Having a flame

As progressive as we were attempting to be, I was the mother and it suddenly meant something. There had been this bond, you see, and it persisted in ways I underestimated. Because in spite of all our contemporary approaches to parenting, somehow, I was still the one to make all the hospital arrangements, and the one to sleep curled around our son the night before surgery. Now he was going to become unconscious on an operating table and as though bewitched, he would temporarily leave himself. But I couldn’t forget that it had been inside my body that the enchantment had begun. His first flicker of life had happened there and I’d monitored it when no-one else could. I have been the keeper of his flame his whole life, and the yearning to be with him as this flame was subdued and then breathed back was about the strongest obligation I had experienced.

From  Essential Kid via the author's blog. 

Blubbing as I pad.

Although I can foresee my fear when my 10mo inevitably comes under the care of doctors, one day, even now simply letting her be away and out of sight for an extended period, especially with non-family, is hard.  And bluemilk's "keeper of the flame" idea is what it is.  I keep thinking "But I'm the last one, the one she needs most, because I'm the mother."  It feels so selfish and grandiose (sorry Dad) but such a desperate responsibility, a weight I knew was I choosing with parenthood.  How can I do less than what she might need?

Bloody marvellous

Dear Allie,

I tried to comment on your post but it has maxed out at 5000! I am very pleased for you about hat, though I don't envy the task of appreciating them all (I naturally assume they're all lovely).  ACtually, no, 5000 "You are awesome"s would probably be nice.  I hope it warms you.

After reading your previous post I wanted to let you know that this one really did make me laugh.  Lots.  I turned the screen around and forced* my husband to sit by me and read the comics (especially the 'Stay Strong' one) and I watched his face to see if he appreciated it as much as I did.  And he did - he guffawed, and he's an introvert!

I hope I get to see more of your thoughts soon.  I wish I'd had your blog to read when I was a teenager.

Lots of love,

A.

*By 'forced' I mean I say "Do that household chore later silly!  This is important!"  
"What is?" 
"Hyperbole and a half is posting again."  
"Hy-PER-bo-ly."  
"See, I'm sure you just say it the opposite way to whichever way I say it." 
"You're doing that conversation-in-your-head thing again."

Where is everyone?

Very soon another season of the Biggest Loser will begin on Australian telly. I know this because the advertising campaign is relentless. These days they creatively choose a theme for the seasons and this year it's 'Singles'.

I won't post the ad here but these are the key elements I get before I flip the channel:

Audio: Regina Spektor's cover of 'Real Love'
Visual: Usually one person, in white, on a beige background a-la-photoshoot, speaks about how they're ready to love themselves again, or find love, or be proud of themselves.

Where is everyone on this? How has the blogosphere that I read not said one peep about this crappy, detrimental, patronising and socially damaging campaign? Why am I surprised? Here is what I hear in these ads....
"I can't love myself when I'm this big. I don't think anyone else can either. I find it acceptable that people can't see me past the fat, so I'm going to lose it, because all I see is fat too. Yeah, no one likes fat people."

I don't know how to explain it (so rambling is afoot), but what I really hear is the product of a culture that has taught someone that they are somehow not good enough because they're big.
A bit of disclosure: I speak from a privileged point of view. I am a classic cis woman - female looking, mainstream height, weight, colour, shoe size, everything. My biggest challenge in clothes shopping is I'm about a 10-12, and those sizes goes first. Tough times indeed. When I see magazines, advertising, etc about make-up, clothes, products, routines that I'm supposed to buy into "because I respect myself", its easy for me to ignore them. I don't think that's just because I have a healthy self-image, or that I don't like to shop, or that I was unpopular in school so I've mostly fobbed off that 'pretty' crap. I think it's partly easy because, physically, I have no public display of being unfit. When I buy fish & chips, no one looks me up & down and judges me for being irresponsible - my figure shows I'm apparently sensible enough with the rest of my diet. When I exercise, no one links that to my size or my opinion of it. I fit into seats, I get through doorways, I can pass poeple in corridors, I can climb stairs, I can pick things up - all without anyone ever noticing what I'm doing or the effort it may take me. But I get the impression it's not the same for large people. If I feel bombarded by images of more-ideal-than-me that I'm supposed to choose, I can only imagine what a large person is experiencing.

I think size-ism has been in fashion for a long time, but especially so right now. I also think we treat weight like we treat the economy - we wish is were a meritocracy. And I think that's a load of crap.
In a meritocracy, people would generally deserve their situation. Certainly for the most part, people who are happy with their lot in life like to believe they've earned it in some way - very few says its all in the stars. By extension, there is no such thing as misfortune, only bad choices and deserved outcomes. I think people treat weight the same way - "you've earned the size you are and all the responses things that some with it." ( I think calling someone a 'skinny bitch' is a warped version of 'tall poppy syndrome', and I won't even go into the seething I have for labelling someone a bitch just because of their size.)

I think these ads normalise the idea that self-esteem and love are (justifiably) elusive for large people and that everyone else is justified in being disinterested in large people. I know that obesity is becoming a more prevalent issue for Australia, but I don't think pointing at large people - in this punishing, separatist, distancing way - is anything like a step toward a healthier country. Portion sizes, access to healthy food, access to physical activities in lower-socio-economic communities, attitudes to activity during secondary school - all these things relate to the health of someone as they create the habits of their adulthood. It is generally accepted that to be large is unhealthy, but there's something in me that believes some people are just big - they've always been big, they're going to be big, and maybe it will affect their health in the future, but you know what? Shit loads of things affect health - drinking, wrong foods, stress, poor work places, unhappy families - and most of them are invisible to the average bystander. There will always be people who have unhealthy habits - why should large people get everyone's open contempt? Why do people feel entitled to presume someone's discontent and then comment & advise them on living habits, as thought their singular experience will apply to all?

Before all that though:
Making change when you feel shit about yourself is like pushing water uphill. We've known this since we stopped saying "that child has bad blood".

It really shouldn't matter what I think of your weight or size. I don't think I have a right to make you feel any particular way about the way you look, and I don't see why anyone feels entitled to use their judgements about weight to inflict an emotion upon others.

My good fortune.

I read this last night off my phone, frowning furiously at the little screen not because of its size but because of the vehemence I felt for the post.

Through feeds and media I get a bit of the US primaries and what not, and I watch with interest knowing that the attitudes voiced in American culture are echoed here through their media products and our reporting media's recounts. When Obama says something significant, it will be shown on our news. When a republican front-runner makes a gaffe, I can see it somewhere on our free-to-air network.

So when I read this, a lament sparked from the impotence of the US government (and alternatives) for their own 'feminist voice', I am riled for the women of the US. I am so thankful that abortion is legal in Australia (governed state-by-state) and that, even though there are people who opposed it completely, terrorism here towards those who provide abortions is minimal. However, McEwan's excellently expressed fury had me thinking of women's rights in general and not reproductive rights alone.

They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.

They count on the Democratic Party being too squeamish, too spineless, too unprincipled, too apathetic to stand up for reproductive rights, unyieldingly.

They count on reproductive rights being the first bargaining chip on the table.

They count on the still almost entirely male leadership of the Democratic Party and the vast number of male Democratic partisans giving themselves permission to not get publicly involved, or to get publicly involved only when it's convenient and not all that risky and not all that hard.

They count on men trading on that privilege of not having to get involved.

They count on Democratic partisans being more interested in hectoring dispossessed progressive women than in being their allies and fighting this fight alongside them, every day.

They count on reproductive rights being treated as Woman's Work, and thus being devalued as woman's work inevitably is.

I shudder to think how my world would be different if abortion were illegal here, how I would feel about my autonomy, my choices. I feel 'othered' enough as a woman without having to defer to the state about my body's future.

This post.

I do not know how to say why I like this post:

Well, having children changes you. Jonathan Coulton likens it to becoming a vampire.

I was having a conversation with a friend who had recently become a parent, and she reminded me of something I had forgotten about since my daughter was born. She was describing this what-have-I-done feeling – I just got everything perfect in my life, and then I went and messed it all up by having a baby. I don’t feel that way anymore, but the thought certainly crossed my mind a few times at the beginning. Eventually you just fall in love and forget about everything else, but it’s not a very comfortable transition. I compare the process to becoming a vampire, your old self dies in a sad and painful way, but then you come out the other side with immortality, super strength and a taste for human blood. At least that’s how it was for me. At any rate, it’s complicated.

Maybe tongue in cheek, but not that far from the truth, honestly. Your children, they ruin everything in the nicest way.

Before Henry was born, I remembered Scott Hanselman writing this odd blurb about being a parent:

You think you love you wife when you marry her. Then you have a baby and you realize you'd throw your wife yourself under a bus to save your baby. You can't love something more.

Nuts to that, I thought. Hanselman's crazy. Well, obviously he doesn't love his wife as much as I love mine. Sniff. Babies, whatever, sure, they're super cute on calendars, just like puppies and kittens. Then I had a baby. And by God, he was right. I wouldn't just throw myself under a bus for my baby, I'd happily throw my wife under that bus too – without the slightest hesitation. What the hell just happened to me?

from Jeff Atwood. Read all the words!

That post: Sniff. [wipe tear]

Gendered education

Coasting around some teaching resources I came across this blog post from an educator in Thailand who is connected to an international school.

The author has been looking into boys education and they're concerned with the way education seems to have been benefiting girls in the past few decades. He says:

...the evidence has been emerging around the world since the late 90’s showing that boys are struggling in school far more than their fathers’ ever did. The evidence shows that "girls on average outperform boys in school, when measured by report card grades, in most subjects and in all age groups."

I don't know if these grades are against criteria or against groups, but there are a lot of factors that could skew these results. For instance, in my father's generation, students who were typically non-academic would have left in Year 8 and gone onto (respected) career-specific training, thus removing themselves from the cohort who would contribute to this kind of data. These days non-academic students are kept in school and their contributions may create a lower average. There're also the changes in teacher education and possibly generational attitudes towards genders and how teacher might grade a student's understanding. Although I don't understand how this kind of skewing could be accounted for in statistics, I am trusting it's been absorbed and suitable allowances made.

Now, I've read a few things about gender and gender issues in education, but I haven't written much on the matter. So please bare with me as I bash out my gut feelings about this***. These are the areas that the author is discussing. They seem to be sourced from some texts on the topic. I'm going to group them into two areas: differences that can be quantified and differences that are hard to quantify.

Areas that I think can be quantified:

• Girls are born with more sensitive hearing than boys and this difference increases with age.
• Girls develop a link between the amygdala and the cerebral cortex much earlier than boys.
• There is apparently a difference in the anatomy of the eye in which the male retina is thicker than a female’s due to cell composition. This leads to preferences regarding colours and motion.
• ... males and females navigate differently and will give directions using different words.
• And one I'm tentative about: ...boys tend to be ready later for being introduced to the skills of reading and writing than girls. This is most probably due to the fact that boys and girls brains develop in a different sequence

Areas that I think are hard to quantify:

• Boys and girls like to read different types of books because of the way their brain develops. Girls enjoy fiction, short stories and novels....Boys on the other hand prefer nonfiction, action books with strong male characters who often act as brave heroes.
• Boys and girls have different perspectives about friendships. Girls enjoy spending time together, face to face, talking and sharing secrets and self disclosure. Whereas boys friendships tend to develop out of shared interest in a game or activity.
• Males are innately more aggressive than females due to the hormone testosterone. Boys enjoy ‘rough and tumble’ play fighting as it releases aggression, whereas girls do not have this need.
• Boys find risks irresistible, they admire others who take risks and get a thrill from physically risky activities.

So about half the differences of concern are, in my non-psychologically-qualified opinion, very difficult to measure. As far as gathering evidence goes, how these conclusions can possibly be separated from a child's training and cultural influence concerns me. So I shall go through these assertions with these disclosures*:

• Types of books: In my class, on average, there are a few more boys than girls who enjoy war stories, and the Horrible Histories. The war stories ones are clearly pitched at boys, though, so it's hard to gauge what's causing that preference.
  However, series that are about child spies, or apocalyptic situations where violence or death are involved, are enjoyed equally by boys and girls. The girls love strong characters like Ellie Linton, or James Adams, just like the boys do.
  I had a new student start with us, from South Korea, and he was a fantastic person and quickly settled into the class, making lots of friends. His first books were The Baby Sitters Club, partly for the reading level and partly for the topic. It was two weeks before one of the boys pointed out it was generally 'a girls' book' but I did like the way he said "Just so you know" to insist that he wasn't teasing.
  The boys don't read the 'girls'' stories as much as the girls read the 'boys''. But I don't think this is an 'topic per gender' issue. Most of the stories promoted to us are male stories, and just as it's now OK for girls to wear pants, its more acceptable for a girl to read 'boys'' stories than vice versa. This issue is more complicated that individual preference.
  
• Perspectives about friendship: The boys worry and care about friendships as much as the girls. Not every girl wants a 'friendship' with their teacher, and many of the boys do. Physical contact (or lack of) from a teacher has its place for all students, and whether and when it's used depends on the student and their needs at the time much more than their gender.
• Boys being 'more aggressive': This is a gross simplification of the way boys play. Their play can be better characterised by contact and this is sometimes aggressive.
  When Year 5 and 6 classes move around the school there are often pairs of girls, individual girls and boys and one or two amoeba-like masses of boys. They're not fighting or rough-housing as such, but they like the contact. The way they seek contact with their female friends is different. (It's worth noting too, that there are fewer acceptable ways for them to do this, without people linking it to romance, even if it isn't there.)
  I suspect it would be hard to tell the difference between a desire for aggressive play and a desire for contact that can be justified with socially-acceptable aggressive play. This aspect relates back to the previous point of contact in friendships and contact when working with boys.
• Boys find risks irresistible: If I say "Well, boys will be boys" is it clear that I'm using that phrase ironically? Boys are taught that risky behaviour is boyish. I just don't see it at school. Girls do risky behaviour as well, often during class, and both groups do it physical and socially.

With differences that are quantifiable, I believe these needs can be supported in the classroom with differentiated lessons and delivery. With the other points, there are simply too many contradictions to the rule to allow these trends to be guiding forces in large educational reform.

The author finishes with some questions, including these two, which I'll answer from my point of view.

Should boys and girls be subjected to the same set of discipline codes and procedures?

Yes, as we all should (and often do) in the rest of the world.

Biggest question of all, should boys and girls be educated in the same school?

Yes, if a family should choose it and they should have the right to decide this.

I think some boys and some girls would be suited to gendered education, but not all, and possibly not for their entire education. Consider this:

• If men are so different to me, how would an "exclusive girls' education" prepare me to understand, work and live with them?
  
  
• How many wonderful, enriching friendships would I miss if I couldn't meet all those male people?
  
  
• How would a boys' school counterbalance the 'boys will be boys' excuses in the more damaging behaviours in our society. There are men who have an overblown sense of entitlement and are dysfunctional towards women**; how will a boys' education adequately and respectfully support equity and equality across the genders when one is absent and (possibly) silenced? How would an exclusive girls' education address this issue?
  
  
• How would gendered education, which is basing itself on generally shared tendencies, cater for and support intersex or transgender students?

The author's ultimate suggestion is to seriously consider an education system that is completely single-sex (possibly with boys and girls classes within a co-ed campus, but this is me hoping). Shall I expect, then, a suitably divided society in the future? Shall I expect blog posts on "We need schools for slightly effeminate boys who may or may not be gay"?

There are differences between girls and boys, but there is an significant overlap in that Venn diagram. I'm not suggesting we ignore the needs of boys or the needs of girls; I am suggesting that to treat them all as though they're two distinct and separate groups is risky for their education and disrespectful to their individuality.

*I teach 10-12 year olds in a co-ed government school in eastern Melbourne, Australia. We have a thriving and competitive sport program and a number of extension opportunities for academically strong students. On average the cohort performs at or above standard against our curriculum and on most competition tests. The community is very culturally diverse with families coming from Angelo-Saxon Australian, Indian, Chinese and many other countries. Last year I have 11 different languages spoken at home, this year, seven. Our families would be considered affluent, with a strong work ethic and value for education. We have girls teams for both soccer and Australian Rules Football.

** Need I mention the challenges presented in male sports?

*** Any tips? I've made an effort to keep the gendered language neutral but I'm unpractised - any advice welcome.

Choice and Other Tricks.

I watched Love and Other Drugs today, a second time. I cried again, because when the script gets sparse we're good at filling in all the words that you think they're thinking, creating the perfect script to make you weep. Also, there's lots of really good sex. By which I mean, they don't judge the sex, everyone's consenting, and it looks good. (They're such a handsome couple, with great chemistry, which helps :) )

At the end the guy's voice internal-monologues the epilogue and ties up ends.

And that's when I got frustrated - I realised I've been describing this as a story about two people, a woman who has a degenerative illness and doesn't want to watch someone look after her, and a guy with questionable self-esteem and a competitive, but good, nature.
But it's not: it's a story about him. And I realised that because it's his voice that finishes the story, which I thought was pretty crappy. The story in itself is as much about Maggie accepting an option as it is about Jamie accepting her future - they're both choose love over difficultly. They could've had both of them monologue together or alternating.

But then, really, they couldn't. We meet his family, his brother, his workmates, his workplace more often, his dilemmas. Yet she's the one dealing with the biggest thing in his life - being someone with Parkinson's.
And he's a hero for staying. She has no option to be a hero - coping alone looks tough but is not sensible; accepting help is sensible, but not 'tough' unless its facing-up-to-my-fear-of-helplessness. Either way, she has no choice, she just has to deal.
There is one point where Maggie makes a choice about him when she pushes him away. (This seems to be pretty much the only kind of choice she can make - its an extension of what power she showed when she clearly defined the relationship in its beginning: "This is escapism sex; enjoy!") The break-up is based on something like "You need to know that I'll get better for you to love me." They see a few other people, he drives after her bus and changes her mind. He gets to choose. The guys gets to choose, again.
But all of this is beside the point when spotting who's story this is. The screen time his life gets, over hers, is all it takes in this film.

My frustration is this: All I need was to see enough of her story to be under the impression that it was a story about them, not him. That's all it took - a bit of Maggie-solo screen time - for me to think it was her story too. But, on reflection, I think that those scenes (less maybe one, at a stretch) really served to show us what Jamie would be looking forward to, how awful it is, how hard it is, how much strength he'd need.

I suspect that this has been presented as a two-person story, not least because publicity has been with both leads (mostly) due to their great (thoroughly deserved) appeal. But I don't think its 'their story' at all, and I wonder if the leads thought it was a 'their story' too.

Customer Freaking Service

This, people, is customer service...

You are now chatting with *Customer Service Rep* (Returns & Exchanges)

CSR: hi there
Me: Hello!
CSR: how can I help?
Me: I ordered a tea set and it arrived with damages.
Me: Do you do replacements or refunds? What's the best thing to do next?
CSR: oh no!
Me: I know! It's cute as too.
CSR: what is the order number?
Me: *typed in number here*
CSR: I can look into what I can do for you
Me: That would be great! I was half way through writing up a ticket and attaching photos, but wasn't sure if it was the right way to do it.
CSR: what/how was it damaged?

Me: A cup was broken, one had lost a handle, the spout of the pot broke off, a saucer was broken and another was chipped.

CSR: wow!
CSR: I'm so sorry
Me: It's ok. It's just that it's not really a 'set' any more...
CSR: would you like me to try to get another set out to you? or would you like a refund?
Me: I would like a replacement set, at best (a refund is my second pref), but I'm wondering about the packaging.
Me: I know it travelled a long way but the boxes - both the delivery box and the set box - don't look very beat up. I'm wondering if there's any point in replacing the set if the product packaging doesn't adequately protect the new one any...
Me: Would you like any photos?
CSR: no, it's ok
CSR: I will go ahead request a new one sent to you.
Me: That would be fantastic!
Me: Is there anything you need me to do for that to happen?
CSR: nope. I will take care of it
CSR: Also, don't worry about sending back the broken set.
Me: Really?! That's it? There's nothing I need to fill out or email?
CSR: you can discard of the damaged pieces, and keep the unbroken ones
CSR: :)
CSR: no, I can handle it from here.
CSR: I don't want to cause you anymore trouble
Me: Far out. That's fantastic!! Thank you so much! That's some of the best customer service I've ever experienced :D

CSR: Thanks!
CSR: If you need anything else, please let me know.
Me: Shall do! Thank you!

In twenty minutes. You rock ModCloth. Rock on.

--------------------------

Update: I received the next set in very good time. Parts of it were broken but I had enough for a full set. Delight!!

Ha-ha - Love this!

So, when I heard that baby cry, I thought to myself, See what you are not missing out on? High up in my castle on Planet Smart Single Lady. Well, guess who’s the sucker here? Me. Because even though I don’t have the baby, and all the benefits of having the baby (including, but not limited to, a deep, emotional connection with another human being, the joy of parenting, plus a brand new stream of pictures to post to Facebook), I am still living with the crying baby.

From babble, via feministe.

Why can't I lie?

Oh, don't worry - I don't presume myself to be some noble saint who cannot utter a fib. I'm not going through some voodoo honesty spell.
I do lie, but its useless lying. It's to embellish stories, or to make things sound better. Occasionally I lie to get my own way, or to make myself seem less wrong. I'm pretty sure I keep those lies to errors that affect only me* and to protect my pride. I'm usually afraid of being wrong.

But there is a kind of lying that I haven't mastered and I am shitty with myself for it. I think it's the most useful - nay, benevolent & generous - kind of lying there is. Why I, with my gloriously paltry drama background, cannot master this, a gift of friendship and affection, is beyond me.

Sometimes, I can't lie to be nice.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think I'm heartless - I can easily, willingly, happily, without any effort at all, find positive or complimentary things to say about gifts, situations, and such, or ask relevant questions about the topic at hand to show I'm listening and I care. None of that is lying. I laugh, smile, nod etc to politely play may part in a conversation. That's 99.5% of the time. Of course, I always say thank you, ask how people are - I don't think I'm dysfunctional or challenged in regular everyday interactions.

But there are a few times when I find it really hard to simply look pleased when I'm not. There's a part of my brain that says "That just isn't true. You don't like this gift. It's well made, and alright quality, and it's [insert good quality here] - say those things, remember the thought counts - but don't say you love it or like it because, right now, that's a lie and lying is wrong."
Now, I think I might be getting better at this. (Does this mean I'm regularly getting not-very-good gifts? Hmm...) When I get buttons made of stone, quirky dust-catchers, or something that actually suits the buyer more than the receiver, I can usually make a generic positive sound that says "You thought of me/my birthday when you were far away! I love that! How lovely!" (which I truly mean) while a little teeny part of my brain says "This made you think of me?"

Similarly, sometimes I fail to convincingly keep eye contact, raise eyebrows or nod when people tell stories. This happens when I'm thinking "This is not a nice/interesting/funny story", "This isn't something I want or am supposed to hear" or "This sounds untrue."
I tend to do this mostly in the company of people I've spent too much time with, or people I don't respect (which I suppose means I'm not worried if they're put out for a while).
I'm sure I've seen people do this, or something like it, to me. My first thought is "I'm talking about myself too much again." (No! Really? Gee, Blogger, that's uncharacteristic!) But really, it could be anything - they're thinking of something else, something they've forgotten, who knows. I suppose, the people I do this to might assume the same thing, but I could make it so they needn't have to imagine excuses.

But this is all I'd need to do:

• say "Wow! I love it! Thank you so much!"
• nod or raise my eyebrows and smile
• occasionally say 'Huh!"

Pretty simple, yes?**

And I would be a much nicer, although slightly less honest, person.

----------------
Stay tuned for my next post: "Why am I neurotic? One woman's suspicion that she's having normal social interactions"
----------------

* And possibly my husband. For instance, "I meant to do that this morning!" (no, completely forgot, but I don't care to be in trouble for that thanks) or I'll make up a reason that didn't exist at the time. I think it's because I think he's really smart, and I don't want him to think I've done something silly, which is stupid because people should be allowed to forget and make mistakes sometimes. I'm usually very defensive if he is patronising or jokey about me being 'dumb'. He's not being mean, just not-very-funny at a not-very-good time i.e. when I'm not in the goddam crapping mood.

** God willing, matching the response with an appropriate situation. Wouldn't be opening a present and saying "Huh!" too often... oh, God, I hope I haven't....

Ire is annoyered.

Recruitment processes seem to suck.*

When I was shifting from uni to (hopefully) a classroom teaching job, I sent out 48 applications, got three interviews and one job offer. The job offer came from an interview that was a kick-on from the second interview. Teaching job applications are, to say the least, overwhelming - 5 to 8 questions that required a page-long response each. (Can anyone tell me what other industry does this? Having to read those is a reason I'll probably never aspire to principal-ship. )
I wondered: how on earth can you tell from these convoluted responses**, a few referees and AN interview whether I'm a good teacher, or even a teacher with potential? If I were them, I would put an awful lot of weight on the referees contribution, and hope that the applicant had used people who were not nuts. Even now, when people say "Oh, but you're a great teacher?" I think, how would you know? You've never seen me teach. Clearly, "no blood or tears" = I know what I'm doing. :
I've seen recruitment happen in an office environment, too, where resumes are pretty easy to interpret. Those gloriously overblown positions like Documentation Manager (I file stuff) and Public Liaison Officer (receptionist). Everyone knows what they mean. Really, all that's left is to find out if they're a complete odd-bod via an interview.
Strangely enough, I used to LOVE interviews. LOVE love loved them. Not sure why. I can only assume I thought I was awesome. (Was I the odd-bod?)
But then, I'm probably known as a somewhat extroverted person - not all the time, but I can be - and I did to a drama degree so I suppose I have what would be called a "flexible demeanor".

Now. My gripe.
Some of my friends are in IT - programmers, engineers, nerds. (I consider myself a nerd with pride! But its prolly only coz I like to think I know obscure, lofty, superior crap.)
These are people who are stereotypically known as 'socially challenged', especially if you consider current telly types from shows like The Big Bang Theory.
I suspect, too, that of all the careers that people with any ASD or even seem simply 'quirky' or eccentric, some sciences/IT would seem very attractive to them. (I'm basing this completely and solely on the high ratio of eccentric vs non-eccentric scientists I know.)
I know a few cases of very good scientists who aren't the greatest socialisers, or sometimes not-that-excellent at representing/promoting themselves. I know of an excellent programmer who needs specific behavioural support from his workmates, but he's one of the most effective and skilled engineers in the business. The benefits completely outweigh the challenges.

So, what I want to know is this: when you start incorporating Human Resources into recruitment processes - groups who aren't going to work with these employees, won't see them day-to-day, and don't have to manage these employees - what kind of person to they expect to see? What characteristics do they want to hire? What share do they have in these choices?

For the few people I know who are job hunting in science and IT fields, I trust their searches continue for good reasons. I trust they're missing out because genuinely better applicants were successful. But that those decisions had better be coming from the recruiting scientists, and not the freaking HR department.


* I write this as a completely biased, emotional stakeholder in a particular aspect of this process, as well as someone who's experienced it from the pointy end, and a little from the fat end.
** I have to say, I know people who blatantly copy/pasted other people's responses and for lots of reasons: a lack of time, a lack of respect for the process, being overwhelmed by the questions, and/or being unable to answer them.

Again!

Once again, a gut feeling articulated. Not so much what I wish I'd been able to say, with my own attitudes. The stereotype of some skanky woman who puts herself first at the wrong time is, like all stereotypes, very loosely based in truth, if at all. And yet my own discomfort is based on a worst-case-scenario that is extremely unlikely. I have been assuming I know best, when in truth, as a woman whose never been pregnant, I know nothing.

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I'm engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-you-trust-women.html

That's how I'd define feminism

Here’s how I define feminism. It’s the belief that nobody should be denied dignity, respect or opportunities – personal or professional, in public or at home, as a citizen or in relationships – solely because of their gender. If you believe this, and you don’t like seeing people disrespected or disempowered because of their gender, you’re a feminist. That’s it. That’s the only rule. The only qualifier.

Thank you Mel Campbell
http://thedawnchorus.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/feeling-assailed-by-feminism/

trackback

Catalyst?

This, delivered via Bluemilk (you are such a star):

7. Motherhood involves sacrifice, how do you reconcile that with being a feminist?

Everything involves sacrifice. I don’t buy into the notion that anyone can have it all in any context. Being in a relationship involves sacrifice, being a child or a sibling or a friend involves sacrifice, just being a person involves sacrifice at some point.

For a long time now I've been waiting for the want of motherhood, suspecting that I will never get clucky until I am a mother, and that if I don't want to be elderly and childless then I'll just have to get on with it, current reluctance be damned (romantic, no?).
But a large part of my hesitation is selfish - what will I be forced to give up for this? Will I resent myself for it? And what if it sucks, or I suck at it? What if its harder than I ever imagined? (And I have a good imagination for melancholy.)
Then I read this and realised I forgot to think about the road so far; it hasn't been perfect*, and I have given up many things and been OK, often happy. I've also forgotten to look at what's between the parents and their children, rather than just at their trials and challenges.

*Forget for a moment the privilege I live in and how perfect that is in the greater scale of things.

Chain and balls

It's been ages (again) since I posted here. From my analytics, no one visits my site unless they're looking for a craft something-or-other, so I'm going to care a little less about the high-brow-ness of my thoughts, but I am going to use this for what it was intended - putting my thoughts away so I can move on. Here goes.

At work we've been doing emotional intelligence analysis for some of the staff. I've found that although I'm great at being aware of my feelings, and the feelings of others, I'm not too great at managing my own emotions. Turns out EI includes management of your and others' feelings. Hmph.
So, here's what I've noticed.

Yesterday we competed against another school for sport and their supervising teacher was a grad, straight out of uni, loud, enthusiastic, quick with the mouth; in short, he had vitality. And that's when I realised my own vitality is missing.

In my first year out of uni I expected to suck at teaching; I expected mistakes, stuff-ups, faux pas, rushed preparations, last-minute efforts, messy lessons and grumpy parents. I was loopy as all get out, thrilled to have my own group. I clearly recall looking at the class in my first week and seeing "What the hell?" faces amongst them, just because I was so off-the-graph-happy. It was awesome. I know our discussions went off on tangents a lot, and there was a lot of time lost to 'chats', but on the whole, it was a good year. In fact, my best so far. We were happy, enthusiastic, generous, with a commitment to being proud of our work, looking after our people and being a community.

Last year, this happened in a similar way, but a student from my first group passed away over the holidays and a grey wash was laid over my first term. It rattled me and I started talking less and started watching when I worried and when I didn't. A few people noticed. I got better over the year, but my non-work time at home became a noted effort in creating a work/life balance, so much so that it actually wasn't working - I was thinking about work while I wasn't doing it. Fail. I started to list my oversights and failures and ignoring my successes.

This year I have a really different group. In these last few weeks I've noticed my headspace is crowded with the feeling of failure and commotion. About a third of the class talk when they shouldn't, and I have one student with ADD (and possibly ODD and ASD) who influences the behaviour of others in that my tolerance for his problems sometimes leads them to think that they can get away with such behaviour too. His constant interruptions, and the ripple effect they have with other talkative types, means I spend a lot of time in behaviour management mode. These kids are quite immature compared to the rest of the class. They display behaviours like unaccountability, arrogance, evasion, lying, back-chat, sooking and generally acting like they're a year younger than they should be. (Or, they have an over-blown sense of entitlement - I way-too-casually call it "Little Prince syndrome". Eeer, yes, they're all boys.) (For the record, I have a discipline system that is working: after one warning, most of them pull their heads in, but they all get one warning every block, which is concerning. And sometimes 7 people talk at once, which is hard to respond to when one of them has a legitimate contribution.)

I notice too, that frustration happens when people are surprised - this thing wasn't expected, it interrupted them, and they're annoyed. Any one of these kids will interrupt a short instructional talk (I keep them quick on purpose) with a random, completely unrelated question or thought and its really hard to not immediately think What the crap, child? What is your head doing? Half the time, its an attention seeking comment: "Look how cute I am! I'm asking a dopey question and its cute and funny!" Why do I expect it isn't going to happen? Because, at this age, it shouldn't. I've been teaching long enough to know that they should be able to manage their mouths by 10-11 years old, unless they have an undiagnosed impulse management disorder.

It's also very hard to drop grumpiness, and hard to not feel it when you know they know what the expectations are*. With 4-7 kids who need to hear the disappointment in your voice, or believe your threats, the others don't deserve the same grump, and this has been tricky to manage and taxing. I think this has happened because the feelings (the care and concern) I have for the misbehaviour is what I think about when I manage the behaviour, and those things don't have to happen at the same time. I don't want to go too much into my classroom management strategies, or be specific with anecdotes of behaviours, but this is my end point at the moment: I have reigned in my enthusiasm and happiness because this portion of the class gets too excited too quickly, and its getting me down. I didn't spot that this would be a consequence of such a group and didn't prepare to redirect my enthusiasm for teaching into other opportunities.

So this is what I'm going to try for: I'm going to be happy and optimistic, like I used to be, and let the misbehaviour be managed with the system I have in place, but not think or feel anything about it when its happening. Those who are good can enjoy the warmth of my good mood, those who aren't can feel the wrath at recess or lunch.

Why haven't I done this before? Because I'm still inexperienced, or I am at least with this sort of problem. I also don't wear much of a mask in the classroom so my emotions are bare. (In fact, the students get my best - I often don't chat much in the staffroom because I'm beat from all the talking during student conferences and teaching.) A few of my students, including my ADD student, are also random with their empathy and work ethic, so my hope and emotional investment in them (particularly the way I negotiate my ADD kid's friendships and work habits) is often crapped on or ignored, which feels a little abusive but I don't yet know how much they can help it. (He's also a very young character, so may not get how he affects other people around him. That's not to say that I look to him to validate what I do - I'm really looking for signs of progress and self-efficacy and they are small and rare.)

What's amazing is that this is all classroom management - it's the weather of our room. If it isn't right then people don't learn at their best. They're distracted, or threatened, or depressed, or negative and they can think with a clear head about what's in front of them. I'm not going to get their best if I don't figure this out. And it comes before effective assessment, for both planning and learning, or lesson planning, or task planning, because it affects things like student groupings, seating, being able to working independently and student autonomy.

So, I'm going to do my best to figure myself out first, so I can think straight, and protect my well being. I'm going to try to put aside the things I can't change: the cyclical testing and how it can reveal nothing or maybe something; the perpetual interruptions to our weekly programs and losing any sense of constancy; the units or lessons I just cannot fit into the time I have; the kids who may not care; the parents who may not care; the homework that I prepare so carefully but it lost/forgotten/wrecked; the rudeness, spite, defiance or immaturity I experience each day**. I'm going to try to get back to being happy to be at school;

• being grateful that I do have sweet, funny, committed, generous people in my room;
• remembering why I was told by people how glad they were that I was going to be a teacher;
• get back on top of my pragmatism and confidence;
• stop trying to be so freaking perfect.

Remember:

• Dumber people than me have taught - heck, they taught me! - and students turn out OK;
• My students do learn & improve;
• My students are happy;
• I am not the only thing that influences their success, even in this period of time;
• Their behaviour is not all about me;
• I may not be as good as some of my colleagues, but I'm not that bad either;
• I still have my job, I still have kids who make me gifts and visit me from previous years, and it must mean something.

* Seriously, we have talks about what respect looks like, what would be exemplary behaviour for a Year 6 student, and what reasonable expectations are. Can this be achieved in our room? (Yes! they say.) Are my consequences unreasonable - have you had difference consequences in the past that you'd prefer? (No, these are fair! they reply.) What attitudes and behaviours will we commit ourselves to? (These ones, they're ideal! they profess.) ugh.
** Previously, I knew about these things, and might have been annoyed, but they didn't get me down. Now they're part of the raft that I growl about. Ironically, I will spend this weekend writing reports, the bulk of this dedicated to page-long comments for parents, many of whom will most likely not read them due to either ESL problems or only caring about the scores. Of which there are 33 per student. Way too many for one teacher. Tra-laa!

Things I wish I'd said

So there is a lot to be discussed in relation to the ’sexual revolution’ and women: the slut/stud dichotomy, ’slut shaming’, the right to say ‘no’ – at *any* point, and have *that* be fully respected and deferred to, as well as yes, a respect for women FULL STOP, not JUST a respect for their desires and wishes when it happens to coincide with a particular male wish that she get on her knees and enjoy it. I don’t wish to be put in the same camp as Sam here – I’m no crusader for the ‘Good women bake cookies and keep their knees TOGETHER’ camp: I want a respect for women who like it vanilla and a respect for women who like it kinked to the hilt, respect for women enough to know that they all might like it in all kinds of ways/not at all depending on time/context/various considerations, respect for women enough to know that sexual desires and sex acts *do not define them as a type of person*, respect for women monogamous and poly, single and into casual sex, I want respect for women in the sex industry, and for women who don’t like sex at all at all ever, who consider themselves asexual and I want respect for gay/bi/trans* women, I want respect for rights to choose to *be* sexual at any given time and to choose *not* to be sexual/sexualised at any given time.

From this excellent person who actually does blog when she feels like I rant.
I just yell at my living room and feel hopeless.

Cows with guns

In the print version of this article the Herald-Sun used a heading that called rural women cows. It didn't actually use the phrase 'they are cows' but it did refer to them being in "pastures too green" or something similar. I wish to God I could recall the exact phrase, but I, and many of my colleagues, were incensed, so I know it was bad, and so should they.

There were 3879 participants, which includes both rural and metro women, so let's estimate that about 1900 or so were rural citizens. Shall we ponder, for a moment, how small a sample that group is... Let's be generous and say only 20% of Victorians live in rural areas (that's, with generosity, 800,000.) then half of that being females and then maybe half again being the age group they're talking about... 200,000 women? vs less than 4000 sampled? Good survey.

But anyway, back to the HS. Do they have Andrew Bolt do their headings too?

You know what...?

I think it's been a hard year.

It's late, and I should be in bed. I seem to be using report writing seasons to semi-annually update things here. If none of my 'friends' will interrupt me then, darn it, I'll just have to procrastinate myself...

One of the reasons I haven't posted much is because I haven't been very happy. That is to say, I haven't been categorically 'unhappy' as such, just not my usual bubbly self, and it's for a range of reasons I think.

The wedding, although wonderful and awesome and perfect and ended with me married to the right guy (as promised), was followed by something of a slump. Twelve months of talking about this massive party and then a week of honeymoon to find something else to say... well, it got a bit quiet afterward. And 13 years of going-out with someone actually doesn't prepare you for being married to them. But I think I'm finally getting my groove as a wife and becoming more and more delighted that he's my husband.

When school started this year I learned that a student of mine from last year had passed away over the holidays. It was completely unexpected, and I found out in an unexpected way. Her funeral, where I gave a eulogy and last talked with her mum, was hard and gave my first term (at the least) a grey stain that was hard to shake. She had just begun to figure out that she was going to be fine the way she was; that the way she was, was awesome and loved, and she was going to be pretty cool. Her Christmas card to me said "You taught me that I'm fine the way I am" I thought "Well, that's a success. I did ok there." So I was fairly miffed that I wouldn't get to see that particular kid from my first ever class grow up and be awesome.

And then it turns out that my second year hasn't been as easier as I'd hoped. I should have been more careful to extend my self-forgiveness all the way through my graduate years, not just the first one. Unfulfilled high expectations of myself have just left me frustrated and disappointed and, after a kick in the shins from the funeral, its been pretty grindy.

So my update is more a series of reasons for why I've not been updating.
I have, however, been reading lots of awesome blogs and wishing I'd been enthusiastic/time-rich enough to try cooking up an articulate contribution to these great discussions about sexism on the Footy show, league tables for schools, rape culture and misconceptions, bogus feminist spokespeople and a rainbow of other fantastic commentary that's probably gone unread by the wrong people.
I must say, I do try my best to keep an equalitist voice in my classroom. It's surprisingly hard, considering our school is so sports orientated and a few key male teachers in our school are rather 'blokey' - which has its pros and cons. The girls in my room are very good at maintaining feminist/equalitist points of view and voices, but the boys aren't so good and have been taking their cue form other poorly informed males. This is particularly apparent when the boys say something inflammatory (you know, some dopey joke about women drivers or something), clearly to get a rise out of the girls, and the girls can't explain why its so frustratingly infuriating. (I challenge feminist/equalitist to explain that response in one sentence... In the meantime, I'm am presenting an articulate, somewhat formidable, respectable and feminist to them for a year, so that's something.)
My main hurdle is that, although I'm good friends with these guys, now they're perpetually cautious around me with their stories and jokes (or purposefully not), yet they have no idea how undereducated they are about feminism or how sexist they are. Poor chaps. At least they were able to have a chuckle with me when I noted this:

Blokey humour has helped to boost its ratings, but Newman goes over the top when audiences appear to be dropping off. (HS, 17/11/09)

The HS suggests that Newman, a man educated in the old school system, apparently shouldn't bother to (or isn't able to) call on his morals or ethics to gauge the appropriateness of his behaviour, nor should anyone else try to mend the error of these ways: they should rely on ratings. Yes, it's the ratings that will tell you the true quality of a joke, and whether you've gone 'over the top'. Never mind if you've been pointing at the top for years.
Almost HS, but you have some Equal Opp. training to go yet.

Mrs WoozleWazzle

I got married. It was awesome. It was wonderful. I didn't cry - I was delighted. Everyone looked great. The venue looked great. He looked great and was very happy. Barely a single mishap. The honeymoon was really relaxing and too short. It was all divine.

I haven't changed my name, but I've noticed a lot of my students are now called me Mrs Woozlewazzle instead of Miss Woozlewazzle. Aaaw! Other things I have noticed:

• My signature is much less necessary now that I'm Mr + wife
• No one asks how long we've been together anymore.

I have many things to say about both matters but won't because I'm too busy.

Talented man...

...apparently