Class Warfare

I had an illuminating exchange on my friend Corrie's Facebook page this evening. One of her other friends, who I don't know, and I were discussing an article that was making the FB rounds today condemning the "Mythical Bootstraps College Student" photo, which has apparently also been making the rounds. Here's what Corrie's friend said:

I guess it goes both ways. People who believe that everyone enduring hardships "deserve it" and people who believe that everyone who has achieved success must have cheated or are greedy. Wish both sides would work towards an equitable solution.

That really got me thinking. The thing that struck me the most was that she had read the same article I had, but come away thinking that the author believed that everyone who achieves success are greedy cheaters. Which made me realize, and not for the first time, that a big part of our political divide is simple misperception. Once side says, "We should take responsibility for our own actions," and the other side hears, "Poor people are scum who deserve a miserable life." One side says, "Income inequality is a major problem," and the other side hears, "Rich people are greedy cheaters." On both sides, we become so enraged by the perceived insult that we cannot begin to appreciate, or even contemplate, the true message. And so it all devolves into so-called "class warfare."

So I thought I'd clarify my thoughts on the differences between the classes and who deserves what. I believe that most people are good, and a few, maybe 5-10%, are assholes. Further, I believe that the good and the asshole alike are probably spread pretty equally across all classes. That is, the vast majority of the rich people are good people who got to where they are through some fortunate combination of circumstance, luck, opportunity, smart choices and hard work, and the other 5-10% are assholes who are gaming the system. Conversely, the vast majority the poor are good people who got to where they are despite hard work and through some terrible combination of circumstance, bad luck, lack of opportunity and poor choices, and the other 5-10% are assholes who are trying to game the system.

I dunno. I thought at the outset that this is a pretty moderate position that most people could agree with, but looking at it now I see that may not be the case.

Anyway, assuming you agree with my 5-10% asshole theory, the next question is then of course: where do we go from there? I can see why some people would be hesitant to pay for the welfare of the poor, for fear of encouraging the assholes who are gaming the system. I can see why some people would wave signs reading "Eat the Rich," in anger over the assholes who are gaming that system. There's certainly a lot of room for argument and disagreement here.

I personally would prefer to ignore the assholes and try to do what might benefit the other 90% of us. Also, I'd rather pay potentially slightly higher taxes and live in a humane culture that provides a bare minimum of support for all its citizens, asshole or no. I'd like to see our society provide more opportunity for those who have the gumption to work for it (I believe that opportunity is currently in decline in this country, and has been for at least a decade). I also think it's obscene for anyone, asshole or no, to make more than, say, 1000x the national average household income; I don't care how hard you've worked or how good a person you are, no one deserves to have that much more than anyone else. Although I'm not entirely sure what can be done about it. At the very least, those people should be paying at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as average workers [ETA, apparently they already pay very slightly more. So that's good]. But those are just my thoughts on the matter.

What are yours?

[Another edit]
My proclamation that it's obscene to make more than 1000x the national average household income got me thinking. Obviously, if someone offered me $50 million a year to do my job, I wouldn't say no. So what would I do? Assuming about half went to taxes, that leaves me with a nice $25 million annually. My family could live comfortably off the interest of $25 million in decent investments, so after that first year here's what I'd do with the money: I'd hire a dozen or so people at six-figure salaries to come work for me; a tax lawyer and some social workers and councellors and tutors and stuff. Then I'd give a college education to a thousand or so single, poor parents every year. It'd be first-come first-serve, and if you were a single parent living below the poverty line in Minnesota, we'd pay your tuition and books. We could provide tax advice and help finding other social services for food and daycare and transportation and stuff like that. As long as you could get into and stay in school, we'd pay for it. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Occupy Wall Street

I'm probably going to have a lot more to say about this, but it's late and I just want to offload a few things from my brain so I can sleep.

First and foremost: I consider myself a progressive. So far, I agree more or less with EVERY grievance I have heard from the OWS protestors. So don't start trying to argue with me about the fact that there are some terrible inequalities happening around the world and right here in our country. I am not arguing with that.

I do, however, have a problem with the protests: the lack of any kind of positive solutions. I have yet to hear any of the protestors propose a SINGLE realistic solution to any one of their myriad grievances.

I get it: they are angry as hell, and they want to be heard. I understand completely.

But there's a name for that state of being. It's called a temper tantrum.

As the parent of a young child, I can easily recognize a temper tantrum:

I AM ANGRY AS HELL, AND I WANT TO BE HEARD!

As the parent of a young child, I also recognize the value of a temper tantrum, and, more importantly, the value of letting one play out. Because the anger is real, and it is destructive, and it needs to be released. And because the desire to be heard, to be validated, is more than a desire: it is a need. So the best thing to do in the case of a temper tantrum is to remove your child to a safe location then let it play out. It will ultimately play out. And after the kicking and flailing and screaming and crying is done, after the catharsis, then you can sit down and try to help your child figure out the cause, amd try to come up with solutions to help avoid future problems.

Unfortunately, too often it is too easy to just walk away after a tantrum; to say "well that happened, and now it's done" and then forget about it. And then the next time your child is hungry or tired or frustrated or whatever, you get another tantrum.

I sincerely hope that at some point, after this tantrum is over, the OWS protestors will have the presence of mind to sit down and figure out some solutions. There are problems that need to be solved, but anger alone won't solve them. We need solutions.

Thoughts on our healthcare system

I just posted a response to a new blog post by Jim Wright over at Stonekettle Station in which he eviscerates Michele Bachmann for her recent comments about the HPV vaccine. It's a great post, as usual. I love Jim and you should go read everything he has to say because the man is brilliant.

But he ended the post with a warning saying anti-vaxxers need not comment, and the anti-vax folks were further mocked and belittled in the comments section. And that kind of thing always bugs me. I do not consider myself an anti-vaxxer, per se, as I think I mentioned in my blog post about measles. But I do identify with them to some extent.

Anyway, it got me thinking about our healthcare system in general, and I wanted to jot down my thoughts before they flew away.

I think one of the biggest problems in our healthcare system is the industrialization of it. Don't you ever kind of feel like you're on an assembly line conveyor belt when you go to the doctor? You're passed from nurse to nurse to PA to doctor to nurse, poked prodded and measured a little at every step, and then you're on your way and out the door. When did medicine become a manufacturing process? I'm sure it has everything to do with economies of scale, which begs the question: why is it still so damned expensive? Anyway, for some reason this is what our health care system has become. And because each patient is treated basically the same, there is no room or time for customized care. So we are all treated like the lowest common denominator. Which feels pretty crappy.

I am not at all blaming the doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. They've spent a lot of time and effort and money and passion so that they can be in a profession that helps people. It must be a heartbreaking day when they discover they are essentially factory workers.

I don't know if it's the hospitals or the insurance companies or what it is, and I don't have a solution. But somewhere along the line something got broken and I don't think we're going to fix this mess until we address it. And that broken thing is the relationship between the us and our care providers.

We've got to somehow break away from this system of one-size-fits-most, assembly-line, COA medicine and get back a place where we are making conscientious healthcare choices in tandem with doctors and nurses we trust.

Ultimately, I think that's what the anti-vaxxers are revolting against. Some parents look at a system that treats every newborn the same, and that demands that every two-month-old be given 6 painful shots without a real explanation, and they say, "Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right..." Then they may ask, "Why are we doing this?" and they are given patronizing platitudes but no real explanation, and their trust in the motives of the system cracks a little. Then if, gods forbid, something happens to their child, who is at hand to conveniently blame?

I'm not saying it's right, that people spread misinformation and lies about the effects of vaccines. (And, once again for the record, it has been demonstrably shown that vaccines do NOT cause autism). But I can understand that it comes from a place of deep distrust which has been created by this major weakness in our healthcare system.

I can understand the distrust, because I feel it, too, and I wish I didn't.

Growing girl: weaned!

Back in January, I shared with you all my feelings about wanting to wean Ren before having a second child. Today, I believe that journey is finished! My friend Kari asked how I did it and in the interest of being lazy and not wanting to type it all out again. Here was my response:

So, the weaning necklace. I got the inspiration somewhere online, but kinda made it up as I went along, too. I started by telling Ren about the concept of weaning, and tried to make it sound really good, "you're a big girl!" and all that stuff. Then I told her about the weaning necklace, and I told her that as soon as she was ready, we'd go buy some beads and supplies to make a weaning necklace, and that once the necklace was finished, she'd be all done nursing. Very soon she told me she was ready to get started, so we went and bought the beads as a family. I let her pick them out (about 40 of them), and the cord, and she even picked out a little charm with an "R" on it that I told her we'd put on at the end. After that, every time she asked to nurse, I'd give her the choice of nursing or stringing a bead. Whenever she was mostly awake, she'd always choose a bead. If we were in bed and she was half asleep, she'd choose nursing. We started this back in February, and very quickly she was down to only a VERY brief nursing session first thing in the morning. She pretty much stopped asking in the day time. For a while, I even stopped asking her about the necklace, because when we're both half-asleep I'd rather nurse her than try to wake her up and get her interested in the necklace. ;) But since I got pregnant it's been painful to nurse, and there's no way I have any milk left anyway, so lately I've been encouraging her to string a bead now and then, even if she hasn't asked to nurse. I've always made it very clear that we're going at her pace and that she has a choice, but that once the necklace is done, that's it for good. These past couple days she's chosen to string a few beads each night, and tonight she was really happy to finish! Of course, she IMMEDIATELY asked to nurse, just to see what would happen and if I really meant it. I said no, you're all weaned now, and gave her some cuddles and hugs instead.

It's been a really gentle and fun way to urge her to self-wean, at a time when I needed her to be done. And I think she made a beautiful necklace, which will hopefully be a nice reminder of our nursing relationship for the rest of her life.

OK, me again. Of course I'm feeling awfully bitter-sweet about all this, even with Baby Jay on the way, and another potentially long nursing relationship around the corner. Then again, it's not really about the nursing, is it? It's about my little girl, who's growing up and becoming so independent. You all know what it's like: with one hand you want to push them out the door and with the other you want to clutch them to your heart. Anyway, I'm a little sad and a little proud and a lot relieved, but mostly I'm glad that I was able to give my daughter this time and closeness together and to make the end as peaceful as possible.

Here she is with her new necklace. Looks pretty happy, no?

Further thoughts on abortion

Here are a few more.

• Consent to have sex is not the same as consent to become pregnant any more than consent to drive is the same as consent to be in a traffic accident. Indulging in the former naturally carries with it the risk that the latter may occur, but they are not the same thing. We have technologies at our disposal to help mitigate that risk. So much of the pro-life movement seems to exist under the assumption that the pregnant woman was asking for it. But ultimately it just feels to me like they want to punish women for having sex.

• Pregnancy and childbirth is the most intimate human experience possible. Even women who have very easy pregnancies and fast, easy, painless births experience a kind of intimacy with their fetus that is quite literally unimaginable for those who haven't been through it. The sensation of having another being living inside you for nine months cannot be adequately described. Birth is even more intimate; I completely understand why women who have had terrible birth experiences talk about PTSD and "birth-rape." Forcing a woman to go through the experience of pregnancy and childbirth is, in my opinion, more of a violation than rape. It doesn't matter to me why she got pregnant or why she feels she cannot carry the fetus to term, if a woman wants to end a pregnancy, no one should be able to force her continue it.
  

• A blastocyst is not a human individual, it's a ball of cells. And the rights of a ball of cells should not trump the rights of a woman to bodily integrity. On the other hand, a fetus that is ready to be born is a human individual, and at that point the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's right to bodily integrity. So, at some point between week 3 and week 37 (or so), the scales tip. I don't know when that is, although I think there's a lot of merit to the idea of age of viability, which is currently around 25 weeks. It makes sense to me that if a fetus is capable of life outside the womb, it should no longer be considered a part of its mother, but rather an individual with its own rights. That is why efforts to delay or postpone abortions, like waiting periods and limiting access, piss me off so much. They just make the matter murkier, pushing fetal development closer to that indistinct tipping point. It's not about educating the mother at all, it's about forcing her hand. Which is a violation of her bodily integrity (see point 2).

• The new ultrasound laws are patronizing and misogynistic. It assumes that the pregnant woman is a child or an imbecile, someone who doesn't understand her body, the procedure, or basic biology. It is also a punishment. A shaming technique absolutely intended to provoke feelings of guilt and remorse. I can't imagine a woman who is seeking an abortion doesn't know what she's doing any more than a man who orders a steak doesn't understand what he is doing. So let's pass a law mandating that meat-eaters watch a video of a slaughter house before they are allowed to purchase ground beef or order filet mignon, shall we? Sometimes there's a good reason for not wanting to be able to accurately visualize the consequences of our actions.

So those are the thoughts that have been stewing in my brain for some time. Also, I just started poking around Angie's blog, but I like this post on her pregnancy experience. I'd never heard of that kind of birth control tampering before.

Measles and Vaccination

As parents, we tend to be dramatically polarized on a number of topics. But one of the hottest these days is the subject of vaccination. So, inspired by the current measles outbreak in Minnesota, here I go into the fray to provide you all with my two cents.

As a parent who has been extremely conscientious of my vaccination decisions (we've gotten Ren most of the AAP-recommended vaccines, but delayed or declined a few), I've often mentally lumped myself in with the anti-vax crowd. This position has gotten me in some trouble with the pro-vax folks, who seem to think that any opposition or hint of opposition to the AAP vaccination schedule indicates superstitious ignorance at best and borderline child neglect at worst. I find that to be simplistic and insulting. For one, I'm not interested in a conversation about dangerous vs. safe. The research I've done indicates that vaccines are about as safe as any medication can be. So that issue is put to bed for me.

No, one of the things I'm most concerned about with regards to vaccines is the long-term consequences. (I'm also concerned about case-by-case necessity, but I'm not going to get into the necessity argument right now, other than to say that I don't care how safe the Hep-B vaccine is, it was not necessary to give my newborn medication to prevent that particular disease). And measles is the perfect disease to illustrate my point about long-term consequences.

With the current epidemic, most of the reports imply or state outright that measles is a very serious disease. They stress that people can die from measles. The truth is it can be a serious disease for some people, particularly the very old or very young, just like the flu or chickenpox/shingles. But, like those other diseases, it is generally not a serious illness in otherwise healthy people. So what we're really concerned about with a measles epidemic is protecting infants and the elderly.

The reports also suggest that vaccination is the answer. Well, actually, what they really suggest is that non-compliance with the AAP vaccination schedule (by wing-nuts like me) is the problem. The thing is, if we were to allow children to get measles naturally instead of vaccinating them, infants and the elderly would arguably be better protected:

"Recovery from natural measles infection confers lifelong immunity and a woman who has recovered from measles as a child passes maternal antibodies to her fetus, which often protects her newborn from measles for the first year of life. Young mothers today, who were vaccinated as children and never had measles do not have natural maternal measles antibodies to pass on to their babies and, so, most American babies born today are vulnerable to measles from the moment of birth." - http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/MMR.aspx (emphasis mine)

That is why I am concerned about the measles vaccine, not because of any claims about autism (thoroughly, utterly debunked, by the way). Currently, most older people had measles naturally as children, so they are protected. There will soon come a day, however, when they are not protected because they all got the vaccine as kids instead of the disease and their immune systems may be too compromised for a booster. At that point, those people most likely to suffer complications from the disease will be completely vulnerable should an outbreak occur; today's babies are already completely vulnerable.

By using this vaccine we've put ourselves in a position where:
A) parents no longer recognize the disease
B) doctors no longer know how to treat it
and
C) the most vulnerable people (the very young and very old) don't have a natural immunity.

By vaccinating, we've done a good job of drastically reducing the number of measles cases, but in exchange the disease is that much more dangerous when there is an outbreak. And I'm afraid the same thing is happening with the chickenpox vaccine. I'm not saying there's an easy answer, I'm just trying to demonstrate that there are consequences to any decision.

All that being said, I chose to get Ren the MMR when she started going to day care because, whatever my personal qualms, I felt a duty to our community to protect all its vulnerable members. I'm just not 100% happy with that choice; it'd be nice if Ren could have natural immunity as an adult, and her babies could have protection as infants. It seems like a Catch-22 either way...

I know this is a hot-button issue for many people, and I hope I haven't offended anyone. What do you think?

My Thoughts on Circumcision

I wrote the following when I was pregnant with Ren, but it came up again recently when a friend of mine posted a link to an anti-circumcision video on Facebook. So, here are my thoughts on routine infant male circumcision. Enjoy!



All right, March mamas, I’ll get the ball rolling.

DISCLAIMER: I’m just going to do a really basic overview of what I found when I looked into circumcision, before I learned that my baby is (most likely) a girl [Guess what? She was! ;) ]. I’m not always going to site specific statistics or articles, because I am too lazy to go re-find the sources I originally looked at. Quoted sources will be cited. All of this information (and a LOT more) can be found by browsing through the MDC Case Against Circumcision thread (http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44)

Here are the main questions I had when looking for info:

What is the foreskin?
“The foreskin is not an inconsequential "flap of skin", as I had been led to believe all of my life. It is actually a highly specialized organ with tens of thousands of nerve endings and grows to be up to 15" square or more in area when a boy becomes an adult. Throughout life, it performs many functions. In infancy, the foreskin provides protection from urine and feces since it is closed and tightly adhered to the penis like a fingernail to a finger (it stays that way until about the age of five, but sometimes until the age of 18 or more). In adulthood, it provides protection from the rubbing of clothing and it provides intense sexual sensations for the man and his partner.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html

What exactly is circumcision?
“Circumcision is not a "little snip" as I had heard many refer to it. Approximately 2/3 of the penile skin and most of the sensitivity of the organ is removed. It is an extraordinarily painful procedure, as the delicate foreskin is forcibly ripped from the penis and then slit, crushed and cut away. It takes about 15-20 minutes, with the baby separated from his mother and strapped spread eagle to a plastic restraint. Pain relief is not normally administered although circumcision is classified as surgery. It was thought years ago that babies this young felt no pain, but this theory has since been disproved. A matter of fact, the opposite has been determined through numerous studies - babies feel pain much more intensely than adults. Today, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) considers it unethical for a doctor to withhold pain relief during circumcision although many still do.”
source: http://www.stopcirc.com/ilearned.html

How common is male circumcision?
Not as common as most Americans think. In fact, it’s pretty rare in most non-Muslim parts of the world other than the US.

Why is it common in the US?
During the Victorian period (mid 1800s), male circumcision was introduced in the English-speaking world as a way to prevent masturbation. Popularity continued in the US through the 1950s and into the 1970s, with the new “medical” reason being that a circumcised penis is “healthier”. (I think they kept it up in order to keep making money from the procedure.)

How common is it in the US today?
It’s losing popularity, with about 50% of boys born in the US today being circumcised shortly after birth. Regional differences are big, though, with only about 30% of California boys being circumcised, versus up to 80% of Midwestern boys. [Since I wrote this back in 2007, the rate has dropped even more, down to around one-third of baby boys nation-wide in 2009 (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html)]

So, why would anyone choose this for non-religious reasons? (Common pro-circ reasons, and the rebuttals)

Circumcision prevents STDs and penile cancer - hmmmm... not really. Some studies may show a very slightly higher risk of contracting an STD for intact men, but your son’s foreskin status should NEVER be the first line of defense for STDs anyway. Teach your son to abstain or practice safe sex, and his foreskin won’t be an issue. The cancer thing has been pretty much debunked.

Circumcision prevents UTIs in infant males - although intact infant boys do have a slightly higher risk of UTIs in the first year of life, UTIs are still very rare in ALL male babies. It’s something between 1 in 100 to 1 in 800, depending on the study. Not a valid reason to deprive your son of a healthy body part.

Circumcision in infancy keeps him from having to be circumcised as an adult, when it would be more memorable/painful/scarring - There are a few medical conditions that might ultimately result in a medically necessary circumcision for an adult man, the main one being a persistent tight foreskin (phimosis). But again, this condition is rare, and not a valid reason to circumcise.

Basically, I see all the “medical” arguments this way: it makes the same amount of sense as ripping out our babies’ toenails (with little or no anesthetic) in order to save them from ingrown toenail infections and athlete’s foot in adulthood.

But isn’t an intact penis harder to keep clean? - No. The American Association of Pediatrics says: “Care of the uncircumcised boy is quite easy. ‘Leave it alone’ is good advice. External washing and rinsing on a daily basis is all that is required. Do not retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. After puberty, the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis.”
source: http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap/


So what about social reasons?

I want baby to look like dad - Huh. Yeah. Except a child’s penis looks NOTHING like an adult’s penis. What child compares himself that minutely to his father? If your son can handle the fact that he’s shorter than dad, less hairy, and may have different hair/eye/skin color, I don’t think he’s going to fret over foreskin differences.

Won’t he get teased in the locker room? - For one, circumcision is declining in the US, and rare practically everywhere else, so he’s not likely to be the only intact boy in his school. Plus, what adolescent boy points out another boy’s penis to his peers? Boys in locker rooms don’t generally announce that they’ve been checking out other boy’s penises. If your son notices he’s different, hopefully he has been raised with enough love and support that he has the self-esteem not to be bothered too much.

Religious reasons: I don’t really want to touch this, but there are a lot of resources for parents struggling with the religious aspect of circumcision. Many Christians feel circumcision is not at all required as part of their faith, since it is not part of the New Covanent (http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html). Many Jewish and Muslim parents are also re-examining the roots of circumcision in their faiths, and coming to new conclusions (sorry I don’t have links).

So, what are the drawbacks of circumcision?
Pain, infection, breastfeeding difficulties, and loss of sexual sensitivity are just a few. I didn’t look too deeply into this aspect of the issue when I was doing my research, since I went in with a “Why should I?” attitude rather than a “Why not?” As you can imagine, there’s a ton of resources out there on this subject.

Tons of pages of links to various external websites can be found in the web resources thread of the MDC CAC board: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=207626


I hope you all find this helpful! (and also not too preachy) Mamas with more experience, PLEASE add your advice and stories.

Wishing you all happy and healthy babies!