there’s so much…

I want to say about a number of different issues, but I just don’t have the time. Perhaps just a few thoughts:

1. Why are we, as a society, so unwilling to help those in need? Why does making a poor decision automatically mean that you are a bad person who needs to experience the consequences of your actions, even if that means losing one of the basics of life, a place to live?

2. I wish parents would be as sane as this one when it comes to bad things happening to their children.  Get both (or all three, or four) sides! [This is just a rant because 2 year olds can't often tell you their side - all you see is one kid crying and another not and the assumptions flow from there.]

3. As I mentioned before, I thought “A Raisin in the Sun” was fabulous. Hansberry’s words were beautiful, melodic, lyrical, poignant. But what I loved most about it was the multiple dimensions of each character - there were things you loved about them and things you hated about them. But that’s what made them real. Even Lena - you saw how she allowed Walter Lee to guilt her into giving him the money even though it was against her better judgment.  And how Walter Lee, for some of his childishness, was justifiably angry and confused about being a grown man with kids, but having other grown men call him “boy.” Benny - well, she is close to my heart. She is so young and naive, but also ahead of her time, questioning things she’d been taught not to question (i.e. God). Ruth - stable but long-suffering, she sometimes seems unable to stand up for herself, vacillating back and forth between allowing Walter Lee to abuse her and lashing out against him. I also loved Benny’s love interests - the one well-to-do guy, I know I’ve seen him in something else, please someone refresh my memory if you can. The Nigerian man, Joseph Asagai - his speech about the money not being Benny’s and something being wrong with a family staking their futures on another man’s death - wow, that was really powerful. If you didn’t see it, please do. You will not be dissapointed.

4. Lastly, my hubby had me take a Jung personality test, which I’ve taken a million times before. I am still amazed that each time I take it - and I try to do it fast, clicking on what I am first drawn to - the results are always the same. Always. And they are so true. Here’s my profile below:

The Portrait of the Healer (INFP)

Healer Idealists are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in striving for their ends, and investigative and attentive in their interpersonal relations. Healer present a seemingly tranquil, and noticeably pleasant face to the world, and though to all appearances they might seem reserved, and even shy, on the inside they are anything but reserved, having a capacity for caring not always found in other types. They care deeply-indeed, passionately-about a few special persons or a favorite cause, and their fervent aim is to bring peace and integrity to their loved ones and the world.

Healers have a profound sense of idealism derived from a strong personal morality, and they conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place. Indeed, to understand Healers, we must understand their idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. The Healer is the Prince or Princess of fairytale, the King’s Champion or Defender of the Faith, like Sir Galahad or Joan of Arc. Healers are found in only 1 percent of the general population, although, at times, their idealism leaves them feeling even more isolated from the rest of humanity.

Healers seek unity in their lives, unity of body and mind, emotions and intellect, perhaps because they are likely to have a sense of inner division threaded through their lives, which comes from their often unhappy childhood. Healers live a fantasy-filled childhood, which, unfortunately, is discouraged or even punished by many parents. In a practical-minded family, required by their parents to be sociable and industrious in concrete ways, and also given down-to-earth siblings who conform to these parental expectations, Healers come to see themselves as ugly ducklings. Other types usually shrug off parental expectations that do not fit them, but not the Healers. Wishing to please their parents and siblings, but not knowing quite how to do it, they try to hide their differences, believing they are bad to be so fanciful, so unlike their more solid brothers and sisters. They wonder, some of them for the rest of their lives, whether they are OK. They are quite OK, just different from the rest of their family-swans reared in a family of ducks. Even so, to realize and really believe this is not easy for them. Deeply committed to the positive and the good, yet taught to believe there is evil in them, Healers can come to develop a certain fascination with the problem of good and evil, sacred and profane. Healers are drawn toward purity, but can become engrossed with the profane, continuously on the lookout for the wickedness that lurks within them. Then, when Healers believe they have yielded to an impure temptation, they may be given to acts of self-sacrifice in atonement. Others seldom detect this inner turmoil, however, for the struggle between good and evil is within the Healer, who does not feel compelled to make the issue public.

What’s your type?

an incredible evening…

…of television. “A Raisin in the Sun” was absolutely wonderful. Each cast member was amazing. I wish I had a DVR. I need to let it sink in. Puffy* was actually good. Maybe more on it tomorrow.

*See, I still call him Puffy - none of that P.Diddy crap.

i’ve been tagged…now you’re it

I’ve bee tagged by New Soc Prof and I’m very excited as it’s the first time I’ve been tagged. But then I got sad because what I’m supposed to do will reveal how cliche my life is and the narrow band of books I am reading these days. But alas, what can you do?

The game: open the nearest book to page 123 and reproduce the 6-8 sentence.

I had two books side by side, so here they are:

“One can also read the estimated differences in the contribution of religious pluralism to giving and volunteering s a confirmation that religious pluralism stimulates charitable acts by promoting high-quality social networks. The dependent variable is whether individuals donated or volunteered in the past year, not how much money they donated or how many hours of volunteer work they contributed. Giving some money is a lower commitment activity than volunteering just a few hours, and high-quality social networks increase the need for high-commitment activities (Iannaccone 1998).” - Borgonovi, Francesca. (2008). “Divided We Stand, United We Fall: Religious Pluralism, Giving, and Volunteering.” American Sociological Review 70:105-128.  (That was only three sentences, but I have limited time and ASR sentences are long.)

“Tapes that play sounds of nature are widely available and very lovely. They may work nicely, as well as small sound-generating or white-noise devices and clocks you may have seen in stores. The nature sounds (raindrops, a babbling brook, or running water)  often are similar to your heartbeat and fluids rushing in and out of your placenta, which is what your baby heard in utero. (Remember those sounds from when you listened to your baby’s heartbeat with the Doppler stethoscope?) A ticking clock or bubbling fish tank are also wonderful white-noise options.” - Pantly, Elizabeth. (2002). The No Cry Sleep Solution. New York: McGraw-Hill.

I therefore pass the baton and tag:

Anomie

YLi

Andrea

lol - duty calls

I hope my hubby reads this post.

hat tip to Drek and xkcd.

his father’s blood

Oh. My. Word. I’m writing a paper and listening to various TV shows that are discussing the Wisconsin primary results. There is a woman who called into C-Span declaring that Obama is a Muslim and because of that, and what our country has gone through, “We need to do our homework.” The host of the show informed the caller that Obama is not a Muslim, but a member of the United Church of Christ. She replies that, “He might be now…,” at which point the host informed her that he was never a Muslim, but that his father was a Muslim. The difference between his father and  Obama obviously meant nothing to this woman, as she replied, rather indignantly: “Well, his father’s blood is running through his veins…”

Must I comment?

ouch! that stings.

There’s been a lot of talk on several blogs about the racist attacks on Obama and the sexist attacks on Clinton and the racist and sexist remarks they make towards each other. There’s also be considerable talk about how black women will vote, as if there is an inherent conflict (esp. now that Edwards is out of the race) between “siding” with one’s race or with one’s gender. I’ve thought and talked about this a lot with friends, mostly similarly situated black women with a good amount of education. The general consensus amongst us is that we are voting for Obama.

This is obviously not a random sample - my friends are probably more like me than other people, we are friends partly because we share similar political orientations, etc. And of course, not all of my friends are voting for Obama - a very good friend works on Clinton’s campaign.

The basic idea for many of us is that racism stings more than sexism in our lives. I feel much more incensed over racist remarks made about Obama than I do about sexist remarks made about Clinton. Why? I’m not quite sure, but I can venture to put out a few hypotheses. First, black men (and black people) are a constant in my life. I am married to a black man. We approach our lives like it’s us against the world. We are each other’s best friends, so I can understand his struggles and he can understand mine. That’s purely personal.

Second, When I look around, especially in the predominantly white environments in which I find myself, it’s my blackness that makes me feel outnumbered. In my cohort, there are 10 of us - 8 women and 2 men. In the class before us, there were no men. This quarter, 3 of my four classes are taught by women. There are no black professors in the department (primary appointment). There are only 4 black people amongst the graduate students, which number over 60 still working towards their degree. And all of them are women. So when I think of what parts of my identity are marginalized within my social world, it’s my race that stands out, my race that feels most limiting. So if I’m rallying for someone to make it, someone to transcend, then I’m rallying for the person who shares the attribute that I think most limits me in my dreams and aspirations.

Third, to be totally honest, I think I’ve internalized much of the sexist rhetoric that exists. Obama made a comment about Clinton’s “claws” coming out. I totally understood that to be a cat-fight reference, and I immediately thought, “Well, women are catty” before I caught myself. Her “breakdown” made me feel more sympathetic towards her as I thought she was showing more of her feminine side; had Obama had that kind of show of emotion over being tired, I probably would have been like, “Man-up!” I’m not saying that this internalization is good; really it sucks. But I do not in any way internalize racist sentiments. There is NOTHING I think a Black person cannot do as well as a White person, while I do question a woman’s ability to handle certain traditionally male roles.

* Of course the people as individuals have a lot to do with it as well. I generally don’t like Clinton; I never really have. After saying all that I have, I ask myself if I don’t like her because she eschews typical male behavior. And I don’t think that’s it. There are lots of “weak” women that I can’t stand, and some very masculine women that I adore. But my vote is much more about who Obama is rather than who Clinton isn’t. I LOVE him. I love to hear him speak, I love to watch him debate. I loved his books, I admire his life. But if Clinton wins the primary, I’ll be behind her by showing up to the polls to get her elected. *

being choosy

M has an interesting conversation going on about the guilt mothers feel about choosing their choice when it comes to their day-to-day interactions between they and their kids. Mainly, why do stay-at-home moms (esp. those with degrees) feel like they need to justify their choice to stay at home with their children. Why do working/student moms feel they need to justify having children but send them to day care or some other arrangement which does not involve them staying at home?

In part 2 of the series, M asks, “Why do stay-at-home moms attack working moms and vice versa?” I’ve been doing some interviews as part of a qualitative methods class, and while I hesitate to discuss my preliminary impressions of what I think I’ll find (I’m still interviewing and coding), I can say that I find little evidence of this. Most mothers I know have very personal reasons for their choice, and recognize that other mothers have personal reasons for their choice. While many mothers feel as though they are doing what is best for their kids, they are also doing what they think is best for them and justify that decision with a feeling that what is best for them is best for their kids and the family unit as a whole.

Reasons for staying-at-home or working were seldom explained through language that implied they were reaching for a “perfect mother” standard, which is where I think the “mommy wars” supposedly come from - women disagreeing about what one needs to do or be to reach that mythical standard of perfection. Rather, they explained their choice (which is also problematic to define what it means to choose when the alternatives are not practical, but that’s another discussion) in terms of being the best mother they knew how to be given their backgrounds, social position, and resources.

I’m excited to continue my research while following this conversation, especially as a mother who has (is) struggling with reconcile my choices regarding the care of my children with my career ambitions.

my paper was accepted!!

Update: It was accepted!!! 

Update: I submitted to ASA this afternoon.

I finished my master’s thesis. My adviser has signed off on it, and it’s in the second reader’s hands. It’s the first real piece of original academic research I have produced, and I’m pretty proud of that accomplishment. The problem is…

I’m afraid it sucks.

gradmommy’s must-haves #1

There are some things that I think are essential in attempting to be a gradmommy. There are the soft mushy stuff like a good support system, a great partner, quality (and affordable) child care, etc., etc. Not that those things are not important - they are absolutely essential - I thought I’d use this series to talk about the more mundane things that potential gradmommies may not think about. These things are basic requirements that help make all run smoothly. I will start with something that I believe to be a necessity, although I don’t yet have one, hence the urgency of this post:

on being interesting

A while back, lmw posted about the importance of being interesting in one’s scholarly work. I commented at the time that being interesting was really important, for if your work was not interesting enough for people to want to read it, then you were wasting your time even doing it. She then clarified that to her “interesting” was about making a contribution to everyday issues rather than totally shocking the sociological world with some very wise insight.

I am now facing this dilemma, and it’s particularly stressful to me. I’ve recently finished a project that is on a topic/issue that is relatively “interesting,” meaning that other scholars probably find some inherent worth in pursuing. There is the opportunity to continue working on this project and contribute to knowledge in an area that has massive public policy implications. The topic is related to who I am as a person as far as group status goes.

There is another project, however, that is not as “interesting” as in it’s pretty low status and does not have public policy implications. But it’s much more personal than topic 1, as it’s related to a core part of my identity. I am getting a lot of joy out of this project, while topic one stresses me out every time i think about it. Topic 2 is illuminating how I think of my identity in some very profound ways, but may not be as interesting to a wider audience. Topic 1 is pretty much confirming something I already know but that is very interesting to a wider audience. There’s also the issue that topic 2 is ethnographic while topic 1 is not. We all know the relative low status position of ethnographic work versus that that is more quantitative.

But I cannot devote time to both of them. And as much as I want to be interesting, I also came to graduate school with an ideal in mind that I could work on what I wanted to work on. The more I become entrenched in this culture, I realize that academia is as much about pleasing others and proving your legitimacy as are other professions, but maybe in a more relaxed way. Pandering to what others think is interesting (and marketable, both in the publication and job markets) is just like other jobs. I am obviously naive, but this is very disappointing to me.

So what do I do? I’m asking although I know what I will do, which is what I always do. I do what I want to do. But now that I have kids, and think about the importance of supporting my family one day, I wonder if being a bit more diplomatic and practical is worth sacrificing my ideals. I wonder that if I continue with the ideal of doing things that are interesting to me but not necessarily interesting to others if I’m setting myself up for even more disappointment, and ultimately, failure.