The coupon for a totally free haircut was simply too hard to resist. It enticed one of the males of the house to the local Sports Clips franchise. The advertisement promised sports on TV, shampoo, hot towel, and neck massage, all in addition to a haircut by a stylist specializing in men's hair. Said male of the house ambled out of said franchise very pleasantly surprised. Seems that he had never noticed what he was missing. Seems that he had managed to experience what men throughout the centuries have enjoyed at their local barber shops: a personalized tending with the underlying affirmation that it is GOOD to be a guy. This, in fact, is the franchise's motto, and is emblazoned on their storefront. No dozens of style books with just a few pages grudgingly devoted to guys' styles. No products pitching volume, shine, and hold to a unisex market. This store caters to the inner male, while polishing the outer male.
Yes, it's good to be a guy. I would maintain it's also hard to be a guy in this new century. In the headlong rush to redress centuries of second-rate opportunities for girls and women, we've made it hard to be a boy and a man. My daughter enjoyed a wonderful 3-week enrichment camp in which she and a dozen other girls learn carpentry skills while building a 2-story play house each summer. There is no comparable program for boys. Female athletes at both the high school and college level enjoy tons of perqs to entice them into sports, in order to allow their schools to avoid law suits and claim gender parity in their sports programs. Boys gifted in sports other than the headline-grabbers of football, basketball, and hockey suffer a real dearth of opportunities when compared to their female classmates. Book choices in English literature curriculi increasingly feature the experiences of minority girls and women, but not men and boys of any race or ethnicity. Even that bastion of boydom, the Boy Scouts, has succumbed to the co-ed clamor, and welcomed girls into their Explorer ranks.
So this wife and mother is glad that there is at least one establishment unabashedly dedicated to nurturing all that is male. Once again, private industry scores in identifying and meeting important needs. Coupons or not, this franchise has just created a couple of loyal customers.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A Little Respect for Stay-at-Home Parents Please
With Obama staffer Hilary Rosen attacking Ann Romney for "never working a day in her life," it's a good time to reflect on the current status of mothers and work, or rather the status of stay-at-home parents of either gender. Rosen's out-of-touch remark comes on the heels of the local Republican Party unit here electing a stay-at-home dad to be chairperson. Staying at home to take care of the kiddos while their spouse works is no longer a prerogative reserved for women, although it seems that women still predominate among stay-at-home parents.
There are lots of reasons for one parent not to enter the full-time work-force. One spouse's outside job may be so demanding with long hours, irregular hours, or travel commitments, that a healthy balance in the home requires the other to stay at home to keep things flowing smoothly. Or, the stay-at-homer's career options may not be favorable where the family has landed in pursuit of the outside-worker's job. Sometimes, the outside-working spouse can swing an employment opportunity for the following-along spouse, as happens when executives are unafraid of complaints about nepotism. Too often, though, what is a great location for one spouse's career is a no-growth zone for the other. An unhappy job situation with marginal financial incentives can make the ensuing responsibility-juggling or daycare-trusting simply not worth the hassle. And, let's not forget the fact that some stay-at-homers truly feel called to be stay-at-home moms or dads, and wouldn't trade their rewarding full-time jobs with home and family for all the financial benefits that dual incomes can provide.
I think of one family I know well that hires a nanny to hold the fort with their children while both parents work at full-time jobs that each require occasional travel. The kids are still very young, so their schedules are easily moldable to the parents' needs and desires. There are no team practices, scout meetings, play rehearsals, or music lessons yet to interfere with the parents' quiet enjoyment of their kids each evening. The nanny hands the children over to the parents before dinner well-napped and eager to see them. I don't know how this family will adapt when the parents have to negotiate around their children's schedules. Will they extend the nanny's hours? Will one of them cut back their job commitments? Will they just pick up the pace and chauffeur the kids all evening after a full day's work? Will one of them find a different job with enough flexibility to allow for after-school supervision? Every family finds what they must do, what works for them, what is worth the inevitable downsides of any choice. By the way, through the parents' decision to hire a nanny, there is one more full-time job with benefits in this tough economy for the hard-working young person who occasionally gets called "Mommy" by mistake.
The point is that raising kids takes time and energy. It should never be said that a parent staying at home with 5,4,3,2, or even 1 child "has never worked a day" in his/her life. Stay-at-home parents work very hard, providing a very valuable service to their families, neighborhoods, schools, and communities. Any candidate that thinks otherwise needs to get in touch with the reality of American family life.
As for Obama's snide rejoinder that he and Michelle never had the privilege of one of them not working? His political influence brought Michelle a $400,000 job with a hospital in Chicago with undetermined responsibilities, a job for which no replacement was ever hired to take her place after Michelle quit to hit the campaign trail. And therein lies perhaps the ideal situation for working parents: a high-paying "job" with no responsibilities to interfere with family life. Nice work if you can get it.
There are lots of reasons for one parent not to enter the full-time work-force. One spouse's outside job may be so demanding with long hours, irregular hours, or travel commitments, that a healthy balance in the home requires the other to stay at home to keep things flowing smoothly. Or, the stay-at-homer's career options may not be favorable where the family has landed in pursuit of the outside-worker's job. Sometimes, the outside-working spouse can swing an employment opportunity for the following-along spouse, as happens when executives are unafraid of complaints about nepotism. Too often, though, what is a great location for one spouse's career is a no-growth zone for the other. An unhappy job situation with marginal financial incentives can make the ensuing responsibility-juggling or daycare-trusting simply not worth the hassle. And, let's not forget the fact that some stay-at-homers truly feel called to be stay-at-home moms or dads, and wouldn't trade their rewarding full-time jobs with home and family for all the financial benefits that dual incomes can provide.
I think of one family I know well that hires a nanny to hold the fort with their children while both parents work at full-time jobs that each require occasional travel. The kids are still very young, so their schedules are easily moldable to the parents' needs and desires. There are no team practices, scout meetings, play rehearsals, or music lessons yet to interfere with the parents' quiet enjoyment of their kids each evening. The nanny hands the children over to the parents before dinner well-napped and eager to see them. I don't know how this family will adapt when the parents have to negotiate around their children's schedules. Will they extend the nanny's hours? Will one of them cut back their job commitments? Will they just pick up the pace and chauffeur the kids all evening after a full day's work? Will one of them find a different job with enough flexibility to allow for after-school supervision? Every family finds what they must do, what works for them, what is worth the inevitable downsides of any choice. By the way, through the parents' decision to hire a nanny, there is one more full-time job with benefits in this tough economy for the hard-working young person who occasionally gets called "Mommy" by mistake.
The point is that raising kids takes time and energy. It should never be said that a parent staying at home with 5,4,3,2, or even 1 child "has never worked a day" in his/her life. Stay-at-home parents work very hard, providing a very valuable service to their families, neighborhoods, schools, and communities. Any candidate that thinks otherwise needs to get in touch with the reality of American family life.
As for Obama's snide rejoinder that he and Michelle never had the privilege of one of them not working? His political influence brought Michelle a $400,000 job with a hospital in Chicago with undetermined responsibilities, a job for which no replacement was ever hired to take her place after Michelle quit to hit the campaign trail. And therein lies perhaps the ideal situation for working parents: a high-paying "job" with no responsibilities to interfere with family life. Nice work if you can get it.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Seems Like Yes
(Heeding a reader's suggestion to warn future readers: the following video contains very graphic depictions of Christ's sufferings.)
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Nasty Nanny North of the Border
Besides visiting churches (or TRYING to visit them! See Druid for a Day., below), Anglicat always enjoys reading the local press when she travels. This trip was very instructive about the infringement on personal freedom in British Columbia.
It seems that there's a class action suit pending against the provincial government by single mothers whose babies were taken away from them without their consent by zealous social workers who then transferred the babies to couples for adoption. In one poignant story, a single young woman with no history of mental instability was placed by a social worker in a hospital psych ward immediately prior to giving birth, and the social worker then used that placement as grounds for taking the baby away.
Will the apparently-common policy of forcibly taking newborns from their destitute unwed mothers be upheld in the provincial courts? Arguably, the babies in question will receive a better shot at a good life through the financial and emotional stability that married, employed couples can provide them through childhood. But, of course, it is not the government that should be making the decision for unwed mothers of sound mind, no matter how lacking in financial or personal support.
What is most chilling about the need for this lawsuit to be brought in Canada is the slippery slope on which the United States has stepped with regard to government over-riding parental decision-making. Recently, a young pre-schooler on the East Coast had her home-packed lunch seized and substituted with a school-supplied lunch of poorer nutritional quality because over-zealous care providers erroneously deemed that they had the right to make a decision about the quality of the home-packed lunch. I recently learned from a doctor friend that with patients as young as age ten, she is required to protect the child's confidentiality regarding reproductive issues FROM THE CHILD'S PARENTS. At least in Minnesota, the state thinks that it knows better than parents how to oversee medical care for 10-year-olds who have ventured into a need for sexuality-related health care.
As of the moment, I am confident that social workers in America do not grab the babies of unwed mothers and give them to wealthy adoptive couples. In fact, they probably go overboard in encouraging young mothers to keep their babies, despite the overwhelming challenges the single, uneducated mothers will face in doing so. However, the baby-grabbing experienced in Canada may well be our future if our country continues to erode individual freedom and responsibility in favor of seeking the deceptive benefits of the nanny state.
It seems that there's a class action suit pending against the provincial government by single mothers whose babies were taken away from them without their consent by zealous social workers who then transferred the babies to couples for adoption. In one poignant story, a single young woman with no history of mental instability was placed by a social worker in a hospital psych ward immediately prior to giving birth, and the social worker then used that placement as grounds for taking the baby away.
Will the apparently-common policy of forcibly taking newborns from their destitute unwed mothers be upheld in the provincial courts? Arguably, the babies in question will receive a better shot at a good life through the financial and emotional stability that married, employed couples can provide them through childhood. But, of course, it is not the government that should be making the decision for unwed mothers of sound mind, no matter how lacking in financial or personal support.
What is most chilling about the need for this lawsuit to be brought in Canada is the slippery slope on which the United States has stepped with regard to government over-riding parental decision-making. Recently, a young pre-schooler on the East Coast had her home-packed lunch seized and substituted with a school-supplied lunch of poorer nutritional quality because over-zealous care providers erroneously deemed that they had the right to make a decision about the quality of the home-packed lunch. I recently learned from a doctor friend that with patients as young as age ten, she is required to protect the child's confidentiality regarding reproductive issues FROM THE CHILD'S PARENTS. At least in Minnesota, the state thinks that it knows better than parents how to oversee medical care for 10-year-olds who have ventured into a need for sexuality-related health care.
As of the moment, I am confident that social workers in America do not grab the babies of unwed mothers and give them to wealthy adoptive couples. In fact, they probably go overboard in encouraging young mothers to keep their babies, despite the overwhelming challenges the single, uneducated mothers will face in doing so. However, the baby-grabbing experienced in Canada may well be our future if our country continues to erode individual freedom and responsibility in favor of seeking the deceptive benefits of the nanny state.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Druid for a Day
Anglicat loves to visit churches when she travels. In Canada, the Anglican Church is still quite the poobah, so the hotel directory actually listed three options rather than the one or no Episcopal options generally listed in American hotel directories these days. I called the first one and the recorded message crisply informed me that the BC liturgy was available at 8:00 and the ABW liturgy at 10:00. Hmmm. Seemed like a church too caught up in arcane issues to offer a friendly welcome. Decided to move down the list. When I dialed up the second church on the list, worship times there were inconvenient for our travel itinerary. On to the third: Ah. Normal-sounding church offering a kind welcome. So we set the GPS for the church's address. Arriving seven minutes before the service was scheduled to start, there was exactly one car in the parking lot. Not a good sign for a suburban church where people arrive by car. "Awkward! Mom, let's not, OK?" said my up-to-then-obliging son, who undoubtedly had a list of a dozen places he hoped to see before heading back south of the border.
With a silent prayer that we would happen to trek by the downtown Cathedral whose address I had not looked up, we headed for downtown Vancouver. And several minutes later, there it was: Christ Church Cathedral! Stopped for the moment at a traffic light, I asked an exiting worshiper where one might park. She didn't know, but ran back indoors to ask an usher, who came out and hollered and motioned where I needed to turn. So, we wound around to the underground parking available for Cathedral visitors. Life seemed good!
We walked the considerable distance from the parking garage to the Cathedral, and encountered a priest who offered a no-eye-contact "Hello" in response to our greeting as he raced by. OK, this is Canada. Let's allow for their infamous reserve. So we wound our way up the stairs and were greeted by ushers who handed us bulletins. We took seats in the second to the last pew, and settled in for ten minutes of prayerful preparation. Some lay official walked to the lectern and began a long series of announcements. While still seated, I began to focus the camera hanging around my neck to snap a picture before the service started.
A female usher (not the male usher who had helped with parking directions) informed me that photographs were not allowed during the service. Startled by her intrusion, I responded, "But the service hasn't started yet."
"Well. people are praying and taking pictures would disturb them."
I glanced around and saw clearly that no one was engaged in prayer anywhere in the large nave. "Everybody seems to be listening to the announcements."
"You're welcome to stay and take pictures after the service," persisted this most zealous usher. By this time, a stoled preacher had appeared, along with the priest we had greeted a few minutes before, now wearing a chasuble, and two deacons donning dalmatics. The deacons were clearly amused by the idiocy I was encountering, Father Chasuble pretended not to notice, and stoled priest looked at me sadly but said nothing. Hmmmm.
The hymn began and the cadre of purple-clad clerics marched down the aisle. I thought of my son and the dozen places he would rather be on our one and only morning in Vancouver. I decided I would rather be at any of those places as well. So we drove off to visit the 1,300-year old trees surrounding the Capillano suspension bridge. Photos welcomed.
I snapped a flash-less shot of the Cathedral before we left, and no one seemed to mind, if indeed they even noticed. The trees at Capillano were remarkably lovely, restoring the peace to my soul I had lost in the Cathedral.
Ah yes. A house of prayer turned into a den of peeves. No thank you.
With a silent prayer that we would happen to trek by the downtown Cathedral whose address I had not looked up, we headed for downtown Vancouver. And several minutes later, there it was: Christ Church Cathedral! Stopped for the moment at a traffic light, I asked an exiting worshiper where one might park. She didn't know, but ran back indoors to ask an usher, who came out and hollered and motioned where I needed to turn. So, we wound around to the underground parking available for Cathedral visitors. Life seemed good!
We walked the considerable distance from the parking garage to the Cathedral, and encountered a priest who offered a no-eye-contact "Hello" in response to our greeting as he raced by. OK, this is Canada. Let's allow for their infamous reserve. So we wound our way up the stairs and were greeted by ushers who handed us bulletins. We took seats in the second to the last pew, and settled in for ten minutes of prayerful preparation. Some lay official walked to the lectern and began a long series of announcements. While still seated, I began to focus the camera hanging around my neck to snap a picture before the service started.
A female usher (not the male usher who had helped with parking directions) informed me that photographs were not allowed during the service. Startled by her intrusion, I responded, "But the service hasn't started yet."
"Well. people are praying and taking pictures would disturb them."
I glanced around and saw clearly that no one was engaged in prayer anywhere in the large nave. "Everybody seems to be listening to the announcements."
"You're welcome to stay and take pictures after the service," persisted this most zealous usher. By this time, a stoled preacher had appeared, along with the priest we had greeted a few minutes before, now wearing a chasuble, and two deacons donning dalmatics. The deacons were clearly amused by the idiocy I was encountering, Father Chasuble pretended not to notice, and stoled priest looked at me sadly but said nothing. Hmmmm.
The hymn began and the cadre of purple-clad clerics marched down the aisle. I thought of my son and the dozen places he would rather be on our one and only morning in Vancouver. I decided I would rather be at any of those places as well. So we drove off to visit the 1,300-year old trees surrounding the Capillano suspension bridge. Photos welcomed.
I snapped a flash-less shot of the Cathedral before we left, and no one seemed to mind, if indeed they even noticed. The trees at Capillano were remarkably lovely, restoring the peace to my soul I had lost in the Cathedral.
Ah yes. A house of prayer turned into a den of peeves. No thank you.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Cathedral Closing: Another Symbol Bites the Dust
Imagine that the White House suddenly were to close. Sure, the President handily could dispatch the nation's business from the Executive Office Building or some other place, but powerful symbolic value would be lost. Ditto if we were to lose the Capitol. It is on this order of symbolic magnitude that the closing of a cathedral assaults the psyche of believers: particularly when the cathedral is beautiful and stretches back to 1722!
As an alumna of Brown University in Providence, and a former rector in the Diocese of Rhode Island, Anglicat is particularly sorry to see the Cathedral of St. John snuffing out its last candle. Nonetheless, it should come as no surprise. As far back as the late 1980s, the Cathedral was heavily dependent on the services of two non-salaried deacons who worked full-time and then some, to keep the Cathedral humming smoothly. Even to the most casual observers, the appointment of the Rt. Rev. David Joslin (former rector of St. Stephen's, Edina, here in Minnesota) as Interim Dean at the Cathedral should have made the likely future even clearer. Known as a tight-control, Organization Man rather than a charismatic visionary or community-builder, no one could have been hired more likely than he to nail the coffin.
So, what's a soon-to-be-Cathedral-less bishop to do? Without the cathedral, she loses her cathedra, another important symbol, out of which a bishop speaks officially. The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf commented that the cathedral's closing would provide the opportunity for other uses in fulfilling the mission of the Diocese of Rhode Island. Let's see--if not to house liturgical services, what could those uses be? Shall the building host an art gallery or theater? Condos for the wealthy grey hairs who still can afford to visit the sinking L'Elizabeth's for their sherry and scones?
Seriously, Rhode Island is the second Episcopal Diocese (after Delaware, last September) to announce the closing of its cathedral, but it will be the first actually to do the deed on April 22. Sadly, given the rocky financial situation of so many Episcopal Dioceses, this is not likely to be the last Episcopal cathedral to be repurposed.
What positive lesson can be drawn from this sad news? Here it is, ready to be ignored: drifting from its core purposes is killing the Episcopal Church. How much farther behind can the United States be, as we continue to twist and stray from our Constitution?
As an alumna of Brown University in Providence, and a former rector in the Diocese of Rhode Island, Anglicat is particularly sorry to see the Cathedral of St. John snuffing out its last candle. Nonetheless, it should come as no surprise. As far back as the late 1980s, the Cathedral was heavily dependent on the services of two non-salaried deacons who worked full-time and then some, to keep the Cathedral humming smoothly. Even to the most casual observers, the appointment of the Rt. Rev. David Joslin (former rector of St. Stephen's, Edina, here in Minnesota) as Interim Dean at the Cathedral should have made the likely future even clearer. Known as a tight-control, Organization Man rather than a charismatic visionary or community-builder, no one could have been hired more likely than he to nail the coffin.
So, what's a soon-to-be-Cathedral-less bishop to do? Without the cathedral, she loses her cathedra, another important symbol, out of which a bishop speaks officially. The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf commented that the cathedral's closing would provide the opportunity for other uses in fulfilling the mission of the Diocese of Rhode Island. Let's see--if not to house liturgical services, what could those uses be? Shall the building host an art gallery or theater? Condos for the wealthy grey hairs who still can afford to visit the sinking L'Elizabeth's for their sherry and scones?
Seriously, Rhode Island is the second Episcopal Diocese (after Delaware, last September) to announce the closing of its cathedral, but it will be the first actually to do the deed on April 22. Sadly, given the rocky financial situation of so many Episcopal Dioceses, this is not likely to be the last Episcopal cathedral to be repurposed.
What positive lesson can be drawn from this sad news? Here it is, ready to be ignored: drifting from its core purposes is killing the Episcopal Church. How much farther behind can the United States be, as we continue to twist and stray from our Constitution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)