HW 58 -parenting 102

In class, we had a visit from Melissa. She shared with us her take on parenting and what she has been doing for the last couple years. Like any other parent, she mentioned how she enjoys being around her kids, and watching them grow. She has two kids, a boy and a girl. Her son is the oldest, and she believes that her son being born first before her daughter was a good thing, this way her daughter can grow to be more mature and well-behaved. She also mentioned how during their youth they will "meet: at a certain point. Like any other parent, she defended her parenting skills and her own children when criticized. Worse of all, and probably the most common critical, was her parents (the kids grandparents). She even mentioned how there was a huge fight once with all the adults once within the household when those comments were mentioned. Eventually we moved off that topic, and she mentioned how no matter the situation, that 'unconditional love' will always be there. When discussing her parenting habits, she said she doesnt want her kids to ever have television in their room. They are limited of there television time and also video-gaming hours or computer usage. A student in the class then asked, well what if they reach a certain age, where it'll seem odd for them not to have a TV in their room, will you still not provide them one? She responded saying, well at that point it will probably be most fair to give them one because they are now older, and her whole perspective on parenting revolves around being "fair". She reads to her kids. She also mentioned how she feel into those Society Ritual Timeline, such as dating a man, falling in love, first getting a dog, realizing maybe they should shoot for a kid.

I think Melissa is a very nice woman in general, and often honest. So to not believe her or how she says she parents her children would be ridiculous. However, i feel still that when in front of an audience, such as she was, only the positive aspects of her relationship with her children come out, never the negatives. Punishments or abusing children are never mentioned by them first. Also, how she mentions how she limits the kids activity hours, she doesnt mention whether it actually works, or if it prevails. I think that for her to react the way she did with her parents when hearing criticizing comments from them, based on her parenting skills, was only natural. No one likes to hear that. And shouldnt either. Unless they were literally the worse parents ever, but shes obviously far from that category.

I think this last unit on parenting that we are focusing on is similar to how we ended our Units last year, except that was with Midwifery. This is similar, just the step AFTER you have the kids, its like, Now what? This will help us to target ourselves in a certain direction. Although, unless i plan on being a teenage parent anytime soon i probably wont look to these rituals and ideas. At a certain age i plan to have kids, preferably 30 if life was GREAT but i doubt that late, with my luck ill end up around 25 with kids. But hopefully by then i have a great job or am leaning towards one. When it comes to kids, they say we have them to reflect our needs for affirmation. But if we dont have them, people feel pity on us or think we are either crazy, lowest of the low attractiveness-wise, or just have something wrong with our baby-making machines. Those who actually do have something wrong with their ovaries/sperm-count are the ones who pursue alternatives such as adoption or fertilization etc. The truth of the matter is, we need kids in order to keep this system alive. The world needs them.

In the movie "Demolition Man" the cop (Sylvester Stallone) is awakened from his frozen chambers and cuts his prison-sentence short as they need him to catch a criminal that is running loose in the future, the same criminal he has stopped in his own century. When he has the opportunity to have sex with a woman (Sandra Bullock) he is anxious because it has been so long, but in that time the thought of kissing and having physical relations means to swap fluids and risk high chance of illness. So she gives him this machine that virtually has sex with the other person. o_O

HW 57 - Parenting 101

I think there are several parenting skills. Parents are always labeled in two ways, either bad or good. Parenting skills are usually picked up from their own parents. Its not a stereotype thing tying into ethnicity. Some parents choose to hit their kids, but look down on those who put their own on leashes. Then those who put their kids on leashes frown upon those who physically abuse them. In my eyes, i think the leash is more morally wrong. It resembles dogs. I think kids are hit less often when their is two parent figures in their lives. And a "loving home" to come home to each night. If ever it were a single parent struggling not just financially, but by a way of connecting with their kids, they have to act as both parent figures, the mom/dad. They have to resort to violence or even threats to keep a superior stature alive in their household. In my personal life, i guess the best parenting i was exposed to with my own parents were whenever i was rewarded. Thats always good for a kid. But its not good to reward them when obviously they deserve the opposite. I think its important for kids to be surrounded by grandparents. That is because grandparents care for their grandchildren much differently then they did their own children. It is they're one chance to spoil them evenly. Even though my grandmother was different from what im imagining. Im pretty sure she hated visits from us. At least, until my grandfather passed away. THen it was just her. Obviously its wrong to abuse your children in public. So if ever i were put in that position, id wait until we got home and punish them. i would hit my own kids. But i wouldnt beat them to a pulp! thats morally wrong in so many ways. But getting the message out definately helps too. No books were read in my family. Truthfully, thats for first time parents that concern way too many things that shouldnt be stressed. Parents pretty much just read previous family's parenting skills and steal that with some tweeks of their own. Its funny how every generation of parents always say "you got it good" or "back then it was worse". Naybe thats because over time the parents are getting lighter on enforcement. Or maybe the tantrums and acting up that kids then went through, we have way more electronics to distract us from that.

"I simply had to present my child with endless choices throughout the day- choices I was comfortable with (red sippy cup or yellow? Story first or bath first? Bedtime now or in 5 minutes?). This would help them feel in control and empowered, and when it was time for Mommy to take charge and make a decision, they would go along, because of all the choices they already had."

A little quote i found from the article bashing the "Love and Logic" book. Based on the advice given from L&L, it sounds pretty fair and maybe even do-able. Unfortunately, the woman fortunate enough to try and respond to its tactics have a few words of advice for skeptical parents.

"The problem is that my children must not have read the book. They do not respond the way the book says they will. Giving them endless choices has made my life much, much harder."

That sounds even more believeable. Those authors who write these novels trying to help "underachiever" parents are the same ones who magically wound up with the most innocent child ever. Also, they probably only have ONE child of their own. SO to win the battle of parenting against just one child, the odds are pretty even. What about those who have to fight against two or even three each morning/afternoon/night?

HW 56 - Survey questions

questions to ask:

1. If you are now, or were in a relationship, do you consider yourself to be the one "wearing the pants"?
2. Do you think a relationship is based on a superior/inferior script?
3. Is having dominant control over your companion healthy?

Jasper:
Uhhhhhhhh well yeah because that's how people think it's supposed to be in society the boy is supposed to "wear the pants" , I don't really understand the second one but I don't think that's what a relationship is based on it might be part of it, nd i think it's unhealthy you and your companion should have equal control over each other that's the only way it could be fair

Sam:
From previous relationships i think i wear the pants but its in certain situations not all. Not necessarily dominant control is healthy i think having a healthy relationship is what you put in and give or and should be split between the two.

After asking two separate people these questions, i got similar responses. Getting the same response from two different perspectives, a boy and girl, led me to the idea that perhaps everyone responds to this topic a certain way, the way it should be. But just because it should be this way doesnt necessarilly mean they are living to their own beliefs. If asked this, id probably respond the same way. But one umentioned factor is how when the time comes that you have the decision to make that overrules your companion, one will take it. I think that "equality" within the relationship rule goes out the window. No one wants to be the woman in the relationship, not the man, not even the woman! If everything was equal and smooth sailing no couples would be breaking up or becoming bored of each other than. No one likes boring.

follow up question (soon to be revised):
Can couples commit to an equal say on all behalfs?

HW 55 - Question/Topic research

1- "Why do interpersonal-relationships set by first name basis create for itself more importance than those relationships not based on first-names?"

"Why do male and females feel overwhelmed by their companions when seen as inferior to the other?"

2- Juliette: I think your question will be a tough one to answer. And female marriage counsellors exploring the reasons as to why MEN cheat seems a little one-sided. Its an interesting topic however. But i think only two main points doesn't open a window to the reasoning of why men cheat, there is probably millions of reasons and even ones us including the therapist have never considered. Try revising your topic question to make it even better.

Yurelis: I think your topic question is simple. Sometimes the simpler the better. But maybe to get yourself started you should label some interesting facts/opinions or research as to what really does make a good friend. Also, another suggestion is whether you wanna dedicate your topic to the word "good". Explore different meanings such as great, best, or even plain friend.

bibliography: COMING SOON

HW 54 - Similar Minds Thinking Test analysis

ESTJ - "Administrator". Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of total population.

Free Jung Personality Test (similar to Myers-Briggs/MBTI)

This test is supposed to define a person for the personality they portray. Out of 48 questions, maybe 20+ i answered the 50% mark. So that answer right there can go both ways, whether i slant more towards very much disagree or very much agree with. The results could lead to any direction if thats so. It even states that in order to see your alternative personality results, to simply refresh the page. That's just dumb to me. One final result would have made me feel more comfortable than two.

For 48 questions i sort of breezed through answering them. They were pretty simple. But i dont know if 48 simple questions can help define a person better than 48 hard questions. Truthfully, i dont think these results were so accurate. Because one time i took a free presonality test from Chase Bank, and they used the same rubric, only they're questions were compiled of only 5. After five questions, it labeled me as a "ENTP." the results explained alot more on that one. Coincidentally, i also received a ENTP on this one, but as my first results, the ones posted show the 'alternative'. I dont think this was useful because if a test with only five questions can give me the same results, is it worth it taking 43 extra questions? the answers no.

I think this test is more to infer you on what kind of career you should look into. Naturally, adults never love their job. But they have to do it day in and day out. Im guessing this test is just to help someone pursue their dream-job. In class we been discussing alot about interpersonal relationships. Any relationship you can think of. But we been discussing the outer shell of it, like how we interact with our everyday mailmen or MTA workers or teachers or sanitation workers. The difference from how we act with teachers to mailmen is very different because for starters, teachers know us by a first-name basis. Mailmen only deliver their mail, to several people in an apartment building, this isnt the movies where the mailman is very friendly and knows everyone that is on their route. For us to not speak to them means we will be less open and share alot less than with teachers/friends/families. Also it all depends on your social level etc. i guess thats where this "personality test" comes in.

HW 53 - Survey Analysis

After taking the survey, i realized that during there were so many questons that i began to answer as though my answer were mild. For example, ones i didnt feel like answering i answered with "idk" or "n/a". Some of the questions were able to make me think are these really anonymous? because they better be. They were some pretty private questions, or at least the way to look at them were they were questions that no one has bothered to ask me in person. Some on school, family, friendship, suicide, future, depression, disorders, etc. I dont suffer from none of those, but something made me wonder who would be answering them yes.

After finally seeing the results from all who answered these questions, i saw that each question had a separate majority answered question. Some were IDK or YES or NO. There were a small percentage and a high percentage shown for every category answered. But what i brought up in class during our whole discussion was that it said only an average of 52 respondents had answered, so if there were a whole of 19% of kids who answered YES to ever considering suicide, thats just under 10 students. thats 10/50 = 1/5 which means almost 20% of those who responded are considering or have considered suicide......
Another thing to consider was what in math terms is considered a "hidden variable" or "lurking variable". Suppose 3 kids are asked the question "Do you drink alchohol?" the results were 1/3 kids say they drink alchohol, but you add an additional 1 kid for those who did not admit truthfully to the question, and that is an approximate 2/3 kids who drink alchohol. So the suicide question could have been even higher if including a percentage of those who did not answer truthfully. Really makes you think....

After reading results from the survey DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE" i noticed that besides the ritual techniques of releasing certain results, they did something that caught even my attention, which means it must have been effective to many others as well. They mentioned how "only 8% of sexually active teens use birth control pills, the most effective means of preventing pregnancy", this is significant because they took a proactive treatment, and used its small percentage of usage by teens to represent how little the safe-sex message reaches teens ears. They were able to flip a good thing into a bad, but the 8% really was bad so maybe it isnt there fault or blaming them to be bias, they just reported it.

HW 52 - Initial theories of Human relationships

Theres too many human relationships experienced in a whole day. To name them all is impossible just as this assignment says, but i sure can think of enough to fill up an entire Homework assignment. From this morning to where i am now, the kind of different human relationships i was apart of today were with my mother, i acted as if her being up as early as i was was unnecessary since im the only one who really gets up every morning for school, no one else has any reason to. It was as much avoidance as i could.

I had a certain appearance kept in front of the other people in my train car. I remember there being a few attractive girls too so that might've messed with it too. I had a certain relationship with the security guard at the school because at the end of the day she is still someone who represents authority.

The students share a certain relationship with me, some i just keep distance from those who i dont i associate myself with them. I have a certain relationship with the teachers, especially depending on the teacher. The principal gets a more involved relationship then how the teachers interact with me.

I have a certain relationship with the cafeteria people because they are the ones who handle my food. Janitors, MTA works, store workers, my co-workers, boss, family, girls etc. It goes on. We do this because theres always a reason for everything. The cafeteria ppl because they handled your food, the principal because he handled your education, your family handles your financial needs, store workers handle your needs, friends handle your social needs, everything has a reason.

Love ties into family, friends, hobbies, and interests. No one does anything without interest involved in it. Whether you hate your job but go anyway, your interest is in the money. Family is something that i think i've learned to love. There always there for you and really arent going anywhere. Of course, there are some exceptions to this, but its really the gist of it. Parents dont raise and feed and clothe a person unless there were certain interest in it. That interest MUST be love. Whether it was deep down scraped the bottle of one's emotions, nevertheless its still there. Hobbies people do because they choose to do this, the one thing that doesnt feel alienated from them. But of course, this is just what i think, what the hell do i know.

HW 51

1. School as salvation - what can schools realistically do to address the systematic problems of inequality, anti-intellectualism, and meaninglessness in our society? (Savior Teacher Films, Obama speech, Sizer, Freire, Hirsch, Delpit, interviews, own thoughts

In my opinion schools don't explore much further options for uniting educational groups within schools. There's only two kinds of everything, the smart and the dumb, the good and the bad, than the cool and the uncool. No matter the curriculum and appropriate programs that can benefit multi-groups of students, high school will always be high school. Those options that are "explored" are usually only for targeted people. Even if they go along with a plan for students and upraising their academics they still only get through to a small percentage of students.

Those savior teacher films are a little over-dramatic. Not every single student will have problems that are life-threatening. And those who even do, teachers will not address those problems as if they're separate life outside the school ill interfere with his teaching. Absences will never be solved due to one teacher, and kids will always be kids.