I don't like cold weather, but I love the change of the seasons. I like when summer cools off and turns into autumn, and leaves change their colors and fall to the ground. Schools starts, a fresh new year for learning. I like the holidays that autumn brings--first Halloween with all the decorations and costumes and treats, then Thanksgiving with the delicious food and family. I love how it turns colder and the first snows come and then comes Christmas and hot chocolate with marshmallows and sitting by the fire. Then I love how it gradually warms up and buds start popping up everywhere, little blades of grass poking through the snow, and little animals and birds everywhere. Then I love when it turns hot and school gets out for the summer and there is the feel of freedom in the air. The days are longer and the nights are warm with starry skies and fireworks popping. There is swimming and playing outside and Popsicles to eat.
I love autumn, probably because it's synonymous with back-to-school. You know, autumn leaves and school buses, kids playing on the playground, crunching the leaves, wearing jackets to the bus stop in the morning but layering so when the day warms up, they can take the jacket off. I just love the change of the season from summer into autumn, but probably because I love the start of a new school year.
I love buying new school supplies. I love the idea of a fresh start. In fact, I used to teach school, and while I don't really want to be teaching right now, at this time of year, I envy teachers and the fresh start they get. They get to set up their classrooms to greet a whole new batch of students. They get to make new plans and try new ideas and implement the old ones that are successful. I miss that part about teaching and every year as a new school year is getting underway, I wish I could be a part of it.
Welcome, Autumn!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
How Much?
How much is enough and how much is too much?
It's a pretty common thing for parents these days (maybe it's always been like this) to pick out something they want their child in and put them in it from a very young age and then add more and more things to their activity list until they are overwhelmed and exhausted.
In a way, it robs a child of an otherwise care-free childhood. But because the world is so competitive, parents want their child to have a leg up. I understand that.
I'm not really attacking other parents here. I just worry that I'm not doing enough for my children in that aspect. We can't afford a whole lot of activities, so often, we have to pick and choose. Our oldest took a community art class in the spring, and because money was tight, he was the only one enrolled in something at the time. This fall, I have signed my daughter up for dance and my older two boys will be doing flag football, but I don't have anything to put my 4-year-old boy in and I worry that I'm shorting him somehow by not.
That's the thing. I don't want to overschedule my kids; I'm kind of against that, actually. My fear is that I will miss something they are good at and they won't have an opportunity to develop their talents. After all, I wouldn't want them to waste a talent (see The Parable of the Talents). I think that childhood is the best time to learn new things. Not that you can't as an adult, but I spend my time and effort right now teaching my children and don't have a lot of time leftover for developing my talents. But I had plenty of time growing up to do that.
So how much is enough? My boys have been able to participate in a variety of different sports--baseball, flag football, basketball, and a little soccer and gymnastics. They've taken art classes and Spanish class. They take piano lessons (from me--it's free). But we don't have the funds, and I'm not sure I want to dedicate that much time away from family life, to have them participate so fully that they become extremely skilled.
What happened to the days where kids learned to play baseball and football by playing with their siblings and the neighbor kids and then if they wanted to pursue the sport, they played in high school?
These days, if your child hasn't been playing since, well, childhood, by the time they are in high school, they won't be good enough to compete with everyone else.
So that presents a dilemma in my mind. I don't know how to give them these opportunities without overscheduling and exhausting them (and my wallet).
It's a pretty common thing for parents these days (maybe it's always been like this) to pick out something they want their child in and put them in it from a very young age and then add more and more things to their activity list until they are overwhelmed and exhausted.
In a way, it robs a child of an otherwise care-free childhood. But because the world is so competitive, parents want their child to have a leg up. I understand that.
I'm not really attacking other parents here. I just worry that I'm not doing enough for my children in that aspect. We can't afford a whole lot of activities, so often, we have to pick and choose. Our oldest took a community art class in the spring, and because money was tight, he was the only one enrolled in something at the time. This fall, I have signed my daughter up for dance and my older two boys will be doing flag football, but I don't have anything to put my 4-year-old boy in and I worry that I'm shorting him somehow by not.
That's the thing. I don't want to overschedule my kids; I'm kind of against that, actually. My fear is that I will miss something they are good at and they won't have an opportunity to develop their talents. After all, I wouldn't want them to waste a talent (see The Parable of the Talents). I think that childhood is the best time to learn new things. Not that you can't as an adult, but I spend my time and effort right now teaching my children and don't have a lot of time leftover for developing my talents. But I had plenty of time growing up to do that.
So how much is enough? My boys have been able to participate in a variety of different sports--baseball, flag football, basketball, and a little soccer and gymnastics. They've taken art classes and Spanish class. They take piano lessons (from me--it's free). But we don't have the funds, and I'm not sure I want to dedicate that much time away from family life, to have them participate so fully that they become extremely skilled.
What happened to the days where kids learned to play baseball and football by playing with their siblings and the neighbor kids and then if they wanted to pursue the sport, they played in high school?
These days, if your child hasn't been playing since, well, childhood, by the time they are in high school, they won't be good enough to compete with everyone else.
So that presents a dilemma in my mind. I don't know how to give them these opportunities without overscheduling and exhausting them (and my wallet).
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
A New School Year
*image courtesy Google images When my oldest started kindergarten, I went a little nuts buying new clothes and other things for school. I bought him a backpack more than one that year), a lunch case, school supplies, and new clothes (no T-shirts, only nice clothes) and shoes. I walked with him to school, took pictures of him lining up with his class, walking into the school, etc.
When he started first grade, he got a new backpack and a few needed new clothes items plus some school supplies that he didn't already have. I forgot the camera and didn't take any pictures.
When he started second grade and my second child started kindergarten last year, I bought them both several pairs of new jeans and a couple new T-shirts (yes, I downgraded from nice shirts). I don't remember even buying school supplies.
This year, the school hasn't sent us any sort of a list of supplies that are needed, and I'm not going to buy tons of school supplies in case they're needed if they won't be used. Like last year I sent them both with pencils, crayons, pencil boxes, and folders and neither of them used any of those items. Thankfully, those were things we already had.
They're boys. They don't care if they wear cut-off jeans and an old T-shirt to school. They do need new backpacks since last year's backpacks are pretty worn out. I pulled out and dusted off the lunch cases and they are in good condition, a little dirty, but otherwise functional.
So I hesitate to even bother with school shopping. I don't have a school supply list. I bought new jeans at the end of last school year (it was still cold and they needed them!) and those still fit just fine. I bought them new tennis shoes at the end of last school year. Other than a little dirt from camping once, those shoes are fine, not worn out at all. And they are perfectly happy with the lunch cases we already have.
So do I even bother? I just feel like it's nice to start school with something new, but I don't think boys really care. At least my boys don't. Maybe I should shop the clearance racks at Target or Walmart for some new T-shirts and spend $20 or less for the both of them, just so they can have something new.
So how much do you spend on back-to-school for each child? What do you deem necessary or not necessary?
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Church Callings
I have been wondering this for some time now.
Why is it that the same people always seem to get the same types of callings?
Aren't callings supposed to help you grow, stretch you, etc?
If you go from being in the primary presidency, to the Relief Society presidency, to the Young Women's presidency, etc., how is it that you're really doing a different calling? And what about others who go from teaching primary in one ward to teaching it in their next ward? Why aren't they given a chance to serve in other callings?
I have one acquaintance who has lived in several different states in the last ten years but everywhere she's lived, she's been in the Young Women's organization, either as a teacher or in the presidency. She's never been able to go to Relief Society on Sundays. She's never had to teach the 4-year-olds or be in the nursery. She's just always with the Young Women's.
When I was growing up, my ward put the same people in those callings over and over again--they just moved from one presidency to another one. When some of those people finally started moving out of the ward, others were finally called and had the opportunity to grow from those callings.
When you move to a new ward, they always ask what callings you've had in the past. Why is that even relevant? Maybe you were the ward choir director in your old ward because you were the only person in the ward who could read music, but you really don't know how to lead a choir. Maybe in your old ward you were the only active person able to fulfill a calling in a presidency.
I know that we've been taught that callings are from the Lord, but I don't believe He whispers into the ears of the bishopric every time a calling is issued. In college, I was once the Sacrament Meeting prayer coordinator. I had to find people to give the opening and closing prayers for Sacrament Meeting. I think that sometimes, a calling needs to be filled and you're available, so they call you and since it doesn't feel wrong, they go with it. It's not always "inspired", so to speak, not in the way of "so-and-so needs to be the Sacrament Meeting prayer coordinator," but "things might go more smoothly on Sunday morning if we already have people picked out to give the prayers. Who doesn't have a calling that we can assign this to?"
That is what I think about callings.
Why is it that the same people always seem to get the same types of callings?
Aren't callings supposed to help you grow, stretch you, etc?
If you go from being in the primary presidency, to the Relief Society presidency, to the Young Women's presidency, etc., how is it that you're really doing a different calling? And what about others who go from teaching primary in one ward to teaching it in their next ward? Why aren't they given a chance to serve in other callings?
I have one acquaintance who has lived in several different states in the last ten years but everywhere she's lived, she's been in the Young Women's organization, either as a teacher or in the presidency. She's never been able to go to Relief Society on Sundays. She's never had to teach the 4-year-olds or be in the nursery. She's just always with the Young Women's.
When I was growing up, my ward put the same people in those callings over and over again--they just moved from one presidency to another one. When some of those people finally started moving out of the ward, others were finally called and had the opportunity to grow from those callings.
When you move to a new ward, they always ask what callings you've had in the past. Why is that even relevant? Maybe you were the ward choir director in your old ward because you were the only person in the ward who could read music, but you really don't know how to lead a choir. Maybe in your old ward you were the only active person able to fulfill a calling in a presidency.
I know that we've been taught that callings are from the Lord, but I don't believe He whispers into the ears of the bishopric every time a calling is issued. In college, I was once the Sacrament Meeting prayer coordinator. I had to find people to give the opening and closing prayers for Sacrament Meeting. I think that sometimes, a calling needs to be filled and you're available, so they call you and since it doesn't feel wrong, they go with it. It's not always "inspired", so to speak, not in the way of "so-and-so needs to be the Sacrament Meeting prayer coordinator," but "things might go more smoothly on Sunday morning if we already have people picked out to give the prayers. Who doesn't have a calling that we can assign this to?"
That is what I think about callings.
A Lesson Gleaned from Parenting
I've been thinking lately about how parenthood makes us grow and the thought came to my mind that we become parents because we need to re-learn life lessons as we teach them to our children.
Ever have to tell a child who's looking for a missing puzzle piece, "Don't worry, it will turn up," and then have to tell that to yourself the very next day when you can't find your wedding ring?
Ever tell a child that sometimes you have to make a hard decision, but in the end it will be worth it if you do your best and then you have a hard decision to face but don't want to make it?
Often I find myself giving advice to my children that I still haven't learned to completely follow. It's stuff we all know we should do, know, understand, believe, etc., but it's hard advice to follow ourselves. Yet they are all important lessons to learn.
Sometimes as I'm imparting such wise words to my children, I stop and think to myself about how I can live those words better and be a better example to my children by practicing what I preach.
Of course, there are always those things that you can never learn unless you experience it for yourself. Like parenthood.
Ever have to tell a child who's looking for a missing puzzle piece, "Don't worry, it will turn up," and then have to tell that to yourself the very next day when you can't find your wedding ring?
Ever tell a child that sometimes you have to make a hard decision, but in the end it will be worth it if you do your best and then you have a hard decision to face but don't want to make it?
Often I find myself giving advice to my children that I still haven't learned to completely follow. It's stuff we all know we should do, know, understand, believe, etc., but it's hard advice to follow ourselves. Yet they are all important lessons to learn.
Sometimes as I'm imparting such wise words to my children, I stop and think to myself about how I can live those words better and be a better example to my children by practicing what I preach.
Of course, there are always those things that you can never learn unless you experience it for yourself. Like parenthood.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Nature vs. Nurture and Self-Entertainment
How much of how our children are is because of nature and how much is because of nurture? Are somebody's kids always bored and unimaginative because they were born that way, simply not creative to think up things to do to entertain themselves, or are they that way because since they were little children, they've spent countless hours playing video games or watching television?
I know this is an age-old argument, and I don't really feel like arguing. But often, because I have five children and seem like I have control over my life, other mothers sometimes ask me advice. And often I have no advice to give because my kids are, well, just the way they are. That's how they've been since they were little. They like to entertain themselves. They are creative and spend a lot of their time creating games and engaging in highly imaginative play.
So I wonder if they are that way because I've always encouraged imaginative play over television watching and video game playing? In fact, we didn't even own a video game system until just last Christmas and the only computer games the kids were allowed to play were on the PBS kids website. Or are they that way because it's genetic? I was a very imaginative child who would spend hours doing the same types of activities I find my own children doing, without the encouragement or direction of my parents. If that's true, then why would ALL my children have turned out like me, since my husband was quite the opposite--the only real exercise and outside play he got growing up was from organized sports and in his down-time, he watched TV a lot.
We are now nine weeks into summer, with only three weeks remaining, and yesterday around 4 pm was the first time any one of my children had uttered the dreadful words, "I'm bored." In playgroups, a common discussion is how to beat summer boredom. Although I could list all the things my kids like to do, I can't take credit for it because they do all those things on their own. So I wonder, is it something I've done by example, since I tend to be a pretty creative, imaginative person myself and spend time playing with my kids a lot so they learned how from me (nurture), or is it nature, a gene they inherited from me that gave them a natural knack for coming up with something to do?
What do you think about the activities and things your children take interest in and the whole nature/nurture argument?
I know this is an age-old argument, and I don't really feel like arguing. But often, because I have five children and seem like I have control over my life, other mothers sometimes ask me advice. And often I have no advice to give because my kids are, well, just the way they are. That's how they've been since they were little. They like to entertain themselves. They are creative and spend a lot of their time creating games and engaging in highly imaginative play.
So I wonder if they are that way because I've always encouraged imaginative play over television watching and video game playing? In fact, we didn't even own a video game system until just last Christmas and the only computer games the kids were allowed to play were on the PBS kids website. Or are they that way because it's genetic? I was a very imaginative child who would spend hours doing the same types of activities I find my own children doing, without the encouragement or direction of my parents. If that's true, then why would ALL my children have turned out like me, since my husband was quite the opposite--the only real exercise and outside play he got growing up was from organized sports and in his down-time, he watched TV a lot.
We are now nine weeks into summer, with only three weeks remaining, and yesterday around 4 pm was the first time any one of my children had uttered the dreadful words, "I'm bored." In playgroups, a common discussion is how to beat summer boredom. Although I could list all the things my kids like to do, I can't take credit for it because they do all those things on their own. So I wonder, is it something I've done by example, since I tend to be a pretty creative, imaginative person myself and spend time playing with my kids a lot so they learned how from me (nurture), or is it nature, a gene they inherited from me that gave them a natural knack for coming up with something to do?
What do you think about the activities and things your children take interest in and the whole nature/nurture argument?
Monday, August 8, 2011
Is Chivalry Dying?
My friend in Arizona posted on Facebook today of how hot she was sitting her car with no AC waiting to drop her son off at school. The reason she was in a car with no AC was because her husband took her car to work. The family vehicle they have, a minivan, has AC, but the smaller compact car he drives has no AC. Usually, her husband car pools with someone, but because he was planning on leaving work early, he wasn't getting the usual ride, so the plan they came up with was for him to take the car with AC because he drives 30 minutes to work and 30 minutes back and she only had to take the oldest child to school. They have two other younger children and it wasn't specified in her post where the younger children were at the time of the school drop-off. I'd imagine they'd be with her unless she has someone watch them while she drops the older one off. Also, my friend suffers from MS, which is exacerbated by the extreme heat in Arizona. Despite her condition, her husband accepted a job which relocated the family from Utah to Arizona. He did already have a decent-paying job with benefits in Utah, just one he didn't absolutely love.
So that's the situation.
In my opinion, her husband should have let her have the car with the AC. After all, the no AC affects more than just her, since kids will be riding in that car as well AND since she has the health condition which is so adversely affected by the heat, she should have gotten the car with the AC, even though it was only five minutes to the school, she still had to wait in the drop off line.
First of all, I also think it was selfish of him to go out looking for a job in a place that causes her health condition to worsen, accept said job, and move the family there. She was excited for a new adventure, and I can understand that. But he should have thought it through more, and, being a caring husband, considered her health when deciding to move the family to such a hot place.
Secondly, I think it extremely selfish of him to not allow her the car with the AC. Even if it was her idea to have him take that car, he should have been chivalrous and declined, insisting that she, the mother of his children, the woman in his life, and the one suffering from this health condition, should have it. It's only one day, and men should be willing to give up their creature comforts for their women. I think that is being a true gentleman. She, being a true lady, should have been gracious and willing enough to accept it.
But men are not like that anymore. They are simply too selfish to consider putting someone else's needs above their own. It's a pitfall of modern society. It's a result of years of feminism being hounded into them that they shouldn't sacrifice anything for a woman because she is manly enough to take care of herself.
Anyway, I'm still mad from reading her post. I even wrote that her husband should have taken the car with the no AC and she said he couldn't have because of his longer drive, but I still disagree. He would have been fine. Yet now she is unable to do anything for the rest of the day because she had to sit in that heat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
