True Confessions of a SAHM: I'm not an Idiot!

I had an amazingly nice phone conversation today, with the doctor I took VelcroBoy to for a diagnosis (aside: he has ADD -- no hyperactivity to contend with, just attention deficit. Which almost makes it sound like a bank account; as if it were possible to simply deposit more attention...) Anyway.

Usually, when I take one of the kids to the clinic for whatever... when I would take my hubby to his appointments after his surgery last fall... pretty much anytime, ever, I have to spend time with a professional person, whether it's as a customer/client/patient or simply as a person, it seems like the moment they find out I'm a SAHM, they assume my brain was disengaged at infancy and I'm less capable of understanding complex ideas like what they *do* all day than a five-year-old.

The worst offenders? Moms and men over 50.

I can understand the men. I mean, there are still societal conventions in place urging men to treat women like Delicate Flowers who need special, kid-glove, cotton-wrapped handling. And men of A Certain Age were pretty much drowned in that mentality from a young age, so they're at a disadvantage. Many of them still have difficulty coping with the idea that women are, in fact, capable of deep, rational thought. They don't exactly get a pass on this one, but I'm less likely to let my prickles out.

The women, on the other hand? No.

Just.

No.

Y'know what? Maybe I don't have a degree. Maybe I don't have a whole STRING of letters after my name, or a fancy engraved nameplate on the door of my office. Hell, my "office" is the most comfortable chair in my living room, plus a storage ottoman and a kitty condo (don't judge. It's a convenient height for my tea). The thing is, the lack of those superficial outward signs of privilege (yes, even if you were a scholarship student, you were privileged enough to receive that scholarship, weren't you?) don't mean a thing. I don't have a degree, officially, but that doesn't mean I don't possess the knowledge. I grew up in a lab while my mother was doing the research for her dissertation -- my mom the PhD. I pretty much didn't bother in most of my science classes throughout school because I already knew the material. Mom's a bit of a bookworm (the attic and the living room are crammed full, and that doesn't count the foot-high currently-reading stack by her bed, her home office, her work office, or the overflow in the basement) so even through two years of being a college student myself there were very few books I was reading for the first time -- or even had to actually purchase -- for any of my literature classes. I remember reading medical journals for no particular reason in my teens (ok, they helped me fall asleep. What? Is truth!)

So, yeah. I may not have quite as many years of official training for some career or another, but that does not actually mean I don't understand what's going on when you talk to me.

Ironically, many of these people would give me a pass if I were homeschooling my kids for religious reasons -- I know a few families who do this, and, frankly, I know the way they spell. Their kids are going to be in TROUBLE. Not to mention narrow-minded, but that's a whole 'nother argument. Oh, or if I were a very obviously hippie-dippie Earth Mother type, or otherwise "artistic." Or if I had a job, but lost it, and decided that, given the way the economy is, SAHM-ing was a more graceful acceptance of defeat in the job market, thus choosing to leave the Real Jobs So The Men Can Have Them, There's A Good Girl. (Which, just... GRRRRRR.)

Anyway, I was impressed, because the particular doctor I spoke to today chose not to speak down to me. She spoke to me as if she expected me to be perfectly capable of understanding her if she used multi-syllabic words. She expected me to be capable of asking questions if I didn't understand something she said. She was, quite frankly, amazing! And you don't find amazing like that all that often in the military health-care system.

Food for Thought

I know there are a lot of jokes about Chinese food, but the truth is, I kind of love the fortune cookie part of going out for Chinese. The Horde and I went out to the local buffet at the request of DinoBoy (his party was today, although his actual birthday is Monday). The Girl-child and I got some pretty basic pabulum, nothing special, but the boys both got "Food for thought" fortunes. I love those -- some random bit of truth that forces you to think about yourself and the people around you. You especially get that effect when there's a smallish child self-aware enough to ask, "What does that even MEAN?" and you have to try to explain this concept of philosophy or ethics or culture or whatever to them.

DinoBoy's fortune read "We judge others by actions; we judge ourselves by intentions." I really really love this one. It's a concept I sometimes struggle to get across to others -- my kids or my DH -- that when someone is hurting because of your words, or because your words don't match your actions, or simply don't SEEM to to this person outside of you, it really doesn't matter what you THINK or FEEL or think you're putting out there. Intentions are well and good, but we are the only ones who can really know our own intentions. I might *think* I understand my husband's, but I can't really know for sure; all I can do is judge to the best of my ability.

That's a hard concept to teach a kid: the idea that sometimes, you can say or do something intending it as a kindness, but that it doesn't always appear that way to the person you're trying to help. What to you may seem a simple offer of help or support may rub the wrong way or play on fears you don't know about and come across to the other person as a judgment on them, or an attempt on your part to show them up and make them feel inferior.

It's easy to assume that because WE know what we intend, that others will, as well. It's much harder to remember that they're not seeing those intentions; and that everyone filters other people's words and actions through a lens built on their own experiences and insecurities.

VelcroBoy's fortune was "The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others." I like that. It's fairly simple and straightforward. If you tell someone X is the way to get to what you want, and you're not doing X, then why should they listen to you? And if X is the path then why are you not on it yourself? Although I think it's more simple than that, even. It's the antithesis of the old saw, "Do as I say, not as I do." That one's a particular trap for parents, I've found; one I'm trying not to fall into. There's a part of me that wants to avoid chores on weekends, while telling the kids to do theirs, and I recognize that that's a form of hypocrisy. Of course, at the same time, if I'm doing my chores, I can't make sure they do theirs. And goodness knows when they're at school I have a hard time following my stated household rule of "Do the things that NEED to be done before doing the things we WANT to do." Especially when there are new books to read.

And on that note...I have books to read! Catch you later!

The Thing About Gun Control...

...at least in regards to it being a political "issue," is that it's, ultimately, ridiculous. I mean, you can make arguments about how guns are designed to kill people, or about how having them is a part of your Constitutionally Protected Rights and Freedoms, or whatever, but really, what it comes down to is this: Some people are not mentally or emotionally equipped to have access to explosives. And, no, those people shouldn't be ABLE to get them.

The thing is, there are two types of gun deaths -- accidents and not accidents. Accidents are horrible and tragic, yes, but in many cases tighter gun control would not necessarily have prevented them. I am most affected by the story I read many years ago in a now-defunct women's magazine about a woman who, along with her husband, bought a handgun after a rash of home break-ins in their neighborhood. They left it, loaded, on an accessible shelf in their closet, and completely forgot its existence until, one day, their two year old daughter found it and accidentally killed herself. This was the reason this woman was shilling for tighter gun control laws -- she was stupid and irresponsible, and someone died who shouldn't have. Stupidity is NOT the government's fault, people! (Ok, well, some of it is. But not that. If you're not smart enough to figure out how to safely handle and store a handgun, you're right, you don't deserve to have one. But how is anyone supposed to test your ability to follow basic common-sense measures, or, indeed, any sort of gun/hunter's safety?)

In the non-accident category, you have your basic "Dude who has completely flipped and lost his shit" shooting sprees and you have "Dude who has no moral compass and doesn't care who he hurts" killing sprees. Some of the weapons used in these were obtained legally. Some were not. The only way to tell if someone's going to snap and turn into a killing ball of rage is MAYBE a psychological examination. But maybe not. And truthfully, anyone who's THAT determined to hurt people? Well, making it harder for him (or her) to legally purchase guns may help a little. But truthfully? Probably not much. He can go for illegal weapons. Or use non-regulated stuff like knives. Or get online and learn how to make a bomb using common household ingredients. Or, y'know. SOMEthing. Tighter regulations might delay him a bit, but they won't stop him, whatever his motivation.

So, yeah, tighten things up. People with nothing to hide won't be deterred. Some might even welcome more common-sense regulations, like the hunter-safety courses that are required to get hunting licenses, or the periodically required driving tests we have to undergo in order to renew our driver's licenses.

But really? Don't use it as the entire basis of your decision on how to vote. Because that's just as ridiculously mindless a reason to affiliate yourself politically as is the assertion (Yes, I'm sad to admit to knowing someone who thinks this) that women shouldn't vote because they only vote for the most attractive candidate, rather than the one who's "right" on the issues (and how subjective is THAT, by the way?!).

'Cause the truth is, if I voted via wet-panties, I'd have to go Republican -- some of those guys are frigging HOT. However, their ridiculous assertions and obvious backtracking, not to mention their complete disregard for such issues as "Separation of Church and State," "Women's Health and Self-Determination," and "Human Rights" make them deplorable excuses for human beings, and the only way they'd get my vote is if the Democratic side of things started suddenly spouting the same nonsense syllables my seven-year-old claims as his "made-up language" in every appearance/interview/what have you.

Not that I don't believe that most politicians  would benefit from the same discipline my kids are subject to from time to time, but that kind of backsliding can really scare a girl!