For Karen

Links, because embedding is a pain.

Squee

Emotions

Dance

Josiah

I thought about trying to come up with something clever for this post. But, in the end what more needs to be said?

Mo is of course thrilled beyond words, as am I.
 I preferred a girl for purely selfish and shallow reasons (Christmas baby dresses are adorable). I'd say my disappointment was short lived, but I don't recall feeling disappointed. I don't think I genuinely cared about gender. I wanted a baby.

We, of course, went shopping immediately before going home. The adrenaline surge was intense. Mo got cute little pajama thing (with feet) that matched the bedding set. It's adorable. I saw many things I knew I would be getting for the child sooner or later (there is one outfit at Babies R Us that will happen) and saw this killer baby bodysuit online. But, as one may expect, the first thing I got for Josiah was Legos. I know the age for the toy is 1.5 and up*. I don't care.

My father made sure to mention that Josiah will be the first-born son, of a first-born son, of a first-born son, of a first-born son. So that's kinda cool.




*I know it says to 5, but that's crap.

Warrior Baby

I'm thinking this for the first Halloween.

Today I felt the baby kick for the first time.

(awesome).

I didn't sleep well last night and got up early to pick Mo up. So, before I headed off to work we were chillin on the couch watching horrid TV. Mo jumped a little and said the kid was kicking. As per the routine of the last few days I moved my hand to her tummy and she placed it in the correct spot. Normally, my hand rests there until my arm is tired and I give up.

But not so today. Today I felt a distinct kick that was shocking. Mo even mentioned that it was a hard one. I should hope so. It certainly woke me up a little.

Pulp Novels, television of their time.

I picked up Edgar Rice Borroughs' Martian Tales Trilogy from Barnes & Noble the other days (all three main books for 10 bucks, woohoo). I started reading it yesterday, I'm on chapter 5 now. By comparison, I got Game of Thrones in December, I made it to chapter 8 before I just stopped giving a crap.

Everything I know about Game of Thrones tells me I should love it. Everything I hear about the setting is captivating. And maybe that's the problem, nothing about the characters or the story is particularly interesting. Basically, everything I know about the characters/story can be summed up in the following: "A bunch of borderline psychopathic jack-ass nobles do horrid things to each other for several thousand pages and lots of people die."

So, why am I blasting through something written in 1911 (and published in book form in 1917)? The answer comes down to, basically, one simple reason.

Pulp fantasy vs. ...whatever the hell Martin (or Jordan) writes.

The whole point of pulp novels was to put larger-than-life heroes, pretty girls, exotic locations, and strange villains into a story and entertain the masses. When they originated, television was in fetal stages but literacy was on the rise. Free time was largely spent reading the cheap to own pulp novels.

If you turn on the television (or go to a movie) you will find the modern equivalent of pulp novels. Larger than life heroes, pretty girls (or boys), exotic locations, and strange villains all there for your cheap, easy, and low quality entertainment.

There is no grand self-seriousness in Borroughs writing. There is no presumption to mimic reality (gritty or otherwise). His writing seeks to entertain and precious little more (he and other pulp writers made the barest of livings with no hope for a movie deal).

And yet, as I read briskly through the Princess of Mars I find myself completely satisfied with what I read. Like any character that Sam Worthington plays, the main character is neutral enough that I can project myself on to him. I can like him, but I've yet to be forced to understand him or even explore his character beyond what is necessary for the story.

I've yet to meet the pretty girl, but imagine her to be comparable to any starlet in any television series or movie. The Leia (Buffy, Inara, Lois Lane) of her time.

Modern novels (at least in the Martin/Jordan vein) are whole different beast. I seriously doubt entertainment is the first thing on the authors mind. I really have no idea what is on their mind. I don't think I really understand them, and I don't think I care to. Maybe I just don't get it and maybe someone reading this can explain it to me.

Is it like modern art? You must be cultured enough to grasp and appreciate the artistry? I won't deny Martin and Jordan's works are labors of love. I expect they are. I'm not going to debate if they are art or not. To paraphrase the Joker, I don't know it it's art, but I don't like it.

It's entirely possible, I'll go so far as to say LIKELY, that I am the "problem". I'll entertain the probability that Martin and Jordan (and others) are geniuses and I lack the ability to appreciate their superior intellect and story telling. I'd love to know why, but ultimately, I can accept it.

I considered offering up a defense of pulp fiction, but honestly, I see no need. It's defended itself just fine for 100 years or so without the slightest need of my words. Will Martin or Jordan's works fare as well?

The B-Team

(where B stands for Bennett...as in the Bennett fertility clinic. Yes, I know, it's thin, but roll with it).

Mo bought a baby book and started filling it out the other day. This blog is basically my baby-book, but I was doing it with her. One of the pages offers a place to list doctors, midwives and others who worked with us during the pregnancy.

Thankfully, the space is pretty large because there was a whole friggin team that worked with us (several from behind the scenes in the lab who we never met, and likely never will). I am going to print little pictures of the main team to put in a space above the area you list the names.

But, since this is my digital baby book (of sorts) I figured I should dedicate a post to the team that helped Mo and I get to where we are. So here they are.

Dr. David "Captain Smiles" Kallenberger

Cindy "The Director" Penland

Karen "I got you're eggs right here" Johnson

Bea Jaye "333" Warlick

This was our team (along with the office assistant named Bonnie and the medical director, Dr. Reshef). 

We won't forget "Shadow Company" (the Lab team):
Sharon O'Donnell, Lab Manager
Deidre Nikkel, Embryologist II
Suzan Caldwell, Embryologist I

This is just the team over at Bennett. There is another couple nurses over at Kallenberger's office who need some recognition, and I'll prolly update this post when I get a photo of them.

**Updated 7/11/11**

Nancy Jones (left) & Tricia Natale (right)

Get up, Get up, and Get down('s)

Today we went in so Mo could get some lab work done. The tests we will do are for neural tube defects, Downs syndrome, and others.

So let's talk about Downs for a second.

Long ago, when Mo and I first started thinking about having kids (so, yes, for-f-ing-ever ago), we talked about it constantly. Everything we could think to discuss, we discussed. Among those many, many things was "what if we have a child with a serious disorder or disability." Our decision was to be fine with it and that we were better prepared for that situation than most couples. But, as an intellectual exercise we asked "If we HAD to have a child with some kind of serious disorder, what disorder would we choose, if we could choose?"

After some thought, we decided that Downs Syndrome would be the preferred. That's not to say we hope anything but the best for our child, or make light of Downs as a disorder. I take it very seriously and recognize the difficulties. But, at the same time....come on...

Kinda sells itself, right?

I know several families with children with Downs. I have a cousin with a son with Downs (pictured above). Most of the parents agree. Yes, Downs has challenges, but between Downs and...a billion other options...they choose Downs, and so do I.

But let's think about the history of Downs just a second and how this view (that welcomes a child with special needs) and, say the view just 30-50 years ago, compares.

In the early 1900s most children with Downs were institutionalized with little or (more likely) no treatment and died in infancy or early childhood. Prior to WWII, people with Downs were eugenically sterilized. In 1939, Nazi Germany enacted "Action T4", which was the public policy of murder of people with Downs (among others). Until the 50s, things were straight up bleak, and until the 70s it was unacceptable, and then moved into marginally acceptable with most of the good stuff happening in the 80s-90s. Even today, there are those who will abort a pregnancy if the child has Downs (or other disorders).

Okay, too dark? Here's a puppy.

That's better. 

So that is several generations robbed of the chance to raise a child with Downs. Yes, the real victims were the child with Downs, I get that, but they are not the only victims. Talk to a parent of a child with Downs, and ask them if they would (for anything) give up the chance to raise their child (Downs or no Downs) and see what they say. Offer them something in trade, then dodge as they kick at you.

I heard a story from a mentor. The child was born with Downs and the doctor said to the new mother, "For the good of your other children, take this infant to the institution and forget you ever had it."

I know, I needed a puppy after that too. 

Thankfully, the mother declined the doctors advice. But many did not. I won't get into what happened to the other or the children who didn't get to have siblings with Downs because I'd need more puppies (lots of puppies).

Some people get really stressed about the tests. I don't. If the test is positive, I'll have some things to prepare for, and I don't know how will feel. But, IF I feel sad (and that's a big if), it won't last long. Wanna know why...

This.

Huge Risk

I may seriously regret posting this. I'm not looking for a debate, I hate debates. This is just some thoughts and opinions I've been thinking about, spoke about with a student, and was advised to post. Might be a horrid idea, we shall see. Try to keep it civil folks.

Here's my main two points.

1. Feminism is not a feminin movement, it is (by effect) an human movement.
2. Men benefit greater from the feminist movement than women.

I'm totally calling someone "kitten" this week. 

Let's unpack those statement's right fast.

The first:
By redefining the gender roles of women, you allow (or force) a redefinition of gender roles for men. Gender roles are extremely important and violating them is severely punished by culture. The feminist movement changed how women defined femininity and by default (many, if not all) men had to redefine their masculinity. The main direction may be primarily toward women (that's arguable though), but the secondary effect is toward men. Because the feminist movement so dynamically impacts both genders, it is therefore not a feminine movement, but rather a human movement.

The second:
Men and women now have greater options in how they define their gender. Unlike men of previous generations (let's say the 1920s to the 1970s or so, but likely much more than that), I can decide to stay at home and care for kids, focus on work with little nurturing, or do both somehow. None of those roles overtly violates my gender role. Small groups may accept one over the other, but all can find acceptance and reward. I get to choose how I am rewarded by culture.

I feel a great swell of pity for men in the 20s who would have loved to be have the role of nurturer rather than authorial role. I can do both and I am rewarded greatly for it. My great-great grandfather would be ridiculed.

I need this shirt...and pipe. 

Women too can define their gender role as 'stay-at-home-mom', 'career woman', or both. But here is how men benefit more than women: If a woman chooses anything other than "both", they violate a gender role. While men can choose both, make it work, and suffer very little (if at all) for that choice, a woman who chooses to stay at home or make a career will be challenged. ("you're just a stay at home mom?", "you're just all about your career, don't you care for your family?"). Women must choose how to be punished by culture.

And here's the jacked up part. It's feminism itself that defines the woman's role of "both", and punishes those who do attempt anything else.

So, my point, if I have one, is that any man who doesn't support feminism is an idiot. Men "win" from feminism!

Alright kids, play nice.