Documentary time

We watched Bowling for Columbine the other night. Very interesting. All I'd ever seen of Michael Moore before this was his little rant at the Oscars which didn't exactly leave me with a positive impression. But I see where his passion comes from, and sometimes passion makes us all do really stupid things.

It isn't hard to see how gun culture + bad social policies = murder and strife. It was interesting to see this at the same time as reading the book noted below as I really saw how peer orientation and attachment problems lead to the extremes we are seeing today, something not noted by Moore.

I thought he was misleading in his portrayal of Canada, however. Twice he said that we had the same kinds of problems with poverty and he used the unemployment rates as proof. Truth is, we do have far less and less sever poverty in Canada than they do in the US. Unemployment is not a measure of poverty and it is inaccurate to portray it as such. He also used Windsor and Sarnia to show how few gun deaths we have. Perhaps Winnipeg and Toronto would be better comparisons to the major urban centres of the US. He tried to paint Canada as a utopia which we are not. So it does make me wonder if he was misleading in other ways.

But overall, a good movie to see, especially for insight in how work to welfare programs can be destructive to families.

book time

I'm reading a very interesting book. It's called Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Matter, and it's by Gordon Neufeld (who is Canadian, as a bonus, and at one point attended the UofW, bonus two). He comes from an attachment viewpoint. He sees attachment as inevitable, and orienting force that a child has an instinct to seek. Where things get screwed up is that they don't necessarily have to attach to their parents. Oh, they do when they are babies, but that can change. They can become peer oriented, where instead of looking to their parents for guidance and direction, they look to their peers. Result: generations of kids who are the blind leading the blind.

This has happened over several generations now. It has become so normal, the rebelious teen culture, that we now think of it as natural. It is anything but. Our culture did not have this dynamic prior to WW2, and other cultures still do not. In the societal shifts that have occurred (including an overemphasis on economics over social good) we slowly lost our power to parent because the power comes through relationship, and we have lost relationship.

One of the myths he explodes is that of children and friendships. In North America we believe children must have friends, and there is a push to "socialize" them as soon as possible, though preschool. Example: my sister in law emailed me one day to ask if I was going to send our kids to preschool because they needed to be exposed to other children. Their social needs couldn't just be met through visits to Grandpa and Grandma. Not so, says Neufeld. Children don't learn socialization skills from exposure to other little beings who do not have social skills. Children learn social skills from attachment relationships to adults.

He says that when the relationship is restored, parenting is easier, that a focus on consequences and rewards becomes unnecessary because children want to follow.

I understand some of the theoretical and research background to what he says, and it stands up well. It also makes sense intuitively. But there's a part of me that says, "You're lying. I will always need rewards adn consequences. It can't possibly be as good as you're describing it."

I haven't gotten to the part yet where he actually talks about improving the attachment. But I am going to experiment. I am going to do what the book says and see how things are in a month. Because in November, Neufeld is coming to Wpg, and if necessary I will tell him "You are a bloody liar." Except nicer.

Power Point

HA HA!
Check it out: The Gettysburg Address as a Power Point!

A co-worker and I have been e-discussing the merits and detriments of Power Point. Apparently it is being blamed in part for a shuttle crash. People used it to present important information that didn't give out the full picture.

I say it's a tool. You can't use it for detailed, in depth info but it's great for introductions, overviews and as accompanying visual aids.

What do you think? Do you think? Am I boring you to tears?

“If the gradient [for child outcomes] is curvilinear, we want to know where it begins to level off, as this point has important implications for how we define poverty and how we attempt to abate it.” J.D. Willms - Vulnerable Children

"This report considers the definition of poverty from the perspective of children. It attempts to define an unacceptable level of inequality among families - that is, one which fails to ensure roughly equal life chances for all children. By establishing an income level at which children experience "poverty of opportunity," the discussion can then turn to how best to change these circumstances so that children will have optimal chances of developing to their potential and becoming successful adults. " D.P. Ross and P. Roberts Income and Child Well-being

I don't expect anyone to understand these quotes out of context, so let me explain. The idea of poverty lines is heavily debated. What is an appropriate way to define who is in poverty? Organizations such as Fraser Institute have a very low level when they define poverty, in which someone doesn't have enough for the barest of essentials. Others have a higher level, believing that it is not just food, clothing and shelter that is needed but a certain amount of social opportunities (e.g. the ability to provide recreational opportunities to children).

The above authors look at children's outcomes. It is a well-known fact that in general, children have better outcomes the higher their families' incomes are. The first author is saying that if there is a certain income at which children's outcomes don't become better, that might be the level we should pay attention to when we consider what poverty is. Both these quotes are turning the poverty debate around - we shouldn't just be looking at what people can buy, but on how people turn out.

It's a perspective I very much appreciate. What good is it to select some predetermined level of what poverty means without tying it to what we want society to be?

Do do do do (Twilight Zone music)

In the last week or so, my husband's back went out. So did the back of one of my coworkers. So did the back of a character in one of my favorite comic strips.

They are all named "Rob".

transitions

I am no longer a breastfeeding mother. That has been a bitter sweet transition, because I was thinking I would bf Conor until about 2. That was partly because I believe so strongly that it is so good for kids' health, and partly because I have felt bad about how soon we had to introduce formula on the side due to my going back to school so soon after he was born and I at least wanted to give him the added benefits of extended feeding.

When I went back to Saskatchewan by myself to handle some of the estate matters things did not go well. I brought along my pump but for some reason couldn't get much of a let down, so I was engorged and uncomfortable much of the time. My production probably went down to practically nothing after that. I thought I'd have to make another trip in September and was not looking forward to repeating the scenario.

And personality wise, Conor was so much more ready. Taryn needed to bf for a long time and was difficult to wean, Ashlin a little less so. Conor is an absolute cuddle monster, but it doesn't have to be connected to bfing with him. I knew he could handle it. I was tired of 5 am feedings. It made sense.

But stil, bittersweet. I have loved the closeness of bfing. It is a very special time that I know I will never have again. My final baby is not going to be a baby much longer.

Dreams and thoughts

I don't like some of the dreams that have followed Dad's death. There was one where I went to an agricultural conference with my mother, and while searching for her I pass a table and my dad is sitting there. I turn away, then realize I saw my dad, and when I turned back he wasn't there anymore. Other dreams have been very freaky and disturbing and I'm not even going to talk about them other than to say they can leave me feeling sad and vulnerable.

I've also been thinking about parallels in my life and that of my parents. For example, my mom and I, as well as my sister, have all given birth to two girls and one boy (my parent's firstborn, a son, died soon after birth which is why you don't hear me talking about a brother). My parents were married in the year they turned 27, and so was I. I had my daughters when I was age 31 and 33, the same ages that my Mom had me and my sister. I don't know exactly when my dad's mom died, but he was very close to the same age I am now when she did.

Meaningful? Probably not. But it gets me thinking. What if my life parallels his in other ways? What if I never even reach 70? I always took it for granted that my dad would live into his 90s like his father and grandfather. I always took it for granted that I would too. My certainty has crashed. Could I already be over half way through my own life?

A part of this reflection is good, becaue it's made me think about what I want for my own life, my own family. I want fun and I want love. I want to focus less on money and finances and more on what is truly valuable.

One of the things I really want in that light is a trailer. My dad had several trailers from the time that I was young and I have some good memories of our times camping (also some very crappy memories of anger and hostility between my parents, which also helps me remember that I want conflict to be handled with love in our family). I want to do that with my kids. I want us to travel as a family, see things, make memories. I hope it can happen for us.

New favorite concept

Taryn and Ashlin were playing with Lite Brite today.
Ashlin: What are you making?
Taryn: Nothing. It's abstract.

bad mother/good mother?

We have been finding our eldest daughter to be extraordinarily challenging lately. Much as I hate the blame the parents mentality, I can't help thinking that if we were doing something differently or more of the right things or less of the wrong things that she would be easier to live with.

I got out the book Raising Your Spirited Child. According to it, she doesn't qualify for "spirited", just "spunky". Yes, spunky is the word that came to my mind when she hits, kicks, screams "I hate you!" and refuses to use the toilet when she needs to.

Then the thought came to me that maybe she is spirited. Maybe our parenting is just so good that she would be even more difficult to handle if we weren't so loving and skilled.

That's not the whole of Taryn, though. Sometimes she is very helpful. She often wants to hug me and kiss me and tell me that I'm the best mommy she's ever had and she loves me through the whole galaxy and back. She can be very thoughtful towards all of us.

Vicious cycles form so easily, though. Prayers appreciated. She's more daughter than I know what to do with a lot of days.

Sorry Erica...

But you are mistaken.
Shaw would cost us an additional $25 a month over MTS for a similar package to get most of what we have now.
It's all in the details. If we wanted all those phone features and if we made a lot of long distance calls, Shaw might be worth it.

Sweeties, all of 'em.

Lately they are very into looking at trailers. We went looking one day just for fun and now they want to go all the time.