The ratings for the last couple episodes of "Gotham" have been down a bit. And it's too bad. It's really a great show. It has been renewed for a second season, so there's no danger of cancellation. But, it would be cool if the ratings picked up a bit (or a lot) as we head toward the season finale and await Season 2. Because I want a Season 3. And I don't want Ben McKenzie to be sad. He works too hard to have to be sad.
Now, I know many people started out watching "Gotham" and then quit after a few episodes. Y'all should come back. You should always give a new show AT LEAST five episodes, and probably more like seven, before you give up on it. It really takes that long for the thing to get out of the gate and get into its groove. You should believe me on this because somebody once called me a "film producer," so -- obviously -- I know about these things. Haha. Actually, you should believe me on this because I have skipped too much housework in lieu of watching a lot of TV in my life, and I have noticed this phenomenon. And I'll tell you, "Gotham" has really gotten its s**t together. Mind you, I have enjoyed it from the get-go, but it has gotten better and better. For one thing, Ben McKenzie has truly found his Jim Gordon and is consistently "in the zone." Bravo, Ben! You are rockin' it.
I know some people also have an issue with "Gotham's" 8:00 time slot, especially parents. I have noticed that young people are pestering their parents to let them watch "Gotham," leading them to just put their foot down in a frustrated demonstration of parental authority. Thus, these poor moms and dads most likely don't even DVR the show and also -- probably -- boycott everything FOX. I have noticed that most people hate on FOX. The progressives hate on it because of the news and the conservatives hate on it because of its entertainment offerings. It's a wonder, of sorts, that FOX is even still on the air. I guess, though, that giving absolutely everybody something to hate on could make you quite popular.
Take heart, moms and dads. The violence on "Gotham," though present, is not gratuitous. It is appropriate for the story. And that story has key moral questions that your children should consider. Of course, I am not talking about 7-year-olds. But, I do think that children who are 10 years old and above could reap many benefits from watching "Gotham." The show presents to its audience the types of moral conundrums that most (if not all) of us will face in our lives. This is part of the value of a good story, which "Gotham" is. We see these fictional situations and fictional characters. We see how the characters -- some of whom we admire and some of whom we don't -- interact with the situations. We see what the results of those interactions are. There is much food for thought here, and many parallels with "real life." I homeschooled my kids for 13 years, and if "Gotham" had been on, I would have used it in writing lessons, ethics lessons, history lessons, political science lessons, art lessons... I almost want to have another baby so that I can use "Gotham" in lesson plans. (No. Not really. Just kidding. And -- besides -- I am "past the age.") The point is, though, that if you watch "Gotham" with your kids and you have any semblance of coolness about you as a parent, you can leverage it in order to teach your kids A LOT.
Also, as far as real life role models, you should want your kids to be acquainted with those involved in making "Gotham." The whole team is pretty incredible. They are positive people living positive lives. The actor who plays the young Bruce Wayne and the young actress who plays Selina Kyle (the future Catwoman) are prime examples of this. They are incredibly grounded, intelligent, energetic, joyful, engaged-with-life young people. They speak about their "real lives" and their work in a way which could inspire kids to live their own lives with both a sense of healthy fun and purpose. As they speak about the story of "Gotham," they shed light onto the creative process, which is an especially important thing for kids to understand as they navigate their way through the educational system's literature and writing assignments. Ben, himself, is a very good example for kids. He believes young people should work very hard, be very responsible, as they strive to reach worthwhile goals; and he will often speak of this. In fact, he can almost come off as a little bit of a curmudgeon. I actually told my daughter that if he ever has kids, he's going to be the world's strictest dad. ;-) What makes his message such a terrific one for young people, though, is the fact that he is a truly fun person and he has the right end-game in mind. --> He desires that kids grow up to do work that means something to them, work they will enjoy, work that will benefit both themselves and others. And he knows from experience and expresses quite effectively (i.e. in a way that kids will listen) what is necessary to achieve these things.
It seems this post has morphed from why people -- in general -- should watch "Gotham" into why parents should let their kids watch "Gotham." That really wasn't my original intention, but there you have it. And adults should watch it, too. It's beautifully crafted, well-written, compelling, thought-provoking, and a great deal of FUN! I actually think it's really all about President Obama. Or LBJ. Or FDR. Or even The Gipper. So... Catch up on those previously aired episodes and I hope to see you on Monday night in Gotham! And then I hope to see you on Tuesday night for "Agents Of Shield." We've gotta get Coulson out of that jam. I love Coulson!
Showing posts with label Homeschooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homeschooling. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Monday, July 14, 2014
White Space
I should probably not read blogs when I am tired, which is what I've been doing lately. I should probably not write when I am tired, which is what I have been doing lately.
Oh, well.
I was going to write about writing erotica. I have not actually written erotica, but I have some thoughts about writing it -- were I to do that -- which I wanted to express here. Maybe I will do that in my next post. If I ever did actually write erotica, I would probably do it in some other forum, under a pseudonym. So, if you would want to read my erotica -- should it ever materialize -- you will have to let me know and I will tell you where to find it. I think it would be quite good, and not lame. Most erotica is pretty lame, these days. I think my mom would have been excellent at writing erotica.
Anyway...
Instead of writing about erotica, I am going to write about a mom thing. The other day, I was reading the blog of a homeschooling mother of several children. Her kids have been busy with a variety of activities during these long, hot summer days, so she has had a lot of time alone. She writes: "....the house is mostly empty and I'm understanding how people who send their kids to school and work from home (Writing erotica, perhaps? JUST KIDDING! She did not say that. I am just being a wise-ass.) are able to accomplish so much. The rhythm definitely offers a great deal of white space."
Maybe I was in an overly sensitive mood when I read that statement. But, that statement seemed to me to be just a little bit judgmental and just a tad ignorant. It's kind of like this mother has allowed herself to feel inferior to these other mothers who send their kids to school and work from home and seem to get so much more accomplished than she does. And then she tells herself that she doesn't have to feel inferior about not getting as much accomplished, because these other women are sending their kids away every day. And -- it seems to be implied -- that she is patting herself on the back because she doesn't send her kids away. She goes to the trouble of keeping them with her, which is -- in her mind -- inherently superior.
It could very well be that this mother did not mean to be at all judgmental in what she said. Here is the thing, though: WHY DOES SHE EVEN HAVE TO SPEAK ABOUT THESE OTHER MOTHERS, who send their kids to school and work from home, AT ALL? She doesn't. She could just say that her kids are off at wonderful summer activities, which means she has lots of wonderful time to herself to get many things done. No comparison needs to be made to any other mothers. No mention needs to be made of any other mothers and their choices and their lives. Because these other mothers -- the ones who send their kids away to school and rejoice when summer vacation is over -- love their kids every bit as much as the homeschooling mothers. And they also feel plenty stressed out -- even with all their "white space."
Now, I have gone to school and taught school and sent my kids to school and homeschooled. And -- yes -- there is more "white space" when the kids go to school. But, let me tell you, the hours between 5:30 and 7:30 AM and 3:00 and bedtime are no picnic. Those hours are much, much, much harder when you send your kids to school than when you homeschool. As a homeschool mom, you get a lot of flexibility as to how school is done by your children. You can load up certain days with more assignments and lighten things up on other days, according to what else is happening in your life and your children's lives. You don't have bring junior home from soccer practice late in the evening and make sure the math assignment gets finished. You don't have your long weekend -- during which you are taking your family on a long-anticipated camping trip -- surprisingly usurped by a project that the teacher sends home at the last minute because she decides that you have all this time since it's a long weekend. You don't have to spend every Thursday night with your teary little girl, making sure she is ready for the dreaded weekly spelling test. You don't have to rush around in the morning finding missing shoes and trying to get that kid who just doesn't like breakfast to eat breakfast and then helping him clean up when he barfs because he really doesn't like breakfast. You don't have to cope with make-up work when your child is out sick for a week with the flu. SENDING YOUR KIDS TO SCHOOL IS DAMN STRESSFUL, in ways that homeschooling is not. Homeschooling my kids was WAAAAAY easier than sending them to school, even though I didn't have much precious "white space."
Of course, you could say that I am being all judgmental here. And you would be right. The thing is, though, that it is possible to think about and speak about and write about our life choices without bringing up other people and their life choices and making comparisons. We can just say, "This is what I decided to do and this is how it's working out for me." And we can realize that we really don't know what goes on in other people's homes and in other people's hearts.
Oh, well.
I was going to write about writing erotica. I have not actually written erotica, but I have some thoughts about writing it -- were I to do that -- which I wanted to express here. Maybe I will do that in my next post. If I ever did actually write erotica, I would probably do it in some other forum, under a pseudonym. So, if you would want to read my erotica -- should it ever materialize -- you will have to let me know and I will tell you where to find it. I think it would be quite good, and not lame. Most erotica is pretty lame, these days. I think my mom would have been excellent at writing erotica.
Anyway...
Instead of writing about erotica, I am going to write about a mom thing. The other day, I was reading the blog of a homeschooling mother of several children. Her kids have been busy with a variety of activities during these long, hot summer days, so she has had a lot of time alone. She writes: "....the house is mostly empty and I'm understanding how people who send their kids to school and work from home (Writing erotica, perhaps? JUST KIDDING! She did not say that. I am just being a wise-ass.) are able to accomplish so much. The rhythm definitely offers a great deal of white space."
Maybe I was in an overly sensitive mood when I read that statement. But, that statement seemed to me to be just a little bit judgmental and just a tad ignorant. It's kind of like this mother has allowed herself to feel inferior to these other mothers who send their kids to school and work from home and seem to get so much more accomplished than she does. And then she tells herself that she doesn't have to feel inferior about not getting as much accomplished, because these other women are sending their kids away every day. And -- it seems to be implied -- that she is patting herself on the back because she doesn't send her kids away. She goes to the trouble of keeping them with her, which is -- in her mind -- inherently superior.
It could very well be that this mother did not mean to be at all judgmental in what she said. Here is the thing, though: WHY DOES SHE EVEN HAVE TO SPEAK ABOUT THESE OTHER MOTHERS, who send their kids to school and work from home, AT ALL? She doesn't. She could just say that her kids are off at wonderful summer activities, which means she has lots of wonderful time to herself to get many things done. No comparison needs to be made to any other mothers. No mention needs to be made of any other mothers and their choices and their lives. Because these other mothers -- the ones who send their kids away to school and rejoice when summer vacation is over -- love their kids every bit as much as the homeschooling mothers. And they also feel plenty stressed out -- even with all their "white space."
Now, I have gone to school and taught school and sent my kids to school and homeschooled. And -- yes -- there is more "white space" when the kids go to school. But, let me tell you, the hours between 5:30 and 7:30 AM and 3:00 and bedtime are no picnic. Those hours are much, much, much harder when you send your kids to school than when you homeschool. As a homeschool mom, you get a lot of flexibility as to how school is done by your children. You can load up certain days with more assignments and lighten things up on other days, according to what else is happening in your life and your children's lives. You don't have bring junior home from soccer practice late in the evening and make sure the math assignment gets finished. You don't have your long weekend -- during which you are taking your family on a long-anticipated camping trip -- surprisingly usurped by a project that the teacher sends home at the last minute because she decides that you have all this time since it's a long weekend. You don't have to spend every Thursday night with your teary little girl, making sure she is ready for the dreaded weekly spelling test. You don't have to rush around in the morning finding missing shoes and trying to get that kid who just doesn't like breakfast to eat breakfast and then helping him clean up when he barfs because he really doesn't like breakfast. You don't have to cope with make-up work when your child is out sick for a week with the flu. SENDING YOUR KIDS TO SCHOOL IS DAMN STRESSFUL, in ways that homeschooling is not. Homeschooling my kids was WAAAAAY easier than sending them to school, even though I didn't have much precious "white space."
Of course, you could say that I am being all judgmental here. And you would be right. The thing is, though, that it is possible to think about and speak about and write about our life choices without bringing up other people and their life choices and making comparisons. We can just say, "This is what I decided to do and this is how it's working out for me." And we can realize that we really don't know what goes on in other people's homes and in other people's hearts.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Morality Clauses
I am thinking here, specifically, of those used by certain Catholic institutions.
Basically, you agree to abide by certain standards of conduct, if you are employed by one of those institutions -- standards of conduct which are approved by the Church -- or else you can be terminated from your job.
And, yeah, if you read my blog post from a couple of days ago, I guess this post is sort of related to that one.
Not all Catholic institutions require employees to sign morality clauses. It seems to me -- and this is based on my own personal observations -- that they are a growing trend among those institutions that consider themselves more "orthodox" or "traditional" or "faithful."
When I first heard of morality clauses, they were presented to me as a way by which a Catholic institution could protect its mission and ensure that it was setting an example of "correct" Church teaching. These contracts between an employer and employee were said to be a method by which a Catholic institution could avoid scandalizing the faithful. I guess it is thought that if everybody in the Catholic institution -- like a college, for instance -- is "on the same page" morality-wise, then the students won't become confused about what "being a Catholic" really means. Likewise, the surrounding community will also be clear as to what "being Catholic" truly entails, by observing the behavior of those at the Catholic institution.
How did I feel about that? Well, on the one hand, I could understand it. There is obviously a lot of confusion in our culture and society about what Church teaching actually is. So, I thought that if there was an institution dedicated to presenting it acurately -- both in word and example -- that it could be a positive thing. On the other hand, it struck me as rather elitist.
How do I feel about morality clauses now? I think they suck, basically. Why? Because schools -- and who knows what other kind of entities -- are firing people, not because they are poor employees, but because they do not conform to the "approved" morality. And, in doing this, legalism is being allowed to trump mercy, compassion, and charity. Also, in doing this, certain kinds of "sinners" are being singled out in a world where "all sin and fall short." ALL sin and fall short.
Why is this bad? Why is it bad to single out and fire certain kinds of sinners? Well, this is my experience, based on certain social situations I have had to endure. What happens is that the people who are left in the institutions -- the "pure" Catholics -- start to become rather prideful and self-congratulatory. Oh, yes, they beat their breasts and call themselves sinners and go to confession and profess to love mercy and compassion. But, when you hear them start talking to each other? There is an awful lot of pride going around. There is an awful lot of "let's pat each other on the backs because we're the 'good' Catholics" kind of attitude. There are a lot of unkind words concerning "unfaithful" Catholics and the "Hollywood Liberals" who want to "destroy marriage" and the "pro-aborts." Are all conservative Catholics this way? Of course not. But, there are enough. There are enough. And it makes me ill.
As an example, I was once talking to a Catholic "apologist." This person said that living on the Gulf Coast would be desirable. I commented that there are a lot of hurricanes in that area of the country. This person replied, "Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about Steve and Steve living next door." EXCUSE ME?!?!?! I happen to have a so-called "Steve and Steve" as neighbors, and they are the best neighbors you could possibly have. I am embarrassed to say that I didn't say anything to this person expressing my discomfort at this statement. At the time -- because of my personal situation -- I was feeling like a rather bad Catholic who should just shut up and listen to the "respected" Catholics. But, I have had a lot of time to think about and observe things since that time.
So, to bring this back to the issue of morality clauses:
Morality clauses -- because they keep certain "disapproved of" people out of places of employment -- cause the "approved of" people to have the "privilege" of not having to actually interact with these "marginalized" individuals. The people living "in sin" become more of a theological/philosophical concept than actual human beings, in all their wondrous complexity. A situation develops where the religious person may never have the necessity of forming a close, personal relationship with, for example, an LGBT person or a pro-choice person. And even if there are such people in a religious person's life, there is created vast opportunity to -- on a day-to-day basis, in a Catholic institution -- to regularly criticize those types of people, without them being present or being part of the discussion. To me, this is dangerous. It creates an atmosphere of superiority and snobbery and isolationism. It creates an atmosphere of fear. And the "holy" people -- even though they profess to being sinners -- almost can't help but take on the attitude that these other types of "sinners" are far worse than they. That has been my experience, at least.
As you may know, I homeschooled my kids. And for a long time, our homeschool group had a "park day," where the moms would bring their kids on Friday afternoons for playtime and socialization. My sister happened to be visiting one time, and accompanied my kids and I to "park day." She watched the kids and chatted with the moms. Later, though, she told me that one of the moms said to her that we, as a group, prayed for our homeschool community to remain composed of "pure" Catholics. "Huh?" I remarked. "I was never aware of that. That is not my intention." I asked one of the other moms if she was aware of this praying for our group to remain "pure," and she told me that she had no knowledge of this, either. That was a relief. Maybe it was some quirky thing. I don't know. But, I have to say that it has been my experience -- based on many years of hanging around with more conservative Catholics -- that this rather elitist attitude does not seem uncommon. And it seems to me that morality clauses -- and the fruits of those clauses -- only exacerbate these problematic attitudes among Catholics who consider themselves to be the "faithful" ones.
I am quite certain that a "logic" person could poke all kinds of holes in what I have just said here. Whatever. Somebody recently said to me, in a rather derogatory tone, "You just want everybody to feel good about themselves." Whatever. But, I just think about Jesus and how he acted towards the "sinners" versus how he acted toward the "teachers of the law." And many of the "sinners" really loved him and wanted to hang out with him all the time. So, obviously, he was not hitting them over the head with the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the contrary, he showed them true compassion. And compassion is a very powerful thing. Perhaps more powerful than morality clauses in the teaching of the faith and in setting an example for our children and teens and young adults.
Basically, you agree to abide by certain standards of conduct, if you are employed by one of those institutions -- standards of conduct which are approved by the Church -- or else you can be terminated from your job.
And, yeah, if you read my blog post from a couple of days ago, I guess this post is sort of related to that one.
Not all Catholic institutions require employees to sign morality clauses. It seems to me -- and this is based on my own personal observations -- that they are a growing trend among those institutions that consider themselves more "orthodox" or "traditional" or "faithful."
When I first heard of morality clauses, they were presented to me as a way by which a Catholic institution could protect its mission and ensure that it was setting an example of "correct" Church teaching. These contracts between an employer and employee were said to be a method by which a Catholic institution could avoid scandalizing the faithful. I guess it is thought that if everybody in the Catholic institution -- like a college, for instance -- is "on the same page" morality-wise, then the students won't become confused about what "being a Catholic" really means. Likewise, the surrounding community will also be clear as to what "being Catholic" truly entails, by observing the behavior of those at the Catholic institution.
How did I feel about that? Well, on the one hand, I could understand it. There is obviously a lot of confusion in our culture and society about what Church teaching actually is. So, I thought that if there was an institution dedicated to presenting it acurately -- both in word and example -- that it could be a positive thing. On the other hand, it struck me as rather elitist.
How do I feel about morality clauses now? I think they suck, basically. Why? Because schools -- and who knows what other kind of entities -- are firing people, not because they are poor employees, but because they do not conform to the "approved" morality. And, in doing this, legalism is being allowed to trump mercy, compassion, and charity. Also, in doing this, certain kinds of "sinners" are being singled out in a world where "all sin and fall short." ALL sin and fall short.
Why is this bad? Why is it bad to single out and fire certain kinds of sinners? Well, this is my experience, based on certain social situations I have had to endure. What happens is that the people who are left in the institutions -- the "pure" Catholics -- start to become rather prideful and self-congratulatory. Oh, yes, they beat their breasts and call themselves sinners and go to confession and profess to love mercy and compassion. But, when you hear them start talking to each other? There is an awful lot of pride going around. There is an awful lot of "let's pat each other on the backs because we're the 'good' Catholics" kind of attitude. There are a lot of unkind words concerning "unfaithful" Catholics and the "Hollywood Liberals" who want to "destroy marriage" and the "pro-aborts." Are all conservative Catholics this way? Of course not. But, there are enough. There are enough. And it makes me ill.
As an example, I was once talking to a Catholic "apologist." This person said that living on the Gulf Coast would be desirable. I commented that there are a lot of hurricanes in that area of the country. This person replied, "Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about Steve and Steve living next door." EXCUSE ME?!?!?! I happen to have a so-called "Steve and Steve" as neighbors, and they are the best neighbors you could possibly have. I am embarrassed to say that I didn't say anything to this person expressing my discomfort at this statement. At the time -- because of my personal situation -- I was feeling like a rather bad Catholic who should just shut up and listen to the "respected" Catholics. But, I have had a lot of time to think about and observe things since that time.
So, to bring this back to the issue of morality clauses:
Morality clauses -- because they keep certain "disapproved of" people out of places of employment -- cause the "approved of" people to have the "privilege" of not having to actually interact with these "marginalized" individuals. The people living "in sin" become more of a theological/philosophical concept than actual human beings, in all their wondrous complexity. A situation develops where the religious person may never have the necessity of forming a close, personal relationship with, for example, an LGBT person or a pro-choice person. And even if there are such people in a religious person's life, there is created vast opportunity to -- on a day-to-day basis, in a Catholic institution -- to regularly criticize those types of people, without them being present or being part of the discussion. To me, this is dangerous. It creates an atmosphere of superiority and snobbery and isolationism. It creates an atmosphere of fear. And the "holy" people -- even though they profess to being sinners -- almost can't help but take on the attitude that these other types of "sinners" are far worse than they. That has been my experience, at least.
As you may know, I homeschooled my kids. And for a long time, our homeschool group had a "park day," where the moms would bring their kids on Friday afternoons for playtime and socialization. My sister happened to be visiting one time, and accompanied my kids and I to "park day." She watched the kids and chatted with the moms. Later, though, she told me that one of the moms said to her that we, as a group, prayed for our homeschool community to remain composed of "pure" Catholics. "Huh?" I remarked. "I was never aware of that. That is not my intention." I asked one of the other moms if she was aware of this praying for our group to remain "pure," and she told me that she had no knowledge of this, either. That was a relief. Maybe it was some quirky thing. I don't know. But, I have to say that it has been my experience -- based on many years of hanging around with more conservative Catholics -- that this rather elitist attitude does not seem uncommon. And it seems to me that morality clauses -- and the fruits of those clauses -- only exacerbate these problematic attitudes among Catholics who consider themselves to be the "faithful" ones.
I am quite certain that a "logic" person could poke all kinds of holes in what I have just said here. Whatever. Somebody recently said to me, in a rather derogatory tone, "You just want everybody to feel good about themselves." Whatever. But, I just think about Jesus and how he acted towards the "sinners" versus how he acted toward the "teachers of the law." And many of the "sinners" really loved him and wanted to hang out with him all the time. So, obviously, he was not hitting them over the head with the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the contrary, he showed them true compassion. And compassion is a very powerful thing. Perhaps more powerful than morality clauses in the teaching of the faith and in setting an example for our children and teens and young adults.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
For The Older Mamas Of Older Kids
I came across this in someone's blog the other day:
"The beauty of a big family is that if a mother regrets something she did when she was young and imprudent, she might just have a chance at a redo with a younger child. The corollary is that I don't have the luxury of doing what some of my friends are doing as they settle into an empty nest. I can't look at the regrets, confess the mistakes, be forgiven, and relax in the grace. I have more children to raise."
I don't take issue with what she says about the "beauty of a big family." But, as the mama of a smaller family, with older children, I have a few comments.
My kids are 25, 23, and 21. Admittedly, I am not exactly an empty-nester. My oldest two are girls, and they both lived away from home during college, but returned after graduation. They still live at home, while working and carrying out their young adult lives. This is fine by me and my husband. They are good young women, and are a pleasure to have around. My son is presently away at college, but returns for Christmas and summer breaks. He is about as far away from home as he can get without leaving the continental United States, so we don't really see him at all during the times when his school is in session.
I can tell you for sure, though, that even if nobody lived at home during any time of the year, I could never "look at the regrets, confess the mistakes, be forgiven, and relax in the grace." Okay. Maybe I could do the first three things on this list, but never the last one. And I bet a lot of mamas in my position feel the same. I don't think most mamas can ever just fully "relax in the grace." And do you know why?
Because when a mama looks at her adult kids -- when she sees their struggles, their pain, their heartaches, their failures, their shortcomings -- she is going to (in part, at least) blame herself. She is going to wonder what she could have done differently. And this blaming and wondering is not going to ever completely go away. It will stay with her, for as long as her children have difficulties in life. And, let's face it, who doesn't have difficulties in life? We all do. So, basically, a mama will never completely "relax in the grace." She will never completely stop second-guessing at least some of the things she did while raising her kids. That's the way a mama's heart works, whether she has one child or a dozen. A mama's heart is a mama's heart. It is always concerned. It always feels its responsibility, no matter how empty the nest or how old the children.
Of course, this is not to say that there aren't special joys in being the mother of adult kids. It's fun to see what your children do with themselves when they grow up. It's very enjoyable to relate to them as adults -- with adult conversation and activities. For example, I really enjoy having movie dates and shopping trips and lunches and weekends with my daughters. And it's great fun when my son regales me with tales of college friendships and escapades. My kids also have pretty darn good sense, and have been known to give me great advice when I am confused about a decision I need to make.
In my circle of friends and acquaintances, though, there are many big families. And, occasionally, there are assumptions made about us mamas of smaller families, whether our children are small or grown -- assumptions that might be just a tad bit unfair. So, let's not forget that being a mother -- though great fun and quite rewarding -- can be very difficult. And it can be just as difficult on the mother of a smaller family, on the mother of older children, as it can be on the mother of many. And mothering -- including worrying and fretting about our mistakes -- really never, ever ends.
"The beauty of a big family is that if a mother regrets something she did when she was young and imprudent, she might just have a chance at a redo with a younger child. The corollary is that I don't have the luxury of doing what some of my friends are doing as they settle into an empty nest. I can't look at the regrets, confess the mistakes, be forgiven, and relax in the grace. I have more children to raise."
I don't take issue with what she says about the "beauty of a big family." But, as the mama of a smaller family, with older children, I have a few comments.
My kids are 25, 23, and 21. Admittedly, I am not exactly an empty-nester. My oldest two are girls, and they both lived away from home during college, but returned after graduation. They still live at home, while working and carrying out their young adult lives. This is fine by me and my husband. They are good young women, and are a pleasure to have around. My son is presently away at college, but returns for Christmas and summer breaks. He is about as far away from home as he can get without leaving the continental United States, so we don't really see him at all during the times when his school is in session.
I can tell you for sure, though, that even if nobody lived at home during any time of the year, I could never "look at the regrets, confess the mistakes, be forgiven, and relax in the grace." Okay. Maybe I could do the first three things on this list, but never the last one. And I bet a lot of mamas in my position feel the same. I don't think most mamas can ever just fully "relax in the grace." And do you know why?
Because when a mama looks at her adult kids -- when she sees their struggles, their pain, their heartaches, their failures, their shortcomings -- she is going to (in part, at least) blame herself. She is going to wonder what she could have done differently. And this blaming and wondering is not going to ever completely go away. It will stay with her, for as long as her children have difficulties in life. And, let's face it, who doesn't have difficulties in life? We all do. So, basically, a mama will never completely "relax in the grace." She will never completely stop second-guessing at least some of the things she did while raising her kids. That's the way a mama's heart works, whether she has one child or a dozen. A mama's heart is a mama's heart. It is always concerned. It always feels its responsibility, no matter how empty the nest or how old the children.
Of course, this is not to say that there aren't special joys in being the mother of adult kids. It's fun to see what your children do with themselves when they grow up. It's very enjoyable to relate to them as adults -- with adult conversation and activities. For example, I really enjoy having movie dates and shopping trips and lunches and weekends with my daughters. And it's great fun when my son regales me with tales of college friendships and escapades. My kids also have pretty darn good sense, and have been known to give me great advice when I am confused about a decision I need to make.
In my circle of friends and acquaintances, though, there are many big families. And, occasionally, there are assumptions made about us mamas of smaller families, whether our children are small or grown -- assumptions that might be just a tad bit unfair. So, let's not forget that being a mother -- though great fun and quite rewarding -- can be very difficult. And it can be just as difficult on the mother of a smaller family, on the mother of older children, as it can be on the mother of many. And mothering -- including worrying and fretting about our mistakes -- really never, ever ends.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Mothers Judging Mothers
I read a blog post recently by a stay-at-home, homeschool mom in which she bemoaned the fact that homemaking seems to be turning into a lost art. She wondered if, not too far into the future, the art of homemaking will be something only read about in fictional tales of yore. And she seemed to be aiming at least a little bit of negative energy at the women of whose homemaking efforts and skills she disapproves.
I am a stay-at-home mom, too. I also homeschooled my kids for many years. And I have enjoyed my life. Are there things I regret, things I wish I had done differently? Yes. Do I see the negative side of homeschooling, as well as the many ways in which it benefited my kids? Yes. Do I romanticize homemaking? No. Well, at least not as much as some other people seem to. Can I be kind of a rebellious bitch? Yes. Definitely.
So, in the spirit of rebellious bitchiness, here is the way I look at things.
First of all, many years ago (when I was a little girl), most women were home the majority of the time, but it was often out of necessity more than desire. For example, there was no Trader Joe's, or any type of food that could be prepared conveniently and in little time. Women had to cook from scratch, for the most part. There were no dish washers. The dish soap was not as good, thus necessitating more scrubbing. Stores such as Target -- which provide a variety of relatively inexpensive clothes -- did not exist. Women had to do at least some sewing. There were no cotton/poly blends, so most clothes had to be ironed. A lot of people didn't even have clothes driers, thus time had to be spent hanging the wash out on lines and then taking it back in. Floors did not have easy-to-clean finishes. They had to be stripped of their old wax and re-waxed regularly. Same with the wood furniture. Freezers had to be defrosted about every week -- manually. This meant emptying the freezer of its contents, turning it off, filling it with pots of boiling water, and then cleaning up the melting ice before it got all over the place. Baby bottles needed to be sterilized every day, because this was before pediatricians realized it really wasn't necessary. Doctors also required mothers to prepare baby formula daily using sterilized water Some women did nurse their babies, but it was not as common back then as it is now. And women who did nurse their babies generally didn't do it for very long. A lot of families only had one car, too -- usually used by the dad of the house to get to work -- which really put a crimp in the style of any mom who wanted to leave the house regularly.
So, when I see women criticizing other women for not attending properly to the art of homemaking, but instead working and bringing their kids to many after-school and summertime activities, I get a little annoyed. Especially when some of these critical women are bringing their kids to PLENTY of extra-curricular activities, which take up plenty of time. In fact, I have seen these critical women bristle when other, even more "traditional" women criticize them for putting their kids into too many sports and stuff. I mean, COME ON PEOPLE, maybe we should mind our own business and allow moms and dads to make their own decisions about their own kids and family styles. Maybe when are tempted to look to long and hard at others, we should instead turn our gaze to Ben McKenzie in "SouthLAnd." Um... I mean... to our own business.
I will close out with a little personal history. My dear cousin and her dear husband have three kids (now young adults) who are about the same ages as my three kids (also now young adults). Her kids went to school and did many sports and activities. They weren't home all that much. Their mom was not overly-concerned about the state of the corners of her kitchen floor. She also worked two days a week in a wonderful career field in which she excelled (and still excels). On top of it all, this remarkable mother earned a teaching credential while raising her kids. I, as I said, did homeschool. My kids were involved in activites, but not quite as many. I was a tad too concerned about the state of the corners of my kitchen floor. Did my kids turn out better than hers? Not at all. Not one teeny, tiny little bit better. All our kids are wonderful kids, making their way in the world as responsible, happy young adults. Would people rather come to my house than hers? Is my house warmer and more welcoming? Again, not at all. In fact, most people would rather go to her house. The food at her parties is better. And the atmosphere is full of fun. My point? Creating a wonderful family and a wonderful home can be done in many ways, including by ignoring the "art of homemaking" to a very large degree. It is the loving welcome that matters, not the organization of the linen closet.
In my opinion, anyway. ;-)
I am a stay-at-home mom, too. I also homeschooled my kids for many years. And I have enjoyed my life. Are there things I regret, things I wish I had done differently? Yes. Do I see the negative side of homeschooling, as well as the many ways in which it benefited my kids? Yes. Do I romanticize homemaking? No. Well, at least not as much as some other people seem to. Can I be kind of a rebellious bitch? Yes. Definitely.
So, in the spirit of rebellious bitchiness, here is the way I look at things.
First of all, many years ago (when I was a little girl), most women were home the majority of the time, but it was often out of necessity more than desire. For example, there was no Trader Joe's, or any type of food that could be prepared conveniently and in little time. Women had to cook from scratch, for the most part. There were no dish washers. The dish soap was not as good, thus necessitating more scrubbing. Stores such as Target -- which provide a variety of relatively inexpensive clothes -- did not exist. Women had to do at least some sewing. There were no cotton/poly blends, so most clothes had to be ironed. A lot of people didn't even have clothes driers, thus time had to be spent hanging the wash out on lines and then taking it back in. Floors did not have easy-to-clean finishes. They had to be stripped of their old wax and re-waxed regularly. Same with the wood furniture. Freezers had to be defrosted about every week -- manually. This meant emptying the freezer of its contents, turning it off, filling it with pots of boiling water, and then cleaning up the melting ice before it got all over the place. Baby bottles needed to be sterilized every day, because this was before pediatricians realized it really wasn't necessary. Doctors also required mothers to prepare baby formula daily using sterilized water Some women did nurse their babies, but it was not as common back then as it is now. And women who did nurse their babies generally didn't do it for very long. A lot of families only had one car, too -- usually used by the dad of the house to get to work -- which really put a crimp in the style of any mom who wanted to leave the house regularly.
So, when I see women criticizing other women for not attending properly to the art of homemaking, but instead working and bringing their kids to many after-school and summertime activities, I get a little annoyed. Especially when some of these critical women are bringing their kids to PLENTY of extra-curricular activities, which take up plenty of time. In fact, I have seen these critical women bristle when other, even more "traditional" women criticize them for putting their kids into too many sports and stuff. I mean, COME ON PEOPLE, maybe we should mind our own business and allow moms and dads to make their own decisions about their own kids and family styles. Maybe when are tempted to look to long and hard at others, we should instead turn our gaze to Ben McKenzie in "SouthLAnd." Um... I mean... to our own business.
I will close out with a little personal history. My dear cousin and her dear husband have three kids (now young adults) who are about the same ages as my three kids (also now young adults). Her kids went to school and did many sports and activities. They weren't home all that much. Their mom was not overly-concerned about the state of the corners of her kitchen floor. She also worked two days a week in a wonderful career field in which she excelled (and still excels). On top of it all, this remarkable mother earned a teaching credential while raising her kids. I, as I said, did homeschool. My kids were involved in activites, but not quite as many. I was a tad too concerned about the state of the corners of my kitchen floor. Did my kids turn out better than hers? Not at all. Not one teeny, tiny little bit better. All our kids are wonderful kids, making their way in the world as responsible, happy young adults. Would people rather come to my house than hers? Is my house warmer and more welcoming? Again, not at all. In fact, most people would rather go to her house. The food at her parties is better. And the atmosphere is full of fun. My point? Creating a wonderful family and a wonderful home can be done in many ways, including by ignoring the "art of homemaking" to a very large degree. It is the loving welcome that matters, not the organization of the linen closet.
In my opinion, anyway. ;-)
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Mercy Sunday, Lena Dunham, And The Missiles Of Righteous Wrath
Today, for Catholics, is Mercy Sunday. It is a time for remembering and celebrating the mercy of God. And for reflecting on how we should show mercy to others.
This has gotten me to thinking about Twitter. I love Twitter. I have "met" (if you can call it that) many wonderful people there.
When I first started using Twitter, I naturally followed some Catholic and Christian stay-at-home mom types. I figured we would have things in common. I also followed some artsy people -- cinematographers and directors and actors and producers and writers. I find that world quite fascinating, even though I don't consider myself to be very creative. And most of the people I have encountered on Twitter have been delightful and kind and funny and interesting. I have greatly enjoyed their "company."
I am going to describe an interesting experience I had, though. I hope nobody takes this as an insult, or anything. It is just an experience I had that caused me to reflect, and I think it is relevant to the whole idea of mercy.
Around election time, back in the fall, many people's opinions were being tossed around all over Twitter. There were liberal opinions and conservative opinions and moderate opinions. Of course, being a Catholic, I was reading opinions of the other Catholic and Christian stay-at-home moms. I was also being exposed to the opinions of the people those moms were listening to, by virtue of the "retweet" option on Twitter. And some of those opinions had to do with a young lady by the name of Lena Dunham. She had done an ad for the Obama campaign, the aim of which was to encourage young people to vote. She compared voting for the first time to having sex for the first time.
And the Catholic and Christian and conservative people pretty much went apoplectic over this ad. Interested by their vociferous Tweets, I Googled the ad and watched it for myself. And I giggled. Well, I pretty much laughed really, really hard.
I then went back and sent a Tweet to a couple of the Catholic ladies telling them that I thought the ad was kind of funny. I didn't mean any offense, or anything. Then hell proceeded to rain down upon me from the Catholic/conservative corners of the Twittersphere. I sort of didn't expect that. I thought we could all have our opinions and be respectful of each other. I thought we could try to see each others points of view. I thought we could all have a SENSE OF HUMOR. Well, I was wrong.
I felt sort of bad for making these poor moms stressed out with my opinion of Lena's ad. A lot of these moms have many kids and homeschool and are quite tired, so I didn't intend to further complicate their lives with my obviously misguided thoughts.
This whole thing got me thinking, though, about kindness and mercy. Especially where Christians are concerned.
Now, as a Christian, I probably have most of the same ideas about sexual morals as these people who fired their Missiles Of Righteous Wrath down on me. And how did these Missiles Of Righteous Wrath make me feel? On the one hand, I was kind of amused. On the other hand, I felt a little angry. Why? Because, as Christians, we have to think about how our words and actions and attitudes towards people -- even actors -- will affect them. If you hope that somebody will come to see and feel God's love, it is not helpful if you just shit (pardon my French) all over that person and his/her opinions. I mean, if I were Lena and I read some of the stuff religious people were saying about me and my ad, I would just think to myself, "Screw those self-righteous people. Long live the HHS mandate!" I would not be thinking about how I really wanted to go to Church now and socialize with all the Church people at their Church festival. I would get as far away as I possibly could from them and all their self-righteous ways. And, as I recall, Jesus himself did not care too much for the self-righteous, for the hypocrites. In fact, he tended to go to a lot of parties with a lot of people who were probably a lot like Lena Dunham. Because -- you know what? People like that are the people with the hearts yearning for love. They are the people with the open hearts. They are the people who yearn for fairness and justice. They are also a lot of fun. And I think Jesus liked to have fun, or he wouldn't have been going to all these parties.
Please don't misunderstand me here. I am NOT saying that you should be kind to people, that you should befriend them, because you want to convert them. That is NOT what I am saying. I have had people befriend me for that reason and, trust me, it did not feel good. That is not friendship. A friendship is based on mutual acceptance. It is unconditional. It exists in spite of differences. It respects and appreciates differences.
So, saying that, I hope my little diatribe has not been too offensive. And may we all reflect, on this beautiful Feast of Mercy, on how we can be a little kinder, a little more loving -- a little more merciful.
P.S. -- If you look at the people I follow on Twitter, in order to find the offending parties written about herein, you will not succeed.
This has gotten me to thinking about Twitter. I love Twitter. I have "met" (if you can call it that) many wonderful people there.
When I first started using Twitter, I naturally followed some Catholic and Christian stay-at-home mom types. I figured we would have things in common. I also followed some artsy people -- cinematographers and directors and actors and producers and writers. I find that world quite fascinating, even though I don't consider myself to be very creative. And most of the people I have encountered on Twitter have been delightful and kind and funny and interesting. I have greatly enjoyed their "company."
I am going to describe an interesting experience I had, though. I hope nobody takes this as an insult, or anything. It is just an experience I had that caused me to reflect, and I think it is relevant to the whole idea of mercy.
Around election time, back in the fall, many people's opinions were being tossed around all over Twitter. There were liberal opinions and conservative opinions and moderate opinions. Of course, being a Catholic, I was reading opinions of the other Catholic and Christian stay-at-home moms. I was also being exposed to the opinions of the people those moms were listening to, by virtue of the "retweet" option on Twitter. And some of those opinions had to do with a young lady by the name of Lena Dunham. She had done an ad for the Obama campaign, the aim of which was to encourage young people to vote. She compared voting for the first time to having sex for the first time.
And the Catholic and Christian and conservative people pretty much went apoplectic over this ad. Interested by their vociferous Tweets, I Googled the ad and watched it for myself. And I giggled. Well, I pretty much laughed really, really hard.
I then went back and sent a Tweet to a couple of the Catholic ladies telling them that I thought the ad was kind of funny. I didn't mean any offense, or anything. Then hell proceeded to rain down upon me from the Catholic/conservative corners of the Twittersphere. I sort of didn't expect that. I thought we could all have our opinions and be respectful of each other. I thought we could try to see each others points of view. I thought we could all have a SENSE OF HUMOR. Well, I was wrong.
I felt sort of bad for making these poor moms stressed out with my opinion of Lena's ad. A lot of these moms have many kids and homeschool and are quite tired, so I didn't intend to further complicate their lives with my obviously misguided thoughts.
This whole thing got me thinking, though, about kindness and mercy. Especially where Christians are concerned.
Now, as a Christian, I probably have most of the same ideas about sexual morals as these people who fired their Missiles Of Righteous Wrath down on me. And how did these Missiles Of Righteous Wrath make me feel? On the one hand, I was kind of amused. On the other hand, I felt a little angry. Why? Because, as Christians, we have to think about how our words and actions and attitudes towards people -- even actors -- will affect them. If you hope that somebody will come to see and feel God's love, it is not helpful if you just shit (pardon my French) all over that person and his/her opinions. I mean, if I were Lena and I read some of the stuff religious people were saying about me and my ad, I would just think to myself, "Screw those self-righteous people. Long live the HHS mandate!" I would not be thinking about how I really wanted to go to Church now and socialize with all the Church people at their Church festival. I would get as far away as I possibly could from them and all their self-righteous ways. And, as I recall, Jesus himself did not care too much for the self-righteous, for the hypocrites. In fact, he tended to go to a lot of parties with a lot of people who were probably a lot like Lena Dunham. Because -- you know what? People like that are the people with the hearts yearning for love. They are the people with the open hearts. They are the people who yearn for fairness and justice. They are also a lot of fun. And I think Jesus liked to have fun, or he wouldn't have been going to all these parties.
Please don't misunderstand me here. I am NOT saying that you should be kind to people, that you should befriend them, because you want to convert them. That is NOT what I am saying. I have had people befriend me for that reason and, trust me, it did not feel good. That is not friendship. A friendship is based on mutual acceptance. It is unconditional. It exists in spite of differences. It respects and appreciates differences.
So, saying that, I hope my little diatribe has not been too offensive. And may we all reflect, on this beautiful Feast of Mercy, on how we can be a little kinder, a little more loving -- a little more merciful.
P.S. -- If you look at the people I follow on Twitter, in order to find the offending parties written about herein, you will not succeed.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Let Us Strive Not To Let Things...
...Be Our "Undoing."
Today, I read on someone's blog that a certain political ad had been her "undoing." As this statement was a bit on the dramatic side, it got my attention and caused me to reflect.
Over the years, I have gone through many stages. I don't have an extremely stable outlook on life. Perhaps this is a bad thing, but it has also been an interesting ride. I have gone from being a Reagan conservative to a liberal feminist to a Rush Limbaugh fan; from a devout Catholic to a person who wanted to join the Anglican Church to a Latin Mass aficionado; from a public school teacher to a homeschool mom. I have been on both sides of the political and religious spectrum. Right now, I am pretty much in the middle. I think that Ellen DeGeneres is the funniest woman on the planet. I don't think the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for medical insurance that provides services that go against its teachings. But, I also cheer on Ben McKenzie as he travels the country encouraging people to vote. Yes, he's encouraging them to vote for Obama, but at least he is a classy guy. And, even though I think Romney has a lot of good ideas, that whole 47% thing really, really pissed me off. But, Obama's "guns and religion" comment from the last campaign pissed me off, too.
So, as you see, I am a person who is difficult to pigeon-hole. Maybe I should be on meds... Whatever.
Now -- back to the "undoing" thing.
How do we not allow other people and their opinions to be our "undoing?"
By looking for the virtue that most people have. I am not talking about homicidal, child-molesting sociopaths here. I am talking about your regular, mostly law-abiding citizens. And, by and large, these regular, law-abiding citizens have within them goodness. Seek out that goodness. Appreciate it. Enjoy it. And try to stand, and I mean really stand, in the shoes of "the other" before casting judgment. Before letting "the other" and his/her opinions be your "undoing."
I mean, even if you don't agree, can't you understand why a lot of people would think that it is only fair to allow gay people to marry? I understand this. And -- to risk being "excommunicated" -- there are some advantages I see to having gay marriage be legal. When I was a young woman, living near San Francisco, the AIDS epidemic was in full swing. And a lot of this epidemic was brought about because of people having sex that probably didn't involve a lot of commitment. By allowing gay people to marry, the more conservative among us could figure it this way -- "at least the gay people are now being encouraged by our societal laws to form truly loving and lasting relationships." I also read the 2012 Democratic Platform yesterday. And I discovered within it a statement that churches would not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. That's right. I bet a lot of us didn't know this.
And on the other side of things, I hope the more liberal among us can see -- even if they don't agree -- that religious people might take it as a violation of their freedom to have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees. I mean, last time I checked, condoms were not that expensive and didn't require a prescription. Yes, I have bought condoms. They make great water balloons. And yes, condoms are a bit of an effort to use as compared to some of the birth control methods that do require a prescription. But at least, dear ladies, with condoms your eggs are not being used as the "chattel of the pharmaceutical companies" (favorite O.C. quote ever).
With that being said, I really don't believe that Obama and his people are actively trying to persecute us religious folks with the "contraceptive mandate." I think they are actually sincere in their ideas that this law is necessary for ensuring the well-being of women. We may have a legitimate debate about how to define and bring about the true well-being of women in our society and in the world. But, I am willing to concede that the Democrats truly want the best for women, so I am not going to villify their motivations.
So, as this election season -- thank the Good Lord -- draws to a close, I hope we will choose to see the good in others. I hope that we will not jump to hasty and unfair conclusions about the motives of the "other side." In my life (and this will probably be another blog post on another day), I have often been treated the most kindly by people with ideas that are very different from my own. So, when I am tempted to become impatient and irritated at "wrong" ideas, I call this to mind. And then I don't become "undone" -- by anyone or anything. Usually, anyway. ;-)
Today, I read on someone's blog that a certain political ad had been her "undoing." As this statement was a bit on the dramatic side, it got my attention and caused me to reflect.
Over the years, I have gone through many stages. I don't have an extremely stable outlook on life. Perhaps this is a bad thing, but it has also been an interesting ride. I have gone from being a Reagan conservative to a liberal feminist to a Rush Limbaugh fan; from a devout Catholic to a person who wanted to join the Anglican Church to a Latin Mass aficionado; from a public school teacher to a homeschool mom. I have been on both sides of the political and religious spectrum. Right now, I am pretty much in the middle. I think that Ellen DeGeneres is the funniest woman on the planet. I don't think the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for medical insurance that provides services that go against its teachings. But, I also cheer on Ben McKenzie as he travels the country encouraging people to vote. Yes, he's encouraging them to vote for Obama, but at least he is a classy guy. And, even though I think Romney has a lot of good ideas, that whole 47% thing really, really pissed me off. But, Obama's "guns and religion" comment from the last campaign pissed me off, too.
So, as you see, I am a person who is difficult to pigeon-hole. Maybe I should be on meds... Whatever.
Now -- back to the "undoing" thing.
How do we not allow other people and their opinions to be our "undoing?"
By looking for the virtue that most people have. I am not talking about homicidal, child-molesting sociopaths here. I am talking about your regular, mostly law-abiding citizens. And, by and large, these regular, law-abiding citizens have within them goodness. Seek out that goodness. Appreciate it. Enjoy it. And try to stand, and I mean really stand, in the shoes of "the other" before casting judgment. Before letting "the other" and his/her opinions be your "undoing."
I mean, even if you don't agree, can't you understand why a lot of people would think that it is only fair to allow gay people to marry? I understand this. And -- to risk being "excommunicated" -- there are some advantages I see to having gay marriage be legal. When I was a young woman, living near San Francisco, the AIDS epidemic was in full swing. And a lot of this epidemic was brought about because of people having sex that probably didn't involve a lot of commitment. By allowing gay people to marry, the more conservative among us could figure it this way -- "at least the gay people are now being encouraged by our societal laws to form truly loving and lasting relationships." I also read the 2012 Democratic Platform yesterday. And I discovered within it a statement that churches would not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. That's right. I bet a lot of us didn't know this.
And on the other side of things, I hope the more liberal among us can see -- even if they don't agree -- that religious people might take it as a violation of their freedom to have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their employees. I mean, last time I checked, condoms were not that expensive and didn't require a prescription. Yes, I have bought condoms. They make great water balloons. And yes, condoms are a bit of an effort to use as compared to some of the birth control methods that do require a prescription. But at least, dear ladies, with condoms your eggs are not being used as the "chattel of the pharmaceutical companies" (favorite O.C. quote ever).
With that being said, I really don't believe that Obama and his people are actively trying to persecute us religious folks with the "contraceptive mandate." I think they are actually sincere in their ideas that this law is necessary for ensuring the well-being of women. We may have a legitimate debate about how to define and bring about the true well-being of women in our society and in the world. But, I am willing to concede that the Democrats truly want the best for women, so I am not going to villify their motivations.
So, as this election season -- thank the Good Lord -- draws to a close, I hope we will choose to see the good in others. I hope that we will not jump to hasty and unfair conclusions about the motives of the "other side." In my life (and this will probably be another blog post on another day), I have often been treated the most kindly by people with ideas that are very different from my own. So, when I am tempted to become impatient and irritated at "wrong" ideas, I call this to mind. And then I don't become "undone" -- by anyone or anything. Usually, anyway. ;-)
Friday, August 31, 2012
This Homeschooling "Thing"
I am not going to talk about SouthLAnd today, as much fun as that would be. I will talk about it again soon. And when I do, I will speak of the wondrous Sammy Bryant. ;-)
Today, I am going to ponder "homeschooling". It seems like a good time for this, as it is Labor Day weekend, the traditional final weekend of summer vacation.
Some people believe I have been a bit hard on homeschoolers in my blog. Sorry if you feel that way. I think homeschooling can be a wonderful thing. I mean, I homeschooled my kids for a total of 13 years. So, logically, I must find it to be a reasonably acceptable educational alternative. The only other logical conclusion is that I am crazy. And maybe I am a little crazy.... But, as with any decision in life, I think it is important to look at both the pro's and the con's, without getting overly defensive about your own position. I believe this to be a healthy thing.
There are many positive aspects to homeschooling. Firstly, when all the other kids were heading back to their educational institutions in August, my kids never started their studies until after Labor Day. They also had two full weeks of Christmas vacation and their Easter break actually coincided with Easter. There were no teacher in-service days, and I could adjust the calendar so that we could accomplish everything by Memorial Day weekend. So, you can see my first priority as a homeschool mom -- lots of time off. (Tongue-in-cheek here. So, don't get your undies in a bunch people.)
Seriously, though, there are many true benefits to home education. I did teach in a public high school at one time, and I realized some things. Most of the kids who did not succeed had poor basic skills -- reading, writing, math. They were also disorganized and did not take personal responsibility for their work. Of course, if you cannot read, write, and do math at a grade-appropriate level, you will probably not have much motivation to be organized and responsible. I also came to the conclusion that if a person has strong basic skills, he or she will be able to tackle most of the other academic subjects with reasonable proficiency. So, as a home educator, I was able to concentrate on helping my kids achieve proficiency in these basic skills in grades K-8, so that they were then able to apply them to a more rigorous high school curriculum which would prepare them for college. Thus far, this approach has borne good fruit. My two oldest have successfully graduated from college. My youngest is a college sophomore, whose grades thus far have been very solid. I do not mean to brag here about the greatness of my own children. I believe this approach could work for many people's children, giving them opportunities for higher education that they might not otherwise have. I know this is a bold assertion, unsupported by any formal research. So, let me just call it an hypothesis.
Another wonderful aspect of home education is that the curriculum can be adjusted to reflect a child's interests. This is fun for both the student and the teacher, as the student will have much more enthusiasm about his or her studies. For example, my youngest son became a World War II buff at approximately age seven. Therefore, he was eager to read and write about this topic; and he also came to appreciate the importance of mathematics in the area of aviation. Fractions may be boring, in and of themselves, but he realized he would have to learn about them in order to be able to fly a plane like the aces of WWII.
On the other hand, though, there are negative aspects to homeschooling. And these must be squarely faced, in my opinion. If you are a home educator, and someone questions or criticizes your choice, you should not be defensive and accuse that person of persecuting you. You should thoughtfully consider these questions and criticisms. They might help you to be a better teacher to your children. They might help you to strengthen your program. Many people, for instance, wonder whether or not homeschooled kids have adequate extracurricular and social activities. Most of these kids do have opportunities in these areas, but I have also seen some problems. Socially, homeschoolers do tend to hang with other homeschoolers, who are of similar backgrounds and points-of-view. This can be a wonderful thing for forging the bonds of friendship. We all enjoy being with like-minded people. But, on the other hand, children and teens who attend public (and private) schools do tend to be regularly exposed to those of differing viewpoints, and there are benefits that come with this. One of these benefits, which I think is very important, is that the kids can come to view those with different opinions as actual human beings who can be VERY GOOD FRIENDS, friends who will truly stand by them in a time of need. It is important for kids to learn that they can actually enjoy the company and wonderful qualities of those who are different from themselves. And it has been my personal experience that many homeschoolers have difficulties when entering the "real" world, as they can be highly suspicious of those with the "wrong" viewpoints.
Because homeschooling is often undertaken without any connections with authorities in private or public educational institutions, there are those who will prey on homeschoolers and take unfair advantage of them. There are people who privately provide extracurricular activities for home educated students. Most of these people are wonderful, don't get me wrong. But, I have also seen some of these providers make almost fraudulent claims about themselves. These providers are also usually not subject to the background checks that are required of those who work in accredited private and public schools. So, a warning to homeschool families: Just because a person says he or she is a Christian, or supports Christian beliefs, or is going to vote for the pro-life candidate, doesn't mean you should trust that person. There are people who will say these things in order to take advantage of you. Be aware and beware.
Homeschoolers tend to be very bright and independent people, who firmly believe that it is the parents' right and duty to choose and provide for their children's educations. I believe this, also. And, it is not that I am a total "It Takes A Village" kind of person, but I think we need to remember that there are some advantages to what I think of as the educational "safety net". If a child is in school, there are multiple people there to support the parents and the family. And most educators truly do want to support the parents and the family, in spite of what some may believe. So, as a parent, if you choose to remove yourself from the educational establishment, it is important to remember that sometimes you can misjudge a situation or make a mistake in a decision. Humility is required. If you have a friend or friends who care for you and are expressing concern about your educational decisions, at least listen and consider respectfully what they have to say. In the end, your decisions are your own, but try not to be dismissive of the concerns of others.
I hope I have clarified my views on homeschooling. I do not regret my decision to educate my children at home, but after many years of doing this "thing", these are the conclusions I have come to about this choice. May all parents be granted wisdom as they make decisions for (and with) their children about what type of education is best for them. And may we realize that people do not all fit into the same mold, and that variety is the spice of life.
Today, I am going to ponder "homeschooling". It seems like a good time for this, as it is Labor Day weekend, the traditional final weekend of summer vacation.
Some people believe I have been a bit hard on homeschoolers in my blog. Sorry if you feel that way. I think homeschooling can be a wonderful thing. I mean, I homeschooled my kids for a total of 13 years. So, logically, I must find it to be a reasonably acceptable educational alternative. The only other logical conclusion is that I am crazy. And maybe I am a little crazy.... But, as with any decision in life, I think it is important to look at both the pro's and the con's, without getting overly defensive about your own position. I believe this to be a healthy thing.
There are many positive aspects to homeschooling. Firstly, when all the other kids were heading back to their educational institutions in August, my kids never started their studies until after Labor Day. They also had two full weeks of Christmas vacation and their Easter break actually coincided with Easter. There were no teacher in-service days, and I could adjust the calendar so that we could accomplish everything by Memorial Day weekend. So, you can see my first priority as a homeschool mom -- lots of time off. (Tongue-in-cheek here. So, don't get your undies in a bunch people.)
Seriously, though, there are many true benefits to home education. I did teach in a public high school at one time, and I realized some things. Most of the kids who did not succeed had poor basic skills -- reading, writing, math. They were also disorganized and did not take personal responsibility for their work. Of course, if you cannot read, write, and do math at a grade-appropriate level, you will probably not have much motivation to be organized and responsible. I also came to the conclusion that if a person has strong basic skills, he or she will be able to tackle most of the other academic subjects with reasonable proficiency. So, as a home educator, I was able to concentrate on helping my kids achieve proficiency in these basic skills in grades K-8, so that they were then able to apply them to a more rigorous high school curriculum which would prepare them for college. Thus far, this approach has borne good fruit. My two oldest have successfully graduated from college. My youngest is a college sophomore, whose grades thus far have been very solid. I do not mean to brag here about the greatness of my own children. I believe this approach could work for many people's children, giving them opportunities for higher education that they might not otherwise have. I know this is a bold assertion, unsupported by any formal research. So, let me just call it an hypothesis.
Another wonderful aspect of home education is that the curriculum can be adjusted to reflect a child's interests. This is fun for both the student and the teacher, as the student will have much more enthusiasm about his or her studies. For example, my youngest son became a World War II buff at approximately age seven. Therefore, he was eager to read and write about this topic; and he also came to appreciate the importance of mathematics in the area of aviation. Fractions may be boring, in and of themselves, but he realized he would have to learn about them in order to be able to fly a plane like the aces of WWII.
On the other hand, though, there are negative aspects to homeschooling. And these must be squarely faced, in my opinion. If you are a home educator, and someone questions or criticizes your choice, you should not be defensive and accuse that person of persecuting you. You should thoughtfully consider these questions and criticisms. They might help you to be a better teacher to your children. They might help you to strengthen your program. Many people, for instance, wonder whether or not homeschooled kids have adequate extracurricular and social activities. Most of these kids do have opportunities in these areas, but I have also seen some problems. Socially, homeschoolers do tend to hang with other homeschoolers, who are of similar backgrounds and points-of-view. This can be a wonderful thing for forging the bonds of friendship. We all enjoy being with like-minded people. But, on the other hand, children and teens who attend public (and private) schools do tend to be regularly exposed to those of differing viewpoints, and there are benefits that come with this. One of these benefits, which I think is very important, is that the kids can come to view those with different opinions as actual human beings who can be VERY GOOD FRIENDS, friends who will truly stand by them in a time of need. It is important for kids to learn that they can actually enjoy the company and wonderful qualities of those who are different from themselves. And it has been my personal experience that many homeschoolers have difficulties when entering the "real" world, as they can be highly suspicious of those with the "wrong" viewpoints.
Because homeschooling is often undertaken without any connections with authorities in private or public educational institutions, there are those who will prey on homeschoolers and take unfair advantage of them. There are people who privately provide extracurricular activities for home educated students. Most of these people are wonderful, don't get me wrong. But, I have also seen some of these providers make almost fraudulent claims about themselves. These providers are also usually not subject to the background checks that are required of those who work in accredited private and public schools. So, a warning to homeschool families: Just because a person says he or she is a Christian, or supports Christian beliefs, or is going to vote for the pro-life candidate, doesn't mean you should trust that person. There are people who will say these things in order to take advantage of you. Be aware and beware.
Homeschoolers tend to be very bright and independent people, who firmly believe that it is the parents' right and duty to choose and provide for their children's educations. I believe this, also. And, it is not that I am a total "It Takes A Village" kind of person, but I think we need to remember that there are some advantages to what I think of as the educational "safety net". If a child is in school, there are multiple people there to support the parents and the family. And most educators truly do want to support the parents and the family, in spite of what some may believe. So, as a parent, if you choose to remove yourself from the educational establishment, it is important to remember that sometimes you can misjudge a situation or make a mistake in a decision. Humility is required. If you have a friend or friends who care for you and are expressing concern about your educational decisions, at least listen and consider respectfully what they have to say. In the end, your decisions are your own, but try not to be dismissive of the concerns of others.
I hope I have clarified my views on homeschooling. I do not regret my decision to educate my children at home, but after many years of doing this "thing", these are the conclusions I have come to about this choice. May all parents be granted wisdom as they make decisions for (and with) their children about what type of education is best for them. And may we realize that people do not all fit into the same mold, and that variety is the spice of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)