Grad students studying motherhood

In my graduate program, there is a woman studying mothering and the communication and media messages around it.

She's very interested in the portrayed roles of mothers versus fathers, who gets to keep more of their own identity in the media, if roles given by viewers create more or less sympathy for either the mother or the father.

Sounds interesting enough. Certainly she'll be studying a lot of the articles I've shared myself on social media, as she analyzes the content, puts little ones and zeros into excel spreadsheets and runs statistical analyses to flesh out answers to her research questions.

The paper she didn't present to the class was entitled:

"Don't be a boob: Bottles have nipples too"

She said the research looked at anti-breastfeeding campaigns.

First off, I'd need to see a really specific definition of terms for anti-breastfeeding. Are we talking formula adverts or simply mothers advocating formula use in forums meant for support? Are we talking hospitals giving out free samples of formula or nurses pushing formula on new frazzled mothers?

Secondly, the debate is full of emotion, high-strung and deeply-felt ideology, self-image and self-deprecation, and post-partum hormones. Are you sure you want to go around calling these women boobs? Especially if you haven't been there?

I guess, mostly, I was just disappointed to see that the academics doing studies on things like "portrayals of breast and formula feeding in the media" are no different from the commenters on op-eds about the same issue, who read the whole article then type in CAPSRAGE: I WASTED TEN MINUTES OF MY LIFE READING THIS. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. WHY DO MOTHERS MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT.

Like, I really hate to be all, 'don't talk about what you don't know about,' but if you lack the empathy to gauge the situation appropriately or even see all the key elements of what you should be studying...if you lack the ability to make the connections between media and science in a way that does not entirely drown out the very real struggles of very real people in the process...just, maybe go study something else, I guess?

When your lack of understanding of the issue at hand is so blatant and that's the issue you want to study as a PhD? And these are the papers that get published? These are the studies handed down in layman speak to breast and formula feeding moms everywhere, yearning for validation as their hormones swing them to Timbuktu and back?

No.

Everyone in the classroom laughed uproariously at her jokey title, and they spent a few minutes going back and forth about how ridiculous all the women's feelings were about this and how everyone should probably just calm down about it.

Honestly, I'm probably just curmudgeonly, but I really don't think the phrase 'don't be a boob' is all that funny to begin with--when that was added to the obvious lack of any type of understanding for a mom attempting to nurse, I just checked out and let the side-eye take over.

And this wasn't even the paper this particular woman presented.

No.

The one she presented was on mothers and fathers leaving their children in the back seat. She's trying to tie it to gender violence and is very interested in the roles society foists on mothers and fathers vs. their self-identities.  The first one is ... absolutely ridiculous, and the second one is ground broken so long ago I think my grandma was the academic working on it.

There's no point to this entry.

I'm just really suspicious now of studies coming out about parenthood. Apparently, very sound statistical studies can be run with no intuitive understanding of the topic being studied. And on the outside, that sounds fine. Because wouldn't being totally outside the topic being studied be ideal for objectivity? But in reality, if you are so removed from what you are talking about that basically 'you don't even go here', there are going to be very important correlations that you miss because you don't know to look for them. And there are going to be very tenuous connections you make too big a deal out of because you don't know they're actually not a big deal.

And a study can be presented any way the researcher wants. People say the numbers don't lie, but they can be emphasized or twisted any which way to make any point. May as well make legitimate points based in knowledge, right?







 

Twins, Distinctiveness and Social Identity Theory

Although distinctiveness theory has a wide arena of applications for small groups in terms of their members’ social identity, and these implications present ample opportunity for empirical and applied research into media, social media and advertising avenues, I simply cannot write about this without trying to work out ongoing issues I have with my identical twin girls.

Identical twins are formed when an egg is fertilized to be one child and that egg splits after fertilization making what was once one, two. Can you imagine having to live your entire life with a second you always right there? Self-definition becomes cloudy because while you define yourself, and you understand your own tastes, groups, and etc., there is a continual other force acting upon you, and when it is there from birth, it becomes part of yourself. My kids, for instance, fight all the time. But they fight as if they are fighting themselves. It’s creepy to watch, to be honest.

Vignoles et. al (2000) adapted a 1985 definition of identity as follows: “the subjective concept of oneself as a person, and therefore a form of representation” (340). Despite my best efforts against this (I dress them differently, their names are not similar, etc.), and although I’m sure it will lessen as they age, my twins, at five, subconsciously define themselves as DulceandNatalina. Therefore, if Dulce wants to do something, Natalina must also do it. If she decides not to do it, Dulce is distressed, not because she doesn’t have a companion, but because she can’t understand why her own self doesn’t want to do what she wants to do. If one of them is having a snack, the other must. If the other is not hungry, the first will opt to forego the food as well. And these are tame examples. Falling not far from the proverbial tree, my kids tend to be extreme.

So that I can see firsthand what Vignoles et. al mean when they state, based on research by Apter (1983), “developmental studies have suggested that the distinction between self and others arises very early in life in association with other dimensions of identity. Furthermore, the absence of this distinction is experienced as a loss of self in some forms of psychosis” (341). I’m not calling my kids crazy, mind you, I’m just saying. When observed in the moment it appears that an intense battle over their mismatched identities (self identity vs. identity as a twin) takes place, and very rarely does the self win out. Because of this, confusion and irrationality can reign as they constantly try to pull their twin into themselves. This draws upon another statement in Vignoles’ paper: “I cannot have a sense of who I am without a sense of who I am not, which entails distinctiveness” (340). Without a sense of who they are not (the other twin), my girls can get easily lost in everyday decisions.

Vignoles says that distinctiveness is imperative to a meaningful sense of identity. As my twins attempt to attain this, the road becomes ever more winding. As a parent, I am not allowed to spend more time with one than the other. In fact, I cannot even compliment one with a bland “good job” without the other one throwing a fit. As they try to come to terms with the fact that they are separate human beings, rather than accept their uniqueness and individuality, they seem themselves as opposite sides of the same pole. So that a compliment to one is a disparagement to the other. Saying “you’ve done a good job” to one means “you’ve done a poor job” to the other. Saying “good girl” to one means “bad girl” to the other. The refrain “you’re different girls” has been repeated in this house thousands of times in the past few years, to no avail, of course.

However, there is obviously some form of self-identity within the twins. Vignoles uses individualism vs. relational orientation to explain differences between Western and Eastern cultures and retain the cohesive value of the theory when taken globally. I’d like to very unscientifically take those (individualism being where distinctiveness is determined by separateness from others and unique qualities, and relational being where distinctiveness relies on position within your social sphere) and apply them to two (tiny) individuals as opposed to vast cultures. Because my twins may very well still have retained some form of distinctiveness at this point in their lives, simply a more relational type.

While my kids may not show differences in physical characteristics, they do clearly display differences in terms of traits, abilities and opinions, despite their denial of this. What they are truly lacking at this point is separateness. They cannot separate one from the other in terms of their very selves, and yet, as a unit, they see that this categorization of twins separates them from everyone else, further entrenching their combined identity issues. The easiest path to distinctiveness within them would be to concentrate on position, perhaps. By emphasizing that one is the sister or the twin of the other, maybe it will further imply that because the sister is the object in that sentiment, they truly cannot be the same person. In this way, perhaps Gao was right in 1996 when he said “self is defined by a person’s surrounding relations which are often derived from kinship networks and supported by cultural values” (83). Of course, since this is Confucianism meant in the context of Eastern cultures, as a parent, I’ll probably have to find another way.





 

Getting a Degree, Mommy Style in the Digital Age

I was talking with my mother the other day, and it occurred to me how much harder she had life in general, but more specifically, how hard she had to work to further her own education.

Now, I have it rough, in my whiny little opinion. And I'm only taking two classes. But the propensity of professors to insist that if you have a life beyond grad school you are not taking them seriously enough is ridiculous. People can live and still want to better themselves.

Side point: What is so bad about wanting to get a degree to land a better job? Wanting to make money and wanting to learn are not  mutually exclusive. And yet, to some professors' points of view, if you have any goal other than continuing research (which oftentimes I find inaccurate, inarticulate and self-congratulatory) you are a lesser human being. Why?

And the judgment and scorn these people have for their inferiors. The distaste they openly share for adjunct professors and teachers' assistants. It's...I'm not on board.

Anyway, tangent aside, when my mother put herself through this, she had to go part time (like me) because she also worked. And she also had three kids.

And unlike me, she didn't have Google Scholar. Can you imagine?

These days, if I want to write one of those intensely satisfying papers that explains oh-so-much about the world in which we live, all I have to do is type in my search terms and pages upon pages of studies come up, at my fingertips. I don't even have to know what I'm looking for ahead of time.

Show me selective exposure theory, internet!

My wish is its command.

Meanwhile, she had to go to the library, look up specific studies in the card catalogs, rent out books, transfer notes by hand, the nauseating list goes on. And if the library didn't have it, she had to order it from a different library, wait on them, go back, and do it all over again.

All to find a thought someone had thirty years ago, that they had to publish by citing fifty other people's thoughts from fifty years ago. And then she had to go find the cited thoughts too.

One of the best things that came out of a crappy paper I just read a few days ago (and no, I'm not citing it), is that while more and more people are attaining higher education, the amount of knowledge has remained the same. We're receiving degrees and not learning anything more. I would argue that it's not due to the people who want to get an A in class (as those people usually want to learn, too), but that the structural system of higher education is flawed in such a way that it is beginning to crumble.

I find academic citations no more enlightening than Fox News Political Pundits. They call themselves experts, but on what grounds? Have they even thought through any of these issues or have they simply regurgitated what others before them have thought? Then when they attempt a half-hearted application of old knowledge to new technology and don't back those claims up, those same claims become the basis for the next generation of scholarly papers, simply because they were published.

Obviously this isn't the case for all studies and papers. We need studies, we need papers, and many, many, many people do a good job. But many do not.

As we move forward into a world of online classes and learning, we will become even one more step removed from the sources of these papers. The knowledge will remain the same.

So, here's the main problem: If we all now need a master's degree to know the same amount we used to know from graduating high school, then we need to take another look at our education system. What could eventually happen is that only the rich will be allowed the opportunity to be educated even to the bare minimum of what is necessary in our society.

Like I said, I don't mind that grad school is now "easier" due to technology, or simply the massive amounts of published academic papers to choose from. By all means, lower the bar for me.

But what does that mean for our world as a whole? And how can we get back to learning for learning's sake? Or not even that. How can we get away from this judgmental assholery where someone who does not have a PhD., or a master's, or an undergrad degree doesn't get to have an educated opinion on an issue important to them?

I don't know. Grad school ponderings.






 

Life When Sick; Why Does It Go On?

You know what's hard? Going to school and being sick. I don't want to go to class today. I guarantee you the other students do not want me to go to school today. Whatever I have is bad. My head hurts so much I can hardly look at this screen. I just want to go back to bed. But I can't.

Because the professor's sick policy is: "We don't care if you are dead. You come to class. Attendance is mandatory." Now, I'm sure there must be some provision for a doctor's note, an excused absence or something, but you know what's even harder for me than getting to school for 12:50 today? Finding a doctor, getting an appointment, paying a $50 copay, and getting a note. Then how do I get the note to her? She probably has a fax number, but I don't know it. So add finding the professor's fax number to that list of things to do. And I'd have to do all of this with my kids, because to get a doctor's note before 12:50 means I'm not going to be able to bring them to school. (They're better today.)

So, I'll just go. I'll bring disinfectant stuff, and maybe even a mask because I wouldn't wish this bug on my worst enemy. I'll try not to sleep in class, and muddle through somehow. Then I'll come home and write another paper, due at midnight.

I don't really have a point here. I'm too sick to have a point. All I know is that I don't support having to get a doctor's note when you're sick. It's too hard.

Life goes on. Sorry everyone in that class. I will do my best not to get you sick. I'd skip this if I could.




 

To Plan or Not to Plan

Look, I'm a pantser. I don't plan. I never plan. Why? Because my plans are all shit, that's why. My plans never play out. I can't bend my life to my will, it's too chaotic. And if I waste my time making plans, then I have to plan for (see what I did there?) more time on the other end, to wallow in self-pity when those plans don't work.

I had one plan once. I was going to be an executive producer for a daily newscast in New York City. And I worked my ass off to make that happen. Then, my life, as it often does, threw me a huge curveball, from which I have only just barely recovered.

It took me years to accept that I was no longer on the hot-shot, young-thing-in-news track. I'm dried up. I'm no good. I've been out of the business for too long. I had a family instead. Oops.

Now, some people can do both, but in my particular case, things aligned in such a way that I would have had to sacrifice the comfort, stability and happiness of my family to continue on my track.

And you know what? I'm better for having gotten out. I never would have believed it at the time, but I've hoofed it and worked and plodded and now I have a new track, with better opportunities, better money (eventually), better hours, and just generally a better life.

So, when people ask me what I'm going to do with my graduate degree, I roll my eyes.

I don't know. I don't know, okay?

Because whatever I say, whatever long-term goal I set my sights on will fall through and I never, ever want to find myself thrown back to the basement, trying to figure out who I am.

I know who I am. I am a pantser.

I didn't know I was going to start a daily blog until I started it. I didn't know I was going to write a book (or six) until I wrote them. I didn't know I was going to have a family until I was pregnant. I didn't know I was even going to grad school until I applied.

I don't think about things anymore. I just do them. And with all the things I have to do, I don't have time to think. I know this sounds incredibly stupid, but it's working for me.

A new friend of mine and I were laughing just yesterday. If we were both being chased by tigers in the jungle, we would both (hopefully) survive. She would survive by hiding in the bunker she'd built meticulously over the months preceding the incident on the off-chance a tiger would ever chase her. I would survive by running my ass off and jumping into alligator-infested waters, holding my breath until the tiger lost interest, then swimming like hell to get away from the alligators.

Her way is better. But it doesn't work for me. Because I'd forget to lock my bunker door or some shit. I'm just bad at planning.

All these people in my classes are so passionate. They're there because they're passionate about changing the world, about personal growth, about being better and making better.

And I'm interested and intelligent and I can contribute to theoretical discussions with the best of them, but when  the professor goes around the room asking, why are you here? Passion is not going to be my answer.

I'm there because money.

I'm there because I'm lucky enough to have secured the money to go. I'm there because I hope to make more money in the future with it.

Does that make me an asshole? Yeah. Especially when confronted with the unabashed idealism of the other students.

But at least I'm an honest asshole.

So, why am I going to graduate school? What am I going to get out of it?

I don't know.

All I know is that I'm going to kick its butt, like I do everything else by working so hard my eyeballs fall out from exhaustion. And then I'm going to let things come. I'll work for them, I'll try for them, but I will not define them. Because I know the very second I say, "I want to work for so-and-so as a such-and-such" I will have effectively closed that door. Or worse I will have closed all the other possibly better doors that I cannot yet see at this time.

My goal is to go to grad school and be awesome. That's as far as I dare go. (And if you know me, even that's a stretch. Hah.)



 

Going Back, Way Back

Yesterday was my first day of graduate school. I raced from the preschool drop off to the school's parking garage. From door to door, it only took me a half hour.

I sat outside for a bit, waiting for the course to begin. I was nervous as anything. Everyone was pretty young. Does no one go back to school for their degree any more?

I'd brought my laptop just in case. Who knows how people take notes these days. Just the other day, a teacher friend of mine posted a picture of kids taking pictures of the white screen. Wow, really?

I just want to lay this out.

The last time I went to school:

- Internet Explorer was the cool browser. (Way better than Netscape, seriously.)

- Napster was a thing.

- Facebook didn't exist.

- We saved our papers on floppy discs. (I had never seen a thumb drive.)

- Comic Sans was acceptable.

- We used printers at the library.

- Assignments were due at the next class...because physically carrying a paper to a professor was the only way to hand it in.

- We used 35mm cameras.

- I had one teacher with a Palm Pilot. And she was so proud of it, she mentioned her Palm Pilot four to five times a class.

- Having Toad the Wet Sprocket play automatically as your crappy webpage you made with the first edition of Dreamweaver or Pagemaker ever was the height of sophistication.

- We had to pay for delivery of the New York Times to our dorm rooms for journalism classes.

- We had to buy our books at the campus bookstore. Other options didn't exist or were very difficult.

- Ebooks didn't exist.

- Libraries used physical card catalogs.

- Lexus Nexus was the best thing ever.

- Learning to use microfiche was very important.

- Color coding sections of text in your word document (or Word Perfect, remember that?) was as complicated as note organization programs got.

- TI-82 calculators. That is all.

- Professors used laminates, white boards and chalk boards.

- A Power Point presentation was impressive. (At least two rungs above using poster board.)

- Mechanical pencils were cool.

- Slides. Grainy, awful photos, blown up too much, one after another after another. Click.


I mean, nowadays, did people even use notebooks and pens anymore? Would everyone whip out their tablet and go to town?

Any advice on this new fangled going-to-school thing is welcome.

Just don't tell me to get rid of my Trapper Keeper. You will have to pry the hot pink snow leopards on the moon from my cold, dead hands.