Quote of the week: November 10, 2013

"It's pretty intuitive once you get used to it."

Investigation Research Project - What do SAHMs do all day? Part 1

Investigation Research Project

Topic: What do SAHMs do all day? Part 1

Subject: 2 weeks old

In my pre-maternal state, I asked several persons what stay at home moms do all day. The response usually came with a shrug (or perhaps a growl), "time just goes away."

This was unsatisfactory. I thought I might record this for my benefit later, and for anyone else who is curious. At this point my son is two weeks old and very needy, so I'll try to update as he grows and see how my schedule changes.

Question: What do SAHMs do all day?
Answer: The tedious things that affect normal people, only it takes 1000 times longer.

Examples:

Sleeping

Sleeping is mostly a joke with a newborn in the house, for in the case of my son, who may sleep at three hour intervals during the day, at night he usually only sleeps one to two hours at a time, if he sleeps at all between feedings. I've learned that to get a semi-decent night's rest, I need to pretend the night is 12 hours long. Only 6-8 hours of actual sleeping may occur in this time, and since it's so broken up and I'm doing things in between, I'm still exhausted and need a nap somewhere in the daytime. Hence, half of a 24 hour period is spent either sleeping or trying to sleep.

Eating

Feeding the baby takes between 15 minutes and 1 hour each time, and he eats 8-12 times a day.

I eat as well, usually holding the baby or being interrupted by the baby. Tonight I decided to cook supper (meals have usually been leftovers from what kind souls have brought us, or what I pre-made and froze before little boy arrived). Since Garrett was home, it took me around the normal time supper making would take, between 30 minutes to an hour. Little boy was kind and slept in his swing while we ate, so eating supper didn't take any longer than usual.

Diaper changing

Diaper changes should only take about 5 minutes or so, but often they take much longer. Most of the time little boy gets offended that we are stealing his dirty diapers (which he had worked so hard on), and retaliates by kicking, screaming, and peeing on everything. At least once a day we'll have an extra long diaper change, after which as soon as he is clean, clothes changed, and diaper changing area sanitized, he'll immediately make another dirty diaper. Then we start over. Hence, sometimes changing a dirty diaper can take up to 30 minutes. Diaper changes happen as often as eating does at this point, and they usually follow one another.

Bathing

I'm still not used to bathing a tiny person, so it probably takes me longer than it would a seasoned SAHM. Little boy hates being bathed, insert've been trying to bathe him every day or every other day, so it's a chore we both dread. This takes 15 to 30 minutes, and I've been peed on every time (and worse). Which brings us to...

Laundry

Little boy goes through multiple outfits a day due to explosive diapers or vomit. His clothes are small, granted, so one wouldn't think I should have to do a load of laundry every day (which I've been doing, and it's been full every day), but he rarely keeps his filth to himself. All of the days outfits go into the washer, as well as one or both diaper changing covers, burp cloths, bedsheets, and bath towels. To this we add any of the parents' clothing that he has soiled by proximity, and then we have a full load. Insert time it takes to wash/fold laundry.

Entertainment

Little boy is still a person, and even though his levels of entertainment are low, they must still be met. When the pacifier falls out, it may need to be replaced. When the ceiling fan loses interest, the swing may need to be reoriented towards the window. Little boy loves staring at our faces, which means we must be close enough for him to see them. We usually stare back or talk to him. This is time consuming but fascinating, and I'm not exactly sure how much time I spend each day playing with him, but I don't regret a minute of it. Babies are neat.

Research

This may just be me, but I spend quite a bit of time researching how bad of a parent I am. I'm not a total screw up so far, but I'm suffering on the sleeping routine part. I'm either two weeks late in putting little boy on a sleeping schedule, or a few years to early. The internet is very conflicted.

Extra notes:

As I said, everything takes longer than it did before, and some of this isn't directly little boy's fault. Moving around takes longer for me because I'm still healing from last fortnights exorcism (Garrett and I decided giving birth could be perceived as having an external spirit, possibly evil, removed from my body, and that is far more fun to think about than giving birth). So, going to the bathroom, changing clothes, and even getting in/out of bed take longer than they normally would. This is getting better, but not as quickly as I would like. Because of the sleep deprivation, I'm not as good at multi-tasking, so I'm usually concentrating on whatever task I'm doing and I'm not much good for anything else. I'm trying to get better at this, though, and have started low levels of multi-tasking, generally when I'm nursing. This week I've watched a couple of movies (as I said, low levels of multi-tasking), and read one book.

Have to go - I'm off to feed my baby now...

Quote of the week - September 8th, 2013

"We are women - hormones make us strong."

A thought on children's stories

Garrett and I were talking about the children's book I'm never going to write (I've been planning it since highschool), and I told him the basic plot.

"So, basically, it has no plot?" he asked.

"Sort of... but it has lots of beautiful colors. Besides, children's books nowadays don't have a point."

We discussed the Velveteen Rabbit, which he had never read, and decided it was a dreadful children's story. For that matter, most of the Brothers Grimm stories are dreadful children stories. For that matter, all of the children's stories Garrett had to read in German class were dreadful children's stories.

They don't write stories like that now. Thankfully.

Those stories concentrated on trying to teach children moral lessons, with the usual plotline warning children to be good or a monster will eat them (and perhaps their souls).

Contrast this to modern stories, which center around teaching colors, basic math, and maybe how to deal with bullies. The only moral conveyed, if any, is that to be nice is the greatest nice. Bullies aren't nice, and "strangers" aren't nice, but that's as far as we get into morality. Now go learn your hexagons from your rhombuses.

Past writers taught morals (gruesome, bloody morals), whereas modern children's book writers teach facts. The former tried to scare children, but the latter seem scared themselves. Why shouldn't writers teach morals? Do they think they are overstepping their bounds?

And when did storytellers start caring about bounds?

Quote of the week: August 26th, 2013

Quote of the week: August 26th, 2013

"It's amazing - the things that happen when one tries."
~Fellow at work

New Dress a Day Blog Feature

I got featured on one of my favorite blogs!

Marisa Lynch creates beautiful re-make dresses out of hideous things she finds in thrift stores, and one year decided to make a new dress every day, spending only $1.00 on each item. After the year was over, she had inspired so many people that she began posting their creations on her website.

Now I'm one of them :-)

Click here to go to the post:

Before Dress:

"Facebragging" article

A satirical article about "Facebragging." My conclusion from reading is that the realization I'm not on Facebook anymore is because I'm not spiritual enough.

Enjoy :-)

http://www.larknews.com/archives/4291

Silas... Have we met before?

I’m usually good at remembering where, when, and in what mental state I read books. Rifles for Watie by Harold Keith -found in my sister’s closet in the white mobile home in Oklahoma, circa 1999. Read it 12 times. Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery - read the same year, got kicked out of the house because I was told I “needed to be outside,” hence I read a good part of it outside while petting my favorite cat. Read it again in 8th grade for class, and again when I was 15. The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien - read in 2003 at the recommendation of a friend, and I remember staring at it in the Tomball library feeling slightly intimidated. Those were big, heavy books. Harry Potter - read in the summer of 2009 as my “binge books” before school started again.

I decided to read Silas Marner for my May book of the month. After the first chapter, I was convinced I had read it before. The problem is that I don’t remember reading it. Ever. No recollection of sneaking away to a closet to read, or seeing it at the library and picking it up, or accidentally buying it at a bookstore. When I saw the George Elliot collection at my library on Saturday, I thought: “I’ve never read any of her books, I should give one a try.” But I have, I just don’t remember when. Or where. Or why.

In An Experiment in Criticism by C.S. Lewis (read on the back porch of the girls’ dorm at Summit Semester in 2007), Lewis remarks about irritating women who will read half a book trying to remember if they had read it before, and deciding they had, will put it down. If it takes you that long to remember, you probably need to read it again. I remember Silas Marner clearly now, but in memory of Lewis’ rant I’ll finish it. However, it still nags me… when did I read this before?

Perhaps I’m getting old.

To the writers of Call the Midwife

Context - Call the Midwife is a show on BBC and PBS that I watch, but I think they crossed a line with their latest episode. Basically they tried to equate birth control with abortion and call the latter fine as long as you do it with clean instruments. Morality was not brought into the picture, though some characters were mildly concerned about breaking the law, these fears were overlooked and everything turned out peachy keen in the end. Here is my letter to the writers:


To the writers of Call the Midwife,

I’m writing to express my concerns over episode #2.5 of your show, in which Nora Harding aborts her 17 week old fetus. This episode came to America in unfortunate timing, considering the recent discovery of the doctor found snipping the necks of live-born aborted infants.

Bad timing aside, abortion is a highly sensitive topic, and I believe it was mishandled in this show. First, I believe it was mishandled in considering your audience. I assume that your demographic of viewers who are mothers is high, and miscarriage is common, so viewers might be disturbed by the topic. Those who have had abortions might also find the handling of the topic distasteful, based on the brutal portrayal of the abortion. In a similar context, if I were an amputee, I still wouldn’t want to view a portrayal of a medieval amputation.

The episode seems mismatched to the series, which emphasizes the wonders of medicine and how it is able to save the lives of mothers and babies. In this episode, Sister Monica Joan considers that perhaps babies are only precious based on their desirability. At that point, why is this show about bringing life and medicine to the poor and “undesirable”? Are you devaluing the actions of the midwives and nuns?

This episode confused me. If your position were anti-abortion, it didn’t make sense to have Mrs. Harding strolling in a field at the end with the children she decided not to kill. If your position were pro-abortion, Mrs. Harding was a violent, selfish woman, who didn’t seem to value her other children, which makes her a bad medium for your message.
I enjoy Call the Midwife and find it interesting how the show addresses difficult topics. However, in this situation, I believe the topic was mishandled. In the future I would appreciate seeing delicate topics like this handled with greater care, or avoided altogether.

Yours respectfully,
Reesa Calpouzos

A Look

To the boy I gave a look of pity earlier:

When that other woman came up and assured your step mom that she looked too young to have such a tall, strapping son, and your step mom replied that you had a different mother, I gave you a look of pity. You noticed, and I would like to explain it.

I don’t pity you because of your birth mother leaving you, or divorcing your dad, or abandoning you, or whatever other story I could make up. I don’t know what happened, and I’m not pretending to.

I looked at you like that because now you have to live with a woman who labeled you in public as “not hers,” and who also can't recognize empty flattery. She looked plenty old enough to be your mother to me.

I hope you don’t go through this stage in your life feeling embarrassed because your step mom denies you in public. The shame should be on her, not you.

On “Good Reminders”

I don’t know how many women’s Bible studies I’ve been in where the topic material consisted of inane, non-offensive, non-challenging material. After the study when all the women are demurely sitting and attempting sanctimoniousness, one of them may mention what a “good reminder” this study was. I interpret this as meaning: “I got nothing out of this study but maybe nice feelings and assurance that I’m on the right path earning my salvation. And yes, I already knew all of this.”

When asking why women’s Bible studies read this drivel, instead of picking a work by a renown theologian or even just the Bible, I’ve been told that women need something more applicable, and something not too burdensome to read. The worst answer I received was that having women read something beyond the stereotypical “women’s Bible study” literature was that it might cause problems at home.

Problems at home? You mean that men will be shocked to come home and find their housewives doping on Aquinas, or high off Luther? Or was the suggestion that women might find deep theology too enticing and neglect their chores and children while hiding in a closet reading City of God? What I believe what was actually meant, is that women may be too easily influenced by an author, which would cause difficulties with her husband if he believed differently, or hadn’t thought of the subject at all. We mustn’t make our husbands feel stupid, thus we must be less informed than they are.

So all we get are good reminders. This is offensive. It may be especially offensive to me because my book of the month is The Feminine Mystique. Fridan’s discussions on women’s literature fascinated me, especially since it didn’t appear to change after she wrote her book. 50 years later, and women’s magazines are still full of sex, fashion, health, and children, but nothing inspirational. I’m starting to wonder if this is really what women want to read, and hence wonder what is wrong with us. Everything is very momentary for women: lose weight quickly, potty-train your toddler in a week, this season’s fashion. It seems as though everything around us is expected to change, but we aren’t. The best we can make ourselves into are better foodies, better lovers, better mothers. You aren’t going to make yourself a better person by frequenting Pinterest, even if you do improve what you already know. It’s the worldly version of a good Bible study reminder. Yes, I should eat better, yes, I should exercise more, etc. Thanks for the good reminder.

But no one changes with good reminders. People change when the clash of steel is in their ears, when they hear something offensive, or they get in good arguments. These lessons are more memorable than the good reminders we read in Bible study. They cause us to question what we believe, and hopefully go back to the Bible while working on our defense.

Some women's Bible studies may be better off reading The Feminine Mystique.