I am proud to be a woman.It took me a while to feel that way. When I was small I was impatient with being female, thought it wasn't as good as being male because I wanted to run outside, climb trees, and collect worms without my mother and stepmother shaking their fingers at me and saying, "that's not what girls do."
I was a child in the late '60s and '70s so it was a bit different than today-I wore dresses, knee socks, and had long brown hair that tended to be curly; I didn't like to sit while my mother worked the tangles out of it and I made sure she was aware of my protests, heh heh. I was in dance and wore tu-tus and makeup-I liked dance but not all the trappings of it I certainly didn't like the trappings that went with being a girl!! I did, however, embrace my female side when it came to boys...When I learned how fabulous it is to be female...probably when I was in basic training in the army, an experience that, ironically, put me in touch with what it truly means to be a woman.
To be a woman you have to be strong, stronger than you ever thought possible. To be a woman you have to endure males who challenge your right to be an individual. Too many men fail to understand women, see them in only one context, but we are so much more than that. We are the ones who stand in the face of constant harassment (nowhere is this more true than in the army) and gather the will to rise above it. We rise above a lot.
I was reading some of my daughter's college text book for "history of Chicago", the part about the women of Chicago history during the early 20th century. There were the upper crust types who single handedly created the "magnificant mile" district of Chicago. Without them there would have been no need for a shopping area that is now one of the most famous in the world--because of these high class women with ability to spend money on luxury and new technology meant to make a woman's life easier...the first automated vacuum was sold in Chicago. These women also were among the first to cross the lines of "class" and reach down to give a hand up to their lower class sisters...they were very active in the creation of a settlement house designed to bring education, culture, and even cleanliness to the poor-Hull House-and most Chicago women of the upper classes were instrumental in cleaning up the city, which went a long way towards improving the lives of the working class-Then to read about working class women-
Until the city was cleaned up and ordnances created to ensure safe working conditions and living quarters, they were pretty much treated like throw-aways! There was often no plumbing or electricity in the homes or sweat-shop type establishments where most Chicago women had to work; over half of Chicago's working class were immigrants whose husbands would wander into saloons at the end of a workday, spending wages and sometimes never making it home. Many wamen from slum areas were forced into single motherhood before the term was coined. They had to work in factorys and sweat shops while they still maintained the home for their children; it was a nonstop working life full of backbreaking labor and practically no time for entertainment or frivolity of any kind.
These women, however, did what they had to do to grow their children up the best way they knew how; they didn't have the time or energy to complain about "no alone time" or "lack of ME time." They probably wouldn't have known what that was. Wow.Women like that make me proud to be one of them. They also remind me of just how strong we truly are, all of us. We are the caretakers, the nurturers, the people who learn how to "make do" and sacrifice...and we should never, ever forget who we are:Deserving of respect.
We have the right to own our bodies and say "yes" or "no" as we see fit. We have the right to expect proper treatment and then get it. We need to expect appreciation for everything we do from our spouses, significant others, children. We have to remember our value as women and be proud of every single aspect that entails-the women of tomorrow are watching the women of today: what are we teaching them about their worth? Don't settle for less than you deserve. Ever.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The Woman Behind the Man
On this Mother's Day I'm going to provide a bit of a twist and share the story of someone else's mother. And even if you are not on the same political wavelength, the story of Barack Obama's mother is a fascinating one:
She was born and raised at the tail end of WWII, in an era rife with conventionality and mainstream ideals. She was raised in much the same way as any other young caucasion girl, with two parents, a stay-at-home mom of her own, in a nice neighborhood. Her father did have a habit, though, of uprooting his family with little notice, finally moving them to Honolulu, Hawaii. Mostly though, her upbringing was the stuff of fifties television. The woman she became was anything but conventional. One hint of anomoly in her life was in her name: Stanley Ann Dunham. When she was young and had to introduce herself she would always apologize for the oddity of it until eventually she dropped "Stanley" for good and became simply Ann.
It was around 1959 that she graduated from high school and became a freshman at the University of Hawaii. It was there that she met a black man from Kenya, Obama Sr. They courted and married in a whirlwind that shocked everyone who knew her. She had always been so focused on academics, the marriage itself was more the surprise to those who knew her than her choice of mate. In the late '50s and early '60s, though, interracial marriage was rare, although not as unheard-of in the rich culture of Hawaii.
Barack was born on August 4, 1961. Not long after his birth, the father returned to Kenya to work for his home country, always with the idea of bringing his young family to the country when he was "more settled," but that never happened. A few years later, Ann filed for divorce and was officially the single mother of a little black boy. With the help of her parents who loved their grandson dearly, she returned to school, and once again during her studies in anthropology she met a man, this time an Indonesian who she eventually married, and with whom she had Barack's younger sister.
By this time it was obvious that Stanley Ann Dunham was no "average" woman of her generation. Twice she spit in the face of convention and married outside her race and her culture. Upon completing her anthropology degree, she and her children follwed Barack's stepfather to Indonesia, a move she embraced with enthusiasm. Living in Indonesia gave root to Ann's burgeoning social consience, and she became an advocate for the poverty-stricken and for women in general. Her work and passion for these causes never interfered with her dedication to parenting; while he lived in Indonesia, Barack's mother would awaken him daily at 4 am so he could take a correspondence course in English, a subject not offered in Jakarta for obvious reasons. She worked to grow the social awareness of both her children, using their surroundings as a learning tool. She also, in an effort to keep Barack plugged into his own heritage, gave him books, read to him, and discussed with him the heritage of black America and Kenya. She never wanted him to be less than proud of who he was and encouraged him to embrace all the pieces of himself as openly as she always did.
Barack still spent time in Hawaii with his grandparents; when he started high school he asked his mother to allow him to stay with them and attend an American school. She agreed, although she communicated often to friends that it was the hardest decision she'd ever had to make. They spoke on the phone often, wrote many letters, and Ann's friends and coworkers still remember the pride with which she would talk about her son. By leaving him in Hawaii to further his education academically, Barack's mother put his interests before her own, which is, of course, what any good mother would do.
Unfortunately Ann and her Indonesian husband grew apart and divorced, but she never lost her heart for the country and its people. She never, to the end of her life, lost her passion and enthusiasm for the diversity of humanity. "She did her best to find beauty and kinship in unexpected places," commented her daughter Maya. She was not a personally ambitious woman, she didn't seek to "rule the world," but she was a "big thinker," asserts a friend, "the kind who saw a world without ethnic boundries."
When Ann was in her early fifties she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer; she died at 53, an age far too young for the world to be deprived of her greater view. But she left behind Maya, who is an anthropologist herself, and Barack, who of course took the lessons he learned from her words and her actions-by the way she lived her life-and has applied them with glaring success. I think Ann would be fine with his bid for the Presidency, even proud, but mostly she'd want her son to remember what she considered to be her own life's mantra. She believed a life can only be measured by one's level of service to others, that working towards the greater good is the only true measure of a life well lived.
I want the son of this mother for my President.
She was born and raised at the tail end of WWII, in an era rife with conventionality and mainstream ideals. She was raised in much the same way as any other young caucasion girl, with two parents, a stay-at-home mom of her own, in a nice neighborhood. Her father did have a habit, though, of uprooting his family with little notice, finally moving them to Honolulu, Hawaii. Mostly though, her upbringing was the stuff of fifties television. The woman she became was anything but conventional. One hint of anomoly in her life was in her name: Stanley Ann Dunham. When she was young and had to introduce herself she would always apologize for the oddity of it until eventually she dropped "Stanley" for good and became simply Ann.
It was around 1959 that she graduated from high school and became a freshman at the University of Hawaii. It was there that she met a black man from Kenya, Obama Sr. They courted and married in a whirlwind that shocked everyone who knew her. She had always been so focused on academics, the marriage itself was more the surprise to those who knew her than her choice of mate. In the late '50s and early '60s, though, interracial marriage was rare, although not as unheard-of in the rich culture of Hawaii.
Barack was born on August 4, 1961. Not long after his birth, the father returned to Kenya to work for his home country, always with the idea of bringing his young family to the country when he was "more settled," but that never happened. A few years later, Ann filed for divorce and was officially the single mother of a little black boy. With the help of her parents who loved their grandson dearly, she returned to school, and once again during her studies in anthropology she met a man, this time an Indonesian who she eventually married, and with whom she had Barack's younger sister.
By this time it was obvious that Stanley Ann Dunham was no "average" woman of her generation. Twice she spit in the face of convention and married outside her race and her culture. Upon completing her anthropology degree, she and her children follwed Barack's stepfather to Indonesia, a move she embraced with enthusiasm. Living in Indonesia gave root to Ann's burgeoning social consience, and she became an advocate for the poverty-stricken and for women in general. Her work and passion for these causes never interfered with her dedication to parenting; while he lived in Indonesia, Barack's mother would awaken him daily at 4 am so he could take a correspondence course in English, a subject not offered in Jakarta for obvious reasons. She worked to grow the social awareness of both her children, using their surroundings as a learning tool. She also, in an effort to keep Barack plugged into his own heritage, gave him books, read to him, and discussed with him the heritage of black America and Kenya. She never wanted him to be less than proud of who he was and encouraged him to embrace all the pieces of himself as openly as she always did.
Barack still spent time in Hawaii with his grandparents; when he started high school he asked his mother to allow him to stay with them and attend an American school. She agreed, although she communicated often to friends that it was the hardest decision she'd ever had to make. They spoke on the phone often, wrote many letters, and Ann's friends and coworkers still remember the pride with which she would talk about her son. By leaving him in Hawaii to further his education academically, Barack's mother put his interests before her own, which is, of course, what any good mother would do.
Unfortunately Ann and her Indonesian husband grew apart and divorced, but she never lost her heart for the country and its people. She never, to the end of her life, lost her passion and enthusiasm for the diversity of humanity. "She did her best to find beauty and kinship in unexpected places," commented her daughter Maya. She was not a personally ambitious woman, she didn't seek to "rule the world," but she was a "big thinker," asserts a friend, "the kind who saw a world without ethnic boundries."
When Ann was in her early fifties she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer; she died at 53, an age far too young for the world to be deprived of her greater view. But she left behind Maya, who is an anthropologist herself, and Barack, who of course took the lessons he learned from her words and her actions-by the way she lived her life-and has applied them with glaring success. I think Ann would be fine with his bid for the Presidency, even proud, but mostly she'd want her son to remember what she considered to be her own life's mantra. She believed a life can only be measured by one's level of service to others, that working towards the greater good is the only true measure of a life well lived.
I want the son of this mother for my President.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
AIDS: A True Story
Will I lose my dignity-
Will someone care?
Will I wake tomorrow-
from this nightmare?
-from the musical "Rent"
Rent was written and first performed during a time when the most creative and artistic members of our society were being erradicated at an alarming rate, when suspicion about the disease doing this relentless damage was still rampant and the words "HIV positive" were enough to send mainstream Americans surrying for the locks on their front doors.
Those acronyms- HIV and AIDS- don't strike fear into the hearts of people, today. In fact there might be some out there who would crinkle their brows in a sort of dim confusion before realization would dawn and the issue would be pushed aside. Here in the medication- and pharmacy-friendly U.S., HIV is no longer considered a killer. People aren't dropping like flies the way they did at first. There are drug cocktails now that can keep people who are HIV positive from developing full-blown AIDS for quite some time, but like cancer, quite often the drugs that prevent can also cause. They cause nausea, vomiting, headaches.. it's often a conundrum for those who suffer.
Africa is by far the greatest loser in the AIDS epidemic. Literally millions have perished because of a simple lack of education, and because they live in poverty. Generic brands of medication are slowly making their way to more rural parts of the world, but it's been way too long and too many children are growing up alone, orphans of AIDS.
In 2006 it was estimated that a total of 40.3 million people were living with HIV and 25 million have died of AIDS since its onset. The drug cocktail which currently seems to deem HIV as "chronic" rather than "fatal" is not a cure. There are now young people being infected with a form of the virus that is proving to be resistant to treatment. Taking a look back at its inception...
In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control reported that five gay men in the US were suffering and later died of a mysterious illness. The news was barely given a back page by most large-to-small newspapers. For several years following the outbreak of AIDS, it was seen as the "gay man's cancer" and dismissed by almost everyone outside the gay community...even IN the gay community! No one wanted to acknowledge a disease that was being spread by a faction of society no one wished to acknowledge, and gay men didn't want the added stigma. The US only became even partially sympathetic as a whole when *gasp* Rock Hudson contracted the disease; then speculation about HOW it was spread became intensely debatable.
36% of Americans still think you can get HIV from a toilet seat or from kissing-You can't; it is only spread through blood-sharing and bodily fluids that DON'T come from the mouth. It wasn't the health care industry that was slow to respond to AIDS, quite the contrary. Scientists and researchers for infectious diseases traveled the globe trying to discover the origin of this killer and worked tirelessly to find out what exactly we were battling. When officials from the CDC excitedly contacted the Reagan Administration about the discovery of HIV and just how it was spread, they were met by an ASSISTANT secretary of Health and told they should look into its spread by mosquitos. Ludicrous. One CDC official wrote in his memoirs that he was "stunned by the depth of denial." WHY? Why did so many, many people have to die before countries around the world-including the developed ones-started to take AIDS seriously? It's a question that galls me. Doctors, health care providers, researchers and scientists were not slow to react. The foot-dragging came directly from politicians.
The majority of our politicans are ultra concerned about "their image," and I have to ask myself: Is this a disease that has truly tested our mortality or our humanity? I am intensely angered by those who uttered phrases like "The homosexuals have declared war against nature, and now nature is exacting its retribution." A direct quote from "the moral majority." I am not without sin and I can't begin to judge anyone else for anything. I find it difficult to understand my fellow "Christians" who stand in judgement and censure. Christ walked amongst lepers and counseled to prostitutes as well as "the common man". He emersed himself into humanity-ALL of it-and preached what? Not censure, but love. Not judgement, but forgiveness. The bible holds the phrase "love one another" over 700 times; that can't be an accident.
AIDS is not a disease with any scarlett letter. It persistently finds women, children, heterosexual men, famous basketball players, mothers, grandmothers...disease has no prejudice, knowledge, or caring for the lifestyle choices of its host. Be safe, be aware, be informed, and don't be lulled into thinking we've conquered this heinous killer. We haven't.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Political Clarity:
Don't ever be "one of those" who say, "it doesn't matter if I vote, I'm only one person." I don't care what your views are, whether you're a card-carrying communist or a member of "dogs in the senate." If you don't like a candidate listed, write one in! I know it might seem like tired rhetoric to hash it all out again, but we live in a country where, if we don't like what's going on and who's running things, we don't have to sit back and take it. Get out, campaign for your chosen candidate, express your views, and VOTE!
My older kids and I had a great political discussion last night, a proud moment for a mom who's preached active democracy since they were old enough to pronounce it. We didn't discuss political views and opinions as much as we defined each party and what their core belief system is--their foundation. It really, really irritates me that I had to explain the true definition of a Republican. Now let me set a disclaimer before I continue: I am NOT expressing my own opinions when I state that the Republican Party wasn't built upon the Christian Right Rock. Nope. A Republican is traditionally an individual who believes in moderate government...more freedom, less control. He or she doesn't like the idea of government funding for a lot of social causes, believing instead that such programs should be handled at the state level or through private sectors. A Republican traditionally wants a governmental body that oversees but doesn't implement. That is a very simplistic overview. It's easy to see why the Christian Right maintains a strong Republican presence...freedom to worship, freedom to educate children as they see fit, freedom from governmental interference or having to answer to the government when public funds are used--important issues for many. Does that mean, however, that only pro-life Christians are Republican? NO. I never considered it until speaking with my teenagers, but that's what the Republican Party has seemed to be all about to them! It's what they've interpreted from the time they were able to comprehend the "political machine" that runs our country.
I am a practicing Christian who's bothered by this religious connotation placed around political parties.It's possible to be a Christian who's a democrat. It's possible to be a Jewish Republican. It's even possible to be a pro choice Republican! Neither major political party is based on ONE issue or sector of our population, which is why it's vitally important to do your research about CANDIDATES. I personally think they should do away with that "straight party ticket" box on voting ballets. You don't know who you might be putting into office if you blithely think every person in your party believes what you do...it's SO not true!Democrats are those who believe in a strong central government with many social programs for "the greater good." Traditionally (I like that word), they like to pour federal money into education, welfare, and any worthy cause designed to promote the "betterment of society." They are NOT just about "pro choice" or a party created for those in the Entertainment Industry .
Personally I don't belong to a political party, because I decided I wasn't going to let a certain party tell me what I should believe or who I should vote for. I'm too much of a rebel. I'm also too "middle of the road" for either party platform to really appeal to me...that's right. If you're curious, every political party in our country has a "platform," a basic statement about what they stand for. Utilize the Web if you want to discover what you "stand for" when you vote straight ticket!
I'll never forget one of the best sermons I ever heard: Pastor Doug Russell told his congregation that he embraces the separation of church and state wholeheartedly. In his own religion, Christianity, free will is at the core. Christ NEVER wants someone to be forced to worship Him. True belief can only happen when every human being has the right to choose his or her own life path, when we have the freedom and the RIGHT to be whatever we want--Christian, Muslim, athiest, Democrat, Republican. Never stop voicing your opinions, beliefs, and ideals, even if it's only every first Tuesday of every November. It's your RIGHT.
My older kids and I had a great political discussion last night, a proud moment for a mom who's preached active democracy since they were old enough to pronounce it. We didn't discuss political views and opinions as much as we defined each party and what their core belief system is--their foundation. It really, really irritates me that I had to explain the true definition of a Republican. Now let me set a disclaimer before I continue: I am NOT expressing my own opinions when I state that the Republican Party wasn't built upon the Christian Right Rock. Nope. A Republican is traditionally an individual who believes in moderate government...more freedom, less control. He or she doesn't like the idea of government funding for a lot of social causes, believing instead that such programs should be handled at the state level or through private sectors. A Republican traditionally wants a governmental body that oversees but doesn't implement. That is a very simplistic overview. It's easy to see why the Christian Right maintains a strong Republican presence...freedom to worship, freedom to educate children as they see fit, freedom from governmental interference or having to answer to the government when public funds are used--important issues for many. Does that mean, however, that only pro-life Christians are Republican? NO. I never considered it until speaking with my teenagers, but that's what the Republican Party has seemed to be all about to them! It's what they've interpreted from the time they were able to comprehend the "political machine" that runs our country.
I am a practicing Christian who's bothered by this religious connotation placed around political parties.It's possible to be a Christian who's a democrat. It's possible to be a Jewish Republican. It's even possible to be a pro choice Republican! Neither major political party is based on ONE issue or sector of our population, which is why it's vitally important to do your research about CANDIDATES. I personally think they should do away with that "straight party ticket" box on voting ballets. You don't know who you might be putting into office if you blithely think every person in your party believes what you do...it's SO not true!Democrats are those who believe in a strong central government with many social programs for "the greater good." Traditionally (I like that word), they like to pour federal money into education, welfare, and any worthy cause designed to promote the "betterment of society." They are NOT just about "pro choice" or a party created for those in the Entertainment Industry .
Personally I don't belong to a political party, because I decided I wasn't going to let a certain party tell me what I should believe or who I should vote for. I'm too much of a rebel. I'm also too "middle of the road" for either party platform to really appeal to me...that's right. If you're curious, every political party in our country has a "platform," a basic statement about what they stand for. Utilize the Web if you want to discover what you "stand for" when you vote straight ticket!
I'll never forget one of the best sermons I ever heard: Pastor Doug Russell told his congregation that he embraces the separation of church and state wholeheartedly. In his own religion, Christianity, free will is at the core. Christ NEVER wants someone to be forced to worship Him. True belief can only happen when every human being has the right to choose his or her own life path, when we have the freedom and the RIGHT to be whatever we want--Christian, Muslim, athiest, Democrat, Republican. Never stop voicing your opinions, beliefs, and ideals, even if it's only every first Tuesday of every November. It's your RIGHT.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Voice of a Generation
I found Footloose in the bargain bin at Walmart tonight.
It was a voice of my generation. Sarah Jessica Parker and I are almost exactly the same age, which makes her about 17 when she was part of the filming of the movie. On one hand it seems so long ago, yet on the other it seems like yesterday. The plot of the movie is actually quite simplistic; it's certainly no Graduate or Easy Rider sort of movie, so why did we who "came of age" in the '80s embrace it and the other dance movie, Flashdance, as our legacy? I think I'm on the fringes of "getting it"...We weren't from the '60s and that "breaking out" generation; even '70s teens were close enough to the era that they could hang on to the threads of "peace and love", riding on the coattails of a new sort of social conscience...but we "80s kids? We were on our own in a post-vietnam war culture that had already altered forever. What was left for us?
Ourselves. Self exploration, self expression, and self indulgence. It's what we were left with in the wake of the '60s, and I don't think we did that badly. We made it "okay" to listen to that inner voice, to be the "me" generation without shame or apology. We said, through Kevin Bacon's Ren, that it was "our time to dance." Even our signature "angsty" movie, The Breakfast Club, was about individual teens and their paths to...self discovery. Now that we, as a collective generation, are launching into "the establishment", what can we accomplish? What mountaintops have yet to be forged and how will we continue to "make our mark" on the world?
We will be the first to experience middle age and acknowledge that it's not a death sentence. We can forge on into what was formerly considered "elderly" and realize it's a milestone, but by no means are we finished dancing.
I have a feeling we will NEVER be finished dancing.
It was a voice of my generation. Sarah Jessica Parker and I are almost exactly the same age, which makes her about 17 when she was part of the filming of the movie. On one hand it seems so long ago, yet on the other it seems like yesterday. The plot of the movie is actually quite simplistic; it's certainly no Graduate or Easy Rider sort of movie, so why did we who "came of age" in the '80s embrace it and the other dance movie, Flashdance, as our legacy? I think I'm on the fringes of "getting it"...We weren't from the '60s and that "breaking out" generation; even '70s teens were close enough to the era that they could hang on to the threads of "peace and love", riding on the coattails of a new sort of social conscience...but we "80s kids? We were on our own in a post-vietnam war culture that had already altered forever. What was left for us?
Ourselves. Self exploration, self expression, and self indulgence. It's what we were left with in the wake of the '60s, and I don't think we did that badly. We made it "okay" to listen to that inner voice, to be the "me" generation without shame or apology. We said, through Kevin Bacon's Ren, that it was "our time to dance." Even our signature "angsty" movie, The Breakfast Club, was about individual teens and their paths to...self discovery. Now that we, as a collective generation, are launching into "the establishment", what can we accomplish? What mountaintops have yet to be forged and how will we continue to "make our mark" on the world?
We will be the first to experience middle age and acknowledge that it's not a death sentence. We can forge on into what was formerly considered "elderly" and realize it's a milestone, but by no means are we finished dancing.
I have a feeling we will NEVER be finished dancing.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Low Expectations
When my two older kids were entering the first and second grades, we lived in St. Louis and had to move from our home in the township of Hazelwood. Hazelwood is the sort of area where most of the families who reside there range from lower to upper middle class. I'm not from a large city, so I didn't worry too much when a neighbor of ours offered to rent us her house in St. Louis County, in an unincorporated part closer to the city. She gave us a lease/option and the house was small but adequate for our needs. We moved just before the beginning of the school year.
I was a naive young woman at the time and assumed that because this new-to-us district was in the same county and state as the Hazelwood one it would be similar. I was wrong.
I would like to think the ethnic population of the district has nothing to do with my sad discovery, but I'd probably be mistaken. I KNOW that income levels had EVERYTHING to do with what we encountered during the year my children attended that district. We had a pretty nice house but it was older, and surrounding us were mostly older people who didn't have much interest in the school. The children who attended with my children were mainly from a bevy of "section 8" housing complexes built at the edge of our neighborhood, a string of townhouses and apartments that swarmed with children before and after school.
For anyone who doesn't know what section 8 is, it's government-subsidized housing; low-income families get either a price break or free housing, depending on their situations. My two girls were in the minority here, surrounded by African American children. That simple fact didn't bother me, but what DID was the quality of education my children received from this school. Almost every day they returned home with tales of misbehavior that shocked me. Children standing on desks and screaming while teachers stood by and did little, and students who refused to cooperate were just left to their own devices with little or no intervention from staff members. Children who didn't complete tasks or do homework were given a shrug and pretty much ignored.
When I raised hesitant concerns to their teachers, my oldest daughter's second grade teacher, an older middle aged woman, told me I didn't understand. "These kids," she said, "aren't like yours. They don't know how to act and never will." Bothered by her comment and attitude doesn't begin to describe how I felt. I saw it right away, both in the lack of discipline and in the lax curriculum: NOTHING was expected of these children! It was a travesty, because guess what you get from children? What you expect. These little first and second graders were already learning a tough lesson: no one expects us to be anything special, or much of anything at all.
I was lucky with my children; I had the luxury of time with them. Their father worked and so did I but only part time, allowing me ample opportunities to expose them to diverse experiences which are known to expand a small child's thought processes. They went to preschools that were not expensive, but certainly not cheap. They went to kindergarten in the Hazelwood school district that took pride in their students' accomplishments. How many of their little classmates had these breaks?! And the real kicker: My second grader's teacher didn't make her do any work!
As a result of her "high IQ," she didn't expect her to turn in work like the rest. I received report cards with As on them, but when we visited the school I noticed she had no spelling page stickers like the other children. When I asked the teacher about it, she waved away my question and said my daughter knew all the words! Aargh, that's not the point!! She was allowing my child to go to the library and read while the other children worked--I almost had a coronary. I told the teacher to please stop doing that and she was miffed with me. And this was a teacher who'd been at this school for over twenty years. There truly are no words for the dismal state of this "educational facility." My daughter began a pattern of behavior from which she never recovered: a sense of entitlement because she was "smart" and a laziness about turning in work which haunted her entire academic career.
When summer came we moved again because I couldn't stomach the thought of my kids attending that school for another year. We moved back into the Hazelwood district, but what about the other children? They were left to eek what they could from a system designed for them to fail.
Our country, to this day, is in the throes of an educational crisis. How many valuable minds are lost due to, simply, low expectations? The color, creed, religion, or social class a child comes from should never, ever be a factor in the quality of his education. If he's an American child sent to an American school district, high standards and a solid curriculum should be expected and RECEIVED. If we don't start paying serious attention to the education of our future generations, we are going to be a mess as a nation, and I mean a much larger mess than we've ever seen.
So many of us complain about poverty and our need to support those who are unable to support themselves, but guess what? Without adequate schools to educate those currently entrenched in poverty, we will be inundated in the very near future. Don't fool yourselves--these kids want to matter and want to be seen as having potential. But years and years of being told they're not and they don't take their toll. We enhance the message when we send them to schools with peeling plaster and ancient books, or in some cases no books at all, and don't expect anything from them, not even a little. They become the hopeless masses because that's what they're taught to be.
If we would like to experience a bright future in our country, it has to begin with these kids. We have to stop saying "no" to added funding for schools, and we have to take an active interest in what's going on IN our schools and with the messages they recieve concerning who they are and what they're capable of being. This isn't about party lines or liberal philosophies or Presidential elections or even "saving money." It's about saving our kids. And yes, they are ALL "our" kids. They deserve better.
I was a naive young woman at the time and assumed that because this new-to-us district was in the same county and state as the Hazelwood one it would be similar. I was wrong.
I would like to think the ethnic population of the district has nothing to do with my sad discovery, but I'd probably be mistaken. I KNOW that income levels had EVERYTHING to do with what we encountered during the year my children attended that district. We had a pretty nice house but it was older, and surrounding us were mostly older people who didn't have much interest in the school. The children who attended with my children were mainly from a bevy of "section 8" housing complexes built at the edge of our neighborhood, a string of townhouses and apartments that swarmed with children before and after school.
For anyone who doesn't know what section 8 is, it's government-subsidized housing; low-income families get either a price break or free housing, depending on their situations. My two girls were in the minority here, surrounded by African American children. That simple fact didn't bother me, but what DID was the quality of education my children received from this school. Almost every day they returned home with tales of misbehavior that shocked me. Children standing on desks and screaming while teachers stood by and did little, and students who refused to cooperate were just left to their own devices with little or no intervention from staff members. Children who didn't complete tasks or do homework were given a shrug and pretty much ignored.
When I raised hesitant concerns to their teachers, my oldest daughter's second grade teacher, an older middle aged woman, told me I didn't understand. "These kids," she said, "aren't like yours. They don't know how to act and never will." Bothered by her comment and attitude doesn't begin to describe how I felt. I saw it right away, both in the lack of discipline and in the lax curriculum: NOTHING was expected of these children! It was a travesty, because guess what you get from children? What you expect. These little first and second graders were already learning a tough lesson: no one expects us to be anything special, or much of anything at all.
I was lucky with my children; I had the luxury of time with them. Their father worked and so did I but only part time, allowing me ample opportunities to expose them to diverse experiences which are known to expand a small child's thought processes. They went to preschools that were not expensive, but certainly not cheap. They went to kindergarten in the Hazelwood school district that took pride in their students' accomplishments. How many of their little classmates had these breaks?! And the real kicker: My second grader's teacher didn't make her do any work!
As a result of her "high IQ," she didn't expect her to turn in work like the rest. I received report cards with As on them, but when we visited the school I noticed she had no spelling page stickers like the other children. When I asked the teacher about it, she waved away my question and said my daughter knew all the words! Aargh, that's not the point!! She was allowing my child to go to the library and read while the other children worked--I almost had a coronary. I told the teacher to please stop doing that and she was miffed with me. And this was a teacher who'd been at this school for over twenty years. There truly are no words for the dismal state of this "educational facility." My daughter began a pattern of behavior from which she never recovered: a sense of entitlement because she was "smart" and a laziness about turning in work which haunted her entire academic career.
When summer came we moved again because I couldn't stomach the thought of my kids attending that school for another year. We moved back into the Hazelwood district, but what about the other children? They were left to eek what they could from a system designed for them to fail.
Our country, to this day, is in the throes of an educational crisis. How many valuable minds are lost due to, simply, low expectations? The color, creed, religion, or social class a child comes from should never, ever be a factor in the quality of his education. If he's an American child sent to an American school district, high standards and a solid curriculum should be expected and RECEIVED. If we don't start paying serious attention to the education of our future generations, we are going to be a mess as a nation, and I mean a much larger mess than we've ever seen.
So many of us complain about poverty and our need to support those who are unable to support themselves, but guess what? Without adequate schools to educate those currently entrenched in poverty, we will be inundated in the very near future. Don't fool yourselves--these kids want to matter and want to be seen as having potential. But years and years of being told they're not and they don't take their toll. We enhance the message when we send them to schools with peeling plaster and ancient books, or in some cases no books at all, and don't expect anything from them, not even a little. They become the hopeless masses because that's what they're taught to be.
If we would like to experience a bright future in our country, it has to begin with these kids. We have to stop saying "no" to added funding for schools, and we have to take an active interest in what's going on IN our schools and with the messages they recieve concerning who they are and what they're capable of being. This isn't about party lines or liberal philosophies or Presidential elections or even "saving money." It's about saving our kids. And yes, they are ALL "our" kids. They deserve better.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Downward Spiral of Human Behavior
I had a plan to write about something far more controversial than the entry you are about to read. Events late this afternoon changed my mind. I'll still write the entry I'd intended at a later date, but I just can't take any more conflict at this point.
I became a member of an Obama forum, supposedly designed to allow fellow supporters a chance to share opinions and information, or simply chat. I wrote one very short thread about becoming an informed voter and a shorter explanation of why I believe Obama to be the desirable candidate for this upcoming Presidential election. And then I got slammed It happened in print of course, and the target wasn't even me, but I'm not a fan of rude language and juvenile posturing, which was exactly what occurred. One young man commented, very eloquently, that since I am a writer I should do the research necessary and create comparison/contrast essays highlighting the issues and each candidate's stance, being as fair as possible to each one so that anyone who read the paper could understand clearly the platform of each candidate I thought it was an inspired idea and wondered why I hadn't thought of it myself! I wrote to thank him and informed him I'd be doing what he suggested. I felt good about the connection.
But not too long after his posting, someone else commented a diatribe against the young man, claiming he was being "a jerk" to use a much nicer term than any she did. I was absolutely appalled! I saw absolutely NOTHING inflammatory about his words or suggestion, nothing to indicate he thought he was "better than the average person" as she ranted. I was bewildered and offended by her language. Yet another comment after that one STILL blasted this poor kid! She tried to intimate I was somehow "on her side" in this entire nonsense. I couldn't believe my simple thread had become some sort of jr high verbal fight club! The original commenter wrote his own bewilderment at the attacks in another comment. Another commenter tried to "gush" everyone down after which I posted my own. comment in the mess. Here's what I posted:
Okay, I have no idea where all that originated. I thought the young man's idea to write a comparison/contrast sort of essay about the candidates was inspired and I did indeed thank him for the idea! I'm actually pretty pumped about doing it, so everyone take a deep breath please. I'm not into this confrontational argumentative stuff--we voice our opinions and comments in an adult manner; if we can't do that what are we doing here and how in the WORLD can we help the candidate of our choice? I enjoy feedback of all kinds and I never take offense unless offense is intended. Even then it more often bewilders me because that is not what a forum is supposed to be about. Give-and-take and an open exchange of ideas and suggestions--the definition of "helpful comment." Okay?? Now I hope I didn't offend anyone because I have no intention of that EVER. I state my opinions, research facts, and present them in what I hope is an entertaining/informative manner. Period. Love, everyone. Obama is about PEACE!
The commenter who fired up the whole thing wrote back a petulant sort of comment basically stating "I'm not gonna play with you" and miffed her way into the sunset. When I spoke of this ridiculous incident to my nineteen year old daughter, she nodded her head sagely and said, "yeah, I come up against that sort of thing constantly." She is an Obama supporter like me and fiercely political, more so than me *ah the passion of youth*. And believe me she made up her OWN mind-we just happen to agree. But she told me story after story concerning the same kind of rude name-calling, cursing at others who don't share the same ideas, and basically juvenile, ludicrous, downright nasty attitudes...on political forums!!!
I don't get it.
PS: I visited the homepage, on this forum site, of the woman who was the instigator of the whole thing. Her age range was 40-45. Age can't even be an excuse. Only stupidity and a horribly nasty attitude. Nice lesson for the younger ones.
I became a member of an Obama forum, supposedly designed to allow fellow supporters a chance to share opinions and information, or simply chat. I wrote one very short thread about becoming an informed voter and a shorter explanation of why I believe Obama to be the desirable candidate for this upcoming Presidential election. And then I got slammed It happened in print of course, and the target wasn't even me, but I'm not a fan of rude language and juvenile posturing, which was exactly what occurred. One young man commented, very eloquently, that since I am a writer I should do the research necessary and create comparison/contrast essays highlighting the issues and each candidate's stance, being as fair as possible to each one so that anyone who read the paper could understand clearly the platform of each candidate I thought it was an inspired idea and wondered why I hadn't thought of it myself! I wrote to thank him and informed him I'd be doing what he suggested. I felt good about the connection.
But not too long after his posting, someone else commented a diatribe against the young man, claiming he was being "a jerk" to use a much nicer term than any she did. I was absolutely appalled! I saw absolutely NOTHING inflammatory about his words or suggestion, nothing to indicate he thought he was "better than the average person" as she ranted. I was bewildered and offended by her language. Yet another comment after that one STILL blasted this poor kid! She tried to intimate I was somehow "on her side" in this entire nonsense. I couldn't believe my simple thread had become some sort of jr high verbal fight club! The original commenter wrote his own bewilderment at the attacks in another comment. Another commenter tried to "gush" everyone down after which I posted my own. comment in the mess. Here's what I posted:
Okay, I have no idea where all that originated. I thought the young man's idea to write a comparison/contrast sort of essay about the candidates was inspired and I did indeed thank him for the idea! I'm actually pretty pumped about doing it, so everyone take a deep breath please. I'm not into this confrontational argumentative stuff--we voice our opinions and comments in an adult manner; if we can't do that what are we doing here and how in the WORLD can we help the candidate of our choice? I enjoy feedback of all kinds and I never take offense unless offense is intended. Even then it more often bewilders me because that is not what a forum is supposed to be about. Give-and-take and an open exchange of ideas and suggestions--the definition of "helpful comment." Okay?? Now I hope I didn't offend anyone because I have no intention of that EVER. I state my opinions, research facts, and present them in what I hope is an entertaining/informative manner. Period. Love, everyone. Obama is about PEACE!
The commenter who fired up the whole thing wrote back a petulant sort of comment basically stating "I'm not gonna play with you" and miffed her way into the sunset. When I spoke of this ridiculous incident to my nineteen year old daughter, she nodded her head sagely and said, "yeah, I come up against that sort of thing constantly." She is an Obama supporter like me and fiercely political, more so than me *ah the passion of youth*. And believe me she made up her OWN mind-we just happen to agree. But she told me story after story concerning the same kind of rude name-calling, cursing at others who don't share the same ideas, and basically juvenile, ludicrous, downright nasty attitudes...on political forums!!!
I don't get it.
PS: I visited the homepage, on this forum site, of the woman who was the instigator of the whole thing. Her age range was 40-45. Age can't even be an excuse. Only stupidity and a horribly nasty attitude. Nice lesson for the younger ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
