Oh, Those Rising Gas Prices

I guess I'd be giving away my age if I relate that I remember a time when gas was 88 cents a gallon. My mom? 35 cents. My, how times have changed. Now, with gas prices hovering around $4/gallon, I have begun to appreciate my most recent high gas-mileage car purchase. But we still have a car whose gas mileage is not so eco- and, hence, price friendly. So, we've been doing what we can to cut back. We drive the fuel-efficient car more, we avoid driving more and further than what is absolutely necessary, and we don't drive as fast as we used to. Lately, I've been observing the practices of others on the road and I have noticed that the traffic around me is not moving as fast as it used to. I assume that others are trying to save on gas as well.

Just last week (Thursday to be exact), my mom and I were doing some grocery shopping and started to notice an inordinate amount of cars pulled over to the side of the road. We began counting. I think on our trip to the store and back, we counted about 8 stalled cars. Many of the cars were older model Explorers and trucks. Given that the date of these stall-outs, I began to wonder if these were cars that had run out of gas while their drivers hoped against hope to make the gas last until pay day on the first. I shared my thoughts with my mom. She says that, from now on, people who run out of gas on the side of the road should display a sign reading "Out of Gas." The sign would serve to alert others as to how the gas problem is real, how it is affecting our neighbors around us, and...heck...maybe, some kind soul would actually be kind enough to stop and give a gallon. What a great idea. If there were enough signs, enough awareness of the problem, perhaps something would be done that would actually help. Pandering to the public with additional stimulus incentives of tax cuts isn't going to cut it. Sorry, presidential candidates. What will work is that terrible word that no one wants to say out loud. You know it begins with an R, has a G in the middle, and ends with an N. If you can't figure it out, go ask your friendly neighborhood liberal. Big profits for big gas companies needs to be curbed, period. For this country, gasoline is an unnatural resource that we cannot, unfortunately, live without. Then, like water, we need to make sure that all people have reasonable access to it. That doesn't mean it should be free but, like other necessary resources, the price needs to be controlled. Don't worry, friendly conservatives, we're too chicken to do it. It ain't going to happen. Fine. We'll all just sit without gas. But, let's at least put out our signs!!!

Coming into Her Toddler-hood

In the past week or so, I've begun to notice some changes in LilyBaby. She's starting to assert her will a bit more. Okay, so she's becoming a wee bit more stubborn. She does things she knows she's not supposed to (like climbing up the side of the stairs) and hiding behind the screen in the living room and gets very frustrated when we have no choice but to gently but firmly discipline her. At the moment, the discipline is going well. We are able to stop the behavior, communicate our disapproval and the reason for the disapproval. She responds with frustration and sadness at having being stopped. Disciplining her, while difficult, seems to come naturally to us. We know we're doing it for the right reasons and I'm proud of myself in that I have not lost my temper when I've had to discipline.

Today, she threw a tantrum when her daddy had to put her favorite chair in the closet. Of course, we had told her several times to stop climbing on the chair but she just wanted to see what she could get away with. During the fit, John and I just ignored her and continued watching television. Of course, we had a corner eye on her to make sure she didn't hurt herself. After letting her carry on for a couple of minutes, I started playing with one of her favorite toys. That took her mind off the tantrum and she calmed down and came over to play. I'm proud of myself. She threw another little fit at the dinner table. You see we have a toddler who refuses to eat at night!!! What this means is that she wakes up in the middle of the night for a bottle because she's hungry. We've been obliging her because forcing her to eat at night is not an option. I suspect a little reflux that keeps her up at night. We'll see.

As for the potty-familiarizing, it's going well. She pee-pees on her potty when we remember to take her or when she feels like alerting us but we haven't had success with poo. I guess that will come eventually. We aren't going to force.

All in all, we can't complain too much. I notice her cranky patterns tend to fall around hungry times and need a nap times. I do think, though, that we're beginning to get into the challenging twos a little early but, hopefully, with continued patience and love, we'll get through this like we've gotten through everything else.

Speaking of Guilt and Mothering...

If you've read my profile, you've probably noticed that I'm what most would call a "working mom" in that I work 40+ hours away from home and leave my child in the care of another - in my case, my mother. Since LilyBaby was born a little more a year ago, actually since I got pregnant with LilyBaby, coming on two years now, I've been advised by various people about what I should and should not be doing with my life and with the life of LilyBaby - in regards to mothering but also in regards to work.

I have always found these comments interesting, if not somewhat offensive, because I had never experienced this advice before becoming a mother. Before I became a mother I was always encouraged to get my education, to devote myself to my career, and to be the best at what I do. Of course, like all good Americans, I was told happiness and prosperity with ensue as a result of all this hard work. Okay, fine. I got my B.A., I got my M.A., I even got to the final step in a Ph.D. program. Up until LilyBaby was conceived, applause from all around. Even though I was married, it was generally assumed that LilyDaddy and I would take care of each other and that we should both be able to pursue our scholarly interests. It didn't matter that his salary is very healthy and could easily support us both; what mattered is that I used my education to the fulfillment of myself. Why should I depend on any man for my livelihood? Again, great. I have no problem with this. LilyDaddy and I both work very hard to earn what we've got and we both understand that our salaries are needed to support the goals we have for present and, more importantly, for future.

Then came LilyBaby. For some reason, a lot of people assumed that because I was embarking into motherhood, my views of womanhood had somehow changed. No one mentions the possibility of my finishing my Ph.D. except for my husband and many give me curious looks when I relate that I am not really interested in being a stay-at-home mom. They are especially curious because they somehow "know" that my husband's profession would permit me to stay at home without much cause for financial alarm. What I'm realizing more and more is that there is an assumption that when one becomes a mother, that is all a mother wants or should want to be. Hence, the introduction of intensive mothering. Anyone interested in womens' studies is familiar with the term or at least the concept of intensive mothering. As the term implies, intensive mothers are those mothers who are...well intense when it comes to mothering. Gender and social theory believes that these intensive mothers arise from ideological statements, both subtle and not, communicated to women. These statements tell moms that only if they perform an action a certain way will their child stand to reach their greatest potential. What action? You name it. Just walk down the parenting isle of your favorite bookstore. Everything from breastfeeding, to sleeping, to potty training, to discipline, to education....the list goes on and on. If you don't breastfeed your child for one year, if your fifteen month old still wakes in the middle of the night for a bottle, if your toddler is 3 and still is not potty-trained, then you are a failure as a mother. Everyone has an opinion and no one mothers correctly.

Suddenly women who were once so supportive and understanding were experts at everything related to mothering. And the comparisons made to their children...don't even get me started. So what is the appeal of intesive mothering? Well, the appeal is multi-fold. First, I find that intensive mothering speaks to many womens' sense of competitiveness. This competitiveness that comes natural for some and has been developed in the educational world in which many of us have profited. See, we weren't taught to be compassionate accountants and professors; we were taught to compete. So, when faced with staying home, what better place to compete than with the raising of children? I guess it's better than competing for who has the cleanest house, but I'm sure that factors into the competition somehow.

Another appeal or dis-appeal of intensive mothering is the inordinate sense of guilt that is automatically built into the concept. In fact, intensive mothering could not stand without it. It's this idea that if you are not in-line with the current research on child rearing than your child is undoubtedly bound to suffer. You didn't teach your baby sign language? Now she'll never be able to communicate her frustrations and the psychological damage she'll suffer is irreversable! Now, most of us can laugh it off. But, after hearing so many many messages including those that contradict each other, it becomes more and more difficult to have confidence in what you're doing. And if you're a working mom, forget about it. You don't even have enough time to spend with your child let alone care enough to devote the time needed to her rearing.

The media and our conservative society, in general, avidly supports the idea of intensive mothering. And why not? It encouraged mothers to stay home, to turn down promotions and opportunities for advancement at work, to stay in unhappy marriages, and to have more kids! Ah...the preservation of the lower middle class and patriarchy. Two in one!!! If you doubt that society supports intensive mothering, I encourage you to turn on the news. Just yesterday I heard about a child being kidnapped from daycare. And you can usually count on a story about a wayward nanny who abuses the child in her charge. What is the message? Mommy should not leave her child in the care of others; she should take care of the child herself. What we don't realize is how rare these cases are. I mean, really, how often are children kidnapped from daycare? And, for the record, the child was quickly found. But the message was clearly related nontheless.

So what's real? What I have found is as long as a child is loved and supported in a home environment, the child is going to do just fine. Not every child is going to be a genius, but every child has gifts. What is important in raising a child is how to foster those gifts. Truth be told, a secure environment that consists of a combination of both day care and home is fine. And before you say, it's fine but it's not ideal, I would say...nothing is ideal. Even those stay at home mom situations are not always ideal Sometimes I think my LilyBaby would be better off in day care but...I've given into the idea of intensive mothering a bit...and so has my mother.

The ideology of intensive mothering is pervasive and it's difficult, if not impossible, to break out of. The best a young feminist can do is be aware of it, study it, and continue to read feminist works for support to counteract the pressure. My battery is running low; that's all for now.

Toddler TV Watching

I know it's terrible that my toddler watches television but there is one show that she absolutely adores and which I actually find quite good. It's SuperWhy and it comes out on PBS twice a day. I usually let LilyBaby watch the show once a day, provided she is getting bored with her toys, etc. We watch it together and if you've never seen it, it's quite cute. The premise of the show is that there are four (actually five if you include the viewer) "Superreaders" who go into storybook village and adventure through a story. The four super readers each have a special power - alphabet power, spelling power, word power, and reading power - and the viewer has the power to help. As the viewer and the superreaders go through the story, each character uses his/her power to help the story progress and eventually reach its conclusion. The educational purpose of the show is learning to read through phonics. It's fun and LilyBaby tries to participate though her phonic-power isn't quite as adept as the show's target audience. So, to her, every sound is "t" or "b". I am so surprised though at the amount of words she recognizes and responds to. A couple of people tell me she's smart. My response? I hope so. We'll see. Whatever her intellectual capacity, we love her.

In regards to television, I first felt quite guilty about letting her watch. I have read that television should be banned for children under 3 and a lot of people I know don't even own a television. But, after a couple of weeks at home, I decided that letting LilyBaby sit down for a half-an-hour break (and giving myself one too), isn't too bad. It kind of refreshes me after running around with her all morning. Sometimes, I'm able to sneak in a read while she's watching. So, in the end, I go against what is supposedly "right" and here I post my guilty confession. There is a lot of inherent and rhetorical guilt built in when it comes to mothering, isn't there? I will, of course, let you know if LilyBaby's brain rots as a result of watching television and will then advocate against it as much as the next mother. Until then, though, horray for SuperWhy!

California's Decision

Well, I caught glimpses of same-sex couples in California lining up for marriage licenses this morning, courtesy of CNN. This issue has, lately, created sort of a conundrum for me. On the one hand, it goes against my nature to want to deny someone the same opportunities for happiness and stability that have been granted to me. So, part of me is in agreement with California, Massachusetts and other states that have granted same-sex unions. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is against it. So, there's my problem. I have always been one who wants to use my faith to justify good behavior and vice versa. There are many out there who feel that if you are Catholic, you cannot and should not support same-sex unions. I have prayed about this issue and have thought, academically and politically about it, as well. In my family and among my circle of friends and acquaintances there have been homosexuals. There aren't deviants; they aren't out to destroy family values. In my experience, they are just people in search of happiness and the American Dream...aren't we all? And, yes, Church and State are kept separate...what I'm talking about here is my own personal struggle with the issue and what my response as a good American citizen who is also Catholic should be.

The Catholic argument against homosexuality goes something like this:

1. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered because they go against natural law. This natural law is designed towards procreation. In other words, because homosexual relations cannot result in the conception of a child, the act itself is depraved. For the Church, this is quite logical because, as Catholics, we are also against contraception, pre-marital sex, and abortion. So the Church, in its teachings on marriage, is consistent in that the sex act itself serves the purpose of both procreation and unity. To separate either purpose from the act is an offense against natural law.
2. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity and are to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination is to avoided in their regard. (CCC 2358-2359).

Here's the rub, for me. As a country, is it possible to reserve civil unions for heterosexual couples, even though that could be seen as discriminatory? On the other hand, does granting civil unions to same-sex couples automatically sanction the act of homosexuality which goes against natural law? It seems the answer to second question is yes while the answer to the first question is no. I guess the Church (or an orthodox Catholic) might argue that if preserving natural law necessitates discriminatory behavior, then natural law must trump. That makes sense to me. But, we do live in a country that does not recognize itself as Christian or Catholic and strives to separate the entities of Church and state for the benefit of the inclusion of rights for all. That, I feel, is what makes this country great.

So, in the end, I end up separating my religious faith from my politics (a very bad thing I know). How do I justify it? I guess I can't. All I do know is that when the argument is made that homosexuality is an offense against heterosexual marriage, I stop listening. There are so many other grave offense against heterosexual marriage that I don't even think homosexual unions show up on the radar. Marriage, in general, is no longer looked at as a sacramental union between anyone. Instead, our culture seems to view marriage as something that is to be entered into for convenience, for fun, and for the moment. Divorce abounds; adultery is commonplace; etc. So does that mean, we should just add homosexual unions to the list of "offenses"? I don't know. Perhaps I've just convinced myself that homosexual unions are not ideal. But I think I see homosexual unions as something that has sprung up as a result of our disrespect and disregards for marriage in general. Rather than persecuting the homosexuals in search of stability, acknowledgement, and happiness, then, our best bet may be to start with taking a good hard look at what makes heterosexual unions so wonderful in the first place and why they are worth saving at all.

I did want to clarify that if I see homosexual unions as an offense against anything, it would be against the sacramental purpose of marriage. This means, I would see homosexual unions as an offense against the Church. I don't think, at this time, that homosexual unions pose a threat to the state. In fact, I think such unions could be good for the state and would, therefore, have to agree with the civil proceedings and rights that are granted to same-sex couples in search of such a union. For their part, many homosexual couples don't give a darn what any Church thinks about their union. They just want the right to be happy and they want the right to share in the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy (and probably take for granted). Again, taking religion out of the picture, what is wrong with that?

Patience with LilyBaby and Prayer

This morning I received an email from work that needed my immediate attention. One of my teachers was giving me a hard time about choosing a Catholic text for our Catholic curriculum. You see, she's a Baptist fundamentalist evangelical who teaches in our Catholic school because the pay is way better than in the Christian schools of our area. She does use her position to sneak in a little Protestant theology whenever she gets a chance. I don't have too big of a problem with it considering we have Protestant students at our school too. What I do have a problem with is when she proselytizes to the students about what's wrong with Catholic teachings. She has never been brought to task for this but is well-known for having these moments of proselytizing every now and then. Anyway the text in question in Willa Cather's Death Comes for the Archbishop. It's a novel about a European missionary who is sent to the southwest United States as Apostolic Bishop of the region. The novel is about his spiritual journey and is really quite beautiful in its natural and symbolic imagery. The novel does a good job in representing the Catholic Church. Though not all of the priests are in-line with Catholic teachings, the Bishop responds lovingly yet firmly. Seeing that our students have never really had a good experience with reading a Catholic text in a Catholic setting, I felt it would be a good addition for AP juniors and I stand by the inclusion. My colleague, on the other hand, is understandably having a difficult time with the text. She wrote me an email questioning its inclusion, its validity, etc. So I had to reply quickly. Did I mention that hers is the job that I currently hold after she was demoted? But that is another story.

Anyway, while attending to this email, LilyBaby decided it was prime time for taking all the books off the book shelf and throwing them onto the floor. She also threw things from her father's desk onto the floor. My husband and I, who were both very busy this morning, began to notice our patience quickly waning in regards to this beautiful little girl. I remember reading that prayer might help in times of patience. Sadly, the only prayer I could come up with is the strength to not throw the little girl onto the couch, forcing her to cry, but getting her out of my way. Somehow, I was able to write the coherent email and get LilyBaby to stop crying all in one fell swoop. And, no, she did not get thrown onto the couch. She was placed there though. Daddy got off to work and I'm left to sit and wonder how I'm going to get my summer work done at the rate I'm at now. You see, many mistake the fact that teachers, because they get a summer break, use that entire break to do very little. Most of us use this break to prepare for the upcoming school year, at least the best of us do. I have always gotten my best planning done during the summer but this summer I'm finding myself very frustrated with taking care of LilyBaby and trying to keep up with the upcoming year. The pressure is especially on because this will be the first year that I am in charge of managing the department.

Last night, on the Catholic radio channel, I heard about the need for prayer. The speaker likened prayer to oxygen for the soul. Essentially, the soul cannot live without prayer. This was a little disconcerting for me...not because I don't believe in what was said but because I often feel at a loss for prayer. I don't know what to say, what to do, and I definitely feel pressed for time. I find I am more comfortable with memorized prayers because they are familiar and I can say them on the go. The really hard prayers are the ones I have to come up with on my own but the ones I probably need the most. My husband is quite the opposite. Raised in the protestant tradition, he is easily able to come up with personal prayer and leaves the memorized prayer for ceremony and Mass. When we were first married, we would pray together at night...but I grew uncomfortable with it so we stopped. I think I recognized the fact that it was too humbling and I didn't like being humbled in front of my husband. Ah, there's pride. I've wanted to start it up again but have been too embarrassed to ask. Of course it doesn't help that we're both exhausted when we go to bed. Now what does all this have to do with new mothering? I have found myself getting better with the whole patience thing though I do still have my moments (like now) where I have to get away from LilyBaby for a few minutes. I guess now would be the time for prayer. A time to pray for patience...a prayer to the Blessed Mother perhaps. A prayer for me to recognize that when LilyBaby cries, it's because she needs me; other things can wait...at least for a little while. After all she does take a nap at 11 and she does like Super Y. The more I remember how fast she's growing up the more I feel bad about getting frustrated with her. Again, more prayer is needed.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad...Barack Obama?

To steal a line from Frank Rich...

In a recent conversation with a fellow blogger and dear friend, we talked about the candidates that be. Both of us expressed disappointment over the primary loss of Hillary but this is where our commonality ends. You see, my friend cannot vote for Barack Obama because she finds him "morally abhorrent". I was intrigued and asked for clarification and elaboration. She and one of her friends pointed me to a comment made by Senator Obama that equates punishment with children in the context of birth control and teenage pregnancy. Yes, I think Obama misspoke. I think he could have used better rhetoric...but is that a reason to characterize the man as "morally abhorrent" or value-defunct? Sadly, I'm not convinced.

Another argument that she and her friend came up with was one involving the deification of Obama by his supporters. Many seem to feel that Obama is being glorified by his constituents and newfound fans. For some reason, this is different from the popularity our current president enjoyed shortly after that terrible terrible day in 2001. Now, to be fair, my friends did mention that Bush and his supporters never saw Bush as a god, himself, whereas Obama's supporters do. But, I still have to ask the question: what does this have to do with Obama himself and his ability to lead? As long as he, himself, is not declaring himself God-incarnate, I don't see a problem. Every leader has its nutty groupies. Now Obama is being blamed for the beliefs of his followers? There is no evidence that he has encouraged or instigated this as far as I know...just like there is no evidence that he is a Muslim (not that would necessarily be a bad thing if he was). So, again, for me the argument fails. I'm still researching Obama though.

You see, my husband is an Obama supporter. I was a Clinton supporter. I haven't made up my mind about what to do in November. I did hear Senator Barbara Boxer reporting on Senator McCain's voting record in regards to women and it was perplexing. I don't see myself voting for a man who neither voted for equal wages for equal work nor for child care subsidies for single working mothers. That would go against my nearest and dearest principles.

I have to say, I never found myself in a position to be defending Senator Obama but here I am...telling my friends that their arguments just aren't flying. And they all seem to stem from fear. Fear of the big black president? I can't help but wonder if there is a little race relation in that fear. I don't hear too many people expressing irrational fears around McCain. Those fears seem to be rooted in some form of logic. For example, I have heard a few people express fear of a McCain victory because of a possible war extension in Iraq. For me, that fear is reasonable and grounded in statements that McCain, himself have made. But the sentiments of fear surrounding Obama just don't seem to have any grounding in reason.

For example, there's the fear that he's a Muslim because his father was one. Why this is terribly scary, I don't know but I'll play. Let's say it is scary and let's say we don't want a Muslim for president. Why is Obama automatically a Muslim because his father was (and a loose one at that)? My research tells me he has pledged himself to Christianity, as has his wife and daughters, shouldn't we just leave it at that? I don't remember anyone accusing any other political candidate of being anything other than Christian. But I guess there was no reason to.

There's another fear involving Obama. His patriotism. Again, this seems to me something that cannot really be argued without hard evidence. Has the man ever been found guilty of treason? Has he ever outwardly expressed the overthrowing of the government through force or violence? Has he ever spit on or burned an American flag? I know, I know. He didn't put his hand over his heart while a patriotic song was being sung. I can hardly get my students to recite the pledge of allegiance in the morning. Does this make them unpatriotic? Patriotism, much like Christianity, is expressed through actions - not through ceremonial gestures and not through the wearing of certain pieces of memorabilia (though those gestures and objects are great). I think if this man has invested all of his money, all his energy, all of his time, into the running of a campaign for senate and then for president, then must he have some marginal form of interest in this country? And who would want to lead for the purpose of destruction? Even rogue leaders thought they had the best interests in the country at heart, so this argument just doesn't fly with me either. Disagree with his principles; disagree with his strategies; but patriotism is just so nebulous. I can't agree with this man being unpatriotic. Even if does seek to change this country at its core, that doesn't make him unpatriotic. I think this argument has to do with a definition of patriotism which is probably flawed in that it must deal with conservation of status quo, but I digress. Let's move on....

Fear of Michelle. Well, I'm just not going to go there because that is ridiculous on so many levels. Are we still at the stage where we should be afraid of an assertive woman who supports her husband? If you ask me, I'd like to know more about Cindy McCain. Why is she so quiet? Doesn't she have anything to say? How old is she anyway? However old she is, she looks great!

So, you see. All of this poor rhetoric against Senator Obama, for me, says more about the people spreading it than it does about the candidate himself. It also says a great deal about this country and the work it still needs to do in regards to sound logic and unfounded prejudice.

The argument that does bear some thought? His experience. That is probably the most viable argument out there. But, I haven't heard too much on it. Off to research I go.

I'll Probably Go To Hell For This...

My husband I have been perplexed, lately, about the common thread between pro-life conservatives and their affiliation for corporations - even if those corporations are at odds with pro-life sentiments. So, in a particulary rare LilyBaby-free moment we started brainstorming about bumper stickers that would satirize the awkward connection...the strange bedfellows if you will. Here is some we can up with:

Fair Wages...Stops a Corporation's Beating Heart

No matter how small, a coporation is still a corporation

You Can't Be Both Pro-Democracy and Pro-Regulation!

Diapers are Disposable...Corporate-Tax Loopholes are Not

Save the Baby Businesses!!!

Federal Regulation is Like Magic...It Makes Big Business Disappear!!

Okay, so you get the idea. Snarky? Yes. Taking a terrible tragedy/condition and making light of its existence? Probably. But, there's something behind more behind our sick little game. You see, my husband I are pro-life. Our definition of pro-life is just a lot more expansive and includes the freedom of individual choice. In fact, you'll probably find this blog quite eclectic in that subjects will range from Catholicism to politics to motherhood to toddler raising to working mom issues to feminism. I've never fit into many categories which is why I won't expect to garner a strong readership. I can't join any Catholic mom's groups because I'm not conservative enough in my Catholicism. But, I am Catholic. In fact, I teach in a Catholic school!! Go figure.

Back to our little bumper sticker game. It seems that many Christian conservatives, in their efforts to promote one issue, lose focus on how other issues effect the very people - the very babies - they are trying to protect. What are those other issues? Poverty, Health Care (which is a right - not a privelege or a responsiblity - if you're pro-life), Worker Issues, Children's Issues, Womens' Issues, etc. etc. etc.

Now, where is this all coming from? You see, I have this nasty tendency to want to fit in. I always have. It must be some kind of psychologic holdover from high school. Living in one of the most conservative and, yes, Christian regions of this country, I want to fit in. I want to be a conservative. But, you see, my Catholic upbringing just won't let me. It's impossible for me to ignore my dreams of equal opportunity for children's education and health; it's impossible for me to ignore my belief that poor people do deserve a break every now and then - breaks that I, myself, took advantage of when getting my college education; it's impossible for me to ignore the unfair practices of big business as the economy sinks into a quagmire. I have asked family and friends to please convince me that right is right, but to no avail. The logic just doesn't make good sense to me. So I continue to search for good, logical conservative argument...argument that is unbiased, unprejudiced, and Christian in nature. Through this and other venues, my search will continue.