Game over or why I'm done obsessing about my weight

There has never been a time in my adult life when I have not worried about my weight and size with the exception of a brief period in my mid-20s when I was miserable, ate my misery, and got fat.  Since then, I've forbidden myself all sorts of delicious things in the interest of keeping thin from the more predictable sweets and fried food to random things such as potatoes or bananas.  My most recent bit of crazy was to obsessively count calories and log miles while training for a half marathon. It worked and I got lighter and lighter to the point that I got close to my pre-college weight.  I was happy with the way I looked, conveniently forgetting how unhealthy I was at that time in my life.  I kept logging those miles and counting those calories until halfway through marathon training when my hair started falling out. In giant chunks.  My thinking around food started getting really strange to the point that I noticed the "you're crazy" glazed-over look when the subject came up around friends.  I freaked out, stepped off the ledge, and took off the gorilla suit; that's to say, I started eating like a normal person again.  I quickly gained 5 pounds and felt stronger on my long runs.  I felt burnt out on running after the marathon and took a break while still eating like a normal human.  This added another 5 pounds, bringing me back to my "regular" post-kiddo weight and size.

My goal this year is to flip 40 the bird and do a half ironman.  I want to start the season off with a half marathon because I find that running is the best (read most enjoyable) way for me to get to the baseline level of fitness I need to start training.  I started running again and felt the extra weight like a millstone around my behind. So I began obsessively counting calories and logging miles like I hadn't learned anything from the previous mishap.  Then I weighed myself about a month into this nonsense and saw to my absolute horror that I gained weight.  Strangely, this hasn't brought me to a place of needing to double down, but a place of f*ck it.  I don't need to deprive myself of all unhealthy delicious food to be the size I was half a lifetime ago.  Also, let's be real.  I wear a size 6 and weigh somewhere between 125 and 130.  That's average, not fat.  Furthermore, why do I need to bring an unhealthy fixation with food and weight into a house with a young girl.  That's another legacy from my mom that I really don't need to pass on.  I want the frog to enjoy food and to eat mostly healthy things in mostly moderate amounts.  I want her to share a meal with friends or bake without anxiety about the consequences.  I want her to see excersize as a source of peace and joy rather than a justification for that slice of cake.  The truth is that I'm physically stronger than my 20 year old self who could never have done a half marathon, let alone a marathon.  There's no way she could attempt that half ironman.  I'm not size of 20 year old me, but I could clean her clock in a fight, provided that it involved running a long distance very slowly.

I think this is hard to do because of the legion of messages in our culture that women of a certain age, which is sadly where I find myself, should strive for the impossible goal of eternal youth. That we're unattractive with grey in our hair or at a larger size than pre-kiddos or whatever else life threw us.  I read somewhere that women reach peak strength and endurance in their late 30s to early 40s.  This is likely junk given my limited knowledge of how aging works, but I'm tempted to step into a Goop-style alternate reality to believe it.  What I do know, based on actual science is that women derive a huge cardiovascular, immune, and bone health benefit from being endurance freaks.  I also know, again, based on science, that running reduces depression and anxiety and has even been shown to reduce the risk of dementia.  I want the frog to see me being strong and enjoying food rather than obsessing about my weight.  I'm really hoping my resolve to stop thinking about my weight lasts because I'm much happier this way.  Also, not thinking about weight does not mean eating Dorito tacos and baking endless cakes.  It means eating mostly healthy food in mostly reasonable quantities so that I can train for whatever crazy race I'm doing.

Non-sentimental Thoughts About Sending My Toadling To Kindergarten

It’s hard to believe that the frog is starting kindergarten in the fall.  As we get closer to the start of her formal education, I’ve been thinking a lot about how I feel about both education for her and the educational system as a whole.  Another thing that’s been thrown into the mix is the fact that we moved from a neighborhood where she wasn’t guaranteed to attend a good, or even safe school to one where she is sure to go to the excellent school within walking distance of the house.  Living in our old neighborhood caused me to really think about my criteria for a good school.  The biggest thing in my mind isn’t the teachers, special programs, or even the test scores, but where the kids are coming from.  A good school for me is a school where most of the kids come from a stable situation.  I think this is really important because a class full of (mostly) happy and well-adjusted kids is a class where the teacher can focus on helping them learn rather than on addressing disruptive behavior or helping them feel safe in school.

I’ve come to realize that my definition of a stable home is very different from lots of other parents like me.  Stability, for me, is  a kid sleeping in the same place each night and taking things like food, cleanliness, heat, and light for granted.  They have seasonally appropriate, clean clothes and access to health care.  Having these basic needs met implies a caregiver with a baseline level of sanity, but this is sadly not always the case.  Consequently, my definition of stability also includes the kid living in a home without violence, untreated mental illness, or addiction.  It’s also important that they have least one individual who has provided consistent love and guidance throughout the child’s life. I’ve noticed that most parents like me who have advanced degrees and/or professional jobs tend to judge a home as unstable if it’s a single parent and/or low income home.  What I think many of them forget is that the incidence of mental illness and addiction are the same across ethnic and socioeconomic groups.  These problems are compounded by a lack of resources to address them, which is why I think they tend to manifest themselves more strongly in individuals in more vulnerable situations.  It bothers me that there are people out there who honestly believe that someone who might not have a lot of money is incapable of providing the stability a kid needs to thrive.  Sanity, pride, and strong values don’t have a price tag and it’s ridiculous to think that they do.  Ironically, the parents that most strongly voice these classist judgments or speak ill of others that adopt a more hands-off approach to parenting have the kind of unruly, poorly behaved kids I wouldn’t want in my daughter’s class.  This behavior, in my mind, indicates home that is unstable in its lack of structure and discipline, but that’s a subject for another time. 

Assuming most kids come from reasonably stable homes, what else is required to make a good educational environment? I’ve met lots of parents who have thoughtfully made different choices for their kids’s education than sending them to public school.  There are people that send their kids to private school or opt out of the educational system all together and do homeschool.  There is a whole movement on child-lead or “unschooling”-type education in response to the high-stakes testing that’s become part of the public school system. I agree with the proponents of these educational models that kids learn in different ways and that a heavy dose of direct instruction is harmful to young children.  I also agree that visual art, music, sports, and dance are a vital component of education that have virtually disappeared from public schools. Research seems to indicate that a kid’s level of academic readiness is highly individual as is the way in which they develop and master these skills. I think most competent public school teachers are aware of this, but are restricted in how they address these differences by testing requirements and, in some districts, by class sizes.  

My kid is starting to read, write, and do simple math so I think she’s ready to be in a more academic environment, but some of her equally intelligent classmates in preschool aren’t. Other pals are in the same place academically, but aren’t able to sit still for long periods of time.  Ms Frog is a more sedentary kid who has to forced to move around.  She is able to be still and focus on something for a long stretch of time if she’s interested. These qualities, and the fact that there’s quite a bit of structure and discipline in our house will probably help her succeed in the direct instruction-heavy environment that the early grades have become.  Other qualities might harm her, though.  She tends to be a perfectionist and doesn’t shy away from questioning authority.  We’re trying to help her accept failure, but neither one of us wants to raise a robot.  Politeness is important, but it’s different from meekness; the former is having the self-respect to treat others kindly while the latter is fear of speaking up.  I consider blind acceptance of authority to be a dangerous thing and am consciously trying to raise an outspoken kid.  I worry whether this will brand her as disruptive or disrespectful at school, but I’m willing to make that gamble.  I think she’s smart enough to learn the difference between disagreement and rudeness, but I’m not sure whether this will play well in a school environment.  

Some would argue that this is the case for putting our child into an alternative educational environment.  That she’ll be bored in school and her outspoken nature will get her in trouble.  This isn't an option both for practical and philosophical purposes.  Practically speaking, we live in a rural community where there aren’t too many choices.  We can send her to public school or we lose my income so I can homeschool her. I think having me as her primary teacher would ruin our relationship and ultimately result in a poorer educational outcome for her.  It works for some types of parent-child relationships, but not ours.  Although I have my problems with the educational system, I think it’s a very important element of my child’s socialization.  As an adult member of this society, I’m agreeing to abide by certain rules and conventions of behavior to participate.  I’m also making choices about how to exercise my autonomy and live in a way that’s consistent with my values in a world with its share of pointless rules, annoying people, and authority figures I don’t always agree with and/or respect.  The same is true in a school setting.  There will be teachers my child doesn’t like, lessons that don’t interest her, and rules that seem illogical.  She will have kids in her class who come from a variety of backgrounds and have different levels of ability.  There will also be kids who she dislikes and those who dislike her.  Some kids will also come from households with a very different set of values than the ones we have.  I see these all as positives.  She will have to figure out how to follow the rules and find enough common ground with each kid in her class for them to form a cohesive enough group to learn together.  The ability to do this is good preparation for the kind of adult I want her to be; someone who can navigate most of the situations and get along with most of the people she encounters.  I see going to public school as the easiest way for my child to learn these important life lessons and it will be interesting to watch how she does this in the years to come.  

A case of mistaken identity

"Is that your child?"  " Are you the nanny?" My favorite has to be "where did you adopt her from?" I've been asked these questions more frequently than I'd like to admit when I'm out with the frog. I used to have snappy come-backs like "I got her from Costco but she ate all the other babies."  Or I'd go creepy and say "I gave birth to her, wanna see my C-section scar?" Occasionally I'd even try to be nice and say "her daddy is Korean and I'm Jewish."  I quickly got tired of the game and stopped responding. My strategy is now to affirm Ms Frog is my daughter before beating a hasty retreat. The mistaken identity thing happened again recently. We went to go check out the renovated kids' section at the central library. The place is awesome with tons of comfy seats to curl up in and a play area with giant model row houses. We were knocking on the doors of two of the houses to deliver pizza to the zombies and their neighbor the bad princess when a well-dressed woman asked me the dreaded question. "Are you the nanny", she asked. I gave her the death stare. She looked taken aback and continued "because if you were, I'd ask you to come work for us." I looked at her again. She didn't  seem to want to leave it alone and asked me "is that your daughter?" I honestly wanted to ask her whether it was my race, the lack of make-up or expensive jewelry, or both that prompted the question. I didn't because as I've mentioned, the game has gotten old. I said "yes" and was really proud of myself for not adding "bitch." She looked apologetic and responded "she's beautiful" but the clear subtext was "I wonder where her daddy is from." 

We went to bang on some doors at the other side of the play area, but the trip was spoiled for me. I told my husband about the whole thing later that evening and he laughed. I didn't think it was funny and told him as much. He looked at me quizzically and told me that it wasn't a big deal and to not let it get to me. This last comment brought home to me that he's been dealing with this sort of low-grade nastiness his entire life. His first experiences with microaggressions were kids in his school challenging him to use his kung fu or making fun of his eyes. He grew up learning these things were a fact of his life and has evolved layers of strategies to make them funny as opposed to hurtful. My realization that they are a fact of my life has come as an adult with an adult's ability to understand that a childhood free from small, irrational hurts is one of the most insidious forms of white privilege. Through the frog, I've gotten a window into the C.H.U.D.-like behavior of many white people that I'm both glad and sorry to have. I realize intellectually that most of strangers' questions about my relationship to the frog are motivated by curiosity and/or ignorance and are not meant to cause harm. Still, it is not my job to correct someone's ignorance or to teach someone about interracial families. The desire for an explanation or to be "educated" that is implicit in some of the questions about how my daughter and I are related is sometimes as hurtful as the actual question.

 I understand that it's easy to make assumptions and categorize people out of ignorance, especially when someone hasn't been hurt by others' assumptions. However, I fail to understand how it's ok to ask a stranger who is different from you to explain the nature of their difference to you. It's mind-boggling that there are people who actually believe it's something I should be doing. I think that people learn about difference through relationships, whether they are causal interactions between neighbors or bonds with close friends. I find myself wondering if I've been guilty of some of the unintentionally racist behavior that I'm writing about despite having many different kinds of people in my circle of family and friends. I've heard friends talk about their experiences with racism my entire adult life, but didn't have any direct, personal experience with it until my child was born. Now I do and it's an uneasy knowledge. Uneasy because I am always checking myself in an attempt not to be guilty of this. I also realize that my daughter is going to have to deal with these things and I'm not sure how can help her with this. 

Feminism isn't the Toy in the Happy Meal

I find myself having frequent conversations with other moms of girls about the media and the effect it has on our kids. I'm not a fan of the many inappropriate images aimed at girls in media or pop culture, but at best I consider these things to be a nest of red ants rather than a many-headed hydra the size of a city bus. This opinion seems to be a minority one and I oftentimes find myself mentioning that we're both feminists even if we disagree on this particular point. I'm a feminist because I believe that men and women are largely capable of the same things and deserve equal access to the same opportunities. Sadly, the label "feminist" is often assumed to fit into a set of ideas that I don't agree with wholeheartedly. I resisted calling myself a feminist for many years out of a grade-school-like fear of cooties. I didn't want to call myself a feminist because I didn't want to even appear to buy into many of the assumptions that go along with this label. 

It's assumed that a feminist is both a political and social liberal.  I'm both occasionally but am neither equally often. Some fervid progressives that I've met here in Boston show the same rigidity of thought as fundamentalist Christians I met in Houston. Both groups have the same "us vs them" mentality that requires an unwavering acceptance of the party line. Both groups don't seem to be able to understand that it's possible for someone to selectively agree with them and still be a good person. I thought that calling myself a feminist would be swearing allegiance in some way to this rigid sort of thinking. Similarly, it's hard to call myself a feminist when the word has been hijacked by the younger women who are proud to call themselves sluts. I believe, as I imagine they do, that women should embrace their sexuality without guilt or shame. People should be free to love whomever they choose however they choose to do it provided it's between consenting adults. Being promiscuous, or a "slut" strikes me as more pitiful than empowering. Carrying on with multiple casual partners is unsafe since it increases the likelihood of STDs or unwanted pregnancies. I also see this as a sign of low self-esteem manifested as disrespect for one's body. It's not ok to bully someone who engages in this sort of behavior, but they need therapy or a new hobby, not a fist bump. 

Ironically, the existence of geek feminists almost convinced me never to label myself as a feminist of any kind. These ladies should be my people. They're largely well-educated lot who write code for a living and have an appreciation for zombies, nerdcore, and other geeky stuff. Again, I agree with geek feminists on a lot of issues. I think the trolling and mysogyny on the internet is disgusting and can cross the line into criminal behavior. I also think male geeks need more self awareness about when their behavior is creepy or awkward instead of funny. However, they remind me of the class tattletale in grade school. If people are being jerks, tell them to stop. If they won't, fight back, but do so in a manner that's effective and appropriate. Male geeks say disgusting and offensive stuff. It's an important and often harmless part of geek culture. Letting the majority of these comments slide means that silencing the blatantly unacceptable ones is more effective. One's voice is louder and stronger when it isn't raised often. This is equally true for geeks as for three year olds; the more often you yell, the louder you have to yell. I was proud of other female geeks when they helped shut down that board on Reddit which had pictures of violence and underage girls. It's always inspiring to hear about ladies that have used the law to go after men who make rape and death threats online. I lose my enthusiasm when I hear the same women decrying female objectification in video games or whining about the lack of political correctness in geek culture. It's gone entirely for every mention of how women in tech fields are marginalized and poorly treated. 

So why even bother calling myself a feminist? The simple answer is that I want the frog to grow up in a world where her gender doesn't define her choices and opportunities.  These choices are sadly starting now for her because mainstream kid culture comes in strict boy and girl catgories. I might disagree with the many-headed hydra notion of media, but I don't think the intensely gendered nature of kids' toys and movies is healthy. I believed (and even wrote a post about) that there should be some rigidity to how kids explore gender. Hearing "boys don't wear dresses" or "girls can't play trucks" come out of Ms Frog's mouth a few times was enough to make me reverse my stance on that issue. I believe that my daughter should be free to explore what being a girl means to her whether it's sparkly princess clothes, superheroes, or some mash-up of the two. Likewise, her friends who are boys should be allowed the freedom to figure out whether playing football, dolls, or both is what boys like them do. The implications of her choices will eventually broaden from what being a girl means to whom to love, what career to pursue, and whether to have children. These things are also influenced by gender in both a positive and negative way. Supporting the choices she will make as she grows and helping her navigate obstacles requires that I call myself a feminist. I'm not embracing ideas I disagree with in doing so, but am saying that I believe that women deserve a fair shake in this world. I think this is something any woman, and hopefully any mother of a daughter can get behind. 

Sometimes the apple falls far from the tree

The frog recently turned three and it's amazing how she gradually turned into a fully sentient being in the last year. As she learned to speak in sentences and then in paragraphs, her thought processes became recognizably coherent and we were able to get a window into her wacky little head. Somehow, two introverted and mildly misanthropic nerds have produced an extroverted artist. She's an extremely sensitive soul who gets upset when other kids are being mean to each other and seems to have an intuitive understanding of other people's feelings. This is very different from both of us who struggle with knowing (dad) or caring (mom) too much about what the people around us are feeling. I have learned how to play tolerably well with others as an adult in part because I've come to understand myself better. I tend to prefer solitude and have few close friends, despite being encouraged otherwise as a child. I don't want my daughter to think that the way she's designed to relate to the world is odd or discourage it even though we're very different and it's been a bit of a challenge to understand.

Strangely, it wasn't the frog's conversations with total strangers or her rarely needing reminding to share that made me realize how different we are. Something really minor happened one night a few months ago while I was cooking dinner that made her cry. I want her to learn to calm herself down and mistakenly assumed that she needed the similar tools that I do in this situation. I gave her a hug and told her to find a cozy, quiet place to calm down. She hadn't hit the "I refuse to listen to you because I'm three" stage she's currently in at this point and went to her room. She climbed into bed and proceeded to sob bitterly. A casual observer would have probably thought someone had told her that she wasn't a fairy or that Hello Kitty wasn't her friend. I went in and hugged her until she stopped crying and we finished making dinner. I realized on my way to work the next morning that I had made her feel worse instead of giving her the tools she needed to calm down. I mulled this over and tried to remember what made me feel better as a small child. Turns out, I sought quiet places away from people when I was upset. I remember turning my closet into a secret hide-out and pretending that various creatures lived there. These creatures weren't really buddies; they were mostly sentries that kept other people out so I could mope. Hiding in closets has its shelf life and metaphorical hiding (mostly) replaced the literal kind, but I remain someone who prefers to work things out on my own. 

I realized the toad is built differently and that I needed to ask someone more like her about this. I have a very dear friend who is the definition of an extrovert so I asked her whether she would feel punished if someone told her to sort out her own emotions when she's upset. She replied that she would and I felt one of those "aha" moments. My daughter thought I was punishing her instead of giving her what I thought was the space she needed. She started crying hysterically because she thought I was mad at her for being upset and she was confused that a person she relies on for comfort was seeming to do the opposite.  I may have learned the hard way, but I now ask her if she wants to talk about it when she's upset or if not, whether she wants me to sit with her. I'm also learning that she's never going to volunteer to be alone or even see this as desirable. Her third birthday party brought this one home. We had at least thirty kids and grown-ups running around blowing giant bubbles, painting faces, and being wild on a large lawn next to her favorite playground. When it was over, the rest of the family hid in dark corners to read or otherwise be alone while she went looking for someone to play with. We let her watch Charlotte's Web that afternoon... I'm hoping she maybe learns to be more content with solitude as a result of having us for parents and maybe we'll learn to be less misanthropic. Regardless, I hope she grows up knowing that I'm not going to try to force her to be something she isn't and that it's ok for the apple to fall far from the tree. 

Kid Food

I'm going to take a break from gender/class issues and write about food instead. Unfortunately I'm a picky eater especially when it comes to meat because my mom did most of the cooking growing up and she wasn't that good at it. I've tried to broaden my horizons as an adult and have succeeded to some degree. I now eat and enjoy Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, beef, and all sorts of stinkily delicious Korean food. I still won't eat lots of things unless forced to in the name of good manners and believe my eating habits have a lot to do with how I ate as a child. We sat down to a home-coked meal most night and ate very little processed food. I also grew up in NYC and was taken to all sorts of restaurants so I liked spicy and/or somewhat odd food before joining a Korean family. Still, I can't eat chicken without cringing thanks to years of simultaneously burnt and raw drumsticks (yes, it's possible). All of this is a long-winded way of saying that I think a person's attitudes about food and their food preferences are shaped by their families. 

This is why the idea of "kid food"; bland and/or processed things of questionable nutritional value that are marketed towards children annoys me. I love Reese's peanut butter cups, Oreos, DD breakfast sandwiches, and other junk food. I imagine Ms Frog may come to love similar tasty abominations and that doesn't bother me. I'm not one of those parents that is the junk food police as long as these things are a treat and not a major component of her diet. Plain buttered noodles, hot dogs, and the ubiquitous chicken nugget are not things I think a child should be eating at every meal. There are exceptions and I understand that parents of children who have fallen off the growth curve or have sensory issues just want their kids to eat something. 

However, the growth curve is a normal distribution so most children will fall within one standard deviation of the mean height and weight for their age and gender. Neurotypical children who are growing normally ought to be eating what their parents eat in my opinion. Here's where it does come back to class. It's hard to know what to feed a growing body if you don't know what to feed yourself, can't get to a grocery store, or don't have time to cook because you're working multiple jobs to survive. The lack of access to good food, information about what to do with it, and an economy that allows hard-working people to live in poverty is a crime. That is a subject for another time, but my judgement on the issue of kid food is tempered by the knowledge that the above is the reality for lots of families. Consequently, my frustration is directed at people who have the means and the knowledge to make what I consider to be the right choices. Food is an easy way to experience new things and connect to people from different cultures. Someone raised on a diet of kid food makes it really hard for them to be adventurous later on in life and might cut them off from these experiences. Then there's the whole childhood obesity thing. Habituation to highly processed food makes eating healthy harder later in life and contributes to the epidemic of children with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and other highly destructive and costly diseases. 

I guess I question why someone would put up barriers to healthy eating and enjoyment of food when they don't have to. I'd like to hear the other side of the story because maybe I'm not understanding something. Do your kids eat a different meal from you? If so, why? 

Women, STEM careers, and the outrage of the month

Seems like every week there's an new story in the news, viral video, blog post, etc about sexism in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields and how that's a barrier for girls and young women in entering these fields.  Over the summer it was a poorly timed prank at a tech conference and more recently it was internet buzz over a really cool building toy aimed at girls. Regardless of content, it seems like there's always predictable outrage from some quarters about how the over-arching culture in tech fields is a misogynous one and how this, rather than more logical reasons make many tech fields a boys' club.  With apologies to my more liberal and/or feminist friends, this is a load of hogwash.  I agree that male geeks can be quite sexist and nasty about women, both intentionally and unintentionally.  I've experienced this kind of hate and imagine that all my geek sisters have had similar awkward experiences.  However, this is where I diverge from lockstep feminist/liberal thinking in that I refuse to feel victimized by stupid, rude, and/or unprofessional behavior. In encouraging me to feel threatened, I believe this line of thinking gives this behavior more bandwidth than it deserves.

Let me clarify.  Let's say a group of dudes with more brains than common sense says or does something unprofessional.  This unprofessional behavior somehow gets documented and goes viral. Instead of mocking it and moving on, there is likely to be some chatter about how women in tech fields must feel so marginalized. That and the idea that tech workplaces are hotbeds of misogyny seem to crop up at the slightest provocation like a bedbug infestation in a New York hotel. This makes me mad both because it's wrong and insulting. Most male nerds or geeks I've gotten to know through work are among the least racist/sexist/homophobic/classist people I've met either because they simply don't care or because they know what it's like to be hated for irrational reasons. Also, I resent the implication that I should feel marginalized or oppressed when I don't. The barrier to entry for any hardcore tech field is education and most white middle class women like me have had access to the same educational opportunities as their male peers. I don't think I need to be crying oppressed when there are tons of people who ARE denied access to these opportunities because of how they look or the circumstances in which they are born. I suppose I see the "sexism in tech fields" media chatter as manufactured outrage when there are real issues to be angry about. 

Also, I don't like the implication that I'm so fragile emotionally to allow someone acting like an idiot stand between me and my goals. Women, especially female geeks and nerds are a tough breed.  As a nerdy kid I definitely felt marginalized because my interests (anthropology, medicinal plants, sci-fi, and the Black Death) were way outside mainstream "girl" interests of the late 80s/early 90s.  As a young woman, I experienced a bit of sexism here and there, but having an awesome female mentor during grad school kept that to a minimum.  I began to experience more of this as my work veered into programming.  Nothing too horrid, but a general feeling that I wasn't considered smart or good at what I do as a default, but that I had to prove myself.  I know that I started dressing more girly at work as a subtle way of thumbing my nose at this.  It stings a little when I meet someone new in a professional setting and have to prove that yes, the lady in a skirt and pearls knows her stuff.  If I were playing into the victim narrative that I feel the left so dearly wants me to adopt, I'd say that I feel marginalized or demeaned.  Thankfully, I have a thicker skin than that.  Anyone who has been called a nerd or a freak as a kid knows how to ignore the silliness and find ways to not let it bother you.

So what do I think is the real culprit here? Why are some tech fields like physics, engineering, or computers/software development, still populated by mostly dudes?  I believe things that cause lots of kids to be turned off of STEM fields tend to affect girls more strongly.  Recent PISA test scores confirm that science education in K-12 is substandard relative to other industrialized countries. There also aren't very many opportunities for kids to explore STEM fields in a fun way and those opportunities tend to be more focused on boys.  Finally, mainstream culture is anti-intellectual in a lot of ways and I think girls feel more pressure to conform in this respect.  Most importantly, I think that race and/or class issues tend to confound gender bias with the net result of fewer girls in tech fields.  That, however, is the subject of a whole other post. 

Best at Exercising?

Ms Frog can play real sports if she wants to; she doesn't have to try to be the best at exercising like her parents (sorry, Kenny Powers).  She's nowhere near old enough to participate in sports, but she will be one day.  Both of us did sports as kids and while I can't speak for my husband, I know I'm better for it.  I swam pretty seriously in high school and I enjoyed it even though I wasn't a super-star by any stretch of the imagination. Swimming taught me to set goals and achieve them through hard work.  I think it also helped me tune out the messages I was receiving from my immediate surroundings about the importance of being pretty above all else.  I wasn't a pretty girl, but being a strong girl went a long way in helping me develop some much-needed self confidence.  Ms Frog is a very pretty girl, but regardless, I see confidence in one's strength as the root to a positive self-image.  It's a short leap from "I can climb that tree" or "I can run fast" to "I'm smart enough to do X" or "I'm good enough to deserve Y".  This doesn't have an age limit and is equally applicable to a small child, teen, or adult woman.  Being fit and training for my increasingly crazy races gives me confidence in both personal and professional situations.  Likewise, Ms Frog stood up taller the day she kicked a ball or did a somersault for the first time. 

The other really important thing I learned from sports is that sometimes your best simply isn't good enough.  I remember how rotten it was to get a bad time or have my school team lose a meet.  Since I was a teenager, I'd go home thinking it was the end of the world.  The next morning, I would (usually) wake up and vow to work harder in practice or take more time to help a team-mate so this wouldn't happen next time.  I've experienced some bumps in the road during my adult life and I know there were points I would have given up on various things if I hadn't learned from sports to keep trying even if it's tough.  We tell Ms Frog to shake it off or that she's tough when she gets hurt.  When she's bigger, I imagine we'll tell her to keep at it if a game, meet, or other sports event doesn't go her way. 

A bargain for whom?

I'm going to take a break from my usual mom-themed posts to talk about why I buy the majority of my clothes from thrift stores and yard sales even though I can afford to do otherwise.  The recent collapse of the clothing factory in Bangladesh where 400+ people died due to shoddy construction and other safety violations (see www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22364891) has brought the issue of the human cost of cheap fashion back into public consciousness. So yes, that great shirt you found for next to nothing at H&M probably came from a factory very much like this one.  I could go on to bemoan the consumerist nature of fashion and scold people for buying into this, but why? I don't have a problem with wanting to look good, follow trends, etc.  What I do have a problem with is doing this at the expense of someone's right to safe working conditions (preferably) at a living wage.  This especially angers me when the cost of improving factory safety to conform with legal standards in a particular country is often pennies to the shopper.  A bargain brand's price is its main selling point, and these brands rightly assume that shoppers will go elsewhere if they have to pay a bit more.  For every person like me that says "no thanks", there are hundreds of others who want that bargain and really don't care why it's so cheap.

So then why bother? Normally, I would agree.  I tend to prefer to be an informed observer about social/political issues that I care about because I recognize that there are very few things I can do about them.   With apologies to my more politically active friends, I believe that activism is largely a gathering of like-minded souls and rarely yields any tangible results.  I say "rarely" instead of "never" because my friends' determination and committment has shown that it sometimes works so I do sip that haterade less frequently.  I think this is an issue where people can actually do something although I'm under no illusions that my decision not to shop at Target, H&M, etc will force these brands to change their wicked ways. By buying clothes at Goodwill, a consignment shop, etc, I'm not contributing to the problem.  Plus, it saves lots of money, and I'd rather put the money I would spend on a new piece of clothing towards our mortgage, my daughter's college, etc.  There are some things that are gross or impractical to buy used.  Also, not everyone likes to grub around thrift stores and/or feels ok wearing used clothes.  I think these are situations where someone can and should become part of the solution which is to buy from brands that use fair and safe labor practices.  Major bargain labels won't die if you opt out, but individuals can make a difference for these smaller guys.  Supporting a smaller or mid-sized ethical brand can help it grow into something like American Apparel, which can/does attract buyers away from the major offenders. 

I'll end with this website/blog that has resources to help find things made in the US (www.usalovelist.com) as well as a plug for American Apparel, Fluevogs, Doc Martens, and thrift stores.  Hope y'all think about this and see you at Goodwill!

Oh no, you didn't..

I was out at the playground with Ms Frog when I ran into another mom I know from the neighborhood.  She said she was looking into daycare for her daughter who is around the toad's age and asked what we were doing.  I said that she had just started and that we all love her school.  We then talked for a while about different daycares and preschools in the neighborhood while making sure our kids weren't getting into any lethal trouble.  She then asked what our hours were at school and whether there was some flexibility.  I said that Ms Frog is there full-time, but that there is the option of a shorter day and/or fewer days per week.  She replied that the shorter day option is still too long for her.  Here's where I could have changed the subject, but I didn't.

I asked her why she felt that way and she answered that it's too long a day for a small child.  Again, I should have nodded, smiled, and changed the subject.  Instead I asked her how she felt about that for families that don't have a choice.  She acknowledged that she was coming at this issue from a privileged position as someone who can afford to stay home, but said she understood even though she felt bad for the kids.  Once again, this was my cue to either run away or change the subject.  I couldn't resist and asked how she felt about a situation where both parents care about their careers.  She replied verbatim that "those people really shouldn't have children".

Oh no, she didn't... Dear readers, I assure you, she did.  I really wanted to go white trash on her or mention that I feel bad for the children of helicopter parents even though I understand the situation.  I took a deep breath, looked at my daughter, and did none of the above.  I looked her in the eye and said in my stern mommy voice that my husband and I care deeply about our work and our little girl is proof we're doing something right.  She tried to backpedal, but the words had already come out.  Maybe I shouldn't have fed the troll, but my actions didn't change what this lady feels in her heart.  This makes me more upset than angry.  I've said it before and I'll say it again that it really upsets me how much women tend to hate on each other.  It's so much worse when the women doing the hating are mothers; doubly so when they're mothers of daughters.  We're all trying to be the best wives, moms, and friends that we can be in the way that makes sense for us.  My way is probably not someone else's and it's upsetting that some women honestly believe that others who make different choices are the enemy without thinking about the reasons behind those choices.

I was much more judgmental before the toad entered my life, but have backed off considerably because I see the responsibility I have as the mother of a daughter to teach her to support rather than condemn other women.  I've learned a lot from peers and elders who have or are making different choices from mine.  My closest women friends and I don't always see eye-to-eye and while we may engage in some heated debates, a spirit of mutual respect prevails and we [mostly] come away having learned something.  I've also learned quite a bit in talking to people who aren't close that have different ideas.  I want my daughter to grow up to be someone who can learn from differences instead of condemning them.  Seeing her mom, her elders, or her aunties approach difference with reason and understanding instead of judgement may help her learn this.  Had I gone white trash and given that lady on the playground a piece of my mind, this lesson would have been lost.  I might not have learned something feel-good here, but this situation reinforced something I learned from a very dear friend; judge not lest ye be judged.

Why it's important to act like a lady or the importance of manners

I'm part of an online forum for parents in our neighborhood, which I occasionally look at while I'm drinking my coffee in the morning.  Amidst the chaff about how vaccines, toy guns, princesses, and refined sugar are the root of all evil are occasional informational and/or thought-provoking posts.  The former are good fodder for snark, but the latter are why I subscribe to and occasionally contribute to this forum.  One such thought-provoking comment was a response to a recent post about a mom's concern about her language.  The person writing the comment made the observation that swearing is a benign example of how women and moms worry too much about being "nice".  They wrote that they believe that this pressure is damaging to women and plays into the cultural stereotype of moms having to be nice/good/accepting all the time.  She advised the person posting to swear away and revel in causing a bit of "cognitive dissonance". 

I chewed on this idea on my drive home from work that day because I both agree and disagree with this statement.  I agree that many women my age were encouraged as children to not stand up for themselves or pursue their interests to the same degree as their brothers, cousins, or male friends.  I remember being routinely told off for asserting myself and seething every time I was encouraged to
to be "pleasant and agreeable" instead.  I grew up in an environment that did not prize outspoken women and had pretty rigid gender roles so this seethe boiled into a predictable teenage rejection of everything "nice" or "feminine".  Like all teenage rebellions, this wasn't particularly grounded in sound logic.  I believed that looking like a girl, using good manners, or being attracted to anything that my elders considered nice or appropriate was somehow colluding in a plot to force me down a path I didn't want to go.  Predictably, I wore mens' clothes, did sports, and read/listened to things with the maximum possible shock value.  Choosing to stand out had some positive effects.  I stayed out of trouble and learned lots of good life lessons thanks to sports and discovered some great bands and authors.  I also attribute the presence of many good things in my life to the choice to step away from the expectations that many of the adults around me had of girls and, by extension, of me.

Gradually, though I grew to realize that a wholesale rejection of "nice" or "feminine" served its purpose during my teens and early 20s, but is not applicable in the adult world.  As I've grown older, I've realized the importance of manners, and shockingly, of acting like a lady.  I believe that good manners, which includes being mindful of one's language, are an outward statement of self-respect.   People that are secure and respect themselves respect other people and can assert themselves without being aggressive or shrill.  I believe this is equally true for men and for women.  I also think that women tend to equate being aggressive and shrill with being strong, which I think is a mistake.  The ladies who I consider to be both my personal and professional role models are able to get what they want in life while managing to be (mostly) kind and respectful to other people.  This kindness and respect is what I consider to be acting like a lady.  Although the outward appearance of "lady-like" behavior is eerily similar to the one I grew up with, the rationale is much different.  Growing up, I was taught to use good manners to stifle dissent and to discourage me from asserting myself.  As an adult, I try to use what I was taught as a child to speak my mind and assert myself in a way that is respectful both of myself and of other people.  The difference also is that I understand when it's appropriate to be "nice" and "good" and when it's appropriate to unleash my inner fury.

Gender isn't completely fluid

Some people believe that gender should be completely fluid and that it's something that kids need to completely figure out on their own.  I disagree.  I believe that there is a broad range of gender-normative behavior and that each kid needs to figure out how to fit within these boundaries with adult help.  There are exceptions to this such as intersex individuals or kids that come from families with rigid gender roles, but let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that we're talking about anatomically normal kids from relatively open-minded families. 

I suppose this is why the attitude of crunchier parents towards their anatomically normal and normally identified sons' desire to play with Barbies or wear sparkly pink dresses in public creeps me out.  Kids don't know that certain things aren't ok unless adults tell them.  This doesn't mean I'm equating wearing girls' clothing with torturing kittens, but it's still something that's not quite acceptable in my book.  Maybe I'm more traditional in this way, but I still believe that it's good to tell a child that they need to fit themselves and their behavior into some relatively broad norms.  That same little boy doesn't have to play football or macho games with his friends to be masculine, but he also shouldn't be wearing a pink tutu.  Boy clothes can be boring, and a kid who wants to jazz up his wardrobe with a sparkly dress can be redirected into blinging out a shirt.  Although the two things are similar, one is on the girly end of socially acceptable, but the other crosses the line.  It's not that I don't think boys can be feminine or girls masculine, but there are limits. 

Going past these limits can make life really difficult and affect things like a kid's ability to make friends, focus at school (hard to do when teased), or develop aspects of themselves outside their gender identity.  I believe in pushing boundaries, but not to the extent that a small person's healthy development is compromised.  If my daughter wants to play football and/or dress like a dude, I'll probably encourage her to take a small step to the lady side.  Hockey, basketball, rugby, and soccer are all contact sports that people of both genders enjoy playing and are just as, if not more physically demanding than football.  Likewise, there are lots of gender neutral or menswear-inspired clothes that she can wear.  The difference is subtle, but it is the difference between a mannish woman and a person of unknown gender.  Unfortunately, she might be subject to ridicule for both, but falling within the broad definition of feminine will save her a lot of heartache.  I don't think this will be a problem for us because Ms Frog already seems like a girly girl, but who knows?

I don't think that everyone should be the same and I'm all for expanding definitions of "normal" whether it's gender, sexuality, religion, or life choices.  However, there are certain really broad things that I think people agree to do in a society in order to live, work, and play with others.  It's not required to like or even agree with these others, but it's necessary to be able to co-exist.  This co-existance requires some very broad similarities.  For instance, I've got very little in common with the mother of a Quiverfull family (speaking of rigid gender roles) who lives out in the boonies and home-schools her brood of 8 according to the precepts of the Bible.  However, we both identify as women and are both mothers so we could recognize each other enough to interact if necessary.  People in this culture break others down into either male or female and identifying someone as one or the other is a basic thing that governs the nature of an interaction between people.  I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad here, but acknowledging that it exists.  A family's definition of gender that is too broad or too restrictive can derail this process through hampering development of a gender identity that is both true to a particular child and falls within certain boundaries.

What about men?

There was a lot of buzz this summer about an article in the Atlantic about the idea of women "having it all".  The idea of separating work and home life began in earnest with the industrial revolution and men and women alike have had to figure this out.  The only group that didn't have to do this were middle or upper-class women who were denied employment or educational opportunities that would have forced them to do so.  This changed in the 1960s and 70s when more of these women began to pursue jobs and educational opportunities previously closed to them, at which point the discussion about "having it all" began.  Let's forget for the purposes of this post that the idea of "having it all" is heavily steeped in race and class privilege.  Let's also forget that success means different things to different people.  I am a middle-class white lady who has an advanced degree in science, a reasonably demanding job, and a small child so this conversation is relevant to my personal set of circumstances. 

What has annoyed me about this conversation is how it has evolved to exclude men.  The author of the article in the Atlantic mentions her supportive/loving husband and talks about their partnership.  A TED talk that proceeded this article by a few years also mentioned the importance of men.  Subsequent buzz has largely ignored the guys.  Why? Men balance work and family and have always been expected to do so.  All the men I know have a deep and abiding love for their families.  It's a different relationship than moms', but no less affectionate and nurturing.  No one talks about the anxiety a man feels when they leave a sick kid to go to work.  Likewise, there's radio silence about how sometimes a guy feels stressed about meeting his work and family obligations.  Are we that dumb as a society that we don't recognize a man's capacity for loving his children? That we exclude half the human race from this discussion? Are the ladies facilitating this conversation so short-sighted as to not understand that support is mutual and that men and women face similar challenges? The assumption that a man isn't/cannot be as caring and nurturing of his children as a woman makes me angry.  Furthermore, it is assumed that a man struggling to meet his work and family obligations can handle it and will suffer in silence.  We ladies can learn something about powering our way through difficulties quietly and gracefully like guys do.  Likewise, men can learn from us about the value of talking things through with a friend or asking for help.

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem clearly because my family is not a traditional one.  My husband and I both have careers that we're highly invested in.  We're both mildly obsessed with working out to the point where it always seems like we're training for a race.  We both want to support each other in reaching our career and personal goals and recognize that sharing responsibilities is an essential part of supporting each other.  We each want the other to be happy both for its own sake and so we can raise a happy, confident daughter.  Plus, there are a lot of places where traditional gender roles are reversed in our household.  He's a much better cook and is the more nurturing/permissive parent.  I'm often "bad cop" and am a bit more detatched, but we both love Ms Frog and want the best for her.

It's only stuff. Or is it?

When we go over to other kids' houses, there are lots of toys that light up, make cool sounds, etc.  We don't have a whole lot of these things and sometimes I feel like a bad parent for not providing them.  This isn't to say that Ms Frog has nothing to play with; we've got blocks, stuffed animals, plastic figures, hand puppets, and tons of books.  There's also a house full of things that make great toys from pots to big people books.  I do feel a bit guilty that her toys, like her clothes, are mostly gifts or yard sale/thrift store purchases, but maybe we're doing her a favor in the long run.  I'm sure we're going to run into problems with this as she gets older and notices that she doesn't have as many cool toys/trendy clothes as some of her friends.  We'll probably have to buy some of those things (or have her grandparents do it), but I really want to limit this.  I want her to learn that stuff really isn't that important and that fun doesn't require tons of props.  I'd much rather she roll in the mud or trash the kitchen baking a cake with her buddies than sit in her room playing with some silly toy.  I want her to realize that doing something or spending time with someone is much more important than having something.

The culture we live in is all about things; what someone buys is as much or more of what defines them than other qualities.  This applies to anything from the clothes someone wears to where they buy their groceries to where they don't shop.  This bothers me to no end because there are so many more things that define a person; relationships, values, hobbies, taste in books, etc.  Marketing to kids through media or peer influence brings them into consumerism before they are old enough to decide if/how they want to participate.  I don't believe it's necessary to put walls around what my child watches or who she plays with.  I do think, however, that it's necessary to (largely) say no to marketing campaigns.  I can do this by choosing not to buy her everything she asks for and by encouraging her to laugh at ads and go beyond the pitch.  For instance, if she wants a princess costume, we can make our own instead of buying it.  Ours can have more frills, sparkles, etc than the store version.  Or we can skip the thing and pretend to be princesses using our imaginations.  I imagine the latter won't fly and that we might end up buying that princess costume.  Still, I hope that placing some limits will encourage her to question who's telling her that she needs stuff and to realize that she usually doesn't.

On Judgement

Note: I am not a religious nut job and this isn't a post about Revelation or the fifth coming of Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Now that we've cleared that up, that awful Time cover has brought the issue of judgement to the front of my mind.  I'm not surprised that a judgemental piece about moms and/or women was printed in a major magazine, because that's unfortunately par for the course.  Unfortunately, the judgment doesn't stay in the media, where it can be laughed at, but migrates into people's daily lives.  Admittedly, I can be a pretty harsh critic of what I consider to be stupid and/or irresponsable behavior.  I try to keep that out of people's parenting decisions as long as they don't harm the child in question or my child.  By "harm" I don't mean Junior not getting into Harvard or a similar first world problem.  I mean harm as in causing irreparible damage. It's the difference between someone letting their baby "cry it out" versus never vaccinating their child.  The former isn't a decision that we made, but is perfectly reasonable.  The latter, however, is criminally stupid and endangers other children. 

Oftentimes, these relatively benign choices are judged by other moms, who are the very people that probably shouldn't be doing so. When people are in what they assume are a group of like-minded individuals, there are often things said about those "other people" that are pretty nasty.  Sometimes I'm one of those "other people" and it's not a comfortable place to be.  Sometimes I'm not, but still find it a warning sign when another mom, who seems really nice, starts going off on people that do X.  If X is putting them in a sensory deprivation tank, then ok, but it's often something like playing with water pistols (which are awesome).  It's almost like we're all back in high school and are using cattiness as a way of mitigating some of the fear and insecurity.  The sad thing about this behavior is that it plays into the stereotype of women who are too busy hating on each other to behave like real adults.  My feelings is that motherhood is hard enough, so why make it worse by adding another minefield to navigate.  I've found myself getting less, not more judgemental as my daughter grows because I realize that most people love their children and try to make the best decisions for them given the kid's temperment and the individual family's situation.  This doesn't mean that I'm a saint and that I won't silently flip off the person who gives me the death-stare because I let my kid play around off-leash dogs or crack up when she makes mouth farts.  It means that I'll try to not give THEM the death stare and then run to tell all my friends about it. 

Why we'll be a family of 3

I've been asked more often about #2 as Ms Frog approaches her first birthday.  I suppose this is logical because we're in our mid 30s and most people have a 1-3 year age difference between kids.  When I say that there won't be a second child, the responses range from "that's cool" to "how could you?".  Interestingly, the negative responses have inspired me to write about this issue and blog about other mom-related things as they pop into my head.  I suppose blogs are private enough to allow for contemplation, but public enough to avoid swear-laden stream of conciousness-type rants.  Plus, I'm sure there are friends who are tired of facebook status updates, conversations, etc about being a mom or about my child.  So back to having one child... I think everyone should have the right to decide how big or small their family is going to be and find it quite rude for people who aren't close friends to sit in judgement about others' choices.  Having several kids works for a lot of people, but it won't (barring statistically unlikely accidents) work for us.

First there are the (admittedly) selfish reasons.  I'm quite vain in my own way and am not fond of the changes in my body that are the result of one pregnancy.  The though of having to go through the process of loosing baby weight and having more loose skin on my stomach would probably be enough on its own to talk me down off of the second kid ledge.  Luckily, there are plenty of less selfish reasons to never get on that ledge in the first place.  I absolutely hated being pregnant except for the part where I got to eat unlimited amounts of ice-cream.  I spent the first four months puking my guts up and grew to the size of a manatee.  An irrational, semi-retarded manatee at that.  In retrospect, my daughter's entry into the world was a fitting end to this party, but I wasn't laughing at the time since I had an emergency C-section under general anesthesia after 20+ hours of labor.  I'm eternally grateful for these interventions and it's sobering to think that one if not both of us wouldn't have survived without them.  As if the pregnancy and birth from hell weren't enough, I also had a tough time for about a month or so after the frog was born.  Pregnancy and birth put a huge strain on me, my family, and my friendships and I simply don't have the desire to put myself or the people I love through that again. 

On a more positive note, work is really important to both adults in our family.  I can't speak for my husband, but having an interesting/challenging job is essential to my psychological well being.  I think it's possible to balance my goals and ambitions with the needs of one small person, but not two.  Friendships and (sadly) excersize are also essential to our happiness.  With one child, we can co-ordinate our schedules so each of us gets the time we need to work out, pop into work, hang out with a friend, etc.  Plus, we can take our charming and sociable child to hang out with friends where appropriate.  We're limited in where/when we can go now, but we'll be able to enjoy going to more places (restaurants, hikes, swimming, etc) as she gets older.  Having a second child would not only set the clock back on these things, but might even put a stop on them altogether.

Finally, we both were lucky enough to be able to play sports, go to camp, and decent schools.  We were also both fortunate to be able to attend college without massive student debt.  These things are not in the reach of many hard-working middle class families anymore even though they should be.  We want to be able to provide all of those things for the froglet.  I want to be able to afford to live in a good school district and put her through college.  I also don't want to have to tell her that she can't do a sport or persue an interest because we can't afford it.  We can provide all of these things for one child, but would not be able to do it for two.  I don't think the benefits of a hypothetical sibling outweigh the likely costs to the wonderful child that we have.  Plus, the three of us and the dog have so much fun together, so why mess up a good thing?