Roller Skating

Birthday roller skates - note the 1980s upholstery

Over the holiday break, we went roller skating (the first time for the kids). I skated quite a bit as a child, I remember my parents would clear out the garage and we would skate around to tapes like "Saturday's Warrior".

I haven't been on a pair of skates for a long time, at least fifteen years. I was unsteady on wheels - it wasn't exactly like riding a bicycle.

The interesting part was that my son and daughter were trying out skates for the first time. We rented carts - so they could push the wheeled cart for balance.

My son took to the skates quickly. He fell down once or twice. But before we left (less than an hour later), he was out of the practice area and flying around the rink. He wasn't as fast or steady as the experienced skaters - but he definitely reminded me of the "duck to water" expression.

My daughter did not understand the process intuitively. She held onto me (not the best strategy as I was unsteady myself). She fell once, and it really bothered her. Of course when you learn to skate, you sometimes fall. That's part of the process.

The well meaning owner stopped by as we sat on the side of the rink. He gave us a few pointers. Near the end, she was more comfortable and able to move.

Being the mom of twins, I have unique insight into the natural/genetic/social differences people have. It's clear that my son and daughter approach the world differently and have distinct skills and talents. There are things that my daughter learns effortlessly, but roller skating wasn't one of them.

How do people learn that some things are easy for them to grasp, and others need more practice? How do you stop someone (particularly a bright person) from becoming discouraged when they don't figure something out immediately?

It took me a long time to figure out that I couldn't do everything I attempted the first time. That just because someone else could do something - didn't mean I could. It means I'm human, it doesn't mean I'm less than anyone else. As a Mom, helping my kids figure out their strengths is important. It would be nice if our culture valued and rewarded each person's strengths.

Not so far from reality

I've been watching Mad Men - I just finished Season 2 on a streaming movie/tv service.  One feminist website I read (the hathor legacy) claims that although the show attempts to paint the misogyny as in the past, it's still smacks of misogyny and priveldge. 

I agree that the writers/producers are having fun with the smoke filled pregnancies and Scotch filled offices.

What strikes me, however, is that while a lot has changed in fifty years, some things haven't changed.

Years ago, I heard an interview with the creators of Arrested Development *.  That show is extreme, the relationships are bizarre, dysfunctional on steroids.  Yet the creators said they made it that way on purpose, as many families are really sort of similar.  They're just not that bad.  There's a part of humor that hits close to home - that's why it's funny.

So while many people see obvious parts of Mad Men that are no longer true, the office smoking, the admonishment by everyone (men and women) to wear shorter skirts - some of it is still around, here in 2011.  I was harassed at one of my first jobs - a fast food place.  Was my boss hitting on me (he was only five years older).  Was it inappropriate?  Yes.  Did he feel entitled?  Why?

And I have been in workplace situations (like Peggy) while I was the only woman at the table - and expected to take notes.  When everyone looks to Peggy to turn on the projector - it rang surprisingly true.  Obviously, this doesn't happen in every situation.  Could I have refused?  Yes.  Could I have even spoken up and pointed out that there was an assumption there - that I would take notes because I'm female?  Yes.  Or maybe the assumption had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a woman.  Yet, I think some things are subconscious.

The culture has changed outwardly.  I don't have to wear heels and a skirt to the office.  Co-workers won't tell me "they like the view".  I've had multiple female bosses.  My husband was a stay at home Dad.

But there is an undercurrent that still rings true and is still around.  Some cultural and political assumptions still impact us.  They're just not as obvious any longer.

* I thought that was the link to the interview, but apparently not.  My google abilities are not working for me today - but I'm pretty sure that's the interview I remember. Unless I was dreaming it.

Happy Holidays??

I live in a state where the majority of people celebrate Christmas.  Whether or not they consider themselves Christian. 

I've been wished "Merry Christmas" a handful of times over the past week, in retail type situations. People would have no idea if I was Christian or not.

And although I celebrate a secular Christmas, I always bristle in that situation.  Because I think - what if I didn't celebrate Christmas?  How do people respond who don't celebrate?  Who celebrate Hanukkah?  Or the winter solstice or Kwanzaa? Or who don't celebrate anything at all? 

I know they are just trying to be well-meaning, and have good intentions. 

I'm sure this is related somehow to the war on Christmas. 

I just don't see why "Happy Holidays" is such a threat.  It seems much more inclusive and understanding that not everyone celebrates in the same way. 

So perhaps next year I'll speak up and tell random customer service type people that I don't celebrate Christmas, but happy holidays anyway.  It seems like a lot of effort and energy - I suppose it's just recognizing privilege.

So I may speak up, or I may not.  It will depend.

Nevertheless, best wishes for a peaceful holiday, whatever you celebrate.

PS.  Hanukkah is a bigger deal where one of my sisters' lives - there is a Hanukkah mobile that drives around her neighborhood.  She's promised to send me a photo. 

Is there an Education Bubble?

I have read some theories about this, and I find I sympathize with them.

To be clear, I believe strongly in education and in an educated society.  I support education and higher education.

With that said, is there really enough demand for all the institutions that exist here in the U.S.?  Are there jobs for all the people attending these institutions?  There are state sponsored universities, private universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges and online universities.  That's not including  technical schools (I'll get to that later).

I have read many people who claim the U.S. doesn't have enough talent, enough graduates for the next few decades.  I am skeptical of this claim.

I suspect if we looked closely at the data, we might see that it's not that we don't have enough institutions of higher learning.  It's that the free market of education is not working.  Ideally, people would go to schools and get an education in a field that was marketable.  They might learn critical thinking skills along the way.  The market would correct itself - to not have more majors than it needs, to not have more graduates than it needs.  It would not have more schools than needed.

I wish I could be an idealist about this.  But our society needs a wide range of disciplines to survive. Higher education is not the right fit for everyone, and not necessarily right for people between the ages of 18 - 22. 

It becomes a sacred cow of sorts.  By suggesting reforms to this system, it threatens many entrenched positions.  Fewer majors in philosphy mean fewer professors - less time to focus on research and publication.  Less prestige for everyone - students, parents, professors.  That was an argument that I read that I agree with.  High school teachers and counselors inspire students to go to the best school possible, sometimes the most expensive school possible.  Counselors at that school encourage students to stay in school, continue paying the high tuition costs.  Professors at that school encourage students to major in their discipline because they believe in the importance of their subject and because it makes their department seem successful.  This was my experience, and I think it's not an uncommon one.  Of course there are honest and realistic people along the way.  But the system isn't built to encourage realism, it's built to encourage idealism - that a person might hit the 5% chance of success.

Trade and technical schools must be a viable option. From what I've read, that's where a need is.  We don't need more history majors (speaking as a former history major), we need nurses, pharmacists and plumbers. Of course we need history majors as a society, but we need to have a successful mixture of all of these careers. 

Learning how to think is also very important. But at what cost?  Are we perpetuating stereotypes and unrealistic dreams? Are we teaching kids that after school ends they can't continue to learn and challenge themselves?

I may sound bitter, but I am still profoundly grateful to the graduate professor who laid out the facts for me in the 1990s about a graduate degree in Russian history.  I would have loved to get a PhD in Russian history, and I'm confident that I could have earned one. But I would be struggling under tens of thousands (perhaps more than a hundred thousand) dollars in debt.  There was a 5% chance that I could have succeeded, getting a job after graduation.  Five percent is not a great bet. 

Instead, I was able to find a field and career that is growing.  It fit my needs and abilities.  Again, it's not that the disciplines are not valuable.  It's that we don't need the number that are graduating in their specialty - they can't find work and everyone suffers.  How is that reasonable? 

The really gifted, talented people will always be needed, will always find work.  But it's disingenuous to imply that everyone can succeed in the current system.  It's not true.

Education used to be the ticket to the middle class, but no longer. 

So is there a bubble? There might be.  I think we may be due for some sort of market correction.  It's clear from some of the recent protests - students are realizing that what they were promised is no longer possible. 

Leftovers

Having leftovers for dinner used to be intensely disappointing as a child and teenager.  Of course, this is before my family had a microwave, so my Mom would reheat everything on the stove - inevitably the food wasn't heated all the way through.  Slow cookers were also problematic - there was this roast with potatoes and carrots that my family would make on Sundays - the potatoes would get brown and foul tasting.  Much like a friend of mine once said, in her family the spices were salt and pepper. 

As an adult, this was a great symbol of freedom, I had control over what I ate and didn't have to eat leftovers if I didn't want to.  I like cooking with other spices in addition to salt and pepper.

Recently, I've figured out that there are a handful of recipes that I can make and still stomach them two or three meals later.  This is progress. As a busy mom and a picky eater (also trying to watch my weight and how much I spend) - this can be complex.

*Italian Beef.  I don't know if it's actually Italian (probably not) but it involves pepperocini and guardinara (in the slow cooker). 
*Chili - My husband makes great chili - which is good on potatoes and as nachos later.
*Pulled pork - I just made pulled pork last week.  There are a handful of things I want to change next time (brining the pork) but it was pretty good and re-heats well.
*Chicken Pot Pie (you can use a pre-made pie shell and leftover chicken, frozen veggies)
*Beef with Broccoli (more difficult than you would think)
*Pad Thai - this is not made in a slow cooker - and can be sort of labor intensive.  I'll post the recipe sometime, it's really good.

Most of these are meat based, but most can be adjusted to be meat free or dairy free.

The only downside to all of this is that while my husband and I can agree on these meals - my kids are not fans.   We're still working on more vegetables and trying new things - but they seem to be a chip off the old block in terms of discerning tastes.  Ah well.  I'd rather not make a separate meal for them, but in the midst of compromises - it happens.

Anger into action

Recently I've found myself getting overwhelmed with anger about a few issues.

For some of the issues, I have every right to be angry. Some involve things that happened in the past, long ago. The things that happened in the past I can't do anything about.

So I've been exploring what it is that I am really angry about. Is my anger justified - what am I scared of (is there any fear there).

I realize that dwelling on my anger (are women supposed to be angry??) doesn't help anyone. Certainly it doesn't help me live and enjoy my life, it doesn't help my marriage or my relationship with my kids. All it does is leave a bad taste in my mouth.

(As an aside, I didn't realize just how angry I was for a long time. Now my struggle is focusing my anger into acknowledgment and then productive anger. And accepting the past as something I can't change).

A friend once told me that being angry about other people's actions or behaviors is like taking the poison yourself and expecting the other person to get sick. I agree.

In one of the cases, with my anger towards a work situation, I figured out there is something I can do. There are actions I can take that I have taken (calmly). I've figured out what my triggers are in the situation (perceiving that I'm being taken advantage of), and the risks of me speaking out (and the risks of not speaking out).

The relief and empowerment that I've felt by speaking up - despite awkwardness - have been palpable. Even if changes don't happen, I have choices - and that is priceless.

I find that many seemingly immovable situations or things in my life change over time. They are like glaciers. It seems like some of these "truths" are unchanging but there is change going on - just slowly. And I realize that I change over time, my perceptions of what's going on change as well.

How this relates to mormonism? There may be things that can be changed - requests that a person can make here in the present in some  family situations. 

Being open to thinking about those changes - being open to the possibility of action can be freeing (to my mind). I can't say what those requests might be - but figuring out if there are little parts of the glacier that I can chip at. There are boundaries I can set. There are people I don't have to talk to or be around. There are people I can be around that I don't discuss certain issues with (like faith or mormonism).

Figuring out the things that I'm angry about that I literally cannot do anything to change has been very helpful (a great example for me has been the mormon.org billboard that I drive past when taking my kids to school). 

It should come as no surprise to anyone here, I disagree with that use of funds by the LDS church.  With all the desperate need in this world, I disagree with advertising the diversity of the LDS church (I disagree that the LDS church is really a diverse organization).  So I can focus on that disagreement every time I pass the billboard, or I can accept that I can't change all of those things and let it go.

There are quite a few things that I am angry about that I can't do anything to change. I've thought about it, extensively, and there's nothing I can do. So when I'm aware of that, I choose to let my immediate anger go - realizing - I can't do anything about this, and so I choose not to dwell on my anger about it.

I Don't Want To Talk About It

Some may wonder why I would be interested in a book about male depression. 

Simply put, depression impacts everyone.  The argument Terence Real makes in this book is that covert depression affects men, and wreaks havoc on their families.  This is different from the traditional model of depression - where a person is not able to sleep, eat, work or function normally.  Real's theory is that anger, workaholism and abuse of substances like alcohol in some men is generally related to depression.  That sometimes depression in men doesn't fit the traditional "bell jar" model, but it can be just as damaging to everyone. 

For some, anger is expressed towards oneself (depression has often been described as internalized anger).  The author gives examples from his own practice and therapy groups (anonymous of course). Traditionally, the only acceptable emotion for men has been anger. 

Real talks about how many parts of American culture are designed to cut men off from their feelings, from appearing weak or feminine.  He mentions the passive trauma that many boys (but in my opinion, many children) face.  That this "passive trauma" can long term be just as damaging and can sew the seeds of adult depression. Real gives examples of his father's explosive anger and physical abuse, teachers watching as a boy is bullied each day for being "fat", kids who ignore a coach who punches a student. 

Boys are often told to "be a man" - but what does that mean, really?
It is weighted and treacherous subject matter.

I have long thought strict gender roles hurt everyone - men and women.  In this book, Real suggest that the socialization of men can be just as damaging as it can be to women.  That men often need to gain access to their feelings, being more relational to develop better relationships - with themselves, their spouses and children. 

He is suggesting that by addressing the covert depression in men - the whole person can be healed. That parts of the cycle of violence can be broken*.  That often, men will not seek therapy or help for themselves, but to not be the same person as their father was.  It's not that

I mentioned "pansy crap" earlier.  This was mentioned in a comment at MSP a few months ago; I can't find it at the moment. 

There is a ton of anger, suspicion and fear towards men talking about their feelings.  It's almost explosive - talk about a problem-with-no-name in American culture.  Comments like "pansy crap" are meant to dismiss men, their perceptions and feelings.  (The ultimate insult for a man is still to be like a woman).  And while men may deny their anger and fear - their families and children can suffer. 

Until the base assumptions are addresses, and men and women are allowed to explore their full potential and authenticity - we will make no progress as a culture.

*One case study in the book talked about his wife's feelings first, her disappointments, fears, etc.  The notion of carried feeling - children trying to make their parent's mistakes right - struck a little close to home for me.  What am I trying to do because it's right for me? What am I trying to do to heal, fix of change my parents....yikes.