|
Mothers |
WITH ATTITUDE |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Boiling Point. Heated dispatches from the parenting front lines. |
| ||||||||||
|
Going undercover by Terri Mauro Friday is my spy day at my kids' school. It's not easy to work my way in there; the principal guards the gates heavily, and doesn't allow parents much access to classrooms. Parent participation in parties is frowned on, parent observation is all but forbidden, parents volunteering as helpers in the classroom is unheard of. It's a tight ship, and there's no room for tourists. I know that other schools are not this way. I hear of parents working in their children's classrooms, helping with reading or other activities, having plenty of time to observe their child in the context of other children. Some schools apparently require such contributions. Some parents undoubtedly resent that, but how I envy them the opportunity. I've been allowed in my daughter's classroom during school hours exactly once, to read a story as part of her teacher's "Mystery Reader" program. Every parent gets to do it. Once. You read, and then you leave. Our principal would undoubtedly be horrified to hear me suggesting that she doesn't want parents to volunteer. There are plenty of opportunities--working at the big all-school parties (as opposed to the little in-class parties), being class parent and sending goodies in for little in-class parties (but just leave them by the office, please), helping at Book Fair or other fundraising activities, putting out the newsletter, calling other parents on snow days. But none of these involve actually being in your child's classroom, or observing him or her with classmates except in the most coincidental way. Parents aren't asked to be lunchroom aides or playground aides, as they are in other schools. It's virtually impossible to spy on your kids in their natural habitat. Except, that is, in the library. Being a library aide is the one loophole left at our school, and I merrily sneak through it. Using this opportunity for nefarious purposes takes a little planning--you have to be aware enough to know when your child goes, and lucky enough to find that slot untaken--but if you play your cards right, you can have 35 minutes of uninterrupted observation of the way your child behaves in school and how his or her classmates interact. You can also get to know the kids by name, chat them up when they check out their books, and get known as your child's Mama. It's unbelievably open access, and I can't believe the principal hasn't found some way to close it. Don't tell her about this, okay? Or she'll find a way to switch me to Wednesdays, and I'll have to spy on someone else's kids. + + + Another one bites the dust by Terri Mauro Many years ago, before I had kids, before I had a husband who hates award shows, and before I lived on the East Coast where everything's three hours later, I used to throw big Oscar Night parties. My friends and I would dress up in gowns, sip champagne, and dis the proceedings. We'd all seen all the films and so had actual opinions. The evening was a highlight of my year. Fast-forward about 12 years. I never see any movies, much less award-nominated ones. I'm in New Jersey, where the ceremony starts at 8:30 p.m. and ends the next day. It's hard to have a party that ends in the wee hours of a work morning, so we've scaled down to having our two closest friends over. We sit around in our sweats, drink red wine out of a box, and dis the proceedings. This year, three out of four of us actually managed to stay awake, which may be a record. Maybe it's just that everything seems funner when you're younger, but the ceremony seems similarly anticlimactic to me these days. There were some improvements this year--the presenter's banter, while not altogether eliminated, was at least reduced to one limp exchange. Liked the two music montages, dozed through the multiple movie montages, thought Billy Crystal's opening inserted-into-films montage was not as funny as previous ones, nor were his song parodies. Tell Bruce Vilanch to get working on some new schtick. It's probably impossible to produce an Oscar show that everybody approves of. Last night's seems to be getting generally good morning-after reviews, but I found it somewhat airless. Possibly too well-produced. Even Robin Williams seemed reined-in, which is no mean feat considering he was singing a profanity-laced song from "South Park." There were no spectacularly awful dresses or makeup jobs (possibly because Helen Hunt did not appear to be in attendance), no spectacularly embarrasing acceptance speeches, no spectacularly nonsensical dance numbers, no spectacularly corny Begnini-esque behavior, no spectacle at all, come to think of it. The dry ice around Isaac Hayes was about as over-the-top as it got. And if it had been a corny, spectacular, over-the-top kind of night, I probably would have complained about that, too. It's bad enough to see how old stars like Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty (and Crystal and Williams, for that matter) are looking. It's worse to feel like an old coot myself because dang it, the Oscars used to be more fun back when I used to watch movies. + + + Don't give driving a second thought by Terri Mauro Want to be a better driver? Don't think. That's the conclusion of a recent study released by the American Psychological Association. People who think while they're driving tend to focus fixedly on one object, fail to check the rear-view mirrors sufficiently, and pay less attention to the road. I remember taking driver's training as a kid and being told to constantly check mirrors, one after the other, over and over, constantly, eyes here two seconds, there two seconds, back to here, back to there, and I always thought that would be more distracting than anything else I could do. Apparently I was thinking too much. Thinking in this context does not simply refer to thinking about other things than driving. Even thinking about the route you're taking can be too distracting. Thinking about where the map might be. Thinking about whether that street you just passed because you were busy checking the rear-view mirror might be the street you needed to turn on. Thinking about where the next gas station might be. Thinking about the second mortgage you'll have to take out to buy gas. All these things can be as bad as talking on a cell phone while eating a donut. Seems its best to just go where the road takes you, with a good view of where you've been. Music is okay; music seems to help drivers concentrate. Maybe it helps one fall into the proper mirror-checking rhythm. Don't want anything too peppy, don't want anything too sedate. A good waltz, perhaps. Books on tape would presumably be bad, unless its a good trashy romance that sort of knocks out the portion of your brain that's responsible for thinking. Presumably one of those in-minivan TVs tuned to, say, Jerry Springer would accomplish the same thing. I don't have one of those. The music I listen to runs to Sesame Street when there are kids in the car, dinosaur rock when they're not. Perhaps these are not sufficiently soothing, because I can't help but think. Time behind the wheel always felt like a really good time to go over the events of the day, worry about them obsessively, argue in my head with whoever's got me ticked off today, formulate song lyrics, plan out my day, decide what to have for lunch, fantasize about the best possible outcomes of my kids' current trials, say prayers to prevent the worst possible outcomes. I guess in order to do that now, I'll have to take the bus. It's something to think about, anyway. + + + Incensed about the Census by Terri Mauro When filling out our Census (yes, that's right, I've filled mine out; have you?) I was a little surprised to see that my children's origins were an issue. Along with all the other relationship options--husband, wife, mother, mother-in-law--were "natural-born child" and "adopted child." Among the parents whose e-mails I read on an on-line support group for those who have adopted from Eastern Europe, those would be considered fighting words. First, to ask in the first place. Then, to ask in a way that implies our children are not natural. Personally, I've always been very forthcoming about the fact that our children are adopted, and probably introduce that tidbit far too early in any conversation about them. I'm proud of how far they've come from that Russian orphanage, and I want people to understand why the journey has been, and continues to be, so hard for them. I've always felt that it's hard to advocate for adoption if you won't cop to it; people aren't going to ask you for information or be inspired by your example if they don't know you're setting one. Other parents, though--protective of their children's adoption stories and their own privacy, wary of others' reactions in light of harsh stories about Russian adoptees on TV newsmagazines, resentful of having to be example-setters when all they want to be is parents--control that information tightly, zealously. Woe be unto the grandparent who refers to an adopted grandchild as an adopted grandchild; this is felt by many to indicate an inadequate level of affection and discretion, and to be grounds for banishment. The policy is don't ask, don't tell, and if someone does have the nerve to ask, they will be discussed in the most unflattering terms in a flurry of e-mail. Lists of possible icy comebacks circulate frequently. For these folks, the requirement to check that "adopted" box on the Census form was a slap in the face. And then, to be asked with such adoption-incorrect terminology! Why "natural-born" as the alternative to adopted? Are adopted children unnatural? They were as natural-born as anyone, just to somebody else. Why is a child conceived in a test-tube natural-born, but a child conceived by a mother who couldn't care for him or her unnatural? The preferred term by the adoption PC police is "biological," but to my ear, that has the same problem--are our adopted children mechanical? Perhaps the bureau should simply phrase it "adopted" and "non-adopted." In truth, the terminology doesn't particularly bother me. For the Census' purposes, having people understand what they're supposed to check is way more important than individual sensitivities (though tell that to the poor employee who's going to have to read all the complaining letters). "Natural-born" may be insensitive to some, but folks outside the adoption community know what it means; whereas "biological" would surely cause confusion. I once used the shorthand "bio child" to describe a non-adopted child to someone who does not obsessively follow adoption e-mail groups, and she looked at me like I had two heads. Then I had to explain that what I meant was that that child was not adopted, whereas my kids were, and then I sounded adoption-obsessed, and like I was drawing some kind of quality line between the two. Unless you're going to start putting footnotes on Census forms, you might as well go for clarity. I do wonder, though, to what use the information will be put. My hope is that statistics will be released showing that adoption is commonplace these days, hardly worth getting into a linguistic snit over. Perhaps this could lead to more acceptance, not less, and to funding for services that adoptive families need. In which case, I could have used more adoption-related questions. International or domestic? Healthy or special-needs? Infant, toddler, or older child? Are you getting the proper services from the schools? Are you getting thorough services from physicians? Is your family using words that you have personally approved when referring to your children? As long as the government's asking, they might as well get us to tell all. + + + copyright © 2000 by Terri Mauro |
||||||||||||