Wow, the difference getting outside for five minutes and taking a little white pill can make.
I've been off of Lexapro for months now but with the recent events in our family - basically, stress - I've decided it might be best to get back on it. This happens about once a year, and while I function quite well the remainder of the year there's always a section of a month or two where I find myself so despondent that my options become clear: either keep moping, accomplishing nothing, and stressing out about everything, or allow myself this one thing and inch myself back onto a low dosage in an attempt at reclaiming my remaining sanity. Today, I started taking it, and we shall see what the results are. Even if it's completely placebo, I already feel a little better, and I've found myself internally monologuing my way through my troubles.
We were hoping to move with our tax money, into our own place.
Now we are looking at staying here another six months, if not longer.
It's a tough pill to swallow, pardon my dry humor, and I can't argue that it still really stings to think about. We desperately need our own space and I can see the toll that staying here takes daily on myself, my husband, and my kids. This is not an easy place to live. It was difficult enough when growing up; things have only gotten worse, as my mother has become more set in her ways and more determined that even the smallest things will set her off. I can understand to a degree; randomly adding four people back into your previously empty house and then losing a beloved pet and companion are things that would be taxing on even the most steadfast soul. But for her somehow it is a million times worse, and though she claims we are still welcome here I can only hope that we will be out sooner rather than later, both for the sake of our sanity and so that she can have her house, space, and privacy back.
Today the weather is teasing us. The days have been sunny but too cold and snowless to justify heading outside for any length of time, and up until today, our highs were only topping out at 20, max. Today it was about 65, and though it rained occasionally I found myself outside on my second break, and I took a few minutes to just sit on the curb in the setting sun. It was a boon to my soul, and I know that it helped me feel a little more like there is life outside of this dark, dark box. Then, albeit only briefly, there was a tiny thunderstorm this evening. All I got to see was the vaguely damp ground and a little lightning, and I heard a bit of thunder, but that small event was encouraging! Spring is on its way - even though tomorrow they're forecasting severe storms for our area and on Wednesday we are looking at snow and highs that are back into the 20s. Welcome to the Midwest.
G is officially in therapy. We had intake last Monday and Hubby and I both chose to attend instead of just having one of us go. The therapist, Missy, agreed that we are likely looking at issues with impulse control, but she thinks that in reality most of his problems are stemming from his sensory issues and she wants to further investigate this through some sort of testing that is yet to be arranged. In her opinion this will give us the best idea of what, exactly, is the matter, and how we can best help him integrate his sensory input problems into his daily routine. In short, we want to help him cope, and in turn learn how to cope with his outbursts and overstimulation reactions in turn, so that we don't lose our cool with him when he is obviously having trouble dealing with himself.
My job is still stressful as ever. I am working close to 50 hours a week on a regular basis, and I have worked nearly every Saturday but two since the beginning of November. I am beginning to feel the toll of my position and I won't lie and say that I'm handling it well. I hope that eventually I will even out and learn to tolerate this, because we can't live without my income.
Here's to the coming of Spring.
When we know better, we do better.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
On the stupidity of the nation
We, as a nation, revolve around the concept of schadenfreude - that is to say, we like watching the misery of others play out before us as a relatively solid reminder that we are, in comparison, more sane and have more stable lives than some of the more interesting members of our society. Often these people have agreed to open up their lives and family to encouraged and even planned drama, and they are typically bound to the will of the network that their contract is with. We see the immediate effects but the results of the drama are often lost on us - and typically we don't decide that a reality show's premise is harmful until after we've been exposed to it for a while and begin to see the wear and tear it creates on its stars.
Except, sometimes, it is blatantly obvious that something is an absolutely horrible idea.
Take, for example, Oxygen's new "brilliant" concept, absurdly titled, "All My Babies' Mamas". The idea is apparently that the network will follow a man who calls himself "Shawty Lo" and the 10 women who have fathered his 11 children. Apparently, tossing his 19-year-old girlfriend - who is a year older than his oldest child - somehow makes the whole thing more like a "Brady bunch" situation and less of a painful clusterfuck of stupid. The network intends to follow Shawty Lo around and document the interactions he has with his children and their mothers, with an implied hilarity level that I can't even begin to fathom.
In short, this series is a combination of every single "lesson" that I'd prefer my children never learn.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out how ultimately demeaning this series is - to the mothers who are a part of it, to the kids who are involved without their consent, and to both women and the African American community. A number of people have already spoken up in protest of this crudely-designed form of entertainment, and I'm adding my voice - not to follow with the crowd, but because this has illicited a serious "dafuq!?" reaction in me.
Am I wrong?
Here's a man whose appearance thus far in the promotional material seems to scream "stereotypical gangster". He is portrayed as a guy who can't keep his dick in his pants, with a harem of women who somehow find him and his womanizing ways irresistable. Mind you, I don't mind the idea of plural relationships - if everyone involves consents and is aware of any potential repercussions, and everyone is aware of everyone else's other relationships, who cares? But this is plain exploitation. And god forbid we consider the kids - whose impolitely nicknamed mothers (including "Sassy Baby Mama") are being degraded from individual women with names, lives, and personalities to irritatingly cutesy and insanely embarassing monikers meant to somehow set them each apart from one another - in this entire disaster. There are 11 in total according to Oxygen's information about the show, and their dear father can't remember all of them.
And he proves as much on camera by trying and failing multiple times to name them all.
So, again, I ask: Dafuq is this.
Oxygen, you have GOT to be kidding me. I just.. I've lost words, I'm so disgusted. All I know is, I can tell you one network I won't be watching anymore - and that any advertisers who put in commercials during that show can count on losing my business.
Except, sometimes, it is blatantly obvious that something is an absolutely horrible idea.
Take, for example, Oxygen's new "brilliant" concept, absurdly titled, "All My Babies' Mamas". The idea is apparently that the network will follow a man who calls himself "Shawty Lo" and the 10 women who have fathered his 11 children. Apparently, tossing his 19-year-old girlfriend - who is a year older than his oldest child - somehow makes the whole thing more like a "Brady bunch" situation and less of a painful clusterfuck of stupid. The network intends to follow Shawty Lo around and document the interactions he has with his children and their mothers, with an implied hilarity level that I can't even begin to fathom.
In short, this series is a combination of every single "lesson" that I'd prefer my children never learn.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out how ultimately demeaning this series is - to the mothers who are a part of it, to the kids who are involved without their consent, and to both women and the African American community. A number of people have already spoken up in protest of this crudely-designed form of entertainment, and I'm adding my voice - not to follow with the crowd, but because this has illicited a serious "dafuq!?" reaction in me.
Am I wrong?
Here's a man whose appearance thus far in the promotional material seems to scream "stereotypical gangster". He is portrayed as a guy who can't keep his dick in his pants, with a harem of women who somehow find him and his womanizing ways irresistable. Mind you, I don't mind the idea of plural relationships - if everyone involves consents and is aware of any potential repercussions, and everyone is aware of everyone else's other relationships, who cares? But this is plain exploitation. And god forbid we consider the kids - whose impolitely nicknamed mothers (including "Sassy Baby Mama") are being degraded from individual women with names, lives, and personalities to irritatingly cutesy and insanely embarassing monikers meant to somehow set them each apart from one another - in this entire disaster. There are 11 in total according to Oxygen's information about the show, and their dear father can't remember all of them.
And he proves as much on camera by trying and failing multiple times to name them all.
So, again, I ask: Dafuq is this.
Oxygen, you have GOT to be kidding me. I just.. I've lost words, I'm so disgusted. All I know is, I can tell you one network I won't be watching anymore - and that any advertisers who put in commercials during that show can count on losing my business.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
On what we make of life
I have become incredibly introspective as of late.
While I consider myself pagan, I am not a druid, nor am I Wiccan or really any other solid "version" of pagan out there. I believe there are multiple forces in place in our universe that helped begin creation and that occasionally can guide us or offer assistance in our lives, usually without our asking, although they can be asked to interfere as well. Despite all that, I do not have a solid belief system when it comes to the afterlife, and as of late, thoughts of death have become commonplace.
I am 26 years old.
And someday, I am going to die.
I don't know what it means to leave this existence. The scientific side of me is still desperately trying to come to terms with my latent spirituality, that which demands there must be something more beyond death itself, another plane or another version of existence in which our souls continue. Call it Heaven, the Summerlands, Purgatory, what have you - I have to believe there is something more. In my head, the human brain - already an admittedly ugly but complex organ whose inner functions are understood to a degree but whose development and inward function still makes little sense to the scientific community beyond a chorus of, "Hurr hurr, neurons firing!" - is somehow special. The brain itself in any creature is special. There is a spirituality inherent in all things that are capable of existence, of growing and thriving. There is a certain meaning behind each bug (even though I'm the type to squish them - sorry) and every blade of grass. Every bit of quantum mechanics and string theory and our knowledge of black holes and neurons and the beginnings of life itself, in my mind, all come back to the idea that, surely, all this cannot be for naught. There must be something more.
I doubt it's healthy that my fear of death is so ingrained that if I allow myself to think about it too hard, I can actually encourage and set off an anxiety attack. It terrifies me to the edge of my understanding and the worst part, I think, is that it isn't something I can try to understand with the inherent acknowledgement that despite my attempts to understand it, I may never physically encounter it face-to-face, so while I can attempt to understand it fully, I don't NEED to. This is not a thunderstorm, or a bee hive, or childbirth. This is not a way of parenting or a need fulfilled in a relationship with another person. This, as much as creation itself, is solid - there is death. I will die. So will you, and my mother and husband and children and in laws and neighbors. There is no escaping this fact, and the only variables are when, how, and where. There is no question as to whether or not it will occur in the first place.
I also worry that it's unhealthy that at nearly 30 years old I have not yet formed some vague understanding of what, if any, life after death I believe in. When my mother's beloved purebred black lab had to be put down in October, she was thrown headfirst into the mourning process - and as part of that, she taught my children that the dog is now in Heaven, with God. The Christian god, I should note. While I'm open to teaching my kids about every religion, and committed to answering as many questions as possible with as much open-ended information as possible, it worries me that there is already an established set of beliefs that is being pushed at them. Maybe I don't want my kids to believe in Heaven, and maybe I don't want them to think that the god assumed to reside there is the only one in charge. Maybe I don't want them to think that if they are inherently good and innocent in their lives they will be rewarded in the future, but a single indiscretion can be enough to send them reeling into eternal torment. There are so, so many things about Christianity itself that I don't want my children to learn.
At the same time, I am - and yes, I hesitate to admit this, but here it is - inwardly a little relieved. No, I don't really want my children to believe that but the concept of death itself is already so abstract to me, a grown woman, that the idea of trying to explain its functions and process to my children is overwhelming. My three year old does not understand it at all and will often mention the dog but remind himself shortly afterwards that she is gone. My five year old will crassly answer his younger brother with terse reminders that she is dead - a painful but at the same time reassuring reminder that he is beginning to understand truly what this process is all about. All the same, I can't imagine trying to ingrain into their beautiful little minds that the soul of a dead person is simply gone, no more upon this plane nor anywhere we can reach it, and that it has simply ceased to exist. It has left me in a moral and mental bind, one that has been inadvertently answered by the purposeful but relatively innocuous teaching passed along by the dog's death - that there is an afterlife somewhere, and it's where souls go.
And maybe, really, that's the route I should be taking. Not trying to explain to them that there are necessarily any singular places where souls or minds or thoughts travel to upon death, but that we are only sure of deaths's finality and little else - and perhaps, then, to try to ask them what they think happens after someone dies to their mind, thoughts, and to their spirit. Encourage them to think outside the walls of any singular religion or spirituality and let them find their own way through, to determine their own paths through life.
My husband once explained it, more or less, this way: Humans have proven that by simply thinking of something in a group, enough people are capable of more or less making something exist - be it a single thought, ideal, or a bigger concept that requires the expenditure of energy, time, and emotional and mental power. The mind itself is capable of so much that surely if one person believes something, then somehow it becomes true for them - meaning, if just one person believes in an afterlife of a certain kind, in a certain location, then it becomes the truth, even if only for them, and it will be the eventual location of their spiritual essence. If enough people believe in something, then it becomes even more real, even if only for them - and by that reasoning, Christians are perfectly capable of being "sent" to Heaven or Hell, based on their inward impression of themselves, and there is a distinct possibility that they will not be the only "believing" soul there, if their concept matches that of others who share the same system of beliefs.
It's a puzzling concept that I've had some difficulty with as of late, so I thought, why not share it - and see what your thoughts are.
What do you think happens after death, if anything? And how have you explained it to your children, or other kids in your life?
While I consider myself pagan, I am not a druid, nor am I Wiccan or really any other solid "version" of pagan out there. I believe there are multiple forces in place in our universe that helped begin creation and that occasionally can guide us or offer assistance in our lives, usually without our asking, although they can be asked to interfere as well. Despite all that, I do not have a solid belief system when it comes to the afterlife, and as of late, thoughts of death have become commonplace.
I am 26 years old.
And someday, I am going to die.
I don't know what it means to leave this existence. The scientific side of me is still desperately trying to come to terms with my latent spirituality, that which demands there must be something more beyond death itself, another plane or another version of existence in which our souls continue. Call it Heaven, the Summerlands, Purgatory, what have you - I have to believe there is something more. In my head, the human brain - already an admittedly ugly but complex organ whose inner functions are understood to a degree but whose development and inward function still makes little sense to the scientific community beyond a chorus of, "Hurr hurr, neurons firing!" - is somehow special. The brain itself in any creature is special. There is a spirituality inherent in all things that are capable of existence, of growing and thriving. There is a certain meaning behind each bug (even though I'm the type to squish them - sorry) and every blade of grass. Every bit of quantum mechanics and string theory and our knowledge of black holes and neurons and the beginnings of life itself, in my mind, all come back to the idea that, surely, all this cannot be for naught. There must be something more.
I doubt it's healthy that my fear of death is so ingrained that if I allow myself to think about it too hard, I can actually encourage and set off an anxiety attack. It terrifies me to the edge of my understanding and the worst part, I think, is that it isn't something I can try to understand with the inherent acknowledgement that despite my attempts to understand it, I may never physically encounter it face-to-face, so while I can attempt to understand it fully, I don't NEED to. This is not a thunderstorm, or a bee hive, or childbirth. This is not a way of parenting or a need fulfilled in a relationship with another person. This, as much as creation itself, is solid - there is death. I will die. So will you, and my mother and husband and children and in laws and neighbors. There is no escaping this fact, and the only variables are when, how, and where. There is no question as to whether or not it will occur in the first place.
I also worry that it's unhealthy that at nearly 30 years old I have not yet formed some vague understanding of what, if any, life after death I believe in. When my mother's beloved purebred black lab had to be put down in October, she was thrown headfirst into the mourning process - and as part of that, she taught my children that the dog is now in Heaven, with God. The Christian god, I should note. While I'm open to teaching my kids about every religion, and committed to answering as many questions as possible with as much open-ended information as possible, it worries me that there is already an established set of beliefs that is being pushed at them. Maybe I don't want my kids to believe in Heaven, and maybe I don't want them to think that the god assumed to reside there is the only one in charge. Maybe I don't want them to think that if they are inherently good and innocent in their lives they will be rewarded in the future, but a single indiscretion can be enough to send them reeling into eternal torment. There are so, so many things about Christianity itself that I don't want my children to learn.
At the same time, I am - and yes, I hesitate to admit this, but here it is - inwardly a little relieved. No, I don't really want my children to believe that but the concept of death itself is already so abstract to me, a grown woman, that the idea of trying to explain its functions and process to my children is overwhelming. My three year old does not understand it at all and will often mention the dog but remind himself shortly afterwards that she is gone. My five year old will crassly answer his younger brother with terse reminders that she is dead - a painful but at the same time reassuring reminder that he is beginning to understand truly what this process is all about. All the same, I can't imagine trying to ingrain into their beautiful little minds that the soul of a dead person is simply gone, no more upon this plane nor anywhere we can reach it, and that it has simply ceased to exist. It has left me in a moral and mental bind, one that has been inadvertently answered by the purposeful but relatively innocuous teaching passed along by the dog's death - that there is an afterlife somewhere, and it's where souls go.
And maybe, really, that's the route I should be taking. Not trying to explain to them that there are necessarily any singular places where souls or minds or thoughts travel to upon death, but that we are only sure of deaths's finality and little else - and perhaps, then, to try to ask them what they think happens after someone dies to their mind, thoughts, and to their spirit. Encourage them to think outside the walls of any singular religion or spirituality and let them find their own way through, to determine their own paths through life.
My husband once explained it, more or less, this way: Humans have proven that by simply thinking of something in a group, enough people are capable of more or less making something exist - be it a single thought, ideal, or a bigger concept that requires the expenditure of energy, time, and emotional and mental power. The mind itself is capable of so much that surely if one person believes something, then somehow it becomes true for them - meaning, if just one person believes in an afterlife of a certain kind, in a certain location, then it becomes the truth, even if only for them, and it will be the eventual location of their spiritual essence. If enough people believe in something, then it becomes even more real, even if only for them - and by that reasoning, Christians are perfectly capable of being "sent" to Heaven or Hell, based on their inward impression of themselves, and there is a distinct possibility that they will not be the only "believing" soul there, if their concept matches that of others who share the same system of beliefs.
It's a puzzling concept that I've had some difficulty with as of late, so I thought, why not share it - and see what your thoughts are.
What do you think happens after death, if anything? And how have you explained it to your children, or other kids in your life?
Thursday, January 3, 2013
On new beginnings
2012 was a hell of a year for us.
I don't even mean that in the "we lost a lot of celebrities and bad things happened" way. I mean that on a very personal level, 2012 sucked to degrees I can only barely comprehend, much less put into coherent words. While it started with what was supppsed to be a promising new job it ended as a painful and poignant reminder of just how hard we can try to achieve our dreams without ever actually getting anything done. It was a frustrating year of two steps forward, one step back, and it seemed like every boon came with a punishment. Numerous illnesses have plagued us this year, as have dental bills, medical bills, lost opportunities, setbacks, and so much overtime that I'm at work more than I see my family. Plans to leave my mother's house by August became plans to try to escape in 2013 sometime, with no solid timeframe. It was agreed that my husband should go back to therapy, and finally, agreed that G - at five and a half - should also seek help.
In short, 2012 sucked balls, and I celebrated its ending by giving it the finger and not watching the ball drop.
Unfortunately 2013 didn't start any differently than its predecessor ended, which is honestly to be expected. Change -- especially good change -- rarely occurs overnight. Hubby is still quick to anger and slow to cool down, the kids are still showing obvious signs of stress and frustration. My mother is still unpredictable, and hasn't stopped treating Hubby like an animal. If the old adage that you should start the new year doing what you want to spend the whole year doing is true, then I will be getting very little sleep, staying frustrated, and will be working a lot.
There are still hints, here and there, of promise. With the solstice over the days are becoming longer, and soon won't feel like they end at 5:30. Spring will return within the next few months, and with it, life hopefully not just for the world, but for our family.
So brightest blessings to your family in this new year; may you be healthy, and have all you need (and a lot of what you want). And if, like us, you too have struggled and are now hoping for better, my cup is raised to you and your's with positive strength in your direction.
I don't even mean that in the "we lost a lot of celebrities and bad things happened" way. I mean that on a very personal level, 2012 sucked to degrees I can only barely comprehend, much less put into coherent words. While it started with what was supppsed to be a promising new job it ended as a painful and poignant reminder of just how hard we can try to achieve our dreams without ever actually getting anything done. It was a frustrating year of two steps forward, one step back, and it seemed like every boon came with a punishment. Numerous illnesses have plagued us this year, as have dental bills, medical bills, lost opportunities, setbacks, and so much overtime that I'm at work more than I see my family. Plans to leave my mother's house by August became plans to try to escape in 2013 sometime, with no solid timeframe. It was agreed that my husband should go back to therapy, and finally, agreed that G - at five and a half - should also seek help.
In short, 2012 sucked balls, and I celebrated its ending by giving it the finger and not watching the ball drop.
Unfortunately 2013 didn't start any differently than its predecessor ended, which is honestly to be expected. Change -- especially good change -- rarely occurs overnight. Hubby is still quick to anger and slow to cool down, the kids are still showing obvious signs of stress and frustration. My mother is still unpredictable, and hasn't stopped treating Hubby like an animal. If the old adage that you should start the new year doing what you want to spend the whole year doing is true, then I will be getting very little sleep, staying frustrated, and will be working a lot.
There are still hints, here and there, of promise. With the solstice over the days are becoming longer, and soon won't feel like they end at 5:30. Spring will return within the next few months, and with it, life hopefully not just for the world, but for our family.
So brightest blessings to your family in this new year; may you be healthy, and have all you need (and a lot of what you want). And if, like us, you too have struggled and are now hoping for better, my cup is raised to you and your's with positive strength in your direction.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
On Elections
I voted today.
The man that I voted for, I am thankful to say, has retained his presidency and his opponent has conceded. I am waiting, currently, for President Barack Obama's victory speech.
I honestly wasn't sure I would be able to say that.
The amusing part is watching Facebook explode with commentary and angry tongue-lashings from my numerous conservative friends - they have become angry, even violent and belligerent - who are of the firm belief that somehow, reelecting President Obama will mean their lives imploding without warning.
And while I don't want to upset anyone, nor insult anyone, I'd like to make a very poignant statement:
These people are on food assistance, public aid, the state medical card/Medicaid, and are unemployed or underemployed. They are using birth control that they cannot currently afford, or cannot afford more children, and are aware that they have no desire to bring another life into the world. A number of the people I know live at or below 150% of the poverty line. They struggle, their children eat because of the free or reduced lunch programs, and they owe thousands in student loan debts.
They thought that somehow Romney would fix those things, even when he and his constituents had made it very clear that they had absolutely no intention of serving the middle and lower classes.
I am so happy to see President Obama win reelection.
The man that I voted for, I am thankful to say, has retained his presidency and his opponent has conceded. I am waiting, currently, for President Barack Obama's victory speech.
I honestly wasn't sure I would be able to say that.
The amusing part is watching Facebook explode with commentary and angry tongue-lashings from my numerous conservative friends - they have become angry, even violent and belligerent - who are of the firm belief that somehow, reelecting President Obama will mean their lives imploding without warning.
And while I don't want to upset anyone, nor insult anyone, I'd like to make a very poignant statement:
These people are on food assistance, public aid, the state medical card/Medicaid, and are unemployed or underemployed. They are using birth control that they cannot currently afford, or cannot afford more children, and are aware that they have no desire to bring another life into the world. A number of the people I know live at or below 150% of the poverty line. They struggle, their children eat because of the free or reduced lunch programs, and they owe thousands in student loan debts.
They thought that somehow Romney would fix those things, even when he and his constituents had made it very clear that they had absolutely no intention of serving the middle and lower classes.
I am so happy to see President Obama win reelection.
Monday, October 29, 2012
On Being Away
I have been away for quite some time.
Not away from life, mind you - away from here. Honestly, away from inspiration. I have these issues more often than I probably ought to, as someone who'd like to eventually be considered a "serious" blogger, although I'm aware that at the moment the market for off-label "nonconformist" mom bloggers is so saturated that honestly, I'm another drop in the bucket. This is not my job, nor do I make a single cent off of it. Unlike a lot of the amazing bloggers I follow and know, I don't have the same intuition and innate sense of humor to drive me. Long story short, I don't have a captive audience - and I wouldn't know what to do with one even if I did.
A lot of things have happened on our end as of late that have posed a lot of problems. Both of the kids are now in school - A in the morning for preschool and G all day in kindergarten. From what I can tell, the boys absolutely love it, and it has been an added blessing in that A has been learning more about using the potty and being a big boy. As much as I hate seeing the training pants and diapers go, as it means I no longer have any babies, it's lovely to know we're moving up a step in the world. Both kids continue to impress their teachers with their knowledge of math and reading, and I have a feeling that they'll both end up in the talented and gifted program in our school system once they're old enough to test in at the third grade level. I honestly cannot wait to see what life has in store for them.
As a couple, we're still struggling. Money is a sore spot for us although we've been making progress on our bills. Our medical bills have been some of our biggest issues, as they have been piling up thanks to pneumonia, dental issues, and an MRSA infection I contracted on my abdomen in the last month. On one hand it is a blessing to have medical insurance - and on the other hand I cannot tell you how thankful I am, inwardly, that we are still on Medicaid. Unfortunately, while that should mean all of our non-dental bills should be covered, we still have some issues with bills that slipped between the cracks and weren't submitted to Medicaid. I have been trying to get as much overtime at work as I possibly can, as we are currently looking at several hundred dollars in dental work for Hubby to have done ASAP, and with Yule coming up I am trying hard to find ways to give things to the children that they'll love without breaking the proverbial bank.
Our biggest issue by far is that we are still living with my mother. The house down the street that we lived in last year has come back up on the rental market and we are sorely tempted to inquire, on the idea that maybe the landlords will agree to let us back in - but money of course is the constant issue. We have nothing to back up our desire to live there again; for me, it's a difference of needing to make sure that we are in the same school district for the kids, as I moved schools when I was younger and it was difficult for me to go from one to another. I want to stay in this neighborhood - it's safe, I know it, it's predictable, and it's a place I feel confident raising my children. We will see what happens. Our original goal was to be here no more than a year at best - and it has now been two months past that point and there is no end in sight. At this point we're all honestly tired of being here. It's confining, depressing, and dark. Awnings over most of the windows keep the sun out when the layered blinds and curtains can't manage, the house is in dire need of incredibly expensive repairs, and on October 10th my mother took one of our dogs - the dog she unquestionably was madly in love with - to be put down because of a number of difficult to treat health problems. G was heartbroken but A was tactful as ever and has candidly responded to the situation with commentary on how the dog is now dead. He has the intuition of a three year old, for sure.
Culinarily speaking, this is an amazing time of year - pumpkin is the flavor of the season, and we have been indulging at every opportunity. Pumpkin pancakes, pumpkin pie, and pumpkin cookies with chocolate chips and oats are just a few of the seasonal favorites around here. Unfortunately not enough of our garden survived the summer heat and unpredictable temperatures, so currently the only thing hanging around now is our blueberry bush, which will need to come in soon as the temperatures during the days are now only climbing into the mid-50s, while the nights are hitting at freezing or below. Covering it will simply not suffice in the next week or so.
So, for now, that's everything. I'm going to go clean and create something, probably start making things for the kids, and generally try not to feel like so much of a failure.
Not away from life, mind you - away from here. Honestly, away from inspiration. I have these issues more often than I probably ought to, as someone who'd like to eventually be considered a "serious" blogger, although I'm aware that at the moment the market for off-label "nonconformist" mom bloggers is so saturated that honestly, I'm another drop in the bucket. This is not my job, nor do I make a single cent off of it. Unlike a lot of the amazing bloggers I follow and know, I don't have the same intuition and innate sense of humor to drive me. Long story short, I don't have a captive audience - and I wouldn't know what to do with one even if I did.
A lot of things have happened on our end as of late that have posed a lot of problems. Both of the kids are now in school - A in the morning for preschool and G all day in kindergarten. From what I can tell, the boys absolutely love it, and it has been an added blessing in that A has been learning more about using the potty and being a big boy. As much as I hate seeing the training pants and diapers go, as it means I no longer have any babies, it's lovely to know we're moving up a step in the world. Both kids continue to impress their teachers with their knowledge of math and reading, and I have a feeling that they'll both end up in the talented and gifted program in our school system once they're old enough to test in at the third grade level. I honestly cannot wait to see what life has in store for them.
As a couple, we're still struggling. Money is a sore spot for us although we've been making progress on our bills. Our medical bills have been some of our biggest issues, as they have been piling up thanks to pneumonia, dental issues, and an MRSA infection I contracted on my abdomen in the last month. On one hand it is a blessing to have medical insurance - and on the other hand I cannot tell you how thankful I am, inwardly, that we are still on Medicaid. Unfortunately, while that should mean all of our non-dental bills should be covered, we still have some issues with bills that slipped between the cracks and weren't submitted to Medicaid. I have been trying to get as much overtime at work as I possibly can, as we are currently looking at several hundred dollars in dental work for Hubby to have done ASAP, and with Yule coming up I am trying hard to find ways to give things to the children that they'll love without breaking the proverbial bank.
Our biggest issue by far is that we are still living with my mother. The house down the street that we lived in last year has come back up on the rental market and we are sorely tempted to inquire, on the idea that maybe the landlords will agree to let us back in - but money of course is the constant issue. We have nothing to back up our desire to live there again; for me, it's a difference of needing to make sure that we are in the same school district for the kids, as I moved schools when I was younger and it was difficult for me to go from one to another. I want to stay in this neighborhood - it's safe, I know it, it's predictable, and it's a place I feel confident raising my children. We will see what happens. Our original goal was to be here no more than a year at best - and it has now been two months past that point and there is no end in sight. At this point we're all honestly tired of being here. It's confining, depressing, and dark. Awnings over most of the windows keep the sun out when the layered blinds and curtains can't manage, the house is in dire need of incredibly expensive repairs, and on October 10th my mother took one of our dogs - the dog she unquestionably was madly in love with - to be put down because of a number of difficult to treat health problems. G was heartbroken but A was tactful as ever and has candidly responded to the situation with commentary on how the dog is now dead. He has the intuition of a three year old, for sure.
Culinarily speaking, this is an amazing time of year - pumpkin is the flavor of the season, and we have been indulging at every opportunity. Pumpkin pancakes, pumpkin pie, and pumpkin cookies with chocolate chips and oats are just a few of the seasonal favorites around here. Unfortunately not enough of our garden survived the summer heat and unpredictable temperatures, so currently the only thing hanging around now is our blueberry bush, which will need to come in soon as the temperatures during the days are now only climbing into the mid-50s, while the nights are hitting at freezing or below. Covering it will simply not suffice in the next week or so.
So, for now, that's everything. I'm going to go clean and create something, probably start making things for the kids, and generally try not to feel like so much of a failure.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
On more lies.
There was recently a study published on USHealth's website about how uncircumcised boys are at higher risk for urinary tract infections, or UTIs, than their circumcised counterparts. The article itself is actually very small, and doesn't go into a lot of detail about the physical study itself, and I'll leave reading the article in its uninterrupted entirety up to you, as I figure you're quite capable of reading it yourself. But as I am an intactivist through and through, and the proud mama of two intact and happy (and I should note healthy) boys, I feel the need to show how painfully inept publications like this make an otherwise trusted source of news and health information look. So, for the sake of making some sense of this whole thing and figuring out how it actually applies to the general populace, I'm going to post the contents of the article, but with my added commentary in between, in red - along with plenty of factual, well-researched sources to back up my points.
---------
MONDAY, July 9 (HealthDay News) -- Uncircumcised boys are at higher risk for urinary tract infections, common bacterial infections that can scar the kidneys if untreated, according to a new study. Oh, is that so? Well, on one hand, you're right there - UTIs can do some pretty serious damage if they're left untreated. But this already misses a huge point: Far more girls than boys develop UTIs after their first year of life, although some studies have shown that before the first year is reached, more boys develop UTIs than girls. The reason for this discrepancy within the first year is unknown, but beyond that it's believed that girls may often hold their urine for longer than boys do, which can cause a UTI, and that girls are more likely to be given baths in water that has been mixed with bubble solution or other potential irritants that can cause UTIs (never mind the fact that proper wiping techniques employed by both parents and child can affect her potential for UTIs). Also, when regarding figures in the US for male babies who develop a UTI before age one, there is a very real possibility that it happens because they are circumcised in the first place, and bacteria has an opportunity to get into places it otherwise wouldn't if the foreskin were still present. Check here, here, here, and here for some good, unbiased information on UTIs and how they affect boys and girls differently during their lives (including a link with great references on how circumcision may negatively affect boys when it comes to UTIs throughout life). Keep in mind, when a girl develops a UTI, we treat it with antibiotics and probiotic yogurts and cranberry - not with circumcision.
The Canadian researchers also found the infection risk is greater regardless of whether or not the boys have a visible urethra. A visible urethra is irrelevant, in all honesty. A boy could be only partially circumcised and still not have a visible urethra, uncircumcised with a visible urethra, or circumcised with a completely visible and bared urethra - so why is this even brought up?
Circumcision involves removal of the foreskin at the tip of the penis. Wrong again - circumcision removes the equivalent of a 3"x5" index card worth of skin on an adult male, over 20,000 nerve endings, and - since the penis typically emerges from the foreskin when engorged - actually removes length from the penis as well. To top it off, circumcision removes healthy, functioning skin that provides the penis with sensitivity and added lubrication that benefits both partners during sex. Check here and here for some basic illustrations and concepts showing exactly what circumcision removes. Warning: the first link is NSFW and contains a picture of a penis. Long story short (see what I did there?), circumcision removes a LOT more than just a little skin at the "tip" of the penis.
For the study, published July 9 in the journal CMAJ, the researchers analyzed information on nearly 400 boys who visited an emergency room with symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Forty of these boys had not been circumcised and had a visible urethra; 269 weren't circumcised and had a partially visible or nonvisible urethra; and 84 were circumcised. I see two issues with this. First, 400 is a very small study size, and numbers closer to the thousands would likely provide results that follow the typical curve that researchers are used to seeing. Second, this is a Canadian study, performed in a Canadian hospital, and Canada has a MUCH lower circumcision rate than America does. That being said, that is even more reason to up the ante and call for a higher number of boys to be followed. This also does not appear to follow any boys whose parents brought them to the doctor instead of to the ER, meaning there is likely a large portion of the study that has been completely ignored that should be included.
"We thought that incomplete foreskin retractability with a poorly visible urethral [opening] may be associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection," the study's co-author, Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky, of Montreal Children's Hospital at McGill University Health Center, said in a journal news release. "However, we found no difference in risk with degree of visibility of the urethral opening."
The researchers pointed out that boys with a completely visible urethra were also at higher risk of infection. They noted, however, that this finding was based on a small sample size and is not supported by previous research. So, again, two things here: One, they found that boys who had a completely visible urethra were at a higher risk of infection, which is a fact that most researchers can agree on - and it is more likely for a boy, especially a young one, to have a visible urethra if he is circumcised. The second problem is that last sentence there. Let me repeat it for you: "[...] this finding was based on a small sample size and is not supported by previous research." In other words, the researchers are stating VERY PLAINLY that they are aware that this SINGLE research study, conducted with too few participants in a too-limited environment, is likely baseless because it doesn't follow along with pretty much ANY other study performed thus far that seems to agree with the concept that circumcision raises the likelihood of UTIs in otherwise healthy male babies. So, uh. Why is this news, then?
"We suggest that clinicians should consider circumcision status alone, not the degree of urethral visibility, when stratifying risk for boys presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggesting a urinary tract infection," the researchers said. So, what? If a boy comes to the ER with a potential UTI, why does the status of his penis suddenly matter so much? Nearly every other study done in a first-world country plainly shows that a circumcised boy is more likely to develop a UTI at some point in his life than a non-circumcised boy. See here, here, here, and here for more info. It's believed at this point that the only reason there are studies potentially agreeing with the statement that circumcision CAN prevent UTIs is because parents with intact boys may not be educated as to how to properly care for the foreskin, and may be regularly retracting the foreskin and thus introducing bacteria needlessly into the urethra by retracting and cleaning, even though it is unnecessary and SHOULD NOT be done. (For reference, a boy's foreskin should not be retracted or cleaned under with soap; he should be the first to retract it when he is capable of doing so without causing himself pain or discomfort, and soap should NEVER be used to clean under the foreskin, only warm water, once the child's foreskin is retractable.)
The study does not show that not circumcising boys causes infection, merely that the risk for infection is greater among these boys. Hardly. There are innumerable studies that completely refute this "fact", and the researchers admitted to as much above. In truth, this study shows absolutely nothing, except that people are capable of skewing information as much as they please to get the result that they're looking for - such as openly admitting several glaring issues, and purposefully overlooking several more, but stating that somehow the results still speak for themselves.
-----------
The point here, folks, is that circumcision isn't necessary. Keeping your kids - male and female - intact does not somehow magically open them up to more infections, nor does it present them some mystical immunity to diseases. The fact of the matter is that responsibility (teaching children to use protection in the form of condoms during sexual encounters), education (introducing cranberry, probiotic yogurts and kefir drinks, along with antibiotics, during UTIs, and maintaining proper cleaning techniques for both genders), and common sense (don't retract if intact; only clean what is seen) are what will keep our kids from getting UTIs, and will decrease their risk of yeast infections and other STDs. Circumcision is not a condom, or an antibiotic, or a cure-all. It is a painful, unnecessary medical procedure that is illegal to perform on girls, although some "studies" have shown that the same supposed "benefits" would exist for females as they supposedly would for males. There is no reason to circumcise your son.
---------
MONDAY, July 9 (HealthDay News) -- Uncircumcised boys are at higher risk for urinary tract infections, common bacterial infections that can scar the kidneys if untreated, according to a new study. Oh, is that so? Well, on one hand, you're right there - UTIs can do some pretty serious damage if they're left untreated. But this already misses a huge point: Far more girls than boys develop UTIs after their first year of life, although some studies have shown that before the first year is reached, more boys develop UTIs than girls. The reason for this discrepancy within the first year is unknown, but beyond that it's believed that girls may often hold their urine for longer than boys do, which can cause a UTI, and that girls are more likely to be given baths in water that has been mixed with bubble solution or other potential irritants that can cause UTIs (never mind the fact that proper wiping techniques employed by both parents and child can affect her potential for UTIs). Also, when regarding figures in the US for male babies who develop a UTI before age one, there is a very real possibility that it happens because they are circumcised in the first place, and bacteria has an opportunity to get into places it otherwise wouldn't if the foreskin were still present. Check here, here, here, and here for some good, unbiased information on UTIs and how they affect boys and girls differently during their lives (including a link with great references on how circumcision may negatively affect boys when it comes to UTIs throughout life). Keep in mind, when a girl develops a UTI, we treat it with antibiotics and probiotic yogurts and cranberry - not with circumcision.
The Canadian researchers also found the infection risk is greater regardless of whether or not the boys have a visible urethra. A visible urethra is irrelevant, in all honesty. A boy could be only partially circumcised and still not have a visible urethra, uncircumcised with a visible urethra, or circumcised with a completely visible and bared urethra - so why is this even brought up?
Circumcision involves removal of the foreskin at the tip of the penis. Wrong again - circumcision removes the equivalent of a 3"x5" index card worth of skin on an adult male, over 20,000 nerve endings, and - since the penis typically emerges from the foreskin when engorged - actually removes length from the penis as well. To top it off, circumcision removes healthy, functioning skin that provides the penis with sensitivity and added lubrication that benefits both partners during sex. Check here and here for some basic illustrations and concepts showing exactly what circumcision removes. Warning: the first link is NSFW and contains a picture of a penis. Long story short (see what I did there?), circumcision removes a LOT more than just a little skin at the "tip" of the penis.
For the study, published July 9 in the journal CMAJ, the researchers analyzed information on nearly 400 boys who visited an emergency room with symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Forty of these boys had not been circumcised and had a visible urethra; 269 weren't circumcised and had a partially visible or nonvisible urethra; and 84 were circumcised. I see two issues with this. First, 400 is a very small study size, and numbers closer to the thousands would likely provide results that follow the typical curve that researchers are used to seeing. Second, this is a Canadian study, performed in a Canadian hospital, and Canada has a MUCH lower circumcision rate than America does. That being said, that is even more reason to up the ante and call for a higher number of boys to be followed. This also does not appear to follow any boys whose parents brought them to the doctor instead of to the ER, meaning there is likely a large portion of the study that has been completely ignored that should be included.
"We thought that incomplete foreskin retractability with a poorly visible urethral [opening] may be associated with increased risk of urinary tract infection," the study's co-author, Dr. Sasha Dubrovsky, of Montreal Children's Hospital at McGill University Health Center, said in a journal news release. "However, we found no difference in risk with degree of visibility of the urethral opening."
The researchers pointed out that boys with a completely visible urethra were also at higher risk of infection. They noted, however, that this finding was based on a small sample size and is not supported by previous research. So, again, two things here: One, they found that boys who had a completely visible urethra were at a higher risk of infection, which is a fact that most researchers can agree on - and it is more likely for a boy, especially a young one, to have a visible urethra if he is circumcised. The second problem is that last sentence there. Let me repeat it for you: "[...] this finding was based on a small sample size and is not supported by previous research." In other words, the researchers are stating VERY PLAINLY that they are aware that this SINGLE research study, conducted with too few participants in a too-limited environment, is likely baseless because it doesn't follow along with pretty much ANY other study performed thus far that seems to agree with the concept that circumcision raises the likelihood of UTIs in otherwise healthy male babies. So, uh. Why is this news, then?
"We suggest that clinicians should consider circumcision status alone, not the degree of urethral visibility, when stratifying risk for boys presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggesting a urinary tract infection," the researchers said. So, what? If a boy comes to the ER with a potential UTI, why does the status of his penis suddenly matter so much? Nearly every other study done in a first-world country plainly shows that a circumcised boy is more likely to develop a UTI at some point in his life than a non-circumcised boy. See here, here, here, and here for more info. It's believed at this point that the only reason there are studies potentially agreeing with the statement that circumcision CAN prevent UTIs is because parents with intact boys may not be educated as to how to properly care for the foreskin, and may be regularly retracting the foreskin and thus introducing bacteria needlessly into the urethra by retracting and cleaning, even though it is unnecessary and SHOULD NOT be done. (For reference, a boy's foreskin should not be retracted or cleaned under with soap; he should be the first to retract it when he is capable of doing so without causing himself pain or discomfort, and soap should NEVER be used to clean under the foreskin, only warm water, once the child's foreskin is retractable.)
The study does not show that not circumcising boys causes infection, merely that the risk for infection is greater among these boys. Hardly. There are innumerable studies that completely refute this "fact", and the researchers admitted to as much above. In truth, this study shows absolutely nothing, except that people are capable of skewing information as much as they please to get the result that they're looking for - such as openly admitting several glaring issues, and purposefully overlooking several more, but stating that somehow the results still speak for themselves.
-----------
The point here, folks, is that circumcision isn't necessary. Keeping your kids - male and female - intact does not somehow magically open them up to more infections, nor does it present them some mystical immunity to diseases. The fact of the matter is that responsibility (teaching children to use protection in the form of condoms during sexual encounters), education (introducing cranberry, probiotic yogurts and kefir drinks, along with antibiotics, during UTIs, and maintaining proper cleaning techniques for both genders), and common sense (don't retract if intact; only clean what is seen) are what will keep our kids from getting UTIs, and will decrease their risk of yeast infections and other STDs. Circumcision is not a condom, or an antibiotic, or a cure-all. It is a painful, unnecessary medical procedure that is illegal to perform on girls, although some "studies" have shown that the same supposed "benefits" would exist for females as they supposedly would for males. There is no reason to circumcise your son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)