So Many Interesting Ideas

On this blog I've fallen into something of a pattern of late.  I'm letting others speak for me, with only a few sentences being my own words.  I don't consider this ideal necessarily, but it's often what I can most easily manage without spending all day on a post.  I feel very fortunate to have access to some of these really good writings, and am happy to take you along while I explore them.  Thanks also to my many insightful friends who recognize a good thing when they see it and are willing to share it with me.  

********************

I think our families, churches, and communities would generally benefit from some fundamental shifts in how people provide for themselves and their families.  With regard to The Great Resignation, I don't buy the line that "the big problem is just that people don't want to work."  Or the explanation that says "businesses wouldn't have so much trouble finding employees if the government wouldn't pay people not to work."  It's way too simplistic, although there might be some truth to those sentiments.

Shane posted the following in response to an article from the Harvard Business Review.  A link to the article follows.    

"I'm tremendously fascinated by what is often called The Great Resignation. I resonate with this writer's assessment of what is happening. It's really uncomfortable now, but I believe many really good things could come out of this reimagination of ourselves and our futures. I think wisdom calls us to be curious about all the things that are changing and to be suspicious of the easy 'nobody wants to work anymore' narrative. Locally, we have extremely low unemployment numbers, and yet almost every businessperson I talk to is looking to hire. It's a changed world, and I'm curious about what all has changed..."

Quotes from the article: "Most workers are not simply quitting. They are following a dream refined in pandemic adversity. They are aspiring to grow in the ways most important to them. "

". . .  leaders who can rapidly pivot to meet employees where they are — searching for meaning, yearning to grow, and wanting to work for personal fulfillment as much as for compensation — can tap into the largest pool of talent on the move in several generations." link

**************

Critical Race Theory (CRT).  I'm actually very weary of this topic.  I never understood what was so wrong with the theory as originally proposed.  I've read laborious pieces on how sinister it is (and yes, they were written by privileged white males), and now I see what I sensed almost from the start:  The term has been intentionally co-opted and redefined to serve as a boogeyman for "everything I don't like."  As such,  "now the right-wing conversation about CRT is all but useless."   Here are excerpts from conservative Christian writer David French:

Opportunistic activists like James Lindsay and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo intentionally and explicitly redefined CRT. Here’s Rufo in a tweet thread with Lindsay:

We have successfully frozen their brand—“critical race theory—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

He proceeded to be as good as his word, and now the right-wing conversation about CRT is all but useless. Consider, for example, the so-called “anti-CRT” bills that are flooding out of red-state legislatures. They ban ideas that sweep far beyond any reasonable definition of CRT. No critical race theorist worth his or her salt would read Tennessee’s anti-CRT bill and think for a moment that the legislature captured the essence of the theory. 

Anti-CRT speech codes are problematic on their own terms, for reasons I’ve explained at length—including that the plain text Tennessee’s law even limits instruction about some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings—but the mass-branding of “unpopular” racial ideas as “CRT” has much more pernicious effects when combined with the argument that CRT is unchristian. It closes Christian minds to challenging thoughts and ideas, and it incentivizes a relentless effort within Christian communities to suppress conversations with people who are perceived to be “woke.”  

Here's a link to the entire article: link

***************

The next topic is sleep training for babies.  In case this is outside your realm of experience, you should know that the main idea here is that babies should be trained to sleep all night, alone in their own beds.  Usually this is done by simply letting the baby cry until they stop.  People who recommend this often present it as being good for both the baby and the parent. The parent gets much-needed rest and the baby learns early on that life doesn't revolve around him or her and "giving up" is a necessity.  

I went to my children when they cried at night.  Almost always I fed them.  Sometimes they needed a diaper change.  I often took them to bed with me till they had gone back to sleep.  Then I got up and put them back into their own bed.  The writer of the quotes below laments society's current expectations are on the matter of sleep training.  She describes her own experience.

"Strength, when it comes to parenting, is too often defined by society as existing only when a parent is ‘strong’ enough to withstand their urge to go to and comfort or help their baby or child.

"It’s as though there is a certain level of physical and mental ‘toughness’ in being able to conjure up the strength to ignore your inbuilt instincts and desire to nurture and this has become a character attribute that is not only highly desirable but also something we as parents must all strive for.

While I tried to navigate my way through the early weeks and months of life as a first time mum of a baby who seemed to have been sleep resistant, I was told on many occasions that when I was strong enough, I would need to sleep train him."

"Me feeling sick to my stomach, head pounding, heart racing, desperately fighting against every nerve in my body screaming at me to pick up my baby and comfort him … that wasn’t me showing strength. I wasn’t conquering my emotions, I wasn’t cutting the apron strings, I wasn’t teaching my baby a lesson he would need for life.

I was a lost and severely sleep deprived soul, clutching at what I thought HAD to be done.

I was weak, vulnerable, desperate, scared and had placed my trust in those around me who so confidently said they knew better.

I was not strong."

"When you think about it, we as a society are pretty screwed up if we can’t abide the thought that our completely dependent, voiceless and trusting babies may simply need more from us than we are taught to believe.

How dare their needs at night ask more of us than we were prepared to give.

A baby with intense needs by night deserves the respect and parenting they require.

I know society makes that one hell of a task for many families but if we are to make headway for the future we simply have to change this narrative.

Strength lies in being able to meet the needs of our babies alongside our own needs.

That’s the definition of strength in parenting I wish for the future."

I had trouble figuring out how to link to the entire article.  I saw it on Facebook, and found it again on a Facebook page called Little Sparklers. There's apparently a website by that name, but I couldn't locate the article at that website.  I suggest going to the website by searching for Little Sparklers sleep training if the link doesn't work for you or you want more information.  link

***************************

The next quote comes from Psychology Today in an article written by Peter Gray.  I think I've blogged about him before--or maybe I referred to him on Facebook.  In this recent article, he gives solid reasons for why early childhood academic education is a bad idea, unless it's the child's own idea.  I believe, as others have said, that "Play is the work of childhood." While some severely neglected children would likely benefit from early intervention, including going to preschool, in most cases, I believe preschool is second best to being in a loving home during early childhood.  

I'm not sure what all is being proposed under President Biden's plan.  To make preschool attendance mandatory would, I believe, be disastrous. "Universal state-run preschool" as an option would be a concern too, given the fact that "making it available" often morphs pretty quickly into "making it mandatory."  Gray is on the right track here:

"If there was ever a time to attend seriously to research concerning effects of early childhood education, this is it. If President Biden’s plan for universal state-run preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds is approved, the results could be disastrous. I have previously summarized several well-controlled studies showing that academic training in preschool or in kindergarten, while improving test scores in the short term, causes long-term harm (here).

"The graduates of academic kindergartens performed better on academic tests in first grade than the others, but the difference subsequently faded, and by fourth grade they were performing worse than the others on every measure in the study. Specifically, they scored more poorly on tests of reading and arithmetic and were less well-adjusted socially and emotionally than the controls."

You can read the entire article at this link .