The mid-term election this year is next Tuesday, and Democrats are bracing themselves for heavy losses and loss of the Senate majority. It's all too easy to blame it as a communication problem, as Democrats and Obama cohorts alike have tried hard to tell voters that the pain that they are feeling shouldn't really be so bad. Obama kept throwing facts at voters, telling them that the help to Wall Street have really made (rather than lost) money. Obama even got on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to "connect" to the younger voters who are supposed to be his mainstay, insisting that the hopes and change that he ran his presidential campaign on were high bar, and that while he promised to deliver change, he didn't promise the change to be done in 18 months (his time in the White House so far). It sounds pathetic, reminding me of the I-smoke-but-I-didn't-inhale argument by Bill Clinton.
All of these have an ounce of truth in it. I don't understand why it's so hard for Obama and the Democrats to understand that it's not enough to just tell people that they are better off now, because statistics show the economy is on the mend. How can you explain that to someone who has lost their job and can't find another one in 2+ years, and still think that it's a communication problem? There is simply no argument, that people are worse off now than they were, when the recession started to take hold, starting Oct 2008?
There is also truth in the statement that most jobs that have gone overseas will never come back, as most people already know that already, as a result of globalization. It's an unfortunate chain of events that deliver this blunt fact to most people, when the economy went downhill and alot of good jobs were axed, all at once, which started with the subprime crisis in Oct 2008.
It's not a communication problem either, that Wall Street has bounced back readily and quickly, after Washington has tried every means to prop it up. Corporate earnings are rising. Stock markets are zigzagging back upward. Without Washington's help, both Wall Street and main street would have limped along together. Now, the Wall Street bunny has leaped forward, but the main street turtle is left crawling, one inch at a time. And that, is the perception that no spinning could have shaken it. In fact, that is the perceived injustice that makes people angry, even those like me who earn six-figures and have weathered this recession unscathed so far. Afterall, the taxpayers are the ones who pay those goddamn politicians in Washington, and who have picked up the tab in the Wall Street bailout. But the lower strata of taxpaying public is the one who are caught with their pants down, and who are blamed (rightly or wrongly) for spending beyond their means.
As for me, I feel angry too, mostly due to the ineptness and ineffectiveness of Washington, and that special interests and lobbyists still rule Washington. As an Independent, it doesn't really matter if Dem or GOP are in office, because the callousness and ineffectiveness are more or less the same, although GOP is arguably less appetizing for their relentless push for less regulations, which left Wall Street and big corporates like Big Oil, unchecked. So, I'm very ready to vote any independents who can offer an alternative to GOP or Dem.
PS: Sorry, no Tea Party, who are for headlines grabbers and illiterate, and who can't even hold a rational argument. I simply cannot stand irrationals, like Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
On the end of Sony Walkman...
I feel sad, when learning of Sony's decision to retire its Walkman. I haven't been a big fan of Walkman since I don't need my music to go where I go. (For much the same reason, I'm not a big fan of boombox either.) But Walkman associates with it some memories of mine that has come to pass.
When I left Lehman to go back to college more than two decades ago, my boss gave me a gift of a Sony Walkman. I had no idea what I would do with it, and he explained to me that I could record lectures and listen to them again, should the need arise. It had never occurred to me that I would not pay enough attention to the lectures that I would miss anything. In any case, a gift is a gift, and it's a thoughtful, no less.
I used my Walkman for a handful of times in college, all within the first month. I sat in the first rows, hoping that that reception for the recording would be good enough. It didn't. I would replay the lectures afterwards, just to hear how the sound quality of it. It turned out, the professors sounded like they were swimming under water while talking, and I could only hear less than 10% of what they said.
As the Walkman didn't do much to me, and the price of two AA batteries was too much for me (I had no rechargeable battery for it), plus the hassle of moving dormitory halls on campus more than four times in the school year and I wanted to shed as much luggage and possessions as I could, I sold it.
I miss it (for the memory), and I don't miss it (for its non-use). But everytime when Sony Walkman is mentioned, it brings me back that small piece of memory of college gift. It would still bring a smile to me.
When I left Lehman to go back to college more than two decades ago, my boss gave me a gift of a Sony Walkman. I had no idea what I would do with it, and he explained to me that I could record lectures and listen to them again, should the need arise. It had never occurred to me that I would not pay enough attention to the lectures that I would miss anything. In any case, a gift is a gift, and it's a thoughtful, no less.
I used my Walkman for a handful of times in college, all within the first month. I sat in the first rows, hoping that that reception for the recording would be good enough. It didn't. I would replay the lectures afterwards, just to hear how the sound quality of it. It turned out, the professors sounded like they were swimming under water while talking, and I could only hear less than 10% of what they said.
As the Walkman didn't do much to me, and the price of two AA batteries was too much for me (I had no rechargeable battery for it), plus the hassle of moving dormitory halls on campus more than four times in the school year and I wanted to shed as much luggage and possessions as I could, I sold it.
I miss it (for the memory), and I don't miss it (for its non-use). But everytime when Sony Walkman is mentioned, it brings me back that small piece of memory of college gift. It would still bring a smile to me.
On long hair and middle-aged women...
As I'm inching closer to middle age (!!!), I read, with interest, the New York Times article attending to rebut all criticisms about middled-aged women sporting long (grey hair). For the most obvious reasons, the author is a woman, aged 55, and in her prime middle age.
I can empathize with her passion and love of long hair. I had short hair when I was growing up, because it's too high maintenance, in my mom's taste. As a rebellion of sorts, and for my love of long hair, I sported long hair in my 20s. It's long as long as waist-length which could look unhealthy on the ends, but longer than chest-length. My hair has always been black and thick. I can't recall how much praise I got, when I let my hair down. People would say, my hair looks a black waterfall, shiny and sparkle in the sun. Another thing I should add is, perhaps due to my laziness, I don't like using conditioner, and I don't like combing or brushing my hair. After each washing, I just let it dry by itself; and when it's dried, it just flows. It's that easy.
It certainly sounds nostalgic, but I don't think I miss having to care for my long hair, albeit not having to take much care for my locks. I have to watch my earrings, in case the loops or backs get tangled with the hair. I remember some time back, I read an article (jokingly, perhaps), that bad guys like to nab girls and women in long hair, because the hair is easy to grab. But the real catalyst for the dramatic haircut (from chest-length to boy trim) is the first childbirth. To be sure, it's a difficult child birth; but mostly, it's the dramatic sweat during those 13 hours of hard laboring. I can still recall vividly the tremendous pain and the amount of sweat on me...and the long hair that was sticking to my face, my neck, and my back. I've told myself, I don't need the hair on my neck anymore.
I don't think I ever look back on my long hair. This is particularly so, since the grey hair starts coming out. It probably took me maybe 6 months or so to come to terms with having grey hair amidst my jet black hair. With the grey sprinkle now, it actually looks more natural to me. With a still young family and kids to take care of, I don't think I can afford the time to dye the hair, or worry about whether other men like the look on my head! And, hey, I'm married; so, I'm not bothered at all.
This is thus so, when I read that article, of this 55-year-old woman who's trying to justify the existence of the very long, very grey hair on her head, that I find it rather pathetic. I don't mean to sound judgmental. Afterall, it's anyone's choice to sport whatever hairdo. I just find it rather pathetic, that this woman is still holding onto her long hair. I don't doubt it that she probably has very pretty hair in her younger, and more glorious, days. (Afterall, I've been through that too.) But, c'mon, long hair in mid 50s??!!?? I don't think I can accept myself with that prospect. Plus, the fact that, I am yet to find and see a woman in her 50s and 60s with strong, grey hair, lovely enough to be long too. Maybe she still hopes to catch the fancy of some suitor. To me, it just sounds pathetic and hopeless (even the suitor part).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It reminds me of a friend of mine. Every so often, our circle of friends would gather together, to chit-chat and to have some funs, in our girls-night-out. Every one of us, single or married, has trimmed our hair short...all except one of them, who's now a mother of two. None of us in our close circle is judgmental enough to think that her long hair is unbecoming. Afterall, her hair is still rather thick and strong, with minimal grey hair to boot. Still, something just doesn't quite click. I've been reading the other day, and suddenly it came to me - she hasn't had a different look since she was probably 14. I was thinking to myself, boy, that's sad, for someone to be holding onto her look since her teens. Garnering praise and courtship when one is young is one thing, but attempts to hold onto those "glory days" when the time has passed is quite another. I'm quite happy to brush my daughter's hair and admire her very beautiful hair, which is so much like mine back then (except that hers is alot more chestnut brown than my jet black locks). It's high time to pass the banter to the younger girls to have their days in the sun. :)
I can empathize with her passion and love of long hair. I had short hair when I was growing up, because it's too high maintenance, in my mom's taste. As a rebellion of sorts, and for my love of long hair, I sported long hair in my 20s. It's long as long as waist-length which could look unhealthy on the ends, but longer than chest-length. My hair has always been black and thick. I can't recall how much praise I got, when I let my hair down. People would say, my hair looks a black waterfall, shiny and sparkle in the sun. Another thing I should add is, perhaps due to my laziness, I don't like using conditioner, and I don't like combing or brushing my hair. After each washing, I just let it dry by itself; and when it's dried, it just flows. It's that easy.
It certainly sounds nostalgic, but I don't think I miss having to care for my long hair, albeit not having to take much care for my locks. I have to watch my earrings, in case the loops or backs get tangled with the hair. I remember some time back, I read an article (jokingly, perhaps), that bad guys like to nab girls and women in long hair, because the hair is easy to grab. But the real catalyst for the dramatic haircut (from chest-length to boy trim) is the first childbirth. To be sure, it's a difficult child birth; but mostly, it's the dramatic sweat during those 13 hours of hard laboring. I can still recall vividly the tremendous pain and the amount of sweat on me...and the long hair that was sticking to my face, my neck, and my back. I've told myself, I don't need the hair on my neck anymore.
I don't think I ever look back on my long hair. This is particularly so, since the grey hair starts coming out. It probably took me maybe 6 months or so to come to terms with having grey hair amidst my jet black hair. With the grey sprinkle now, it actually looks more natural to me. With a still young family and kids to take care of, I don't think I can afford the time to dye the hair, or worry about whether other men like the look on my head! And, hey, I'm married; so, I'm not bothered at all.
This is thus so, when I read that article, of this 55-year-old woman who's trying to justify the existence of the very long, very grey hair on her head, that I find it rather pathetic. I don't mean to sound judgmental. Afterall, it's anyone's choice to sport whatever hairdo. I just find it rather pathetic, that this woman is still holding onto her long hair. I don't doubt it that she probably has very pretty hair in her younger, and more glorious, days. (Afterall, I've been through that too.) But, c'mon, long hair in mid 50s??!!?? I don't think I can accept myself with that prospect. Plus, the fact that, I am yet to find and see a woman in her 50s and 60s with strong, grey hair, lovely enough to be long too. Maybe she still hopes to catch the fancy of some suitor. To me, it just sounds pathetic and hopeless (even the suitor part).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It reminds me of a friend of mine. Every so often, our circle of friends would gather together, to chit-chat and to have some funs, in our girls-night-out. Every one of us, single or married, has trimmed our hair short...all except one of them, who's now a mother of two. None of us in our close circle is judgmental enough to think that her long hair is unbecoming. Afterall, her hair is still rather thick and strong, with minimal grey hair to boot. Still, something just doesn't quite click. I've been reading the other day, and suddenly it came to me - she hasn't had a different look since she was probably 14. I was thinking to myself, boy, that's sad, for someone to be holding onto her look since her teens. Garnering praise and courtship when one is young is one thing, but attempts to hold onto those "glory days" when the time has passed is quite another. I'm quite happy to brush my daughter's hair and admire her very beautiful hair, which is so much like mine back then (except that hers is alot more chestnut brown than my jet black locks). It's high time to pass the banter to the younger girls to have their days in the sun. :)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
On the distress of Democrats and the falling stars of Obama...
The mid-term election in November 2th is nigh, and the Democrats are in distress, and rightly so. Two years after all the hoopla of Change and Hope imbued with the Obama presidency, nobody is disillusioned anymore, except perhaps for the African-Americans who are still solidly behind Obama, which is more out of affinity of their very similar skin color than with the actual job performance from Obama.
New York Times call it The Education of a President. The Obama camp is still touting essentially the same lines and reasoning to appease those who are now pissed off at him. The wars were started by Bush. Economy is already crumbling down when he was sworn in. For the most parts, those are factual and true. The reasoning goes, if voters are now getting upset with Obama, it must be because they don't understand that his administration has already been doing things to make things better. So then, voters frustration (which very likely will eliminate the Democrat majority in the Senate after the November mid-term election) must be a communication problem, rather than a problem with Obama himself...per se.
One of the things that Obama and his camp don't seem to understand is that, voters know all these. It's not like they don't know that he has inherited a big mess when he won the presidency. I don't think anyone expects him to fix everything rightaway. But, boy, if he's still complaining he inherits all these problems two years after, making it an excuse for not being able to deliver the hopes and changes that he has promised, *that* is the main problem. If Obama can deliver in two years, he'll probably still be saying the same thing in another two years. Afterall, he's just buying time, hoping that the economy will right itself, so that he can ride the wave. In fact, that's exactly what his wife, Michelle, is doing, pleading voters to give her husband more time. How much time does he need, really? No one can say. Just keep the faith, and keep praying.
Granted that Obama has reversed course from the hardline attitude from the previous Bush administration, with the most noticeable turnaround being the willingness to re-regulation industries. The kind of wild, wild west mentality in which anyone goes, as the Bush administration will just let the industries do whatever they want, in the name of free market, is simply unacceptable. I'd give credits to Obama for achieving that. But I can't say much with the rest.
The health reform is more like reforms, for reform sake. It doesn't go far enough in achieving the universal healthcare that liberals have wanted (and which I would think it's a good thing too, even though I'm not a sworn Dem). There are many more areas that feel like an extension of the Bush doctrine (eg. Patriot Act), rather than a rebuttal of it. For all the hopes and changes and bipartisanship that Obama has sworn to push through, it's a huge letdown. If Obama attributes all those to just a communication problem, then he must be dreaming or smoking something.
For that, Obama has only himself to blame. He's the one who dug that hole for himself, creating this huge expectation, as if he's the second coming of the messiah. Or perhaps it's due to his total lack of experience and obliviousness, that it's only until now that he realizes that what he promises (for changing Washington) is all that easy or even doable. Back then, he said it's not a problem, that it's a good thing that he's a clean slate. For those who bought into his pipe-dream, they are perhaps just as naive and ignorant.
Hence, there won't be any use for Obama to go on the campaign trail, because everyone has deserted him, from the diehard Dems, to the liberals in general, to the independents, to the young college crowds. What is he going to pump them with? There's no more hope, no more change. Talk is cheap, but we don't see enough of the actions we want to see. In short, he talks the talk, but he can't walk the walk.
I'm seriously tempted to vote everything against the Dems, to show them my displeasure. But the Dems might be onto something, when they are reminding voters, that they are the lesser of two evils, when compared to the GOP (and certainly so, about the crazy folks from the Tea Party), which is certainly true. To be sure, I don't want to deliver any form of success to any of them, be it Dems, or GOP, or Tea Party. If there's any independents on the ballot that might look decent, I'll settle for that; if none, I don't think I'll go out to vote. Sad.
New York Times call it The Education of a President. The Obama camp is still touting essentially the same lines and reasoning to appease those who are now pissed off at him. The wars were started by Bush. Economy is already crumbling down when he was sworn in. For the most parts, those are factual and true. The reasoning goes, if voters are now getting upset with Obama, it must be because they don't understand that his administration has already been doing things to make things better. So then, voters frustration (which very likely will eliminate the Democrat majority in the Senate after the November mid-term election) must be a communication problem, rather than a problem with Obama himself...per se.
One of the things that Obama and his camp don't seem to understand is that, voters know all these. It's not like they don't know that he has inherited a big mess when he won the presidency. I don't think anyone expects him to fix everything rightaway. But, boy, if he's still complaining he inherits all these problems two years after, making it an excuse for not being able to deliver the hopes and changes that he has promised, *that* is the main problem. If Obama can deliver in two years, he'll probably still be saying the same thing in another two years. Afterall, he's just buying time, hoping that the economy will right itself, so that he can ride the wave. In fact, that's exactly what his wife, Michelle, is doing, pleading voters to give her husband more time. How much time does he need, really? No one can say. Just keep the faith, and keep praying.
Granted that Obama has reversed course from the hardline attitude from the previous Bush administration, with the most noticeable turnaround being the willingness to re-regulation industries. The kind of wild, wild west mentality in which anyone goes, as the Bush administration will just let the industries do whatever they want, in the name of free market, is simply unacceptable. I'd give credits to Obama for achieving that. But I can't say much with the rest.
The health reform is more like reforms, for reform sake. It doesn't go far enough in achieving the universal healthcare that liberals have wanted (and which I would think it's a good thing too, even though I'm not a sworn Dem). There are many more areas that feel like an extension of the Bush doctrine (eg. Patriot Act), rather than a rebuttal of it. For all the hopes and changes and bipartisanship that Obama has sworn to push through, it's a huge letdown. If Obama attributes all those to just a communication problem, then he must be dreaming or smoking something.
For that, Obama has only himself to blame. He's the one who dug that hole for himself, creating this huge expectation, as if he's the second coming of the messiah. Or perhaps it's due to his total lack of experience and obliviousness, that it's only until now that he realizes that what he promises (for changing Washington) is all that easy or even doable. Back then, he said it's not a problem, that it's a good thing that he's a clean slate. For those who bought into his pipe-dream, they are perhaps just as naive and ignorant.
Hence, there won't be any use for Obama to go on the campaign trail, because everyone has deserted him, from the diehard Dems, to the liberals in general, to the independents, to the young college crowds. What is he going to pump them with? There's no more hope, no more change. Talk is cheap, but we don't see enough of the actions we want to see. In short, he talks the talk, but he can't walk the walk.
I'm seriously tempted to vote everything against the Dems, to show them my displeasure. But the Dems might be onto something, when they are reminding voters, that they are the lesser of two evils, when compared to the GOP (and certainly so, about the crazy folks from the Tea Party), which is certainly true. To be sure, I don't want to deliver any form of success to any of them, be it Dems, or GOP, or Tea Party. If there's any independents on the ballot that might look decent, I'll settle for that; if none, I don't think I'll go out to vote. Sad.
Monday, October 11, 2010
On whether women can have it all - babies and career...
It's an age-old question, which seems to ebb and flow through generations. The question is, of course, on whether women can have it all - babies and career. The feminist movement in the 1960s and 70s was perhaps most famous in liberating women from corsets, but it doesn't seem to have removed the self-doubt that most women still feel, as evident by the latest article that I read on the subject.
I feel quite strongly about it, because oftentimes, I feel that alot women unnecessarily subject themselves to the barrage of misinformation and opinions around them. Bit by bit, they take them in to their sub-conscience, about the idea that women should settle with a man, have babies at a certain age, have (or don't have) a career, etc etc.
Do we, as a collective female species, really feel such strong need to conform? And for those who defy the conventional wisdom of the bygone days, to go down the path in singleville, why is there often such regret?
Perhaps we should admit to it that by nature, most (but not all) of us female do feel the urge to have babies at some point. Surely, some women don't feel it, and that's perfectly ok. For those who would have otherwise chosen this path and have babies early, but have instead chosen to defer the decision, since the generations before us have fought so hard to liberate all females, so the argument goes, that one must take advantage of it, and make our stand. To have babies is almost like forfeiting a woman's rightful place in the career ladder. So, career now, babies later (or no baby at all).
Somehow, I never feel such a strong urge to make a stand. I didn't really feel the anxiety when I was approaching my own so-called used-by date at age 30. As the article has rightly pointed out, there will always be others around you, those who care for you, even, to project their own anxiety for and onto you, thinking that "omigod, you're almost 30; you should settle down and have a baby soon." I quite distinctly remember my own mother saying those words in not an uncertain way to me. Did I get bothered by it? Not really. I have made a decision to myself, that if I don't get married, I won't have babies. Period. You could say I'm old-fashioned; or however you want, but that's my position. So, if the Mr. Right doesn't come along, then there's life for me. I can accept that.
So then, it was toward my late 30s that my husband and I decided to either call it quit, and make our long-distance relationship real. We decided to give it a try. It's a big deal, but it's one that both parties have to come to the same understanding and be supportive to each other. I guess, it's at that point that one should realize it's no longer just a me-only decision in life anymore. Most, if not all, decisions will involve consultation, whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact, it was only a year or so ago, that I've decided to add my English name (that I've used for so long) onto my legal papers. But I found that I couldn't even do that, without the explicit consent and signature from my spouse. I thought to myself, what's up with that?!? But sometimes some things in life, that's what it takes.
We didn't actually have babies until some time later in marriage, that my husband dreams of babies. One time, he recalled a dream when he was holding a baby girl in his arms and he told me she was so cute. That's when we both knew we should give it a try. Like I said, I've always wanted babies; as a matter of fact, 4 would be a perfect number - 2 boys, 2 girls; so that neither the boys nor the girls will get lonely. My husband has noted that probabilities do not always work out exactly 50/50 in life. While I said it's "nice," it's never really a requirement for me.
After the birth of our second kid, we've decided that perhaps it would do for us. In a way, I know I would always have some regrets, for getting to that lucky number of 4, but so it should be.
All through these times, I've been working and never take any breaks from work (except maybe the couple of months of maternity leave). I've decided that I can't mentally handle being a stay-at-home mom. I know I got it easy, since my chosen profession, though male dominated, is very technical in nature. And surprisingly, the male dominated environment is full of new-age guys, alot of them around my age and have their own kids too, so that they fully understand how hard it is to be a mother, giving birth and all. There's never any question or concern at work about me bringing the baby to office, for as long as I can sort out daycare arrangements, or as long as my assigned tasks are all done, with no compromise in deadline or quality.
One could say, I got it easy, and I've got it all. I have my beautiful children; I get to keep my career; I can work from home to care for the kids; I can even squeeze time to work on my advanced degree for professional development.
Why am I saying all these? To all those female peers of mine, I can only say that, while it's alot of hard work, and it'll never be easy, but it can be done. Even if the others tell you that you can't have it all, it doesn't have to be so.
But, does it mean that you have to have it all, if you're more inclined to stay at home with your babies? To that, I'd say, why not? It's your decision, not Bill O'Reilly's or Jennifer Aniston's to make. But you have to will it to work.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, there's the question of whether we need a man to have a baby, as the Aniston/O'Reilly spat so easily politicized. I'd say, O'Reilly is just a loud-mouthed jerk. I never paid any attention to what he says at any given time, who is always making big claims to get news headlines. But in this case, there's an ounce of truth in what he said. Can a woman make a baby all on her own? Scientifically, she can't, because she still needs a sperm; then again, neither can a guy alone (although they have much less inclination to want to have babies on their own). But when O'Reilly pointed this out in women's face, he's simply trying to put down the women, telling them how pathetic they are, for wanting a baby without getting a man. That reason alone is enough for me to despise him for a very, very long time.
Realistically, though, even if I can have a baby on my own (IVF or adoption), I'm not sure if I want to go through that. This has nothing to do with the need of a man or not, but it has to do with the support infrastructure that one can get. My immediate family, who are the ones I trust completely in this world, is not around me. Even as a professional woman with the wherewithal to get hired hands to take care of my babies, I don't think I'll take that as acceptable option. If I am to have babies, I have to get them my all. I cannot accept those women who would give birth to babies in a heartbeat, and not bothering taking good care of them. My husband shares the same view. So, between the two of us, we take care of our kids; not once did we ever use a babysitter or nanny. Again, one could say we get it easy, since we can both work from home. But like I said, when there is a will, there is a way.
~~~~~~~~~~
I should add one thing: I fully emphasize those who can't afford to it though, since alot of families (particularly women) who don't have the resources to even put food on the table.
Our family was poor when I was growing up. Like most strong Jewish or Italian mothers, my mom (Chinese) is very strong-willed, intelligent and shrewd in managing the household finance. She's the one whom I learn from, that I need to do long-term planning. Having babies is a life-long commitment. Without sufficient resources, my hands could be tied. I take her (and my dad's) work ethics to heart, and bought my own apartment for rental, two years out of college. That was a time when most of my classmates were still out partying after they got their first paychecks. My assets and investments continue to accumulate throughout these years, which allow me to not worry excessively about finance, although it's never too hard behind in my mind.
I must say too, that it's my mom who gave me this advice: Don't give up your career. One time, she told me, she would kill to have the kind of career opportunities that my sisters and I have. In her generations, women never have that kind of chances in career. As such, she has always been a stay-home mom. In a way, I know that's one of her regrets that she's hoping her daughters do not have to suffer. As we have got ahead in career, she can only advise me that, once I give it up, I might not be able to get it back, which is most certainly true, since that's exactly what happens to one of my sisters who used to be in management, yet is finding it so hard to get back into the profession after taking a break from work for some 6 years now, taking care of her children at home.
I've been ferociously accumulated assets and investments because I know one day I'll need them to sustain me. Although that day hasn't come yet, that kind of financial freedom is what eases my mind. That's what allows me to know that, even if it's busy and tough work, things can be done.
I feel quite strongly about it, because oftentimes, I feel that alot women unnecessarily subject themselves to the barrage of misinformation and opinions around them. Bit by bit, they take them in to their sub-conscience, about the idea that women should settle with a man, have babies at a certain age, have (or don't have) a career, etc etc.
Do we, as a collective female species, really feel such strong need to conform? And for those who defy the conventional wisdom of the bygone days, to go down the path in singleville, why is there often such regret?
Perhaps we should admit to it that by nature, most (but not all) of us female do feel the urge to have babies at some point. Surely, some women don't feel it, and that's perfectly ok. For those who would have otherwise chosen this path and have babies early, but have instead chosen to defer the decision, since the generations before us have fought so hard to liberate all females, so the argument goes, that one must take advantage of it, and make our stand. To have babies is almost like forfeiting a woman's rightful place in the career ladder. So, career now, babies later (or no baby at all).
Somehow, I never feel such a strong urge to make a stand. I didn't really feel the anxiety when I was approaching my own so-called used-by date at age 30. As the article has rightly pointed out, there will always be others around you, those who care for you, even, to project their own anxiety for and onto you, thinking that "omigod, you're almost 30; you should settle down and have a baby soon." I quite distinctly remember my own mother saying those words in not an uncertain way to me. Did I get bothered by it? Not really. I have made a decision to myself, that if I don't get married, I won't have babies. Period. You could say I'm old-fashioned; or however you want, but that's my position. So, if the Mr. Right doesn't come along, then there's life for me. I can accept that.
So then, it was toward my late 30s that my husband and I decided to either call it quit, and make our long-distance relationship real. We decided to give it a try. It's a big deal, but it's one that both parties have to come to the same understanding and be supportive to each other. I guess, it's at that point that one should realize it's no longer just a me-only decision in life anymore. Most, if not all, decisions will involve consultation, whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact, it was only a year or so ago, that I've decided to add my English name (that I've used for so long) onto my legal papers. But I found that I couldn't even do that, without the explicit consent and signature from my spouse. I thought to myself, what's up with that?!? But sometimes some things in life, that's what it takes.
We didn't actually have babies until some time later in marriage, that my husband dreams of babies. One time, he recalled a dream when he was holding a baby girl in his arms and he told me she was so cute. That's when we both knew we should give it a try. Like I said, I've always wanted babies; as a matter of fact, 4 would be a perfect number - 2 boys, 2 girls; so that neither the boys nor the girls will get lonely. My husband has noted that probabilities do not always work out exactly 50/50 in life. While I said it's "nice," it's never really a requirement for me.
After the birth of our second kid, we've decided that perhaps it would do for us. In a way, I know I would always have some regrets, for getting to that lucky number of 4, but so it should be.
All through these times, I've been working and never take any breaks from work (except maybe the couple of months of maternity leave). I've decided that I can't mentally handle being a stay-at-home mom. I know I got it easy, since my chosen profession, though male dominated, is very technical in nature. And surprisingly, the male dominated environment is full of new-age guys, alot of them around my age and have their own kids too, so that they fully understand how hard it is to be a mother, giving birth and all. There's never any question or concern at work about me bringing the baby to office, for as long as I can sort out daycare arrangements, or as long as my assigned tasks are all done, with no compromise in deadline or quality.
One could say, I got it easy, and I've got it all. I have my beautiful children; I get to keep my career; I can work from home to care for the kids; I can even squeeze time to work on my advanced degree for professional development.
Why am I saying all these? To all those female peers of mine, I can only say that, while it's alot of hard work, and it'll never be easy, but it can be done. Even if the others tell you that you can't have it all, it doesn't have to be so.
But, does it mean that you have to have it all, if you're more inclined to stay at home with your babies? To that, I'd say, why not? It's your decision, not Bill O'Reilly's or Jennifer Aniston's to make. But you have to will it to work.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, there's the question of whether we need a man to have a baby, as the Aniston/O'Reilly spat so easily politicized. I'd say, O'Reilly is just a loud-mouthed jerk. I never paid any attention to what he says at any given time, who is always making big claims to get news headlines. But in this case, there's an ounce of truth in what he said. Can a woman make a baby all on her own? Scientifically, she can't, because she still needs a sperm; then again, neither can a guy alone (although they have much less inclination to want to have babies on their own). But when O'Reilly pointed this out in women's face, he's simply trying to put down the women, telling them how pathetic they are, for wanting a baby without getting a man. That reason alone is enough for me to despise him for a very, very long time.
Realistically, though, even if I can have a baby on my own (IVF or adoption), I'm not sure if I want to go through that. This has nothing to do with the need of a man or not, but it has to do with the support infrastructure that one can get. My immediate family, who are the ones I trust completely in this world, is not around me. Even as a professional woman with the wherewithal to get hired hands to take care of my babies, I don't think I'll take that as acceptable option. If I am to have babies, I have to get them my all. I cannot accept those women who would give birth to babies in a heartbeat, and not bothering taking good care of them. My husband shares the same view. So, between the two of us, we take care of our kids; not once did we ever use a babysitter or nanny. Again, one could say we get it easy, since we can both work from home. But like I said, when there is a will, there is a way.
~~~~~~~~~~
I should add one thing: I fully emphasize those who can't afford to it though, since alot of families (particularly women) who don't have the resources to even put food on the table.
Our family was poor when I was growing up. Like most strong Jewish or Italian mothers, my mom (Chinese) is very strong-willed, intelligent and shrewd in managing the household finance. She's the one whom I learn from, that I need to do long-term planning. Having babies is a life-long commitment. Without sufficient resources, my hands could be tied. I take her (and my dad's) work ethics to heart, and bought my own apartment for rental, two years out of college. That was a time when most of my classmates were still out partying after they got their first paychecks. My assets and investments continue to accumulate throughout these years, which allow me to not worry excessively about finance, although it's never too hard behind in my mind.
I must say too, that it's my mom who gave me this advice: Don't give up your career. One time, she told me, she would kill to have the kind of career opportunities that my sisters and I have. In her generations, women never have that kind of chances in career. As such, she has always been a stay-home mom. In a way, I know that's one of her regrets that she's hoping her daughters do not have to suffer. As we have got ahead in career, she can only advise me that, once I give it up, I might not be able to get it back, which is most certainly true, since that's exactly what happens to one of my sisters who used to be in management, yet is finding it so hard to get back into the profession after taking a break from work for some 6 years now, taking care of her children at home.
I've been ferociously accumulated assets and investments because I know one day I'll need them to sustain me. Although that day hasn't come yet, that kind of financial freedom is what eases my mind. That's what allows me to know that, even if it's busy and tough work, things can be done.
Friday, October 8, 2010
On the decline of children's picture books...
This often happens to me. I go about my daily life, I see/hear things, I observe and listen, when needed, I read up on the topic, and then I form my opinion. Oftentimes, this happens so subtly and I do it so swiftly and subconsciously that sometimes I don't notice it. These opinions often get formed in my head, and I kind of mentally file them away. Afterall, I'm not a columnist and commentator. I don't find the need to air out every single thought in my head, in twitter and some such, for example. That would be too crass. When need be, I'll speak.
So then, today I read this article in New York Times about the decline of children's picture books. Memories and emotions flood back to me, like the filing system inside my head is about to burst. That's in large part due to the many observations and own experience, in all these years while bringing up my kids, and books are an integral part of it. Life can be too busy for one to reflect on things. But this is one of those times.
I didn't read much at all when I was a kid. In those days, resources were simply too scarce. We didn't even get to go to public libraries which seemed like a luxury to us. All we read were textbooks, and we did well in schools. It's no surprise since, growing up in Asia, everything is about standardized tests since the feudal days in imperial China. The British colonial rule kept up with that system very well too. No one feels bad about not reading any other materials. If you do well in school, you're golden.
You won't know how I felt when I went to the public library the first time in my teens. The public library was obviously much bigger than our school library. I wandered from aisle to aisle, touching and smelling the books, picking them up at random, and reading them. I was lost in space and time. Since then, I've been going to the library on my own; and my friends would think that I've gone mental, for wanting to dig the books rather than watching TV or movies. Granted that I literally grew up with the TV, I've found a new friend in books. This might sound strange in US, but this was back then a few decades in Asia.
I still keep up that habit in reading on my own. I'm secretly wishing to make up for all the lost grounds. How I wish I have found the interests in books at a younger age. I have no doubts that I would have read much more interesting books. And I would learn to become a faster reader too. As it is now, I read surely, though rather slowly. I have my regrets.
My husband is a different animal. He's a prolific reader. He would finish a book in two days, that would have taken me more than a week. These days, in between the busy life, I can only find time to read maybe 2-3 books a month. I always secretly harbor the envy to those people who can keep at reading at least a book a week. That would have made me very happy, to cover all the books that I have wanted to read. For now, they would have to wait.
For the most obvious reasons then, I never have to chance to experience picture books as a child. Still, I enjoy them all the same. After my kids were born, we used to go to bookstores often, and we bought alot of picture books for the kids. I'd say, they enjoy them, particularly the classics like Goodnight Moon and Dr Seuss, but not the kind of head-over-heels type of ecstasy that I have expected from them. As a matter of fact, I think they love them, not only because of how interesting the book is, but mainly on the quality time that we read them together, as parents and children. I have no doubts about their usefulness, in easing the kids into lifelong reading habit, as my husband does, in seeking out books for both research, interests and comfort.
So, with the ever-increasing competition, both locally but in an ever-expanding globalized world. As the article has pointed out, parents are urging kids to skip over picture books, and jump right into chapter books at a younger and younger age. Can a 4-year-old truly enjoy Charlotte's Web or Stuart Little on their own? Honestly, I'd say, without the guidance and encouragement from an adult, they can't...not unless you have a child prodigy, I suppose. But you shouldn't be surprised to find that alot of parents consider their child to be a prodigy on some level. Afterall, if the parents can nudge them into reading the chapter books at 4-5 years old, that's quite something....right?
For me, I don't really nudge my kids, one way or the other. My husband, on the other hand, has quite strong views on what they should do at what age, guided by his own experience. Afterall, he starts learning his phonics when he was 3, and he starts reading Greek mythology when he's 5. I must admit, there're times when I'm ambivalent about pushing the kids to start at too young an age. I don't want to kill their natural curiosity.
Somehow, my husband proves to me that my ambivalence is misguided. Our kids can indeed master both phonics and the basic of mathematics around 3-4. Once they master the basics, my husband lets them choose. They would choose a topic of interests, and read up on the topics like crazy. My son would get to know everything about sharks, dinosaurs, soccer (his passion), and more. My daughter would find interests in arts and crafts, minerals, history, architecture, and more. It's quite amazing.
One thing that I've learnt from the kids and all these years is that, one should not look at the simple guidelines of whether there are pictures in the book or not. That rule is just too simplistic. There are indeed chapter books that cater for both, like the Geronimo Stilton series, and the Magic Tree House series, with text inter-parsed with illustrations.
My husband also grew up with comic books too. He loves Calvin and Hobbes, and Tin Tin. He's the one who introduces comic books to the kids. But they love it so much, and they've graduated to the Marvel series and others which are not always appropriate for their young age, given the amount of violence in it, to say the least. So, now, my husband is giving the kids marching orders to curb on the amount of time they spend on comic books.
But does all these mean that there's no place of picture books? I don't think so. There is a space and time in the kids' life for that. I don't think picture books and full-length text have to be mutually exclusive. If I were the parent who takes all the fun out of my kid's childhood, because I want him/her to get in Harvard, 18 years down the line, I think I'm doing them a disservice. Sure, Harvard is nice, and it's not that I don't want them to get the best. Somehow, there should be a balance.
So then, today I read this article in New York Times about the decline of children's picture books. Memories and emotions flood back to me, like the filing system inside my head is about to burst. That's in large part due to the many observations and own experience, in all these years while bringing up my kids, and books are an integral part of it. Life can be too busy for one to reflect on things. But this is one of those times.
I didn't read much at all when I was a kid. In those days, resources were simply too scarce. We didn't even get to go to public libraries which seemed like a luxury to us. All we read were textbooks, and we did well in schools. It's no surprise since, growing up in Asia, everything is about standardized tests since the feudal days in imperial China. The British colonial rule kept up with that system very well too. No one feels bad about not reading any other materials. If you do well in school, you're golden.
You won't know how I felt when I went to the public library the first time in my teens. The public library was obviously much bigger than our school library. I wandered from aisle to aisle, touching and smelling the books, picking them up at random, and reading them. I was lost in space and time. Since then, I've been going to the library on my own; and my friends would think that I've gone mental, for wanting to dig the books rather than watching TV or movies. Granted that I literally grew up with the TV, I've found a new friend in books. This might sound strange in US, but this was back then a few decades in Asia.
I still keep up that habit in reading on my own. I'm secretly wishing to make up for all the lost grounds. How I wish I have found the interests in books at a younger age. I have no doubts that I would have read much more interesting books. And I would learn to become a faster reader too. As it is now, I read surely, though rather slowly. I have my regrets.
My husband is a different animal. He's a prolific reader. He would finish a book in two days, that would have taken me more than a week. These days, in between the busy life, I can only find time to read maybe 2-3 books a month. I always secretly harbor the envy to those people who can keep at reading at least a book a week. That would have made me very happy, to cover all the books that I have wanted to read. For now, they would have to wait.
For the most obvious reasons then, I never have to chance to experience picture books as a child. Still, I enjoy them all the same. After my kids were born, we used to go to bookstores often, and we bought alot of picture books for the kids. I'd say, they enjoy them, particularly the classics like Goodnight Moon and Dr Seuss, but not the kind of head-over-heels type of ecstasy that I have expected from them. As a matter of fact, I think they love them, not only because of how interesting the book is, but mainly on the quality time that we read them together, as parents and children. I have no doubts about their usefulness, in easing the kids into lifelong reading habit, as my husband does, in seeking out books for both research, interests and comfort.
So, with the ever-increasing competition, both locally but in an ever-expanding globalized world. As the article has pointed out, parents are urging kids to skip over picture books, and jump right into chapter books at a younger and younger age. Can a 4-year-old truly enjoy Charlotte's Web or Stuart Little on their own? Honestly, I'd say, without the guidance and encouragement from an adult, they can't...not unless you have a child prodigy, I suppose. But you shouldn't be surprised to find that alot of parents consider their child to be a prodigy on some level. Afterall, if the parents can nudge them into reading the chapter books at 4-5 years old, that's quite something....right?
For me, I don't really nudge my kids, one way or the other. My husband, on the other hand, has quite strong views on what they should do at what age, guided by his own experience. Afterall, he starts learning his phonics when he was 3, and he starts reading Greek mythology when he's 5. I must admit, there're times when I'm ambivalent about pushing the kids to start at too young an age. I don't want to kill their natural curiosity.
Somehow, my husband proves to me that my ambivalence is misguided. Our kids can indeed master both phonics and the basic of mathematics around 3-4. Once they master the basics, my husband lets them choose. They would choose a topic of interests, and read up on the topics like crazy. My son would get to know everything about sharks, dinosaurs, soccer (his passion), and more. My daughter would find interests in arts and crafts, minerals, history, architecture, and more. It's quite amazing.
One thing that I've learnt from the kids and all these years is that, one should not look at the simple guidelines of whether there are pictures in the book or not. That rule is just too simplistic. There are indeed chapter books that cater for both, like the Geronimo Stilton series, and the Magic Tree House series, with text inter-parsed with illustrations.
My husband also grew up with comic books too. He loves Calvin and Hobbes, and Tin Tin. He's the one who introduces comic books to the kids. But they love it so much, and they've graduated to the Marvel series and others which are not always appropriate for their young age, given the amount of violence in it, to say the least. So, now, my husband is giving the kids marching orders to curb on the amount of time they spend on comic books.
But does all these mean that there's no place of picture books? I don't think so. There is a space and time in the kids' life for that. I don't think picture books and full-length text have to be mutually exclusive. If I were the parent who takes all the fun out of my kid's childhood, because I want him/her to get in Harvard, 18 years down the line, I think I'm doing them a disservice. Sure, Harvard is nice, and it's not that I don't want them to get the best. Somehow, there should be a balance.
On the importance of hard news, inflation, and the price that goes with it...
I was paying bills the other day while listening to live streaming from NPR public radio on my laptop. I was simultaneously reading news on both Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
Politico likes to pigeon voters into categories; and for good reasons (to them). It's easier to tabular and measure. It's easier to show results. And it's easier to grab news headlines and soundbites. But I don't think alot of people are that easily pigeon-holed. Take me, for example. While I'm liberal leaning on most social issues, I don't subscribe to alot of issues that AARP or NAACP champions. And while I'm fiscally conservative, I believe government has a strong role to play, particularly in proper regulations and their enforcement, and in providing basic infrastructure and framework for the society to function. So, I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all notion from GOP that government should shrink to a barebone minimal and that it should get out of our life. At the same time, GOP wants big government in military and defense. What gives, one would ask? To me, that kind of clear-cut, black-and-white GOP argument only befits a 7-year-old. In real life, things are always much, much more complicated than a one-line soundbite. And I strongly believe in kicking all lobbyists out of Washington, which I have no doubts none of the politicians would support the move (as their finance depends so heavily on lobbying groups).
Why am I saying all these, you'd ask? I read news from different sources because I want different perspectives, in order to make informed decisions and to form my opinion. I hardly read any of the blogs on the web, because I don't need yet more opinions from some talking heads like Huffington Post. What I need is the basic facts, and I make my own judgment, thank you very much. And then, I've suddenly come to realize that, without all the traditional news source, there is no more source for hard news. I realize that I'd probably be caught off guard, should any of these news organization cease to exist, the possibility of which can be quite real. Granted that Wall Street Journal is relatively safe under the Murdoch wing. Other news organizations like New York Times and Reuters have been struggling financially for quite some time, and it's likely to remain the same or even worsen in the years to come, given freeloaders like Google News who use the contents from someone else for free. Don't get me wrong, I read Google News quite often too, but I don't think it's fair to just use someone else's contents which can be so expensive to put together.
And so, as I was paying my bills, I realize that I've been a freeloader as well. Talking about casting the first stone on Google News. :P To talk the talk and walk the walk, I put in the subscription for Wall Street Journal and New York Times right there and then. WBUR is running fund-raising as well, so I call in to make a donation in the amount of the subscriptions to the other newspapers. And suddenly, I feel better about myself. :)
For everything in life, it comes with a price. The price of hard news, which I value so much, is high. I don't think I can afford not to have hard news on any given day. I should do my part.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of price to pay, my thoughts circle back to the low inflation that we've come to enjoy for so long (what, more than a decade now?). In fact, I don't think prices in supermarket have really gone up much at all for the past ten years. Sure, I enjoy the low, steady prices when I go grocery-shopping. Who won't be?
The other day, I bought a pack of 3 frozen white fish fillet from a Chinese supermarket for less than 5 bucks. It's awesome, because it's so cheap and it's pretty tasty too. And then, I read the article on the appalling conditions on some catfish farm in countries like Vietnam where the fish are kept in rolling on filthy waters and can still thrive, given the excessive amount of steroids inserted in their bodies. They grow fast and big, without need of much attention. While I think the article might have focused excessively on the negative side of things, it has answered some of the nagging questions at the back of my mind for a very long time. How can prices be so cheap on food, year on year, for so long? Granted that technology has improved alot, raw materials don't. It just doesn't sit right to me, that we can sit at the table, and have everything we want. Somehow, something's gotta give. That "something," is the steroid and mercury level in these fish. They are cheap, tasty, but they can do harm to your body too. I've since decided that I'm not buying those fish fillets anymore.
The same goes with the "everyday low price" at Walmart. I was watching the 2005 documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price the other day. I find myself agreeing with the observations of my own, of how small communities who can't compete on the low prices alone get crushed by Wal-mart, and how important it is to buy local and to support local community and economy.
While I emphasize deeply with those who need to save a penny, I don't normally buy at the cheapest source I can find. (I've only been to a Wal-mart a few times in my life.) For small communities, in particular, it's a vicious cycle to have Wal-mart moves in, crushes all local stores, then everyone in town would have no choice but to seek employment with Wal-mart who doesn't care about living wage or decent benefits to its employees. These folks would then become beholden even more by the low prices that Wal-mart feeds them. For as long as I can afford, I don't want to be in that situation, when I would become beholden on a behemoth like that.
The price of low-price is simply too high to me.
Politico likes to pigeon voters into categories; and for good reasons (to them). It's easier to tabular and measure. It's easier to show results. And it's easier to grab news headlines and soundbites. But I don't think alot of people are that easily pigeon-holed. Take me, for example. While I'm liberal leaning on most social issues, I don't subscribe to alot of issues that AARP or NAACP champions. And while I'm fiscally conservative, I believe government has a strong role to play, particularly in proper regulations and their enforcement, and in providing basic infrastructure and framework for the society to function. So, I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all notion from GOP that government should shrink to a barebone minimal and that it should get out of our life. At the same time, GOP wants big government in military and defense. What gives, one would ask? To me, that kind of clear-cut, black-and-white GOP argument only befits a 7-year-old. In real life, things are always much, much more complicated than a one-line soundbite. And I strongly believe in kicking all lobbyists out of Washington, which I have no doubts none of the politicians would support the move (as their finance depends so heavily on lobbying groups).
Why am I saying all these, you'd ask? I read news from different sources because I want different perspectives, in order to make informed decisions and to form my opinion. I hardly read any of the blogs on the web, because I don't need yet more opinions from some talking heads like Huffington Post. What I need is the basic facts, and I make my own judgment, thank you very much. And then, I've suddenly come to realize that, without all the traditional news source, there is no more source for hard news. I realize that I'd probably be caught off guard, should any of these news organization cease to exist, the possibility of which can be quite real. Granted that Wall Street Journal is relatively safe under the Murdoch wing. Other news organizations like New York Times and Reuters have been struggling financially for quite some time, and it's likely to remain the same or even worsen in the years to come, given freeloaders like Google News who use the contents from someone else for free. Don't get me wrong, I read Google News quite often too, but I don't think it's fair to just use someone else's contents which can be so expensive to put together.
And so, as I was paying my bills, I realize that I've been a freeloader as well. Talking about casting the first stone on Google News. :P To talk the talk and walk the walk, I put in the subscription for Wall Street Journal and New York Times right there and then. WBUR is running fund-raising as well, so I call in to make a donation in the amount of the subscriptions to the other newspapers. And suddenly, I feel better about myself. :)
For everything in life, it comes with a price. The price of hard news, which I value so much, is high. I don't think I can afford not to have hard news on any given day. I should do my part.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of price to pay, my thoughts circle back to the low inflation that we've come to enjoy for so long (what, more than a decade now?). In fact, I don't think prices in supermarket have really gone up much at all for the past ten years. Sure, I enjoy the low, steady prices when I go grocery-shopping. Who won't be?
The other day, I bought a pack of 3 frozen white fish fillet from a Chinese supermarket for less than 5 bucks. It's awesome, because it's so cheap and it's pretty tasty too. And then, I read the article on the appalling conditions on some catfish farm in countries like Vietnam where the fish are kept in rolling on filthy waters and can still thrive, given the excessive amount of steroids inserted in their bodies. They grow fast and big, without need of much attention. While I think the article might have focused excessively on the negative side of things, it has answered some of the nagging questions at the back of my mind for a very long time. How can prices be so cheap on food, year on year, for so long? Granted that technology has improved alot, raw materials don't. It just doesn't sit right to me, that we can sit at the table, and have everything we want. Somehow, something's gotta give. That "something," is the steroid and mercury level in these fish. They are cheap, tasty, but they can do harm to your body too. I've since decided that I'm not buying those fish fillets anymore.
The same goes with the "everyday low price" at Walmart. I was watching the 2005 documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price the other day. I find myself agreeing with the observations of my own, of how small communities who can't compete on the low prices alone get crushed by Wal-mart, and how important it is to buy local and to support local community and economy.
While I emphasize deeply with those who need to save a penny, I don't normally buy at the cheapest source I can find. (I've only been to a Wal-mart a few times in my life.) For small communities, in particular, it's a vicious cycle to have Wal-mart moves in, crushes all local stores, then everyone in town would have no choice but to seek employment with Wal-mart who doesn't care about living wage or decent benefits to its employees. These folks would then become beholden even more by the low prices that Wal-mart feeds them. For as long as I can afford, I don't want to be in that situation, when I would become beholden on a behemoth like that.
The price of low-price is simply too high to me.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
On cold symptoms, immune system, and other thoughts...
I was reading the article in New York Times about how studies confirm the sometimes counter-intuitive perception that cold symptoms don't make us sick. Somehow, I don't find it that hard to believe. While cold symptoms are unpleasant, what with all the running nose and sore throat, but your body almost always wins in the end. And you won't get sick for quite some time, since your body has produced antibody to last you for quite some time.
But there's more. The finding indicates that, since it's good to let your body fight the good fight (and win in the end), it's a bad thing to take all those herbal supplements and vitamins to try to protect your body from coming down with colds. This one might be harder to believe, but somehow, I buy that too.
I remember when I was going up, my mother used to tell us this: If you have a temperature (low grade fever), that's ok; because you're going to grow an inch or two after that. Her saying has stuck with me for a very long time, and I truly believed it. My secret wish to get sick (and have a fever) is solely cosmetic. I was rather skinny and slim-built when I was growing up, and I've always, always wished that I could grow taller. The myth that my mother told me somehow gave me this hope that I could perhaps get another inch or two, should I get sick more often. I know it sounds rather perverse, and the logic is all backwards; but don't argue that with a 7-year-old.
And there's more: If I get sick, mom would let me stay home, in bed all day, and do nothing but drink soup, or have congee, or rice noodle in soup. I'm born a soup/congee/noodle person, and that means heaven to me, no matter that I might be suffering from unpleasant symptoms. I didn't consider those things, because in my mind, the goods outweigh the bads. So, that's that.
But I never really get my wish fulfilled. You'd think it's relatively easy to come true, coming down with colds every darn winter. That might well be true in these days. But back then, this was not so for me. From when I was born, until I'm well into my early adulthood, I hardly get sick. For as far as my memory can serve me, I can only remember myself coming down with slight temperature twice. Both times, I got my wish and my fill of soup/congee/noodle; although the grow-a-few-inch part never materialized. (I would have to wait until puberty before I get my growth spurt.)
Resources were very limited back then, and we never have all the seemingly modern-day luxury like annual checkup, or going to see the doctor when you're sick, which has now become national obsession in this country, given all the debates for healthcare reform. Being old-fashioned mother as she is, mom somehow did all the right things. Let your body fight the fight. Eat well, sleep well. Balance diet. Exercise, and playing. Back then, if someone is reeeally sick (diarrhea was probably the worse that I can recall) , you get over-the-counter medicine. Believe it or not, they still work their wonders for me these days.
But you know, I know deep down there's something more than just doing the right things by my mom that kept us healthy. I know it has to be something more. Even these days, when my kids might come down sick, contagious with all the cold or flu symptoms or all sorts of virus, I somehow almost always am the last one standing (since my husband almost always gets infected too). In the household, we do all the routines together. In fact, my kids are much more active in outdoor activities than I am now. My husband does his exercise frequently too. So, I know it has to be something else.
And then, I remember the food that my mom made.
We didn't have alot of money back then. Mom is a stay-home mother, and dad is forever working long hours to get enough money to feed the family. So, mom watches the household finance extremely carefully, and we're reeeeeally frugal. (Oh, you'd think getting food stamps, or soup kitchen, or not having Christmas presents is frugal? Those are luxuries, because there's still someone lending a helping hand - be it the government, or charitable organizations.) When we were young, there was no such thing as eating-out. You watch every penny. You don't have any - and I mean, any - money to buy anything extra, other than food or pay the rent. We didn't have a TV until I was 12.
You might think, gosh, I feel bad for you. Or, I'm really sorry to hear the tight situation in the household. But don't be. That's because we never felt poor. Mom did a tremendously marvelous job in keeping the household going. With the very little money, she would get sometimes cast-out food from the fresh food market, like tomatoes or oranges or fruits that people throw out by the hawkers because they are 1/3 or half rotten. She's an expert in cutting out the rotten parts, and we eat only the good parts. For that, we have fresh food in every meal, and fruits everyday. She would cook our meals fresh, everyday. She would walk us to school. She would make sure everything in the household is clean. In our spare times, we would make up our own games and play. Or, I would draw pictures. I like drawing pictures.
I'm not an anomaly in my family, because my parents and my siblings rarely get sick either. As I get older, I'm beginning to attribute the good health that my mom imbues in us, through those rotten food that she bought. I would get much stronger stomach than my husband or kids because I can take almost any kind of food, even those not in the best condition. In the back of my mind, I've also believed that, being exposed in a controlled dose of bad stuffs (eg. virus) can somehow make you stronger. This was way before I come to realize how alot of vaccines are made, which are essentially dead or even live virus in low dosage. Somehow, we have to learn let your body how to fight a fight. To a certain extent, the study in this article confirms that belief of mine.
But I know, if I am to tell people, try to get rotten food, trim the bad parts, and eat them, it's going to major heresy. No one in the modern days is going to take me seriously on that. Afterall, there's always modern medicine to help you when you get sick. And good food is aplenty. No one is going to go out and seek out rotten food in supermarkets, not even those on food stamps who complain that they don't have money to buy food. In a rich, developed country like this, no one would accept that as modus operandi. I guess, if I were to have the seriously limited resources like my parents have had back then, I would have adopted those practices without second thoughts. But if one has money in the pocket, it's hard to suggest them (me included) to go get rotten food.
But there's more. The finding indicates that, since it's good to let your body fight the good fight (and win in the end), it's a bad thing to take all those herbal supplements and vitamins to try to protect your body from coming down with colds. This one might be harder to believe, but somehow, I buy that too.
I remember when I was going up, my mother used to tell us this: If you have a temperature (low grade fever), that's ok; because you're going to grow an inch or two after that. Her saying has stuck with me for a very long time, and I truly believed it. My secret wish to get sick (and have a fever) is solely cosmetic. I was rather skinny and slim-built when I was growing up, and I've always, always wished that I could grow taller. The myth that my mother told me somehow gave me this hope that I could perhaps get another inch or two, should I get sick more often. I know it sounds rather perverse, and the logic is all backwards; but don't argue that with a 7-year-old.
And there's more: If I get sick, mom would let me stay home, in bed all day, and do nothing but drink soup, or have congee, or rice noodle in soup. I'm born a soup/congee/noodle person, and that means heaven to me, no matter that I might be suffering from unpleasant symptoms. I didn't consider those things, because in my mind, the goods outweigh the bads. So, that's that.
But I never really get my wish fulfilled. You'd think it's relatively easy to come true, coming down with colds every darn winter. That might well be true in these days. But back then, this was not so for me. From when I was born, until I'm well into my early adulthood, I hardly get sick. For as far as my memory can serve me, I can only remember myself coming down with slight temperature twice. Both times, I got my wish and my fill of soup/congee/noodle; although the grow-a-few-inch part never materialized. (I would have to wait until puberty before I get my growth spurt.)
Resources were very limited back then, and we never have all the seemingly modern-day luxury like annual checkup, or going to see the doctor when you're sick, which has now become national obsession in this country, given all the debates for healthcare reform. Being old-fashioned mother as she is, mom somehow did all the right things. Let your body fight the fight. Eat well, sleep well. Balance diet. Exercise, and playing. Back then, if someone is reeeally sick (diarrhea was probably the worse that I can recall) , you get over-the-counter medicine. Believe it or not, they still work their wonders for me these days.
But you know, I know deep down there's something more than just doing the right things by my mom that kept us healthy. I know it has to be something more. Even these days, when my kids might come down sick, contagious with all the cold or flu symptoms or all sorts of virus, I somehow almost always am the last one standing (since my husband almost always gets infected too). In the household, we do all the routines together. In fact, my kids are much more active in outdoor activities than I am now. My husband does his exercise frequently too. So, I know it has to be something else.
And then, I remember the food that my mom made.
We didn't have alot of money back then. Mom is a stay-home mother, and dad is forever working long hours to get enough money to feed the family. So, mom watches the household finance extremely carefully, and we're reeeeeally frugal. (Oh, you'd think getting food stamps, or soup kitchen, or not having Christmas presents is frugal? Those are luxuries, because there's still someone lending a helping hand - be it the government, or charitable organizations.) When we were young, there was no such thing as eating-out. You watch every penny. You don't have any - and I mean, any - money to buy anything extra, other than food or pay the rent. We didn't have a TV until I was 12.
You might think, gosh, I feel bad for you. Or, I'm really sorry to hear the tight situation in the household. But don't be. That's because we never felt poor. Mom did a tremendously marvelous job in keeping the household going. With the very little money, she would get sometimes cast-out food from the fresh food market, like tomatoes or oranges or fruits that people throw out by the hawkers because they are 1/3 or half rotten. She's an expert in cutting out the rotten parts, and we eat only the good parts. For that, we have fresh food in every meal, and fruits everyday. She would cook our meals fresh, everyday. She would walk us to school. She would make sure everything in the household is clean. In our spare times, we would make up our own games and play. Or, I would draw pictures. I like drawing pictures.
I'm not an anomaly in my family, because my parents and my siblings rarely get sick either. As I get older, I'm beginning to attribute the good health that my mom imbues in us, through those rotten food that she bought. I would get much stronger stomach than my husband or kids because I can take almost any kind of food, even those not in the best condition. In the back of my mind, I've also believed that, being exposed in a controlled dose of bad stuffs (eg. virus) can somehow make you stronger. This was way before I come to realize how alot of vaccines are made, which are essentially dead or even live virus in low dosage. Somehow, we have to learn let your body how to fight a fight. To a certain extent, the study in this article confirms that belief of mine.
But I know, if I am to tell people, try to get rotten food, trim the bad parts, and eat them, it's going to major heresy. No one in the modern days is going to take me seriously on that. Afterall, there's always modern medicine to help you when you get sick. And good food is aplenty. No one is going to go out and seek out rotten food in supermarkets, not even those on food stamps who complain that they don't have money to buy food. In a rich, developed country like this, no one would accept that as modus operandi. I guess, if I were to have the seriously limited resources like my parents have had back then, I would have adopted those practices without second thoughts. But if one has money in the pocket, it's hard to suggest them (me included) to go get rotten food.
Monday, October 4, 2010
On sex survey and the reality...
Yes, it's one of those times when people publish survey results about sex, this time it's about contemporary sexual behavior. I don't normally pay much attention to this kind of results, since they are mostly just silly, and nothing much. This latest one claims to find interesting shifts in contemporary Americans, after a survey of 6000 adults. (Although, no doubt, the margin of errors must be huge, given a small sample size of 6000 adults, with no inkling on how they are selected and other details like demographics. So, it's likely that it's just one of those surveys that make big claims and nothing else.)
So, this survey says it found "surprising" results about the high number of masturbation, among men, even after they're in their adulthood. I don't know who in their right mind should be surprised by that. Do other women really get offended when they find their husbands/boyfriends masturbate, even though they have an active sex life? Well, I just know that I don't.
And then there's this finding that women are faking their orgasm more often than men. The study's conclusion is that, there needs to be more communication to overcome this perceived "problem." I don't know about you, but I don't see how letting my husband know that I almost never get an orgasm in sex is going to help. It's the famous "it's not you, it's all in me" type of thing. If I can't get orgasm from normal intercourse with my partner, how is it going to help by telling him every time that he fails, when he has tried so hard to please me?
Oh, and then there's the masturbation about women, which the study breezes over without touching on much. But I can tell the surveyor that at least I can get an orgasm much easier by masturbation than by normal intercourse. And when I'm by myself, I don't have to fake it to please anyone. If I don't get it, I don't get it. That in itself is liberating.
And then, there's the surprise about condom use. Perhaps my husband is one of those new age guy, condom use is never even a question. It's one of those things that we need to use. Period. I would think, too, that we're not an anomaly in that. Many modern couples would use condom, if they have a little bit of commonsense.
Last but not least, is the subject on anal sex. The study finds it more widely practiced in bedrooms, than was previously thought. If we correlate this finding with the other result, that women fake their orgasm more often, I would imagine the sex life is getting even more torturous and painful for women than one would imagine. But would anyone be surprised that women have to fake orgasm if they're practicing anal sex more often? I don't know about you, but I can't stand anal sex. Let's be honest with ourselves, that guys do like to come from behind sometimes. Way back when, we gave anal sex a try, but it's so painful that I almost literally jumped right out of our bed. We figure out a compromise. He can come from behind, but it has to go through the normal intercourse's channel.
From what I see it, these kind of sex surveys don't do much, except garnering some attention in women/girls' magazine, in sex revelation...which is to say, it's like gazing crystal ball to see your future (more myth than reality).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Talks on sex are never a question or topic in traditional Asian families. I remember my mother never feels comfortable touching on anything related to sex when I was growing up. It's only after I got married, that she probably thinks I'm old enough now, that she can even bring herself to dance on this subject.
About the only time(s) that my mother talks about it, was how some husbands would demand it (ie. sex) so often that it can become a torture. The Chinese word she uses to describe it was synonymous to jumping on you, or crawling all over, and some such, none of which evokes anything pleasant. I guess it's like a duty or chore for wives, even to this day.
This is not to say that sex can be such torture. My husband is a gentle person in the bedroom, even to the point of respectful gentleman, and he won't do anything that doesn't please me. It can be fun at times. But I can empathize those women whose husbands are anything less than that.
So, this survey says it found "surprising" results about the high number of masturbation, among men, even after they're in their adulthood. I don't know who in their right mind should be surprised by that. Do other women really get offended when they find their husbands/boyfriends masturbate, even though they have an active sex life? Well, I just know that I don't.
And then there's this finding that women are faking their orgasm more often than men. The study's conclusion is that, there needs to be more communication to overcome this perceived "problem." I don't know about you, but I don't see how letting my husband know that I almost never get an orgasm in sex is going to help. It's the famous "it's not you, it's all in me" type of thing. If I can't get orgasm from normal intercourse with my partner, how is it going to help by telling him every time that he fails, when he has tried so hard to please me?
Oh, and then there's the masturbation about women, which the study breezes over without touching on much. But I can tell the surveyor that at least I can get an orgasm much easier by masturbation than by normal intercourse. And when I'm by myself, I don't have to fake it to please anyone. If I don't get it, I don't get it. That in itself is liberating.
And then, there's the surprise about condom use. Perhaps my husband is one of those new age guy, condom use is never even a question. It's one of those things that we need to use. Period. I would think, too, that we're not an anomaly in that. Many modern couples would use condom, if they have a little bit of commonsense.
Last but not least, is the subject on anal sex. The study finds it more widely practiced in bedrooms, than was previously thought. If we correlate this finding with the other result, that women fake their orgasm more often, I would imagine the sex life is getting even more torturous and painful for women than one would imagine. But would anyone be surprised that women have to fake orgasm if they're practicing anal sex more often? I don't know about you, but I can't stand anal sex. Let's be honest with ourselves, that guys do like to come from behind sometimes. Way back when, we gave anal sex a try, but it's so painful that I almost literally jumped right out of our bed. We figure out a compromise. He can come from behind, but it has to go through the normal intercourse's channel.
From what I see it, these kind of sex surveys don't do much, except garnering some attention in women/girls' magazine, in sex revelation...which is to say, it's like gazing crystal ball to see your future (more myth than reality).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Talks on sex are never a question or topic in traditional Asian families. I remember my mother never feels comfortable touching on anything related to sex when I was growing up. It's only after I got married, that she probably thinks I'm old enough now, that she can even bring herself to dance on this subject.
About the only time(s) that my mother talks about it, was how some husbands would demand it (ie. sex) so often that it can become a torture. The Chinese word she uses to describe it was synonymous to jumping on you, or crawling all over, and some such, none of which evokes anything pleasant. I guess it's like a duty or chore for wives, even to this day.
This is not to say that sex can be such torture. My husband is a gentle person in the bedroom, even to the point of respectful gentleman, and he won't do anything that doesn't please me. It can be fun at times. But I can empathize those women whose husbands are anything less than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)