Culture, social justice, queer issues, disability rights, arts, Boston, and stuff I think is cool.
I watched a First Night ice sculpture get assembleded. Squee.
Because I'm a dork -- do I even need to preface my blog posts with that, as if anyone didn't know? -- I really enjoyed seeing an ice sculpture get taken off the truck and assembled in front of Golden Temple.
At about 1:30, Molly and I went out to walk a dog we were dogsitting. We saw the Brookline Ice and Coal truck unloading the beginning of the ice sculpture. Even the dog thought it was interesting.
There's a chainsaw there (above photo), the orange thing on the ground next to the planter to the left of the dog. I'm not sure why either, but hey, chainsaw!
But after a few minutes of Molly and me watching amazedly at what frozen wonders would come out of the truck, our doggie friend was kind of like, wait, what? Because he is a dog. So we walked to Coolidge Corner and ran into someone awesome who I hadn't seen in a while. Then we took the dog to Paper Source becausehe needed some craft supplies they allow dogs and we were looking for something to do. We bought a giant M made out of paper pulp. Then we wandered around.
Also we saw this, which is funny if you're me. Or the person who did it, apparently:
When we came back at about 3:00, the ice sculpture was pretty much done and they were putting the lights up.
(Apologies to this Brookline Ice and Coal employee for the unflattering picture of his ass along with the photo of his most excellent ice artistry.)
Well we're on the subject of Golden Temple, I suggest going there some night other than tonight. We went there on Christmas tofulfill stereotypes about our people eat delicious food with some Jews friends and were most disappointed to find out that their "special" holiday menu means that they don't have any vegetable tempura or mushroom egg foo yung, except they still use the regular printed menus and you're expecting these fine dishes but you go to order them and they tell you about their "special" holiday menu. Also the drinks are weaker on holidays. But go there when it isn't a holiday, because the place is awesome. Szechuan eggplant, yo.
I like how it looks from the front. Our doggie friend thinks it looks better from the other side though with the lights shining through the ice, and I don't think he cares that the lettering is backwards that way.
At about 1:30, Molly and I went out to walk a dog we were dogsitting. We saw the Brookline Ice and Coal truck unloading the beginning of the ice sculpture. Even the dog thought it was interesting.
There's a chainsaw there (above photo), the orange thing on the ground next to the planter to the left of the dog. I'm not sure why either, but hey, chainsaw!
But after a few minutes of Molly and me watching amazedly at what frozen wonders would come out of the truck, our doggie friend was kind of like, wait, what? Because he is a dog. So we walked to Coolidge Corner and ran into someone awesome who I hadn't seen in a while. Then we took the dog to Paper Source because
Also we saw this, which is funny if you're me. Or the person who did it, apparently:
When we came back at about 3:00, the ice sculpture was pretty much done and they were putting the lights up.
(Apologies to this Brookline Ice and Coal employee for the unflattering picture of his ass along with the photo of his most excellent ice artistry.)
Well we're on the subject of Golden Temple, I suggest going there some night other than tonight. We went there on Christmas to
I like how it looks from the front. Our doggie friend thinks it looks better from the other side though with the lights shining through the ice, and I don't think he cares that the lettering is backwards that way.
Boston radio stations playing Alice's Resturant today
- WUMB apparently played it at 9:00 already, will be playing it again at noon. Sometimes they play the 30th anniversary edition. ("And I asked myself, I said, Arlo, how many things in the world are 18 minutes and 20 seconds long?")
- WZLX is once again doing it at 9, noon, and 4.
- WXRV 92.5 The River often plays it at noon, but doesn't mention it this year on their site or on their facebook.
Let me know if there are any others!
Boston Tour of Bigass Heads
So, I got the brilliant (?) idea to do a tour of all of the giant heads of Boston. Not sure if I'd want to do, say, a bike tour, or more like a party bus tour (bike tour is better for the planet and urban living and such, but party bus would be accessible to people who can't ride a bike).
The heads I've come up with so far are:
Joseph Wheelwright's "Sleeping Moon" sculpture at Ashmont Station
Antonio Lopez Garcia's "Day and Night" sculptures outside the Mofa
John Wilson's "Eternal Presence" at the National Center of Afro-American Artists
Ralph Helmick's Arthur Fiedler Memorial on the Charles River Esplanade
Can anyone think of any more giant heads in Boston?
All images ganked from the respective linked websites. Please notify me if you would like your photo taken down.
The heads I've come up with so far are:
Joseph Wheelwright's "Sleeping Moon" sculpture at Ashmont Station
Antonio Lopez Garcia's "Day and Night" sculptures outside the Mofa
John Wilson's "Eternal Presence" at the National Center of Afro-American Artists
Ralph Helmick's Arthur Fiedler Memorial on the Charles River Esplanade
Can anyone think of any more giant heads in Boston?
All images ganked from the respective linked websites. Please notify me if you would like your photo taken down.
Dear Capital One
You know those e-mails you keep sending me?
The ones that promise $100 for opening a Capital One savings account?
The ones that address me by first and last name and refer to me as a valued customer, which indicates that they're being sent to cardholders rather than just to generic mailing lists?
The ones that say in the tiny print at the bottom that the average balance during the first year must be more than $10,000?
Well jeez, you people have full access to my credit report and other financial information. Shouldn't you be able to tell that there's no way in fuck that I have $10,000 lying around, nor am likely to any time soon?
(And you realize, don't you, that a $100 return on $10,000 over 12 months is, well, 1% APR. Which you damn well better be paying people if you're using their large sums of cash to fundsketchy e-mail campaigns about car loan ripoffs your financial institution. What kind of person who has $10,000 puts it in some gimmicky Capital One account anyway?)
The ones that promise $100 for opening a Capital One savings account?
The ones that address me by first and last name and refer to me as a valued customer, which indicates that they're being sent to cardholders rather than just to generic mailing lists?
The ones that say in the tiny print at the bottom that the average balance during the first year must be more than $10,000?
Well jeez, you people have full access to my credit report and other financial information. Shouldn't you be able to tell that there's no way in fuck that I have $10,000 lying around, nor am likely to any time soon?
(And you realize, don't you, that a $100 return on $10,000 over 12 months is, well, 1% APR. Which you damn well better be paying people if you're using their large sums of cash to fund
Mixed feelings as usual on these "supercrip" stories
This video is making the rounds right now, portraying Mariah Slick, a high-school senior with Down syndrome who was crowned the homecoming queen at her high school in Texas.
I have some very mixed feelings about this story. Not about the event itself or about Mariah -- hey, you go girl! -- but about the media portrayal.
First, the reporting itself seems somewhat patronizing. There's no interview of Mariah, just footage of the event and an interview of a typical peer who says that she's a great person, because they have a class together and "she calls me by my first name" (what?). There's nothing about Mariah's talents or interests. It doesn't actually commend her on anything she herself has chosen to do in life, giving the impression that she's only a neat person because she has a disability. I'd love to hear more about her -- what she thinks of her high school and her social life, what interests her.
Second, this always brings up for me the overall media trend of the supercrip phenomenon. This particular young woman is being noted in the media mainly because she "overcame" the discrimination that people with disabilities face, and she managed to be successful within the model of how nondisabled people are supposed to be. I've gathered from the quick snippet that she has enough cognitive and academic ability to attend high school without being substantially separated from nondisabled peers, she manages to be conventionally stylish and attractive, managed to have good social skills, managed to "fit in" in her high school.
While all this is pretty cool, and I'm guessing took a lot of work on her part, where is the media coverage of the people with disabilities who face tons of discrimination and don't manage to be "just a normal kid?" I'd like to see media coverage about people with disabilities that isn't "heartwarming. The only time we do see such a thing is when someone is trying to illustrate how much a particular aspect of the social services system is failing someone, and that isn't what I mean either.
I'd love to see a slice-of-life piece that balances out this story about Mariah Slick. Say, a story about someone with Down syndrome who experiences life as happy and stable, but hasn't been successful in making friends, didn't have access to an education that really met his/her needs, has mannerisms that most of society doesn't find attractive, and has made an informed choice to stay in the house most of the time fixated on one activity. This hypothetical person should be just as valuable in our society as Mariah Slick, yet I had to make up such a person because we aren't seeing any portrayed in the media. These people are invisible.
I have some very mixed feelings about this story. Not about the event itself or about Mariah -- hey, you go girl! -- but about the media portrayal.
First, the reporting itself seems somewhat patronizing. There's no interview of Mariah, just footage of the event and an interview of a typical peer who says that she's a great person, because they have a class together and "she calls me by my first name" (what?). There's nothing about Mariah's talents or interests. It doesn't actually commend her on anything she herself has chosen to do in life, giving the impression that she's only a neat person because she has a disability. I'd love to hear more about her -- what she thinks of her high school and her social life, what interests her.
Second, this always brings up for me the overall media trend of the supercrip phenomenon. This particular young woman is being noted in the media mainly because she "overcame" the discrimination that people with disabilities face, and she managed to be successful within the model of how nondisabled people are supposed to be. I've gathered from the quick snippet that she has enough cognitive and academic ability to attend high school without being substantially separated from nondisabled peers, she manages to be conventionally stylish and attractive, managed to have good social skills, managed to "fit in" in her high school.
While all this is pretty cool, and I'm guessing took a lot of work on her part, where is the media coverage of the people with disabilities who face tons of discrimination and don't manage to be "just a normal kid?" I'd like to see media coverage about people with disabilities that isn't "heartwarming. The only time we do see such a thing is when someone is trying to illustrate how much a particular aspect of the social services system is failing someone, and that isn't what I mean either.
I'd love to see a slice-of-life piece that balances out this story about Mariah Slick. Say, a story about someone with Down syndrome who experiences life as happy and stable, but hasn't been successful in making friends, didn't have access to an education that really met his/her needs, has mannerisms that most of society doesn't find attractive, and has made an informed choice to stay in the house most of the time fixated on one activity. This hypothetical person should be just as valuable in our society as Mariah Slick, yet I had to make up such a person because we aren't seeing any portrayed in the media. These people are invisible.
It's right in front of your face
How do people manage to spell my name wrong in a reply to an email signed with my name? Like, when they've never communicated with me before and only know my name from reading it on my email?
Subtle homophobia in Facebook profiles?
I've noticed a lot of people on Facebook who list in their profile that they're married or otherwise in a long-term relationship with a person of the opposite gender, then they further specify that they're interested in people of the opposite gender in the "interested in:" field. This does not include many of my friends, thankfully, but rather, asshats from high school and from former jobs that were much like high school, as well as people who've aroused my curiosity through posting ignorant things on community pages.
What is up with the need to specify? The only reason I can think of is that they -- consciously or unconsciously -- want to make sure everyone knows they aren't remotely bisexual. Because otherwise, what? Clearly, we know you're currently interested in women if you're married to one. Or at least I hope for both of your sake that you're interested in her. Not surprisingly, it's mostly straight guys who feel the need to specify this, which also follows with the internalized homophobia thing, since there's more stigma aimed at guys with regards to being gay or bi or bi-curious.
(Yes, I realize some of them may have left it there from while they were single and looking, but that doesn't account for the ones who were already taken when they joined, yet still felt the need to specify.)
What is up with the need to specify? The only reason I can think of is that they -- consciously or unconsciously -- want to make sure everyone knows they aren't remotely bisexual. Because otherwise, what? Clearly, we know you're currently interested in women if you're married to one. Or at least I hope for both of your sake that you're interested in her. Not surprisingly, it's mostly straight guys who feel the need to specify this, which also follows with the internalized homophobia thing, since there's more stigma aimed at guys with regards to being gay or bi or bi-curious.
(Yes, I realize some of them may have left it there from while they were single and looking, but that doesn't account for the ones who were already taken when they joined, yet still felt the need to specify.)
"You know, I've never really liked paying bills. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either."
From mycheckfree.com:
If you want to stop paying e-bills for a single biller, go to the E-bills page, and then click Delete for that biller account.Oh, I'd like to stop paying bills for all of my accounts. Is it that easy?
Boston just exploded
About half an hour ago we heard an explosion so The Spousal Unit turned on the po-po scanner. Now we're listening to them talking about people calling and saying there was an explosion. Seems to have been somewhere near South Station or the Broadway Bridge. They tried to contact Amtrak and the MBTA "but the only people there are the people cleaning the trains and the buses and those people don't know anything."
Also a cop needs some tape, another one has some that the first cop can use, there is a belligerent individual at BMC, a cop is going to get some coffee, someone is missing, and a bunch of numbers.
Also a cop needs some tape, another one has some that the first cop can use, there is a belligerent individual at BMC, a cop is going to get some coffee, someone is missing, and a bunch of numbers.
Get outta my head
There needs to be a longassgermanword for when you have a little snippet of music show up in your head, but no melody line or drumbeat or anything that you can sing to someone to figure out what the hell it's from, because what you're hearing is mostly textures or effects or something that you can't replicate.
Labels:
longassgermanwords
Timbuk2 pride messenger bag
How cool is this?
OK, it's kind of ugly for an everyday bag, unless your wardrobe goes well with giant pride flags, but how awesome would it be for carrying presentation materials or for leafletting or something?
Demand Mass employers pay LGBT employees as much as straights
The City of Cambridge has decided to increase the gross pay of employees with same-sex spouses so that their take-home pay is equal to that of employees with opposite-sex spouses once the federal gay taxes have taken effect.
This is a great example they've set. Until we have federal laws requiring equal marriage everywhere, Massachusetts should require that as part of its nondiscrimination laws and its commitment to equal marriage, all employers need to offset the discriminatory federal insurance taxes so that their employees are paid equally for equal work.
Write your state senator and representative and get someone to sponsor this. Oh, and if any human rights organizations that have more power than my lame little blog want to take this on, please do.
The Human Rights Campaign has an article explaining to businesses how and why they should provide equal pay for LGBT employees.
This is a great example they've set. Until we have federal laws requiring equal marriage everywhere, Massachusetts should require that as part of its nondiscrimination laws and its commitment to equal marriage, all employers need to offset the discriminatory federal insurance taxes so that their employees are paid equally for equal work.
Write your state senator and representative and get someone to sponsor this. Oh, and if any human rights organizations that have more power than my lame little blog want to take this on, please do.
The Human Rights Campaign has an article explaining to businesses how and why they should provide equal pay for LGBT employees.
Same-sex marriage health insurance clusterfuckery
So, my primary employer, who forbids us to mention their name on the internet, just decided they're now going to start following the federal law to the letter and are going to start disallowing people with same-sex spouses from paying for the spouse's portion of the health insurance with pre-tax dollars and are going to tax the spouse (who is federally considered to be a legal stranger, thus not a dependent) on the health insurance benefits, since they're legally a gift since said spouse isn't legally a family member.
Previously, they'd done what most employers do, and entered the whole insurance premium as pre-tax just like they do for opposite-sex spouses, and left it up to each family to decide how they wanted to interpret the federal tax law, choosing to pay the extra gay tax if they wanted.
(I of course decided not to volunteer to pay the gay tax, deciding that if they wanted to come after me for it, I'd sue the federal government for sex discrimination and deprivation of life and liberty and all that, and I'd of course win, and then we'd have a federal decision stating that treating straight people and non-straight people differently is unconstitutional. Likewise, I'm sure the agency was in the clear, because they could also sue the IRS if the IRS asked them to please stop treating gay and straight employees the same. The IRS of course hasn't come after any individuals or businesses, because the federal government knows they'd lose a lawsuit, so they're not going to open themselves up to one.)
Fast forward to a few weeks ago: HR dude calls me and tells me they're now following the federal law to the letter and they're going to tax us for the insurance now. Not only that, but since the agency refuses to offer a two-person insurance plan like normal places do, our family with two adults who need workplace-purchased insurance has to buy a family plan for three times as much as a single plan, so they're considering the additional two-thirds to be the portion they're gifting to Molly. (You hear that, HR people at my agency and at others? Not having a two-person plan is homophobic. It hurts people who have to pay gay tax more than it hurts people who are federally married.)
I found some interesting articles about "grossing up," that is, employers choosing to increase the gross pay of people with same-sex spouses so that our take-home pay is equal to that of people with opposite-sex spouses. I knew that many large for-profit companies like Apple and Google do this, but I know this isn't going to make much of a case for my employer, since they're not our competitors. However, the City of Cambridge is a similar type of employer, and they're doing it. I also discovered that the HRC has a proposal outlining how an employer would do this and makes the point that not doing so could open the employer up to a discrimination case.
So today I was running some numbers, trying to figure out how I'm going to deal with our take-home pay being about $50 lower per week while still eating and paying bills. One thought I had was that since my employer is basically not offering my spouse insurance, maybe she could get MassHealth, and I could switch to the single plan at work. She's below the income cutoff. Nope, because we're married in Massachusetts, she can't get it, because I'm offered insurance through work. It doesn't matter that the insurance is ridiculously expensive because of the required family plan and the tax penalties.
So, here's what needs to happen for this situation to not be ridiculous:
1. The federal government needs to completely and entirely decide that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional, and require that all state governments and federal governments have equal marriage. Tell President Obama to support full equal marriage.
2. While that's in the works, we need to do something at the state level to require that all employers "gross up" to ensure that workers with same-sex and opposite-sex spouses are paid the same wages for equal work. I've created a separate page for this issue that people can redistribute to encourage people to write their legislators.
3. Until then, tell your employer to "gross up." Show them the article about the City of Cambridge and the HRC's proposal and explanation of how this works.
3a. Another thought I had was to have employers put the spouse on payroll and let the spouse purchase his or her own single-person plan. I know this is totally legit to do two singles if both spouses actually do work there, but not sure if it's legit to have someone who is making no wages but is paying for group insurance. Maybe someone else knows?
4. Also, tell the governor that it was a horrible idea to make MassHealth recognize same-sex marriage. That means fewer same-sex couples can get coverage, not more, since MassHealth is based on family income for married families. It's federal laws that are creating poorer access to healthcare for same-sex partners, and MassHealth is largely federally funded, so the feds should be picking up the bill for the people (like my spouse) who can't afford the discriminatory insurance offered by their spouse's employer and who don't have insurance offered through their own job. This isn't a case of people wanting marriage recognized only when convenient; since the feds actually don't recognize it at all, they don't get to recognize it only in order to get away with not providing MassHealth to some people. Also, the state, in the interest of equality, should provide more insurance options to people who can't afford to partake of the employer-sponsored insurance once the gay tax is added on.
Previously, they'd done what most employers do, and entered the whole insurance premium as pre-tax just like they do for opposite-sex spouses, and left it up to each family to decide how they wanted to interpret the federal tax law, choosing to pay the extra gay tax if they wanted.
(I of course decided not to volunteer to pay the gay tax, deciding that if they wanted to come after me for it, I'd sue the federal government for sex discrimination and deprivation of life and liberty and all that, and I'd of course win, and then we'd have a federal decision stating that treating straight people and non-straight people differently is unconstitutional. Likewise, I'm sure the agency was in the clear, because they could also sue the IRS if the IRS asked them to please stop treating gay and straight employees the same. The IRS of course hasn't come after any individuals or businesses, because the federal government knows they'd lose a lawsuit, so they're not going to open themselves up to one.)
Fast forward to a few weeks ago: HR dude calls me and tells me they're now following the federal law to the letter and they're going to tax us for the insurance now. Not only that, but since the agency refuses to offer a two-person insurance plan like normal places do, our family with two adults who need workplace-purchased insurance has to buy a family plan for three times as much as a single plan, so they're considering the additional two-thirds to be the portion they're gifting to Molly. (You hear that, HR people at my agency and at others? Not having a two-person plan is homophobic. It hurts people who have to pay gay tax more than it hurts people who are federally married.)
I found some interesting articles about "grossing up," that is, employers choosing to increase the gross pay of people with same-sex spouses so that our take-home pay is equal to that of people with opposite-sex spouses. I knew that many large for-profit companies like Apple and Google do this, but I know this isn't going to make much of a case for my employer, since they're not our competitors. However, the City of Cambridge is a similar type of employer, and they're doing it. I also discovered that the HRC has a proposal outlining how an employer would do this and makes the point that not doing so could open the employer up to a discrimination case.
So today I was running some numbers, trying to figure out how I'm going to deal with our take-home pay being about $50 lower per week while still eating and paying bills. One thought I had was that since my employer is basically not offering my spouse insurance, maybe she could get MassHealth, and I could switch to the single plan at work. She's below the income cutoff. Nope, because we're married in Massachusetts, she can't get it, because I'm offered insurance through work. It doesn't matter that the insurance is ridiculously expensive because of the required family plan and the tax penalties.
So, here's what needs to happen for this situation to not be ridiculous:
1. The federal government needs to completely and entirely decide that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional, and require that all state governments and federal governments have equal marriage. Tell President Obama to support full equal marriage.
2. While that's in the works, we need to do something at the state level to require that all employers "gross up" to ensure that workers with same-sex and opposite-sex spouses are paid the same wages for equal work. I've created a separate page for this issue that people can redistribute to encourage people to write their legislators.
3. Until then, tell your employer to "gross up." Show them the article about the City of Cambridge and the HRC's proposal and explanation of how this works.
3a. Another thought I had was to have employers put the spouse on payroll and let the spouse purchase his or her own single-person plan. I know this is totally legit to do two singles if both spouses actually do work there, but not sure if it's legit to have someone who is making no wages but is paying for group insurance. Maybe someone else knows?
4. Also, tell the governor that it was a horrible idea to make MassHealth recognize same-sex marriage. That means fewer same-sex couples can get coverage, not more, since MassHealth is based on family income for married families. It's federal laws that are creating poorer access to healthcare for same-sex partners, and MassHealth is largely federally funded, so the feds should be picking up the bill for the people (like my spouse) who can't afford the discriminatory insurance offered by their spouse's employer and who don't have insurance offered through their own job. This isn't a case of people wanting marriage recognized only when convenient; since the feds actually don't recognize it at all, they don't get to recognize it only in order to get away with not providing MassHealth to some people. Also, the state, in the interest of equality, should provide more insurance options to people who can't afford to partake of the employer-sponsored insurance once the gay tax is added on.
Delores Handy just made my life
They had her reporting on the current actions of the Boston Ten-Point Coalition. Couldn't think of a better person to discuss the organization. Puonts abounded.
Labels:
DHWOTD
WBUR misrepresents adoption as expensive
This story about a family who is helping another family through surrogacy is really beautiful.
It was disturbing though, as I listened to this on the way to work this morning, to first hear "they decided adoption was too expensive," then hear "about $30,000 worth of medical co-pays, legal fees, even maternity clothes and prenatal vitamins."
The author really should have done some fact-checking and found that domestic adoption is generally quite a bit less than $30,000 for an infant, even a white one, and adoption through the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families is free. It's fine that the family decided adoption isn't for them, but the story should have stated this, rather than the author perpetuating the myth that adoption is expensive, when it in fact can be free.
It was disturbing though, as I listened to this on the way to work this morning, to first hear "they decided adoption was too expensive," then hear "about $30,000 worth of medical co-pays, legal fees, even maternity clothes and prenatal vitamins."
The author really should have done some fact-checking and found that domestic adoption is generally quite a bit less than $30,000 for an infant, even a white one, and adoption through the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families is free. It's fine that the family decided adoption isn't for them, but the story should have stated this, rather than the author perpetuating the myth that adoption is expensive, when it in fact can be free.
Self-control in childhood predicts future success
I was very happy to see this article in a mainstream publication. I definitely see in my adult clients -- both the ones with and without labels -- that the people who are the most healthy and successful are the ones who can, to put it simply, sit down and shut up and do the right thing without arguing or making excuses. While personality/morals/trust plays into this a bit, I believe that the most central force in terms of whether someone is able to do this is whether they learned in early childhood to wait, to tolerate discomfort, and to do things much of the time that are someone else's agenda.
Just as I expected, there are comments on the article saying that teaching children to self-regulate and follow rules is stifling their creativity or hurting their self-esteem. I hear this a lot from parents, particularly Generation X or Y parents who are trying to do get away from the themes of our childhoods ("because I said so," "wait until your father hears about this," etc.). While I agree that our childhoods in the '70s and '80s could have been a little less authoritarian and a little more nurturing of our creativity, I do still see a real need for children to learn to conform and follow rules.
Self-esteem and self-control are actually more related than they are opposites; children who understand rules and can do what is expected feel more competent and are happier and more creative. Creativity is also only useful when it is exhibited in the context of knowing the rules and choosing to only slightly break them. I often see parents who look at their toddler as a "free spirit" when the child, say, wanders off to do something else without acknowledging that the parent is speaking. This behavior in my eyes of course looks like the child is either on the way to a neurodevelopmental disorder that needs immediate attention or else hasn't been taught some very necessary life skills.
I, too, want to raise the sort children who grow up to start their own business, but not ones who send the IRS a poem about their quarterly revenue because the correct form didn't interest them.
Just as I expected, there are comments on the article saying that teaching children to self-regulate and follow rules is stifling their creativity or hurting their self-esteem. I hear this a lot from parents, particularly Generation X or Y parents who are trying to do get away from the themes of our childhoods ("because I said so," "wait until your father hears about this," etc.). While I agree that our childhoods in the '70s and '80s could have been a little less authoritarian and a little more nurturing of our creativity, I do still see a real need for children to learn to conform and follow rules.
Self-esteem and self-control are actually more related than they are opposites; children who understand rules and can do what is expected feel more competent and are happier and more creative. Creativity is also only useful when it is exhibited in the context of knowing the rules and choosing to only slightly break them. I often see parents who look at their toddler as a "free spirit" when the child, say, wanders off to do something else without acknowledging that the parent is speaking. This behavior in my eyes of course looks like the child is either on the way to a neurodevelopmental disorder that needs immediate attention or else hasn't been taught some very necessary life skills.
I, too, want to raise the sort children who grow up to start their own business, but not ones who send the IRS a poem about their quarterly revenue because the correct form didn't interest them.
Container-Baby Syndrome
Here's a great article on why it's best to put babies on the floor as a default when setting them down and to only use baby containers during times when it's not possible to completely supervise the baby.
The article is written by a physical therapist, so it mostly focuses on motor and sensory concerns, but I'll also add that moving one's body freely and being able to explore things is necessary for development of language, cognitive, self-regulation, and social skills. Early developmental skills like head control, trunk control, and a sense of where one's body is in space can help with things later in life, like paying attention, following through with tasks, and understanding limits. These things also help with overall maturity; a child has to be aware of him- or herself before the child can be aware of others.
Oh, and this wasn't mentioned, but babies from newborn onward need access to toys they can manipulate with their hands. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. These can even be provided to stimulate development when the baby is in a container!
The article is written by a physical therapist, so it mostly focuses on motor and sensory concerns, but I'll also add that moving one's body freely and being able to explore things is necessary for development of language, cognitive, self-regulation, and social skills. Early developmental skills like head control, trunk control, and a sense of where one's body is in space can help with things later in life, like paying attention, following through with tasks, and understanding limits. These things also help with overall maturity; a child has to be aware of him- or herself before the child can be aware of others.
Oh, and this wasn't mentioned, but babies from newborn onward need access to toys they can manipulate with their hands. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. These can even be provided to stimulate development when the baby is in a container!
Why I still go to Pride, and why it still matters
Happy Pride, everyone!
This is something I heard hundreds of times today, from friends and family and from strangers.
Yet I've had exactly four non-GLBT people ask me this week if I was going to pride or otherwise mention that his week is pride week.
On my Facebook feed and in the blogs I read, I'm mostly seeing comments about how people don't like pride anymore, because it's become corporate and is dominated by "PFLAGs and churches" and lacks the grassroots community groups that were once central to the event.
These observations aren't inaccurate. The fees to march in the parade this year (without a vehicle, which costs more) were $140 for non-profits, $40 for student groups, and $220 for other groups (if the group registered before February 28; registration went up every few months and was $875/$250/$1375 after June 1). The fees are the same regardless of whether your non-profit or for-profit runs out of your basement and might not have the resources of Children's Hospital or Home Depot. Certainly, the fees alone shut out a lot of small, local groups.
Still, I argue that pride is needed even more now that we're in a place that we more-or-less have legal rights (we still are hugely lacking, and our trans brothers and sisters even more so). People seem to have forgotten about their GLBT friends and family and coworkers and neighbors, if they notice us at all. In most of my circles, I'm surrounded by mostly straight folks. Which is fine, most of the time, but it points out to me every day that we're still largely invisible and why this "I treat queer people just like anyone else and hardly even remember that you're queer" stuff doesn't work.
As I said, exactly four non-queer people realized that it's pride week and asked if I was going or wished me happy pride. I have far more homophobic experiences in any given week. Or day, actually. And I get far more people asking about my plans for holidays that I don't celebrate or asking if I'm going to notoriously homophobic/transphobic events.
This is why pride still matters. If a bunch of giant corporations that have no major financial reason to give a rat's ass about queers in Boston realize that it's pride week and have taken the time and effort to have a presence at the parade, then surely people who have daily or weekly personal interactions with queer folks can bother to remember that we're queer and make sure they include us and are sensitive to us in their language and their worldviews.
Beyond that, it's just nice to have a day in which I actually feel community and I'm not the "other." Where my family and I go up to a booth and look at necklaces and a stranger tells me that one's really cute and I should totally buy it for my wife, when most of the time I get asked by not-exactly-strangers if she's my sister or my mom, or asked by a well-meaning coworker how anyone would possibly know I'm gay, not realizing that queers and allies actually listen and look for what someone is putting out there rather than assuming everyone is straight unless they outright say otherwise. (The mom thing seriously happened two separate times. We're both in our 30s.) It's awesome to browse tables of advertisers and chat with community groups without having to have my antennae out to figure out whether the bed and breakfast or wellness center is queer-friendly, or smile and nod politely while I make a mental note to go look on their website later to see if I can figure out if I'd be welcome there.
Happy Pride, everyone.
This is something I heard hundreds of times today, from friends and family and from strangers.
Yet I've had exactly four non-GLBT people ask me this week if I was going to pride or otherwise mention that his week is pride week.
On my Facebook feed and in the blogs I read, I'm mostly seeing comments about how people don't like pride anymore, because it's become corporate and is dominated by "PFLAGs and churches" and lacks the grassroots community groups that were once central to the event.
These observations aren't inaccurate. The fees to march in the parade this year (without a vehicle, which costs more) were $140 for non-profits, $40 for student groups, and $220 for other groups (if the group registered before February 28; registration went up every few months and was $875/$250/$1375 after June 1). The fees are the same regardless of whether your non-profit or for-profit runs out of your basement and might not have the resources of Children's Hospital or Home Depot. Certainly, the fees alone shut out a lot of small, local groups.
Still, I argue that pride is needed even more now that we're in a place that we more-or-less have legal rights (we still are hugely lacking, and our trans brothers and sisters even more so). People seem to have forgotten about their GLBT friends and family and coworkers and neighbors, if they notice us at all. In most of my circles, I'm surrounded by mostly straight folks. Which is fine, most of the time, but it points out to me every day that we're still largely invisible and why this "I treat queer people just like anyone else and hardly even remember that you're queer" stuff doesn't work.
As I said, exactly four non-queer people realized that it's pride week and asked if I was going or wished me happy pride. I have far more homophobic experiences in any given week. Or day, actually. And I get far more people asking about my plans for holidays that I don't celebrate or asking if I'm going to notoriously homophobic/transphobic events.
This is why pride still matters. If a bunch of giant corporations that have no major financial reason to give a rat's ass about queers in Boston realize that it's pride week and have taken the time and effort to have a presence at the parade, then surely people who have daily or weekly personal interactions with queer folks can bother to remember that we're queer and make sure they include us and are sensitive to us in their language and their worldviews.
 Look, more effort from freakin' Home Depot than from most of the people I actually know |
Beyond that, it's just nice to have a day in which I actually feel community and I'm not the "other." Where my family and I go up to a booth and look at necklaces and a stranger tells me that one's really cute and I should totally buy it for my wife, when most of the time I get asked by not-exactly-strangers if she's my sister or my mom, or asked by a well-meaning coworker how anyone would possibly know I'm gay, not realizing that queers and allies actually listen and look for what someone is putting out there rather than assuming everyone is straight unless they outright say otherwise. (The mom thing seriously happened two separate times. We're both in our 30s.) It's awesome to browse tables of advertisers and chat with community groups without having to have my antennae out to figure out whether the bed and breakfast or wellness center is queer-friendly, or smile and nod politely while I make a mental note to go look on their website later to see if I can figure out if I'd be welcome there.
Happy Pride, everyone.
Banks, you make no sense
(To give some background, my credit is like many Americans' -- I have never paid a bill late in my life and all my accounts show as "paying as agreed," but I have a lot of debt.)
A few weeks ago, I tried to refinance my car, which is currently worth about 150% of what I owe on it. I tried for any combination of lowering the rate, extending the term, or taking out the full market value and getting cash back. I wanted to do this because we have a healthcare loan that's going to charge us horrendous retroactive interest if we don't pay it off by next month.
I got a bunch of letters saying the banks wouldn't refinance my car because of too much debt. As in, they were not willing to even let me use equity I already have in it and close out the old loan and have me make my exact same monthly payment that I'm obviously capable of making (or a smaller one) to them instead. They decided I was at too high a risk of not paying them, despite having never not paid a bill in my life.
On a whim, I decided to try opening up a credit card with a 0.0% interest rate for a year, thinking I could pay off my medical debt this way. This seems to be a much riskier move on the banks' parts, because the amount I could put on the card isn't backed up by anything and can't be towed away, plus it would be expanding my entire available credit since it wouldn't close out the old loan like a car refinance would.
The card and all its fine print showed up today. Not only did they approve me, but the limit is high enough that I could damn near put the car on the card, were that not a stupid financial move and questionably legal. I guess it makes sense that banks are counting on people to take forever to pay the card, thus eventually paying them a lot of interest, but still, it's odd. The same bank was not willing to close out my car loan and accept the same payment I'd been making for three years, but they were willing to give me almost as much money on a credit card with no interest and a 3% balance transfer fee. They're actually going to make less money off of me this way.
A few weeks ago, I tried to refinance my car, which is currently worth about 150% of what I owe on it. I tried for any combination of lowering the rate, extending the term, or taking out the full market value and getting cash back. I wanted to do this because we have a healthcare loan that's going to charge us horrendous retroactive interest if we don't pay it off by next month.
I got a bunch of letters saying the banks wouldn't refinance my car because of too much debt. As in, they were not willing to even let me use equity I already have in it and close out the old loan and have me make my exact same monthly payment that I'm obviously capable of making (or a smaller one) to them instead. They decided I was at too high a risk of not paying them, despite having never not paid a bill in my life.
On a whim, I decided to try opening up a credit card with a 0.0% interest rate for a year, thinking I could pay off my medical debt this way. This seems to be a much riskier move on the banks' parts, because the amount I could put on the card isn't backed up by anything and can't be towed away, plus it would be expanding my entire available credit since it wouldn't close out the old loan like a car refinance would.
The card and all its fine print showed up today. Not only did they approve me, but the limit is high enough that I could damn near put the car on the card, were that not a stupid financial move and questionably legal. I guess it makes sense that banks are counting on people to take forever to pay the card, thus eventually paying them a lot of interest, but still, it's odd. The same bank was not willing to close out my car loan and accept the same payment I'd been making for three years, but they were willing to give me almost as much money on a credit card with no interest and a 3% balance transfer fee. They're actually going to make less money off of me this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)