to the quadrants that are not being cleaned on a particular weekend). C even helped with the bathroom this weekend.
B has not articulated to C why he may vote for McCain. He said some things, but I'm pretty sure that if you asked her right this second, she would not know the reasons. (We were going to have her watch the debates, but they spectacularly failed to capture her interest.) C continues to very excitedly support Obama. She told me "It's not because you're voting for him, it's because my friends like him..." (great!) In girl scouts recently, they made signs in support of voting (as a generic concept). Callista made one with pictures of both candidates, and a subtle little arrow pointing to Obama. LOL!!
B has not articulated to C why he may vote for McCain. He said some things, but I'm pretty sure that if you asked her right this second, she would not know the reasons. (We were going to have her watch the debates, but they spectacularly failed to capture her interest.) C continues to very excitedly support Obama. She told me "It's not because you're voting for him, it's because my friends like him..." (great!) In girl scouts recently, they made signs in support of voting (as a generic concept). Callista made one with pictures of both candidates, and a subtle little arrow pointing to Obama. LOL!!
Well, so much for my idea that I would blog every day. I think my problem is that once I get started, I write so much that it takes up quite a bit of my time. I need to work harder on writing short entries!
Somewhat big news: I got into a car accident on Tuesday! It was not a bad one at all. No one was hurt, it was just me and the other driver involved. My car has only barely visible damage, and the other woman's car got a pretty big dent in the side. Nothing terrible or anything. Unfortunately, it was totally my fault, since I just didn't see her as I turned left out of my neighborhood. I didn't know her, but she happens to live in my neighborhood. I thought I ought to call the police, but then we both agreed to just exchange insurance and not bother.
Well, a lot of people told me afterwards that I really should have called the police, along the lines of "you just can't trust people". I know this is true - I had a fairly recent experience with a less than scrupulous person this past year. However, it does really make me sad that I supposedly "ought not" to trust my own instincts with people. It makes me sad knowing that very likely someone chastised her as well about not calling the police (especially since I was very obviously at fault.)
It's clear that trust is and has been deteriorating for a long time, at least in the U.S. in the area that I live. But society cannot function without a basic level of trust. I'm not sure that I wish to live in such a mistrustful way, even given the possibilty of being hurt. But it's always best (of course) to at least make such a decision with one's eyes open.
Perhaps more on this topic later. I'm going to keep this entry short!
Somewhat big news: I got into a car accident on Tuesday! It was not a bad one at all. No one was hurt, it was just me and the other driver involved. My car has only barely visible damage, and the other woman's car got a pretty big dent in the side. Nothing terrible or anything. Unfortunately, it was totally my fault, since I just didn't see her as I turned left out of my neighborhood. I didn't know her, but she happens to live in my neighborhood. I thought I ought to call the police, but then we both agreed to just exchange insurance and not bother.
Well, a lot of people told me afterwards that I really should have called the police, along the lines of "you just can't trust people". I know this is true - I had a fairly recent experience with a less than scrupulous person this past year. However, it does really make me sad that I supposedly "ought not" to trust my own instincts with people. It makes me sad knowing that very likely someone chastised her as well about not calling the police (especially since I was very obviously at fault.)
It's clear that trust is and has been deteriorating for a long time, at least in the U.S. in the area that I live. But society cannot function without a basic level of trust. I'm not sure that I wish to live in such a mistrustful way, even given the possibilty of being hurt. But it's always best (of course) to at least make such a decision with one's eyes open.
Perhaps more on this topic later. I'm going to keep this entry short!
I recently had the idea that when I talk to people about M, I will say "that's a boy for you" about totally random stuff that he does.
For example, in the last few days, he's taken to laughing in the weirdest way. Sort of saying "a a a a" in a short click-y way, like a dolphin (or, more worrisomely, like Spongebob). I think it would be hilarious to mark that as "boy" behavior, since it's so obviously just M behavior, and not remotely related to his assigned gender.
I want to do it as an experiment to see if anyone calls me on it.
Part of me worries that it may enforce stereotypes. But when I think about it - no, not really. Especially if he does stereotypically girlish behavior and I say it. I will think of it as my own personal in-joke. If people are shaken by my comment in any way, the ball is still in their court to be the one to initiate taking the topic seriously. If that happens, I will have plenty to say in response. But it's a nice antidote to the times when I chuckle politely at every inane "that's a boy for you" comment while internally rolling my eyes.
Another thing (feminism related): for some reason I got into a very hostile mood regarding the keep-your-own name vs. take hubby's name when you marry issue this morning. I think I heard something on the radio introducing "Mrs. Laura Bush" and it just set me off. I'm not sure why. But I came to the conclusion that the tradition of women taking their husband's name is a tradition of saying "men are better and more important than women". (Note: I'm not talking the individual decision to take or not take someone's name. Rather, the overall cultural impetus.) Why don't people see this extremely obvious thing? Really. Why? It's pissing me off today.
Well, glad I could write it here. It just feels good to do so!
I'd love to know why my hot cocoa mix box says it's made with "premium cocoa and fresh milk". Fresh milk? Really? In powdered cocoa? I guess "fresh" can be a relative term.
But does this mean "anti-aging cream" WON'T actually make me go back in time?
But does this mean "anti-aging cream" WON'T actually make me go back in time?
C is really excited about Barack Obama. It's really cute. Every time she sees something about him, she's like "YAY! Barack Obama!" I asked her why she liked him so much.
Her answer?
"I forget."
LOL.
Apparently, my parents had already discussed this with her and convinced her, but she couldn't remember why she was convinced.
So I told her some reasons I planned on voting for him. As I mentioned each of them (as best as I could distill them) she was like "oh, yeah - that's what they (my mom and dad) said too."
I told C that she should really talk to B as well. He is still "undecided". I'd be interested to see/hear how he explains the plus side of voting for McCain. Mind you, this is not because I can't imagine what a McCain supporter might say. What's difficult is putting these arguments into terms that are simple enough for a child to understand and appreciate, without introducing a really rather negative world view.
I really wonder what B will say. I wonder if trying to articulate his reasons will help him decide.
Her answer?
"I forget."
LOL.
Apparently, my parents had already discussed this with her and convinced her, but she couldn't remember why she was convinced.
So I told her some reasons I planned on voting for him. As I mentioned each of them (as best as I could distill them) she was like "oh, yeah - that's what they (my mom and dad) said too."
I told C that she should really talk to B as well. He is still "undecided". I'd be interested to see/hear how he explains the plus side of voting for McCain. Mind you, this is not because I can't imagine what a McCain supporter might say. What's difficult is putting these arguments into terms that are simple enough for a child to understand and appreciate, without introducing a really rather negative world view.
I really wonder what B will say. I wonder if trying to articulate his reasons will help him decide.
Today I went to the local arts festival with M and C. It was really fun. It was such a perfect day weather-wise. C happily pointed out every single dog to say how CUUUUUTE it was (actually, many of them were really very cute). M made sweet happy baby noises at all the other babies going by. And I actually ended up buying stuff. This is not something I normally do. But I figured it would be nice to support local artists and add some nice decorations to our home. One of the things I got were these cute little ceramic "mushroom" things. It's a wooden stake that you put into the ground and then you put the ceramic mushroom top on it. OK, they look much cuter than my description here. Big plus? They require no watering. Another thing I got was a pressed flower arrangement, which used real flowers pressed into a picture frame. It's really pretty. Also requires no watering. Basically, these kinds of things are good for me because I tend not to take care of anything that doesn't meow or whine or cry when it needs something. (Uh... speaking of which, I'd better water the plants!)
Earlier today, I got 1/4 of the house clean (yay me!). My new strategy/proposal for house-cleaning is that we do "quadrant cleaning". In other words, each week, we fully clean just one quarter of the house at a time (aside from the normal stuff like dishes and laundry). By doing it in small pieces, I feel like it's more likely to actually get done. I also forced myself to stop from doing more than just the one quadrant. This important to ensure that next time I will get started in the first place. Quite seriously, I believe I'm "teaching" or "showing" my subconscious that it's OK to get started because I really won't expect more than 1/4.
In case you're wondering why it is me and not B who is doing the quadrant cleaning, it's because he's away again (until Friday night). I've already proposed the idea to him, and he's already agreed to it (in principle). I assume that it will be up to him to do his quadrant next weekend when he's home. On the downside, I'm sure he'll be quite tired and not in the mood for cleaning then. On the bright side, he'll have the extra day because of Labor Day weekend. Besides, it took me just 1 hr. to do the first quadrant today. The next quadrant (kitchen and powder room) should not take much longer than that. Not too much to ask. Heh - we'll see how it turns out. I'll let you know if it actually happens or if it turns into a fight. The only way I anticipate a fight is if I say at some point (Sunday probably) "hey, now would be a good time to do your cleaning" and he says "no, I'll do it later in the weekend" until it's late Monday night and he runs around doing things 1/2 assed, or says he's tired or sick or whatever and promises to do it sometime during the week (which may or may not happen). This kind of thing has been the bane of all previous "cleaning agreements". Generally, it means that we just live in filth and when people come over I just explain to them that it's his job to do the cleaning. Not really that pleasant. I'm getting tired of it.
Ideally, we will actually have a sort-of clean house without too much effort expended in either doing the cleaning or fighting about it. I've already told B that if he doesn't like doing the cleaning, that it will be completely up to him to find and manage the details of hiring a cleaning person. IMHO, that in itself is a chore.
If you've gotten this far reading, don't say I didn't warn you about this post in the title!
Earlier today, I got 1/4 of the house clean (yay me!). My new strategy/proposal for house-cleaning is that we do "quadrant cleaning". In other words, each week, we fully clean just one quarter of the house at a time (aside from the normal stuff like dishes and laundry). By doing it in small pieces, I feel like it's more likely to actually get done. I also forced myself to stop from doing more than just the one quadrant. This important to ensure that next time I will get started in the first place. Quite seriously, I believe I'm "teaching" or "showing" my subconscious that it's OK to get started because I really won't expect more than 1/4.
In case you're wondering why it is me and not B who is doing the quadrant cleaning, it's because he's away again (until Friday night). I've already proposed the idea to him, and he's already agreed to it (in principle). I assume that it will be up to him to do his quadrant next weekend when he's home. On the downside, I'm sure he'll be quite tired and not in the mood for cleaning then. On the bright side, he'll have the extra day because of Labor Day weekend. Besides, it took me just 1 hr. to do the first quadrant today. The next quadrant (kitchen and powder room) should not take much longer than that. Not too much to ask. Heh - we'll see how it turns out. I'll let you know if it actually happens or if it turns into a fight. The only way I anticipate a fight is if I say at some point (Sunday probably) "hey, now would be a good time to do your cleaning" and he says "no, I'll do it later in the weekend" until it's late Monday night and he runs around doing things 1/2 assed, or says he's tired or sick or whatever and promises to do it sometime during the week (which may or may not happen). This kind of thing has been the bane of all previous "cleaning agreements". Generally, it means that we just live in filth and when people come over I just explain to them that it's his job to do the cleaning. Not really that pleasant. I'm getting tired of it.
Ideally, we will actually have a sort-of clean house without too much effort expended in either doing the cleaning or fighting about it. I've already told B that if he doesn't like doing the cleaning, that it will be completely up to him to find and manage the details of hiring a cleaning person. IMHO, that in itself is a chore.
If you've gotten this far reading, don't say I didn't warn you about this post in the title!
A (guy) friend of mine, N, and his wife, L visited us recently. They have a 19-month old and she's pregnant with baby #2 (due in March).
N is really fun and nice, and geeky in the way that I like. If I hadn't been dating B in college, there's a very good chance I would have dated him. But I knew there was NO way I would marry him, because he's way too traditional.
L is having a really difficult pregnancy so far, as she had the entire 9 months with her first. She mentioned that she had been thinking of starting the 19-month old in preschool, and I agreed that it might be nice so that she can have some breaks during the week. But, she said, "N is totally against it". N said "No! I was just caught off guard by the sudden-ness of the decision" (whatever that means?). He apparently has some kind of personal issue with preschool/daycare. (Of course, M has been in daycare since he was 3 months, so it's just hilarious to me that there might be an issue for a 19 month-old going for a few hours a week!)
My thought was that N should feel free to stay home with both children while L works and then make a decision about whether or not a few hours of preschool would be a good idea. I have a sneaking suspicion that it would only be a matter of a few weeks before he got over his discomfort with the idea. (Though realistically, I think it would probably be better to start the older child in school pre-baby so she doesn't feel like she's being tossed out of the house when the new baby comes.)
In addition to the conversation about preschool, I got to witness a scenario of tense wrangling about "who needed to go retrieve the diaper bag that was left in the car" which involved the statement "I'm PREGnant" through clenched teeth, and in which I cheerfully (and honestly) offered to be the one to go get it. Though personally, it seemed pretty clear that between the two of them, N should have been the one to do so. (L ended up doing it.)
By the way, this kind of story is why I'd want my blog to be anonymous. No question, I have had such tense &/or frustrating moments with B and would not necessarily want someone else to openly air these things on line (at least not without the lens of my own interpretation!).
Do I think N & L are unhappy overall? Not really, as I don't have enough evidence to come to that conclusion. Am I glad I am not married to N? Yes, yes I am. (Chances are good that he would not like being married to me either!)
N is really fun and nice, and geeky in the way that I like. If I hadn't been dating B in college, there's a very good chance I would have dated him. But I knew there was NO way I would marry him, because he's way too traditional.
L is having a really difficult pregnancy so far, as she had the entire 9 months with her first. She mentioned that she had been thinking of starting the 19-month old in preschool, and I agreed that it might be nice so that she can have some breaks during the week. But, she said, "N is totally against it". N said "No! I was just caught off guard by the sudden-ness of the decision" (whatever that means?). He apparently has some kind of personal issue with preschool/daycare. (Of course, M has been in daycare since he was 3 months, so it's just hilarious to me that there might be an issue for a 19 month-old going for a few hours a week!)
My thought was that N should feel free to stay home with both children while L works and then make a decision about whether or not a few hours of preschool would be a good idea. I have a sneaking suspicion that it would only be a matter of a few weeks before he got over his discomfort with the idea. (Though realistically, I think it would probably be better to start the older child in school pre-baby so she doesn't feel like she's being tossed out of the house when the new baby comes.)
In addition to the conversation about preschool, I got to witness a scenario of tense wrangling about "who needed to go retrieve the diaper bag that was left in the car" which involved the statement "I'm PREGnant" through clenched teeth, and in which I cheerfully (and honestly) offered to be the one to go get it. Though personally, it seemed pretty clear that between the two of them, N should have been the one to do so. (L ended up doing it.)
By the way, this kind of story is why I'd want my blog to be anonymous. No question, I have had such tense &/or frustrating moments with B and would not necessarily want someone else to openly air these things on line (at least not without the lens of my own interpretation!).
Do I think N & L are unhappy overall? Not really, as I don't have enough evidence to come to that conclusion. Am I glad I am not married to N? Yes, yes I am. (Chances are good that he would not like being married to me either!)
The other day, I opened a fortune cookie. For some reason, it was really difficult to get the fortune out. The paper was trapped in the folds of the cookie somehow. In the process of it all, I finally ended up ripping the paper and leaving a small piece of it stuck inside the cookie.
What did the fortune say?
It said: "you can accomplish anything you put your mind to"
It forgot to say "some restrictions may apply" (like removing fortunes from cookies?)
LOL!
What did the fortune say?
It said: "you can accomplish anything you put your mind to"
It forgot to say "some restrictions may apply" (like removing fortunes from cookies?)
LOL!
Needed to start: one 8 month-old baby
Step 1: Set baby down in the middle of the room
Step 2: Let the baby crawl wherever he/she desires
Step 3: Whatever the baby first goes for is probably the most dangerous thing in the room. Remove it.
Step 4: Repeat steps 1-3 as necessary
Some friends from work have a new baby. I thought maybe I should offer to bring M over to help baby-proof their house. ;o)
Step 1: Set baby down in the middle of the room
Step 2: Let the baby crawl wherever he/she desires
Step 3: Whatever the baby first goes for is probably the most dangerous thing in the room. Remove it.
Step 4: Repeat steps 1-3 as necessary
Some friends from work have a new baby. I thought maybe I should offer to bring M over to help baby-proof their house. ;o)
Ever heard the phrase "sitting around singing Kumbaya"?
Clearly, it has negative implications. Here's my brainstorm of what is supposedly "wrong" with people who "sit around singing Kumbaya":
- They are naive.
- They are in denial about "real" problems.
- They are doing what seems to be the easiest, in place of what's "important".
- They are self-righteous.
- They are weak/not courageous/unwilling to compete.
- They are unaware of their priviledge, which makes them unable to understand why some people "can't just get along"
- They (men) are effeminate
- They are lacking in innovation (i.e. it's an old solution).
- (Probably other stuff, but I can't think of it right now.)
I've heard this phrase at the UU fellowship before. Someone was talking about "sitting around singing Kumbaya" instead of engaging in "real" (i.e. more confrontational) activism.
Supposedly, it's also "wrong" to imagine people singing Kumbaya: e.g. "She naively imagines that some day the Israelis and the Palestinians will sit down and sing Kumbaya together."
So the song "Kumbaya" is fairly strongly associated with foolish idealism, false hope, etc. It's a cynic's quick phrase, loaded with a great deal of implication and subconscious symbolism.
I like the song "Kumbaya", so I don't like to hear it maligned so much. In fact, the lyrics themselves are not particularly idealistic. Instead, it is an instruction to the singer(s) that there are other people in the world and that God is with us and with them. If you're looking for idealistic, I can think of much better UU songs (and CHRISTIAN songs too). But probably the song Kumbaya is really a stand-in for all such songs.
In defense of "Kumbaya" and other such folksy peace songs: at least they provide a vision. If it's true that the things we read and hear and rehearse shape our thoughts, then singing these songs again and again must have some influence on our lives and the decisions we make. Sometimes change happens at a very slow pace, like erosion.
The answer to "too much idealism" isn't to relinquish hope. You still have to nurture the vision. Yes, confront the self-righteousness, but not with cynicism! And confront unexamined priviledge, but not at the expense of assuming that a better world is impossible.
As I finish this post, I think there's really more to this. One point I didn't touch on: the association of liberal &/or peace-loving with "feminine" (and therefore, "bad"). But I want to keep my point more or less encapsulated, so I'll stop for now!
Coming soon: "Why is bra-burning such a bad thing?" :o)
B's brother told us yesterday that B "ruined" the batman movie for him. This is because as sadistic and freaky as the Joker is, he didn't come close to the kinds of characters that Bill comes up with. That's a scary thought!
There's this challenge I often hear about to sum up Unitarian Universalism in the time it takes to take an elevator ride - the so-called "elevator speech".
I don't have one for UU as a whole, but I did think of a Universalist one:
You know that Oprah episode where she ran around screaming "EVERYONE GETS A CAR!!"?
Well, Universalism is just like that, only it's God running around screaming "EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN!!!"
Hey, that could be a one-floor elevator ride!
I don't have one for UU as a whole, but I did think of a Universalist one:
You know that Oprah episode where she ran around screaming "EVERYONE GETS A CAR!!"?
Well, Universalism is just like that, only it's God running around screaming "EVERYONE GOES TO HEAVEN!!!"
Hey, that could be a one-floor elevator ride!
I read a book called "Nudge" recently. It's pretty interesting. It talks about "choice architecture": how the presentation of choices has an impact on the choices people make, and why it's so important to take this into account.
I did like it, but noticed that the authors tried to present their notion of "libertarian paternalism" as the solution to SO many problems. Basically, the idea is to offer choice, but to present it in such a way so that people are inclined to choose what's actually best for them. (e.g. placing the fruit and veggies first in a cafeteria line, and the pudding and cake at the end)
I actually have a few criticisms of this as an "I have a hammer so everything looks like a nail" solution. There's still a big problem with the paternalism aspect because not everyone agrees on what is actually best for "everyone".
In other words, I know the idea of "nudges" is to help us make the choices we would otherwise want to make, ones that appeal to our "higher selves" (and to still allow freedom to choose otherwise if so desired). However, imagine the same cafeteria scenario. Instead of veggies and cake, what if it was "carbs" v "fats"? And what if I would prefer to be "nudged" into eating more carbs, but the person behind me needs "nudging" in the other direction? Now, perhaps for that one example it is no big deal. (Again, the theory insists that you maintain the option of either.) But what if every choice is presented in a way where my "higher self" doesn't really agree?
And I came to the realization that there ARE nudges in my life that I resent, that don't appeal to my "higher self". Specifically, B and I are constantly being nudged away from an egalitarian relationship. And what's really frustrating is the fact that, as human beings, what we REALLY need are nudges TOWARD an egalitarian relationship. If things are unequal, I want someone to come and say "hey, is that really fair?" Yeah, it would still be up to B and me to choose how to arrange things, but we'd get support and encouragment for equality. Instead, the people in our lives seem as pleased as punch when we happen to conform to gender stereotypes and "confused" (if not hostile) when we don't. It is a constant FIGHT, both against others and against ourselves.
Sadly, lately I feel that I'm losing this fight and it's causing no end to my frustration.
That said, I do know of the support of at least one person (one of the 3 people IRL that know about this journal) who asked me "is that fair that you're the one giving up your room for the new baby?" As it turns out, while not exactly "fair", it was really the best arrangement for now (note: my "room" is currently a large closet with a window). But YES I really do appreciate that you asked, and CARED. It makes a huge difference in how I perceive the decision, and how things will be going forward (i.e. if/when we move to a new house).
I really feel that things would be better between B and me if more people would truly support us in an equal relationship. It's what we both want, at least if you ask our "higher selves". But our lazy, grumpy, pressured, insecure, HUMAN selves are the ones who are interacting each day.
I'm really really frustrated with it all. And while I love to spend fun time with B and think he's generally a kind and caring person, I'm getting awfully tired of "playing house" with him - screaming and kicking and ranting against being the stereotypical suburban mom, while he slaves away at his high-pressure stressful job, leaving him "unable" to really pull his weight at home. Since M was born, it seems like a huge portion of household stuff has "slid" to me. How does this happen to ME, someone who puts a great stake in her identity as one who puts up with no bullshit? Who writes out "chore lists" to ensure everyone does his/her part equally?
When B goes away on business trips (he is currently on one), some things are a little harder, but a disturbing number of things are actually easier when he's gone. Never mind that we're establishing quite a pattern of me as primary care-giver. I don't knock him for the trips, by the way. (The fact that they're very discretely defined make them more palatable - they are a specific request, not a "well the chips just happen to fall so that you're the one getting up with the baby at 6:00" kind of thing.)
But I need support and help and encouragement to keep my "mommy does everything" role from becoming entrenched. I don't have that from the people in my immediate vicinity, and it makes me just want to run away from everything!
I am really frustrated. But admittedly, writing this down has helped.
I did like it, but noticed that the authors tried to present their notion of "libertarian paternalism" as the solution to SO many problems. Basically, the idea is to offer choice, but to present it in such a way so that people are inclined to choose what's actually best for them. (e.g. placing the fruit and veggies first in a cafeteria line, and the pudding and cake at the end)
I actually have a few criticisms of this as an "I have a hammer so everything looks like a nail" solution. There's still a big problem with the paternalism aspect because not everyone agrees on what is actually best for "everyone".
In other words, I know the idea of "nudges" is to help us make the choices we would otherwise want to make, ones that appeal to our "higher selves" (and to still allow freedom to choose otherwise if so desired). However, imagine the same cafeteria scenario. Instead of veggies and cake, what if it was "carbs" v "fats"? And what if I would prefer to be "nudged" into eating more carbs, but the person behind me needs "nudging" in the other direction? Now, perhaps for that one example it is no big deal. (Again, the theory insists that you maintain the option of either.) But what if every choice is presented in a way where my "higher self" doesn't really agree?
And I came to the realization that there ARE nudges in my life that I resent, that don't appeal to my "higher self". Specifically, B and I are constantly being nudged away from an egalitarian relationship. And what's really frustrating is the fact that, as human beings, what we REALLY need are nudges TOWARD an egalitarian relationship. If things are unequal, I want someone to come and say "hey, is that really fair?" Yeah, it would still be up to B and me to choose how to arrange things, but we'd get support and encouragment for equality. Instead, the people in our lives seem as pleased as punch when we happen to conform to gender stereotypes and "confused" (if not hostile) when we don't. It is a constant FIGHT, both against others and against ourselves.
Sadly, lately I feel that I'm losing this fight and it's causing no end to my frustration.
That said, I do know of the support of at least one person (one of the 3 people IRL that know about this journal) who asked me "is that fair that you're the one giving up your room for the new baby?" As it turns out, while not exactly "fair", it was really the best arrangement for now (note: my "room" is currently a large closet with a window). But YES I really do appreciate that you asked, and CARED. It makes a huge difference in how I perceive the decision, and how things will be going forward (i.e. if/when we move to a new house).
I really feel that things would be better between B and me if more people would truly support us in an equal relationship. It's what we both want, at least if you ask our "higher selves". But our lazy, grumpy, pressured, insecure, HUMAN selves are the ones who are interacting each day.
I'm really really frustrated with it all. And while I love to spend fun time with B and think he's generally a kind and caring person, I'm getting awfully tired of "playing house" with him - screaming and kicking and ranting against being the stereotypical suburban mom, while he slaves away at his high-pressure stressful job, leaving him "unable" to really pull his weight at home. Since M was born, it seems like a huge portion of household stuff has "slid" to me. How does this happen to ME, someone who puts a great stake in her identity as one who puts up with no bullshit? Who writes out "chore lists" to ensure everyone does his/her part equally?
When B goes away on business trips (he is currently on one), some things are a little harder, but a disturbing number of things are actually easier when he's gone. Never mind that we're establishing quite a pattern of me as primary care-giver. I don't knock him for the trips, by the way. (The fact that they're very discretely defined make them more palatable - they are a specific request, not a "well the chips just happen to fall so that you're the one getting up with the baby at 6:00" kind of thing.)
But I need support and help and encouragement to keep my "mommy does everything" role from becoming entrenched. I don't have that from the people in my immediate vicinity, and it makes me just want to run away from everything!
I am really frustrated. But admittedly, writing this down has helped.
This morning I made up a silly song for M.
His outfit looked just like something "little boy blue" would wear (from the nursery rhyme)
It basically goes through all the colors:
Little boy blue! Little boy blue!
You are such my little boy true.
Little boy yellow! Little boy yellow!
You are such a cutie fellow.
Little boy white! Little boy white!
You are my sweetness and light.
Little boy brown! Little boy brown!
Having fun all over the town.
Little boy green! Little boy green!
Take a bath and get you clean.
Little boy red! Little boy red!
Now it's time to go to bed.
Finally, my favorite verse:
Little boy pink! Little boy pink!
You agree that gender roles stink!
His outfit looked just like something "little boy blue" would wear (from the nursery rhyme)
It basically goes through all the colors:
Little boy blue! Little boy blue!
You are such my little boy true.
Little boy yellow! Little boy yellow!
You are such a cutie fellow.
Little boy white! Little boy white!
You are my sweetness and light.
Little boy brown! Little boy brown!
Having fun all over the town.
Little boy green! Little boy green!
Take a bath and get you clean.
Little boy red! Little boy red!
Now it's time to go to bed.
Finally, my favorite verse:
Little boy pink! Little boy pink!
You agree that gender roles stink!
