Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Words
David Foster Wallace is my "meat and potatoes" reading. I've been trying to get through Infinite Jest now for a while, but his essays are a bit more easily consumed when you've got only a small amount of time. In any case, the words that he circled in his dictionary are illuminating.
Ten is an excellent reader and we rarely have to prod her away from the television toward the written word but the other day when I saw her checking out a stack of "trash" from the library (for the third time) I decided that it was time for an intervention. I used the "meat-and-potatoes" analogy and followed it up with the healthy food/exercise/dessert analogy. Fortunately, in the realm of reading she does enough exercise that a little candy is fine as long as she's also checking out some Newbery Award Winners.
Ten is an excellent reader and we rarely have to prod her away from the television toward the written word but the other day when I saw her checking out a stack of "trash" from the library (for the third time) I decided that it was time for an intervention. I used the "meat-and-potatoes" analogy and followed it up with the healthy food/exercise/dessert analogy. Fortunately, in the realm of reading she does enough exercise that a little candy is fine as long as she's also checking out some Newbery Award Winners.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Free Range Kids: Part IV - $2.02 in Change
So today Big, Ten and I were heading to the park via the local hardware store.
I was picking up some nuts and bolts for the climbing wall I'm building. As an aside, I was noticing Big climbing on everything and craving swing sets with parts that required climbing and pulling and all-things-arms which our swingset was lacking so I picked up a few ropes and a bar with rings etc. And now the climbing wall.
Anyway, so I was getting out of the car and heading into the store when I realized that I had a good Free Range Kid moment at hand. The little family-owned hardware store is adjacent to a little (same family-owned) grocery store that has very modest amounts of candy that Big and Ten have enjoyed before. I sent them in with what I thought was $2 but was in fact $3 with a request of my own type of candy (a Laffy-Taffy) and my desire that they keep their choices modest. Then I went in to get my nuts and bolts next door.
A few minutes later they found me at the back pondering size, shape and threading, happily opening their candies, delivering mine as well as $2.02 in change, a penny of which Big promptly pocketed for his collection.
They were absolutely fine and clearly LOVED the freedom and trust that they both earned and deserved.
I was picking up some nuts and bolts for the climbing wall I'm building. As an aside, I was noticing Big climbing on everything and craving swing sets with parts that required climbing and pulling and all-things-arms which our swingset was lacking so I picked up a few ropes and a bar with rings etc. And now the climbing wall.
Anyway, so I was getting out of the car and heading into the store when I realized that I had a good Free Range Kid moment at hand. The little family-owned hardware store is adjacent to a little (same family-owned) grocery store that has very modest amounts of candy that Big and Ten have enjoyed before. I sent them in with what I thought was $2 but was in fact $3 with a request of my own type of candy (a Laffy-Taffy) and my desire that they keep their choices modest. Then I went in to get my nuts and bolts next door.
A few minutes later they found me at the back pondering size, shape and threading, happily opening their candies, delivering mine as well as $2.02 in change, a penny of which Big promptly pocketed for his collection.
They were absolutely fine and clearly LOVED the freedom and trust that they both earned and deserved.
An Early (and Often) Spring
This is the cherry tree I planted about five years ago. It blooms beautifully and produces delicious sour cherries in June (usually -- maybe this year they'll be early).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Field Trip With Big
My schedule is fairly flexible this semester, so I was able to go on a school field trip with Big to a little farm in St. Paul.
The gal who gave us the tour should not be working with kids. Despite their nearly perfect behavior, she was a crab, constantly telling them what not to do.
The gal who gave us the tour should not be working with kids. Despite their nearly perfect behavior, she was a crab, constantly telling them what not to do.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Next Best Thing to a Puppy
We spoiled Big this weekend.
If you don't already know this about me, I love biking. I love road biking, mountain biking, casual biking, any biking.
And Big's picked up this habit from me. He's loved wheels and been on some sort of self-propelled vehicle nearly since he was able to crawl. He's been riding a two-wheeler since last August and recently even went around Lake Harriet with Ten and I on the way home from school.
This is a true feat for a small child. First, it was a long distance. So far this spring he and I have gone on two or three several-mile rides. Second, the lake trail is busy and you need to stay on the right and are regularly passed.
He was fairly competitive each time someone tried to pass him, speeding up, but he eventually got the hang of it. Toward the end he got a bit tired and wobbly, but we made it.
So yesterday we were on our way to the Y with BioMom and she commented on how furiously fast he had to peddle in order to just keep up with us.
BioMom: No wonder he gets exhausted!
So we decided to let him pick out his own new bike the next size up. \
We rarely get new bikes for kids and had planned on him just getting Ten's hand-me-downs, but this particular size of Ten's (which we had gotten for her from a friend) we had passed on to a neighbor girl, so it was perfect.
I can't tell you how much fun it was to watch him pick out this bike (we got it on sale) and its accessories.
I think you only get a few moments like that with a kid.
The only thing that surprised me? That he didn't bring it to bed with him.
If you don't already know this about me, I love biking. I love road biking, mountain biking, casual biking, any biking.
And Big's picked up this habit from me. He's loved wheels and been on some sort of self-propelled vehicle nearly since he was able to crawl. He's been riding a two-wheeler since last August and recently even went around Lake Harriet with Ten and I on the way home from school.
This is a true feat for a small child. First, it was a long distance. So far this spring he and I have gone on two or three several-mile rides. Second, the lake trail is busy and you need to stay on the right and are regularly passed.
He was fairly competitive each time someone tried to pass him, speeding up, but he eventually got the hang of it. Toward the end he got a bit tired and wobbly, but we made it.
So yesterday we were on our way to the Y with BioMom and she commented on how furiously fast he had to peddle in order to just keep up with us.
BioMom: No wonder he gets exhausted!
So we decided to let him pick out his own new bike the next size up. \
We rarely get new bikes for kids and had planned on him just getting Ten's hand-me-downs, but this particular size of Ten's (which we had gotten for her from a friend) we had passed on to a neighbor girl, so it was perfect.
I can't tell you how much fun it was to watch him pick out this bike (we got it on sale) and its accessories.
I think you only get a few moments like that with a kid.
The only thing that surprised me? That he didn't bring it to bed with him.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Big is still Big
We had his four-year-old check up today (four months late) and he is in the 95th percentile for height and the 97th for weight.
Whoa.
Whoa.
Sperm Bank Subject to Strict Liability
Check this out:
Law360, New York (April 06, 2010) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court decision denying the strict products liability claims of a mother against a semen bank they accused of selling sperm with a genetic mutation that has caused her child's developmental disabilities.
In finding in favor of Daxor Corp. unit Idant Laboratories, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Thursday that the mother's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that those she brought on behalf of the child failed to state an actionable theory of harm or damages.
The appellate panel decided New York law does not permit tort claims for “wrongful life,” citing earlier cases that similarly acknowledge the “thorny problems in the damages context” of asking the court to compare between the choice of life in an impaired state and not being born at all.
Because New York law does not provide children with a protected right to be born free of genetic defects, the daughter's genetic makeup cannot constitute an injury, the panel said.
The mother sued the sperm bank in 2008 after learning 10 years earlier that her daughter's developmental delays could be associated with the fragile X genetic mutation that she herself did not carry. At the time Idant Laboratories told the mother that the developmental delays were unrelated to fragile X.
In April 2009 Judge Thomas O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the mother's claims as time-barred, but ruled that the daughter could pursue products liability claims against the health care center.
Sperm, Judge O'Neill wrote, is different from blood and other human tissues which are exempt from products liability torts because of their necessary roles in public health.
Two months later O'Neill reversed himself, dismissing the entire complaint and ruling that New York courts would likely interpret the daughter's claim as one for wrongful life.
On appeal the plaintiffs asked the Third Circuit to certify the decision to the New York Supreme Court, because the state's limited blood shield law might indicate that the legislature wanted to have providers of tissue such as sperm be potentially responsible for defective products, attorney Daniel Thistle said Tuesday.
Because New York exempts only blood, a breach of warranty case could be brought regarding other human tissues, arguing not that the child shouldn't have been born, but that the sperm provider should bear some responsibility for the additional costs associated with raising a child with special needs, Thistle said.
“It was an interesting and challenging case. I'm disappointed that the court ruled against us,” he said.
Rory Lubin, an attorney for Idant Laboratories, said Tuesday that the appellate ruling was a correct interpretation of the law.
“The decision is just and well supported by precedent and as much as we can all be sympathetic to the [family] the decision was decided on the law and not sympathy,” he said.
Idant, which is based in New York, is in full compliance with regulatory standards in its screening process and even today there is no standard that would require the bank to screen for this type of genetic mutation, he said.
Lubin agreed with Thistle's contention that parents could have standing to bring a similar suit under New York law if they filed within the statute of limitations, though he maintained his doubt regarding the merits of the instant case.
“There are available genetic tests that can be requested at the parents cost, but the lesson to be drawn here is that there are thousands upon thousands of genetic mutations and it is simply impossible for the reproductive tissue banks to screen for every single one of those possibilities,” he said.
Fragile X syndrome, also known as Martin-Bell syndrome, causes intellectual impairment and emotional and behavioral problems and results in physical traits such as enlarged ears and a long face with a prominent chin.
Judges Maryanne Trump Barry, Theodore A. McKee and Morton I. Greenberg ruled on the appeal.
The mother and daughter were represented by the Law Offices of Daniel Thistle.
Idant Laboratories was represented by Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.
The case is D.D. v. Idant Laboratories, case number 09-3460, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Law360, New York (April 06, 2010) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court decision denying the strict products liability claims of a mother against a semen bank they accused of selling sperm with a genetic mutation that has caused her child's developmental disabilities.
In finding in favor of Daxor Corp. unit Idant Laboratories, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Thursday that the mother's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that those she brought on behalf of the child failed to state an actionable theory of harm or damages.
The appellate panel decided New York law does not permit tort claims for “wrongful life,” citing earlier cases that similarly acknowledge the “thorny problems in the damages context” of asking the court to compare between the choice of life in an impaired state and not being born at all.
Because New York law does not provide children with a protected right to be born free of genetic defects, the daughter's genetic makeup cannot constitute an injury, the panel said.
The mother sued the sperm bank in 2008 after learning 10 years earlier that her daughter's developmental delays could be associated with the fragile X genetic mutation that she herself did not carry. At the time Idant Laboratories told the mother that the developmental delays were unrelated to fragile X.
In April 2009 Judge Thomas O'Neill of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the mother's claims as time-barred, but ruled that the daughter could pursue products liability claims against the health care center.
Sperm, Judge O'Neill wrote, is different from blood and other human tissues which are exempt from products liability torts because of their necessary roles in public health.
Two months later O'Neill reversed himself, dismissing the entire complaint and ruling that New York courts would likely interpret the daughter's claim as one for wrongful life.
On appeal the plaintiffs asked the Third Circuit to certify the decision to the New York Supreme Court, because the state's limited blood shield law might indicate that the legislature wanted to have providers of tissue such as sperm be potentially responsible for defective products, attorney Daniel Thistle said Tuesday.
Because New York exempts only blood, a breach of warranty case could be brought regarding other human tissues, arguing not that the child shouldn't have been born, but that the sperm provider should bear some responsibility for the additional costs associated with raising a child with special needs, Thistle said.
“It was an interesting and challenging case. I'm disappointed that the court ruled against us,” he said.
Rory Lubin, an attorney for Idant Laboratories, said Tuesday that the appellate ruling was a correct interpretation of the law.
“The decision is just and well supported by precedent and as much as we can all be sympathetic to the [family] the decision was decided on the law and not sympathy,” he said.
Idant, which is based in New York, is in full compliance with regulatory standards in its screening process and even today there is no standard that would require the bank to screen for this type of genetic mutation, he said.
Lubin agreed with Thistle's contention that parents could have standing to bring a similar suit under New York law if they filed within the statute of limitations, though he maintained his doubt regarding the merits of the instant case.
“There are available genetic tests that can be requested at the parents cost, but the lesson to be drawn here is that there are thousands upon thousands of genetic mutations and it is simply impossible for the reproductive tissue banks to screen for every single one of those possibilities,” he said.
Fragile X syndrome, also known as Martin-Bell syndrome, causes intellectual impairment and emotional and behavioral problems and results in physical traits such as enlarged ears and a long face with a prominent chin.
Judges Maryanne Trump Barry, Theodore A. McKee and Morton I. Greenberg ruled on the appeal.
The mother and daughter were represented by the Law Offices of Daniel Thistle.
Idant Laboratories was represented by Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.
The case is D.D. v. Idant Laboratories, case number 09-3460, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Becoming a Free Range Kid: Part III -- a coming out story
So I don't ever really come out anymore. Not in the classic sense. Frankly, I don't need to. I guess I'm sort of type-cast. People recognize me as a lesbian.
But this post isn't about coming out as a lesbian. This is another type of coming out that I don't normally do. I don't like to do it and I rarely do. And sometimes it gets me in trouble (as it might here) in the sense that sometimes I will know someone for years before they find this out about me, and, well, it is awkward.
But I will come out here because it is relevant.
This post is about coming out as a survivor of extreme violence.
In 1970, on July 23rd in Omaha Nebraska, someone (we are still not one-hundred percent sure who) entered our house and murdered my 18 year old sister by stabbing her eleven times in her back and twice in her stomach (or maybe it is the reverse, I'd have to look at the records again to be sure).
I was the only witness, if you can call it that. I was not yet one year old.
There are a bazillion things I could talk about with regard to this, but what is important and relevant is that I am still a proponent of free range kids. What happened to our family while horrible and infinitely destructive was a fluke. We are still not sure if she even knew the person, although stories abound. The most prominent one is that she was babysitting me, took me out for ice cream, met some guy at a park and he followed her home.
This is not to say that the story doesn't scare the cuss out of me. As does the notification of an attempted abduction near Ten's school.
Sure. It does. To quote the Fantastic Mr. Fox (again). I'm not scared. I have a phobia.
But I'm also scared of cars. And bikes. And skateboards without helmets. And too much candy. And nutrasweet. And ACT scores that are less than 20. And airplanes. And drugs. And bad influences.
And lightning.
Let's face it. Life is scary. Now let your kids be free to grow up and maybe not harbor your same fears.
But this post isn't about coming out as a lesbian. This is another type of coming out that I don't normally do. I don't like to do it and I rarely do. And sometimes it gets me in trouble (as it might here) in the sense that sometimes I will know someone for years before they find this out about me, and, well, it is awkward.
But I will come out here because it is relevant.
This post is about coming out as a survivor of extreme violence.
In 1970, on July 23rd in Omaha Nebraska, someone (we are still not one-hundred percent sure who) entered our house and murdered my 18 year old sister by stabbing her eleven times in her back and twice in her stomach (or maybe it is the reverse, I'd have to look at the records again to be sure).
I was the only witness, if you can call it that. I was not yet one year old.
There are a bazillion things I could talk about with regard to this, but what is important and relevant is that I am still a proponent of free range kids. What happened to our family while horrible and infinitely destructive was a fluke. We are still not sure if she even knew the person, although stories abound. The most prominent one is that she was babysitting me, took me out for ice cream, met some guy at a park and he followed her home.
This is not to say that the story doesn't scare the cuss out of me. As does the notification of an attempted abduction near Ten's school.
Sure. It does. To quote the Fantastic Mr. Fox (again). I'm not scared. I have a phobia.
But I'm also scared of cars. And bikes. And skateboards without helmets. And too much candy. And nutrasweet. And ACT scores that are less than 20. And airplanes. And drugs. And bad influences.
And lightning.
Let's face it. Life is scary. Now let your kids be free to grow up and maybe not harbor your same fears.
Becoming a Free Range Kid: Part II - so much for encouraging free-range-ness
So I just got this email:
"Fw: Attention Windom Residents-Attempted Kidnapping of 11 Year Old Female
On Monday, April 12, an attempted kidnapping occurred near 56 St W/Grand Av S at approximately 6:30 p.m. An eleven year old female was walking home from school when a black pick-up truck pulled up next to her and the driver yelled at her to come over to the truck. The driver's side window was rolled down adn the driver's side door was already partially open. The suspect then attempted to grab her arm and tried to pull her into the truck. The victim screamed and began punching and scratching the suspect. She was able to get free and ran home..."
"Fw: Attention Windom Residents-Attempted Kidnapping of 11 Year Old Female
On Monday, April 12, an attempted kidnapping occurred near 56 St W/Grand Av S at approximately 6:30 p.m. An eleven year old female was walking home from school when a black pick-up truck pulled up next to her and the driver yelled at her to come over to the truck. The driver's side window was rolled down adn the driver's side door was already partially open. The suspect then attempted to grab her arm and tried to pull her into the truck. The victim screamed and began punching and scratching the suspect. She was able to get free and ran home..."
Saturday, April 10, 2010
A Message from A Student in Cousin's Girl's Class
From Parent of Student in Cousin's Kindergarten-Girl's Class: "Hi [Kindergarten Teacher], I just wanted to share with you something [my boy] said the other night. He was talking about [Cousin's Daughter] (his best friend) and how much he likes her. [This is what he said:]
'I like her SO much that it's like I'm carrying a giant heart (demonstrates with arms) whenever I'm with her. And when I look at her face, there's a rainbow of hearts all around my head.'
Never expected that to come out of his mouth, and we thought it was just about the sweetest thing we had ever heard! Just thought you might get a kick out of it :)"
Friday, April 09, 2010
Becoming a Free Range Kid: Part I
So I have been reading the Free Range Kid blog and am becoming increasingly interested in encouraging my kids' independence as well as concerned about Ten and both her reluctance to be independent and what I perceive as her nearly absolute lack of skills to do so safely.
Since September, nearly every day at around 2:30 I have met her at the Starbucks across the street from her school.
It has been a fabulous arrangement. Our little private school (I can't believe we aren't public school people sometimes, let alone CATHOLIC school people) doesn't have a bussing system so we drop her off and pick her up.
Every day.
Along with everyone else at the school.
You can imagine the congestion.
So I thought to myself: why not have her meet me at the coffee shop, then if I get there early (or, more likely, if she is a little late) I can crank out a little work, or read a book AND I don't have to waste 20 minutes of my life in the car in line in the back of the school!
Neither BioMom nor I were concerned at all about Ten making the trek across and down the street. There are lights and even a "manned" crosswalk after school. For the first couple of days, I was a little panicked when she showed up ten minutes after school let out, but I relaxed into it and it has been a great arrangement for us. We hang out there and she does her homework before we grab Big whose preschool ends about and hour later. Plus she knows that there is no expectation of purchasing snacks there and the Starbucks people don't mind us hanging out without purchasing.
Recently though, I've been settled into an afternoon caffeine pick-me-up (ala Cousin) and a little computer work when she's sauntered in sans homework.
As I've mentioned before, there is nothing like a bored preteen when you've got some or other deadline, or even when you've got a nice cuppa hot coffee that you just want to relax into.
So, the other day she asked if she could go to the library.
My heart sank a bit. As said, I had my hour all laid out before me! What would I do with this "to-stay" cup of coffee? Did I really have to pack up my computer and head down the block to only re-set up in the library, hence losing 10 minutes of precious work time?
So I asked her if she was interested in going by herself.
The library is about 1.5 blocks away from Starbucks, down a street of businesses (a grocery store, a restaurant, Subway, a movie rental place and Caribou) then across a very busy street (with a light) and past a liquor store. These are all places that we have visited on numerous occasions and a little urban corner that we pass nearly twice a day on average to and from her school.
This is to say that she is certainly familiar with the area. Plus, if one were concerned, they could literally walk backwards from Starbucks to the library and keep the Starbucks in sight the entire time.
She showed no hesitancy so we made a plan for me to meet up with her a few minutes later.
All went swimmingly. I finished my coffee and my work and even made a quick stop for some Summit at the liquor store before heading over.
I found her curled up with a book at a library table in the children's section.
Wanna know who DID freak out?
BioMom.
Any thoughts, ideas or reactions?
Since September, nearly every day at around 2:30 I have met her at the Starbucks across the street from her school.
It has been a fabulous arrangement. Our little private school (I can't believe we aren't public school people sometimes, let alone CATHOLIC school people) doesn't have a bussing system so we drop her off and pick her up.
Every day.
Along with everyone else at the school.
You can imagine the congestion.
So I thought to myself: why not have her meet me at the coffee shop, then if I get there early (or, more likely, if she is a little late) I can crank out a little work, or read a book AND I don't have to waste 20 minutes of my life in the car in line in the back of the school!
Neither BioMom nor I were concerned at all about Ten making the trek across and down the street. There are lights and even a "manned" crosswalk after school. For the first couple of days, I was a little panicked when she showed up ten minutes after school let out, but I relaxed into it and it has been a great arrangement for us. We hang out there and she does her homework before we grab Big whose preschool ends about and hour later. Plus she knows that there is no expectation of purchasing snacks there and the Starbucks people don't mind us hanging out without purchasing.
Recently though, I've been settled into an afternoon caffeine pick-me-up (ala Cousin) and a little computer work when she's sauntered in sans homework.
As I've mentioned before, there is nothing like a bored preteen when you've got some or other deadline, or even when you've got a nice cuppa hot coffee that you just want to relax into.
So, the other day she asked if she could go to the library.
My heart sank a bit. As said, I had my hour all laid out before me! What would I do with this "to-stay" cup of coffee? Did I really have to pack up my computer and head down the block to only re-set up in the library, hence losing 10 minutes of precious work time?
So I asked her if she was interested in going by herself.
The library is about 1.5 blocks away from Starbucks, down a street of businesses (a grocery store, a restaurant, Subway, a movie rental place and Caribou) then across a very busy street (with a light) and past a liquor store. These are all places that we have visited on numerous occasions and a little urban corner that we pass nearly twice a day on average to and from her school.
This is to say that she is certainly familiar with the area. Plus, if one were concerned, they could literally walk backwards from Starbucks to the library and keep the Starbucks in sight the entire time.
She showed no hesitancy so we made a plan for me to meet up with her a few minutes later.
All went swimmingly. I finished my coffee and my work and even made a quick stop for some Summit at the liquor store before heading over.
I found her curled up with a book at a library table in the children's section.
Wanna know who DID freak out?
BioMom.
Any thoughts, ideas or reactions?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Free Range Kids
So Cousin just told me about this Website and book (I am 42nd on the list at the library to borrow it at this time).
This is what Lenore Skenazy writes about her burgeoning movement: Do you ever...let your kid ride a bike to the library? Walk to school? Make dinner? Or are you thinking about it? If so, you are raising a Free-Range Kid! Free-Rangers believe in helmets, car seats, seat belts — safety! We just do NOT believe that every time school age kids go outside, they need a security detail. Share your stories, tell your tips and maybe I'll use them in a new book. Here's to common sense parenting in uncommonly overprotective times!
I've been thinking about this sort of thing a lot lately. Big is getting more and more independent and craves time outside, independent time, and exploring. When the sun is up he wants out.
He's little -- even according to Skenazy -- but I can see him already pushing his own envelope. He wants permission to ride his bike around the block by himself. He wants to be free to explore not only our yard, but the neighbors' yards too. When we bike together, he wants to go many blocks away, and I can see him struggling trying to remember directions, a little map of the neighborhood being constructed in his head.
This is new territory for us. Remember this?
Ten, to this day, has not pushed that envelope. She is happy to be indoors, hesitant to be independent, and with nearly zero practical sense.
In one direction, we live about three blocks (one long and two short) to a little local grocery store, a little hardware store and a great coffee shop.
She has no idea how to get there.
And you can imagine that we've been there a few times.
She has no idea how to get to her school.
It is nine blocks away and there is nearly a straight shot.
When Cousin and I were little (less than nine) we had the run of the neighborhood and I don't remember boundaries and I want that for my kids. I worry for Ten and her lack of practicality. And I wonder how far we'll let Big go. I'm tempted to let him go around the block. If it weren't for the cars in the alley, I'd already do it. We're learning about how drivers don't look for bikers generally, let alone bikers that are one foot off the ground.
I'm sure he'll push her too and they'll become independent. . . together.
This is what Lenore Skenazy writes about her burgeoning movement: Do you ever...let your kid ride a bike to the library? Walk to school? Make dinner? Or are you thinking about it? If so, you are raising a Free-Range Kid! Free-Rangers believe in helmets, car seats, seat belts — safety! We just do NOT believe that every time school age kids go outside, they need a security detail. Share your stories, tell your tips and maybe I'll use them in a new book. Here's to common sense parenting in uncommonly overprotective times!
I've been thinking about this sort of thing a lot lately. Big is getting more and more independent and craves time outside, independent time, and exploring. When the sun is up he wants out.
He's little -- even according to Skenazy -- but I can see him already pushing his own envelope. He wants permission to ride his bike around the block by himself. He wants to be free to explore not only our yard, but the neighbors' yards too. When we bike together, he wants to go many blocks away, and I can see him struggling trying to remember directions, a little map of the neighborhood being constructed in his head.
This is new territory for us. Remember this?
Ten, to this day, has not pushed that envelope. She is happy to be indoors, hesitant to be independent, and with nearly zero practical sense.
In one direction, we live about three blocks (one long and two short) to a little local grocery store, a little hardware store and a great coffee shop.
She has no idea how to get there.
And you can imagine that we've been there a few times.
She has no idea how to get to her school.
It is nine blocks away and there is nearly a straight shot.
When Cousin and I were little (less than nine) we had the run of the neighborhood and I don't remember boundaries and I want that for my kids. I worry for Ten and her lack of practicality. And I wonder how far we'll let Big go. I'm tempted to let him go around the block. If it weren't for the cars in the alley, I'd already do it. We're learning about how drivers don't look for bikers generally, let alone bikers that are one foot off the ground.
I'm sure he'll push her too and they'll become independent. . . together.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
That's So Gay
So, Ten, being as she is now in the fourth grade, is beginning to experience her peers using the term "gay" in a derogatory way.
We had casually warned her about this.
And, from what we have read, we expected that one of her (their -- she and Big's) biggest issues-being children of gay or lesbian parents-will be their concern for us and wanting to protect us.
I didn't hear about it from her, but from a friend whose daughter is in Ten's class and who was on the receiving end of the slander, for no reason whatsoever, presumably.
They seem to be testing the word in a rather general way, although, of course, the only kid in the class that you could even slightly forecast homosexuality in his future, has become a clear target.
My heart aches for the kid.
I guess I thought that things would be different in a post-Ellen pre-pubescent world.
Not so much.
In any case, Ten was telling us a bit about it. Again, it sounds like, for the most part, the kids really don't know what they're saying; not even using the term in a consistently derogatory way, one kid even said that he was, himself, 'gay' to Ten.
After school one day Ten was telling me how she has been reacting, by informing kids in what sounds like a too-informed, too-mature way that the term they are using is "offensive" and hurtful and that they shouldn't use it.
The little mice in their head take a couple of spins around until they say "Oh... Your PARENTS are gay. . . . " or something like that.
My heart aches again.
For a couple of reasons.
First, I don't wish on her early maturity.
I had that and it was over-rated.
Second, I certainly don't wish on her to be the poster-child of some pro-gay agenda at her little Catholic school. You know how you sort of hope that your kid can sort of slide through middle school before shining in high school? Sort of get through the awkward years and early puberty without too much scarring?
So we had a little talk, she and BioMom and I. Urging her to really let some of her peers' pathetic attempts at trying out their new language roll off her back. To choose the most important battles -- like the one where the kid who we think might be gay gets teased.
Why do you think he might be gay? Asks she.
I let her in on the secret of our little club. How we know each other from across the room. How, at a restaurant or a coffee shop, I might say 'hi' to someone who seems like a stranger, and really, who is someone that we do not know, but who I know has had some of the same stuff happen to her as has happened to me. How can I tell? I dunno, I said. And we certainly could be wrong, but more often than not, we are right and it is sometimes a look, sometimes a way of dress, sometimes, a way of movement, but more often than not just a simple, inexplicable feeling of recognition.
We had casually warned her about this.
And, from what we have read, we expected that one of her (their -- she and Big's) biggest issues-being children of gay or lesbian parents-will be their concern for us and wanting to protect us.
I didn't hear about it from her, but from a friend whose daughter is in Ten's class and who was on the receiving end of the slander, for no reason whatsoever, presumably.
They seem to be testing the word in a rather general way, although, of course, the only kid in the class that you could even slightly forecast homosexuality in his future, has become a clear target.
My heart aches for the kid.
I guess I thought that things would be different in a post-Ellen pre-pubescent world.
Not so much.
In any case, Ten was telling us a bit about it. Again, it sounds like, for the most part, the kids really don't know what they're saying; not even using the term in a consistently derogatory way, one kid even said that he was, himself, 'gay' to Ten.
After school one day Ten was telling me how she has been reacting, by informing kids in what sounds like a too-informed, too-mature way that the term they are using is "offensive" and hurtful and that they shouldn't use it.
The little mice in their head take a couple of spins around until they say "Oh... Your PARENTS are gay. . . . " or something like that.
My heart aches again.
For a couple of reasons.
First, I don't wish on her early maturity.
I had that and it was over-rated.
Second, I certainly don't wish on her to be the poster-child of some pro-gay agenda at her little Catholic school. You know how you sort of hope that your kid can sort of slide through middle school before shining in high school? Sort of get through the awkward years and early puberty without too much scarring?
So we had a little talk, she and BioMom and I. Urging her to really let some of her peers' pathetic attempts at trying out their new language roll off her back. To choose the most important battles -- like the one where the kid who we think might be gay gets teased.
Why do you think he might be gay? Asks she.
I let her in on the secret of our little club. How we know each other from across the room. How, at a restaurant or a coffee shop, I might say 'hi' to someone who seems like a stranger, and really, who is someone that we do not know, but who I know has had some of the same stuff happen to her as has happened to me. How can I tell? I dunno, I said. And we certainly could be wrong, but more often than not, we are right and it is sometimes a look, sometimes a way of dress, sometimes, a way of movement, but more often than not just a simple, inexplicable feeling of recognition.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Queering the Census
I don't know how many of you readers out there are dataheads like myself, but if you are, TUNE IN!
This will be the third U.S. Census in which we can (sort of) identify gay and lesbian individuals in the United States (1990, 2000, 2010).
I say "sort of" because well, it is not a COMPLETE measurement of gay and lesbian people. Far from it.
In the picture above, you can see that I am filling out our Census form (it is a $100 fine if you don't and an $500 fine if you lie btw).
If you combine the information about a person's sex and how they check the little box as to how the subsequent people in the household are related to the household head, you can get an idea of whether or not the COUPLE is a gay or lesbian couple.
For example, there will be some percentage of Americans who will check the box "husband or wife" and person 1 and person 2 will be of the same sex.
Similarly, there will be some percentage of Americans who will check the box "unmarried partner" and person 1 and person 2 will be of the same sex.
There are lots of problems with this (obviously).
The first of which is that we are only getting at COUPLED gay and lesbian Americans.
The second of many is that the Census, thanks to Fmr President Bush, follows the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (passed by Fmr President Clinton, liberal that he claimed to be) to the letter and will not recognize married gay and lesbian couples even if they are in states in which they are legally able to be married. So Census officials will (literally) RECODE these individuals in one of two ways:
1. they will change them to unmarried partners OR
2. they will change one individual's sex so that the couple will SEEM to be a heterosexual couple.
I shit you not. Welcome to America, 2010.
Furthermore, I'm not sure they will do this in any systematic way, nor are we researchers assured that such cases will be "flagged".
Third of many issues is that people eff up when they fill out the Census. Believe it or not, there is a small (and possibly significant) number of individuals who accidentally mark down the wrong sex. So, say a heterosexual male is filling out the Census and he marks himself down as a female accidentally. Then that couple will be seen as a lesbian couple who said they were married.
This problem translates into a statistical nightmare for researchers -- a small statistical error magnifies itself among minority populations.
I am writing all of this to say that if you are interested in getting a more thorough "snapshot" of America, then Queer the Census!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Are We Safe?
My brother who lives in Denver just told me about the case where the child of lesbian parents attending a Catholic school has gotten kicked out of school.
The Denver Archdiocese posted a statement Friday that the parents are "living in open discord with Catholic teaching."
Here's what the pastor at the school said on his blog.
STATEMENT:
The Archdiocese of Denver on Catholic School Admissions Policy
A principal reason parents place their children in Archdiocese of Denver Schools is to reinforce the Catholic beliefs and values that the family seeks to live at home. To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Our admission policy states clearly, “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”
Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.
We communicated the policy to the couple at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School as soon as we realized the situation. We discussed the reasons with them and have sought to respond in a way that does not abruptly displace the student but at the same time respects the integrity of the Catholic school’s philosophy.
The Denver Archdiocese posted a statement Friday that the parents are "living in open discord with Catholic teaching."
Here's what the pastor at the school said on his blog.
STATEMENT:
The Archdiocese of Denver on Catholic School Admissions Policy
A principal reason parents place their children in Archdiocese of Denver Schools is to reinforce the Catholic beliefs and values that the family seeks to live at home. To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Our admission policy states clearly, “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”
Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.
We communicated the policy to the couple at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School as soon as we realized the situation. We discussed the reasons with them and have sought to respond in a way that does not abruptly displace the student but at the same time respects the integrity of the Catholic school’s philosophy.
Thoughts on Marriage
So I got a special little present from Cousin's Mom in the mail the other day.
As an adult, it is so fun to get little unexpected packages in the mail. Maybe that's why I order books so often.
Anyway, thanks Aunt Bev!
I called her to thank her and somehow we got into a conversation about marriage.
I've been getting into conversations about marriage a lot with people over the last year or so, what I call "The Marriage Project."
My nephew is getting married this spring, another friend of mine is thinking about getting married to her long-term boyfriend, and another friend of mine is having some doubts about her existing marriage--like, what it means to be married in general, what it means to be a heterosexual couple and not have kids, etc. (all that normal stuff), and finally, I've got marriage on my mind with the Perry v. Schwarzenneger Case that is currently going in in California (see this great New Yorker article for an overview).
I never really cared about marriage. Never wanted the ceremony for myself, never really thought about it as a civil right for gays and lesbians. I never cared one way or another. I didn't really care if my heterosexual friends got married or not, or even if my gay friends got married or not.
I did "get" the spiritual part of it, and the notion of standing up in front of all of your loved ones and announcing your intention to spend your life together. I got the idea that by doing so you were also asking for support from your friends and loved ones. I also "got" the institution of marriage and I think I get that marriage is generally good for a society in that it builds communities, makes us a bit more stable and that it probably helps kids in the long run too.
But I've always looked at it from an academic's distance, with a libertarian bent: we should all be able to chose what's best for us and for the most part, we'll all be better off if we do just that.
In that sense, gay marriage for me is not unlike polygamy (in its best sense -- not the whole marrying teenage brides shennanegans). Objectively, I'm not sure I've got anything against polygamy.
So now, in the midst of all these discussions with my friends, AND it coming upon tax season again where I usually get riled up when I realize (again) that the pesky government rules limit our choices because we are not strictly speaking *married*, I find myself thinking about the issue a lot.
So I was talking with Cousin's mom about marriage again the other day and one thing seems for certain: that marriage is really different now than it was for them. My mom (her sister) was married in 1944 when she was 19 years old. Her husband (my dad) worked three jobs at the time and she very quickly had two twin boys. They didn't have much choice, both scientifically and religiously-speaking, in terms of reproductive planning, she didn't have much choice in terms of work (there weren't many options for women in terms of education or occupation at the time, and many states had laws that forbade women from working once they were married, and finally once a woman had kids, there were few options regarding day care if she were to work, if any), and most people didn't have much money, so making ends meet was the main goal.
This is all to say that drastic changes in all of these areas have allowed us (middle and upper class Americans) to make deliberate choices in our lives and that the bottom line has changed. Now we make choices that will, hopefully, make us happier. Mom made choices in the same way, presumably, but I doubt that her goal in marrying dad, having kids, staying home with kids, earning, spending and saving money was in the context of costs and benefits around life satisfaction in the way that those decisions are in our current lives.
Let me be clear: I think that this change is unequivocally good. I'd rather not revert back to hunter-gatherer days in which my existence dependent on whether or not my tribe was successful in its hunt, and I'd rather not change lives with the 19th century pioneers who had very little leisure and spent most of their days producing the necessary goods necessary for life.
No, additional time and leisure is good. And changes in culture, society, technology and productivity that have expanded our choice set are unequivocally good.
But I'm not sure that it is easier in some senses of the word. We have become more existential in some ways. How does one even make major decisions like getting married and kids without the social dictum? How and why do we stay married without a social dictum? And what if the new dictum is: do what pleases you? What happens when marriage doesn't please? What do the role of institutions play in this world of pleasure and choice?
As an adult, it is so fun to get little unexpected packages in the mail. Maybe that's why I order books so often.
Anyway, thanks Aunt Bev!
I called her to thank her and somehow we got into a conversation about marriage.
I've been getting into conversations about marriage a lot with people over the last year or so, what I call "The Marriage Project."
My nephew is getting married this spring, another friend of mine is thinking about getting married to her long-term boyfriend, and another friend of mine is having some doubts about her existing marriage--like, what it means to be married in general, what it means to be a heterosexual couple and not have kids, etc. (all that normal stuff), and finally, I've got marriage on my mind with the Perry v. Schwarzenneger Case that is currently going in in California (see this great New Yorker article for an overview).
I never really cared about marriage. Never wanted the ceremony for myself, never really thought about it as a civil right for gays and lesbians. I never cared one way or another. I didn't really care if my heterosexual friends got married or not, or even if my gay friends got married or not.
I did "get" the spiritual part of it, and the notion of standing up in front of all of your loved ones and announcing your intention to spend your life together. I got the idea that by doing so you were also asking for support from your friends and loved ones. I also "got" the institution of marriage and I think I get that marriage is generally good for a society in that it builds communities, makes us a bit more stable and that it probably helps kids in the long run too.
But I've always looked at it from an academic's distance, with a libertarian bent: we should all be able to chose what's best for us and for the most part, we'll all be better off if we do just that.
In that sense, gay marriage for me is not unlike polygamy (in its best sense -- not the whole marrying teenage brides shennanegans). Objectively, I'm not sure I've got anything against polygamy.
So now, in the midst of all these discussions with my friends, AND it coming upon tax season again where I usually get riled up when I realize (again) that the pesky government rules limit our choices because we are not strictly speaking *married*, I find myself thinking about the issue a lot.
So I was talking with Cousin's mom about marriage again the other day and one thing seems for certain: that marriage is really different now than it was for them. My mom (her sister) was married in 1944 when she was 19 years old. Her husband (my dad) worked three jobs at the time and she very quickly had two twin boys. They didn't have much choice, both scientifically and religiously-speaking, in terms of reproductive planning, she didn't have much choice in terms of work (there weren't many options for women in terms of education or occupation at the time, and many states had laws that forbade women from working once they were married, and finally once a woman had kids, there were few options regarding day care if she were to work, if any), and most people didn't have much money, so making ends meet was the main goal.
This is all to say that drastic changes in all of these areas have allowed us (middle and upper class Americans) to make deliberate choices in our lives and that the bottom line has changed. Now we make choices that will, hopefully, make us happier. Mom made choices in the same way, presumably, but I doubt that her goal in marrying dad, having kids, staying home with kids, earning, spending and saving money was in the context of costs and benefits around life satisfaction in the way that those decisions are in our current lives.
Let me be clear: I think that this change is unequivocally good. I'd rather not revert back to hunter-gatherer days in which my existence dependent on whether or not my tribe was successful in its hunt, and I'd rather not change lives with the 19th century pioneers who had very little leisure and spent most of their days producing the necessary goods necessary for life.
No, additional time and leisure is good. And changes in culture, society, technology and productivity that have expanded our choice set are unequivocally good.
But I'm not sure that it is easier in some senses of the word. We have become more existential in some ways. How does one even make major decisions like getting married and kids without the social dictum? How and why do we stay married without a social dictum? And what if the new dictum is: do what pleases you? What happens when marriage doesn't please? What do the role of institutions play in this world of pleasure and choice?
Monday, March 08, 2010
Ten!
Happy Birthday, Ten!
I started writing this blog when you were four. FOUR. That's Big's age now.
How does an entire decade pass?
Here are some pictures from birthdays past with this year's photo to come.
ZERO
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE
I started writing this blog when you were four. FOUR. That's Big's age now.
How does an entire decade pass?
Here are some pictures from birthdays past with this year's photo to come.
ZERO
ONE
TWO
THREE
FOUR
FIVE
SIX
SEVEN
EIGHT
NINE
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Fat
So, for Valentine's day I don't really think about the kids. BioMOm's my valentine, and that's that in my opinion.
BioMom, however, does.
She got them both little gifties to celebrate the day.
Unfortunately for her, she doesn't get the credit.
Nine opened up her little heart necklace and said: "Thanks Baba!"
And when Big found a small version of Chutes and Ladders, he gave me a huge hug.
I just beamed, choosing not to correct their mistakes.
We tore open the game and some chocolate hearts and played a round, Nine tromping us all having landed on the longest ladder and avoiding all chutes.
Big: "Let's play again! [Nine], can I be your girl this time?"
Nine: "No."
BioMom, Big and I: "Why not?"
Nine: "She's fat."
Sometimes I think that being a girl makes raising a girl more difficult.
BioMom and I went into tag-team formation.
"What?"
"What did you say?"
We bulldozed her with our overwhelming reaction to the comment. And I mean that in a self-reprehensive way. We definitely did not handle it well. Is that what you think about her? What would someone think who heard you say that? What did you mean by that? Ugh. It was bad. She initially denied saying it, we went into blah blah blah lectures about media images and women and how women then feel about themselves etc.
We were nothing but attack and she was nothing but defense.
I got back to her later when we were both a bit removed.
It is really a complicated message we send to young girls. On the one hand we harp about eating healthy and not too much. To eat less sugar and pop. With Nine we pay attention to carbs, knowing that like us, she tends toward overeating when it's really bad for you and yummy. And knowing that she just does better in school when she's got some protein under her belt in the morning.
We never talk about being fat although she'd have to be deaf to not hear BioMom and I's own personal concerns when we know we've had a bad few months and gained a few unwanted pounds.
So now we're harping that fat is basically the equivalent of a swear word and our arguments were steeped in complicated feminist rhetoric.
ugh.
How do all of you react to your girls' reactions to society? What do you do when they pick up the negatives you wish you could shield them from?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
