I've gotten a lot of questions recently about my push (no pun intended) to become a midwife and its relevance. I think a lot of people who ask me why on earth this is something I would want to do see it through the same scope of scrutiny that the majority of the public in our country does: that a midwife is a glorified nurse, someone who tries to do the job of a doctor with less pay, less education, less experience, and in a more dangerous setting with far more things going wrong. And to a degree, I can't fault them, because that's really all the general public ever hears about midwives. The media throws around all the horror stories, tales of home births gone wrong, of midwives who abuse their position of power over a patient, or of (and this in my opinion is the worst) otherwise fully trained and accredited midwives who try to practice in a state where either their entire profession or their chosen route is somehow illegal and although nothing bad has ever happened, they're turned in for practicing medicine without a license.
When that's all anybody sees or hears, who can blame this country for having such a negative view of midwifery?
The sad thing is, I can't. And believe me, I'm not looking at this from a completely rosy perspective; I understand that things can and do go wrong during otherwise normal birth processes. I understand that no two women or births are alike, and that a woman's supposedly low-risk status isn't a reason to stay on my toes and listen to that voice in the back of my head that wants me to be ready for any possibility. I get that there will be some patients, unfortunately, that I will have to turn away - not because of an inability on my behalf, but because for whatever reason the information they've presented to me or that I've gathered through examining them indicates to me that they might be safer in a more medical setting where the potential care they would need is readily available. I know those things and I've come to accept them, whether or not I want to.
And I know, too, that even the accreditation process carries some inherent risk. I'm a part of a Yahoo group for new and student midwives, and there has been a discussion going on recently about an unfortunate woman who was working as a student (as-of-yet unlicensed) midwife who showed up to a birth before her preceptors (teachers/more or less the women she was apprenticed to). She had everything set up and was ready to go, waiting for them to arrive, but while they were waiting, the baby crowned and showed up a bit faster than anticipated. The parents insisted that despite not having the birth attended by a licensed midwife, that they not transfer (this is where, perhaps, some things were questionable, but without all the details it's hard to know for sure why the parents decided this, and why the student agreed). Afterwards, there seemed to be some pieces of the placenta left over in the mother's uterus, and she was beginning to hemorrhage - so the student, thinking fast, did what was medically necessary to stop the bleeding. Mom and baby were fine. After the fact, a doula at some point discussed the happenings with other midwives, and the student ended up reported to the authorities and was charged with several felonies, including - you guessed it - practicing medicine without a license. Because of this charge, she'll never be able to finish her schooling and become a midwife, and will never be able to hold any state license for any medical field.
Now, working off of core facts, there is a HUGE question here: should the student have continued to honor the parents wishes and acted as she did, or should she have taken a step back and refused to provide any care and called 911? Obviously the choice has already been made, but there are a lot of technicalities here that I think would make this decision difficult for anyone, experienced student or new. It's one of the many problems that I may or may not personally face, and it's impossible for me to say for sure what I would have done (I'd like to think I KNOW what I would have done, but we always say that about ourselves without likely ever finding out the truth). I may face worse problems, bigger problems, along the way. May every god and goddess in every pantheon forbid it, I might well face the death of a client and/or her child. I can't even begin to process that concept, because it's just too "out there" for me, but it is a possibility, however unwelcome and tragic and horrifying.
But it's part of the job. Doctors face the same thing, only they rarely have to worry about consequences from a family because, if they've proven themselves competent and they've done everything they have to to satisfy their insurance and hospital policy, then most of the time, they're off the hook - even if a bunch of medical interference is what might have contributed to the death in the first place.
And it's something that I'll have to accept, something I'm working on accepting even now, when I haven't even been accepted (that's a lot of accepting) into the nursing program at the college I'm at. I'm still taking prerequesets and applying. I'm not even a quarter of the way there yet.
So why, despite all of these horrible things that could or might happen, do I still feel called to become a midwife?
Because I know how beautiful and amazing birth can be. Because my experiences have been not-so-great, because I've learned the trauma of having someone by your side who has pledged to help protect you from the unnecessary who then steps away at the last minute and chooses to be less than supportive. Because I have been bullied into decisions and interventions that I know (thank you, hindsight) were unnecessary or potentially harmful. Because even after making up my mind and setting my jaw and telling my OB what I would or would not allow, I was still told that in the long run my wishes were secondary to hospital policy, or "what was allowed". Because I know that my experiences and the experiences of so many other women who are now completely jaded to the birthing process do not have to be the experiences of EVERY woman. Because I know birth can be better, happier, more relaxed, and can be allowed to progress on its own without inherently risking the safety of anyone involved. Because I know and believe that women and babies deserve better, and should have better, but that it will take an entirely new generation of midwives who are able and ready to fight the system of heavily medicalized births that have become so common in so many areas.
Because I can, and I want to, and I think it's right.
Isn't that the biggest reason that anybody does anything they believe in?
When we know better, we do better.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
On the Matter of "My Parents ___________ and I Turned Out Fine"
I hate that phrase. I hate it because it insinuates that whatever we learn about life, parenting, or existence is irrelevant, somehow invalidated by the fact that our parents or relatives did things differently while we were growing up, and since we were fortunate enough to not suffer any ill effects that we're aware of, the way things were done for us must be good enough. The logical fallacies here are insane, and to me painfully obvious, but many parents may as well be wearing blinders to this topic.
So why doesn't anybody seem to understand why this reasoning is faulty? Let's consider a few things that often seem to factor into a person's usage of this defense.
First, people typically hate implying that somehow their parents raised them in a sub par way, or that their parents - despite not knowing any differently - were taking a potentially life-threatening risk while raising them. And I understand that need to believe, because most of the time, to a point, the reasoning is true: our parents did the best they could, and usually they didn't have the information or access to information that we have. Their choices were informed to a fault. Today, though, we're lucky enough to have the ability to research almost any choice or option, and there is no end of accessible opinions, either online or in books. So where do we draw the line and decide what is a choice made out of ignorance, and what is a choice made of WILLFUL ignorance?
For me, the line is drawn right here, right now. There is no excuse anymore, no excuse for not knowing or wondering - no excuse for accepting tradition. And why should we, when tradition means cutting off parts of our sons, or allowing doctors who are notorious for not disclosing all of the necessary information to make a truly informed decision as to our medical care inject us with harmful substances, then lie about or neglect to mention their potential effects on ourselves and our children? Why should we allow tradition to be the early forced evacuation from the womb of babies who otherwise have no medical need to be born early? Why should we risk the lives of children, of mothers, of families everywhere by ignoring the blatant, obvious benefits of breastfeeding and breastmilk, benefits that have been proven time and time again through numerous studies, while we tout formula as being somehow equal, if not better? Why do we do all of these things?
Because it's easy. Because the idea that somehow our parents might have made mistakes is beyond us; because we want to imagine we were given the BEST, instead of labeling it as what it truly is: the best that was POSSIBLE. That does not make it the best of all circumstances, or the absolute best option regardless of other choices that could have been made. It is almost legitimate to say that the parents of a boy circumcised in 1978 made that decision because at the time it was simply something that wasn't discussed in any circle, medical or otherwise, it was just an accepted truth; today, only 55-65% of newborn boys are circumcised for secular reasons, and it's figured that this number is dropping sharply every month. The difference, of course, is that now people are openly discussing circumcision and its harmful side effects; men who were circumcised as children are willingly coming out and explaining the pain and trauma they've experienced throughout their lives thanks to a choice made by someone who assumed control over their body. Mothers are being ASKED if they wish to circumcise their sons; while this is far from perfect, it's better than the previous assumption that it would be done. There are forums discussing it, websites and books and magazines and organizations dedicated to the idea that the ability to circumcise should be the choice of an informed adult, and not a choice made for a helpless newborn.
The idea of bodily autonomy is becoming mainstream, and is edging its way into becoming a legitimate, accepted topic of conversation among parents and medical professionals.
So is the fact that circumcision used to be so common that it was often performed without permission or informed consent a reason to continue to do it? Is the fact that a majority of the adult (18+) male population of the United States circumcised (likely at birth), completely unaware of what they lost through circumcision, and thus willing to speak out and say that somehow circumcision at birth is "okay", a good reason to continue to advocate for it?
Of course not. What worked for our parents - our grandparents - our ancestors ten or twenty times removed - is not necessarily the best choice for us. It is no reason to accept that the previous generation's "normal" should be the "normal" that our children grow up with; no reason to willingly blind ourselves to the truth because we don't want to consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, the choices of our parents were not the BEST choice. Best POSSIBLE is no excuse for us now, in the information age; if we are able to provide the BEST, it is our duty as parents, as mothers, as fathers, as caretakers, as those who have given birth and witnessed birth, as those who assist and those who deliver, to make sure that if we are CAPABLE of providing the BEST that we do so - and that we ask every possible question along the way.
So why doesn't anybody seem to understand why this reasoning is faulty? Let's consider a few things that often seem to factor into a person's usage of this defense.
First, people typically hate implying that somehow their parents raised them in a sub par way, or that their parents - despite not knowing any differently - were taking a potentially life-threatening risk while raising them. And I understand that need to believe, because most of the time, to a point, the reasoning is true: our parents did the best they could, and usually they didn't have the information or access to information that we have. Their choices were informed to a fault. Today, though, we're lucky enough to have the ability to research almost any choice or option, and there is no end of accessible opinions, either online or in books. So where do we draw the line and decide what is a choice made out of ignorance, and what is a choice made of WILLFUL ignorance?
For me, the line is drawn right here, right now. There is no excuse anymore, no excuse for not knowing or wondering - no excuse for accepting tradition. And why should we, when tradition means cutting off parts of our sons, or allowing doctors who are notorious for not disclosing all of the necessary information to make a truly informed decision as to our medical care inject us with harmful substances, then lie about or neglect to mention their potential effects on ourselves and our children? Why should we allow tradition to be the early forced evacuation from the womb of babies who otherwise have no medical need to be born early? Why should we risk the lives of children, of mothers, of families everywhere by ignoring the blatant, obvious benefits of breastfeeding and breastmilk, benefits that have been proven time and time again through numerous studies, while we tout formula as being somehow equal, if not better? Why do we do all of these things?
Because it's easy. Because the idea that somehow our parents might have made mistakes is beyond us; because we want to imagine we were given the BEST, instead of labeling it as what it truly is: the best that was POSSIBLE. That does not make it the best of all circumstances, or the absolute best option regardless of other choices that could have been made. It is almost legitimate to say that the parents of a boy circumcised in 1978 made that decision because at the time it was simply something that wasn't discussed in any circle, medical or otherwise, it was just an accepted truth; today, only 55-65% of newborn boys are circumcised for secular reasons, and it's figured that this number is dropping sharply every month. The difference, of course, is that now people are openly discussing circumcision and its harmful side effects; men who were circumcised as children are willingly coming out and explaining the pain and trauma they've experienced throughout their lives thanks to a choice made by someone who assumed control over their body. Mothers are being ASKED if they wish to circumcise their sons; while this is far from perfect, it's better than the previous assumption that it would be done. There are forums discussing it, websites and books and magazines and organizations dedicated to the idea that the ability to circumcise should be the choice of an informed adult, and not a choice made for a helpless newborn.
The idea of bodily autonomy is becoming mainstream, and is edging its way into becoming a legitimate, accepted topic of conversation among parents and medical professionals.
So is the fact that circumcision used to be so common that it was often performed without permission or informed consent a reason to continue to do it? Is the fact that a majority of the adult (18+) male population of the United States circumcised (likely at birth), completely unaware of what they lost through circumcision, and thus willing to speak out and say that somehow circumcision at birth is "okay", a good reason to continue to advocate for it?
Of course not. What worked for our parents - our grandparents - our ancestors ten or twenty times removed - is not necessarily the best choice for us. It is no reason to accept that the previous generation's "normal" should be the "normal" that our children grow up with; no reason to willingly blind ourselves to the truth because we don't want to consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, the choices of our parents were not the BEST choice. Best POSSIBLE is no excuse for us now, in the information age; if we are able to provide the BEST, it is our duty as parents, as mothers, as fathers, as caretakers, as those who have given birth and witnessed birth, as those who assist and those who deliver, to make sure that if we are CAPABLE of providing the BEST that we do so - and that we ask every possible question along the way.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Getting back on track - a homebirthing post
Well, we're finally about as settled in as we're going to get, minus some unpacking. The kids are working on regulating their schedules again, for all the good it's going to do; in less than a week I'll be starting fall classes at the local community college, and at the end of the month G will start his first year of preschool. My babies are growing up so fast; G is learning to cope and we've been given an idea of just how smart he is, and A is following right after his big brother in picking up on skills, verbalizing, and generally learning to express himself. We're still struggling financially but we haven't been here long enough to really see the fruits of our labors, and I'm hoping that it won't be long before we really get an idea of just how good for us this move really is (even if it's just a financial good and not an emotional good).
On my list of things to rant about today is something I'm realizing is truly becoming a very big, very dangerous problem: The attempt by a relatively large grouping of people to eradicate a woman's right and ability to give birth at home, regardless of her choice of prenatal care. I'm finding that the vast majority of the people behind this push to end homebirthing have either never had a child at home (or perhaps haven't had any children at all), or have experienced a traumatic homebirth with extreme repercussions, up to and including losing their child. While the former group I mostly ignore (because I'm horrible like that), the latter I do give some credence to. These are individuals and families that have been through something horrifying; if they didn't lose their child (or perhaps Mom), what they went through was at least enough to make them think twice about their experience. Whatever happened was enough for them to want to quantify all homebirths as identical, with the same risks but no real plausible benefits, as an inherently dangerous situation that could have been avoided if it had been a law that a purposeful homebirth cannot happen.
And to that, I say, bullshit.
Please don't get me wrong. I am a rational person and while I have not even remotely experienced the same trauma and loss and pain as these families, I have felt a similar sensation and I admittedly wondered to myself if what I had been through only could have been avoided IF. That's a big word right there, and it carries with it a LOT of suggestions and hindsight. It implies that someone could and should have looked into the future to predict the outcome of a single, individual birth experience, and that the one person capable of doing that had the responsibility of informing the parents from the outset so that a totally different set of decisions could have been made. It implies that somehow every birth SHOULD be the same, and that even though seasoned medical professionals agree that every birth is completely different and progresses differently, somehow, every birth should be predictable and identical. That mindset is why so many women are pressured into birthing in hospitals under the care of OBs, when they would be likely in better hands with a midwife, and why so many women experience identical interventions and outcomes. It is why OBs are trained to expect certain events to occur within a certain subset of time, and when they don't, the interventions begin. It's why interventions are almost guaranteed to lead to the same path, and why all of those paths either end at or dangerously close to a c-section.
The truth is that a woman who is considered low risk and who is otherwise healthy, with an otherwise healthy baby, regardless of how many children she might have had previously, is better off at home. The fact that there are individuals who exist who have unfortunately lost children is irrelevant; there are as many, if not more, babies who are lost during or because of interventions and medications while in hospitals. More mothers pass away during unnecessary surgeries. More women are stripped of their fertility and womanhood during surgeries or procedures that go wrong, things that would otherwise not occur in a home setting where an educated attending midwife could manage any "normal" problems in a number of ways that don't involve knowingly causing trauma to mother or child. More babies and mothers become ill while in hospitals because of the inherent transfer of diseases, be they airborne or through hospital staff who do not properly cleanse themselves. More mothers and babies experience stress because they are outside of a familiar setting, because they cannot calm down and properly continue their lives because they know that they will be heading home instead of already being there. Breastfeeding relationships are strained and put in danger. More women experience postpartum depression.
There will be more to this rant, given time - I am not as lucid right now as I'd like to be when making such an important point. Eating will help. Meanwhile, I have a request: if you see fit, I would greatly appreciate any applicable donations to my PayPal account so that I may reactivate my Ancestry.com subscription for at least one month. A month of the information I would need access to is $29.99 and it would give me an opportunity to do a LOT of work on my family tree that has gone untended for some time now. If you see fit to donate to me for this purpose, I'd love you forever. :P My PayPal email address is skiefangor[at]gmail[dot]com (obvious replacements necessary).
Much love to you all! And a far more coherent post coming soon, I promise.
On my list of things to rant about today is something I'm realizing is truly becoming a very big, very dangerous problem: The attempt by a relatively large grouping of people to eradicate a woman's right and ability to give birth at home, regardless of her choice of prenatal care. I'm finding that the vast majority of the people behind this push to end homebirthing have either never had a child at home (or perhaps haven't had any children at all), or have experienced a traumatic homebirth with extreme repercussions, up to and including losing their child. While the former group I mostly ignore (because I'm horrible like that), the latter I do give some credence to. These are individuals and families that have been through something horrifying; if they didn't lose their child (or perhaps Mom), what they went through was at least enough to make them think twice about their experience. Whatever happened was enough for them to want to quantify all homebirths as identical, with the same risks but no real plausible benefits, as an inherently dangerous situation that could have been avoided if it had been a law that a purposeful homebirth cannot happen.
And to that, I say, bullshit.
Please don't get me wrong. I am a rational person and while I have not even remotely experienced the same trauma and loss and pain as these families, I have felt a similar sensation and I admittedly wondered to myself if what I had been through only could have been avoided IF. That's a big word right there, and it carries with it a LOT of suggestions and hindsight. It implies that someone could and should have looked into the future to predict the outcome of a single, individual birth experience, and that the one person capable of doing that had the responsibility of informing the parents from the outset so that a totally different set of decisions could have been made. It implies that somehow every birth SHOULD be the same, and that even though seasoned medical professionals agree that every birth is completely different and progresses differently, somehow, every birth should be predictable and identical. That mindset is why so many women are pressured into birthing in hospitals under the care of OBs, when they would be likely in better hands with a midwife, and why so many women experience identical interventions and outcomes. It is why OBs are trained to expect certain events to occur within a certain subset of time, and when they don't, the interventions begin. It's why interventions are almost guaranteed to lead to the same path, and why all of those paths either end at or dangerously close to a c-section.
The truth is that a woman who is considered low risk and who is otherwise healthy, with an otherwise healthy baby, regardless of how many children she might have had previously, is better off at home. The fact that there are individuals who exist who have unfortunately lost children is irrelevant; there are as many, if not more, babies who are lost during or because of interventions and medications while in hospitals. More mothers pass away during unnecessary surgeries. More women are stripped of their fertility and womanhood during surgeries or procedures that go wrong, things that would otherwise not occur in a home setting where an educated attending midwife could manage any "normal" problems in a number of ways that don't involve knowingly causing trauma to mother or child. More babies and mothers become ill while in hospitals because of the inherent transfer of diseases, be they airborne or through hospital staff who do not properly cleanse themselves. More mothers and babies experience stress because they are outside of a familiar setting, because they cannot calm down and properly continue their lives because they know that they will be heading home instead of already being there. Breastfeeding relationships are strained and put in danger. More women experience postpartum depression.
There will be more to this rant, given time - I am not as lucid right now as I'd like to be when making such an important point. Eating will help. Meanwhile, I have a request: if you see fit, I would greatly appreciate any applicable donations to my PayPal account so that I may reactivate my Ancestry.com subscription for at least one month. A month of the information I would need access to is $29.99 and it would give me an opportunity to do a LOT of work on my family tree that has gone untended for some time now. If you see fit to donate to me for this purpose, I'd love you forever. :P My PayPal email address is skiefangor[at]gmail[dot]com (obvious replacements necessary).
Much love to you all! And a far more coherent post coming soon, I promise.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
When good goes bad
(Alternatively titled, in which I bitch a lot and am unable to see the good in things.)
We were behind on rent.
Two months, to be specific; we saw it coming because I left my job to go back to school to become an RN. I saw something I could do, that I wouldn't hate, that would pay well. I knew getting there would be a huge pain. I didn't know trying to get there would completely conflict with our lives and drive us this far.
Let me back up.
We were behind on rent and our landlord knew it. They'd been understanding about us paying late, up until it came to the point that we literally couldn't pay anymore; we kept them in the loop as much as possible but there was never really much to report. $775 a month plus all the rest of our bills was impossible on one income and questionable student loan money. We were in over our heads. Last week we were given notice to produce $1700 in cash to our landlord or face immediate eviction. My student loan payment came in, we handed just about all of it over a day late (after calling them and letting them know we had no choice; the bank put a hold on the check), and after taking and counting it our landlord informed us that he would be unable to renew our lease. We have about three weeks - not even a full month - to find someplace else to live and move completely.
This is our fifth move in about as many years.
Our kids don't remember the other places we lived. In 2007 I moved out of my mom's house into a house on the southwest side of town with what ended up being six other people by the time we found out we were pregnant and left. Our next house, on the west side of Broadway, was actually a one-bedroom apartment on the very hot third floor of a very old house. We had no storage, the air conditioning rarely functioned, and the place had problems - including the landlord - that we won't discuss. Suffice to say the guy wasn't all that nice, and after G was born we escaped, having stayed not even a year from fall of 2007 to summer of 2008. After living with my mom for a short time, we hopped immediately into another building, one on 12th Street, just off Broadway. We thought it was a good deal as even though it was technically only a one bedroom because it was the lower half of an old house, we had the basement to ourselves, a dedicated parking lot, we could convert a room into a bedroom, and we were doing okay. Spring of 2009 saw us moving before our lease was up, this time because the bank across the street that owned it was tearing the building - and two others - down to make more parking for the other tenants in the building it was located within. The assistant manager bullied us into another house they owned, and we were stupid and said yes, and again we moved. A couple of weeks after we got everything into our new home, A came along. G had his own room, we had our own room, we had a basement, a deck, the whole house was our's - but structural issues (ask anyone who had been in that house) and issues with the bank that owned it (they wanted us to rent to own, and we knew we couldn't own that house with the problems it had) left us yet again searching for someplace new. Summer of 2010 we moved yet again, living for a couple of months with my mother again, and swore it would be the last time, into the house we're in now.
But I had been sucked into a stupid "make money quick" scheme in the form of Combined Insurance, and it wasn't long before Hubby was unemployed and in a deep depression over it, and I wasn't doing much better. We struggled, hard, and for the longest time we only made ends meet because of assistance from parents. And it sucked, more than I could ever describe, but our landlords were as understanding as we could have possibly hoped they would be. The fact of the matter is that we can't afford this house. So they're refusing to renew our lease, which they have every right to do. I can't blame them. It is what it is.
But that doesn't make it any easier on us.
I'm really, really depressed right now. This happened about two and a half hours ago and I'm still desperately trying to process the fact that no matter where we go, we don't have the money right now for a new house - so we're going to be living with someone else for a while. It's less than ideal in every way, shape, and form, but it is what it is. We can't change what is. We have been beyond lucky, beyond blessed to spend a year in a structurally sound, safe house in a good neighborhood where there is no drug trafficking or other crime, within walking distance of everything we'd need. We have busted ass to try to live the American dream, in a house with a back yard that was all our's, with a carport that we didn't have to share, in a house that didn't have a crumbling ceiling or tilted floors or sinking, half-destroyed foundation. We have been amazingly lucky to live someplace where everything was our's and we weren't trying to share space with other people and always feel like we were imposing on someone else's belongings, space, or sanity. We have lived, for what will amount to be one day shy of one year, the life we have so desperately wanted for ourselves and more importantly for our children.
Now, even though Hubby is working two jobs (one of which may pan out into something much better), and although I am in school busting my butt to make a better life for my family, we have to change how we do things. In the next three weeks we will be heavily downsizing, packing, sorting, setting up at least one yard sale, and selling a deal of our belongings. What we cannot sell will go into storage with my mom's assistance. We will be making huge sacrifices and unfortunately will be asking way, way too much of two very small children.
But things will continue to be, as they always have been, what they are.
I will do my best to continue posting in here as frequently as possible. I have no intention of dropping this blog. It is too frequently my sanity; it has gone beyond being a place for me to share the things I feel most passionately about. I just can't promise all my posts will be happy, useful, or long. I can't promise how often I'll be posting. I want to finish up my developmental psychology class completely, since it's online, before we move, and I still need to finish my human anatomy and physiology class, which I have to do as it goes. I will be going back to school in the fall, and then the spring all over again. I hope that we won't be staying long wherever we end up - we've been welcomed nearly indefinitely into two different households. We don't know right now where we're going to end up.
We were behind on rent.
Two months, to be specific; we saw it coming because I left my job to go back to school to become an RN. I saw something I could do, that I wouldn't hate, that would pay well. I knew getting there would be a huge pain. I didn't know trying to get there would completely conflict with our lives and drive us this far.
Let me back up.
We were behind on rent and our landlord knew it. They'd been understanding about us paying late, up until it came to the point that we literally couldn't pay anymore; we kept them in the loop as much as possible but there was never really much to report. $775 a month plus all the rest of our bills was impossible on one income and questionable student loan money. We were in over our heads. Last week we were given notice to produce $1700 in cash to our landlord or face immediate eviction. My student loan payment came in, we handed just about all of it over a day late (after calling them and letting them know we had no choice; the bank put a hold on the check), and after taking and counting it our landlord informed us that he would be unable to renew our lease. We have about three weeks - not even a full month - to find someplace else to live and move completely.
This is our fifth move in about as many years.
Our kids don't remember the other places we lived. In 2007 I moved out of my mom's house into a house on the southwest side of town with what ended up being six other people by the time we found out we were pregnant and left. Our next house, on the west side of Broadway, was actually a one-bedroom apartment on the very hot third floor of a very old house. We had no storage, the air conditioning rarely functioned, and the place had problems - including the landlord - that we won't discuss. Suffice to say the guy wasn't all that nice, and after G was born we escaped, having stayed not even a year from fall of 2007 to summer of 2008. After living with my mom for a short time, we hopped immediately into another building, one on 12th Street, just off Broadway. We thought it was a good deal as even though it was technically only a one bedroom because it was the lower half of an old house, we had the basement to ourselves, a dedicated parking lot, we could convert a room into a bedroom, and we were doing okay. Spring of 2009 saw us moving before our lease was up, this time because the bank across the street that owned it was tearing the building - and two others - down to make more parking for the other tenants in the building it was located within. The assistant manager bullied us into another house they owned, and we were stupid and said yes, and again we moved. A couple of weeks after we got everything into our new home, A came along. G had his own room, we had our own room, we had a basement, a deck, the whole house was our's - but structural issues (ask anyone who had been in that house) and issues with the bank that owned it (they wanted us to rent to own, and we knew we couldn't own that house with the problems it had) left us yet again searching for someplace new. Summer of 2010 we moved yet again, living for a couple of months with my mother again, and swore it would be the last time, into the house we're in now.
But I had been sucked into a stupid "make money quick" scheme in the form of Combined Insurance, and it wasn't long before Hubby was unemployed and in a deep depression over it, and I wasn't doing much better. We struggled, hard, and for the longest time we only made ends meet because of assistance from parents. And it sucked, more than I could ever describe, but our landlords were as understanding as we could have possibly hoped they would be. The fact of the matter is that we can't afford this house. So they're refusing to renew our lease, which they have every right to do. I can't blame them. It is what it is.
But that doesn't make it any easier on us.
I'm really, really depressed right now. This happened about two and a half hours ago and I'm still desperately trying to process the fact that no matter where we go, we don't have the money right now for a new house - so we're going to be living with someone else for a while. It's less than ideal in every way, shape, and form, but it is what it is. We can't change what is. We have been beyond lucky, beyond blessed to spend a year in a structurally sound, safe house in a good neighborhood where there is no drug trafficking or other crime, within walking distance of everything we'd need. We have busted ass to try to live the American dream, in a house with a back yard that was all our's, with a carport that we didn't have to share, in a house that didn't have a crumbling ceiling or tilted floors or sinking, half-destroyed foundation. We have been amazingly lucky to live someplace where everything was our's and we weren't trying to share space with other people and always feel like we were imposing on someone else's belongings, space, or sanity. We have lived, for what will amount to be one day shy of one year, the life we have so desperately wanted for ourselves and more importantly for our children.
Now, even though Hubby is working two jobs (one of which may pan out into something much better), and although I am in school busting my butt to make a better life for my family, we have to change how we do things. In the next three weeks we will be heavily downsizing, packing, sorting, setting up at least one yard sale, and selling a deal of our belongings. What we cannot sell will go into storage with my mom's assistance. We will be making huge sacrifices and unfortunately will be asking way, way too much of two very small children.
But things will continue to be, as they always have been, what they are.
I will do my best to continue posting in here as frequently as possible. I have no intention of dropping this blog. It is too frequently my sanity; it has gone beyond being a place for me to share the things I feel most passionately about. I just can't promise all my posts will be happy, useful, or long. I can't promise how often I'll be posting. I want to finish up my developmental psychology class completely, since it's online, before we move, and I still need to finish my human anatomy and physiology class, which I have to do as it goes. I will be going back to school in the fall, and then the spring all over again. I hope that we won't be staying long wherever we end up - we've been welcomed nearly indefinitely into two different households. We don't know right now where we're going to end up.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Jimmy John's: You should know
I used to love Jimmy John's. Cheap food, not entirely horrible for you. Not organic or even really natural, but I could pack on veggies and eat something yummy and know it was from a business that started here in my home state. I had seen nothing but good things come from JJ's and I liked how their restaurants were set up. All in all, I figured it was a win-win situation to order from them. Fast, yummy food. And that was fine with me.
Except then this popped up from Smile Politely, an online magazine from the Champaign-Urbana area in Illinois where JJ's originated: Jimmy John's is a big man. With the photos to prove it.
And I won't lie, I kind of choked a little. PLEASE be warned, there are somewhat graphic images. Not horribly so, but if you're like me and happen to like animals - especially ones like elephants and large felines - you're probably going to feel kind of ill.
Now, I want to preface this with a statement: I don't mind hunting. I understand there are some populations of some species of animals that are a nuisance to us both agriculturally and travel-wise, like deer and geese, and I have no problem with hunting these animals. Raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, turkeys, whatever. Go for it. As long as you aren't just hunting for trophies, as long as you aren't being wasteful, have at. Get your tags, do your duty as a hunter. I may not participate, but I'm not bothered by your choice to do so.
But elephants? Leopards? Brown bears? The elephant shown in the pictures at the site above is more than likely an African bush elephant, which while not endangered, is struggling to maintain its natural habitat and is considered to have a conservation status of "vulnerable" which is only one step above "endangered". These are animals that are only, within the last few dozen years, beginning to come back to their natural grounds. They still suffer from poaching in areas where hunting them is illegal. They are still being killed for only their ivory. And since elephants have no real usage otherwise, I will guarantee you that Mr. Liautaud left that lovely corpse (or was it two?) there to rot. Thanks a bunch.
And what about that spotted leopard he's shown holding up like a huge children's stuffy? While it isn't yet in the threatened category, it is listed as "near threatened" because excessive hunting and loss of habitat have decreased its natural roaming ground drastically. In fact, experts warn that populations of spotted leopards may actually be extinct in North Africa, making hunting them for sport an unwise move. It doesn't take much hunting to throw a population from "near threatened" to hovering near extinct, as we've found out with too many other animals in the wild.
And there's that brown bear. Of all the animals he went off killing - and who knows how many more there were for which we have no picture proof? - the brown bear is the only one listed as "least concern" on the conservation status list. Grizzlies also fall under this status, and I'm no expert: I don't know if the bear in that picture is grizzly or brown. However, don't let their status fool you. At a population of somewhere around 200,000, its range has shrunk considerably in the last hundred years and it has gone completely extinct in some areas where it once proliferated. The movement of humans into areas where we once didn't live so openly has had a lot to do with this. Still, is it necessary to purposefully sport-hunt such majestic creatures who are hovering close to a threatened status?
Well, I went and mentioned that article on JJ's Facebook page. You'd never believe what happened: I came back from putting the kids to bed, after politely posting it and noting on there that I was simply curious as to what had happened and wanted to know why on earth he was sport hunting these animals, and found that my "Like" status had been removed, as had my commenting abilities. I can still go re-like the page, but I cannot post anymore. No more comments, nothing. Anything relating to my commentary is gone - as it if never happened.
The problem I have with this is that regular people don't get to go spend the amount of money it takes to go safari in Africa and sport-hunt huge animals. Only people with massive amounts of money are given that privilege - and thanks to every single person who has ever purchased from his company, he gets to claim the status of "filthy rich".
I know, it's up to you as a consumer to decide who you will and won't support. But remember that it's your money - and if you wouldn't head to Africa or Alaska just to kill some near-endangered animals, I'd suggest not purposefully supporting those who do.
If you're wondering if that's really him, it is. Here's a link from an article in another paper with a picture of him for comparison. We're looking at the same guy and those aren't shopped images.
And for good measure, I have gone to re-like the page to show that I really have had my commenting abilities taken away:
Except then this popped up from Smile Politely, an online magazine from the Champaign-Urbana area in Illinois where JJ's originated: Jimmy John's is a big man. With the photos to prove it.
And I won't lie, I kind of choked a little. PLEASE be warned, there are somewhat graphic images. Not horribly so, but if you're like me and happen to like animals - especially ones like elephants and large felines - you're probably going to feel kind of ill.
Now, I want to preface this with a statement: I don't mind hunting. I understand there are some populations of some species of animals that are a nuisance to us both agriculturally and travel-wise, like deer and geese, and I have no problem with hunting these animals. Raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, turkeys, whatever. Go for it. As long as you aren't just hunting for trophies, as long as you aren't being wasteful, have at. Get your tags, do your duty as a hunter. I may not participate, but I'm not bothered by your choice to do so.
But elephants? Leopards? Brown bears? The elephant shown in the pictures at the site above is more than likely an African bush elephant, which while not endangered, is struggling to maintain its natural habitat and is considered to have a conservation status of "vulnerable" which is only one step above "endangered". These are animals that are only, within the last few dozen years, beginning to come back to their natural grounds. They still suffer from poaching in areas where hunting them is illegal. They are still being killed for only their ivory. And since elephants have no real usage otherwise, I will guarantee you that Mr. Liautaud left that lovely corpse (or was it two?) there to rot. Thanks a bunch.
And what about that spotted leopard he's shown holding up like a huge children's stuffy? While it isn't yet in the threatened category, it is listed as "near threatened" because excessive hunting and loss of habitat have decreased its natural roaming ground drastically. In fact, experts warn that populations of spotted leopards may actually be extinct in North Africa, making hunting them for sport an unwise move. It doesn't take much hunting to throw a population from "near threatened" to hovering near extinct, as we've found out with too many other animals in the wild.
And there's that brown bear. Of all the animals he went off killing - and who knows how many more there were for which we have no picture proof? - the brown bear is the only one listed as "least concern" on the conservation status list. Grizzlies also fall under this status, and I'm no expert: I don't know if the bear in that picture is grizzly or brown. However, don't let their status fool you. At a population of somewhere around 200,000, its range has shrunk considerably in the last hundred years and it has gone completely extinct in some areas where it once proliferated. The movement of humans into areas where we once didn't live so openly has had a lot to do with this. Still, is it necessary to purposefully sport-hunt such majestic creatures who are hovering close to a threatened status?
Well, I went and mentioned that article on JJ's Facebook page. You'd never believe what happened: I came back from putting the kids to bed, after politely posting it and noting on there that I was simply curious as to what had happened and wanted to know why on earth he was sport hunting these animals, and found that my "Like" status had been removed, as had my commenting abilities. I can still go re-like the page, but I cannot post anymore. No more comments, nothing. Anything relating to my commentary is gone - as it if never happened.
The problem I have with this is that regular people don't get to go spend the amount of money it takes to go safari in Africa and sport-hunt huge animals. Only people with massive amounts of money are given that privilege - and thanks to every single person who has ever purchased from his company, he gets to claim the status of "filthy rich".
I know, it's up to you as a consumer to decide who you will and won't support. But remember that it's your money - and if you wouldn't head to Africa or Alaska just to kill some near-endangered animals, I'd suggest not purposefully supporting those who do.
If you're wondering if that's really him, it is. Here's a link from an article in another paper with a picture of him for comparison. We're looking at the same guy and those aren't shopped images.
And for good measure, I have gone to re-like the page to show that I really have had my commenting abilities taken away:
Notice that I have no "comment" option link or box showing up beneath any other comments.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Something happening
There's something happening at my house right now, something I never really thought would be an issue, something I didn't expect to see, something I don't approve of but don't feel I can speak about aloud.
I have a friend over, someone I wasn't too sure about in high school but has become a close friend and like a sister recently, especially since she had her first child. And I was understanding - maybe too much so - when she misused her carseat in ways that were downright dangerous and deadly (twisted strap, too loose, mispositioned shoulders, chest clip at the belly button), rarely held her child, used disposable diapers and claimed that breastfeeding was "not for her" because it was disgusting. I let that all go. I tried my best to ignore the fact that she had no interest whatsoever in putting her child in a sling or carrier for ease of access, even attempted to let go the fact that she uses CIO methods to sleep train. I tried to let go a LOT of that, because other than the carseat issues, the rest are parenting choices - ones I don't agree with, ones I think are downright abusive in my opinion, but it's nothing more than my opinion. She's a close friend who is strongly opinionated and who claims to back up her opinions with things that I wouldn't necessarily call "research", but it's all kosher to her. So I let it go.
Then she put her six month old daughter in her high chair, here at my house, tipped it back, propped up the tray, and positioned her bottle atop the tray so the baby - who cannot yet hold her own bottle, yet is having sippy cups forced on her that she also cannot hold - could "self-feed" and my friend could do whatever she pleased.
And for some reason that REALLY pissed me off.
So in lieu of yelling inappropriately at said friend because my moods are rather unstable right now anyway, I'm venting here. But seriously? If your kids are so much of an inconvenience that while you're at someone else's house hanging out and you STILL can't be bothered to pay enough attention to them to feed them... Maybe you ought to reconsider having and keeping your kids.
I have a friend over, someone I wasn't too sure about in high school but has become a close friend and like a sister recently, especially since she had her first child. And I was understanding - maybe too much so - when she misused her carseat in ways that were downright dangerous and deadly (twisted strap, too loose, mispositioned shoulders, chest clip at the belly button), rarely held her child, used disposable diapers and claimed that breastfeeding was "not for her" because it was disgusting. I let that all go. I tried my best to ignore the fact that she had no interest whatsoever in putting her child in a sling or carrier for ease of access, even attempted to let go the fact that she uses CIO methods to sleep train. I tried to let go a LOT of that, because other than the carseat issues, the rest are parenting choices - ones I don't agree with, ones I think are downright abusive in my opinion, but it's nothing more than my opinion. She's a close friend who is strongly opinionated and who claims to back up her opinions with things that I wouldn't necessarily call "research", but it's all kosher to her. So I let it go.
Then she put her six month old daughter in her high chair, here at my house, tipped it back, propped up the tray, and positioned her bottle atop the tray so the baby - who cannot yet hold her own bottle, yet is having sippy cups forced on her that she also cannot hold - could "self-feed" and my friend could do whatever she pleased.
And for some reason that REALLY pissed me off.
So in lieu of yelling inappropriately at said friend because my moods are rather unstable right now anyway, I'm venting here. But seriously? If your kids are so much of an inconvenience that while you're at someone else's house hanging out and you STILL can't be bothered to pay enough attention to them to feed them... Maybe you ought to reconsider having and keeping your kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)