on having children

My old friend started a blog this past spring, mostly about mommy-hood and stuff. I subscribed in my Google Reader, and proceeded to enjoy for a few months. However, sometime at the beginning of July, I stopped getting updates. I figured, "well, she's got a toddler and 3 stepsons aged 10 to 5, she must be busy!" However, as my New Years resolution is (always) to simplify and unclutter my life so I have more time to focus on being happy, today I was going through my blog reader, and deleting those that don't update, or that I don't enjoy. I decided to check out the actual blogger address for her blog. Lo and behold, she hadn't stopped posting! I re-subscribed and all her posts from the summer showed up in my blog reader. (So much for uncluttering, now I've got reading to catch up on!!)

I read a couple, laughed a little, then came upon this post, titled "to breed or not to breed." Mostly, she discussed how she'd like another child but would not like to deal with the inconveniences of pregnancy and infancy. Of course, this was a "eureka!" moment for me, because  I feel the exact same way! A friend left a comment referring to this McLean's article, titled "the case against having kids" which mentions the strangely radical notion (strange that it's radical, and not more common) that children should be something people have because they really want them.

Of course, that got me thinking, society NEEDS children (which is clearly why that strangely radical notion is actually radical after all) to be the workers of the future. Thus, would people who were willing to go through all the trouble and work of raising children be honoured and supported by society as an incentive?

The entire next paragraph is taken from the McLean's article:

Speaking up on the subject can elicit a smackdown. Last February, the 37-year-old British journalist Polly Vernon wrote a defiant column in the Guardian enumerating the reasons she didn’t want children: “I’m appalled by the idea,” she wrote. “Both instinctually (‘Euuuw! You think I should do what to my body?’) and intellectually (‘And also to my career, my finances, my lifestyle and my independence?’).” The response was terrifying, she reports: “Emails and letters arrived, condemning me, expressing disgust. I was denounced as bitter, selfish, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil. I’m now routinely referred to as ‘baby-hating journalist Polly Vernon.’ ”

To me, it sounds like she's making the right choice for herself, because no one should have to be raised by parents who resent him or her. Yet she is vilified. Bad woman. This is frightening, of course, to my little feminist heart. And equally concerning to my child protection worker mind, although not frightening, because parents resenting their children is old hat for most cultures, especially all the various European, Christian ones from which I am descended.

The following is also from the article:

Why this is happening is the subject of much theorizing: educated women delay childbearing until it’s no longer an option; they refuse to pay what economists call the “motherhood premium” in which the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth and then drop, while fathers’ incomes are unaffected; they recognize that raising children is a sacrifice of time, money and freedom they’re not willing to make; or they simply don’t want to have children and are able to say no.

(The matter is complicated, Foot observes, because income level is also linked to procreation. What is known is that paying women to have children doesn’t work: the only variable proven to increase the chances of women having children is to offer a supportive social network, as evident by the rising fertility rates attributed to government initiatives in Scandinavian countries and France, where generous tax breaks, incentives, and maternity- and parental-leave provisions have resulted in the birth rate rising to 2.7 per woman, the highest level in Europe.)

Once again, I wonder, would people who were willing to go through all the trouble and work of raising children be honoured and supported by society?

My more cynical self suggests this will only be so when corporations see it as economically necessary.

And so this is Christmas...

...I hope you have fun... The near and the dear ones... The old and the young!

 What a busy season, despite my attempts to avoid commercialism. I've still needed to do my regular grocery shopping and of course I waited until the last minute to purchase the few gifts my family is giving this year. The upside to that is I was able to take advantage of some wicked sales, the downside was the near panic attacks I had while trying to park my car in mall lots and trying to navigate around other shoppers in the stores.

But I am done with everything related to shopping, except for a quick visit to the local produce stand located 4 blocks from my house. I have enough butter and sugar and flour and eggs to drown us in cookies. My presents are all wrapped and under the tree. I am not making a holiday dinner this year, so I will only need to travel to my father's tomorrow evening and then to my mother's the following evening. I will spend the next few days as a glutton, drinking Irish cream and wine, eating mandarin oranges and chocolate and cookies and pie and tarts and turkey.

But I will be thinking about that song I quoted in the title, I will be thinking that "war is over... if [we] want it." I will be thinking about our industrial, capitalist, commercial system, how it has affected every area of our lives for generations, and how we can subvert that system a little, just to give ourselves some room... but we will have to subvert it a lot to make room for everyone on this planet.

However, I will also be thinking about "tidings of comfort and joy."

God bless you and your families :)

Blog of indescribable awesomeness

I have fallen in love with hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com
seriously. go right over there and read her. That's what I'm doing :)

climate refugees

I was just reading this article over at the Angry Indian,  about the Climate Talks in Copenhagen. Written by REDOIL*, the short press release states the following:

"The American government wants to drill for oil off Alaska's northwest coast as early as next summer... [The US] Department of the Interior has endorsed drilling for fossil fuels in the climate-effected ecosystems of the Arctic, where global warming already impacts Alaska Natives and entire villages are in danger of losing their lands and way of life."

"Shell says 'the Chukchi Sea could be home to some of the most prolific, undiscovered hydrocarbon basins in North America,' but we're here to remind Salazar and Shell that it is our home and our lives that will be devastated by the drilling," said Faith Gemmill, Executive Director of REDOIL, who is attending the Copenhagen Climate Talks."More fossil fuel drilling will only bring more pollution to the Chukchi Sea, and ultimately, more devastating climate change to the world. Salazar should know: We must leave those fossil fuels in the ground and invest in real renewable solutions that uphold Indigenous Peoples rights."


* REDOIL is a network and movement of Alaska Natives who are challenging the fossil fuel and mining industry and demanding our rights to a safe and healthy environment conducive to subsistence. The REDOIL network consists of grassroots Alaska Natives of the Inupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Tlingit, Gwich'in, Eyak and Denaiana Athabascan tribes. We aim to address the human and ecological health impacts brought on by the unsustainable development practices of the fossil fuel and mining industry. REDOIL strongly supports self-determination rights of tribes in Alaska, as well as a just transition from fossil fuel and mineral development to sustainable economies, and promotes the implementation of sustainable development on Alaska Native lands. Visit: http://www.ienearth.org/redoil

----

Other articles/press releases about the Copenhagen talks posted on the  site are here , here, and here.

I find myself getting very upset when I read news like this, especially when I also understand "official" policy on climate change issues, and the position of pundits who claim climate change is a myth. (See this article for an example of what I mean.)

I'm quite passionate about Indigenous People's rights. And it's not just because I believe we've done some nasty things to aboriginal peoples around the globe in the name of colonialism, industrialization, "progress" and "efficiency." (By the way, I'm using the "royal We" to indicate "White" people's complicity with colonialism. I am a 6th generation Anglo-Canadian, and so I find it ontologically necessary to my anti-colonial stand to recognise my own historic participation in the colonial process. It's about ownership, and infinite responsibility,a concept taken from Levinas on the Holocaust.)

But also, I'm passionate about Indigenous rights because their rights are inextricably tied to the lands, and the right to healthy ecosystems. In one scholarly discussion I read recently, this was tied to a concept the author called "ecocide." He was relating the genocide of Aboriginal peoples to the pollution of their land base. The discussion centered around the 1990 court case Delgamuukw. He argued that the case asked the question, 'what if we had always operated from a nation to nation perspective?' If European colonizers had always treated Indigenous peoples as sovereign, colonial governments and resource extraction corporations may not have had such a free hand to desecrate entire river systems, etc. with toxic waste products. Maybe things might have been more transparent, and governments might have been more accountable, not just to the sovereign Indigenous Nations on whose land they are extracting resources, but to the rest of the citizens of Canada, who are, technically, the owners of Crown land. So Indigenous rights are ecological rights. Ecological rights protect the land and resource base for future generations, of people and animals and plants, of Natives and English and French and of all other immigrant groups. We all want a healthy planet for our children and our children's children.

The REDOIL article uses the term "climate refugees" to describe people who have lost their homes to the shrinking of the Arctic coastline. I suggest the term applies to all human beings and we all need to take action against governments and corporations who trample our rights as citizens. When I think of humans as "citizens" I'm mostly thinking about the social contract as Rousseau talked about it (or, about my philosophy instructor's modern interpretation). As I understand it, our constitutions are our social contract with our elected representatives. If the government breaks the social contract, the people (the "body politic") have the right to overthrow the government, as did our American neighbours with their  Declaration of Independence. If governments and transnational corporations continue to disregard sustainability concerns, there will be no climate left anywhere. We will all be climate refugees.

----

So now I'm starting to imagine what my own declaration of independence from a dysfunctional and destructive state might possibly look like - especially considering my socioeconomic status and my dependence on the state's economy to feed and house my family. I cannot, in one decisive move, reject the government and the social contract. I do not have the resources to 'create my own state' or to move to a more agreeable social contract. I can look at how to become more independent in providing my family's food, and other purchased goods. I can save up to buy land and animals. Yet I will continue to pay taxes, I will continue to receive Canada's redistributive payments, like pensions and EI, the Child Tax Benefit and the provincial Childcare Subsidy. My husband and I will continue to have jobs. We can't extricate ourselves entirely from the social contract.

This leaves me thinking of how I can then participate in altering the social contract, modernizing it so that I can agree with it, accept it. I don't know if that looks like changing the Constitution. That's not something we've been very successful with here in Canada, despite several attempts. But what about expanding representative democracy so that more people have access to the political process? I had a sociology prof once who talked about direct democracy being more possible in our contemporary times because of the availability of the internet. It's an intriguing notion, but I would just be happy if I felt my vote actually counted towards the governance of my country and province. Right now, with the first past the post system of elections we use, I have never voted for an elected representative in my home riding. My voice has thus never been heard in any legislative body, and that defeats the purpose of a social contract, in my opinion.

That leaves me in an interesting place of knowing I have rights, but of not being able to exercise those rights to protect what I feel is most important. It's a place of questioning, of wondering how to go forward, of wondering how to make a difference. It's uncomfortable, but it's a good place, because it's filled with possibilities.

I love you, Grandma

My Dad just called. His mom, in Ontario, passed away about 2 hours ago. He's flying back east tomorrow.

He was crying. Even at 34 years old, with all my counseling training, it still seems scary when either of my parents cry.

Now both of my grandmothers have left this world. Now neither of them are in pain anymore. Death is only hard for those who are left behind.

Economies of giving

I'm trying to work out some ideas related to a paper I'm currently writing for my Politics of Multiculturalism class. I'm writing about Indigenous issues and Multiculturalism policy. My thesis is that Multiculturalism policy erases Indigenous difference and colonial responsibility for our history of genocidal policies, and is therefore a pretense of inclusion for all Canadians.

I've got numerous sources, all which have some really great points, but I've got to relate it all back to Multiculturalism as a policy, and I'm having a hard time doing that. I have some sources related to legal cases and to the Constitution, specifically the Charter, however, I'm at that point in writing out my ideas where it expands waaay beyond the limits of the paper and the thesis. I want to argue about Indigenous sovereignty. I want to bring in a whole bunch of quotes from George Manuel's 1974 classic, "the Fourth World". I want to talk about parallels to other indigenous cultures, such as the Maori and Aboriginal peoples in Australia, such as Palestinians in Israel. There are, of course, many excellent parallels, but I'm having difficulty in tying it all back into Canadian Multicultural policy.

I've got stuff to say about official and academic discourse, and about arguing from a standpoint, i.e., rejecting the traditional Western view that knowledge is objective and the knower is irrelevant.

I've got stuff to say about grassroots organizations and solidarity movements.

But what I really want to say, is the way we are doing it is WRONG. I really want to say that Western culture, "white" people, European colonizers, (whatever term you want to use for us) are destroying this planet because somewhere along the way we decided there wasn't enough. Not enough land, not enough food, not enough resources. We decided it was a competition, with winners and losers. And we were WRONG.

According to one Indigenous writer, Aboriginal communities had economies organized around GIVING instead of taking. And it worked. There was enough. No one was rich, but no one starved, either. THIS is the fundamental distinction between Western and Indigenous values/worldviews. It's the difference between TRUST and FEAR.

Incidentally, this is also the distinction between radical unschooling and the public school is best mindset, a mindset I really struggle to resist. Because it feels like, if I just give and give and give, no one will give back to me, and I will get used up. Maybe that's the fear of international colonizers, that if we try to shift our way of being in the world, we'll be consumed.

I want to get these big ideas into my paper, and still link it all back to Multiculturalism policy. Right now that is occurring as impossible. And it's due today, at some unspecified time, via email. Time to "eat the frog".

happy birthday baby brother

Today was my brother's 10th birthday, and we drove out to Mission to my dad and stepmom's house to celebrate. I am 24 1/2 years older than my brother. When my dad called me to tell me my stepmom was pregnant, he asked if I was pregnant, too. Just because he thought it's be cool if his son had a niece or nephew who was older than him. That's my dad for you :)

Lately (since this past summer, so 6 months or so), my brother has been... annoyed? that he has 2 older sisters (Me and my sister who is 16 months younger than me. So, really, we're more like aunts). He wants to be the oldest. He's been pretty rude about it, too. My brother lacks social graces.

One of the cards my brother received mentioned that he'd be a teenager in just 3 years. My stepmother blanched. She is not quite ready for her kids to be teenagers! She said she misses having 2 year olds.

I, on the other hand, do not miss having babies or 2 year olds. I have been loving having 4 to 7 year olds, and I particularly love the stage my little sister is at right now, at age 8 1/2. I have been thinking a lot about having another child, a daughter, something that I've wanted since I had my son. Now, I'm not so sure. By the time I graduate and have worked long enough to be eligible for an EI maternity leave, my boys will be about 10. Do I really want to have an infant and two 10 year olds? Somehow, I think I won't want to go through the baby stage again, complete with an inability to communicate except through crying and tonnes of dirty diapers. However, we certainly won't know until we are there.

Lately I've also been thinking that I'll either have none, or I'll have two. I think children are better off with sibs who are close in age, who are peers. I mentioned this to my husband, and he said, "let's have none." I don't know how I feel about this, part of the reason we got engaged was because he was open to having more children. However, I have been joking about how I'd really like to have a 5 year old daughter right now, to go along with my two 7 year old sons.

on Christmas, and giving

Christmas is fast approaching. The season of mad purchasing and greed is upon us, and my children are being swept away along with all their classmates. My son wants an iPod from Santa. Silly me, a couple of years ago, when I was feeling a little more flush than this year, post-wedding, I gave him a Nintendo DS and told him Santa's elves made it. Now he thinks Santa's elves can make him an iPod, and that price is, therefore, no object. Oh, the crazy lies I make up to create a little childhood magic.

We need to keep it low-key this year. I am at an all-time financial low, having spent the majority of my student loan on my mid-September wedding. Normally, I have enough cash set aside to make healthy VISA payments, as well as manage the first month of the next semester's rent. (Canada student loans don't pay out until the first day of the semester. This year, that is not until January 11th.)

So we've opted out of the adult portion of my hubby's family Christmas draw this year, leaving only the kids to exchange gifts. And we are only buying for our kids and my dad's kids, who are 8 1/2 and 10. We also normally buy gifts for my 2 sisters, my mom, my dad and stepmom, my hubby's mom and my (no longer) stepdad. Also, we are not buying gifts for each other, beyond the usual stocking stuffers.

Hubby works at crappy tire, and a couple of months ago, the display models of the Dyson vacuums were sold at an incredible discount. Hubby could not resist. We got a Dyson slim for $150. I believe the regular retail price for that item is over $400. So that is our Christmas present to one another. (Worth every penny. We vacuumed with our old canister vacuum one day, and the Dyson the very next day. The canister FILLED UP with hair and dust!)

So we've pared down our list and we're making do with the decorations we already have. We'll likely skip hosting a holiday meal, complete with a turkey, thus saving at least $100. The adults in our family are very content to lower our expectations. However, the children do not quite get it.

This is because I have always loved the magical quality of my childhood memories, and I want to recreate that as much as I can for my kids. If that means convincing them Santa is real, then so be it. However, this year we have also begun to talk a little about the baby Jesus, and the true meaning of Christmas.

Now, I am not a religious person. I am culturally Christian, in that I celebrate Christmas and Easter, but I could never call myself a Christian. For starters, I don't know if I believe that Jesus actually existed. Is there archaeological evidence to prove it? I'm not certain there is. Secondly, as a teenager, I was quite interested in Paganism and the celebration of the seasons according to my Celtic heritage. There are a lot of remarkable similarities between the Pagan solstice and Christmas, most importantly the birth of a god. Finally, I was taught to meditate by my father when I was very young, and he introduced me to Swamis and gurus. He even once suggested that the three wise men who visited the baby Jesus were East Indian gurus. The idea that Christ is the only pathway to God strikes me as arrogant. To me, Christ is a very important spiritual figure, a prophet amongst prophets, but no more. To me, he is not a god. Certainly, he is the son of God, but only in the same sense that you and I are all children of God.

Yet, still, Christ is an important spiritual figure. He preached compassion and infinite responsibility. He counseled non-violence and pacifism - as I understand it, when he is quoted in the Bible, saying "turn the other cheek," it wasn't just to turn away from violence, it was to offer up the other cheek for a second slap. Because what you resist will persist. However, if you let it be, it will run it's course, and then disappear.

I've been reading "The Fourth World" by George Manuel, of the Shuswap Nation. Aboriginal peoples have traditionally honoured giving as an important way of being. Manuel wrote that, if an Indian went hunting for a deer, he would have already earmarked each part of the deer for people in his community. The hunter himself would only keep the neck, the worst part. Everything else he would give away, knowing that someone else would have earmarked a choice piece for him at some point in the future. This was how people gained status and power in Indian communities (he used the term "Indian" - the book was published in 1974). This was why the potlatch was so important to Aboriginal communities of the West coast. To Aboriginal peoples, acquisition of goods and resources was just not done. You shared. With everyone. Always.

So we are talking about compassion, and what that means. We are talking about how it is better to give than to receive, and what that means. These are big, difficult concepts for my 6 and 7 year old boys, growing up in a Westernized, consumer culture, being working class in a middle class community. Heck, they are big concepts for me!

beyond adoption v. abortion?

So lately I've been thinking about adoption and abortion, mostly in reaction to a few posts from Kim, the inadvertent farmer. It started with this post on the stillbirth of her twin daughters, continued with this post celebrating adoption, and culminated in this post advocating for adoption over abortion. I felt inclined to comment on the last post. It was a very lengthy comment, practically a blog post in itself. I think the main thing that bothered me was the implication that women who choose abortion over adoption are somehow being selfish.

I can, of course, understand Kim's point of view in advocating for adoption, however, I can also understand many women's need to avoid the shame and social stigma of an unplanned pregnancy. I have a problem with the idea that it is a woman's mistake, her poor judgment, that has put her in this position. As an unapologetic feminist, I need to say that men must be equally implicated. Further, I need to say that it is unlikely that women will choose adoption over abortion while our society continues to shame them.

I think that what's important to me in all this, is that there are children available for adoption, but they're not all babies. Sometimes they have special needs. Lots of them have been through the child protection system. However, the focus on advocating for adoption was to compare it to abortion, thus, on newborn babies. And the focus in the comments was on unplanned pregnancies and shame.

But what about adopting a 7 year old who has been permanently removed from her parent's care? What about 5 kids, aged 10 through 3? What about the 2 kids with FAS? Who wants to adopt them? Some people do, but not as many as those who want babies.

I just think advocating for adoption is more than advocating against abortion.

done and done... one more to go!

Papers, that is.

Yesterday I wrote a Statutory Interpretation paper for my Legal Knowledge for Social Workers class. Sounds so high-falutin' doesn't it? Yup, I was given a written scenario about a marriage, it's breakup and some weird happenings in each partner's new relationships. Then I was given a series of questions pertaining to the legal issues of said scenario, and I had to answer them, giving direct reference to statutes. Statutes means government Acts. Like the Family Relations Act and the Mental Health Act. They're online. It was windy yesterday. My internet connection was flickering in and out like a guttering candle. It was very annoying, being so dependent on technology.

Today, for my Social Work Practice with individuals class, I met a classmate on campus and we went to IMS (Information Media Services, I think?) to record ourselves role-playing two different scenarios where one of us is a student social worker offering counseling services. It was supposed to be 20 minutes. Mine was 11. Hope I don't loose too many marks :S The I came home, watched the DVD I made, and then chose 5 minutes of the role-play to transcribe and "process record." Not that I'm sure of the meaning of that, but it was the name of the assignment and all. It took 2 hours to transcribe 5 minutes. I have to learn to type with more than two fingers on each hand.

Then we took the kids to floor hockey. Then we came home, hubby made dinner (pancakes and bacon, he needed my help. Sigh. Why aren't men taught to be more self-sufficient? But I digress), and I began writing out my reactions and reflections to every comment made. As well, I was to describe the skill used to support my intervention. I was intervening. Doesn't that sound intrusive? "Hey, your life's a mess, let me tell you how to fix it, lady!" Okay, it's only terminology, that's not how I'm taught to act or treat clients :) But the whole process was unnerving and uncomfortable.

But, yay, I'm done! I just have to proofread/edit any rough patches in the morning! And then it's off to my Political Science class for an exam review, and later to Legal Knowledge for more exam review and to hand in that paper. Then, first thing the next morning, I'm back to hand in the process recording and DVD of the interview. Gulp. I hope I do alright :)

Then the Political Science paper's due next Tuesday, and both of my exams are the following Tuesday. That brings me to Dec 15th, and the beginning of my Christmas vacation! It is extra long this year! I don't go back to school until Jan 11th! That's a week after the kids start back! I'm gonna be able to be a stay-at-home mommy for a few weeks! I really need this break.

Now that those two papers aren't looming on the horizon, I can see the end, and I'm starting to feel less exhausted, just writing about it :)