Research has shown that stress can affect an unborn baby, and extreme stress can increase the incidence of very low birth weight (less than 3.3 pounds).
Led by Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and Dr Pampa Sarkar of Wexham Park Hospital, Berkshire, researchers tested levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, in pregnant women's blood and in the amniotic fluid surrounding their unborn babies. As early as 17 weeks gestation a correlation was drawn between cortisol levels in the mother's blood and in the amniotic fluid. Since amniotic fluid is largely produced by the fetus the presence of cortisol levels in amniotic fluid is an indication of the unborn baby's exposure to the stress hormone. As gestation age increased so did the strength of the correlation.
Other studies have shown that babies of mothers who were under stress during pregnancy have shown IQ's averaging 18 point lower than other babies, higher rates of ADHD, hyperkinesis, and behavior problems.
An article, "Extreme Stress and Tiny Babies" (Linda Formichelli, Psychology Today) cites the research of Ralph Catalano, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of California at Berkeley, and Terry Hartig, a docent at the Institute for Housing Research at Uppsala University in Sweden. Studies on the effects of communal bereavement (such as the widespread of grief following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center) showed higher rates of premature and very low birth-weight babies.
Two possible explanations of the connection between extreme stress and very low birth weight are offered: 1) It is suspected that evolutionary mechanisms may result in premature delivery when those mechanisms sense a threat to the fetus (and elevated cortisol levels essentially represent a threat). 2) There is the possibility that when elevated stress hormones compromise the expectant mother's immune system latent infections are activated.
All the effects of stress on the fetus, and the degree of those effects, are not yet fully understood. It is important to note that rises in cortisol levels in response to short-term stressful situations are normal, and studies on the effects of maternal stress on unborn babies have focused on stress that is present over a substantial period of time. (In other words, a stressful afternoon here or there is very different from living under chronic, unrelenting, stress.)
Expectant mothers need to keep in mind that they often have some degree of control over their response to, and management of, long-term stress. The presence of stressful circumstances in the mother's life is not the thing that affects the fetus. What affects the fetus is the mother's response to those stressful circumstances.
Expectant mothers are encouraged to discuss high stress levels with the physicians, and to learn relaxation techniques that can reduce the stress response.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Divorce and Children - Easing the Burden on Children (An Opinion)
It may not be easy for divorcing parents, but what children need are two strong, capable, loving parents who try to help children understand that they will not be living in a "broken home" - they will be living in a "separated family" (and there is a big difference in the connotations of each of these terms).
No matter who is angry or who may have a broken heart or who is scared to death, parents need to be strong and solid at this time when children could feel that their world is flying away piece by piece. Finding a way to make sure the children still have some time out with both parents together can help them experience "life as it was" for just a few hours during a dinner out or for just a Saturday morning during the Little League game. Parents don't need to spend whole days together if that's too much. They can keep "family together time" down to a few hours and go where being present with the children is more the focus than talking
together is.
Children should never witness the throwing out of one parents' belongings. Parents should, if at all possible, not move far from where the children are. Custodial parents should not take the children far from the other parent either.
When parents realize they must divorce the very first and foremost thing that should be on their mind is what is best for the children in view of the fact that two happily married parents are no longer an option. They need to be grown-ups more than ever for their children, and they need to try to keep physical and emotional upheaval for their children to as minimal level as possible.
Trying to send children the message that when troubled marriages end it can be help families be in a healthier situation and can be a way to build a more whole future is important. Trying to let children know that their "family" will always be their mother, father, and any siblings even if their parents are no longer married can help them feel a little less thrown for a loop.
When parents divorce it is not the time to tell children, "You have to be strong", and it REALLY is not time to tell little boys, "Now you're the man of the house." It is the time when parents must figure out a way to be strong enough for themselves and all the children. They may not be able to give their children a divorce-free childhood, but they can at least figure out a way to be strong for them.
No matter who is angry or who may have a broken heart or who is scared to death, parents need to be strong and solid at this time when children could feel that their world is flying away piece by piece. Finding a way to make sure the children still have some time out with both parents together can help them experience "life as it was" for just a few hours during a dinner out or for just a Saturday morning during the Little League game. Parents don't need to spend whole days together if that's too much. They can keep "family together time" down to a few hours and go where being present with the children is more the focus than talking
together is.
Children should never witness the throwing out of one parents' belongings. Parents should, if at all possible, not move far from where the children are. Custodial parents should not take the children far from the other parent either.
When parents realize they must divorce the very first and foremost thing that should be on their mind is what is best for the children in view of the fact that two happily married parents are no longer an option. They need to be grown-ups more than ever for their children, and they need to try to keep physical and emotional upheaval for their children to as minimal level as possible.
Trying to send children the message that when troubled marriages end it can be help families be in a healthier situation and can be a way to build a more whole future is important. Trying to let children know that their "family" will always be their mother, father, and any siblings even if their parents are no longer married can help them feel a little less thrown for a loop.
When parents divorce it is not the time to tell children, "You have to be strong", and it REALLY is not time to tell little boys, "Now you're the man of the house." It is the time when parents must figure out a way to be strong enough for themselves and all the children. They may not be able to give their children a divorce-free childhood, but they can at least figure out a way to be strong for them.
What Diet and Exercise Should A Child with Diabetes Get?
The title question appeared on an Internet "questions" page, and it's my opinion (and I suspect, the opinion of a lot of other people as well) that the answer to this particular question should not be sought on the Internet. So, rather than provide the kind of answers that the person asking the question most likely hoped to find, below are, instead, reasons parents (and others) should seek individual, professional, guidance with regard to Diabetes in a child/children.
Professional Advice is Required
Whether the child (or anyone else) has Type I diabetes or Type II diabetes, the diet to follow should be outlined by a dietitian who specializes in diets for diabetics.
Diabetics must eat certain portions of specific types of foods at specific intervals during the day. What they eat may depend on the readings they get when they test their blood sugar levels.
Some Type II diabetics are able to eventually manage their condition with diet alone; but Type I diabetics and many Type II diabetics must take insulin. Some Type II diabetics take oral medication, which works differently than insulin does.
Nobody who knows they are a diabetic - and especially a child - should attempt to construct his own diet plan. Being monitored by a doctor, and following the recommendations of a dietitian (usually recommended by the doctor's office), are critical. The American Diabetes Association offers sound information; but, again, that is not a substitute for regular medical supervision.
There is a lot that a newly diagnosed diabetic needs to learn about how foods affect blood sugar, and particularly, about how insulin is administered and/or regulated.
The Internet is not the place to look for specifics about diet and exercise for diabetics. It isn't that a writer cannot adequately research general information about a diabetic diet; but, again, regulating blood sugar and insulin levels depends on each person, what he has eaten, how his blood sugar has responded to what he has eaten, and even things like whether he has a cold or other infection. In general, foods that contain sugars or are easily converted into sugar are the big concern; but again (especially for insulin-dependent diabetics) what to eat is not as simple as saying, "eliminate all sugars".
While one person can eventually get a general feel for what to eat (once he understands the diabetic diet), how much to eat, and when; and can generally establish a routine that controls blood sugar levels, things like infections or other conditions can affect even a routine that works well most of the time.
Exercise can affect metabolism. Weight gains and losses can affect blood sugar levels as well. If a person takes any other medications, that is yet one more reason to have close medical supervision.
Many Type II diabetics are eventually been able to stop taking medication or insulin injections, once they have followed the correct diet for a while and lost weight. For people with Type II diabetes it is important to realize that following the right diet can sometimes eliminate the need to take insulin.
That "right diet", however, is one that a patient should get from the medical team who is helping him deal with his diabetes and any other medical conditions. The same applies to guidance about exercise.
Diabetes can cause any number of other health problems, and it cannot be stressed enough that all advice should come from a person's personal physician and other health care professionals.
Professional Advice is Required
Whether the child (or anyone else) has Type I diabetes or Type II diabetes, the diet to follow should be outlined by a dietitian who specializes in diets for diabetics.
Diabetics must eat certain portions of specific types of foods at specific intervals during the day. What they eat may depend on the readings they get when they test their blood sugar levels.
Some Type II diabetics are able to eventually manage their condition with diet alone; but Type I diabetics and many Type II diabetics must take insulin. Some Type II diabetics take oral medication, which works differently than insulin does.
Nobody who knows they are a diabetic - and especially a child - should attempt to construct his own diet plan. Being monitored by a doctor, and following the recommendations of a dietitian (usually recommended by the doctor's office), are critical. The American Diabetes Association offers sound information; but, again, that is not a substitute for regular medical supervision.
There is a lot that a newly diagnosed diabetic needs to learn about how foods affect blood sugar, and particularly, about how insulin is administered and/or regulated.
The Internet is not the place to look for specifics about diet and exercise for diabetics. It isn't that a writer cannot adequately research general information about a diabetic diet; but, again, regulating blood sugar and insulin levels depends on each person, what he has eaten, how his blood sugar has responded to what he has eaten, and even things like whether he has a cold or other infection. In general, foods that contain sugars or are easily converted into sugar are the big concern; but again (especially for insulin-dependent diabetics) what to eat is not as simple as saying, "eliminate all sugars".
While one person can eventually get a general feel for what to eat (once he understands the diabetic diet), how much to eat, and when; and can generally establish a routine that controls blood sugar levels, things like infections or other conditions can affect even a routine that works well most of the time.
Exercise can affect metabolism. Weight gains and losses can affect blood sugar levels as well. If a person takes any other medications, that is yet one more reason to have close medical supervision.
Many Type II diabetics are eventually been able to stop taking medication or insulin injections, once they have followed the correct diet for a while and lost weight. For people with Type II diabetes it is important to realize that following the right diet can sometimes eliminate the need to take insulin.
That "right diet", however, is one that a patient should get from the medical team who is helping him deal with his diabetes and any other medical conditions. The same applies to guidance about exercise.
Diabetes can cause any number of other health problems, and it cannot be stressed enough that all advice should come from a person's personal physician and other health care professionals.
The Five Basic Kitchen Tools I Consider Essential - and Why
INTRODUCTION: This post was written in response to a HubPages question, "What are your five basic kitchen tools and why?"
First, I'd have to say it depends on whether utensils count...
If utensils (spoons, spatulas, etc.) aren't counted, my five basics would be:
1. One large, deep, skillet with a cover.
With one of these one can cook almost anything. Such a skillet can be used to fry, sautee, or even boil a good amount of pasta, rice, or noodles. It can be used for browning meat, if one eats meat. Skillet dinners, of course, require one of these.
2. One small skillet (if it needs to be covered the large cover could be used)
As with the larger skillet, a small skillet can be used to cook almost anything - only less of it. I use mine for boiling small amounts of pasta, as well as for single-serve stir fry, sandwich melts, sauteed vegetables, and, of course, eggs.
3. One large pizza pan
While it's nice to have a collection of baking sheets, rectangular baking sheets won't work for pizza. On the other hand, one large pizza pan will come in handy for pizza, heat-and-bake frozen pies, and most things requiring a cookie sheet.
4. One loaf pan (8.5 x 4.5)
A loaf pan this size will, as its name implies, serve for baking meatloaf or breads/cakes that require a loaf pan. I use mine for cranberry, nut, banana, pumpkin, and other similar "breads" (that are really more like cake).
5. A strainer of some sort (a collander is good, but a hand-held strainer can be even handier)
Ideally, having both a collander and hand-held, pan-strainer is best. Given the choice of only one, however, I'd choose a hand-held because sometimes it's easier to just tip up that over-sized skillet (or "proper" pan), and strain the water without dumping the contents of the pan. While a colander comes in handy for washing vegetables, if only five cooking items are allowed, doing without the less-handy collander wouldn't be too difficult; since vegetables could be washed in the over-sized skillet (if necessary) and strained with the hand strainer.
A collander is "just one more big thing" to wash and is not as versatile as a hand-held strainer, which is why I choose the hand-held.
If utensils are counted among the five items then I would do without the loaf pan and pizza pan, and include, instead:
One large spoon that would not scratch non-stick cookware
One large spatula that would not scratch non-stick cookware
There is a whole lot of basic cooking that could be done with the above items. If a large mixing bowl, a glass measuring cup, and a set of measuring spoons could be added, one would have quite a few cooking possibilities.
If I had to choose only three basic cooking items, and utensils counted, I would choose the small skillet, the large spoon, and the spatula. With just those all kinds of things can be cooked. (There are always plates and alumuninum foil that can be used as makeshift covers. Plates, of course, should not be used when the burner is on.)
First, I'd have to say it depends on whether utensils count...
If utensils (spoons, spatulas, etc.) aren't counted, my five basics would be:
1. One large, deep, skillet with a cover.
With one of these one can cook almost anything. Such a skillet can be used to fry, sautee, or even boil a good amount of pasta, rice, or noodles. It can be used for browning meat, if one eats meat. Skillet dinners, of course, require one of these.
2. One small skillet (if it needs to be covered the large cover could be used)
As with the larger skillet, a small skillet can be used to cook almost anything - only less of it. I use mine for boiling small amounts of pasta, as well as for single-serve stir fry, sandwich melts, sauteed vegetables, and, of course, eggs.
3. One large pizza pan
While it's nice to have a collection of baking sheets, rectangular baking sheets won't work for pizza. On the other hand, one large pizza pan will come in handy for pizza, heat-and-bake frozen pies, and most things requiring a cookie sheet.
4. One loaf pan (8.5 x 4.5)
A loaf pan this size will, as its name implies, serve for baking meatloaf or breads/cakes that require a loaf pan. I use mine for cranberry, nut, banana, pumpkin, and other similar "breads" (that are really more like cake).
5. A strainer of some sort (a collander is good, but a hand-held strainer can be even handier)
Ideally, having both a collander and hand-held, pan-strainer is best. Given the choice of only one, however, I'd choose a hand-held because sometimes it's easier to just tip up that over-sized skillet (or "proper" pan), and strain the water without dumping the contents of the pan. While a colander comes in handy for washing vegetables, if only five cooking items are allowed, doing without the less-handy collander wouldn't be too difficult; since vegetables could be washed in the over-sized skillet (if necessary) and strained with the hand strainer.
A collander is "just one more big thing" to wash and is not as versatile as a hand-held strainer, which is why I choose the hand-held.
If utensils are counted among the five items then I would do without the loaf pan and pizza pan, and include, instead:
One large spoon that would not scratch non-stick cookware
One large spatula that would not scratch non-stick cookware
There is a whole lot of basic cooking that could be done with the above items. If a large mixing bowl, a glass measuring cup, and a set of measuring spoons could be added, one would have quite a few cooking possibilities.
If I had to choose only three basic cooking items, and utensils counted, I would choose the small skillet, the large spoon, and the spatula. With just those all kinds of things can be cooked. (There are always plates and alumuninum foil that can be used as makeshift covers. Plates, of course, should not be used when the burner is on.)
Sunday, September 25, 2011
LISA'S COLLECTION: Just Some "Inside-Baseball" ("Inside-Writing", act...
LISA'S COLLECTION: Just Some "Inside-Baseball" ("Inside-Writing", act...: When I first began setting up what was then a few blogs for the purpose of organizing a growing collection of writing pieces, the first thin...
Most Recent Hubs
Some of the more recent posts on here are links to things I've written over the course of the last couple of months or so. I've been in the process of putting together some things that won't be published online; so, as often is the case, the time I have available for writing online is limited. When I have that situation going on I tend to write the occasional Hub and not much else.
Besides the "non-online" writing, I've been trying to put together a couple of blogs that are more to my satisfaction than some of the existing ones I have are. This site wasn't intended to air such "insider information", but since I was here I figured I may as well make a few comments about some of these latest endeavors. I've got some re-packaging that I'd like to do with some of the older blogs (that have been languishing in neglect for some time now). A person really could quite easily turn this "skimmed-time" type of writing into a full-time thing.
Besides the "non-online" writing, I've been trying to put together a couple of blogs that are more to my satisfaction than some of the existing ones I have are. This site wasn't intended to air such "insider information", but since I was here I figured I may as well make a few comments about some of these latest endeavors. I've got some re-packaging that I'd like to do with some of the older blogs (that have been languishing in neglect for some time now). A person really could quite easily turn this "skimmed-time" type of writing into a full-time thing.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Choosing An Historic Estate As A Perfect Wedding Venue
When my daughter announced her engagement awhile back, where her wedding reception would take place wasn't particularly something I thought about. I just assumed it would be somewhere nice. When she found a historical estate as her venue I just had to write about it.
When my daughter announced her engagement awhile back, where her wedding reception would take place wasn't particularly something I thought about. I just assumed it would be somewhere nice. When she found a historical estate as her venue I just had to write about it.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Disabled Comment Capsules on Hubs (or Articles)
When the subject of disabled comment capsules came up in a discussion, I was surprised at how many (most, I think) misinterpret the reasons why any writer wouldn't have comment capsules on all, or at least some, of his work. Based on the assumptions so many people in that discussion made about writers who don't always have comment boxes, I think some of them may be equally surprised at why some writers choose not to include the comment option.
When the subject of disabled comment capsules came up in a discussion, I was surprised at how many (most, I think) misinterpret the reasons why any writer wouldn't have comment capsules on all, or at least some, of his work. Based on the assumptions so many people in that discussion made about writers who don't always have comment boxes, I think some of them may be equally surprised at why some writers choose not to include the comment option.
Friday, August 26, 2011
What I'd Tell A Grade-School Child Who is Afraid of a Hurricane On the Way
When Hurricane Irene was on the way, someone online asked for people's thoughts on how to reassure an eight-year-child who feared the hurricane. "What I'd Tell A Grade School Child...." includes my thoughts on how I'd handle that situation.
When Hurricane Irene was on the way, someone online asked for people's thoughts on how to reassure an eight-year-child who feared the hurricane. "What I'd Tell A Grade School Child...." includes my thoughts on how I'd handle that situation.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Giving Money to Beggars and Homeless People
Whenever people discuss whether or not they give money to beggars/homeless people, someone usually adds a remark about how they don't want "their" money being spent on things like cigarettes or alcohol. Reasonable enough. After all, we all know that such things are unhealthy. Any money someone comes by (or gives to someone else) would more wisely be spent on food, or maybe a pair of warm gloves.
I don't think it's always quite that simple, though. I don't know... When a person has become so destitute he's homeless and/or he must ask others for money, sometimes it becomes clear that all the "usual rules" don't always apply in all cases.
Whenever people discuss whether or not they give money to beggars/homeless people, someone usually adds a remark about how they don't want "their" money being spent on things like cigarettes or alcohol. Reasonable enough. After all, we all know that such things are unhealthy. Any money someone comes by (or gives to someone else) would more wisely be spent on food, or maybe a pair of warm gloves.
I don't think it's always quite that simple, though. I don't know... When a person has become so destitute he's homeless and/or he must ask others for money, sometimes it becomes clear that all the "usual rules" don't always apply in all cases.
Friday, August 12, 2011
In Divorce/Custody Cases, How to Stop Some of the Damage to Individuals and Families - An Opinion
Somebody who plans to run for office next year posed a question about child support laws on a forum. Having, shall I say, "researched" the ways the court system and state government can destroy individuals and families for 20 years now, here's what I offered in reply (which was, of course, far more than the individual who posed the question probably wanted to read):
I have plenty to say here, but I don't know if anybody is going to want to take the time to read it all:
Personally, I don't necessarily think it's the child support laws, by themselves, that are the root of the problem. I've never been a big fan of Deadbeat Parents thing (and I thought it was beyond comprehension when, in Massachusetts, everyone thought it was great to publicize who was a deadbeat parents, in the hopes (I guess) of humiliating them.
Living in Massachusetts (a state that I despise to an extent that I'd never be able to express it), I've seen first-hand how a state's policies and laws can essentially amount to "invalidating" any right citizens are supposed to have under the U.S. Constitution. So, to me, if states are disregarding a Federal child support law, that's no big shocker.
I don't know enough about the details/overall picture associated with the Federal versus state child support laws. My immediate reaction to your question here is that I tend not to think the real root of the problem is (as I said) with child support laws.
I think the problem is that there aren't laws to protect both parents (in a divorcing situation; or, I guess, in whatever other child-custody situation may show up in the courts), and make sure that the courts don't contribute to a situation that limits either or both parent's ability to work AND remain in close enough contact with children that neither parent's grief, worry, or even horror (in some cases) at having children with the other parent becomes such that the person's stress/distress level is so high his "mental energies" are too compromised for him to be able to figure a way past any challenges he faces in working, finding work, or otherwise remaining generally stable and whole.
As you said, the courts (and people who are ready to vote in some laws) are "all about" "All we care about is the children. We don't really care about the parents." (Everybody loves children. Most people would rather tax dollars be spent on laws that take care of children. Most don't even consider that truly watching out for the best interests of children is to make sure (or as much as possible) that both parents' rights are protected enough that both parents remain whole and reasonably "on their feet enough" to meet their responsibilities as a parent, but also to have their rights as a parent preserved.
In 1991 I had no choice but to take my three young children and leave the house. Because I hadn't told family members about some of the difficulties I was having with my husband, none of them knew. So, it was a big shock to him when I fled; and it was a big shock to them that I'd do such a thing. He and they thought I "must be crazy" and had the "mental place" come after me. lol (I can laugh now - sort of.) When I got there (I was allowed to leave a few hours later), it was clear to those people that I showed no signs of being "crazy".
There is apparently, however, no law that says if someone gets picked up for a mental-health "talk" (it wasn't a complete evaluation I've been told), and if that person shows no signs of being out of touch with reality; the mental-health people have to say, "Oops. Sorry. You can go." Instead, some pretty mediocre people decided they would remain "involved in the case" (and since there's apparently no law that says if a person says that all she needs is a divorce lawyer they should refer her to one). So, these mediocre (and in some cases fairly aggressive) government people stayed involved, dragged more people in to be involved, got a whole "garbage in/garbage out" situation going in reports/files; and made a giant mess of a not just my family, but my extended family. Enough of the details on that particular example and need for a law.
Fast-forward to court (which, by the way, took months to get to): I'd been told if I handed in a clean bill of mental health (which I did) I could have my children. The judge changed the rules when that was handed in, and suddenly it was "when you have a house of your own you can have your children". I won't go into more details here. The point is, there should be laws that prohibit judges from moving goalposts.
In any case, I lost custody of my children (who were left with a father with whom they really hadn't been normally close), and I was ordered to pick them up each day after school and also have them on every weekend from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening. (That ought to tell someone that nobody really believed I had "mental problems", or at least not the people who mattered.)
I was living in my car, and as inspection sticker time approach a tail light was cracked. I asked the appointed attorney to at least try to get me money for the light (about $16). I was ignored. I didn't get the sticker in time and drove the car with a bad one. In the meantime, the exhaust pipe developed a leak. Later the brake fluid had to be replaced daily. I raised these issues with the lawyer, and I was ignored. There are apparently no laws that say a parent shouldn't be ordered to pick up, and "entertain" (for lack of a better word) children without making sure there is a safe vehicle in which that parent can transport those children. Without more details on that particular story...
Over a period of months (I'm sure the police ignored me for awhile because they knew some of what had gone on), I would end up with three tickets for the inspection sticker issue, and I couldn't pay them. In 1993 I wasn't able to renew my driver's license.
My thinking when I drove the car was 1) that the court had failed to protect my children (I won't go into what ways here), and that I had a right to at least pick them up each day and at least be their source of emotional stability when I could (since the state hadn't protected them); but also that if I refused to drive the car I would (or so I thought) be considered in contempt of a court order that ordered me to get the children each day. Also, I had nowhere to bring them other than to our own neighborhood (where they stayed with their father, but where I couldn't get into my home).
Fees built up, and at first I didn't have the money to pay them. Sometimes I'd have the money; but after after having people "play games" so often I was afraid that if I handed the money over I still may not get the license. Later there was talk about people who hadn't driven for awhile needing to take the whole written test again (and I had concentration problems because I'd been living under such "ridiculous" conditions for so long). In any case, I lost my license for - now - 17 years, for a cracker tail light (because if someone had protected my right/responsibility to work; I would have been working before the exhaust system went).
I was told by the Registry "there's nothing in place for a situation like yours".
There's also nothing in place in Welfare programs that would give a parent who needs to find a place to live and maybe a job (in the case of stay-at-home moms who have been "accused" of being "out of their minds!!!! mad mad ) a small chunk of cash (even if in the form of a loan) that would let that parent get on on his/her feet, set up a normal home base that could be shared with the children during that parent's time; and generally creating a normal life and lifestyle for all involved.
I asked the Welfare office if there was some kind of temporary assistance for someone like me. I was offered food stamps (which I didn't need), health insurance (which I didn't need), and whatever else they offer people that most people don't really need. I was offered job training. I told the woman, "I don't need job training." Her reply: "Well, maybe you'd like some anyway." mad (No. I wasn't interested in getting job training that I didn't need for the heck of it.)
Welfare programs are pretty much an all-or-nothing thing. Either someone has to sign on and go with the whole, awful, thing that pretty much assumes people are incompetent, irresponsible, and/or welfare cons; or else get no help whatsoever.
It's hardly "watching out for the interests of children" or "taking care of the children" to tie the hands of one or both parents to the point where children from otherwise middle class (and on the highish end of middle class) are left with one or both parents being a big, compromised, mess.
More child support would be paid if people understood that the way to take care of children is not to destroy one or both of their parents.
There are apparently no laws that hold "court people" and anyone associated with a family court case accountable for screw-ups.
Here's one: There are no laws that prohibit lawyers and/or GAL's and/or other case-associated people from dragging in the family members, friends, and neighbors into a case to offer "input". Not only does this cause serious problems in the extended, as well as immediate, family; but it muddies up the chances that the truth will ever get to court. As a result, with each non-professional who is allowed to put in his two cents on either parent, there is yet more opportunities for stupidity and/or lies to be entered into the case; where further increases the chances of destroying one or both parents in one way or another.
If a person goes to any state agency and says there was a screw-up in the court, of course the state employee is not the person who can do anything about it. What would be good, however, would be an office (or just a volunteer attorney somewhere)that the state worker could contact and say, "I have this person here who claims there was a big screw-up with her divorce case." The person could then be in touch with the attorney (if that's what it was) in order for that attorney to, maybe, look into things a little more closely. If it wasn't a false alarm, maybe that's when the individual could be put in touch with a different attorney. If these kinds of things happen only occasionally in each state, it wouldn't take much to create that ombudsman-type of situation. If they happen hundreds of times a year in each state, then tax dollars would be better spent on creating an office/agency to handle such situations than spent on offering unnecessary job training, unnecessary parenting courses, unnecessary food stamps, etc. etc.
Basically, the states (if they're like this disgusting state I no longer consider my own) have to acknowledge those ways in which laws/policies are destroying people's ability to keep and find work; and child support won't be the kind of problem it is. I can't tell you the thousands upon thousands of dollars I lost by not being able to get to the kind of job I could have done (not to mention the sales taxes on purchases and any income taxes that would have come resulted from my being able to work full time over the last 20 years).
In my own situation, I've seen the government waste (and this is not an exaggeration) millions of tax dollars over the years unnecessary and/or destructive government involvement (GAL's, lawyers, agencies, mental-health people, whoever) just on one simple little family of two parents and three children. I wish I'd been given a statement every time the court dragged in someone else, or else caused unnecessary expenses to taxpayers or even my ex-husband and family members. (And yet people don't even know the extent to which this kind of waste goes on, so instead they worry about whether a library stays open Wednesday nights or not, or whether someone gets some prescription for something paid for by the government).
As far as child support goes, I'm not sure I agree with a percentage either. The parent who makes "a zillion dollars" a year (I don't think) should automatically be required to spend x percent of that on "child support". There's only so much standard of living even children from the wealthiest of families need. In the situation where a parent made that "zillion dollars" a year, I think having something in place whereby the case would be considered (and where the children's education were, of course, factored in) would be better than just a standard percentage.
With a low-end income parent, the percentage could mean the difference between the non-custodial parent's getting a little ahead and always having anything "ahead" he earns taken from him. People with lower incomes can manage them better (and aim to improve them better) if they have a fixed amount to pay for something each month; and if they can work within that. Ideally, I'd think that the parent who started out as a lower monthly payment, but who knew it might be raised later once he got on his feet; would know what he was dealing with and could work with it. The problem, of course, would be the custodial parent who didn't have enough to get by on (in which case, I guess, in an ideal world it may be good to have some kind of moderator, maybe a "financial counselor", who could work with the family, figure out a plan, and maybe even consider some limited assistance to one parent or the other over a short period of time).
So, having said all that... I have to say that I guess I am not in favor of a percentage-based child-support law. That's one of those things that would seem to make sense on the surface, but that, to anyone who has ever lived in the "real world" isn't as sensible and fair as it seems. I think if states figured out the ways they're running up wasted bills for taxpayers in divorce courts, they might be able to save tax dollars AND put something in place that would allow for a little more "personalization" when it comes to the shifting needs (and especially when the non-custodial parent is first getting set up) of each parent (and the children, of course).
What I'd like to see someone do is have the Federal government step in and really get a solid look at all the ways any of the states step on any number of people's Constitutional Rights (because all it takes is a few lies, a few confidential files, a few people who won't admit mistakes, and some other fairly simple things; and the only one aware of any violations of rights may be the person who, himself/herself has had his/her own violated without just cause.
(Oh - a couple of other things I'll throw in: There needs to be a law that requires more than a phone call or two from an angry husband, and/or a couple of relatives who happen to think the wife is "crazy" for leaving her marriage, to get a woman picked up by either an ambulance or else have two or three police cars show up to pick her up instead. There should also be a law that applies to marriage/family counselors to whom a couple is referred (if they must be "referred" at all by the court system, when all they want/need is a divorce). That law should prohibit family counselors from placing themselves in the role of judge with regard to "whether or not there really should be a divorce".
If someone says she wants a divorce (and there's a good chance she's been thinking about it for a good long time), no court-associated counselor should have the right to presume to be the judge of whether that divorce should (as the counselor, in all his "coolness", said to me) "come down".
Another one: Student loans should require the signatures of both parents, regardless of who has custody. If, for some reason, the non-custodial parent is not willing or able to provide a signature for any student loans; then I guess someone should be required to get authorization, or allow the application, through the courts (perhaps).
Speaking of student loans, I'd like to see Welfare departments completely changed to approach (at lease some cases/families) more the way student aid is approached for college students (a mix of different types of assistance, depending on the student, his needs, what's available, etc. etc.). If Welfare programs would designed in a more efficient, more intelligent, way that encouraged individuals' independence and autonomy (as opposed to discouraging it), a lot of people would/could get freed up from Welfare programs; so that maybe then there would be a little money available to offer some limited, short-term, assistance to non-custodial parents just getting up and running.
Some kind of "education program" (it could be a simple as sending around a "ton" of e.mails strategically to Federal and state employees, as well schools to make the general public better understand that "no money" doesn't necessarily (particularly in a bad economy, but any time) equal "stupid" and/or "irresponsible". Include in this type of public-education program there should also be more open talk about how divorce courts mess up. I think if the public had a better idea of how things happen "in real life" and in families, people might be more likely to vote for some things that weren't specifically and directly "for the children". Similarly, if the general public had a better understanding of how things can wrong in families or with people's aims to get on their feet (and support their own children both financially and emotionally), there would be fewer people thinking that the father who didn't come up with a couple of months payments is "just a deadbeat".
Something else the general public could stand to learn a little (a lot) more about are children's (and adults', for that matter) needs (including emotional needs, developmental needs, and academic needs). As things have pretty much always been, most people think that as long as people (children) can eat and have a roof over their heads that's all anybody needs.
This is why there are so many kids from divorce with unmet needs and anger (or else sadness). It's why you have parents who can barely function and are either penniless and jobless, or else trapped in a Welfare system that can rob them of what little ability to "be up and running" they may have had to start with.
I'm aware of the fact that there's only so much involvement in what the states do that the Federal government can/should have, but something like an education program that gives the general public credit for being able to understand something more than sixth-grade reading material; and that was "made available" (nothing more) to each of the states (to be distributed as seen fit, perhaps) would lead to a far more understanding and educated public, and awareness; which, in turn, would help couples and children of divorce understand important things that much better, help people dealing with them to understand them better, and help voters better understand the real needs when it comes to being in favor of, or against, spending tax dollars on one thing or another.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Writing Engaging and Interesting Non-Fiction Stories Without Embellishing the Truth
I write non-fiction. Even my creative writing efforts are non-fiction. For the most part, I have zero imagination most of the time. Also, as someone who chooses to spend my limited reading and/or writing time on non-fiction, I can more often justify my time skimmed by knowing that the writing/reading deals with real life. Besides, I'm more of a "studier of real life" than someone who prefers to escape from it.
In any case, this article offers my own thoughts on writing non-fiction without embellishing it. Here's my personal thinking: If it's been embellished then it isn't really non-fiction. However, it's definitely true that some non-fiction can certainly also be non-interesting.
I write non-fiction. Even my creative writing efforts are non-fiction. For the most part, I have zero imagination most of the time. Also, as someone who chooses to spend my limited reading and/or writing time on non-fiction, I can more often justify my time skimmed by knowing that the writing/reading deals with real life. Besides, I'm more of a "studier of real life" than someone who prefers to escape from it.
In any case, this article offers my own thoughts on writing non-fiction without embellishing it. Here's my personal thinking: If it's been embellished then it isn't really non-fiction. However, it's definitely true that some non-fiction can certainly also be non-interesting.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
How to Keep Kids From Acting Up (Being Out-of-Control)
This was a question someone asked online, and trying to answer it wasn't all that quick and easy a matter. This is a Hub that tries to answer that question, based on personal experience with/exposure to children.
This was a question someone asked online, and trying to answer it wasn't all that quick and easy a matter. This is a Hub that tries to answer that question, based on personal experience with/exposure to children.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Birth Parents and Ancestors - Is There A Cut-Off Age When We No Longer Want or Need to Know About Them?
There was a question online by someone who was in he forties and hadn't really thought much about a birth father he'd never known until he reached the age he was. The individual said he had no interest until then, but had developed interest/curiosity recently. Since the question was focused primarily on how age might ordinarily impact the level of interest a person has in his "roots", I addressed the question from the "age angle" in this article (Hub on HubPages), based on my own observations about the ages at which people seem to have interest in some things once they've grown past the growing-up stage and continue on with a more grown-up maturing process.
There was a question online by someone who was in he forties and hadn't really thought much about a birth father he'd never known until he reached the age he was. The individual said he had no interest until then, but had developed interest/curiosity recently. Since the question was focused primarily on how age might ordinarily impact the level of interest a person has in his "roots", I addressed the question from the "age angle" in this article (Hub on HubPages), based on my own observations about the ages at which people seem to have interest in some things once they've grown past the growing-up stage and continue on with a more grown-up maturing process.
Monday, May 23, 2011
LISA'S COLLECTION: My Writing Identity-Crisis, Part One
LISA'S COLLECTION: My Writing Identity-Crisis, Part One: "I've been in the middle of a big 'writing-identity' crisis since I first signed up to write online because the 'person-me' enjoys writing. ..."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A Well Known and Favorite Quote
This is a Hub written in response to a question about people's favorite quotes. It's a quote I first ran into in childhood, but one I still like today.
This is a Hub written in response to a question about people's favorite quotes. It's a quote I first ran into in childhood, but one I still like today.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
What Does The Term, "Highly Gifted," Mean?
Highly gifted individuals are those with IQ's higher than the 145/150 range, depending on which test is used to measure the IQ. The term, "highly gifted," may also be used to describe individuals who have shown prodigious talent at an early age. Beyond highly gifted (or at the highest end of being highly gifted) are the profoundly gifted, which is generally the term used to describe individuals with IQ's of 180 or above.
The highly gifted individual takes in and processes information more quickly than does the person with an average or slightly higher than average IQ. Those who are highly gifted also tend to have excellent memory, which means they retain more information. As a result of these two traits, alone, the highly gifted individual forms opinions and conclusions based on a larger base of information than most people use to form opinions and conclusions.
Perhaps the best way to describe how the highly gifted individual sees the world is to make the following comparison: Imagine one person standing on a narrow city street that is lined with skyscrapers. Imagine, too, a second person standing on the roof of one of those skyscrapers, equipped with a pair of high-powered binoculars and a gadget that can amplify sound. (For the purposes of this exercise disregard the reality that two people so far away from one another could not have a conversation between them.) Imagine expecting the two individuals to have a conversation about what was going on around them and expecting the two to be "on the same wavelength" during that conversation. Comparing the highly gifted individual to the person on the roof, and the average individual to the person in the street, one can get some idea of how differently the highly gifted person can experience the world.
Not only would the person on the roof of that skyscraper see more of what is going on, but he would experience some sensations more and sooner than the person in the street would, as well. For example, if the wind blew up the person on the roof would feel it more dramatically. He'd feel the heat of the sun more acutely. If it started to rain he'd feel it first and most - and if lightning occurred he'd be more at risk.
In this comparison, if the highly gifted person tried to tell the person in the street that, say, a high-speed chase appeared headed in their direction, the person in the street would be faced with having to decide whether to believe that person on the roof or not. Departing from the imaginary scenario, what the highly gifted individual often lives with is being very much like that person on the roof on the inside, but not having the easy-to-see advantage that a person on a roof would clearly have to all observers. Because of this ability to access more information more readily, highly gifted people are often not understood by others; and, in fact, their approach to life or opinions can often be questioned by those who don't see the reasoning behind the approach or opinions.
The highly gifted person doesn't just see the bigger picture. He sees the "microscopic" picture as well. With a well developed ability to think analytically, think abstractly, see relationships and patterns, draw connections between a number of different ideas/concepts, and easily understand concepts; highly gifted people just operate from a fuller "information pool", and they add to that information pool quickly, as they continue to learn and build on it.
Highly gifted people are often perfectionists, but achieving perfection in their work is easier for them than it is for others. As a result, perfectionism doesn't, for them, mean aiming for the impossible, or aiming for something that it too impractical. In a world where perfectionism is often viewed as aiming for the impossible or impractical, the highly gifted person, for whom perfectionism is often just a matter of doing it right with only a reasonable amount of care, is often seen as neurotic.
Highly gifted people can generally accomplish tasks more quickly than most others can. They can make some work seem effortless. This, though, can make them appear lazy to people who believe that work requires a lot of struggle and huffing and puffing. In a world that often can't imagine how easily some projects can be done by the highly gifted person, most people may not realize the amount of care and effort that have been put into some projects (even if they have been completed efficiently and seemingly effortlessly). The organization skills of the highly gifted person, along with the high energy level that many gifted people enjoy, contribute to an efficiency in completing tasks quickly. Upon knowing a task was completed, though, people around the highly gifted individual may just assume the task was easier and required less effort. This lack of understanding of the use of strategy in completing tasks can cause the non-highly-gifted to assume that the gifted person either "just had it easy" or "didn't put in much effort".
In the book, "Growing Up Gifted", Dr. Barbara Clark reviewed the research of Dahlberg, Gross, Koppel, Lovecky and Silverman and put together a list of characteristics that are common among highly gifted people. Among characteristics commonly associated with highly intelligent people are "a high degree of emotional sensitivity," "highly developed morals and ethics and early concern for moral and existential issues," "unusual and early insight into social and moral issues," "ability to empathetically understand and relate to ideas and other people," and "unusual intensity and depth of feeling. " While these traits would suggest a high degree of moral character and understanding of others, they would also suggest that highly gifted individuals may be more bothered with some of the uglier aspects of the world. Dr. Clark's list includes "a need for the world to be logical and fair," which would suggest that highly gifted people will find that need unfulfilled more often than met. While being more "in tune" with moral issues, empathy, and ethics may drive some highly gifted individuals toward positive aims, these characteristics can also detract from some highly intelligent people's ability to be happy.
Other traits commonly associated with highly gifted individuals (also based on the research of Dahlberg, Gross, Koppel, Lovecky and Silverman) are argumentativeness, an expansive vocabulary, a long concentration span, and conviction of correctness in one's personal beliefs and ideas.
In their Roeper Review (February, 1984) article, "The intellectual and psychosocial nature of extreme giftedness," P. Powell and T. Haden pointed out that, at least at the time of their writing, literature on the highly gifted was relatively rare, compared with the amount of information available on people who are moderately gifted. Powell and Haden cited Terman and Oden (1959)in their description of the four traits which most clearly distinguished gifted children from the control group. The four traits described by Terman and Oden are:
General intelligence
Desire to know
Originality
Common sense
Powell and Haden note that people of average intelligence think in a "step-by-step" manner and are said to be "analytical thinkers". They note that people of average intelligence show little "desire to know" and need more external structure. On the other hand, moderately gifted people are described as "synthetic thinkers". Rather than trying to solve problems in a step-by-step fashion, moderately gifted people can "skip-think", which means they can integrate several steps of an argument into "one giant step". This means that moderately gifted people can solve complex problems more efficiently. In addition to more efficient information processing, moderately gifted people have a "desire to know" and create their own structure.
Highly gifted people are said to have a more extreme desire to know. Highly gifted people are often the ones to create structure for a culture. Powell and Haden cite Newton and Einstein as extreme examples of highly gifted people who created disciplines/frameworks for understanding the universe. This group of thinkers is said to be "integrated thinkers", which means they are very skilled in both analytical thinking and synthetic thinking.
While there are differing opinions on the extent to which the highly gifted are vulnerable to emotional difficulties, and while any individual's vulnerability may depend on his own circumstances (and degree of giftedness), highly gifted children can have a sense that they are raising themselves. This can occur when these children are surrounded by adults who clearly do not understand them. Children can automatically begin to believe that the adult who doesn't seem to understand them must not be as intelligent, and this can lead to a child's "realizing" (in his own mind) that he is on his own in a lot of ways.
The song, "The Greatest Love of All", recorded by Whitney Houston, contains the lyrics, "Everybody's searching for a hero. People need someone to look up to. I never found anyone who could fulfill my needs. A lonely place to be. So I learned to depend on me." These few lines may best describe how many highly gifted children come to view their existence. They may love their parents and know their parents love them; and they may like their teachers and believe their teachers like them. Still, they learn that the adults they love, like, respect, and even treasure just can't be trusted to know what they need, what being "highly gifted" means or doesn't mean, or how to help them understand and like themselves. They may well trust the honesty and character of adults around them, but they often cannot trust the judgment of those adults. Highly gifted children learn to depend on themselves; and while that isn't such a bad thing for anyone to learn how to do, it is, in fact, too lonely a place for a young child to be.
Highly gifted children can also have a sense of being different from their peers because the five-year-old child who feels - on the inside - like an eleven-year-old child (or even an adult in some ways) knows his five-year-old peers don't think as he does. Feeling more mature than peers can lead highly gifted children to seem "bossy" at times.
Regardless of the age of the highly gifted person, lack of positive feedback can contribute to feelings of low self-esteem in different ways. That lack of positive feedback can come in the form of others' believing there is something "strange" about the highly gifted person's way of thinking. It can also result from others' sensing the gifted individual's abilities and/or confidence in his own abilities, resenting one or both of those, and refusing to give positive feedback.
Another contributor to low self-esteem is that perfectionist tendency attributed to many highly gifted individuals. The child who knows how a professionally completed project should look can feel he is inadequate if his age, skill level, or training level make his completed project appear to him to be inferior.
Child or adult, the highly gifted individual can offend people with his desire to know or his ability to see where questions should be asked. Highly gifted people live in a world where the majority of people are not as intelligent as they are. While such gifted people may be well aware that others can have specialized training (and therefore be generally far more knowledgeable) in any one area, even those who are well trained, moderately gifted, professionals do not approach problem-solving in the same way that the highly gifted person does. As a result, the highly intelligent person who questions, for example, a doctor's approach to a medical condition may be well aware that he (the intelligent person) lacks medical expertise. At the same time, it may be obvious to him that the doctor is not approaching a problem in the best way. The doctor (or dentist or teacher or auto mechanic, etc.) may resent the questions and assume that patient (or student or customer) "thinks he knows better even when he has no training". In general, highly gifted people can have difficulty not being resented.
Highly gifted people may need to learn how to find different things they have in common with different people and then build relationships built first on those things. While this approach can help in building friendships, it can also backfire over time if the two friends are otherwise too different in thinking to sustain the friendship.
Highly gifted people who don't wish to draw the resentment of others, or who don't want to be considered as "different", may attempt to hide their abilities in the interest of fitting in.
With that tendency to want the world to be fair, it is natural that the highly gifted individual may want to be seen as "just like everyone else". With a well developed sense of morality and unusual insight into social issues, extremely intelligent people (at least those who are reasonably well adjusted) know that their intelligence is not the measure of their humanity. On the other hand, those highly gifted individuals who choose to show their abilities can be met with any number of people for whom being "smarter than the smartest person" would be a feather in their cap. That wish to have that feather in a cap drives some people to work particularly diligently at proving the highly gifted person wrong.
Most people assume everyone else is like they are, and highly gifted people are no exception. In their belief that others may have the same interests or see things the same way, highly gifted people may attempt to engage another in conversation or interests to which the other just cannot relate. This attempt to engage or converse can be seen as an attempt to show off. Even when it is not interpreted that way, it can emphasize how different the highly gifted individual is. Either way (keep his interests to himself or try to engage others), the highly gifted person can run into social awkwardness just by assuming other people are like he is.
Highly gifted individuals may also over-estimate the degree of empathy or moral awareness of others. Again, this is a matter of assuming others are like they are.
Gifted children may know that they have more advanced abilities than their classmates, and they may feel that they have no right to expect their class to go at a different pace "just because" they "happen to wish it could". Many highly gifted children can learn that "school is not aimed at them", and over time they may become underachievers. Very gifted students, however, can even hide their under-achievement by getting reasonably good grades without trying. The sixth-grade student who is capable of getting A's in a tenth-grade class and who, instead, is getting mostly A's and B's in sixth grade, doesn't set off any "alarm bells" for parents or teachers. When a child comes to the conclusion that school "is not aimed at him" he may come to feel that he is less important than everyone else. Further, he may feel it would be "too conceited" to tell his parents or a teacher what the problem is.
When it comes to gifted programs in schools, programs aimed at the moderately gifted may offer little for the highly gifted.
In spite of early twentieth century research into high intelligence, giftedness (particularly extreme giftedness) has, in many ways, seemed to be "the final taboo" in society. In modern society it is now seen as acceptable to talk about sex, body parts, religion, politics, mental illness, and money. Still, until about the last ten or fifteen years (and even today in some circles) talking about one's gifted child/ren was just not seen as acceptable.
Parents approaching school systems in an attempt to have their gifted child's academic needs addressed have been met with hints that they are "just more parents who think their plenty-bright child is gifted". Parents usually learn, too, that trying to discuss their concerns about their gifted child with friends or families is best not done.
In many ways the world and life, in general, can seem to come easily to highly gifted people. What can present the more difficult challenges for the highly gifted are often the people in that world and that life. While the well adjusted, highly gifted, individual may be very skilled at finding ways to compensate for the differences between himself and so many others; the fact remains that the highly gifted will always be like that person with binoculars on the roof of the skyscraper - seeing what few others can see, and acting a lightning rod for strikes that, to him, seem to come out of the clear, blue, sky.
While understanding of all types of giftedness has increased over recent years, highly gifted people sometimes continue to take the brunt of misguided beliefs that high intelligence must always be associated with being either an "evil genius" or "insane genius". Parents may, to this day, sometimes fear their child's high intelligence for one reason or another. They may deny it or resent it. Some parents (or teachers) worry that a child will become "conceited" and work hard to "take the child down a peg or two". Other parents may so value their child's high intelligence they can seem, to the child, to "forget" to value other things about the child.
The world has come a long way in understanding what it means to be a highly gifted individual - but it still has a long way to go.
The highly gifted individual takes in and processes information more quickly than does the person with an average or slightly higher than average IQ. Those who are highly gifted also tend to have excellent memory, which means they retain more information. As a result of these two traits, alone, the highly gifted individual forms opinions and conclusions based on a larger base of information than most people use to form opinions and conclusions.
Perhaps the best way to describe how the highly gifted individual sees the world is to make the following comparison: Imagine one person standing on a narrow city street that is lined with skyscrapers. Imagine, too, a second person standing on the roof of one of those skyscrapers, equipped with a pair of high-powered binoculars and a gadget that can amplify sound. (For the purposes of this exercise disregard the reality that two people so far away from one another could not have a conversation between them.) Imagine expecting the two individuals to have a conversation about what was going on around them and expecting the two to be "on the same wavelength" during that conversation. Comparing the highly gifted individual to the person on the roof, and the average individual to the person in the street, one can get some idea of how differently the highly gifted person can experience the world.
Not only would the person on the roof of that skyscraper see more of what is going on, but he would experience some sensations more and sooner than the person in the street would, as well. For example, if the wind blew up the person on the roof would feel it more dramatically. He'd feel the heat of the sun more acutely. If it started to rain he'd feel it first and most - and if lightning occurred he'd be more at risk.
In this comparison, if the highly gifted person tried to tell the person in the street that, say, a high-speed chase appeared headed in their direction, the person in the street would be faced with having to decide whether to believe that person on the roof or not. Departing from the imaginary scenario, what the highly gifted individual often lives with is being very much like that person on the roof on the inside, but not having the easy-to-see advantage that a person on a roof would clearly have to all observers. Because of this ability to access more information more readily, highly gifted people are often not understood by others; and, in fact, their approach to life or opinions can often be questioned by those who don't see the reasoning behind the approach or opinions.
The highly gifted person doesn't just see the bigger picture. He sees the "microscopic" picture as well. With a well developed ability to think analytically, think abstractly, see relationships and patterns, draw connections between a number of different ideas/concepts, and easily understand concepts; highly gifted people just operate from a fuller "information pool", and they add to that information pool quickly, as they continue to learn and build on it.
Highly gifted people are often perfectionists, but achieving perfection in their work is easier for them than it is for others. As a result, perfectionism doesn't, for them, mean aiming for the impossible, or aiming for something that it too impractical. In a world where perfectionism is often viewed as aiming for the impossible or impractical, the highly gifted person, for whom perfectionism is often just a matter of doing it right with only a reasonable amount of care, is often seen as neurotic.
Highly gifted people can generally accomplish tasks more quickly than most others can. They can make some work seem effortless. This, though, can make them appear lazy to people who believe that work requires a lot of struggle and huffing and puffing. In a world that often can't imagine how easily some projects can be done by the highly gifted person, most people may not realize the amount of care and effort that have been put into some projects (even if they have been completed efficiently and seemingly effortlessly). The organization skills of the highly gifted person, along with the high energy level that many gifted people enjoy, contribute to an efficiency in completing tasks quickly. Upon knowing a task was completed, though, people around the highly gifted individual may just assume the task was easier and required less effort. This lack of understanding of the use of strategy in completing tasks can cause the non-highly-gifted to assume that the gifted person either "just had it easy" or "didn't put in much effort".
In the book, "Growing Up Gifted", Dr. Barbara Clark reviewed the research of Dahlberg, Gross, Koppel, Lovecky and Silverman and put together a list of characteristics that are common among highly gifted people. Among characteristics commonly associated with highly intelligent people are "a high degree of emotional sensitivity," "highly developed morals and ethics and early concern for moral and existential issues," "unusual and early insight into social and moral issues," "ability to empathetically understand and relate to ideas and other people," and "unusual intensity and depth of feeling. " While these traits would suggest a high degree of moral character and understanding of others, they would also suggest that highly gifted individuals may be more bothered with some of the uglier aspects of the world. Dr. Clark's list includes "a need for the world to be logical and fair," which would suggest that highly gifted people will find that need unfulfilled more often than met. While being more "in tune" with moral issues, empathy, and ethics may drive some highly gifted individuals toward positive aims, these characteristics can also detract from some highly intelligent people's ability to be happy.
Other traits commonly associated with highly gifted individuals (also based on the research of Dahlberg, Gross, Koppel, Lovecky and Silverman) are argumentativeness, an expansive vocabulary, a long concentration span, and conviction of correctness in one's personal beliefs and ideas.
In their Roeper Review (February, 1984) article, "The intellectual and psychosocial nature of extreme giftedness," P. Powell and T. Haden pointed out that, at least at the time of their writing, literature on the highly gifted was relatively rare, compared with the amount of information available on people who are moderately gifted. Powell and Haden cited Terman and Oden (1959)in their description of the four traits which most clearly distinguished gifted children from the control group. The four traits described by Terman and Oden are:
General intelligence
Desire to know
Originality
Common sense
Powell and Haden note that people of average intelligence think in a "step-by-step" manner and are said to be "analytical thinkers". They note that people of average intelligence show little "desire to know" and need more external structure. On the other hand, moderately gifted people are described as "synthetic thinkers". Rather than trying to solve problems in a step-by-step fashion, moderately gifted people can "skip-think", which means they can integrate several steps of an argument into "one giant step". This means that moderately gifted people can solve complex problems more efficiently. In addition to more efficient information processing, moderately gifted people have a "desire to know" and create their own structure.
Highly gifted people are said to have a more extreme desire to know. Highly gifted people are often the ones to create structure for a culture. Powell and Haden cite Newton and Einstein as extreme examples of highly gifted people who created disciplines/frameworks for understanding the universe. This group of thinkers is said to be "integrated thinkers", which means they are very skilled in both analytical thinking and synthetic thinking.
While there are differing opinions on the extent to which the highly gifted are vulnerable to emotional difficulties, and while any individual's vulnerability may depend on his own circumstances (and degree of giftedness), highly gifted children can have a sense that they are raising themselves. This can occur when these children are surrounded by adults who clearly do not understand them. Children can automatically begin to believe that the adult who doesn't seem to understand them must not be as intelligent, and this can lead to a child's "realizing" (in his own mind) that he is on his own in a lot of ways.
The song, "The Greatest Love of All", recorded by Whitney Houston, contains the lyrics, "Everybody's searching for a hero. People need someone to look up to. I never found anyone who could fulfill my needs. A lonely place to be. So I learned to depend on me." These few lines may best describe how many highly gifted children come to view their existence. They may love their parents and know their parents love them; and they may like their teachers and believe their teachers like them. Still, they learn that the adults they love, like, respect, and even treasure just can't be trusted to know what they need, what being "highly gifted" means or doesn't mean, or how to help them understand and like themselves. They may well trust the honesty and character of adults around them, but they often cannot trust the judgment of those adults. Highly gifted children learn to depend on themselves; and while that isn't such a bad thing for anyone to learn how to do, it is, in fact, too lonely a place for a young child to be.
Highly gifted children can also have a sense of being different from their peers because the five-year-old child who feels - on the inside - like an eleven-year-old child (or even an adult in some ways) knows his five-year-old peers don't think as he does. Feeling more mature than peers can lead highly gifted children to seem "bossy" at times.
Regardless of the age of the highly gifted person, lack of positive feedback can contribute to feelings of low self-esteem in different ways. That lack of positive feedback can come in the form of others' believing there is something "strange" about the highly gifted person's way of thinking. It can also result from others' sensing the gifted individual's abilities and/or confidence in his own abilities, resenting one or both of those, and refusing to give positive feedback.
Another contributor to low self-esteem is that perfectionist tendency attributed to many highly gifted individuals. The child who knows how a professionally completed project should look can feel he is inadequate if his age, skill level, or training level make his completed project appear to him to be inferior.
Child or adult, the highly gifted individual can offend people with his desire to know or his ability to see where questions should be asked. Highly gifted people live in a world where the majority of people are not as intelligent as they are. While such gifted people may be well aware that others can have specialized training (and therefore be generally far more knowledgeable) in any one area, even those who are well trained, moderately gifted, professionals do not approach problem-solving in the same way that the highly gifted person does. As a result, the highly intelligent person who questions, for example, a doctor's approach to a medical condition may be well aware that he (the intelligent person) lacks medical expertise. At the same time, it may be obvious to him that the doctor is not approaching a problem in the best way. The doctor (or dentist or teacher or auto mechanic, etc.) may resent the questions and assume that patient (or student or customer) "thinks he knows better even when he has no training". In general, highly gifted people can have difficulty not being resented.
Highly gifted people may need to learn how to find different things they have in common with different people and then build relationships built first on those things. While this approach can help in building friendships, it can also backfire over time if the two friends are otherwise too different in thinking to sustain the friendship.
Highly gifted people who don't wish to draw the resentment of others, or who don't want to be considered as "different", may attempt to hide their abilities in the interest of fitting in.
With that tendency to want the world to be fair, it is natural that the highly gifted individual may want to be seen as "just like everyone else". With a well developed sense of morality and unusual insight into social issues, extremely intelligent people (at least those who are reasonably well adjusted) know that their intelligence is not the measure of their humanity. On the other hand, those highly gifted individuals who choose to show their abilities can be met with any number of people for whom being "smarter than the smartest person" would be a feather in their cap. That wish to have that feather in a cap drives some people to work particularly diligently at proving the highly gifted person wrong.
Most people assume everyone else is like they are, and highly gifted people are no exception. In their belief that others may have the same interests or see things the same way, highly gifted people may attempt to engage another in conversation or interests to which the other just cannot relate. This attempt to engage or converse can be seen as an attempt to show off. Even when it is not interpreted that way, it can emphasize how different the highly gifted individual is. Either way (keep his interests to himself or try to engage others), the highly gifted person can run into social awkwardness just by assuming other people are like he is.
Highly gifted individuals may also over-estimate the degree of empathy or moral awareness of others. Again, this is a matter of assuming others are like they are.
Gifted children may know that they have more advanced abilities than their classmates, and they may feel that they have no right to expect their class to go at a different pace "just because" they "happen to wish it could". Many highly gifted children can learn that "school is not aimed at them", and over time they may become underachievers. Very gifted students, however, can even hide their under-achievement by getting reasonably good grades without trying. The sixth-grade student who is capable of getting A's in a tenth-grade class and who, instead, is getting mostly A's and B's in sixth grade, doesn't set off any "alarm bells" for parents or teachers. When a child comes to the conclusion that school "is not aimed at him" he may come to feel that he is less important than everyone else. Further, he may feel it would be "too conceited" to tell his parents or a teacher what the problem is.
When it comes to gifted programs in schools, programs aimed at the moderately gifted may offer little for the highly gifted.
In spite of early twentieth century research into high intelligence, giftedness (particularly extreme giftedness) has, in many ways, seemed to be "the final taboo" in society. In modern society it is now seen as acceptable to talk about sex, body parts, religion, politics, mental illness, and money. Still, until about the last ten or fifteen years (and even today in some circles) talking about one's gifted child/ren was just not seen as acceptable.
Parents approaching school systems in an attempt to have their gifted child's academic needs addressed have been met with hints that they are "just more parents who think their plenty-bright child is gifted". Parents usually learn, too, that trying to discuss their concerns about their gifted child with friends or families is best not done.
In many ways the world and life, in general, can seem to come easily to highly gifted people. What can present the more difficult challenges for the highly gifted are often the people in that world and that life. While the well adjusted, highly gifted, individual may be very skilled at finding ways to compensate for the differences between himself and so many others; the fact remains that the highly gifted will always be like that person with binoculars on the roof of the skyscraper - seeing what few others can see, and acting a lightning rod for strikes that, to him, seem to come out of the clear, blue, sky.
While understanding of all types of giftedness has increased over recent years, highly gifted people sometimes continue to take the brunt of misguided beliefs that high intelligence must always be associated with being either an "evil genius" or "insane genius". Parents may, to this day, sometimes fear their child's high intelligence for one reason or another. They may deny it or resent it. Some parents (or teachers) worry that a child will become "conceited" and work hard to "take the child down a peg or two". Other parents may so value their child's high intelligence they can seem, to the child, to "forget" to value other things about the child.
The world has come a long way in understanding what it means to be a highly gifted individual - but it still has a long way to go.
The Finalization of One Adoption, A Personal Story and Quiet Celebration
The Finalization of One Adoption, A Personal Story and Quiet Celebration
Just as most mothers like to tell the story about the day their babies were born (I have two of those stories), mothers who came by their babies through the adoption process generally like to tell their own stories about the particularly eventful days (there can be more than one with adoption) the led to their becoming a mother (and if they happened to already be a mother, then to becoming the mother of the particular child in question).
This is my own adoption-finalization story.
Just as most mothers like to tell the story about the day their babies were born (I have two of those stories), mothers who came by their babies through the adoption process generally like to tell their own stories about the particularly eventful days (there can be more than one with adoption) the led to their becoming a mother (and if they happened to already be a mother, then to becoming the mother of the particular child in question).
This is my own adoption-finalization story.
Children's Imaginary Friends
According to the NYU Child Study Center, about 65% of children between the ages of 3 and 5 have an imaginary friend. One study revealed that some children continue to have imaginary friends as late as 7 years old. While new imaginary friends, and those who have stayed around for too long, can be disconcerting to parents; most of the time there is no reason for concern. Imaginary friends are a way for children to deal with any number of issues in life - with absolute authority, autonomy, and abandon. An imaginary friend can be anything and anyone a child needs or wants "him" or "her" to be.
Younger children are said to more often turn an object, like a stuffed animal, into their imaginary friend; while older children are more likely to use their more developed imaginations to create the kind of imaginary friend with which most of us associate the term.
Children of "imaginary-friend" age are at an age when they are establishing their own identity. NYU Child Study Center points out that children of this age are also at an age of testing the boundaries between reality and fantasy. For the most part, there appears to be little difference in personalities between children with imaginary pals and those without them, although there is some indication that those with make-believe buddies may have a better ability to see things from others' perspectives. Children of this age are no longer living in the smaller world of a toddler, but the larger world (and everything associated with it) is still relatively new to them. An imaginary friend allows children to make sense of whatever it is they need to make sense of.
It is not unusual to hear a child teaching his/her imaginary friend about the very thing he/she is in the process of learning and digesting. The five-year-old who is heard telling her imaginary friend, "Susannah, you cannot go near the street because its dangerous," is putting into practice what she, herself, has recently been told. Furthermore, this child gets to have the different role of being the teacher to her "friend".
Although few differences have been seen between children who have imaginary friends and those who don't, children with imaginary friends obviously have strong imaginations. Children with good imaginations generally grow into creative adults.
I was about nine years old when my four-year-old brother had not one, but two, imaginary friends - "Hat" and "Hammer". One of these imaginary pals was a really well behaved "friend", who was a good influence on my brother. He was apparently a quiet individual, and he generally showed up only when my brother needed a trio of friends, or else a calm friend. The other one was, I suppose, some version of "the devil" (although, of course, he never did anything all that horrible). The more evil friend was the one who thought up the "fun" stuff, and when he wasn't thinking up fun stuff the more evil half of this imaginary duo was being blamed for broken toys, spills, and other mishaps. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about the antics of "Hat and Hammer" and kind of missed them when they stopped showing up. My parents, on the other hand, seemed clearly relieved.
Imaginary friends are generally not cause for concern. When a child appears to have normal interaction with other people and enjoys playing with real-life friends it is unlikely there is cause for concern. If a child appears to be too intently involved with the imaginary friend too much of the time it may make sense to consult a professional, just to make sure all is well with the child.
NYU Child Study Center recommends that parents firmly but gently let the child know they know the friend and the scenario are make-believe. Going along with the scenario, within limits, is considered acceptable, and parents are advised not to belittle the child (or the "friend") or to try to discourage the child from having that pretend friend. It is recommended that parents not become too involved in the make-believe.
Final note: My brother grew up to be a productive, sane, individual with no explanation for the particularly bizarre names of the imaginary duo that provided so much to talk about, so very long ago.
Younger children are said to more often turn an object, like a stuffed animal, into their imaginary friend; while older children are more likely to use their more developed imaginations to create the kind of imaginary friend with which most of us associate the term.
Children of "imaginary-friend" age are at an age when they are establishing their own identity. NYU Child Study Center points out that children of this age are also at an age of testing the boundaries between reality and fantasy. For the most part, there appears to be little difference in personalities between children with imaginary pals and those without them, although there is some indication that those with make-believe buddies may have a better ability to see things from others' perspectives. Children of this age are no longer living in the smaller world of a toddler, but the larger world (and everything associated with it) is still relatively new to them. An imaginary friend allows children to make sense of whatever it is they need to make sense of.
It is not unusual to hear a child teaching his/her imaginary friend about the very thing he/she is in the process of learning and digesting. The five-year-old who is heard telling her imaginary friend, "Susannah, you cannot go near the street because its dangerous," is putting into practice what she, herself, has recently been told. Furthermore, this child gets to have the different role of being the teacher to her "friend".
Although few differences have been seen between children who have imaginary friends and those who don't, children with imaginary friends obviously have strong imaginations. Children with good imaginations generally grow into creative adults.
I was about nine years old when my four-year-old brother had not one, but two, imaginary friends - "Hat" and "Hammer". One of these imaginary pals was a really well behaved "friend", who was a good influence on my brother. He was apparently a quiet individual, and he generally showed up only when my brother needed a trio of friends, or else a calm friend. The other one was, I suppose, some version of "the devil" (although, of course, he never did anything all that horrible). The more evil friend was the one who thought up the "fun" stuff, and when he wasn't thinking up fun stuff the more evil half of this imaginary duo was being blamed for broken toys, spills, and other mishaps. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about the antics of "Hat and Hammer" and kind of missed them when they stopped showing up. My parents, on the other hand, seemed clearly relieved.
Imaginary friends are generally not cause for concern. When a child appears to have normal interaction with other people and enjoys playing with real-life friends it is unlikely there is cause for concern. If a child appears to be too intently involved with the imaginary friend too much of the time it may make sense to consult a professional, just to make sure all is well with the child.
NYU Child Study Center recommends that parents firmly but gently let the child know they know the friend and the scenario are make-believe. Going along with the scenario, within limits, is considered acceptable, and parents are advised not to belittle the child (or the "friend") or to try to discourage the child from having that pretend friend. It is recommended that parents not become too involved in the make-believe.
Final note: My brother grew up to be a productive, sane, individual with no explanation for the particularly bizarre names of the imaginary duo that provided so much to talk about, so very long ago.
Recipe for a Happy Family Life
Ingredients:
1 Peaceful Atmosphere
1 Handful of People (Including 1 or 2 strong, nurturing parents and 1 or more biological or adopted children. For added happiness, include up to four grandparents) Variation: Add pets with or without grandparents.)
1 Large Sense of Appreciation
1 Part Respect for Each Family Member (no matter how young and including pets)
1 Daily Dose of Laughter (for additional happiness add extra laughter)
1 Part Kindness for Each Family Member (including pets)
Directions:
Sift through atmosphere to remove tensions, yelling, and all hints of violence, leaving home atmosphere peaceful. Different opinions are acceptable, and expressing differences of opinions is encouraged. Use care to express those different opinions in a peaceful manner.
Add people, being careful not to allow people to contaminate the atmosphere with material that has been sifted out.
Stir in appreciation. This may cause the mix to overflow with appreciation, and that is to be expected.
Add respect. (Growing respect at home is encouraged, but all respect will grow once it has been added to the mixture. If home-grown respect is desired plant seeds with commitment to respect and water as needed.)
Fold in at least one daily dose of laughter. Additional laughter can be added to mixture at any time.
Top mixture with generous sprinkling of kindness.
Place prepared ingredients into home, nurture, and allow to flourish for as many years as possible. Opening an oven door before the happy family is finished growing is acceptable because happy families are much sturdier than cakes are. Sentimental tears will appear at some point, and those are fine. Tears of sadness, however, should be kept to a minimum if at all possible. (If tears of sadness arise add more respect, kindness, and laughter.)
Cooking Time: Forever - Because a happy family goes on forever in any number of ways.
1 Peaceful Atmosphere
1 Handful of People (Including 1 or 2 strong, nurturing parents and 1 or more biological or adopted children. For added happiness, include up to four grandparents) Variation: Add pets with or without grandparents.)
1 Large Sense of Appreciation
1 Part Respect for Each Family Member (no matter how young and including pets)
1 Daily Dose of Laughter (for additional happiness add extra laughter)
1 Part Kindness for Each Family Member (including pets)
Directions:
Sift through atmosphere to remove tensions, yelling, and all hints of violence, leaving home atmosphere peaceful. Different opinions are acceptable, and expressing differences of opinions is encouraged. Use care to express those different opinions in a peaceful manner.
Add people, being careful not to allow people to contaminate the atmosphere with material that has been sifted out.
Stir in appreciation. This may cause the mix to overflow with appreciation, and that is to be expected.
Add respect. (Growing respect at home is encouraged, but all respect will grow once it has been added to the mixture. If home-grown respect is desired plant seeds with commitment to respect and water as needed.)
Fold in at least one daily dose of laughter. Additional laughter can be added to mixture at any time.
Top mixture with generous sprinkling of kindness.
Place prepared ingredients into home, nurture, and allow to flourish for as many years as possible. Opening an oven door before the happy family is finished growing is acceptable because happy families are much sturdier than cakes are. Sentimental tears will appear at some point, and those are fine. Tears of sadness, however, should be kept to a minimum if at all possible. (If tears of sadness arise add more respect, kindness, and laughter.)
Cooking Time: Forever - Because a happy family goes on forever in any number of ways.
Cute Things Little Kids Say (One of My Own Personal Favorites)
In the car on the way to the pediatricians I was talking to my two children about the visit they would soon have with the doctor. My son was six. My daughter was three. My son asked what the doctor would be doing on this visit, and I began to name some of the things that go on during a routine check-up. As I went over the list in a calm, slow, way that was intended to help them feel reassured and help them digest each thing I mentioned, my tiny daughter added - in the same slow, calm, manner - "Check your knee-flexes.....".
The Subject Was: "Dealing With Your Child's Obsessions With Movies, Movie Songs, and Movie-Based Toys
From the vantage point of a mother of grown kids, I can tell you that kids' obsessions with movie-based songs, videos, and toys pass as quickly as they set in. I can also tell you, however, that until the child reaches adolescence fading obsessions are usually replaced by new ones.
Whether movie- or television- based or just the latest children's craze, children's obsessions with the latest kid stuff can drive parents to the point of desperation, trying to find the often hard-to-find latest thing.
I've survived the Care Bears phase, the Spiderman phase, the Hulk phase, the Puffalumps phase, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phase. Then there were Transformers, Star Wars (my son had a particularly impressive Millenium Falcon) and Fraggles. They weren't movie-based, but rationed Cabbage Dolls fit into the crazy craze category. There has always been everything-Barbie, and Barbie is an example of a doll that was turned into a movie. There was a point when all three of my kids were at an age where all three wanted all three Simpsons children (Bart, Lisa, and Maggie). Let's not forget The Little Mermaid, Ariel, Princess Jasmine, and Belle. (Who would have thought even Ghostbusters would have little dolls...).
We parents have seen how sometimes movies are inspired by toys, while other times toys are apparently the inevitable consequence of movies. Sometimes when a movie is old (like the animated Charlotte's Web) they are re-made in a way that starts a whole craze that the older version never inspired.
My advice to parents in the throws of a child's obsession with the latest movie (or television program or toy) is to try get the "important" items - the action figures or doll, a few accessories, a "big ticket" item like (forgive the archaic references) the Millenium Falcon or the pump-up Hulk who would bust out of his cage; and then some of the "supplemental" items like lunch-boxes, drinking cups, and/or whatever other here-today-gone-tomorrow junk that may be available. Videos for kids who will watch them again and again until they go around repeating all the lines incessantly aren't expensive and make kids happy. Littler kids may benefit more from music. For birthdays and other special occasions there are always the much coveted movie-themed sleeping bags. The occasional fast-food kid's meal with a movie-themed toy is another way to quench a child's thirst for this stuff.
Inflatable, movie-themed, wading pools will usually not last through the next Summer; although parents may want to think twice before investing in a movie-themed sandbox. Parents who like to offer that "something extra" may like to buy bedspreads and decorative switch-plates for the children. Generally, bedspreads and switch-plates will be switched at about the time the bedspread wears out along with the obsession.
The likes of Puffalumps, Care Bears, and even Transformers and Hulk are actually fun things when they're in vogue; and long after children are grown and have forgotten their love for these flashes-in-the-pan, parents may always hold in their hearts the tiniest of fondest memories for the characters that once made their child so happy.
Long after Hulk's cage breaks for so much use and, I am guessing, long after Shrek and Feona finally live happily ever after (which has not happened yet, based on the third Shrek movie that is out or soon to be out), parents always wake up one day with no need to stand in long lines for the latest item and no need to put all those action figures back in their movie-themed (and carefully designed to hold 100) case.
My advice to today's parents is this: Enjoy these wonderful and silly and insane childhood crazes and be very grateful that, at least for a while, their worries are no more serious than whether or not they can get the latest thing.
Whether movie- or television- based or just the latest children's craze, children's obsessions with the latest kid stuff can drive parents to the point of desperation, trying to find the often hard-to-find latest thing.
I've survived the Care Bears phase, the Spiderman phase, the Hulk phase, the Puffalumps phase, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles phase. Then there were Transformers, Star Wars (my son had a particularly impressive Millenium Falcon) and Fraggles. They weren't movie-based, but rationed Cabbage Dolls fit into the crazy craze category. There has always been everything-Barbie, and Barbie is an example of a doll that was turned into a movie. There was a point when all three of my kids were at an age where all three wanted all three Simpsons children (Bart, Lisa, and Maggie). Let's not forget The Little Mermaid, Ariel, Princess Jasmine, and Belle. (Who would have thought even Ghostbusters would have little dolls...).
We parents have seen how sometimes movies are inspired by toys, while other times toys are apparently the inevitable consequence of movies. Sometimes when a movie is old (like the animated Charlotte's Web) they are re-made in a way that starts a whole craze that the older version never inspired.
My advice to parents in the throws of a child's obsession with the latest movie (or television program or toy) is to try get the "important" items - the action figures or doll, a few accessories, a "big ticket" item like (forgive the archaic references) the Millenium Falcon or the pump-up Hulk who would bust out of his cage; and then some of the "supplemental" items like lunch-boxes, drinking cups, and/or whatever other here-today-gone-tomorrow junk that may be available. Videos for kids who will watch them again and again until they go around repeating all the lines incessantly aren't expensive and make kids happy. Littler kids may benefit more from music. For birthdays and other special occasions there are always the much coveted movie-themed sleeping bags. The occasional fast-food kid's meal with a movie-themed toy is another way to quench a child's thirst for this stuff.
Inflatable, movie-themed, wading pools will usually not last through the next Summer; although parents may want to think twice before investing in a movie-themed sandbox. Parents who like to offer that "something extra" may like to buy bedspreads and decorative switch-plates for the children. Generally, bedspreads and switch-plates will be switched at about the time the bedspread wears out along with the obsession.
The likes of Puffalumps, Care Bears, and even Transformers and Hulk are actually fun things when they're in vogue; and long after children are grown and have forgotten their love for these flashes-in-the-pan, parents may always hold in their hearts the tiniest of fondest memories for the characters that once made their child so happy.
Long after Hulk's cage breaks for so much use and, I am guessing, long after Shrek and Feona finally live happily ever after (which has not happened yet, based on the third Shrek movie that is out or soon to be out), parents always wake up one day with no need to stand in long lines for the latest item and no need to put all those action figures back in their movie-themed (and carefully designed to hold 100) case.
My advice to today's parents is this: Enjoy these wonderful and silly and insane childhood crazes and be very grateful that, at least for a while, their worries are no more serious than whether or not they can get the latest thing.
Dining Out Alone - Gracefully and Comfortably
If you're uncomfortable at the thought of dining alone you may find this hard to imagine, but dining alone can a very pleasant experience. Its a great opportunity to be alone with your thoughts, enjoy a meal, and relax (even if for only a short time).
Most people will find dining at a fast-food restaurant the easiest. (Some fast-food restaurants don't have a bad atmosphere.) Find a table by a window (and face the window - looking out a window is a very normal thing to do) or one that's off in a comfortable corner. If the restaurant isn't crowded you will be able to choose a seat that doesn't have you looking at other people as they eat (and having them watch you eat). If the restaurant is crowded you may still find a seat that doesn't face others, but have something to read just in case. Fast-food places often have newspapers available. You can always take a notepad and make a to-do list too.
Men are usually comfortable eating, but women may feel uncomfortable eating a big fast-food meal. If you're a woman you may find you feel less self-conscious ordering a salad, water, and fruit slices - with coffee for dessert. Smaller sandwiches and a cup of tea are perfectly lady-like. If you want a big sandwich get one, but you may want to ask for flatware to prevent awkward, messy, eating.
Then there are restaurants that are "a level up" from fast food. These are often the sandwich or pizza chains, although they may be a little local place. The above tips apply to these restaurants as well. Remind yourself that in fast-food restaurants or "one level up" restaurants nobody really cares if you're dining alone. Working people eat alone on lunch hours and on business trips. Non-working people may take a break from shopping to have lunch. People eat alone near hospitals, court houses, and corporations all the time. Nobody pays much attention or cares - so keep that in mind. Ask for a knife and fork regardless of what you order. You may need them.
Whether its a fast-food restaurant or a casual "one level up" establishment, you can always bring out the cell phone (on silent, of course) and delete recent calls or messages or else play a game. Change your wallpaper from one graphic to another. There's always something you can do with a cell phone (other than talk) that will give you something with which to busy yourself if you need to do that.
Nicer restaurants are more of a challenge. Many people would not choose a nicer restaurant when they will be dining alone, and that's a viable option. Still, there is no reason to stay out of nicer restaurants just because you won't be with a companion. You can, of course, ask to be seated by a window or in a corner (facing away from the crowd). If it makes you feel better when you're making quick chat with the server you could mention that you're from out of town or that someone recommended this place for a certain dish.
There is usually a little chat between customers and servers when items are brought to the table. This can break up the "isolation" of dining alone. As with less upscale restaurants, most of the ideas offered here apply to these restaurants as well. Depending on the level of upscale an establishment is, you may not want to entertain yourself with your cell phone wallpaper or a big newspaper in some restaurants. A small notepad or address book may be acceptable substitutes.
Probably the most important thing to remember is that most people don't view others who dine alone as lonely, pathetic, creatures who have no friends or family. Remember that people dine alone all the time, hold your head high, and (even if this isn't your situation) see yourself as a person who works in the area and has come out for a break and a meal.
Most people will find dining at a fast-food restaurant the easiest. (Some fast-food restaurants don't have a bad atmosphere.) Find a table by a window (and face the window - looking out a window is a very normal thing to do) or one that's off in a comfortable corner. If the restaurant isn't crowded you will be able to choose a seat that doesn't have you looking at other people as they eat (and having them watch you eat). If the restaurant is crowded you may still find a seat that doesn't face others, but have something to read just in case. Fast-food places often have newspapers available. You can always take a notepad and make a to-do list too.
Men are usually comfortable eating, but women may feel uncomfortable eating a big fast-food meal. If you're a woman you may find you feel less self-conscious ordering a salad, water, and fruit slices - with coffee for dessert. Smaller sandwiches and a cup of tea are perfectly lady-like. If you want a big sandwich get one, but you may want to ask for flatware to prevent awkward, messy, eating.
Then there are restaurants that are "a level up" from fast food. These are often the sandwich or pizza chains, although they may be a little local place. The above tips apply to these restaurants as well. Remind yourself that in fast-food restaurants or "one level up" restaurants nobody really cares if you're dining alone. Working people eat alone on lunch hours and on business trips. Non-working people may take a break from shopping to have lunch. People eat alone near hospitals, court houses, and corporations all the time. Nobody pays much attention or cares - so keep that in mind. Ask for a knife and fork regardless of what you order. You may need them.
Whether its a fast-food restaurant or a casual "one level up" establishment, you can always bring out the cell phone (on silent, of course) and delete recent calls or messages or else play a game. Change your wallpaper from one graphic to another. There's always something you can do with a cell phone (other than talk) that will give you something with which to busy yourself if you need to do that.
Nicer restaurants are more of a challenge. Many people would not choose a nicer restaurant when they will be dining alone, and that's a viable option. Still, there is no reason to stay out of nicer restaurants just because you won't be with a companion. You can, of course, ask to be seated by a window or in a corner (facing away from the crowd). If it makes you feel better when you're making quick chat with the server you could mention that you're from out of town or that someone recommended this place for a certain dish.
There is usually a little chat between customers and servers when items are brought to the table. This can break up the "isolation" of dining alone. As with less upscale restaurants, most of the ideas offered here apply to these restaurants as well. Depending on the level of upscale an establishment is, you may not want to entertain yourself with your cell phone wallpaper or a big newspaper in some restaurants. A small notepad or address book may be acceptable substitutes.
Probably the most important thing to remember is that most people don't view others who dine alone as lonely, pathetic, creatures who have no friends or family. Remember that people dine alone all the time, hold your head high, and (even if this isn't your situation) see yourself as a person who works in the area and has come out for a break and a meal.
On Raising Children To Be Independent
Raising children who will be independent may be less a matter of helping them become independent than it is not creating reasons for them not to be.
Children are usually naturally independent once they reach that stage in development where they are aware of their own independence (about two years old). Parents need to understand that children are independent by nature, but they also need to respect their children's independence as separate human beings. One of the best ways to help a child see his own independence is for parents to see that natural independence and treat the child accordingly.
Parents also need to be sure enough of themselves and of their child's natural leaning toward independence to feel free enough to make the child feel secure, safe, and protected. When children feel secure, safe, and protected they develop self-esteem and sureness; and it takes self-esteem and sureness for people to comfortable in their own independence.
Children go through phases such as being afraid of thunder storms and wanting to hop into their parents' bed, but those are usually temporary phases that are normal parts of child development. Those phases pass and shouldn't be interpreted as a child's lack of being independent. When parents are too worried about building an independent child that they refuse to "be there" when a child needs emotional support or attention the child is left with emotional needs unmet, may feel insecure or unsure, and may actually come to need their parents or at least their attention more than they otherwise would have.
The toddler who falls and gets hurt enough to be upset too often, but who has a mother who doesn't try to comfort him, may not understand what seems to him like his mother's indifference and lack of understanding. The 15-month old child with a mother who takes steps to keep him from being hurt too often will come to see the world as a relatively pleasant place, while the toddler who is allowed to just go around and be getting hurt all through the day will come to see the world as place that isn't so pleasant. The 15-month-old who has a mother who makes the effort to comfort him or get his mind off what happened when he has been hurt is more likely to turn into a three-year-old who is sure of himself.
For the most part, if we are just there for our children at the time in their development when they need us, and if we do things for them until they are old enough to do each of those things for themselves there is no need to live in fear that our children will not become independent. When parents don't fear the different degrees of dependence that come with the different stages of child development there are no apron strings to be cut, and the natural process of children's becoming independent and parents' naturally letting go goes on just the way Nature designed it.
Children are usually naturally independent once they reach that stage in development where they are aware of their own independence (about two years old). Parents need to understand that children are independent by nature, but they also need to respect their children's independence as separate human beings. One of the best ways to help a child see his own independence is for parents to see that natural independence and treat the child accordingly.
Parents also need to be sure enough of themselves and of their child's natural leaning toward independence to feel free enough to make the child feel secure, safe, and protected. When children feel secure, safe, and protected they develop self-esteem and sureness; and it takes self-esteem and sureness for people to comfortable in their own independence.
Children go through phases such as being afraid of thunder storms and wanting to hop into their parents' bed, but those are usually temporary phases that are normal parts of child development. Those phases pass and shouldn't be interpreted as a child's lack of being independent. When parents are too worried about building an independent child that they refuse to "be there" when a child needs emotional support or attention the child is left with emotional needs unmet, may feel insecure or unsure, and may actually come to need their parents or at least their attention more than they otherwise would have.
The toddler who falls and gets hurt enough to be upset too often, but who has a mother who doesn't try to comfort him, may not understand what seems to him like his mother's indifference and lack of understanding. The 15-month old child with a mother who takes steps to keep him from being hurt too often will come to see the world as a relatively pleasant place, while the toddler who is allowed to just go around and be getting hurt all through the day will come to see the world as place that isn't so pleasant. The 15-month-old who has a mother who makes the effort to comfort him or get his mind off what happened when he has been hurt is more likely to turn into a three-year-old who is sure of himself.
For the most part, if we are just there for our children at the time in their development when they need us, and if we do things for them until they are old enough to do each of those things for themselves there is no need to live in fear that our children will not become independent. When parents don't fear the different degrees of dependence that come with the different stages of child development there are no apron strings to be cut, and the natural process of children's becoming independent and parents' naturally letting go goes on just the way Nature designed it.
The Rosebush By The Chimney
Our family home was built in the early 1960's when builders paid less attention to leaving a few trees in new housing developments. As a result, the yard - and the little strip of soil in front of its wide, straight, chimney - got a lot of light. Having moved to the new house from one on a tree-lined street, my father's first order of business was to begin putting in some trees, shrubs, and a few flowering bushes. We had moved from a large house that had become a little too much for my late-middle-aged father to care for, so the new, smaller, house meant he wouldn't be doing the kind of repairs that are needed in large, older, homes. He had done his share of home repairs for years, and now he was able to enjoy the brand, new, house with no work to do other than gardening and mowing the lawn.
The house is in New England, so there was only so much time for planting trees and shrubs the first year or so. After he and my mother had shopped for just the right trees, shrubs, and flowering bushes; and after they had been planted, the house no longer looked as if it was sitting on a vacant expanse of sand. My parents liked roses, so my father planted a row of rose bushes across one part of the yard. They were pale pink roses, looked nice, and did well; but because my father had a "thing" for yellow roses he picked up a rosebush that would have large, pale, yellow, roses, and he planted it on the little strip of soil by the chimney.
Since the chimney is located near the back steps the yellow roses warmed up the look of the dark bricks and created a pretty accent at the edge of the flagstone walk that curved from the driveway and around to the back stairs. My father took care of his favorite rosebush, but my mother would care for it at times when he was working. Unlike the way she usually referred to the things in the yard as "ours," my mother always called the yellow rosebush, "Dad's rosebush".
When blooming season arrived in 1973 "Dad's rosebush" didn't bloom. He and my mother made the occasional comment about what may have been wrong with it that year, but by the time they really realized it wouldn't be blooming summer was far enough into progress that I my father had kind of accepted that it wouldn't bloom and that he'd have to, maybe, move it. Over the years since the house had been built trees around it had grown tall enough to have begun blocking the sun, so my father assumed that could have stopped the rosebush from blooming that year.
Maybe he wasn't feeling well that summer because in October he had a heart attack that was caused by coronary thrombosis, and he remained hospitalized until the end of November when he passed away. My mother, sister, brother, and I returned to the house after being at the hospital on that unseasonably warm, sunny, November day; and as we walked from the driveway up the flagstone walk toward the back stairs we all stopped in our tracks. Dad's rosebush had one, huge, beautiful, yellow rose right near the top after a summer of no blooming whatsoever. My brother was a teenager and headed into the house, but my mother and sister and I stood and stared at the lovely yellow rose. Someone commented in a low, almost mystified, tone, "That's so strange, isn't it." Someone else, equally mystified, said, "It is." It happened to be Thanksgiving Day.
The rosebush never bloomed again, but my mother didn't want to move my father's
rosebush. She tried giving it better soil and feeding it the first couple of years after my father died, but when none of that worked she just accepted that the bush by the chimney would sit silently at the edge of the walk without its yellow roses. From time to time we would mention the way one yellow rose had bloomed late in November, when the only conclusion that I could draw after all those unanswered prayers was that there must be no God at all.
My mother, brother, sister, and I must have passed by the rosebush thousands and thousands of times over the years. Grandchildren came along - nine of them eventually - and they, too, would pass by their grandfather's silent rosebush without even noticing it. We, grown-ups, love it, though, even without roses. We knew it was somehow and in some strange way a precious reminder of the loving man for whom it had bloomed so beautifully for all those better years and over whom it seemed to refuse to bloom that summer when he didn't feel well and didn't say much about it. As time went on the rosebush grew thinner and more spindly. I wasn't living at the house, so I didn't think much about doing anything to bring it back.
Over two decades passed, and after a fifteen months of being bedridden my mother died the day before Thanksgiving. Families sometimes have their times when all the awful things hit over a short period of time, and when my mother died it was after one of those periods of time when a number of awful things had happened in a string of what seemed unending cruelties of life. Within weeks after she died New England had terrible ice storms. Houses were covered with ice, trees had ice-covered limbs bent down and stuck in the ice that covered that ground. It seemed there were days of grayness, and the ice wasn't sparkling ice that comes when a little rain freezes on the trees. This ice was thick, heavy, solid, unmovable, ice that had the white look for old ice.
Having lost our mother only a weeks earlier, my sister and I felt as if we were living with cold, gray, death within us and around us, with no sign of ever feeling warm again. As all grieving people do, though, we went through the motions. Every week she and I would go for coffee before shopping and try, together, to go over all the thoughts onto which we could cling to keep from feeling more awful than we already did.
It was a Sunday afternoon when she and I returned to the house late in the afternoon. Daylight-savings time had been over for months by then. As we walked up the flagstone walk in the fading afternoon light we stopped - as we had done over two decades earlier - because up through the ice, which covered not just some things around the yard but everything everywhere, peeked a bright green stem with the tiniest of green leaves. As we looked more closely we could see the rosebush under the white ice, but green and new. What we couldn't understand was how - through all that thick, solid, ice that seemed destined to stay around forever - could the slender little green stem with its tiniest of new leaves have found the strength and found its way up and out into the afternoon air? Someone said, "Isn't that strange." Someone else said, "It is."
The rosebush by the chimney should have been moved that year my father had talked about moving it. He never got around to it, and trees came - but a couple of those trees have gone as well. I don't want to try to move it at this point. Things change. Things endure. Last week I cleared away the leaves that accumulated around it. I'll feed it again this year. More light can get to it now. You would think in all these years I would have given up believing that one day the silent rosebush by the chimney will bloom again. The thing is, I've seen how it has endured, and I remember its beautiful yellow roses.
The house is in New England, so there was only so much time for planting trees and shrubs the first year or so. After he and my mother had shopped for just the right trees, shrubs, and flowering bushes; and after they had been planted, the house no longer looked as if it was sitting on a vacant expanse of sand. My parents liked roses, so my father planted a row of rose bushes across one part of the yard. They were pale pink roses, looked nice, and did well; but because my father had a "thing" for yellow roses he picked up a rosebush that would have large, pale, yellow, roses, and he planted it on the little strip of soil by the chimney.
Since the chimney is located near the back steps the yellow roses warmed up the look of the dark bricks and created a pretty accent at the edge of the flagstone walk that curved from the driveway and around to the back stairs. My father took care of his favorite rosebush, but my mother would care for it at times when he was working. Unlike the way she usually referred to the things in the yard as "ours," my mother always called the yellow rosebush, "Dad's rosebush".
When blooming season arrived in 1973 "Dad's rosebush" didn't bloom. He and my mother made the occasional comment about what may have been wrong with it that year, but by the time they really realized it wouldn't be blooming summer was far enough into progress that I my father had kind of accepted that it wouldn't bloom and that he'd have to, maybe, move it. Over the years since the house had been built trees around it had grown tall enough to have begun blocking the sun, so my father assumed that could have stopped the rosebush from blooming that year.
Maybe he wasn't feeling well that summer because in October he had a heart attack that was caused by coronary thrombosis, and he remained hospitalized until the end of November when he passed away. My mother, sister, brother, and I returned to the house after being at the hospital on that unseasonably warm, sunny, November day; and as we walked from the driveway up the flagstone walk toward the back stairs we all stopped in our tracks. Dad's rosebush had one, huge, beautiful, yellow rose right near the top after a summer of no blooming whatsoever. My brother was a teenager and headed into the house, but my mother and sister and I stood and stared at the lovely yellow rose. Someone commented in a low, almost mystified, tone, "That's so strange, isn't it." Someone else, equally mystified, said, "It is." It happened to be Thanksgiving Day.
The rosebush never bloomed again, but my mother didn't want to move my father's
rosebush. She tried giving it better soil and feeding it the first couple of years after my father died, but when none of that worked she just accepted that the bush by the chimney would sit silently at the edge of the walk without its yellow roses. From time to time we would mention the way one yellow rose had bloomed late in November, when the only conclusion that I could draw after all those unanswered prayers was that there must be no God at all.
My mother, brother, sister, and I must have passed by the rosebush thousands and thousands of times over the years. Grandchildren came along - nine of them eventually - and they, too, would pass by their grandfather's silent rosebush without even noticing it. We, grown-ups, love it, though, even without roses. We knew it was somehow and in some strange way a precious reminder of the loving man for whom it had bloomed so beautifully for all those better years and over whom it seemed to refuse to bloom that summer when he didn't feel well and didn't say much about it. As time went on the rosebush grew thinner and more spindly. I wasn't living at the house, so I didn't think much about doing anything to bring it back.
Over two decades passed, and after a fifteen months of being bedridden my mother died the day before Thanksgiving. Families sometimes have their times when all the awful things hit over a short period of time, and when my mother died it was after one of those periods of time when a number of awful things had happened in a string of what seemed unending cruelties of life. Within weeks after she died New England had terrible ice storms. Houses were covered with ice, trees had ice-covered limbs bent down and stuck in the ice that covered that ground. It seemed there were days of grayness, and the ice wasn't sparkling ice that comes when a little rain freezes on the trees. This ice was thick, heavy, solid, unmovable, ice that had the white look for old ice.
Having lost our mother only a weeks earlier, my sister and I felt as if we were living with cold, gray, death within us and around us, with no sign of ever feeling warm again. As all grieving people do, though, we went through the motions. Every week she and I would go for coffee before shopping and try, together, to go over all the thoughts onto which we could cling to keep from feeling more awful than we already did.
It was a Sunday afternoon when she and I returned to the house late in the afternoon. Daylight-savings time had been over for months by then. As we walked up the flagstone walk in the fading afternoon light we stopped - as we had done over two decades earlier - because up through the ice, which covered not just some things around the yard but everything everywhere, peeked a bright green stem with the tiniest of green leaves. As we looked more closely we could see the rosebush under the white ice, but green and new. What we couldn't understand was how - through all that thick, solid, ice that seemed destined to stay around forever - could the slender little green stem with its tiniest of new leaves have found the strength and found its way up and out into the afternoon air? Someone said, "Isn't that strange." Someone else said, "It is."
The rosebush by the chimney should have been moved that year my father had talked about moving it. He never got around to it, and trees came - but a couple of those trees have gone as well. I don't want to try to move it at this point. Things change. Things endure. Last week I cleared away the leaves that accumulated around it. I'll feed it again this year. More light can get to it now. You would think in all these years I would have given up believing that one day the silent rosebush by the chimney will bloom again. The thing is, I've seen how it has endured, and I remember its beautiful yellow roses.
What Nobody Told Me About Labor and Childbirth
1. They didn't tell me that pretty much the only thing I would be thinking about during labor, during the birth, and for one whole day following the birth, would be how hungry I was!
They tell you not to eat when you think you're in labor. On the Monday before I delivered the baby I didn't eat because my husband and I were planning to eat out later. Nausea had followed me far beyond the first trimester, so I didn't always eat three meals in a day. So after not eating all that day, I headed off to the restaurant with my husband. I got two small bites of my meal when the water broke, and we left.
The doctor said see what happened overnight and call him in the morning if nothing much happened, so I didn't eat that night. Tuesday afternoon I went to the doctor's office, hungry. I hadn't been that hungry in months. The baby was born at 5:00 p.m., and I was hungry all through labor. By the time I got to my room and asked for something to eat the kitchen had closed. Someone (a nurse I think) found me a half of a barely filled turkey sandwich on thinly sliced wheat bread in a refrigerator. By this time it was 7:00 p.m., and the sandwich didn't make a dent in my fierce hunger. After all, I hadn't eaten since dinner time Sunday.
I was wide awake, hyper, and feeling as if my stomach was eating itself all through the night, as I waited for the breakfast cart to show up. When the rattle of the cart made it clear that breakfast was on the way (more slowly than I had imagined, however) I thought I'd finally get to eat. This leads me to the second thing they don't tell you:
2. When you don't get to the hospital early enough to fill out the breakfast menu, for some reason that I have never - in 25 years - been able to fathom those hospital meal-planning people apparently think that everybody in the world can eat CREAM OF WHEAT! I don't eat cereal with milk on it, and I certainly can't eat nauseating, warm, creamy, muck - no matter how bloody hungry I am. So, when I enthusiastically removed the silver-colored cover from my breakfast and discovered a tiny bowl of Cream of Wheat to go with the serving of milk they brought (I really can't drink white milk) it was then that I simply began to cry.) "The Caesarian Section" (as she was known by the nurses) who shared the room with me took pity on me and flung over the little box of Rice Krispies that she happened to get WITH her eggs and toast and orange juice! She said, "At least you can pour the milk on them and have something to eat." I did, but I was still hungry because a tiny box of Rice Krispies on Wednesday after delivering a baby on Tuesday and not eating since Sunday just wasn't enough. I needed coffee or tea. I always need coffee or tea. I would have liked orange juice. I didn't understand why there was no orange juice.
When I was expecting my next baby and realized around dinner time that I seemed very close to going into labor I did not want to be hungry and thinking about being hungry when this baby arrived into the world - so I told my husband we needed to drive through McDonalds and get a Big Mac (believe it or not, there's something about the sauce and lettuce on the Big Mac that makes it possible for me to eat one in those times when I'm kind of nauseous and yet hungry - and the rest of the time I border on being a vegetarian!).
Having eaten did not cause any problems in labor, and I wasn't left for days without eating anything. When people weren't admitted to this hospital in time to fill out the breakfast menu it, for some reason I haven't been able to imagine in 22 years, served POACHED eggs, toast and orange juice. While I cannot eat poached eggs any more than I can eat Cream of Wheat, I was able to eat the toast and have the juice. It wasn't that important. After all, I had had the Big Mac the evening before.
Finally, nobody ever told me that because hospitals serve questionable items like Cream of Wheat and poached eggs I would spend the rest of my life imagining what could have been and wasn't (twice): A brand new baby and a breakfast of scrambled eggs, orange juice, and coffee. Would that have been too much to ask?
They tell you not to eat when you think you're in labor. On the Monday before I delivered the baby I didn't eat because my husband and I were planning to eat out later. Nausea had followed me far beyond the first trimester, so I didn't always eat three meals in a day. So after not eating all that day, I headed off to the restaurant with my husband. I got two small bites of my meal when the water broke, and we left.
The doctor said see what happened overnight and call him in the morning if nothing much happened, so I didn't eat that night. Tuesday afternoon I went to the doctor's office, hungry. I hadn't been that hungry in months. The baby was born at 5:00 p.m., and I was hungry all through labor. By the time I got to my room and asked for something to eat the kitchen had closed. Someone (a nurse I think) found me a half of a barely filled turkey sandwich on thinly sliced wheat bread in a refrigerator. By this time it was 7:00 p.m., and the sandwich didn't make a dent in my fierce hunger. After all, I hadn't eaten since dinner time Sunday.
I was wide awake, hyper, and feeling as if my stomach was eating itself all through the night, as I waited for the breakfast cart to show up. When the rattle of the cart made it clear that breakfast was on the way (more slowly than I had imagined, however) I thought I'd finally get to eat. This leads me to the second thing they don't tell you:
2. When you don't get to the hospital early enough to fill out the breakfast menu, for some reason that I have never - in 25 years - been able to fathom those hospital meal-planning people apparently think that everybody in the world can eat CREAM OF WHEAT! I don't eat cereal with milk on it, and I certainly can't eat nauseating, warm, creamy, muck - no matter how bloody hungry I am. So, when I enthusiastically removed the silver-colored cover from my breakfast and discovered a tiny bowl of Cream of Wheat to go with the serving of milk they brought (I really can't drink white milk) it was then that I simply began to cry.) "The Caesarian Section" (as she was known by the nurses) who shared the room with me took pity on me and flung over the little box of Rice Krispies that she happened to get WITH her eggs and toast and orange juice! She said, "At least you can pour the milk on them and have something to eat." I did, but I was still hungry because a tiny box of Rice Krispies on Wednesday after delivering a baby on Tuesday and not eating since Sunday just wasn't enough. I needed coffee or tea. I always need coffee or tea. I would have liked orange juice. I didn't understand why there was no orange juice.
When I was expecting my next baby and realized around dinner time that I seemed very close to going into labor I did not want to be hungry and thinking about being hungry when this baby arrived into the world - so I told my husband we needed to drive through McDonalds and get a Big Mac (believe it or not, there's something about the sauce and lettuce on the Big Mac that makes it possible for me to eat one in those times when I'm kind of nauseous and yet hungry - and the rest of the time I border on being a vegetarian!).
Having eaten did not cause any problems in labor, and I wasn't left for days without eating anything. When people weren't admitted to this hospital in time to fill out the breakfast menu it, for some reason I haven't been able to imagine in 22 years, served POACHED eggs, toast and orange juice. While I cannot eat poached eggs any more than I can eat Cream of Wheat, I was able to eat the toast and have the juice. It wasn't that important. After all, I had had the Big Mac the evening before.
Finally, nobody ever told me that because hospitals serve questionable items like Cream of Wheat and poached eggs I would spend the rest of my life imagining what could have been and wasn't (twice): A brand new baby and a breakfast of scrambled eggs, orange juice, and coffee. Would that have been too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)