No sooner do I express any interest in blogging again than we hit a rough week and only today do I find myself with a few minutes at the computer and two free hands for typing. So a (very brief) recap of the past few months are in order.
I abandoned blogging (and most other fun activities) this fall and winter because my pregnancy was just too tough. I didn't have enormous problems or complications, I just felt tired, sick, and overwhelmed just about all the time. Now I don't feel sick, so there has been some improvement since Will's birth. Those of you who have more than one kid know that two kids are sooooo much harder and more work than one, and Will is a much more challenging baby than Molly was. He cries a lot when he's tired, can't fall asleep by himself, and has trouble staying asleep during the day (fortunately night time isn't too bad anymore!), so much of my time is spent holding him and rocking him. In the past two weeks, he's turned from being a generally cranky baby to a deliriously happy baby (except for the aforementioned crying spells when he's overtired and ready to sleep, and those are generally down to less than an hour a day now), so we have decided to keep him. Molly had a lot of trouble with the transition at first but is doing much better now, so we are not getting rid of her either. I am generally a wreck, but much less so than I was a month ago, so that's progress too.
As for what's on my mind nowadays, the answer is not much. I have even less contact with the outside world and ideas than I did before, if you can believe that. Consequently, my blogging is going to be much closer to home than it was before - I'm not terribly interested in politics at the moment, I don't have much to say about religion in general having been isolated from any faith community or Christian conversation for some time now. I think about food, simplicity, and their connection to the environment. I think about reading (Harry Potter) and watching tv (Dexter, Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and Flight of the Conchords), although I am months and even years behind the general public on most of these. And, of course, I think about kid stuff, like teaching my children values, or encouraging their imaginations, or dealing with seemingly everyone's ideas on gender roles being regularly foisted upon me simply because I have kids. And I figured I owe a little blogging to poor Will - every moment of my pregnancy with Molly and her early years have been lovingly documented here (fetal hiccups! her baptism! etc., etc.), and he gets introduced to the blogosphere with a "well, I was pregnant and had this baby" sidebar some months later - typical treatment of a second child, so I'm told.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
If a Tree Falls in the Woods...
...and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? Likewise, if a blogger falls off the face of the earth for several months and then randomly posts again long after everyone's stopped reading her blog, is this really a post?
Anyway, sometimes I think about blogging again, albeit in a smaller and humbler way that is compatible with sleep deprivation and no time to have a life of my own. At least I can occasionally post pictures of my kids:
Anyway, sometimes I think about blogging again, albeit in a smaller and humbler way that is compatible with sleep deprivation and no time to have a life of my own. At least I can occasionally post pictures of my kids:
Will (born Feb. 22)
Molly (who turned 3 on Tuesday)
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Boundaries and Creativity
(The first part is here.)
I am a mother of a two year old, so I spend approximately 10-12 hours a day establishing and reinforcing boundaries ("no, you can't climb on the table; no, you can't watch more tv, etc., etc."). And those of us who have spent time around small children know that when "no" is the end of the discussion, much protest often follows. Children adjust better to boundaries when they are given alternatives ("no, you can't watch more tv; why don't you play with blocks instead?").
Many of the boundaries I give my daughter are for basic safety or social convention (e.g., the prohibition on climbing on tables) but others, like the limits on tv, are reflective of my values. My first reaction basically is that watching too much tv will rot her brain. While this is undoubtedly a truthful and good argument for limiting her viewing, it's not really the complete or the best argument against excessive tv. What I'm really saying when I want her to turn off Dora the Explorer is that 1) there are more important things for our family than watching tv, and 2) there are healthier ways to spend your time. And because Molly really likes to watch tv, it's essential that I encourage the fun things that are her alternative to tv. She also loves reading books and playing with toys and going outside. When I make her turn off the tv, I am just the mean old mother depriving her of something she really likes; when I instead encourage her to engage in another activity that she enjoys, I'm sending the message that there is a world of possibilities for fun when she turns off the tv. These other possibilities also foster important (to us) values like imagination or physical activity. This is an active rather than a reactive stance.
We've become so consumed with consumerism that changing that lifestyle will result in an enormous void. It seems like we are being asked to deny ourselves the things we love (shopping, entertainment, cool toys) without being given anything to replace it - of course this doesn't seem like a palatable option. But there are fun and, more to the point, meaningful alternatives to the current cultural trend of overindulgence! Where the church can be a positive player in this discussion is to point out and create these alternatives.
With the fast pace, activity level, and materialism of most modern lifestyles, placing boundaries on consumerism can allow for more opportunity to embrace qualities that are central to a healthy spiritual life (Christian or not). Right now, we have a barrage of stimulation and a constant quest for novelty found outside of ourselves. Boundaries can create more space in our lives for creativity, contemplation, or fellowship. I especially think creativity is an important value - when we are consumers, we are passive recipients who take in what is fed to us. When we are creative (and I don't necessarily mean that we need to produce something with our hands - ideas for entertainment or problem-solving methods would count, too), then we reflect that part of human nature that we believe is made in the image of a creator God. When we are active and creative, we challenge, entertain, and exercise ourselves. Boundaries also allow us to appreciate what we have rather than to be inundated with more than we can fully enjoy. (These also fit with the idea of creative deprivation that I wrote about awhile ago.)
Where we can find alternatives to consumerism in our own lives depends a lot of personal preference and our own creativity. A first step for any of us starting down this road is to move past this internalized marketing ethos that we need to buy new things to find ourselves or care for our loved ones (e.g., we show people we care at holidays by buying gifts, kids need new toys to keep them amused, we need new clothes to perk up our wardrobes, we need new technological gadgets for whatever reason, etc.). Then we can rediscover other ways of finding joy. Sure, we should avoid eating at McDonald's because the food is unhealthy for our bodies and has terrible effects on the environment, but we should embrace making a homemade meal from produce bought at the farmers' market because it is healthier for our bodies, our planet, our communities, and it tastes really good. Focusing less on presents for kids can open doors for family activities at Christmas and birthdays, and it is healthy for kids to think about a bigger picture than their own satisfaction. Alternatives don't have to be sacrifices.
I am a mother of a two year old, so I spend approximately 10-12 hours a day establishing and reinforcing boundaries ("no, you can't climb on the table; no, you can't watch more tv, etc., etc."). And those of us who have spent time around small children know that when "no" is the end of the discussion, much protest often follows. Children adjust better to boundaries when they are given alternatives ("no, you can't watch more tv; why don't you play with blocks instead?").
Many of the boundaries I give my daughter are for basic safety or social convention (e.g., the prohibition on climbing on tables) but others, like the limits on tv, are reflective of my values. My first reaction basically is that watching too much tv will rot her brain. While this is undoubtedly a truthful and good argument for limiting her viewing, it's not really the complete or the best argument against excessive tv. What I'm really saying when I want her to turn off Dora the Explorer is that 1) there are more important things for our family than watching tv, and 2) there are healthier ways to spend your time. And because Molly really likes to watch tv, it's essential that I encourage the fun things that are her alternative to tv. She also loves reading books and playing with toys and going outside. When I make her turn off the tv, I am just the mean old mother depriving her of something she really likes; when I instead encourage her to engage in another activity that she enjoys, I'm sending the message that there is a world of possibilities for fun when she turns off the tv. These other possibilities also foster important (to us) values like imagination or physical activity. This is an active rather than a reactive stance.
We've become so consumed with consumerism that changing that lifestyle will result in an enormous void. It seems like we are being asked to deny ourselves the things we love (shopping, entertainment, cool toys) without being given anything to replace it - of course this doesn't seem like a palatable option. But there are fun and, more to the point, meaningful alternatives to the current cultural trend of overindulgence! Where the church can be a positive player in this discussion is to point out and create these alternatives.
With the fast pace, activity level, and materialism of most modern lifestyles, placing boundaries on consumerism can allow for more opportunity to embrace qualities that are central to a healthy spiritual life (Christian or not). Right now, we have a barrage of stimulation and a constant quest for novelty found outside of ourselves. Boundaries can create more space in our lives for creativity, contemplation, or fellowship. I especially think creativity is an important value - when we are consumers, we are passive recipients who take in what is fed to us. When we are creative (and I don't necessarily mean that we need to produce something with our hands - ideas for entertainment or problem-solving methods would count, too), then we reflect that part of human nature that we believe is made in the image of a creator God. When we are active and creative, we challenge, entertain, and exercise ourselves. Boundaries also allow us to appreciate what we have rather than to be inundated with more than we can fully enjoy. (These also fit with the idea of creative deprivation that I wrote about awhile ago.)
Where we can find alternatives to consumerism in our own lives depends a lot of personal preference and our own creativity. A first step for any of us starting down this road is to move past this internalized marketing ethos that we need to buy new things to find ourselves or care for our loved ones (e.g., we show people we care at holidays by buying gifts, kids need new toys to keep them amused, we need new clothes to perk up our wardrobes, we need new technological gadgets for whatever reason, etc.). Then we can rediscover other ways of finding joy. Sure, we should avoid eating at McDonald's because the food is unhealthy for our bodies and has terrible effects on the environment, but we should embrace making a homemade meal from produce bought at the farmers' market because it is healthier for our bodies, our planet, our communities, and it tastes really good. Focusing less on presents for kids can open doors for family activities at Christmas and birthdays, and it is healthy for kids to think about a bigger picture than their own satisfaction. Alternatives don't have to be sacrifices.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Speaking of Wendell Berry...
Since I mentioned Wendell Berry in my last post, it seems fitting that I came across this passage last night that comments on the kind of things I've been thinking about lately around here.
from "Christianity and the Survival of Creation," in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community, pp. 99-100
Obviously, "the sense of the holiness of life" is not compatible with an
exploitive economy. You cannot know that life is holy if you are content to live
from economic practices that daily destroy life and diminish its possibility.
And many if not most Christian organizations now appear to be perfectly at peace
with the military-industrial economy and its "scientific" destruction of life.
Surely, if we are to remain free and if we are to remain true to our religious
inheritance, we must maintain a separation of church and state. But if we are to
maintain any sense or coherence or meaning in our lives, we cannot tolerate the
present utter disconnection between religion and economy. By "economy" I do not
mean "economics," which is the study of money-making, but rather the ways of
human housekeeping, the ways by which the human household is situated and
maintained within the household of nature. To be uninterested in economy is to
be uninterested in the practice of religion; it is to be uninterested in culture
and in character. Probably the most urgent question now faced by people who
would adhere to the Bible is this: What sort of economy would be responsible to
the holiness of life? What, for Christians, would be the economy, the practices
and the restraints, of "right livelihood"? I do not believe that organized
Christianity now has any idea. I think its idea of a Christian economy is no
more or less than the industrial economy - which is an economy firmly founded on
the seven deadly sins and the breaking of all ten of the Ten Commandments.
Obviously, if Christianity is going to survive as more than a respecter and
comforter of profitable iniquities, then Christians, regardless of their
organizations, are going to have to interest themselves in economy - which is to
say, in nature and in work. They are going to have to give workable answers to
those who say we cannot live without this economy that is destroying us and our
world, who see the murder of Creation as the only way of life.
from "Christianity and the Survival of Creation," in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community, pp. 99-100
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Boundaries and Health
Michele had a comment on my last post about the difficulties of learning about and changing consumerist tendencies in the church and I was especially struck by her worries about divisiveness and feeling guilty when talking about these issues. I wonder if a lot of the negativity that she's experienced and that is a real possibility if churches try to tackle a controversial topic is indicative of both a culture and a church that doesn't know how to think about boundaries.
Of course, our consumerist society is saturated with messages that boundaries of any sort are at best un-American and at worst antithetical to our fundamental liberties as human beings. Restraint is not part of our vocabulary - even people trying to lose weight are offered products telling them they can eat whatever or however they much.
The church, on the other hand, deals with boundaries by erecting large signs saying, "DANGER! KEEP OUT!" I'm thinking especially of the public messages on sex, which boil down to "all Christian sex should be married sex, which is better than all the disease-ridden, morally corrosive (for women particularly), and generally unhealthy unmarried sex that all those other people (and probably you, too) are having."* This type of messaging also carries over to things like drugs and alcohol or secular cultural temptations - "stay away from things that are bad for you." What this message discounts is that most things that are "bad" for you can still feel good or be fun. Teenagers don't have sex because it's now an activity they can do without getting STDs; they have sex because sex is generally a pleasurable thing. If the church adopts a message of "don't buy too much stuff or things that you like because they're bad for you," we're not addressing the issue that buying and owning stuff is fun. This approach will probably have the same effect that other messages demonizing "bad" and "fun" things have - lots of guilt-ridden people will do it anyway.
Wendell Berry has written about how as a society, we've lost a concept of what good health is (he's thinking particularly of issues of the environment and medicine, but I no longer have the specific essays in front of me for reference). I think our attitudes toward avoiding bad things demonstrate a failure to understand what health means. We're good at pointing out what is unhealthy about sex or drugs/alcohol or even consumerism without boundaries, but a lack of unhealthy behavior is not identical to good health. Health is not just an absence of bad consequences; health is the presence of benefits and growth that comes from a healthy lifestyle. I've thought for a long time that the church needs to articulate a positive theology of sex and if it ever addresses consumerism and economics, it should take a similarly affirmative approach to healthy behavior. Instead of saying, "we don't do something because it's bad," we need to say, "let's do something different because it's good." This is a different strategy from the current one that reacts to a culture without boundaries; it's a strategy proposing a new message that an alternative is healthy and good.
We need to think about an alternative that doesn't tell people that denial and asceticism are the response to a problem; we instead need to remember how appropriate boundaries are not only healthy but allow us to flourish much more than we can in an ethos of gluttony. I hope to get to this part tonight or tomorrow.
------------------
* I have read some articles by Lauren Winner, but not her most famous book, Real Sex, and my impression is that she's trying to change the conversation about sex in the Christian world. I'm not sure what particularly Christian perspective she takes on chastity and married sex, but it seems that she approaches the topic from an angle that accentuates the positive rather than just demonizes everybody else's sex lives.
Of course, our consumerist society is saturated with messages that boundaries of any sort are at best un-American and at worst antithetical to our fundamental liberties as human beings. Restraint is not part of our vocabulary - even people trying to lose weight are offered products telling them they can eat whatever or however they much.
The church, on the other hand, deals with boundaries by erecting large signs saying, "DANGER! KEEP OUT!" I'm thinking especially of the public messages on sex, which boil down to "all Christian sex should be married sex, which is better than all the disease-ridden, morally corrosive (for women particularly), and generally unhealthy unmarried sex that all those other people (and probably you, too) are having."* This type of messaging also carries over to things like drugs and alcohol or secular cultural temptations - "stay away from things that are bad for you." What this message discounts is that most things that are "bad" for you can still feel good or be fun. Teenagers don't have sex because it's now an activity they can do without getting STDs; they have sex because sex is generally a pleasurable thing. If the church adopts a message of "don't buy too much stuff or things that you like because they're bad for you," we're not addressing the issue that buying and owning stuff is fun. This approach will probably have the same effect that other messages demonizing "bad" and "fun" things have - lots of guilt-ridden people will do it anyway.
Wendell Berry has written about how as a society, we've lost a concept of what good health is (he's thinking particularly of issues of the environment and medicine, but I no longer have the specific essays in front of me for reference). I think our attitudes toward avoiding bad things demonstrate a failure to understand what health means. We're good at pointing out what is unhealthy about sex or drugs/alcohol or even consumerism without boundaries, but a lack of unhealthy behavior is not identical to good health. Health is not just an absence of bad consequences; health is the presence of benefits and growth that comes from a healthy lifestyle. I've thought for a long time that the church needs to articulate a positive theology of sex and if it ever addresses consumerism and economics, it should take a similarly affirmative approach to healthy behavior. Instead of saying, "we don't do something because it's bad," we need to say, "let's do something different because it's good." This is a different strategy from the current one that reacts to a culture without boundaries; it's a strategy proposing a new message that an alternative is healthy and good.
We need to think about an alternative that doesn't tell people that denial and asceticism are the response to a problem; we instead need to remember how appropriate boundaries are not only healthy but allow us to flourish much more than we can in an ethos of gluttony. I hope to get to this part tonight or tomorrow.
------------------
* I have read some articles by Lauren Winner, but not her most famous book, Real Sex, and my impression is that she's trying to change the conversation about sex in the Christian world. I'm not sure what particularly Christian perspective she takes on chastity and married sex, but it seems that she approaches the topic from an angle that accentuates the positive rather than just demonizes everybody else's sex lives.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Some Thoughts on a Christian Response to Consumerism
Today I read two thoughtful essays, at The Fire and the Rose and at Ben Witherington's blog, wondering what Christians should do about consumerism. I've thought about questions like theirs for awhile now and it's nice to find other people contemplating these issues as well. By no means do I think I have it all figured out when it comes to being a reflective Christian consumer, but here are some of my thoughts on the topic.
It seems to me that the basic American assumption about buying stuff that the majority of Christians accept as well is this: "I want X; therefore, I will buy it." There are a couple of specifically Christian ways to reflect on, undermine, or expand upon this central assumption. Christians need to think and pray about what we buy and from whom, and why we buy it.
As Christians called to love other human beings who are created in God's image, we need to move beyond the individualism implicit in our purchasing assumptions and realize that the decisions we make about what to buy affect other people (and animals, too). What we buy isn't just about our individual needs and lives, but is connected to a web of other individuals and communities. So I think that first of all we need to cultivate an awareness of our impact on others and then work to make that impact as loving as possible.
Do the products we buy or the companies we support harm the people who produce, harvest, or in some way bring the product to us? Are animals treated cruelly so that I can have this product? Will this product's manufacture or transport contribute to environmental conditions that will harm other people? Of course, in many cases, the answers will be yes, even for those of us who try to be conscientious and compassionate consumers. Trying to minimize the pain that our consumerism causes by choosing different buying habits or refraining from buying when possible is a way to show mercy to people that God loves.
A second aspect involving love for neighbor is whether a purchase is the best use of these particular funds. Would this money be better used to help the poor, support a mission project, assist a neighbor or relative in need, or provide for our family's future?
A second critical component of being a reflective Christian consumer is why we buy. For most Christians, I suspect the answer doesn't differ from non-Christians - we buy things because we want them and we can (or because we have enough credit). The question I think about a lot is whether we should buy something simply because we are able to. Is wanting a product reason enough to buy it? Are there alternatives to buying this thing that may fit better with the way God is calling me to live? Other questions we can ask include: Do I need something new? Can I borrow a replacement, build or repair one myself, or make do with what I already have? Aren't there good, spiritual reasons to avoid excess and instant gratification of our every material desire?
A major issue of the why we buy is intimately wrapped upwith the messages and advertisements that induce us to buy. In many ways, our culture considers people first and foremost to be consumers (which conflicts with the Christian idea that we are first and foremost to be people in relationship with God). Americans (and this undoubtedly includes many faithful Christians) spend more than we earn and consume more than we need (in many cases, we literally consume more food than we need given the widespread obesity in our country). In addition to suggesting that we are generally irresponsible stewards of our money, I think this also indicates a serious spiritual crisis.
Christianity and product advertising essentially begin with the same premises about the human condition: that humans fall short of an ideal, that we are broken, incomplete, and in need of fulfillment. The solution Christianity offers is reconciliation with God through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The solution that our consumer culture offers is self-improvement and fulfillment through buying products. The fact that so many marketers successfully appeal to our dreams of excitement and freedom through the cars we drive, social acceptance through the alcohol we drink, reassurance of our parenting abilities through the processed food we buy our kids, recognition of our innovative thinking through the computers and electronic toys we buy, the aspiration to unrealistic physical and sexual ideals through countless products, etc., etc., suggests that Christianity's offer is still not enough for most people. We're still trying to fill our spiritual holes with ideals and images surrounding products and brands (and our peers' reaction to them).
Both solutions make promises and offer hope. Christians believe that God has fulfilled promises in the past and will fulfill them in the future; our hope is not misplaced. The promises of our consumer culture are fleeting; they are designed to meet our needs only until the new and improved model comes along. Marketers trust that our hopes will never be met and our ideals never fulfilled, or else we'll be content with what we own and won't need to buy more.
These are just some starting points that I think it would be valuable for churches to address. I've never come across a church that has even touched upon a Christian approach to personal economics; how we spend our money is far too personal and taboo to be a popular sermon series, I'd guess. From my own experiences in a Bible study and a church committee, bringing up personal economics has been met with a lot of silence; at first I thought people were just indifferent and now I suspect that I made them uncomfortable. But why is this a topic that makes Christians more uncomfortable than others? We are accountable before God for our money and stewardship, just as we are for other possessions and actions we take - why shouldn't this accountability be something that community members can support one another in? How can we change this culture of silence regarding the way we spend our money?
It seems to me that the basic American assumption about buying stuff that the majority of Christians accept as well is this: "I want X; therefore, I will buy it." There are a couple of specifically Christian ways to reflect on, undermine, or expand upon this central assumption. Christians need to think and pray about what we buy and from whom, and why we buy it.
As Christians called to love other human beings who are created in God's image, we need to move beyond the individualism implicit in our purchasing assumptions and realize that the decisions we make about what to buy affect other people (and animals, too). What we buy isn't just about our individual needs and lives, but is connected to a web of other individuals and communities. So I think that first of all we need to cultivate an awareness of our impact on others and then work to make that impact as loving as possible.
Do the products we buy or the companies we support harm the people who produce, harvest, or in some way bring the product to us? Are animals treated cruelly so that I can have this product? Will this product's manufacture or transport contribute to environmental conditions that will harm other people? Of course, in many cases, the answers will be yes, even for those of us who try to be conscientious and compassionate consumers. Trying to minimize the pain that our consumerism causes by choosing different buying habits or refraining from buying when possible is a way to show mercy to people that God loves.
A second aspect involving love for neighbor is whether a purchase is the best use of these particular funds. Would this money be better used to help the poor, support a mission project, assist a neighbor or relative in need, or provide for our family's future?
A second critical component of being a reflective Christian consumer is why we buy. For most Christians, I suspect the answer doesn't differ from non-Christians - we buy things because we want them and we can (or because we have enough credit). The question I think about a lot is whether we should buy something simply because we are able to. Is wanting a product reason enough to buy it? Are there alternatives to buying this thing that may fit better with the way God is calling me to live? Other questions we can ask include: Do I need something new? Can I borrow a replacement, build or repair one myself, or make do with what I already have? Aren't there good, spiritual reasons to avoid excess and instant gratification of our every material desire?
A major issue of the why we buy is intimately wrapped upwith the messages and advertisements that induce us to buy. In many ways, our culture considers people first and foremost to be consumers (which conflicts with the Christian idea that we are first and foremost to be people in relationship with God). Americans (and this undoubtedly includes many faithful Christians) spend more than we earn and consume more than we need (in many cases, we literally consume more food than we need given the widespread obesity in our country). In addition to suggesting that we are generally irresponsible stewards of our money, I think this also indicates a serious spiritual crisis.
Christianity and product advertising essentially begin with the same premises about the human condition: that humans fall short of an ideal, that we are broken, incomplete, and in need of fulfillment. The solution Christianity offers is reconciliation with God through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The solution that our consumer culture offers is self-improvement and fulfillment through buying products. The fact that so many marketers successfully appeal to our dreams of excitement and freedom through the cars we drive, social acceptance through the alcohol we drink, reassurance of our parenting abilities through the processed food we buy our kids, recognition of our innovative thinking through the computers and electronic toys we buy, the aspiration to unrealistic physical and sexual ideals through countless products, etc., etc., suggests that Christianity's offer is still not enough for most people. We're still trying to fill our spiritual holes with ideals and images surrounding products and brands (and our peers' reaction to them).
Both solutions make promises and offer hope. Christians believe that God has fulfilled promises in the past and will fulfill them in the future; our hope is not misplaced. The promises of our consumer culture are fleeting; they are designed to meet our needs only until the new and improved model comes along. Marketers trust that our hopes will never be met and our ideals never fulfilled, or else we'll be content with what we own and won't need to buy more.
These are just some starting points that I think it would be valuable for churches to address. I've never come across a church that has even touched upon a Christian approach to personal economics; how we spend our money is far too personal and taboo to be a popular sermon series, I'd guess. From my own experiences in a Bible study and a church committee, bringing up personal economics has been met with a lot of silence; at first I thought people were just indifferent and now I suspect that I made them uncomfortable. But why is this a topic that makes Christians more uncomfortable than others? We are accountable before God for our money and stewardship, just as we are for other possessions and actions we take - why shouldn't this accountability be something that community members can support one another in? How can we change this culture of silence regarding the way we spend our money?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Two Questions
As a way of easing myself back into thinking and writing again, I have two questions that I could use some advice on from my knowledgeable readers.
1. My green beans and wax beans are all ready to eat! My question: how long can I leave them in the garden before they're inedible? Do I have to pick them all right away or can I leave some while I'm on vacation next week? And does anyone know how I can freeze them?
2. What should I do about Molly's request for underpants with Thomas the Tank Engine on them? Despite the fact that every single American two year old, regardless of gender, loves playing with the Thomas trains, apparently the company only licenses boys' clothing and underwear with Thomas on it. (I figure that some clever marketing exec asked, "what would Freud say about girls' underwear with a train on it?" and the matter was settled then.) Clearly there are physical differences between boys' and girls' underpants, but these physical differences would be anatomically much more problematic for little boys who wished to wear girls' underpants than vice versa. In some ways, I'm inclined to say that Molly can wear whatever underwear she wants. But then I consider that I'm not so much saying that I want my child to play with whatever she wants, but that I'd be encouraging her to embrace a character that a corporate entity spends countless hours and dollars on in order to instill brand loyalty in my innocent child all so they can pocket as much of my money as possible. I'm all for breaking down the limitations that gender roles inflict on my daughter, but is buying into a corporate marketing scheme to sell toys the best way to empower girls?
(Of course, it's near impossible to find children's underwear without characters, although I'd guess the high end kids' stores like Gymboree would have some that are out of my price range. And I did already purchase some Dora the Explorer and Nemo underpants for her. Thank goodness she didn't ask for any Disney princess underwear.)
1. My green beans and wax beans are all ready to eat! My question: how long can I leave them in the garden before they're inedible? Do I have to pick them all right away or can I leave some while I'm on vacation next week? And does anyone know how I can freeze them?
2. What should I do about Molly's request for underpants with Thomas the Tank Engine on them? Despite the fact that every single American two year old, regardless of gender, loves playing with the Thomas trains, apparently the company only licenses boys' clothing and underwear with Thomas on it. (I figure that some clever marketing exec asked, "what would Freud say about girls' underwear with a train on it?" and the matter was settled then.) Clearly there are physical differences between boys' and girls' underpants, but these physical differences would be anatomically much more problematic for little boys who wished to wear girls' underpants than vice versa. In some ways, I'm inclined to say that Molly can wear whatever underwear she wants. But then I consider that I'm not so much saying that I want my child to play with whatever she wants, but that I'd be encouraging her to embrace a character that a corporate entity spends countless hours and dollars on in order to instill brand loyalty in my innocent child all so they can pocket as much of my money as possible. I'm all for breaking down the limitations that gender roles inflict on my daughter, but is buying into a corporate marketing scheme to sell toys the best way to empower girls?
(Of course, it's near impossible to find children's underwear without characters, although I'd guess the high end kids' stores like Gymboree would have some that are out of my price range. And I did already purchase some Dora the Explorer and Nemo underpants for her. Thank goodness she didn't ask for any Disney princess underwear.)
Friday, July 27, 2007
An Update on Things that I Grow
Thought I'd check in briefly after a couple weeks of radio silence during my pre-maternity leave. I am not too sick and mostly just exhausted and the pregnancy is healthy and normal so far. At my first midwife appointment the other week, my midwife thought she found something of concern and decided to schedule an ultrasound to determine the viability of the baby. Of course, everything turned out to be fine, and it was very exciting to see a very tiny picture of the baby only 8 weeks into the pregnancy - enormous head, two stumpy arms and two stumpy legs, and a normal heartbeat (and, fortunately, there was no tail to see, because isn't that just the creepiest part of fetal development?). I could even pick out some emerging facial features and, while I speculated that this baby may end up looking like me, Jon thought it more closely resembled the human face on Mars.
My garden has been going to town. My four heads of lettuce each grew to the size of beach balls and I had to give lettuce away by the bagful. (One unfortunate confluence of events is that pregnancy makes me a.) too tired to garden and b.) feel disgusted by most foods, including vegetables.) Everything but my carrots seems to be flourishing. I was away from the garden for just over a week due to travelling and returned to knee-high weeds - one embarrassing note was when the community garden coordinator calls to find out if I'd died or something since my garden appeared so neglected. A second embarrassing note is that I must have accidentally pulled out one of my pepper plants while weeding - that's how high and thick my weeds were.
Molly continues to grow and develop into a more fascinating person everyday. Her language is so complex now and her imagination is beginning to take off. One unexpected parenting challenge I'm encountering lately has less to deal with Molly than with other adults - how does a still new-ish and sometimes clueless parent negotiate social interactions about her smart kid? I say this not to brag, but Molly is apparently very bright. I don't spend much time around many other two year olds, so I'm not very knowledgeable about what normal two year olds understand and can do. I realized early on that it is not a good idea to talk about her knowledge of the alphabet to other parents, especially given that Molly seemingly can recognize more letters than one four year old I know. At other times, I have probably seemed indifferent to other people's praise of her - at least three different people have praised her ability to identify pictures of things like camels, chairs, or baseballs, and while I do admit that some objects she can name (like many musical instruments) are pretty impressive, is it really so exceptional that two year olds can pick out camels? Two year olds like camels! - because these are things that I just assumed were normal and uninteresting. Even though she has started saying, "I'm a baby!" whenever we talk about the new baby too much, Molly's definitely becoming a big girl.
I'm guessing that in the next couple weeks, life will start returning to normal somewhat (i.e., at least I will be able to handle more than lying around on the couch all day) and I will begin posting again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
