The Soccer Mom Vote

Values? Really?

That old-time religion popping up in the campaign again. And I don't like it.

There was that awkward moment during one of the Democratic debates when someone in the audience asked each candidate if they prayed and if they believed prayer could stop bad things from happening. Bravo here to Bill Richardson who mentioned his religion and then said his prayers were private.

There's that oft-repeated notion that Evangelicals are uncomfortable with the Republican front-runners are having a hard time settling on a candidate to support (Oh, no!).

There's Mitt Romney's "Mormon problem." Hey listen, there's lots of reasons that Mitt Romney should not be president, but his religion isn't one of them.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, almost 70% of Americans say they want a president with strong religious beliefs. I'm wondering why so many feel that someone else's religion is really that important.

Truly, I have nothing against religion, I'm a regular churchgoer myself, but that in no way qualifies me for public office. I want a president who also believes in science. And facts. It makes me squirm to see the candidates of any party try to out-devout one another. It rings falsely.

Please, let us not mistake religiousity for doing the right thing, for having a conscience.

Remember when the election of 2004 was supposedly the triumph of the "values voter?" Well it turns out that several key states pushed anti-gay-marriage referenda on to their ballots to bring out the religious extremists. Discrimination is not a value.

And pro-life voters - how do you justify voting for candidates who may support your anti-abortion stance but then insist through their other votes that quality of life necessities like health care, child care, housing, and education are only for those who can afford them? What would happen to all those "unborn" once they are born? Where's that moral compass now? Pro-life until birth doesn't cut it, especially if you are one of those who want to do away with contraceptives too.

It's not that we have to forbid religion in the public square, but I'm not sure that we should be demanding it. How can we possibly claim this is a "Christian nation" when we have all but abandoned, by way of policy, the sick and the poor. If nothing else, I think we have to consider carefully what we are really looking for. It's good to hear Edwards and Huckabee weaving program ideas into their professions of faith; actions to back up their beliefs.

Too often the people who are most publicly religious are busy calling for abstinence-only education, restricting the HPV vaccine, or a ban on gay marriage or adoption. They want to teach creationism and define what a family looks like. You don't hear much about the least of their brothers. And at some point you start to realize that what they're touting as values are really just someone else's rules.

Nickel and Dimed

This week was a long one.  I worked too much in order to get the weekend off.  Don't get me wrong, it was worth it, but I just wish I could take vacation days or not have to worry so much about getting all my hours in.  The old paycheck dictating my life.  I hate that.

Which brings me to the book I just finished reading, "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," by Barbara Ehrenreich.  It's a must read.  It's about all us Working Joes out there who work hard, put in our hours, sometimes hold one full-time and one part-time job and don't get fairly compensated.  Ehrenreich lived in three different parts of the country and went out and got jobs of the "unskilled" variety (maid, waitress, retail worker, etc.) and tried to live for one month on the hourly wage she brought home.  Let me give you a hint - It didn't go very well. 

Certainly she didn't starve and she was able to put a roof over her head, but that was about it.  Ehrenreich chronicled how grocery shopping was minimal because she mostly rented motel rooms by the week and they didn't come with kitchens, which had her eating most of her meals at fast food joints.  She had to budget everything - gas, laundromat money, clothing allowance (which was pretty much zero) - and when a medical issue came up it left her short on rent money.

That's what I liked so much about this book.  Ehrenreich is very honest that in her experiment she is merely pretending.  She doesn't assume to truly understand what it's like to live on minimum wage and several times mentions feeling like a fake because she can return home to her comfortable upper middle class life at any time.  She's never really in any kind of danger of not making ends meet.  But because she is so honest she also is able to notice so many of the small details about what life for the working class is like.  How so many live with extended family, by necessity, in overcrowded apartments or motel rooms; the fact that the majority go to work ill or injured not only because they can't afford to take an unpaid day off, but because they don't have the money to go to the doctor or pay for a prescription.  Things I just don't have to think about.

While I'm not living the high life and I am one of the unskilled (don't all jobs require a skill set?) workers of America this book really made me think about the fact that if I didn't have a husband who is a "professional" I'd easily be one of these people struggling to pay my weekly rent.  Ehrenreich points out that the biggest criticism of "welfare mothers" is that if they just got out and worked for a living they wouldn't have to be on welfare.  Well, as this book clearly illustrates, sometimes working for a living just isn't enough - especially if you're single and have children.

I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a reality check, for anyone feeling sorry for themselves, for anyone who cares about people really.  There is just so much to it and it's clear, concise and an easy, powerful read.  It took me just a couple of days to reach the end but it's impact will have a lasting effect.  It's an eye-opener and with election season in full swing, this is definitely an issue we should be putting on the table. 

What does "family" really mean, anyway?

Recently, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders was faced with a very difficult decision: toe the party line or follow his heart. The issue? Marriage Equality. Some of you may know the issue better when it's labeled "Gay Marriage". No matter what you call it, the vote was there in front of him and he had promised to veto it. That why his emotional announcement the following day shocked the nation. Turns out his adult daughter is a lesbian and Sanders “...decided to lead with my heart... to do what I think is right — and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.”

When the news hit a local message board I belong to the reaction was, at first, ecstatic. Then one member attacked the original poster, claiming that this kind of news should not be welcome on a "Natural Families" board. She claimed that a family cannot exist without a mother AND a father, thereby invalidating all the different blends of families that exist today. The result? Messy would be putting it lightly.

But it did get a few of us thinking about the definition of "family". These days you can find families of various designs in every major city in America. But when you follow the etymology of the word "family" you might be surprised to discover it once included everyone in the household, including the servants. From Etymonline:

c.1400, "servants of a household," from L. familia "household," including relatives and servants, from famulus "servant," of unknown origin. The classical L. sense recorded in Eng. from 1545; the main modern sense of "those connected by blood" (whether living together or not) is first attested 1667.

Whether you agree with Sanders decision and how he formed it or not, one does have to wonder how the term "family" became so limiting and exclusive. One also has to wonder if the word is evolving again and what it could one day come to define.

How would you like to see "family" defined? How generous are you with the term "family" when referring to the people in your life? Do your children have an "Uncles" or "Aunts" that share no blood relation to them?

Alternately, do you agree with Mayor Sanders reversal in his political stance? Do you feel he made the choice for the "right" reasons? 

There's a veritable mountain of discussion here. Go refill your coffee cup now and jump into the fray. Just don't forget the rules.

Anhedonia

Some dictionaries define anhedonia as the inability to experience pleasure of the senses. It is often related to depression. I’ve been told (by a Psychologist no less) that this term is ballied about for those who suffer from what we might cavalierly refer to as a midlife crisis. (For a bit of trivia, Anhedonia was the original title to Annie Hall.

Anhedonia: Just a lesser known word for depression, really. A new set of syllables for the same old idea. People get tired. We get restless and every now and again, we tail-spin into our own funk, our own rut. And hopefully we climb out eventually. Most of us do. But some of us don’t.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Nicole Markwald reported for KUT that Travis County suicide rates are the highest in Texas. Because I live in Austin, and because a family member of mine attempted suicide not a month before, I paid close attention to this report and then I did some research. I learned a few things:

• The elderly are at highest risk for attempting suicide.
• Each year, about one million people take their own lives, which is more than the tally of those who lose their lives as a result of warfare.
• The majority of suicides do not succeed on a first attempt.
• About 30,000 people die by suicide each year in the U.S.
• Men have higher rates of committed suicide, while women have higher rates of attempted suicide.

The general consensus these days seems to be that those who attempt suicide are more often than not suffering some form of mental illness. Depression is the obvious culprit. According to Wikipedia,

“The predominant view of modern medicine is that suicide is a mental health concern, associated with psychological factors such as the difficulty of coping with depression, inescapable suffering or fear, or other mental disorders and pressures.”

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is one of many good resources for those looking for help, for themselves or for a loved one.

Fighting racism begins at home

Pardon me, as I have become completely unhinged as this school year gets ramped up. My daughter tried out for two plays, shooting for substantial parts.  She was put in the chorus. Again. The last time she was in the chorus, we barely saw her at all in two hours at the theater.  And she was the only black person on the stage, so she should have stood out.  But she was way in the back. Almost behind the set.  So, even though she got a better chorus part this time, a dancing chorus member, we have decided to decline the part. 

And I can’t help but think racism plays a part here.  This is the same girl that walks in choir rehearsal and wins all the solos.  She did so well in dance class that she was considered a genius.  Similarly so with the drama team at church. Why should she submit to being hidden in the background, on the sidelines, again, just because she likes to perform?  And she wasn’t alone. Several of her friends tried out for their high school musical, and didn’t get in at all.

I began searching the Internet for miserable company. And I re-discovered the Jena 6 story.  It really put my little concerns in perspective.

I don’t think this story indicates that we have come no where as a country as far as racism is concerned.  If this had been the fifties, those nooses would likely not have been empty, and certainly black boys Louisiana would not have tried to retaliate by fighting. 

It is nevertheless disturbing to see the way justice is served in this case. The boys should not have beat anyone up, and if they had been better supervised, I’m sure that would not have happened.  But they should not have to pay for it with their lives.  Suspension, sure, maybe even expulsion from school, but prison? And what of the boys that thought it was a good idea to intimidate people with nooses?   Suspension was good enough for them.

It reminded me of an incident in my town a few years ago. Veronica* was in our small group.  A black single mother from Georgia, she felt a stigma for having four children alone in the north that she hadn’t felt in the south.  She fiercely loved and protected her children, spending time at the school volunteering and tutoring hers and others’ children.  One day, that all changed. Her 11 year old son was involved in a game of king of the mountain, a very popular game in snowy Michigan. Basically, it involves standing on a snow drift and pushing off everyone that tries to get to the top, so you can be ‘king of the mountain.’ Her son was king, and he pushed a white boy.  The boy claimed he was hurt, and the parents wanted to prosecute. Veronica’s son was served a subpoena. He was threatened with suspension and expulsion, even though the other boy, twice his size, had suffered no injury.  Veronica withdrew her son from the school, and taught him at home that year.  She lived in fear of her son having a criminal record just for being a kid.

After a year the charges were dropped against the young boy, and the family moved to Texas. I can only hope for a similar solution to the Jena 6 case.

The venom that this case incites in the white supremacy community is terrifying.  Websites that publish private addresses, and promise maps so they can administer their own version of justice should be shut down.  The lack of justice being leveled at these groups is more disheartening than the criminal charges against the Jena 6. 

There was a huge protest march in Jena Louisiana on the 20^th of this month.  Large groups of college students joined Jesse Jackson and others to demand better representation for the boys involved. Jackson has called President Bush to intervene.

Shoving equality down people’s throats hasn’t worked.  It has only served to make them more resentful.  I think self-control is the answer here. That’s where we as soccer moms come in.  We should be teaching our children to control themselves.  That you can’t always have it your way, and you can’t intimidate other people to make things go your way. 

Veronica took care of her son.  She did not allow him to hang out to dry.  I will take care of my daughter, and I urge us all to take care of our own children.  We must teach them the way civilized people behave, and expect them to live that way.

*name has been changed

The League of Maternal Justice

If you haven't already learned about Facebook's deletion of photos of nursing mothers - on the grounds that they violate the site's terms of use - I really can't summarize it any better than this blogger already did.  While many of us have been writing about our bewilderment with Facebook's reasoning, he went a step further and corresponded directly with a Facebook representative about the situation.

As you might expect, this exchange shed little light on the subject.  Additionally, the situation is compounded by the presence of pro-anorexia groups that Facebook allows to remain intact.  Basically, bloggers have been asking "What gives?" with respect to the inconsistent application of the terms of use.

And now the rest of us are taking it a step further as well.  Behold, the League of Maternal Justice!

We're calling for bloggers - parents or not, lactating or not - to deactivate their Facebook accounts, and TELL FACEBOOK WHY.  Tell them that breastfeeding is nourishment, not obscenity.  Tell them that their inconsistent application of the terms of use will not be tolerated.

If, for some reason, you cannot deactivate your Facebook account purely on principle, you can still speak out against their policies and practices.  Write a post and put up a button - check the League of Maternal Justice for details.

But wait...there's more.  The Great Virtual Breast Fest of 2007, on Wednesday, October 10 - an online nurse-in.  Details to come later this week.

There are too many good reasons to breastfeed - and too many moms who are prejudiced against it for whatever reason - to let this issue slip past us.  Join the movement!

Public Service or Sick Entertainment?

Recently, I was tipped off to an in-depth article in Esquire magazine that went behind the scenes of Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator."  If you're not familiar with the prime time series you can get the lowdown here, but basically Dateline (hosted by Chris Hansen) teams up with an independent "watchdog" group to catch sexual predators in online chats with minors. 

Then Dateline hires an actor to pose as the minor, talk with the offenders on the phone and set up an in-person meeting at a house leased by Dateline.  The decoy house, as it is known, is wired with all kinds of microphones and cameras so not a single moment is missed when Hansen confronts the people who come to the house thinking they're going to have an encounter with a minor.  After the interview, the predator is arrested upon leaving the decoy house by local law enforcement who have been previously informed by Dateline about who to look for, when and where.

While Dateline sells the show by saying they're helping to take dangerous people off the streets, I think the whole premise is gory. It provides the audience with the chance to watch someone be set up and humiliated, plain and simple. Although I have no sympathy for these criminals, I don't think it's the role of the news media to conduct sting operations involving sexual predators and then televise them as investigative reporting and a public service.  I mean, if it was really about catching dangerous people then why aren't they arrested after engaging in the online sexual solicitation of minors?  After all, that is the actual crime.  Why the need for a decoy house?  Because it makes for dramatic, some would say "good," television.

That drama was turned up a notch when a man from Texas, a felony prosecutor no less, was involved in the online chat sting. Bill Conradt used very explicit language in chatting with who he believed was a 13-year-old boy and after several phone conversations Conradt agreed to a meeting.  However, he never showed up.  Dateline's actor called the man several times trying to entice him into coming to the decoy house, Conradt continued to say he would be there, but he never followed through.

Conradt had already committed a crime, so police, and Dateline, decided to confront the man at his home. This is where the waters get very murky.  While it was necessary for the police to go to the Conradt's residence for the arrest,  why was it necessary for Dateline to be there? Conradt did not take Dateline's bait to show up at the decoy house, so shouldn't their involvement have ended there?

Well, Dateline was at the house and so was the SWAT team. Once Conradt realized he was caught he decided to take his own life while still inside his home.  Suddenly, the light began to shine very brightly on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator." 

20/20 did a story involving the show and, like the Esquire magazine article, painted a very dark picture of the incident where Dateline didn't just tag along with police or conduct it's own independent investigation - 20/20 pointed out that there are allegations (from people who worked on that particular episode) that the show actually may have influenced police procedure.  A former police officer who provided security for the Dateline crew even goes so far as to say that the arrests that are caught on tape are set up to give the most dramatic visual effect and not to insure the safety of the police officers themselves.

This all just doesn't sit well with me.  Not only do I not see this show as a form of public service, but I find it dangerous that a camera crew can influence who gets arrested, when and where.  (By the way, Dateline aired the Conradt story - SWAT team, ambulance, medical helicopter and all - weeks ago.  Apparently they didn't feel any responsibility when it came to how things turned out.  I mean, the guy was a criminal, he doesn't deserve to be treated like a human, does he?  They certainly didn't air the episode to expose Conradt publicly as a threat to our children - he was already dead by then.)

There are so many facets to this story, and I've written so much already, that I can't possibly get into them all.  However, I encourage you to read the Esquire article and really think about how far is too far?  Are we really doing a service to ourselves or our children by watching these kinds of shows or are we being sadistic voyeurs who are feeding into the lowest of the low in television news and entertainment?

I don't want sexual predators anywhere near my children either, but I really don't think "To Catch a Predator" is the answer.  After all, about 90% of sex crimes against children are perpetrated by someone the children know, so it's really more important to know about the people who your children come into contact with everyday rather than the random guy down the street or on the Internet. And if Dateline isn't providing us with any answers, then why are they on TV again?

"make and hold on to a decision not to become a hostage to hostility"

This news story about the Amish community struck me as remarkable:

Amish donate cash to school gunman’s widow
Unspecified amount given by fund disbursing $4.3 million in contributions
In a statement released on behalf of the community, the committee said, "Many from Nickel Mines have pointed out that forgiveness is a journey, that you need help from your community of faith and from God ... to make and hold on to a decision not to become a hostage to hostility.  It is understood that hostility destroys community.

While I wouldn't suggest that we all become Amish, I think many of us -- myself included -- could use a healthy reality check in our ability to translate our faith or values (not limiting this to people who claim a religion) into action.  'Forgiveness' and 'community' are discussed a lot, but such a generous display reminds us that we can do more.

Starting a Chain Reaction

It’s interesting, you know, that despite some major differences in political opinions, many moms are exactly the same in one respect.  You would do just about anything to protect your children.

Without writing a lot of things that would be horrifically embarrassing for my oldest son (because eventually, he may actually be able to find this on the internet…when he’s an adult and I don’t watch every tiny click of the mouse over his shoulder while I protect him from online predators…but I digress), I’ll just say he’s in middle school and let you get the picture from there.  (I've already talked about him before a bit.)

It’s a socially awkward and painful time for a lot of kids.  I remember times of angst and uncertainty myself, and, well, it was a pretty long time ago!  What I’m trying to say is, I send four children out the door to school in the morning and along with all the reading, writing and arithmetic, I say a silent prayer that nobody is mean to them, hurts their feelings, makes their day bad, etc.  I know that I can’t protect those emotional wounds they may feel at being slighted by a classmate, and people not liking you is a part of life.  But I can’t help but think, hey, that’s my child’s heart your stepping on with your hurtful words.

It is also a hard lesson to teach your child to have compassion for people that are not nice to them.  To be the bigger person, to respect somebody who doesn’t deserve it.

That’s why, last winter, I started information gathering about what happens, specifically, in our school but really, everywhere with regards to what schools do to protect our children when “boys will be boys” steps over the line.  Anti-bullying legislation is in effect in, according to one source, 32 states.  I was also interested specifically in what the school system itself does with regards to bullying in its student conduct policies.  (And I'm in no way indicating that bullying only happens with boys, just to clarify).

But those things, while necessary, does the fact that an anti-bullying law exists deter kids from being cruel to each other?  My own assumption was that it probably does not. 

Therefore, I had heard about Rachel’s Challenge and was so impressed and moved by the power of the program that I wanted it to be at our school as soon as I could figure out how to convince other people to support the idea.  They had reached ten million school kids last year alone, and I wanted to bring this message to our schools as well.

I talked at length with the Rachel’s Challenge people.  Then I knew I needed to have the middle school principal on board with the idea because if he didn’t care or think we needed it, the idea was probably dead in the water.  He loved it.  So we pounced on the superintendent of schools.  He, too, was impressed and also offered up an earmarked school fund that could handle the cost.  Which was great, because I was prepared to fundraise the $7000 cost to bring it to the public and also the private school myself if I had to.

Long story short, Rachel’s Challenge was held at our middle school Monday with both the private and public school kids there together.  These kids were, at the oldest, Kindergarteners when the tragedy at Columbine occurred.  Their point of reference was nonexistent.  But for an hour long program given by a survivor of that horrible day, they were completely silent and moved to tears.  Six hundred plus kids, rapt attention, watching the tragic series of events unfold thru video presentations were realizing that no school is exempt from tragedy.

I thought of all you other Soccer Moms when there was a press interview beforehand and the journalist wanted information about how I found out about the program.  It went a little something like this...

"Last year, I was thinking ahead to having a child in middle school and the thought of how challenging these years might be for him was keeping me awake at night."
"Let me get this straight, you lay awake at might worrying about your kid being in middle school?"
"Yeah, actually, I do."
"Why?"
"Because I'm a mom, that's my job."

Rachel’s Challenge, specifically is:

• Eliminate Prejudice by looking for the best in others
• Dare to Dream – set goals – keep a journal
• Choose Your Influences – input determines output
• Kind Words – small acts of kindness=huge impact
• Start a Chain Reaction with family and friends

Rachel’s Challenge is non-religious, non-political, and non-profit.  I try my hardest to teach my kids tolerance and respect and this program reinforced those viewpoints already held.  But in a selfish way, I hope that a child who has no positive role models, or has people in their lives teaching bigotry and hatred, maybe, just maybe, that child gleaned something positive and will think before they lash out at my child, or yours.

Rachel's Challenge
BullyPolice
NEA Support of Anti-Bullying Legislation

Soccer Mom Redefined

Back in June, writer Tracy Mayor from Brain, Child Magazine contacted me to see if I'd be willing to talk about The Soccer Mom Vote for a feature article slated for this fall.  Our conversation revolved around the idea of a "soccer mom" voting block, its evolution, and the role of mothers in the upcoming presidential elections.

You can read the article -- available now online -- by clicking the quote below:

And what's on Soccer Mom's mind? Or, because Soccer Mom was never anything more than a blank slate onto which politicians could draw their view of the world, perhaps it's more precise to ask the question the other way around: What messages will politicians and political parties use to try to turn Soccer Mom's head in '08?

Go read the article, and feel free to return here to let us know how you feel.  How does the term "soccer mom" work for you?  What issues unite and divide us, and do you think those issues are getting the attention they deserve?