Not so boldly going where no one has gone before...

I have been a fan of the Star Trek franchise ever since my husband first introduced me to TNG in the early 90s.  I watched a few episodes of the OS as a child and enjoyed them, but didn't go out of my way to seek them out.  As we did not own a television at the time, we used to watch reruns TNG at our neighbor's apartment in Missoula every day and came over for the weekly show in prime time.  When DS9 started, we watched that as well, and continued through part of Voyager, though the whole "Lost in Space" theme eventually wore on us.  Recently, we have been watching Enterprise, as we missed it when it was on during the early 2000s.  We've seen all the movies, and I would say I am fairly invested in the canon.

Star Trek was ahead of its time, in terms of how minorities were represented.  The Kirk/Uhura kiss was both controversial and groundbreaking.  Many networks in the South refused to air that episode.  Voyager featured a female captain, and DS9's commander was African-American.  Each series had minorities on the crew, and their ethnicity was never a big deal.  They were characters who just happened to be of color, and one assumed that in the future, diversity was a natural part of life. I always appreciated how much of a non-issue race was in Star Trek.

So, given the visionary way that race has been portrayed in Star Trek, it is surprising that the franchise has skirted the issue of homosexuality.  The shows have played it safe.  There have been a few instances where the show flirts with gender norms.  The TNG episode "The Outcast" shows Riker falling in love with an asexual character, though the actor is clearly female, and the character violates its species' social norms by identifying as a woman.  Dax on DS9 has a relationship with a woman, though Dax is a Trill inhabited by a male, and Lenara, her love interest, is inhabited by a female Trill. Dr. Beverly Crusher has a relationship with a Trill whose host is male.  When he dies and is hosted by a female, she cannot continue the relationship.  In the DS9 episode "Crossover", Kira's mirror character in the alternate reality is portrayed as bisexual, though her character is considered "evil".  And I have read that the Enterprise character Malcolm Reed was originally slated to be gay, but that the producers ultimately decided against it.

Why has Star Trek, a franchise generally considered to be progressive, avoided dealing with bisexuality or homosexuality in any meaningful way? Are we to believe that homosexuality does not exist in the future?  Given estimates that up to 10% of the population identifies as gay, there should have been at least a few gay characters in the franchise, even if minor. I have read the reactions and comments of the fans, and they range from a similar concern to false arguments that "a character's sexuality shouldn't be portrayed on this show".

I call this a logical fallacy because, in fact, the sexuality of Star Trek characters have already been portrayed.  We have seen many one-shot hookups between male and female characters on all the shows, and have watched several long term relationships.  Frankly, all the characters are assumed to be straight.  If we are not to see the personal lives of crew members, as the fans have implied when others note that there are no gay and lesbian characters, then we should not have seen Kirk chasing skirts, Worf involved with Troi and later Dax, or any of the other on-screen romances that have been regularly portrayed.  I have also seen fans stating that they don't want to see gay people rubbed into their faces.  Frankly, I am guessing that gay characters would be portrayed just as were minority characters.  If they are on the show, they should just be there.  Their orientation would most likely not be an issue for anyone, and their romantic storylines should be treated just as any other character.  Even the sight of an obviously gay couple in the background in a dining hall would be a welcome step.  It doesn't have to be a BIG ISSUE.

I will give the original series a pass.  Gay characters just weren't shown on TV shows, and the interracial kiss was enough of a big deal at the time.  Even in TNG, I think it might have been an issue with the network to show an openly gay character.  This was before "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and it was quite rare to see LGBT people on TV.  But for goodness sake, by the time we reached "Enterprise", it was high time to have at least one LGBT character. And there's no excuse for the issue to be avoided in the reboot films.  I don't expect to see flaming gay characters running about the ship yelling "Fabulous!", but I expect that there could be at least one character who just happens to be LGBT.  Heck, start with a hot woman- a Seven of Nine or T'Pol type.  Even homophobic guys could get on board with that.

This is not, as I've seen mentioned, a "quota" issue.  The Star Trek world has been lauded for featuring human diversity ahead of its time, and LGBT people are part of the fabric that makes up the world's diverse populations.

I have read several articles about the lack of LGBT characters on Star Trek, and have been disappointed to see the number of hateful, homophobic responses in the comments section.  Some say that, obviously, in the future, "sicknesses" like homosexuality have been cured.  Others say they would refuse to watch Star Trek if it "gayed itself up" with even one character.  We have a long, long way to go, but I am hoping that if another Star Trek series emerges, it will take a risk and present true diversity.

Please don't "gift" me with your child's giftedness

I have been pondering lately the age-old issue of bragging parents.  I live in an area where people tend to be highly educated, and there is often a sense of competition between parents.  They will either outright inform you as to how brilliant and accomplished their children are, or they will humblebrag "It can be such a challenge to keep up with little Hugo's high IQ.  I am exhausted trying to find appropriately complex literature for him to read, as he is reading at the 12th grade level, though he's only 8." Some parents, within the very first conversation, find crafty ways to leak out that their child is designated "gifted" in school.

Seriously? Knock it the **** off.  If your child is truly gifted, we all are able to tell as soon as we interact with them.  They tend to have impressive vocabularies, and interact with adults more easily than they do other children.  We know if your child is gifted.  And, I'm happy for you, if so.  But when you notify FB that your little one is mastering calculus in 5th grade, it's a ridiculous attention grab, and it just looks like you are living your life through your offspring. It's not as if you need to keep your child's intelligence a sworn secret, but constant bragging turns people off you, and it turns people off your child, and I am sure you don't want people to resent you both.

I was talking to a friend about this recently who really does have a passel of genius children, and she said that she will often brag about acts of kindness or good character, but avoids bragging about their brainpower.  I think telling people about the good choices your child makes is perfectly acceptable, as tje strength of one's character is far more important and bragworthy than their native intelligence.  You see, your kid didn't DO anything to be born brilliant. It was luck of the draw or good genes.  But there are plenty of geniuses who are douchecanoes, so someone's IQ doesn't particularly impress me.

 So, just ratchet it down a notch and let us discover your child's gifts for ourselves.  Please.

Is it high time for high times?

I saw some discussion on Facebook last night regarding the legalization of marijuana.  I was reasonably certain that most of my peers considered legalizing pot a no-brainer, but was surprised to see a friend who is normally like-minded speak against it. 

Note that I am no fan of pot on a personal level. I tried it a few times in high school, and absolutely loathed the physical sensations that occurred in my body and brain.  I became paranoid, ate like there was not enough food in the world, and even had full-blown panic attacks.  By the time I left for college, I decided against further experimentation.  My substance of choice is a good craft beer, and even so, I limit myself to no more than 2 or 3 in a week, if that.  I do not like feeling out of control, and I certainly don't enjoy waking up in the morning with a splitting headache.

That said, I cannot support the criminalization of marijuana when, in fact, alcohol abuse takes a greater toll on Americans.  I have never heard of anyone beating their spouse while high; nor do I read about accidents caused by high drivers to the degree that I read about drunk driving.  Most of the people I know who smoke pot use the substance much as I would enjoy a good beer a couple of times a week.  If someone wants to catch a buzz in moderation, I certainly don't consider it my business to object.  I do have a few friends who have been stoners for years, and some of them seem to have blown out their brain cells.  It's sad to me to talk to friends who have essentially lost memories of our good times as young people.  With a couple, I have served as their institutional memory.  However, I have other old friends who have damaged their liver drinking, abused their bodies with overconsumption of unhealthy foods and are now dealing with many health issues, and I know people who have serious impulse control issues when it comes to sex. I know people who are still smoking well into their 40s and 50s.  Shall the government forbid eating at McDonald's?  Promiscuous sex?  Alcohol? I have no interest in living in a Nanny state; nor do I have any interest in watching my tax dollars fund the police time and inprisonment of people who have been caught possessing a single joint.

Legalizing marijuana allows the quality of the substance to be regulated, provides revenue that could be used for substance abuse programs, and saves the taxpayer money on pointless law enforcement. Indeed, many states are already moving in this direction, and, in fact, many have allowed for medical use of marijuana, even if recreational use is still forbidden.  Most of us are aware that pot can ease the pain of cancer, but I also know a few women who swear that a joint or two can relieve pre-menstrual cramps.  I have not known a single person who has declined to use pot merely because it is illegal or have had a difficult time locating a dealer, if they are so motivated.  Yes, there may be young people out there who are afraid to try it for the fear of serving jail time, but I also believe that pot should still be illegal for minors, just as is alcohol.

As cigarette smoking declines, many tobacco farmers are struggling to make a living.  From what I understand, hemp is an easy crop to grow, and is less taxing on the soil than is tobacco.  I know nothing about growing marijuana for smoking purposes, but I have certainly seen my share of plants in peoples' homes.

My one concern about the legalization of marijuana is that I suspect that big business will take control of the industry, and I hope that individuals will be able to grow their own.  I abhor Big Tobacco, and I would certainly hate to see Big Marijuana dominate the industry. 

Some people will make the "slippery slope" argument and ask, "What is next? Legalizing crack? heroin?"  We already have legalized alcohol, and I don't hear anyone begging to make crack legal.  I put marijuana in a much different category than I do hard drugs.  It's really, in my opinion, parallel to wine, beer, or spirits.  I don't know many people who make occasional, recreational use of crack or heroin.  You are either a non-user or an addict.  Marijuana CAN be addictive, just like alcohol or tobacco, but it is not addictive to the same degree as are hard drugs.

The argument about marijuana being a "gateway drug" does not resonate for me either.  If it is, than wouldn't alcohol also be a "gateway drug"? They are both potentially mind-altering substances.  Those who consider pot to be a gateway drug are, in my opinion, confusing correlation with causation.  It is true that many users of hard drugs started with pot, but I would argue that a person who is likely to fall into abuse of hard drugs is also a person who would be likely to use pot, and since pot is usually easier to obtain, it would make sense that their first exploration into drug use would start here.

I suspect that I am preaching to the choir for the vast majority of my friends who may ever stumble upon this blog, but I felt particularly inspired this morning to post about this issue. 

General musings on crunchy parenthood

I am preparing to rant a bit about people with whom I usually identify on so many issues, mainly, the Attachment Parenting/crunchy parent crowd.  Sometimes, I find myself scrutinizing my "own kind" harder than those who are "not my people", because I am trying to find where I fit in this world, philosphically, and it's a given that those families on the opposite end of the spectrum are not my cup of tea, so a rant against these parents is almost a given, and superfluous. 

I have crunchy leanings, and practiced a moderate approach to attachment parenting.  I made a lot of my daughter's baby food, rarely set her down alone on surfaces, wore her around in a carrier, and mostly co-slept.  For the first few months of her life, as she was a preemie and my spouse and I are not exactly reed-like, she slept in a travel crib next to the bed. When she reached about 6 months, we moved her into the middle of the bed, where she stayed until an age I am almost embarrassed to divulge.  We still occasionally wake up and find her wedged between us, and she's 8 years old!  We are very much hands-on, and we play with her much more than most parents played with their children when I was growing up.  I believe in extended nursing, though I was, sadly, unable to do this myself.  So, I am am a vaguely "crunchy" parent, and I am certainly closer to the parenting style I find around Carrboro, NC than I would find in, say, conservative Clayton, NC.

That said, I find that the "crunchy" parents in my area often seem to march in lockstep, go out of their way to choose the absolutely hardest, most work-intensive methods of parenting, and are as dogmatic as those they often criticize.  I remember telling a mother that my child slept next to our bed in a travel crib. She actually told me I had lost "Attachment Parenting" cred, and that our infant should be in the family bed.  At this time, I had not yet lost weight, weighed 240 pounds, and my husband weighed even more.  In fact, we were advised, because of our weight, to NOT co-sleep until our infant was larger and sturdier. I also found that, after I could no longer nurse, I felt the eyes of judgment upon me while I sat in our local crunchy coffeehouse clutching a bottle.  Perhaps this was just projection, but my inability to nurse was already a source of grief for me, and feeling judged absolutely did not help.

Additionally, I am rather disturbed by the vaccine refusal bandwagon.  There are many authors with far more credentials than I who write about vaccine refusal and the public health dangers of such, so I won't dwell on my philosophy here, but I sense that some who have made the decision to withhold all vaccines are doing so because it's part of the litany of "crunchy" parenting decisions they are expected to make by their crunchy friends. I am NOT saying that all parents who refuse vaccinations are trying to be trendy and haven't carefully researched the risks of vaccines, but I AM saying that there are an awful lot of parents who seem to be versed in the dogma of their circles.  I am concerned for those children who, because of immunity disorders, absolutely cannot vaccinate, and are now at increasing risk of developing diseases and dangerous illnesses because people are increasingly refusing mostly safe vaccines for their children.  These parents are only able to make the decision to not vaccinate because the rest of us do.

The anti-vaccine crowd particularly disturbs me because it is part of an overall distrust of "experts".  Somehow, propaganda bandied around via the internet is considered more authoritative than the careful findings of medical researchers who have conducted clinical trials.  And, this impulse seems to be found on both the extreme left and the extreme right. The extreme left, at least, will produce opposing research from a few credible resources, but the extreme right will forward anonymous e-mails and quotes from people who do not have scientific or medical backgrounds (I trust my doctor before I trust a Playboy bunny, thanks), or random Biblical interpretations to justify vaccine refusal.  For the right, distrusting medical research falls in line with a general distrust of intellectuals and "pointy-headed liberals".  I can respect the decision to delay a few vaccines, or to skip those that researchers consider "optional", but a blanket decision to refuse all vaccines because they are "not natural", or could lead to autism, is rather bothersome.  Polio is "natural".  Would you rather your child have it? And, if I were the parent of a child with autism, I would be thoroughly insulted that my child's condition might be considered worse than death or Polio. Not to mention that the link between modern vaccines and autism has been thoroughly debunked.

As I evaluate the kind of parenting I did when my daughter was young, I am struck at the pressure and guilt I heaped upon myself unnecessarily.  I did not drop dead because my mother had to stop breastfeeding early, nor did I fall apart because I ate Gerber's.  In fact, I was a healthy child.  I feel properly "attached" to my parents even though they did not sling me, and, gasp, occasionally set me down on surfaces other than my skin. I was not traumatized by sleeping in my crib in my own room and being sleep trained.  The AP choices I made were exhausting, isolated me from my own spouse at times, and contributed to my feeling overwhelmed and incompetent.  Incompetent, because I often resented the difficulty of such high energy parenting.  I struggled with PPD, and choosing such a work-intensive parenting style absolutely did not help. And, anecdotally, one of the side effects we have experienced from the co-sleeping and "intense" parenting is that we have a daughter who could probably stand a little "detachment".  She cannot bear to be alone, and squawks at going upstairs to get something out of her room without us accompanying her. She still wants to sleep in our bed.  She often would rather play with us than with children her own age.  How much of this is temperament and being an only child, and how much of this is a result of what I now consider overparenting is unclear.   I tended to helicopter the crap out of this child, and I am now seeing the results.

If I could start over again with another baby, would I do things differently?  Probably some, yes. I'm still not completely against co-sleeping, but I would probably move my child into his or her own room once a toddler. I would do the best I could, but would not torment myself into believing I had permanently ruined my child if things didn't work out the way I wanted, or if I needed to adapt a slightly less exhaustive parenting style.  I would free myself of the expectation that I should be a perfect mother.  And I would probably encourage a bit more independence this time around.  I am working now with a generation of college students who were helicoptered, and I see their struggles in working independently.  They are terrified of making mistakes, and often approach us for hand-holding that I did not require when I was in college. I enjoyed independent problem solving, and I work with kids every day who cannot write up a simple bibliography without asking for help with every single reference.  I am afraid that I have inadvertently created a child who will ask for our help in everything she is asked to do, and I fear for these young people as they get out into the work world and are suddenly asked to take initiative.  I am currently trying to hover a bit less, and to practice a bit of "free range parenting", but I will admit that it's a struggle.

I will add that so many crunchy families I see have almost retreated into a regressive, pre-feminist world.  Women who are highly educated and had some level of career success are retreating to a world of baking (organic) cookies, homeschooling, and taking on an exhaustive parental style that pretty well requires them to completely subsume their individual identities into their children.  They are almost like a very crunchy version of Stepford Wives.  While I will fight for a woman's right to be a SAHM mom, and for it to be a valid choice for feminists. I hope these women have thought through what they may do if they become widowed or divorced, or if they try to re-enter the work world years later, only to find themselves made irrelevant.  By all means, enjoy those early childhood years at home, if you can swing it financially, as you can never get them back.  But it behooves you to keep up with professional organization, stay abreast of trends in your profession, and continue to network and keep those connections.  If possible, pick up some part time work when your child is older, or volunteer.  I read an article recently on the "opt out" generation of mothers who are struggling to "opt back in".  One woman with an Ivy League background was abandoned by her husband and was having a difficult time re-entering the workplace.  Many of them eventually found that their formerly egalitarian husbands were beginning to take advantage of the power imbalance in their marriage.  I can only hope that women who take a break from lucrative careers to stay at home keep abreast of trends in their profession, in case they decide to re-enter the workforce.  Honestly, I would have loved to have stayed out of work for a few years, but I can look back and see that my daughter has not suffered.  I make sure that our time together counts, and we spend so much of my off-time together.  Additionally, my daughter has a chance to see her mother as a whole person with a whole identity outside of motherhood.  I have hobbies, we each take one night off a week, and I would like her to grow up believing she still has the right to have some life outside of family.

In general, I am finding myself now to be a parent whose philosphy is moderation and common sense.  Too much screen time can be harmful and the typical American diet is crap, but a little TV and the occasional sugary treat will not kill your child. It didn't kill you.  I fear that if I am too extreme with such things my kid will fetishize junk food and TV, and will mainline this stuff as soon as they are old enough to leave the house and play with friends. I am a big fan of the 80/20 rule.  If you practice healthy habits 80% of the time, you can enjoy a little indulgence 20% of the time.  I will opt for the vaccination schedule my doctor and NIH recommends, but will keep myself open to reading about side effects, and will evaluate as the evidence comes in.  I will keep a close eye on my child and try to keep her safe as best I can, but I will also let her explore and find a little autonomy.

This is probably the last "parenting wars" judgmental rant I'll ever post, and in fact, I feel some guilt for writing this at all.  Most parents truly want the best for their children, but just have different ideas of what that means. Crunchy parents are highly principled,  care deeply for the well-being of their children, and I agree with them on so many issues.  I think, so often, that it's a temperament issue.  Crunchy parents were usually crunchy pre-parents, and have probably tended to choose lifestyles that are a bit more extreme and rigid than my own.  And maybe my reaction is correlated to my general discomfort when I encounter extremes.