Saying what I mean

I’ve been trying, not as successfully as I’d like, to watch my language, as suggested almost a month ago by Arwyn, a blogger I like very much. In brief, she asked readers stop using colloquial terms for mental illness (insane, crazy, nuts) as slang. It’s really hard to do, and so easy to rationalise as not being so important (seeing as everyone does it).

Initially I took the challenge somewhat nihilistically for that reason, but the idea stuck. And over the past few weeks I got to thinking about language, as I often do. In general, I’m careful about language, although moreso in writing than in speech. I try to think before I speak. I don’t swear that much. I try to be clear (but I often fail).

And when it comes to anything health-related, I have opinions. I dislike the possessive form of eponymous diseases: Alzheimer disease, not Alzheimer’s, because the disease belongs to the person who has it, not the person (usually the man) who first defined it (or decided to name it). I’m careful about not defining people by conditions or characteristics they have: it’s a person with HIV, not an HIV patient. I’m sure most people don’t think of these things day-to-day if at all, but they’ve been part of my work for long enough that they’ve affected how I speak as well.

And then there’s mental illness. Somehow, it’s accepted in our society to take these words, which mean serious, life-changing things for some people, and apply them to trivial issues. I hate how people use “schizophenic” when they mean “multiple personality disorder”, and when it comes to actual names of conditions I would never apply them to anyone or even anything. The slang needs to join them.

I think many people would dismiss this as too PC, but words mean things. And using fewer of them because we’re over-using some inappropriately leaves us all poorer. So for me, that means binning “crazy”, “insane” and “nuts” (they can join “gay”, “retarded” and “lame”) and saying “ridiculous” or “pathetic” or “tiring” instead. It means saying what I mean.

Standing and being counted

I’ve been remiss not posting about the election (or anything), but I’ve also been reluctant to comment too early. While I’ve been waiting, it seems like everyone’s already said it, so this is more a reflection on the past week than brilliant political analysis. (Because I could have thought of it all myself, of course.)

I have a bit of a thing for full disclosure, so here’s my political background. It would be churlish of me to say too much about my family members’ political opinions, so let’s just say that I had more leftish influences than rightish ones while I was growing up, with a fair bit of socialism in the mix. I was not discouraged (much) from my (brief) involvement with Socialist Alternative. Protecting the environment was a no-brainer; it was just obvious that plundering was not the way to go, even before climate change became a mainstream concern. We talked about politics and current affairs, and I developed my own opinions about social justice and other issues along the way.

So that’s politics. Civics, conversely, was murkier. A 10-minute rundown on the Australian political system stuck in my mind because it was delivered by a teacher I admired; this probably stood me in better stead than many Australians. I’ve lived in safe seats all my life and have, in the past, rocked up with opinions but without doing much research. I’ve relied on reading the instructions carefully and how-to-vote cards to get me through.

If Wikipedia serves me correctly, I’ve voted in three state and four federal elections. (I was too young for Howard’s first election and the 1999 republic referendum.) Thinking back on them doesn’t yield much information. I know I tended to favour the Democrats in the Upper House and Labor in the Lower House, but my memories are vague at best. I can’t remember voting in Melbourne at all, but I must have done so at least twice.

This time, I voted below the line, armed with the how-to-vote card I’d made for myself with the help of belowtheline.org.au. I live in a safe Liberal seat so I spent more time thinking about the Senate, but I don’t think I’ll forget putting the Greens first in the Lower House (I don’t think it’s the first time I’ve done so, but the fact that I can’t remember doesn’t please me).  It was kind of (nerdily) cool to look at my electorate’s results on the Australian Electoral Commission’s Virtual Tally Room and think of one of those numbers in the primary votes as being mine.

Maybe the voting age is too low, but 10 years after I was first eligible to vote, I finally feel like I’ve really participated and known what I was doing and what it meant. Or maybe it’s Twitter that’s helped me get my head out of the sand (I’ve blogged about that already), or just having time to “read about it” while breastfeeding. Either way, I’ve somehow become many friends’ election expert, although I haven’t forgotten how little I really know.

Ultimately, though, I’ve had a change in mindset since the last election. A couple of years ago, I laughed at a friend who claimed that Australia collectively made some decisions about which way the country should go by voting Howard out. And I still don’t think that was really true. But in 2007, I was firmly convinced that my vote, at least, didn’t count or mean anything.

But now? I feel like things are maybe, maybe happening and changing and that I’ve had a part in it, albeit a minuscule part. I’ve felt it since Gillard took the helm and I’ll feel it until I’m sure we’re back in the status quo. But I’m hoping we won’t, because this is way more interesting (except for the whole waiting business).

MasterPolitician

In some countries, democracy is a sham because a totalitarian regime controls election outcomes. In Australia, it’s a sham because the two options that are (realistically) available don’t seem to have any actual policies. You know, the things that politicians are meant to have? With the same Greek/Latin etymology? Yeah, those.

Instead of hearing some decent ideas about how they might run the country, we get name-calling. Having a female prime minister just makes it worse because it’s reduced to:

Abbott: “Girls smell.”
Gillard: “No, boys smell.”

This isn’t politics, it’s reality TV, fuelled by the media that certainly at least partially orchestrated Rudd’s demise. Whose members the politicians know by name. It’s poll watching and worm watching and adjustments based on these. A popularity contest. It’s all about dog-whistles and wooing voters.

How did we get here? I think reality TV does have to do with it. (If only we could vote Tony Abbott off the island, or at least one of the Ste(ph/v)e(n)s (Conroy or Fielding, either one.) I think the collapse of the Australian Democrats has something to do with it to. (Natasha Stott Despoja, come back, I beg you!)

I hate our preferential voting system. It’s downright depressing that my vote must go to an MP who will form a majority for one of the two clowns who can possibly become the Prime Minister. All I can take comfort in is the Senate. I will be voting below the line, that’s all I can say.

I want my (M)TV [but not too much]

This post was written at the request of Mary Finucane, a blogger I like rather a lot. Mary has been blogging at Disney Princess Recovery since she removed all Disney Princess branded items from her home, and has provoked many interesting conversations about marketing to children, among other things.

Every so often, we really surprise people by not having a television. Technically, we’re not completely without one, as we have a special aerial thingy (that’s the technical term) that plugs into the computer. But it’s not plugged in all the time. You can’t just plonk down in front of the TV and watch it for hours. You have to actively want to watch something, and be willing to sit in an office chair to watch it. The same goes for our DVDs.

So yeah, no TV. It is unusual but my husband and I both grew up without one, because of our religious backgrounds. When we got married, it felt like something worth continuing, both for ourselves and for the kids we were hoping to have.

Maybe it’s because my exposure has been so minimal, but I get very drawn in to anything audiovisual. Even if it’s not very good. So I like to make an active choice about whether I’m going to watch something. I tend not to follow many shows at once. I avoid reality TV. At worst, I replace the time I would have spent watching TV on the internet, but at least that has the potential to be interactive. At best, I read, write, or do any number of better things in that time.

As far as kids go, we never let our daughter watch anything at all until she was two, mainly because that’s what’s recommended for kids’ eyes. After that, we let her watch a little bit. Sesame Street podcasts were a real lifesaver on the bus. She got a Wiggles DVD as her reward for giving up her dummy (pacifier) and she collected a couple of others. But I was staggered at how well she knew all the popular characters without ever seeing them on TV. Dora, Ben 10, Barbie, Disney Princesses, Yo Gabba Gabba and more were all familiar faces. Children are marketers’ dreams; they absorb every instance of every brand. So I was pleased that we’d set things up so that it would be hard for her to get over-exposed.

Now, she’s a savvy four-year-old. She can’t set up the TV, but she can put a DVD in the drive. She plays computer games that will supposedly teach her how to use a mouse and keyboard. So it seems more important to limit her screen time now. We don’t have a set time limit, but we try not to let her play or watch for too long on any given day (maybe half an hour to an hour at most), and we aim to have plenty of days with no screen time at all.

In terms of content, we’ve been pretty laissez-faire. At her age, I think her body image will be more shaped by positive, healthy comments from her parents than by whether Barbie could physiologically exist. And I’m happy for her to explore all kinds of portrayals of women, as long as they’re positive in some way. So Barbie and Disney Princesses aren’t banned in our house (although they might be if she got too obsessed with them, like Mary had to do). We allow some branded toys in the house, but try to keep control of it. Being relaxed has led us to making some mistakes, though, like assuming that she’d be OK with Toy Story 3 because she enjoyed the previous two (it was scary and she was traumatised).

So when Mary says

I’m guessing that since your home is tv-free, you are likely a mindful consumer, more aware of internal vs. external influences. I think that is an incredible form of protection.

I’m not sure if I’m quite living up to her expectation. I guess I try to be mindful without being extreme, but it doesn’t always work. The best I can say is that I’m actively parenting, trying not to repeat mistakes, and above all gauging what’s good by listening to my daughter and thinking about it and talking about it as a family. So far I think she has a healthy psyche, so I’m hopeful.

Really not that difficult

Nothing in this post is new as such, but I’m hoping that it might be new for someone. If you don’t think cloth is for you; if you think I’m crazy or “too” concerned about the environment (is there such thing?); if you don’t have kids but might in the future — just hear me out anyway. Give it a few minutes of thought.

Because things have changed. Using cloth nappies (or diapers) is not as hard as it used to be. Really. There’s no soaking, no folding, no plastic pilchers, and a lot less leaking.

As a brief intro to the method, I invite you to spot the difference:

Cloth Disposable
Put nappy on child Put nappy on child
Take nappy off child when wet/soiled Take nappy off child when wet/soiled
Place wet nappy in wet bag, or rinse first if soiled Place wet nappy in bin, or place in nappy sack first if soiled
Empty wet bag into washing machine when full; turn on washing machine Empty rubbish bin into council bin when full
Hang nappies in the sun to dry and disinfect; when dry, snap together and put away Rush out madly to restock nappies when you’ve run out or they’re on sale

The main reason why it’s so much easier is the materials used. Modern cloth nappies are made of bamboo or hemp (often organic, if that floats your boat) or microfleece; these are more absorbent and dry faster than the cotton squares that your parents may have used. They’re also shaped more like a disposable nappy and fasten with velcro or snaps, rather than dreaded safety pins. Wet bags contain the smell and eliminate the dangers of full nappy buckets for small, mobile children.

Yes, there’s some extra washing, but it’s not as though you need to take them down to the river and scrub them by hand. If you use cloth full-time, you’re looking at three extra washes per week, max; some people run the nappies on a rinse cycle first before adding other clothes.

The main benefits, apart from the obvious environmental ones, are a saving of thousands of dollars per child, and the elimination of some of the nasty chemicals used in disposables (eg, sodium polyacrylate [now banned from tampons] and various carcinogens such as dioxins). An appeal for some is how cute and colourful they are; so much nicer than being covered with the same generic cartoons every time.

There’s a bewildering array of brands and styles that suit different needs and tastes, and that’s why trying before you buy makes sense. Many companies offer trial packs and there is even a nappy library. I’ve been availing myself of the latter (and have paid for the service, for anyone watching for conflicts of interest). I considered reviewing the brands I’ve tried so far, but decided it’s overload. Just ask me if you’re interested.