Potato Soup

As part of preparing for the 3-Day walk in October, one of my goals is to fuel my body with healthier foods. What that means is aiming to eat lean meats, legumes, fruits, and vegetables for all meals, reserving grains (whole grains, like brown rice, whole wheat pasta, etc.) for one meal a day.

As I was boiling some chicken for lunch for the week, when I realized that I needed a recipe for the left over chicken stock. I made up this soup with what we had in our fridge, and it turned out very yummy. The small amount of sour cream adds just enough fat and cream to make the soup taste creamy and savory. Typically I use milk, but since we were out I substituted the sour cream and found that the flavor was absolutely enhanced by it.

1.5 bags potatoes (about 7 lbs.), cut into cubes

About 4 qt. chicken stock

1.5 lb cooked lean ham

1/2 bag of carrots, chopped

Celery, chopped

1 c onion, cut small

2-3 cloves garlic

5 bouillon cubes

2-3 heaping dollops of sour cream

2 bay leaves

salt and pepper to taste

Combine stock, bay leaves, bouillon, garlic, potatoes, carrots, celery, and onion in a large slow cooker. Cook on low until the potatoes are soft (about 4 h). Add ham and continue to cook on low for 4-5 h. Add sour cream, salt and pepper to taste.

The No Fun, Very Bad Week

Two weeks ago, 2 kids in Le Petite's class were reported as having lice in Room 2. Within a week, 4 new cases were announced, and the lice had spread to my son's classroom, Room 3. For any parent with a kid in a classroom, the LICE threat is terrifying. Add to that a parent with OCD (me), and well... yeah. Lets just say that its ugly.

My OCD is not usually set off by cleaning concerns, and is generally well-controlled by medication. But apparently lice are a trigger for me. I had a traumatic incident happen to me while I was in junior high - I didn't catch lice, but the event involved lice and my (in my mind) extreme public humiliation. I hadn't thought about it in years, but the second that I found a louse in my son's hair Wednesday night, I lost it.

Have I mentioned that I have OCD?!?!

For the two weeks since they announced the lice outbreak at his school, I've been obsessively checking Petite's hair every day after school. Wednesday, I found one. So, the second his dad walked in the door, out came the clippers and off went Petite's hair. We found 2 lice, and no nits. No lice or nits in my hair or Mister Curie's. However, just to be on the safe side, I chopped off my own hair, too. I restrained myself from shaving it, mostly because I am not 100% sure Mister Curie wouldn't leave me if I did shave it. But lets just say that my hair is shorter than "pixie".

I was then awake until after 4 am washing and drying everything in the house - rugs, upholstery, clothings, hats, gloves, coats. All of the laundry that was so newly washed that it was still in laundry baskets was rewashed and dried on hot. I shrunk at least 1 sweater (from Banana Republic, sadly). All of the knitting and toys are in plastic bags. I vacuumed the bed, couches, rugs, walls.

Thursday, while Le Petite was in school, I repeated the above. When he came home, his coat, hat, gloves, clothes, and blanket were thrown into the washer and dryer. And his (bald) head was checked for lice.

The above, except for the haircuts, has been repeated, daily, through today.

I'm waiting for my Neem shampoo to come in the mail, at which point Le Petite's bald scalp and my head will be bathed nightly in organic, safe, Neem oil - which, apparently, lice don't like. Not that they can live on a bald scalp, either, but I'm not taking any chances. Even if we do smell like pesticides.

I'm just wondering at what point I can assume that the lice are all gone from the house, and are never coming back? Or will I be running our washer and dryer every night for the next 18 years?

Where does normal anxiety about lice stop and OCD kick in? At what point in this process did I go "overboard"?

Knitting for a Cause: The Breast Cancer 3-Day!

Two years ago, I participated in the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Walk for Breast Cancer. Unfortunately, the event itself was rained out. The fundraising process is incredibly grueling, even more so than the actual walk, and for that reason I opted out of walking last year.

But this year I've decided to walk again, at the encouragement of a good friend and neighbor who will be walking with me.

The Breast Cancer 3-Day is a 60 mile walk done over 3 days in October. Twenty miles a day, for 3 consecutive days, sleeping in tents in between the walks. As part of the walk, each walker must raise $2,300. I will be honest - it is the fundraising portion more than anything else that intimidates me. Last time, my husband and I knit gorgeous hats with the breast cancer ribbon on them. We will be doing that again this year, and will be selling these knit gifts as part of the fundraising process.

Please consider making even a small donation to this amazing cause. Net proceeds from the 3-Day for the Cure are invested in community-based breast health programs and breast cancer research, focused on decreasing breast cancer incidence and mortality in the next decade. Just click on the link provided in this post to get to my personal donation page, or click on the widget in the sidebar.

I'll be blogging about my adventures in training over the next several months. My personal goal in this endeavor is to get in shape - I will be working on eating more nutritiously and being more active. Once we have the styles for the knit items ready, I will post pictures of those as well.

Review of "A Vindication of the Rights of Women"

So. I finally finished it. This book took me far too long to get through. Although technically I only spent about two weeks reading it, it felt as though I had spent far longer than that with the book in hand, trying to read it.

Wollstonecraft's thesis is that women are by nature physically weaker than men, but that any difference in cognition comes from education alone (i.e., nurture). She further argues that women ought to be provided with an education that feeds their reason as well as their sensibilities.

The first half of the book is spent making her argument that women are, by nature, as reasonable as men. Rather than argumentation and appeals to reason, her arguments rest on personal anecdotes, circuitous reasoning, and overgeneralizations of human nature, in addition to a specific understanding of God/Creator. Indeed, her entire novel rests upon the presumption that the Creator intended women to have a certain feminine aspect, which should include some things but exclude others. Not agreeing with her vision of the Almighty, it was often difficult for me to agree with her rationales for many of her arguments. Her fall-back argument in every instance is "If it can be proven that women were created fully for the enjoyment of men, then I take back everything I've said and women can be treated as kittens or other animals." I didn't find this intrusion to be helpful or useful - what if women and men were not "created" at all, but evolved as two types of a similar species? Her argument presupposes that men and women were created to be complementary halves, with women (physically) the weaker of the two.

The second half of the book is spent focusing on specific recommendations for how education systems should be modified to appropriately educate women as well as men. Such recommendations include creating co-education public day schools for girls and boys aged 9 and younger, which provide girls with the same amount of outside active "romping" time as boys. At age 10, the children continue to be educated together in the morning, and then are split into gender-specific classes for the afternoon. Girls are taught the arts of millinery (hat making) and mantua (clothing)-making, while boys are taught things related to finance and agriculture expertise. I found this recommendation for women to be taught clothing making to be odd, since she spent the first half of the book arguing that women only have a fondness for dress because of their poor education in terms of cognitive enjoyments. In the case of upper-class families, parents would have the ability to opt for a "scholarly" secondary education, where their children would be taught classical literature and languages.

The second half of the book also gives admonitions to women to avoid various practices that, in their excessive sensibility due to lack of a good education, they might be wont to engage in (i.e., visiting "fortune tellers," reading novels, and giving their children to wet nurses to breastfeed).

I gave this book 3 stars for its historical place as a fundamental feminist classic. Despite her good thesis, Wollstonecraft has a cumbersome, overwordy style that felt ponderous. At times, she would take several chapters to explain a sentiment that I could express in a sentence. The book was also difficult to read because it was riddled with prejudices that to any modern reader appear to be highly bigoted. Because these bigoted examples are used to form the crux of some of her arguments, her prejudiced generalizations of Muslims, Roman Catholics, Africans, and the poor working class only serve to weaken her arguments.

Still, the book deserve due respect for what it does offer: An insider's view into what life was truly like for many upper-class women in Britain during the "fashionable" Victorian, late Victorian, Regency, and Edwardian periods. Women were prized for their weakness, delicate constitutions, and frailty, and were educated to please men, with little to no education on how to raise or even breastfeed their children. In the event that a woman found herself widowed or unmarried, she was left with few options for the support of her family. Women were not given any option in that society to act as "individual citizens". This book was the first of its kind, arguing that women should be seen as more than simply ornaments to the fashionable beau.

Uniforms and Authority

Gwylym posted the following quote by Matt Elgren the other day, concerning the implied Mormon church code of dress for men (conservative dark suits and ties) and women (modest dresses or jumpers, stockings, and sturdy shoes):

The uniform for men is an expression of their alignment with authority. The uniform for women is an expression of their submission to authority.

But what of the missionary dress code, where elders and sisters alike are presented as "aligned with authority"? Elgren's quote reminds me of the article "A Style of Our Own": Mormon Women and Modesty by Katie Clark Blakesley (Dialogue journal, Summer, 2009). Although the entire article is absolutely worth reading, the section I want to highlight discusses the decision to dress male and female missionaries in business attire:

In a time of professionalism for the Church in the early 1980s, the Church wanted its employees and sister missionaries to project a “business executive” image. Dowdy house dresses and funky florals, although modest, did not fit this professional image, and women employees and sisters missionaries were asked to alter their clothing according. (These guidelines are still in force.)

This new professional image for sister missionaries was for the benefit of those with whom the missionaries came in contact. These instructions blurred the lines between what a Mormon woman, at least as a missionary, was supposed to look like and represent, namely a professionally accomplished businesswoman, and women of the world who were professionals. Based on the earlier fears that dressing progressively (i.e., in pants) would encourage Mormon women to become part of the women’s movement, it is surprising that the dress and grooming standards for sister missionaries emphasized the business executive look.

The image that the LDS Church portrays to the world (i.e., that the typical Mormon woman is a conservative young professional) is different from the image it wants its female constituents to assume (i.e., that the typical Mormon woman is a happy homemaker, married to a righteous RM and with 3-5 children in tow).

Personally, I think that the dichotomy portrayed to female investigators is misleading. Although the young businesswoman would be tolerated within the LDS community, I would argue that she is not the intended goal. The "professional businesswoman" is not the role-model image that young Mormon women are provided in their Sunday School classes. Structures are not in place to help YW achieve the goal of becoming professionals. Structures are also not in place to help professional businesswomen successfully navigate the work/family life balance.

One image is given, and then exchanged for another, creating a bait-and-switch.

Some depressing thoughts on poverty

(Disclaimer: I am going to say from the outset that I don't know much about this topic in an academic sense. My comments here are just thoughts that I have had when I've heard people say things that seem unjust to my untrained ears.)

In Betty Smith's book A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Francie Nolan is a young girl growing up in the tenement slums of Brooklyn in the early 1900s. At that time, immunizations were a new technology, and many immigrant parents were terrified of their children being vaccinated. The morning of 7-year-old Francie's vaccination, her mother reminds her to wash up before heading to the health clinic. Francie, sadly, forgets her mother's instructions, only remembering too late and in the middle of making mud pies that she and her younger brother must run over to the clinic.

As she sits in the strange, sterile room, waiting to be immunized, Francie is berated with the following scene:

"Filth, filth, filth, from morning to night. I know they're poor but they could wash. Water is free and soap is cheap. Just look at that arm, nurse." (...)

After the doctor's outburst, Francie stood hanging her head. She was a dirty girl. That's what the doctor meant. He was talking more quietly now, asking the nurse how that kind of people could survive; that it would be a better world if they were all sterilized and couldn't breed anymore. Did that mean he wanted her to die? Would he do something to make her die because her hands and arms were dirty from the mud pies? (...)

When the needle jabbed, Francie never felt it. The waves of hurt started by the doctor's words were racking her body and drove out all other feeling. While the nurse was expertly tying a strip of gauze around her arm and the doctor was putting his instrument in the sterilizer and taking out a fresh needle, Francie spoke up.

"My brother is next, His arm is just as dirty as mine so don't be surprised, And you don't have to tell him. You told me." They stared at this bit of humanity who had become strangely articulate. Francie's voice went ragged with a sob. "You don't have to tell him. Besides it won't do any good. He's a boy and he don't care if he is dirty." She turned, stumbled a little and walked out of the room. As the door closed, she heard the doctor's surprised voice.

"I had no idea she's understand what I was saying."

I was reminded today of this poignant scene while reading What the Church is Doing Wrong at Doves and Serpents. Claire discusses a workshop she attended by Allison Mitchell of Lazarus Ministries, where Ms. Mitchell discusses the evils of the

'drop-and-run,' in which food, clothing, or other resources are basically 'left out' for the homeless like so many feral cats. These initiatives are short term and involve little, if any, humanizing contact - as if the homeless had a contagious disease.

My dad is one of the worst culprits I know when it comes to demonizing the poor. A few years back when we lived in West Philly, my dad actually made the comment, I don't hate black people. I hate poor people. Trying to clarify, I responding with, "Perhaps you hate crime, and associate poverty with crime?" My dad shook his head. No, I just don't like poor people.

Other things I've heard said over the years:

Blue collar workers can't hold leadership positions in the Mormon Church, because they are too poorly educated. Plus, they are too busy working to volunteer.

I always notice at the WIC [Women, Infants, and Children] office that I am the only one with a wedding band. Darn welfare moms having more babies so they can leach off the system!

People are only poor because they aren't keeping the commandments. All of my mission presidents were wealthy because they paid a full tithing, and God knew he could trust them with more money.

Welfare moms are just leaching off the system. [When questioned about why, then, it was ok that he and his family were on welfare?] Well, I don't mean people like me - I'm getting an education. I'll have to pay back into the system someday. These people never pay back what they take.

I feel helpless when it comes to inequities. I try to be aware of (what I know is) my intense privilege, such that I feel frustrated when I see others make comments that seem so incredibly privilege-blind and bigoted. When a well-educated white person makes crass over-generalizations about something like poverty, it smacks of fear and condescension.

It seems to me that there is this intersection where past circumstances combine with systemic inequities to create and compound issues related to poverty, and the associated lack of educational opportunities, health resources, and food options. I only wish I knew how to broach the causes to level the playing field.

Gay Mormon Boy said: [My colleague] is a single man in his fifties living in Utah. When he goes to a restaurant alone, people assume he's waiting for a party and don't seat him. They also say, "It's so sad" that he doesn't have anyone. (...) He believes that women in Utah have more body issues than elsewhere due to the unreasonable to marry at an early age. If one isn't married, the reasons are tied to physical appearance because they are confident in their spiritual selves and not encouraged to develop in other areas as men are.

I've been thinking lately about the societal prejudice against being "alone" (alone, not "lonely"). In this context, I am going to refer to alone as synonymous with single, which I define as not being in a committed relationship (or in a Mormon context, not being married).

I recently traveled to DC alone. I had no real plans, other than to spend time alone at a B&B and have dinner in town, maybe read some books and take a hot bath. When compared with how I had spent the previous 5 days caring for my sick son, the quiet alone time was desperately desired. Still, there are some activities that are inherently social, and are inherently awkward to do alone. I tried to savor eating out that night, but it was weird to be placed next to a large family with three kids of their own. I felt uncomfortable ordering a beer, wondering whether it was a faux pas to drink alone in public.

I had a family friend once remark to me, I went to the movie theater alone once. It was during one of the lonely periods of my life. Personally, I don't find much discomfort in going to the movies alone, although I do agree that it is generally considered a pack activity. Even attending church alone can be uncomfortable, particularly in family-dense congregations (e.g., Mormon family wards).

Women are mourned as being "off the marriage mart" long before men are so labeled. Phrases like "old maid" and "spinster" make me think of a smelly gray-haired great-aunts with loads of cats and chin hair. In contrast, "confirmed bachelor" makes me think of a 48-year-old man living it up and being a slob. None of these are good images, but the labels for unmarried women seem much "lonelier" than those for men. However, the stereotypes against unmarried men aren't kind, either. At least unmarried women generally get the benefit of the doubt that they aren't pedophiles!

It is particularly difficult to be unmarried and a member of a community that values young marriage and absolute celibacy until marriage. I use unmarried individuals within the LDS Church as my example here; however, it should be noted that my comments would apply equally well to many conservative religious communities. Such individuals have the double whammy of being discriminated against by both society at large and their own community.

Halted in her progression, a single Mormon can't move forward without a spouse. An LDS girl views her entire life through the lens of future marriage; the emphasis is always on looking towards the temple, thinking about their future eternal companion, etc. The emphasis is never on self-fulfillment or determining God's specific plan for your life. Your life plan is already determined - the most important, noble, and fulfilling ideal is to be married in the temple and raise up righteous seed to the Lord. You will be a wife and you will be a mother; everything else is secondary.

You might ask, Why does it matter is marriage is the goal, rather than schooling or career or personal fulfillment? I've known too many women, myself included, who have considered career and other life decisions primarily in light of how those decisions would affect their marriageability. An unmarried friend made the choice to forgo on her life-long dream of being a veterinarian, based on the fear that it would negatively affect her marriage chances. She already considered herself "old" (at 26) and feared that it would be "too hard to find a man who was willing to be saddled with her vet school debt" once she had children.

The "one career fits all" approach to life hurts women who never marry or conceive. It also places an impenetrable barrier in the way of those who don't want to marry or have children, who know they wouldn't be good at parenthood, or who simply have other primary goals and ambitions in mind.

More importantly, making marriage the be-all-and-end-all places the entire onus for one's sense of personal fulfillment on someone else's agency. Instead of teaching women that they need a man to be complete, why are we not teaching individuals that they alone have power over their own sense of self fulfillment? Men and woman both can be fulfilled without the approval of anyone else, male or female. Both men and women can be unhappy and unfulfilled even with a spouse or life partner.

And we wonder why Utah is the most depressed state in America.

Of course, most people want to be understood, to be loved, to have sexual fulfillment in their lives. But discriminating against the single state only makes those who are single feel misunderstood, unloved, and sexually unfulfilled. No one likes being the object of scorn or sympathy.

I read a quote recently on a feminist blog, which stated:

It is my strong belief that the sexes are equal as human beings, not complementary as male and female, not somehow two halves of a whole, but autonomous and complete, just as we are. Notions of superior and inferior have no place in my world-view of humankind, whether the supposed superiority is purported to be due to sex, ethnicity, or any other point of difference.

How different the world would be if we viewed women and men as whole and complete in and of themselves, rather than as missing a piece!