church hop

Today was probably our family's last time attending as members of the church that we've gone for 23 years. My emotions about this are not easy to articulate.

We're not leaving because of any hurt or any issues that we have with church leadership. I actually really like the pastor, who will be celebrating his first year there in a couple of weeks. However, we're doing a trial move for NJ and CD.

Both of the kids have had anxiety at the church since before our new pastor started, each for their own reason. Much of NJ's anxiety stems from the fact that he understands that he's different from most of the rest of the youth, and he had a meltdown a while back that he's embarrassed about. There's a church in town that has a program during Sunday morning service that is targeted to teens and young adults with special needs. NJ has been going to their special needs youth group meetings on Wednesdays, and has done well there. So, we're going to attend that church for a bit to see how well the kids do in that setting.

There are only a few reasons that I would be okay with switching churches. While I'm not always the best at being a friend to everyone in church, I do believe that we should strive for this to be like a family. Over the past few weeks as I've been letting people know that we're leaving I've been feeling like I'm abandoning folks.

I explained our situation to our pastor, and to his credit he has been extremely supportive of this move. I know that this has to be hard to see congregants go elsewhere, regardless of the reason. I wish I knew how to repay this kindness.

We'll be visiting family over Labor Day, and so the week after that we'll be doing something as a family that I haven't done in more than half of my lifetime and visit a church with the potential of making it our new church home. It's my hope that whether this is the right move becomes obvious shortly.

neurotypical

Having a teenage son on the autism spectrum has given me pause to re-evaluate a lot of interactions that I've had with other people throughout my life. One example is someone I worked with for a month who I blogged about years ago who didn't understand who would be interested in a certain type of movie.

I remember a specific person who frequently visited someone in my dorm in college who I now believe was on the spectrum was generally kind, but also made me uncomfortable because of some of the very black and white statements and positions he took. I prefer nuance, and this individual did not.

As a parent who is neurotypical I feel like I'm equipped to parent a neurodiverse child, but that all of my instincts are wrong for parenting a neurodiverse child, and soon young adult. His logic frequently runs counter to mine, and we're frequently blind to what's important to the other or what the other is trying to communicate.

While things are definitely better now, our problems communicating and managing new hormones had us in a bad spot a year ago. We had almost daily meltdowns--true meltdowns--and it took a lot of time and effort to get to where that doesn't happen so regularly. That experience has really driven home to me how much I don't understand about the neurodiverse brain.

So much of what I learn now about people who were considered eclectic makes more sense now, and what drove things like the popularity of electroshock therapy and lobotomies in the past.

We've been working with therapists for a while, and they have always been optimistic about the future. However, the most frustrating thing is that we don't know what a realistic future for us and for NJ holds, and so it's hard to put together a plan to meet specific goals.

There really isn't a way to wrap this post up because we're in a very open-ended state at the moment. I'm hoping for the best, though.

fully vaccinated

Today is the two week mark after I received my second COVID shot, so I'm officially fully vaccinated.  I'm definitely excited for the opportunity that represents for our coming summer compared with how things were last year.

While I am excited about things opening up, I am one of those introverted people who genuinely enjoyed many things about being locked down.  Being able to work from home, having an excuse not to go out and do too many social things, and having more time in general around the house was wonderful, especially early in the pandemic.  I enjoyed it enough that I felt some guilt, since I know this pandemic caused serious health and economic problems for so many people, and because so many people lost loved ones.

The one big issue that this caused for our family is that NJ had a very hard time dealing with things getting cancelled, and with everything about the year being different.  We tried to allow the kids as many safe social opportunities as possible, but his autism makes him an extremely routine-driven person, and having everything about the routine of the year last year change caused quite a bit of distress.

I can't tell if the year has been hard on CD or not.  She has actually been more social with kids at school than she has been historically, but she has been less social with people at church.  We'd probably prefer it be the other way around.  She excelled academically this year, and we have gotten far more family time than any prior year.  I hope she feels she had a good year.

We actually did keep pretty busy last summer, but we have more things scheduled for this summer, just due to more opportunity and less danger.  I think the rest of the year is looking up.

fight

I've done a lot of posting about, "When I was a kid," in the past few months.  This is one more, but with the twist of it being about what I didn't do when I was a kid.

A few weeks ago I heard another man around my age who I generally like and respect make a blanket statement about guys from our generation that doesn't describe me, and I'm not sure if that's because he's the odd one or I am.  The comment was went something to the effect of, "When I was a kid I'd fight on the playground with another boy, and afterward we'd be great friends.  I got a lot of my best friends today that way."  He stated this like it was a universal male experience and went on to make the point that this is one way in which men and women are naturally different.

I wrestled with friends a lot, and I got into arguments with one of my friends on a regular basis, but I never got into a true physical fight with anyone in either childhood or adulthood.  I'm sure that some of that comes down to parenting, and some comes down to the fact that I had a smaller than average build through most of childhood, but I never thought of fighting being the norm for boys.  I recall seeing boys on rare occasions "fight," if you could call it that, but I recall seeing many more boys stay to the sidelines in those "fights."

I do recall seeing several TV shows try to teach the lesson of physically standing up to bullies, but that always struck me (pun intended) as bad advice for the following reasons.

1. It's naive to assume that bullies are cowards who will back down to a smaller kid standing up to them.  Even if they are cowards, they'll be incentivized to make an example of anyone who stands up to them.
2. It's naive to think that when adults actually show up to deal with the situation that they'll understand that you were simply, "defending yourself."
3. It's naive to think that getting into a real fight won't lead to serious injuries that will be painful and take a while to address.
4. It's naive to think that a weapon won't get used in a real fight.

The advice always struck me as a roundabout means of victim blaming.  It allows for people to complain about the way these situations are handled today, because back in my day we understood that it was the victim's responsibility to stand up for themselves.  Fortunately, I didn't really have a lot of situations where this was applicable, but I always intended to back down from any fight as long as the fight wasn't about protecting someone.

Before our kids went into elementary school I had very genuine fears of them having to deal with bullying, and especially of NJ being in situations where someone wants to fight with him.  That sort of situation didn't appear in elementary school that I am aware of, and now he is going to an online school so it isn't likely to appear in the future.  Some of that is situational, and some of that is because society has changed.  I'm actually very happy that the cultural mindset has shifted on this topic.  Unless it's an absolute necessity, fighting is stupid.

cat's in the cradle

My son turned ten just the other day
He said, thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play
Can you teach me to throw, I said, not today
I got a lot to do, he said, that's okay
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed
Said, I'm gonna be like him, yeah
You know I'm gonna be like him

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man in the moon
When you coming home, dad?
I don't know when
But we'll get together then
You know we'll have a good time then

- Jen Chapin ("Cat's in the Cradle")

The song "Cat's in the Cradle" has been on the rotation in my office building's Muzak, so I've heard the song a couple of times in the past weeks while in the bathroom.  I'll tell you, that's a hard song to listen to as a father.

I expect that everyone here has heard it before, but listening through the lyrics it's pretty heavy-handed.  I also understand that the song is from a different era, and I think that accounts for the image portrayed in the song.  There are certainly dads today who could be well-described by those lyrics, who really prioritize their job over their kids, but there are probably many more who feel like most decisions are trade-offs, and working a job is caring for the family.

Our two kids are now nine an eleven.  Our nine-year-old daughter loves to spend time with me, and I love spending time with her.  We read together, watch TV together, and sometimes get opportunities to talk.  I'm enjoying this now as much as I can because I know that I'm not guaranteed that the relationship won't change as she gets older.  When I know I have something that's going to keep me from home before her bedtime it saddens me because I know she enjoys our time together too.

Our son is eleven, and I spend what time I am able to with him.  However, like I did when I was younger, he values his alone time very much.  He has things he enjoys to do, but the natural father-son things like sports, board games, and Legos aren't on that list.  I try very hard to find things that will keep his attention that we can do together, and I try very hard to find good topics of conversation.  I feel that we've made recent progress, but it is a real challenge.  His natural tendency is to wander back to his room as he gets bored.

My schedule is also packed.  I tend to work late, I teach in church, I'm on the church board, I regularly meet with different folks in the church, and I do other random things that fill the calendar.  I have avoided work that involved travel, but I still frequently feel a tension between the importance of time with the family and time with my other responsibilities.

Probably the issue that I most have with the song that opened this post is that it's written from a mildly selfish point of view.  Spend time with your kids now, or it'll be your fault that they aren't around to meet your needs later when you want to spend time with them.  What most concerns me has less to do with those regrets and more to do with the fact that these are the kids' formative years.  Their perspectives of everything in the world are going to be based on a foundation of what they learn and experience now.  Their abilities or lack thereof later in life are being set based on what happens now.  How can a parent affect things when they can only be around so often?

provide a boy

Golden and I both always wanted a boy and a girl because that is what we both grew up with.  We didn't, and I still don't, think of either as being easier or harder to raise, or more or less fun to have around.  Golden had another pressure that I never understood, though.  She felt that she needed to provide me a boy.

I wish she never saw this as a burden, because I always considered the idea silly. Since I never got the impression that it was a big deal to my dad, and it isn't a big deal to me, I always assumed the idea of having someone carry on your name was a dying artifact of a bygone era that modern people didn't care about.  While we did have a boy--and a wonderful one at that--I wouldn't have cared if we only had girls, other than that I would have felt bad for Golden for the burden.

In the past few years I have actually heard a few men make comments about this that have shocked me.  They implied that having a boy was much better than having a girl.  There are actually men who care about this!?  And not only that, I've heard this from some who consider themselves "progressive"! Unless I felt pressure from my parents on this I cannot fathom it being a huge deal what gender my kids were.

We're happy with our boy and our girl.  I can honestly say I would be just as happy if we had two boys or two girls, though.  We love them both!

kids and politics

With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids.  Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.).  I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics.  Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.

My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you.  My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity.  The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs.  I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise.  It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though.  I know because I remember thinking that way.  It's just a natural, human inclination.

Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious.  We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion.  It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that.  Alas, many do.  Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.

I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions.  This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives.  I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid.  Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.

All of this just leads back to my original point.  I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.

tabula rasa

Several years ago I learned about the concept of tabula rasa, which asserts that a baby is born with a mind that is largely a blank slate.  Personality, behavioral tendencies, intellectual capacity, etc are all things that spring out of the environment a child is raised in rather than from genetics.

I have heard from various sources that research done in the last two or three decades has largely discredited the idea of tabula rasa to the point where it is not a seriously held position in academic circles now, though not long ago this was not the case.  Having had two kids I have to strongly question how anyone who raised more than one child ever believed in tabula rasa.

While our kids are still young--just seven and nine--it is striking and unavoidable to see where specific aspects of our kids' drives and personalities are not only unique, but have been that way from birth.  In fact, I have a very difficult time believing that someone could have kids and not notice this, as I see this uniqueness in a lot of the other kids I am occasionally around as well.  Kids with strong personalities always had strong personalities, and they often have siblings with completely different personalities, though they grew up in the same household.  Things like birth order play a part, but only as an outgrowth of what they were from the start.

If it is obvious to a parent that the foundations of our kids' personality is due to nature rather than nurture--and I have definitely heard other parents observe this as well--why was this not obvious to the academic world for a large percentage of the twentieth century?  Do (or did, since this idea is no longer widely held) academics in psychology/psychiatry simply not spend time with and observe their own families?  It's baffling!

automated bathrooms

A couple of months back I was in a store or restaurant bathroom with NJ and he stuck his hands under the sink expecting it to automatically come on.  He knows how manual sinks work—our house bathroom sink is a typical manual one—but he is accustomed enough to automated sinks in businesses that it makes sense to him to expect one.  In related news, I am feeling old.

This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine.  This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged.  This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.

There are more obvious differences as well.  My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet.  For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.

ten years

A couple of weeks ago was the ten year anniversary for this blog.  When I look at life as it was for me then and now I don't know if I am more surprised by the things that have changed or the things that have stayed the same.

Most of the good friends with whom I created these blogs have moved, though I believe that some of those plans were already in the works when the blogs were started.  We lost our good friend Forrest along the way, as well as my co-worker at the time, T-Bop.  We aren't guaranteed tomorrow, and I did not properly understand that ten years ago.

The things I am the most embarrassed about from my former days are the issues I was apparently working through and the fact that I had a far lesser grasp on essential doctrines than I thought I did.

Regarding issues, everyone has them but they're more obvious for some than others.  I have made significant improvements over the last ten years, and I'm sure that's partially just part of the process of aging.  There are more things I'm confident that I understand, I care somewhat less what people think, and I have a better grasp on my own personal quirks than I did before.  Life can be a positive journey in that respect.  I still need to mellow out quite a bit, though.

Regarding doctrine, I'll just say I'm a bit mortified. Ten years ago I was as well-read in the Bible as a twenty-five-year-old can be, but I lacked a depth of understanding.  With every discovery I make in study I gain new embarrassment regarding things I used to say.  Some positions I have held in my doctrinal journey have been borderline heretical, and so I have had to correct and repent of some erroneous positions.  You live and learn, but this is serious stuff.

I have always been the sort to stick around in one place, so I still work in the same job but at a higher title. This time ten years ago I was in the process of deciding if that was really the path I wanted to take.  When I committed to getting my MBA ten years ago, that was a commitment to stay in this job for a long while because I was getting tuition assistance.  I will confess that I had some serious questions about the wisdom of that path ten years ago, though I believe I took the best route forward.  That, of course, comes from someone who values consistency, so staying at the same place for ten years naturally feels best.

The biggest difference in my life from ten years ago, though, are that Golden and I now have NJ and CH in our lives.  I cannot fathom too many things that changes the nature and priorities of your life as having kids, and there's plenty of positive and negative that can be said about it.  We love ours, though, and are so proud of the progress they have made in school, church, and elsewhere.

Finally, this year Golden and I celebrate our fifteenth anniversary.  When I started the blog we were looking at five years together, and that seemed impossibly long.  It doesn't feel like fifteen is remotely possible.  Part of that is because I still feel like we are learning more about each other each day.  She is aging far, far better than I am, and I am fortunate to have her.  One thing that you get out of fifteen years of marriage is perspective on the things that make a good or bad spouse.  I have a good wife.

I hope to be able to keep this up for another ten years.  Obviously, I do not post like I used to.  Life responsibilities guarantee that.  That does not mean that I do not appreciate having this outlet, though.  I hope all who still read this get some enjoyment out of it.

am i good?

The other night NJ asked me one of the hardest questions he could ask, "Am I good?"  He followed it up by, "Are people who don't love Jesus bad?"  There may not be two questions with more potential pitfalls than those two.

If I were to tell NJ that he was good that would lead to doctrinal problems later.  Why is the Gospel good news if I am already good?  That sounds minor, but it is the lynchpin that holds the entire Christian faith together.  If I am already good I do not need Christ's righteousness, and if that is the case Christ died in vain.

If I were to tell NJ that he was not good that would lead to behavioral problems later on.  Kids live up to or down to the expectations placed on them.  If NJ was told that he was bad he could just fit his behaviors to the standard of being bad.  He has already asked in the past why he was not allowed to be bad, so I know he would like an excuse to lower the standards he has to live by.

I discussed this with Golden, and we are going to teach our kids that there are two types of good.  This is a bit nuanced for early elementary-aged kids, but it is something they will need to understand at some point anyway.

The first type of good is righteous good.  Neither Golden nor I are righteous good, NJ is not righteous good, CD is not righteous good.  Our only hope is to rely on Jesus, and his righteous good is credited to us as our own righteous good, even though we are not good in and of ourselves.  Technically, believers are concurrently not righteous good (of their own works), and are righteous good (through the work of Christ) at the same time.

The second type of good is behavioral good.  NJ and CD are deep-down behavioral good because they are generally obedient and respectful.  One does not need to love Jesus to be behaviorally good because apparently good behavior can come from all sorts of motivations.  A lot of people mistake this kind of good, which is really too superficial to mean much morally, for the other kind of good because the word "good" is ridiculously broad.

So, I am hoping that as the kids grow they are able to have a better sense for what "good" is than I had.  I think that would be good.

kids' independence

This is the first year that both of our kids are in elementary school.  That in itself is quite a change, as we have had four years of having a kid in preschool leading up to this year.  For whatever reason, something that happened today is as significant in grasping that our kids are growing up.

The elementary school that our kids attend is laid out in a confusing way.  The primary hallway is circular, but there is also a branch off that circle that leads to further classrooms.  As such, Golden had walked NJ (whose classroom is difficult to find) to his classroom a couple of times and CD to her classroom for the past week.  While NJ has been walking to his class alone for several days, today was the first day that CD walked to her classroom without Golden.  NJ passes that classroom on the way to his classroom, so he was supposed to help her get to where she needs to be.

I was thinking about that this morning.  As a parent I am used to my youngest child at all times being under the direct supervision of an adult.  In this case she was under the direct supervision of her eight-year-old brother (obviously, in a setting where there are responsible adults).  The idea that our youngest is now at the age where there can been short periods of time where she has that sort of independence gives me pause.

As a dad, this is all exciting.  I think that it is more difficult for Golden as a mom.  We both know that our kids are growing up.

bodily privacy

I apologize in advance to anyone who is paranoid about being watched.  If so, don't read the rest of this post.  I'm serious.  This is about a prediction I am making that might make some such people uncomfortable.

I had a shocking realization recently.  I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I think that at some point in the future there are going to be unclothed pictures of pretty much everyone stored somewhere publicly accessible.  This isn't because I think that everyone is going to be an exhibitionist in the future, but simply due to technological advancement.

As a minor, slightly unrelated example of how fast privacy is going away, a couple of weeks ago a picture of NJ showed up on my Facebook news feed, except it was not a picture of NJ.  It was a picture of one of my Facebook friends taken and posted by someone he knows and with whom I am not friends on Facebook.  He just happened to be in the same restaurant we were in earlier that day, and NJ was simply in the background of the picture.  Just think of all of the people in the background of the pictures you have taken.  You're probably in just as many picture backgrounds as well, so there is pretty strong documentation of most places that you have been in public if the faces in the pictures could be properly indexed and searched.  Usually, that is not a big deal, but in some situations it may be.

I have long suspected that privacy as we think of it will become infeasible to maintain at some point in the future.  It is also easy to see in social media that a lot of people are very comfortable exposing specific aspects of themselves that society has traditionally deemed private.  Most of my contemplation to this point has centered around the privacy of thought rather than bodily privacy, however it makes sense that if we lose one we will lose the other.  If there are cameras everywhere to catch conversations and facial expressions, there will be cameras everywhere to undo other sorts of privacy as well.  These cameras might catch things inadvertently or intentionally, but the result is still the same that privacy will be violated.

The one thing I can think of that might strike down my predictions is that I can also consider is that anti-filming or camera detection technology will advance at the same pace, and that businesses and governments that manage public restrooms and changing areas invest in those technologies.  This will means that individuals will have to be diligent, and the question is whether that level of diligence is realistic.

As an extra consequence of this prediction, I believe that any companies that currently hold patents on technology to detect and/or disable hidden cameras will probably make a killing in the not-so-horribly-distant future.  Well, at least that is my paranoid prediction.  Hopefully, I am wrong about all of this, or I am at least wrong about how far in the future this reality is.

the volcano sisters

Lately, the kids have really gotten into the TV show called The Backyardigans.  I am enjoying this because it has long been one of my favorite kids' shows.

The idea of the show is that five kids play in their back yards, and whatever storyline they imagine up during play time is the story for the show.  They play pretty much any characters a kid could think up from pirates to spies to traveling polka musicians.

One specific episode sticks out as a favorite, though, because I think it is so illustrative of a lot of relationships I have witnessed (and most assuredly not my own).  This is the episode entitled "The Legend of the Volcano Sisters."

In this episode the two girls play the Volcano Sisters who control the volcano on an island, and the boys play the Luau Brothers who are planning a luau on the island.  The girls announce that they are unhappy and announce that the volcano will go off if the boys are unable to address this.  Not wanting their luau ruined the boys run off, sure that the girls want something grand.

One boy climbs up a mountain to find the giant Very Heavy Tiki Mask on Tiki Mountain and brings that to the girls.  They announce that this is not what they want.  The next boy swims into the ocean to grab the Shiniest Pearl and brings that to the girls.  They reject this gift as well.  This point of the story is summed up in the song "Huka Pele," and this whole sequence is why I love this episode.  To see the guys running around clueless while the girls make demands is simply hilarious to me.  Finally, the last boy presents his idea of what the girls want.

The final boy brings a flower to the girls and asks them if they would like to come to join them for the luau.  Of course, this final boy actually did figure out what the girls wanted.  They were not looking for some spectacular gift.  They just wanted to be included.

There is probably more I can say, but I will leave it at that.  I truly just love this whole scenario from the episode.

parenting a princess

Our daughter Cd likes princesses.  A lot.  It's hard to blame her.  At least half of the entertainment targeted toward girls her age features the protagonist in a princess role (or a girl seeking to be a princess through marriage in Cinderella's case).  Of course she is going to latch onto the fact that the female protagonists that she likes all tend to have one specific role.  I am not sure how I am supposed to feel about things like this that the kids like.

In this case, part of my complication comes from the fact that I don't truly know what the appeal of princesses is to a girl.  I understand the draw that a boy has to superheroes or sports figures because I understand pretty much all of the fundamental needs and desires those roles fulfill in boys.  While I may have some good guesses, I don't truly understand the fundamental needs and desires that are being addressed through the princess character.  Is it being pretty and wearing pretty clothes?  Is it being special, because the princess is so important?  Is it being sophisticated (which I predictably misspelled until my spell-checker caught it)?  Is it the idea of being able to have all of your desires and whims be catered to?  Is it about having the power to be able to care for those who you care about?

With the superhero character I understand the positives and negatives.  Superheroes tend to be characters of action in a black and white world, and that action is violent with little repercussion due to hidden identity, so aggression glorified is the biggest danger.  A secondary danger is that the superhero fantasy validates the view that athletic ability (through genes or through military experiment gone awry) is the basis of a man's value.  The basic superhero fantasy is that by being able to do the things the superhero does you earn respect from others and self-respect you might not otherwise have.  Also, younger boys may not get this, but the fantasy extends to being a shortcut to proving your worth to a girl (be it your own equivalent of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, or Rachel Dawes).  I feel I can parent around these and other elements of the superhero character fairly easily, since I generally understand them.

However, the princess character is sort of giving me fits.  Is a princess a noble character, and is it noble to want to be a princess?  Is CD going to learn the right lessons from a typical Disney (or similar) princess character, or is she going to pick up bad traits?  Will she learn from the very stupid decisions the characters often make, or will she learn that those stupid paths are correct?  Will she learn that a lot of the guys these girls fall for in the movies are generally the types to be avoided?  Will she fantasize too much about being in a situation where others live to cater to her desires, or learn that she needs to take responsibility for a lot of the things in her life?  Will the fact that these characters are impossibly proportioned lead to body issues?  I know that I am probably over-thinking this, and I do not want CD to miss out on experiences that other girls her age have.  I just know less than I don't know about what girls get out of the princess fantasy, and that makes me uncomfortable.

the talk

During my typical morning contemplation in the shower this morning it occurred to me that either NJ or CD will probably ask about where babies come from in the near future.  NJ just turned six, but hasn't asked yet largely out of lack or interest of things baby-related.  CD, at three-and-a-half is very interested in babies, so I was wondering who would ask first.

A mere eight hours later I caught Golden explaining to CD in very simple terms where babies come from.  CD had told Golden that babies were cut out of mommies' bellies.  Golden explained that this sometimes happens, but there is usually a different way for the baby to come out.  Golden did a great job of giving the right amount of information for where CD is without acting awkward.

Golden and I have long agreed that we would be up front and honest as possible to questions about where babies come from, and eventually questions about sex.  There are a lot of reasons for that, and we both agree that the benefits of being up-front outweigh the drawbacks.  All of that being said, I don't feel real confident I know the line where to balance over-sharing information.

I think my impression is largely due to the fact that the people with the more extreme opinions are most likely to share them, but it seems to me that most of the opinions I have heard about discussing sex with kids has been from either extreme.  Either parents are over-sexualizing their kids by not protecting them from knowledge about things until they are mature enough to understand them or they are causing them to be sexually repressed by making natural things appear evil.  I'd like us to strike a proper balance, but that's a fine line to establish.

I think that there are certainly some real dangers to both extremes, but my real concern is that I feel that if this is something that we cannot discuss in our household that damages Golden's and my ability to influence NJ's and CD's understanding of sex, and can cause serious problems and heartache later.  It is a parent's responsibility to ready their kids for their adult lives, and sexuality is a huge part of that.  We would be failing as parents if we ceded this responsibility to whatever will fill in that knowledge gap.

Here's hoping and praying our next talk is not for another couple of years, though.

cross to bear

A while back another mother of one of NJ's preschool classmates told Golden that she did not know if she could handle a situation we were dealing with regarding NJ at the time as a compliment to her patience.  Within a couple of months we received word that that mother had to deal with her son having a medical situation far, far worse than we have dealt with for either of our kids yet.

Unless he or she had a traumatic childhood, I do not think the typical person realizes the severity of the challenges that most people have to face in life until they are no longer considered a young adult.  Everyone has something, and that something is usually huge.  I feel like almost every family I know has some issue that I do not know how I would deal with.  Whether it is serious illnesses/death, miscarriages, affairs, divorces, major financial hardships, perpetual unemployment, mental/emotional instability, or simply rebellious children, almost no one is immune.  It also seems like all of this bad stuff is from recent years.

I know that a lot of bad stuff happened to people I knew when I was a kid, but a lot of that stuff is usually shielded from kids.  As an example, it may sound uncaring but when you hear about an adult in the hospital as a youth it does not sound unexpected.  You don't get the morbid details of the complications that person goes through, and it rarely directly impacts you.  Older people end up in hospitals, and you don't have an appreciation for someone in their thirties or forties being relatively young.  It's simply another name brought up for a prayer request.  That changes as an adult when forty isn't old any more and I am more closely acquainted with those who are sick.

To be fair, there are difficulties that Golden and I face.  In a vacuum they often seem serious, but when I compare to others, we do not have it that bad.  A lot of what we do face has to do with being parents of two energetic kids, so those difficulties even frequently have benefits that far outweigh them.

Given how poorly I have handled the curve balls that life has thrown me, I have some doubts about how I would handle a more serious hardship.  My crosses seem horrible until I see some of what others have to tolerate.  God, give them strength.

preschool

This past week NJ went to preschool for the first time, and I should probably make a note of it here. Unlike what one might expect, I am not overly concerned with the academics that the preschool offers or really that the elementary schools that NJ and CD will attend offer. I have just always assumed that academic strengths are determined more at home than in the classroom, so as long as the basics are covered in school we can assure that the kids are where they should be academically.

I figure that NJ will benefit most from the social interaction that preschool offers. Also, I am interested in insight as to whether we should hold NJ back a year in school since his birthday is in July. Again, I am not thinking in terms of academics because he will do fine academically, but there social advantages for boys to being held back largely tied to physical size.

When CD gets to be preschool age we will probably put her in for her own enjoyment more than anything else. She is easily the most social person in our family and she is not even two yet. I know that girls bring with them their own set of issues, but I have confidence that she will do fine socially.

When I was a kid I did not go to preschool, but my sister did. She has always been more social than I have been, so perhaps preschool played a role in how that played out. If so, maybe NJ and CD will be able to teach their dad a thing or two once they get through preschool.

feminism

I have been thinking about a post on a perspective on Feminism for a while but haven't really known which way to take a topic with such a wide scope and that is so potentially explosive. Since my interest in Feminism has to do with the ways that it has impacted my thinking I decided to focus on that. Unfortunately, since I am looking for oddities in my thinking, this may look like an attack on Feminism. This is not intentional, though, as I personally believe Feminism exists out of necessity. If I were a woman having to deal with some of the men that I have met in my life, I would probably see a very strong need for nearly all Feminist ideals as well.

I have especially thought a lot about different approaches to the genders in the past few months as I recently completed the book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know by Meg Meeker. I initially decided this would be a good book for me to read since I do not have experience raising a girl. Many of the book's theses challenged my opinions which I believe originated in Feminist thought. One point in particular was that most girls on some level associate a strong father figure who sets and keeps strict rules as a dad who is "being there" for her. A constant emphasis in the book is that girls are frequently given so much space that they are not entirely convinced that they are worth being protected. Since I grew up in a relatively strict home this does enlighten some things for me, but it also creates a conflict in my brain.

I know from what my own needs were as a kid that boys operate a bit differently from this and that their need for respect often (not always) contradicts the strict approach. Strictness, especially with older boys, needs to be offset with something that they can use to feel respected. What that something is probably varies and is something that I need to investigate further for NJ's sake. The fact remains that what I am reading about what girls need differs from what I know that boys need. The problem I have is that I now almost feel forced into a double standard for how boys and girls ought to be raised. While I am thankful for the new perspective on double standards, I am uncomfortable with the fact that I have now been forced to reconsider whether some are better in place than abolished.

This talk of explicitly supporting some double standards is not meant to sound sexist. I am not only referring to double standards that appear to negatively impact women. Something that I don't think gets acknowledged is that many double standards disproportionately impact men, and that they do not only target women. Reactions to cross-dressing and the expectation on men that they will bring home the bacon are examples of double standards that impact men more than women, but accepting them does not make a person sexist.

Another reason I have been thinking about Feminism a bit is due to a news story that ran a couple of years ago. A study was performed that established that men who believe in traditional gender roles made more money. The headline from multiple news sources read something to the effect of "Sexist Men Earn More Money." The article titles left little doubt that only a sleazeball sexist would believe that it was ideal for his wife to watch the kids during the day.

Aside from the abortion issue (I'm not going into that today), if there is one position that traditional Feminism takes that does really irritate me it is the assumption that traditionalists are sexist toward women but not toward men. I know far more women who are vocal about wanting to be stay-at-home moms than men who are vocal about wanting their wives to stay home, but it seems the only person who can be sexist in this equation is the man. An enlightened opinion is one that either says it is the wife's choice or one that says the wife has to work outside the house. My perspective put bluntly is that if it is sexist for a husband to expect that his wife should stay at home, then it is sexist for a wife to expect that her husband should work so that she can stay home. I don't believe either positions are inherently sexist, but it is hypocritical to hold one view and not the other. The simple reason that men who believe in traditional gender roles make more is that they believe they are fully responsible for their family's income so they take more steps to make more money by working longer hours at the office, taking second jobs, getting more education, etc. If a man is less traditional and believes that he should not be fully responsible for the family's income, then he will be less likely to make serious sacrifices to bring in more money.

In our situation, Golden had to work for a year because our finances necessitated it. Both of us preferred that she be able to take care of NJ and CD (it was only NJ at the time), but she felt more strongly about it than I did. Am I a sexist for preferring that Golden be able to stay home with NJ? Is Golden a sexist for strongly pushing for that option? What about with our decision for Golden to work a year while our finances improved? Would I have been sexist if I insisted on Golden working so that I could stay home with the kids? I probably make more money than I would if I was significantly less traditional because I would not have sought work positions with the sole intent of being able to provide for my family. I would have probably gotten a degree in a less practical field if I had bothered with a degree at all.

While my actual view leans more traditional, it is more that each family has to decide what is the best way for things to be run. There are situations where both parents working outside the home makes the most sense. There are situations where it is ideal if one parent stays home and watches the kids. There are a million other combinations of part time work, or friends and family watching the kids, or baby-sitting co-ops, etc. The point is that believing that one of the options above is ideal for your family or is ideal in a typical situation does not automatically make you a sexist.

There are other points that I could make about feminist thought that are both good and bad, but these are the ones that have been on my mind. As always, I am more than willing to discuss in the comments, but I always prefer that things stay civil and don't get too political.

it is finished

I walked the line last night. After four-and-a-half years, eight or nine semesters (depending on if you count the semester I skipped), and what I calculated to be just short of two hundred classes, I am done with my degree. I thought I would be graduating with honors since my GPA is 3.97 (this is me bragging), but this program apparently does not have a cum laude system. As I like to do, I would like to post some observations about the graduation process.

The speakers for the night kind of phoned it in. Three people spoke, and only one appeared to have put much thought into it. The theme of the one decent speech was that having an MBA is great because you aren't tied to one industry. It was a good point considering the venue, but there was not a lot of meat even in that speech.

Someone mentioned that MBAs are not held in as high regard right now because they, specifically those that have gone into finance, are believed to be the cause of the current economic mess. Why isn't anyone pointing the fingers at the economists and actuaries whose models suggested there was no housing bubble? I'm just saying...

All of the graduations I have witnessed have involved the graduate handing a card to a person who reads his or her name as the graduate walks across stage to be recognized. While I was watching this it occurred to me that someone could crash a graduation rather easily if he or she knew ahead of time what the name cards were going to look like. I would not be surprised if some enterprising reality show tried a stunt like that in the near future.

I have not researched the traditions surrounding mortarboards, tassels, hoods, etc. Part of me wants to believe that some of this was a practical joke that got out of hand. I heard another graduate observing that the whole regalia is about as impractical as it could reasonably be.

I always planned on taking as long as I did for both family and economic reasons. Unfortunately, this meant that most of the people I new well in the program graduated in 2008 or 2009. I knew a handful of people in the ceremony, but not a ton of them. That is kind of a shame because I think the main appeal to me of a graduation is that there is supposed to be a shared camaraderie of what we have survived.

We brought both kids to the ceremony. They were apparently a handful. Golden and my mom dealt with them well, though. I was told that there were a lot of toddlers who had to be taken to the lobby because they weren't doing well in the ceremony. I'll leave it at that.

The main thing on my mind at this point is that I am just happy to have the whole process behind me. In the year or two before I started pursuing the degree I decided that I was going to get a masters degree sooner or later, so I am happy to not have that still hanging over me. If I take academic (rather than corporate) classes in the future, it will almost certainly be simply for my personal benefit and growth, though.