Now, you need to know that I am a person who very rarely steps on the scale. I don't base my self-worth on my weight, although it doesn't hurt to generally keep track of it and take a look-see now and then. So imagine my surprise when I stepped on the scale for the first time in two weeks and noticed I had dropped five pounds. Score!
Keep in mind that weight is not the best measure of health, not by a long shot. If you're stepping up your fitness by changing your diet, increasing cardio and doing exercises to increase your muscle mass, weight will be the least effective way to measure your progress. Muscle weighs more than fat, but it takes up a lot less space. A better way to keep track of how you're doing is to take your measurements when you start your regimen and take new measurements every month (at the bust, waist and hips). This is where you'll notice a real difference. When I was at my most fit back in high school, I weighed 150lbs and I can't tell you how many people scoffed at me in disbelief when I told them my weight. I was solid muscle, and increasing lean muscle mass should be our goal instead of just being a certain size or weight. When your body is at its most healthy, it will settle into its natural shape, which we should accept and love unconditionally. (I just read a great article on this topic by @SophiaTripp: http://wp.me/p2H1ay-6D ) Here is a list of the recent changes I've made in my diet.
Protein
Increasing protein is essential for overall health, as well as any successful healthy diet (by the way, diet just means "what you eat" not "a restricted eating regimen" in my books). Protein helps you to feel fuller for longer, especially when combined with fiber and carbohydrates in your stomach. And when you're satisfied for longer, you're less tempted to snack later on. Have you ever eaten a whole meal and then felt hungry not even an hour later? Yeah. That's pretty annoying, and you end up eating more to quell that hunger, which is counter-intuitive to your goal of overall eating less calories. You don't want to eat a meal twice. Do it right the first time. Start your day with a protein-rich breakfast but don't be afraid to include carbohydrates -- you'll end up eating a complex meal that will give you energy to start your day. I picked eggs for this role. Cook them however you like, I prefer hard-boiled (with the yolks just a little bit soft still, mm perfection). I chose to skip the toast and pair them with a smoothie chock full of fruits and veggies. Which brings my to my next health element...
Fiber
There are two kinds of fiber: soluble and insoluble. Soluble fibers are those that dissolve in water and are found in foods like barley, legumes, fruits, oats and vegetables. Insoluble fibers do not dissolve in water and are found in things like the outer layers of whole grains, celery strings, and the hulls of seeds. The human body can't actually digest fiber, but it helps to move food through the digestive system (I know, gross) so you kind of need it to digest food properly and also to live. These fibers help regulate blood sugar and can significantly lower cholesterol levels. Regulating blood sugar levels is super important. Lastly, fiber makes you feel fuller since it absorbs water from the digestive juices in your stomach. So eating complex meals with lots of protein and fiber will increase satiety and contribute massively to your health.
A note on Carbohydrates
It bothers me to no end when people lambaste carbs as if they were the devil incarnate. Let's set the record straight here: you need carbohydrates to live, so eliminating them from your diet completely is a bad idea. Glucose is a critical source of energy for the body's nerve cells, and that includes the brain. Instead of avoiding carbohydrates altogether, we should be reducing our refined sugar intake. It has a huge amount of calories and absolutely no nutritional value, which is really what we should be focusing on. Carbohydrates are not the enemy; in fact carbs have 4 calories per gram while fat has 9 calories per gram. Make small changes like switching out regular white pasta to those high-fibre versions. This will prevent your blood sugar from spiking like it would with regular pasta, and keep you feeling fuller for longer. Choose bakery bread that has lots of whole grains in it. Switch your white rice to brown rice, or long grain rice. Or even better yet, change up some of your favourite recipes to use quinoa instead of rice. It's higher in protein and more nutritious.
The general rule of thumb for better eating is to choose foods that have a high nutritional value. Eating a variety of nutrient-dense foods will ensure you're getting all the essential stuff like vitamins, minerals and other good things your body needs. Instead of regular potatoes, use sweet potatoes or squash. Instead of chips for a snack, choose popcorn since it's much lower in fat and has a high fiber content. Instead of candy, eat dried cranberries or mangoes for something sweet. Whenever possible, pick fruits and veggies for your snacks. And increase your water intake! If you use a refillable water bottle, aim to empty it twice a day. Water helps every single one of the cells in your body to do the things it needs to do. Stay away from juice and pop, since it's just sugar water. You can still have it, just make it once in a while instead of all the time. With that in mind, here are some meal ideas you can add into your rotation. Basically, with every meal or snack I eat, I'm thinking about how I can make it more filling and nutritious. Many good choices over time add up to a healthy body and mind, just like many bad choices over time lead to health problems. People that are overweight and unhealthy didn't get that way overnight, and you won't lose body fat overnight either -- so stick with it and remember your ultimate goal of becoming healthier. You can do it!
Meal Ideas:
Breakfast
2 hard-boiled eggs + a smoothie (berries, baby spinach, water or juice, with a few goodies thrown in like hemp hearts, ground flax seed or chia seeds)
Greek yogurt topped with honey, berries, almonds/granola
Oatmeal (not the instant kind) topped with cinnamon, honey, flax seed, sliced almonds
Lunch
Tuna salad on toast, with an apple or some other fruit
Baked salmon with a spinach salad
Vegetable soup (with good stuff like lentils and beans. Here's where a home-made soup would be best, but Campbell's makes a really great hearty vegetable soup with lentils, carrots and barley)
Dinner
Whole wheat pasta with lean ground beef in tomato sauce
Chicken fingers (I get mine from the Poultry Place, they are so freaking tasty as well as all-natural, home-made and hormone free) with a spinach salad
Roasted chicken with long grain rice & lentils and roasted sweet potatoes
Snacks
Dried cranberries
Dried mangoes (amazing)
Nuts, unsalted (sunflower seeds, almonds, walnuts, pumpkin seeds; avoid peanuts because they totally suck)
Popcorn
Pretzels
Monday, February 17, 2014
Saturday, December 14, 2013
On Gun Control
It's been one year since the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conneticut. And here's what's been done to try to stop it from happening again. Anyone following this issue closely will not have to click that link to know that what's been done is nothing. Nothing has been done.
I will add my voice to the growing chorus shouting aloud to seemingly deaf ears: how many more people will have to die before action is taken? It is already far past being far too late. Each death only adds more weight to this contentious issue for those who are concerned and are trying to do something about it. But why isn't everyone in the fight?
It's too easy for a lot of Americans to just forget about it. School shootings and public massacres are sad and tragic, no one would likely say otherwise. But unfortunately they are not uncommon in the United States. It's tragic to me that these events are accepted by many as just a part of life in that country, or as "the price we pay for our freedom," as in the freedom to own a gun, which is not really a freedom, but is defended by so many Americans as a right. For someone to think "I have the right to shoot someone" is alarming to me. You are handing everyday people the right to decide to try to seriously injure or kill someone. That right should not be in the hands of the average citizen. It is not up to us to weigh the value of someone else's life.
Let's have a thought experiment. Imagine there was a country in which every citizen had the right to own syringes containing a potentially toxic poison. The best estimates of the number of guns in the United States are between 262 million and 310 million. So let's go with the conservative estimate and say there are 262 million Americans holding a syringe with a deadly toxin, and that there are multiple outlets to get more once they've used it up. Imagine the odds of dying from this poison were that for every 340 people injected, 1 person would certainly die. These are your odds of dying from a handgun assault. Now imagine everyone in the country (that's about 317 million people) asserting their right to be able to use this potentially lethal injection on anyone they think might hurt them. This is the mindset behind the castle doctrine, or the commonly known "Stand Your Ground" law. If you feel threatened on your own property, you don't have the duty to leave, and you are allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary. There is an almost unlimited supply of these syringes, enough for every single person in the United States of America, and each of these citizens has the ability to potentially kill anyone, at any time, and each asserts their right to do so. And what's more, even after their victim has died, they are entitled to claim absolutely no responsibility for that person's death. It's their word against someone who can no longer defend themselves because they are dead. The injector has the freedom now to state that he thought he was in danger and needed to use deadly force.
Does this sound scary? It should.
(This is probably a good time to add in a disclaimer. A few nights ago in a discussion with friends, we got onto the topic of gun control through remembrance of the Sandy Hook tragedy. I started to state my viewpoint about how it pretty much comes down to availability; the more comfortable a culture is with guns, the more accessible they will be and the more there will be around, which ultimately increases the number of people discharging firearms at each other and therefore more death by handguns. I noticed my friend looking slightly uncomfortable when I realized that in her family, hunting is a big thing. I quickly reassured her that I see hunting as different, because I do. When it's done respectfully, and within the laws and boundaries, it's fine and more often than not, a good thing for certain animal populations. She added that her brother keeps his hunting rifles in a safe that requires two different methods of entry, and keeps the ammunition locked up in a different location. This is absolutely how firearms should be treated, always, because they are motherfucking dangerous.)
To say that no one should ever own any gun, EVER, is unrealistic. I respect the need for access to firearms for law enforcement and the military. But there are things we can do to gradually make this world a safer place for the average citizen.
Don't keep a gun in a shoebox in your closet, or in the bedside table drawer, or in any accessible place. This overly comfortable attitude towards such a potentially deadly object contributes to accidental shootings. Estimates state that in 2013 there were 259 accidental deaths from discharged firearms. What's more is that it's widely accepted that these estimates are far below actual numbers. (Warning: that link goes to a NYT article that describes some deaths in detail. Not safe for sensitive souls.) That is a lot. Imagine 259 coffins lined up in a row. Imagine 259 households shocked by a sudden, unexpected death that took away someone they loved. That is the official estimate for a single year. And these are just the accidents.
Intentional public massacres should never happen, and yet in America they're frighteningly common. Of the top ten most deadly public shootings in history throughout the Americas, six occurred in the U.S. That doesn't include school shootings. Do you want the whole list of school shootings in the U.S? I'll warn you now, it's a long one. How about just this year? There have been 22 school shootings in America since January 1st, 2013. From those, 18 people died. 18 families had a child or adolescent or teenager taken away from them before their time at the hands of someone else with a gun and some anger. Sandy Hook is not included in that number since it happened December 14, 2012. A total of 28 people died in that one school shooting. A person got four guns and used them to kill his mother, 20 children, six staff members and himself.
How do we not get that this needs to stop?
Americans against any form of gun control love to cite the U.S. constitution's right to bear arms as justification for owning a handgun. At the time that right was enacted, guns were a very different thing. They were extremely slow to reload. They were pretty inaccurate. At the time you were more likely to die from the infection you got from the wound rather than the shot itself, because they didn't really have the full grasp of what bacteria was back then. Now we have guns that hold far more rounds. Scary numbers of bullets should not be in the hands of everyday citizens. Automatic weapons make it far too easy to shoot multiple people at a time. And increased numbers of guns make it far too easy to just grab another once your clip is empty and keep going.
People against gun control love to complain that "responsible gun owners should not have to suffer for the actions of a few crazed idiots!" Firstly, it is not just a few as specified above. Secondly, how could you even possibly compare your "suffering" to that experienced by those who have had a loved one taken from them because of a gun? How exactly are you going to "suffer?" By not being able to have the potential to shoot at anything you want, at any time? OH NO LET ME GET A BOX OF KLEENEX FOR YOU. Imagine the person you love being shot by that gun you so desperately want to cling to. Now weigh what you would rather have: a loved one, or a gun. And if you need any more time than a split second to consider those options, you have some serious thinking to do.
One last argument that I can't stand is the notion that guns are only dangerous "in the wrong hands." Oh okay, so when the right person picks up a gun it turns to rubber and is no longer a danger except as a slightly blunt object? No. Think of the accidental shootings. These weapons are dangerous in any hands.
Let's just stop the insanity please. Yes, even when handguns are illegal, such as they are in Canada, anyone who really seriously wants one can probably obtain it. But consider the fact that in Canada, there have been 14 school shootings since 1902. Just fourteen in 111 years. Compare that to 18 school shootings in the past year alone in America. We cannot ever absolutely eliminate such massacres, but Americans should at the very least be putting pressure on their government to enact measures that will make these tragedies less common, and to make it so that less people will end up dying because someone who got angry or upset was able to find some guns. Let's make them harder to find.
(Come on America, you can do it. Send letters to your members of Congress and tell them to get their fucking heads out of their asses already. Everyone should be concerned about everyone's safety and not just their own, end of story.)
I will add my voice to the growing chorus shouting aloud to seemingly deaf ears: how many more people will have to die before action is taken? It is already far past being far too late. Each death only adds more weight to this contentious issue for those who are concerned and are trying to do something about it. But why isn't everyone in the fight?
It's too easy for a lot of Americans to just forget about it. School shootings and public massacres are sad and tragic, no one would likely say otherwise. But unfortunately they are not uncommon in the United States. It's tragic to me that these events are accepted by many as just a part of life in that country, or as "the price we pay for our freedom," as in the freedom to own a gun, which is not really a freedom, but is defended by so many Americans as a right. For someone to think "I have the right to shoot someone" is alarming to me. You are handing everyday people the right to decide to try to seriously injure or kill someone. That right should not be in the hands of the average citizen. It is not up to us to weigh the value of someone else's life.
Let's have a thought experiment. Imagine there was a country in which every citizen had the right to own syringes containing a potentially toxic poison. The best estimates of the number of guns in the United States are between 262 million and 310 million. So let's go with the conservative estimate and say there are 262 million Americans holding a syringe with a deadly toxin, and that there are multiple outlets to get more once they've used it up. Imagine the odds of dying from this poison were that for every 340 people injected, 1 person would certainly die. These are your odds of dying from a handgun assault. Now imagine everyone in the country (that's about 317 million people) asserting their right to be able to use this potentially lethal injection on anyone they think might hurt them. This is the mindset behind the castle doctrine, or the commonly known "Stand Your Ground" law. If you feel threatened on your own property, you don't have the duty to leave, and you are allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary. There is an almost unlimited supply of these syringes, enough for every single person in the United States of America, and each of these citizens has the ability to potentially kill anyone, at any time, and each asserts their right to do so. And what's more, even after their victim has died, they are entitled to claim absolutely no responsibility for that person's death. It's their word against someone who can no longer defend themselves because they are dead. The injector has the freedom now to state that he thought he was in danger and needed to use deadly force.
Does this sound scary? It should.
(This is probably a good time to add in a disclaimer. A few nights ago in a discussion with friends, we got onto the topic of gun control through remembrance of the Sandy Hook tragedy. I started to state my viewpoint about how it pretty much comes down to availability; the more comfortable a culture is with guns, the more accessible they will be and the more there will be around, which ultimately increases the number of people discharging firearms at each other and therefore more death by handguns. I noticed my friend looking slightly uncomfortable when I realized that in her family, hunting is a big thing. I quickly reassured her that I see hunting as different, because I do. When it's done respectfully, and within the laws and boundaries, it's fine and more often than not, a good thing for certain animal populations. She added that her brother keeps his hunting rifles in a safe that requires two different methods of entry, and keeps the ammunition locked up in a different location. This is absolutely how firearms should be treated, always, because they are motherfucking dangerous.)
To say that no one should ever own any gun, EVER, is unrealistic. I respect the need for access to firearms for law enforcement and the military. But there are things we can do to gradually make this world a safer place for the average citizen.
Don't keep a gun in a shoebox in your closet, or in the bedside table drawer, or in any accessible place. This overly comfortable attitude towards such a potentially deadly object contributes to accidental shootings. Estimates state that in 2013 there were 259 accidental deaths from discharged firearms. What's more is that it's widely accepted that these estimates are far below actual numbers. (Warning: that link goes to a NYT article that describes some deaths in detail. Not safe for sensitive souls.) That is a lot. Imagine 259 coffins lined up in a row. Imagine 259 households shocked by a sudden, unexpected death that took away someone they loved. That is the official estimate for a single year. And these are just the accidents.
Intentional public massacres should never happen, and yet in America they're frighteningly common. Of the top ten most deadly public shootings in history throughout the Americas, six occurred in the U.S. That doesn't include school shootings. Do you want the whole list of school shootings in the U.S? I'll warn you now, it's a long one. How about just this year? There have been 22 school shootings in America since January 1st, 2013. From those, 18 people died. 18 families had a child or adolescent or teenager taken away from them before their time at the hands of someone else with a gun and some anger. Sandy Hook is not included in that number since it happened December 14, 2012. A total of 28 people died in that one school shooting. A person got four guns and used them to kill his mother, 20 children, six staff members and himself.
How do we not get that this needs to stop?
Americans against any form of gun control love to cite the U.S. constitution's right to bear arms as justification for owning a handgun. At the time that right was enacted, guns were a very different thing. They were extremely slow to reload. They were pretty inaccurate. At the time you were more likely to die from the infection you got from the wound rather than the shot itself, because they didn't really have the full grasp of what bacteria was back then. Now we have guns that hold far more rounds. Scary numbers of bullets should not be in the hands of everyday citizens. Automatic weapons make it far too easy to shoot multiple people at a time. And increased numbers of guns make it far too easy to just grab another once your clip is empty and keep going.
People against gun control love to complain that "responsible gun owners should not have to suffer for the actions of a few crazed idiots!" Firstly, it is not just a few as specified above. Secondly, how could you even possibly compare your "suffering" to that experienced by those who have had a loved one taken from them because of a gun? How exactly are you going to "suffer?" By not being able to have the potential to shoot at anything you want, at any time? OH NO LET ME GET A BOX OF KLEENEX FOR YOU. Imagine the person you love being shot by that gun you so desperately want to cling to. Now weigh what you would rather have: a loved one, or a gun. And if you need any more time than a split second to consider those options, you have some serious thinking to do.
One last argument that I can't stand is the notion that guns are only dangerous "in the wrong hands." Oh okay, so when the right person picks up a gun it turns to rubber and is no longer a danger except as a slightly blunt object? No. Think of the accidental shootings. These weapons are dangerous in any hands.
Let's just stop the insanity please. Yes, even when handguns are illegal, such as they are in Canada, anyone who really seriously wants one can probably obtain it. But consider the fact that in Canada, there have been 14 school shootings since 1902. Just fourteen in 111 years. Compare that to 18 school shootings in the past year alone in America. We cannot ever absolutely eliminate such massacres, but Americans should at the very least be putting pressure on their government to enact measures that will make these tragedies less common, and to make it so that less people will end up dying because someone who got angry or upset was able to find some guns. Let's make them harder to find.
(Come on America, you can do it. Send letters to your members of Congress and tell them to get their fucking heads out of their asses already. Everyone should be concerned about everyone's safety and not just their own, end of story.)
Sunday, December 8, 2013
An Essay on Child-Rearing
Studying what I've been studying over the past few months has been difficult. Another word for it is "trying" but it's gone as far as downright terrifying. I did not expect this information to hit me as hard as it did. Being able to personally identify with a lot of what we're learning about has been scary as fuck, since I've been avoiding thinking about these things as much as I could for as long as I could. I finally started to address it and it's been the best thing that I ever did (but at times has felt like the worst thing that's ever happened to me) but this is a topic for another post.
In my current voluntary-distraction-from-exams phase, I've discovered and have been reading extensively The Worst Things For Sale -- which is hilarious, and I highly recommend it. I do this in stores often, especially when visiting the States; I pick up items and scoff at whoever thought a particular item would be a good and necessary thing for people to have. I usually take pictures. And I am usually the only one who finds it funny. But now I know I'M NOT ALONE. I'm digressing here.
In perusing this hilarious website I happened upon an entry regarding a book about "discipline" entitled How To Raise Up A Child. I was a bit scared of what I would find in the reviews. But I am glad I decided to look into it, because this is the exact reason I am getting into the profession of social service work. Reading the reviews on the Amazon item page was also something I dreaded -- thinking there would only be reviews from those singing its praises, testifying about how fantastic the Pearls' methods were, and how it worked for them. To my relief, there seemed to be more warnings to not purchase the book than there were reviews advocating its use. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
Then in one review someone mentioned Lydia Schatz. I looked it up and was amazed that I didn't hear about this story -- or maybe I had, and never looked into it further and simply forgot. Either way, stories like this will now stick in my mind forever as evidence to bring forth whenever someone naively expresses the belief that child abuse doesn't happen anymore. That people have moved past it. Or that everyone knows it's wrong.
Anderson Cooper (bless his gorgeous heart) and another reporter from CNN profiled the Schatz case as Lydia's adopted parents were being sentenced. They spoke with an attorney as well as the authors of the aforementioned ridiculous book, Micheal and Debi Pearl, in this news segment.
What infuriates me is their insistence that abuse can be helpful. That it's beneficial to break a child's will. To hit a toddler until they stop whimpering, for as long as that may take. This is the mindset that killed Lydia Schatz; why? Because she mispronounced a word for fuck's sake. A great blog post with quotes from the book can be found here.
This book is dangerous material for anyone who isn't familiar with child development, which is unfortunately the reality for a lot of fundamentalist religious people. When the only education you get is Bible-based, you get a very ancient methodological basis for your life. We've learned a lot about people since the Bible was written, and this needs to be taken into account. A parent needs to know what behaviours are appropriate for children from ages 0-10 at the very least. They need to know what to expect as normal, childish behaviour -- that which any child of their age would do. Certain behaviours are exploratory, or for fun -- because that's what children do. They explore their fucking worlds by reaching for things or putting things in their mouths, and we should only stop them when their safety is in jeopardy (or maybe when we don't want them drooling on our $600 phones). And that's just it -- you can stop them, and explain why you stopped them. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Explain your reasoning in a way they can understand. Distinguish this behaviour from purposefully defiant behaviour -- that which is meant to test your boundaries. Or if they're older, it might be to purposefully piss you off (some kids think this is really funny, and can you blame them? You probably look hilarious when you're mad).
A few years ago I was shopping in a large store with a friend and her then 3-year-old son. As a single mother she was able to be very precise in her disciplinary methods (not abusive, for the record). She could practice consistency and control to an amazing degree because she was always with her son, all the time as a mom who worked from home. When she and I stopped to look at something, her son took off running at full tilt towards the far end of the aisle. I of course expressed some slight concern, but she didn't look bothered -- she just said "Oh, he knows to stop where I can see him." I looked over and was astonished to see him stop abruptly at the end of the aisle, turn around and smile his adorable huge smile at us both. This kid is three years old and he knows to stop running before he gets into an area in which his mother cannot see him. How did he know this? She explained it to him. It's about safety. If she were to not explain that part to him, and just do the whole "because I said so!" then it becomes about control. Then, of course he is going to run away where you can't see him and watch you freak the fuck out because it's hilarious. Don't just expect your kids to listen to you about everything, all the time, without explaining why. Again, kids are pretty fucking smart and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It starts early, too -- when your kid throws a toy off his high chair onto the floor and watches you pick it up for him, over and over? That is hilarious, and he realizes he can control you in that way. Don't slap him for it -- just don't pick up the toy, and he will eventually learn that when something falls off of a surface, it's then out of his reach, so maybe he shouldn't throw it away if he actually wants to play with something while he's in his high chair.
I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to make a point -- there is a better way to make your child understand the world than hitting them. Spanking was not a disciplinary method in our household. From a young age my mom tried her very best to instill favourable personality traits in us through basic Christian teachings (to me they're just basic guidelines for being a good person, but whatever): be nice, treat others how you would wish to be treated, don't do things that are self-serving/don't be selfish, share and give back to others, don't be concerned with things like revenge, practice unconditional love and forgiveness, and other basic things that amount to: don't be an asshole, and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. And while these traits may have led to me being a timid doormat who took a whole lot of shit from other kids growing up, I'm glad I got past that stage to become a person who actually cares about others (and increasingly, myself).
Spanking was a rare thing for my mom -- it usually happened when she was not okay, and only when we did something really bad, and when we were at the age where we could be snotty, purposefully talking back and occasionally being jerks to each other and her as well. She hated that because it showed disrespect, and probably made her think she didn't do a good enough job raising us, which was probably a scary thought for her. We always were still sent to our rooms, and we always talked about it after. And we didn't just get the "it's for your own good, so quit your fucking whining" spiel. I got the "it hurt me to do that to you, but your actions were hurtful to me too. When you talk to me like that it feels like you don't care about me, and that you don't love me. If you love me, act like it in everything that you do." This still is something I practice today. Don't say something that can hurt someone's feelings even when you're angry. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a big deal that sounds a lot simpler than it is. If we're fighting and you are so frustrated with me that you (for example) tell me to just go, get the fuck outta here, then I'm fucking leaving end of story. But later when you say "Why did you leave? Well I only said that because I was so mad..." So if you didn't fucking mean it, don't say it motherfucker! Anyway.
In short, abuse still happens. And it is usually because a parent does not know of any other method of discipline. Or they may have half-heartedly tried a more gentle method that didn't produce results that they were satisfied with. Probably because they tried it too late, or weren't consistent enough. Good disciplinary basics dictate that the consequence must come directly after the unwanted behaviour, and it must be consistent. Otherwise the child cannot connect the two events as being related and therefore it will be pretty fucking hard for them to learn that a certain behaviour will have certain consequences. You can't let them sometimes get away with it. Explanations for your discipline are always necessary -- make it perfectly clear why what they did is wrong or unacceptable behaviour.
There is always a better way than hitting/spanking/striking with objects. It should absolutely not be your go-to method of discipline for everything. Regardless if the Pearls have had what they measure as "success" in their methods, and regardless if they don't think that they take it too far, it is a dangerous line to skirt. You're potentially creating so many more problems in this little person that they will carry for the rest of their lives. To recommend that you hit a child until you break their will is not okay. Should we hit grown-ups until their wills are broken? No. So let's not do it to our kids, alright?
In my current voluntary-distraction-from-exams phase, I've discovered and have been reading extensively The Worst Things For Sale -- which is hilarious, and I highly recommend it. I do this in stores often, especially when visiting the States; I pick up items and scoff at whoever thought a particular item would be a good and necessary thing for people to have. I usually take pictures. And I am usually the only one who finds it funny. But now I know I'M NOT ALONE. I'm digressing here.
In perusing this hilarious website I happened upon an entry regarding a book about "discipline" entitled How To Raise Up A Child. I was a bit scared of what I would find in the reviews. But I am glad I decided to look into it, because this is the exact reason I am getting into the profession of social service work. Reading the reviews on the Amazon item page was also something I dreaded -- thinking there would only be reviews from those singing its praises, testifying about how fantastic the Pearls' methods were, and how it worked for them. To my relief, there seemed to be more warnings to not purchase the book than there were reviews advocating its use. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
Then in one review someone mentioned Lydia Schatz. I looked it up and was amazed that I didn't hear about this story -- or maybe I had, and never looked into it further and simply forgot. Either way, stories like this will now stick in my mind forever as evidence to bring forth whenever someone naively expresses the belief that child abuse doesn't happen anymore. That people have moved past it. Or that everyone knows it's wrong.
Anderson Cooper (bless his gorgeous heart) and another reporter from CNN profiled the Schatz case as Lydia's adopted parents were being sentenced. They spoke with an attorney as well as the authors of the aforementioned ridiculous book, Micheal and Debi Pearl, in this news segment.
What infuriates me is their insistence that abuse can be helpful. That it's beneficial to break a child's will. To hit a toddler until they stop whimpering, for as long as that may take. This is the mindset that killed Lydia Schatz; why? Because she mispronounced a word for fuck's sake. A great blog post with quotes from the book can be found here.
This book is dangerous material for anyone who isn't familiar with child development, which is unfortunately the reality for a lot of fundamentalist religious people. When the only education you get is Bible-based, you get a very ancient methodological basis for your life. We've learned a lot about people since the Bible was written, and this needs to be taken into account. A parent needs to know what behaviours are appropriate for children from ages 0-10 at the very least. They need to know what to expect as normal, childish behaviour -- that which any child of their age would do. Certain behaviours are exploratory, or for fun -- because that's what children do. They explore their fucking worlds by reaching for things or putting things in their mouths, and we should only stop them when their safety is in jeopardy (or maybe when we don't want them drooling on our $600 phones). And that's just it -- you can stop them, and explain why you stopped them. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Explain your reasoning in a way they can understand. Distinguish this behaviour from purposefully defiant behaviour -- that which is meant to test your boundaries. Or if they're older, it might be to purposefully piss you off (some kids think this is really funny, and can you blame them? You probably look hilarious when you're mad).
A few years ago I was shopping in a large store with a friend and her then 3-year-old son. As a single mother she was able to be very precise in her disciplinary methods (not abusive, for the record). She could practice consistency and control to an amazing degree because she was always with her son, all the time as a mom who worked from home. When she and I stopped to look at something, her son took off running at full tilt towards the far end of the aisle. I of course expressed some slight concern, but she didn't look bothered -- she just said "Oh, he knows to stop where I can see him." I looked over and was astonished to see him stop abruptly at the end of the aisle, turn around and smile his adorable huge smile at us both. This kid is three years old and he knows to stop running before he gets into an area in which his mother cannot see him. How did he know this? She explained it to him. It's about safety. If she were to not explain that part to him, and just do the whole "because I said so!" then it becomes about control. Then, of course he is going to run away where you can't see him and watch you freak the fuck out because it's hilarious. Don't just expect your kids to listen to you about everything, all the time, without explaining why. Again, kids are pretty fucking smart and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It starts early, too -- when your kid throws a toy off his high chair onto the floor and watches you pick it up for him, over and over? That is hilarious, and he realizes he can control you in that way. Don't slap him for it -- just don't pick up the toy, and he will eventually learn that when something falls off of a surface, it's then out of his reach, so maybe he shouldn't throw it away if he actually wants to play with something while he's in his high chair.
I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to make a point -- there is a better way to make your child understand the world than hitting them. Spanking was not a disciplinary method in our household. From a young age my mom tried her very best to instill favourable personality traits in us through basic Christian teachings (to me they're just basic guidelines for being a good person, but whatever): be nice, treat others how you would wish to be treated, don't do things that are self-serving/don't be selfish, share and give back to others, don't be concerned with things like revenge, practice unconditional love and forgiveness, and other basic things that amount to: don't be an asshole, and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. And while these traits may have led to me being a timid doormat who took a whole lot of shit from other kids growing up, I'm glad I got past that stage to become a person who actually cares about others (and increasingly, myself).
Spanking was a rare thing for my mom -- it usually happened when she was not okay, and only when we did something really bad, and when we were at the age where we could be snotty, purposefully talking back and occasionally being jerks to each other and her as well. She hated that because it showed disrespect, and probably made her think she didn't do a good enough job raising us, which was probably a scary thought for her. We always were still sent to our rooms, and we always talked about it after. And we didn't just get the "it's for your own good, so quit your fucking whining" spiel. I got the "it hurt me to do that to you, but your actions were hurtful to me too. When you talk to me like that it feels like you don't care about me, and that you don't love me. If you love me, act like it in everything that you do." This still is something I practice today. Don't say something that can hurt someone's feelings even when you're angry. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a big deal that sounds a lot simpler than it is. If we're fighting and you are so frustrated with me that you (for example) tell me to just go, get the fuck outta here, then I'm fucking leaving end of story. But later when you say "Why did you leave? Well I only said that because I was so mad..." So if you didn't fucking mean it, don't say it motherfucker! Anyway.
In short, abuse still happens. And it is usually because a parent does not know of any other method of discipline. Or they may have half-heartedly tried a more gentle method that didn't produce results that they were satisfied with. Probably because they tried it too late, or weren't consistent enough. Good disciplinary basics dictate that the consequence must come directly after the unwanted behaviour, and it must be consistent. Otherwise the child cannot connect the two events as being related and therefore it will be pretty fucking hard for them to learn that a certain behaviour will have certain consequences. You can't let them sometimes get away with it. Explanations for your discipline are always necessary -- make it perfectly clear why what they did is wrong or unacceptable behaviour.
There is always a better way than hitting/spanking/striking with objects. It should absolutely not be your go-to method of discipline for everything. Regardless if the Pearls have had what they measure as "success" in their methods, and regardless if they don't think that they take it too far, it is a dangerous line to skirt. You're potentially creating so many more problems in this little person that they will carry for the rest of their lives. To recommend that you hit a child until you break their will is not okay. Should we hit grown-ups until their wills are broken? No. So let's not do it to our kids, alright?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
More Adventures in Nail Polish
Hello again. I've been painting my nails like crazy in the past few months, and in the past week it's gotten even more frequent -- I've had three different manicures on my claws in the past seven days alone! One could say this is getting a little... out of hand *snort* but I like changing it up pretty often, and with having to do dishes by hand the polish usually starts to chip after a few days anyways (and usually because I'm lazy with reapplying my top coat). So I thought I would share some of the manicures I've done lately, as well as some practice sessions that didn't quite work out the first time I tried them.
Neon Pink French Mani
Neon Pink French Mani
This one was a favourite just because it was so easy and turned out so well the first time I tried it. For the white tips I finally got a Sally Hansen nail pen, specifically made for making white tips for French manicures. I can't seem to find the pen itself at the moment, so I can't show you what it looks like, but you could find it at any drugstore in the nail section for around $5. I found it super easy to use, although it took two coats to get a nice solid white line. The pink colour I used was Avery from Julep. The colour swatches on the website make it look more like a creamy pink, which is odd, because in real life it's pretty dang neon. On first try it was pretty translucent, which was a bit disappointing at first, but then I learned you have to put neon colours over a white base to make them really pop. But this translucency made it perfect for a French manicure as it let the white tips show through just the right amount.
Yellow & Green Half-Moon & Experimental Abstract Designs
 |
| Sorry it's so blurry. I had to use the timer function on my phone while holding it between my legs. SKILLS. |
I was so excited for these colours from Julep because I think they look fantastic together and really pop when they're put right next to each other on the nail. These two were from the June Boho Glam set. They are Lexie, a bright opaque lemon yellow, and Dianna, a soft creamy green that almost borders on seafoam. Each one offers great coverage and could really only be done in a single coat if you wanted to, but I like to do two especially with yellow as it can sometimes have thin spots that show through. I love the idea of using these colours together in a half-moon mani, however I haven't quite perfected the use of those little round stickers. It's hard to get the placement exactly centered and the same on each nail, and I find they pull up the polish as I remove them which is frustrating. So I only did it on one hand and experimented with tape lines on the other. I had the same issue, but thought of using a striper brush to go over the lines where the colours meet. The white looked good, and I wanted to make a super thin black line over top using these tiny nail art pens I have but for some reason my black was clogged. Argh. So I had to use another striper, which was too thick, and so it kind of got messed up. But I will definitely be trying again, since these colours are perfect for summer. Onwards!
Galaxy Nails
 |
| Oooooh STARZ |
I had been wanting to try these for EVER but I had lost my makeup sponges in the black hole that's under my bathroom sink. I finally found them the other day and promptly thought GALAXY NAILS YESSSSS. I had to use a whole bunch of colours for this one:
 |
| Galaxy friends. |
The colours are, from left to right: Midnight in NY by Sally Hansen Complete Salon Manicure, Co-Bolt Blue by Sally Hansen Insta-Dri, a no-name small blue sparkle in a clear base by Art Deco, Please Me Ceam colour by M.A.C., Spit Fire by Pure Ice, and Nail Junkie by Sinful Colours Professional. I started with three coats of the sparkly black, followed by sponging on little blobs of the flat blue and pink colours in random spots on each nail. On the blue blobs I put a coating of the blue sparkles, and on and around the pink blobs I used the pink sparkles which were a little bigger and looked more like stars. Finally I put a tiny amount of the yellow-green sparkles on the sponge and just dabbed them around in random spots. I really love how they turned out, but next time I think I'll leave slightly more black areas just to give the illusion of more depth. Galaxy nails might sound like a lot of work, but they really aren't--each colour goes really quickly since you're only doing a small area of each, and you don't really have to wait as long for each of them to dry since you're not doing full coats of each. Make sense? Give it a try!
Fuschia to Pink Ombre
 |
| New fave. |
This one was super easy and had a great result. I'm loving how simple the concept is and the contrasting stunning result. You could do this with any two or three colours theoretically, however lately I'm sticking to two polishes that are darker/lighter shades of the same colour. As you can see the makeup sponges leave quite a lot of polish on the sides of your fingers, but it's easy to remove since it's a really thin coat. These colours were that same pink from M.A.C. above, and a darker pink from Suzy Shier number 14033.
Watermelon Toes
 |
| Juicy. |
After finally getting myself some dotting tools, I wanted to have some fun with them. I had a green polish with a striper brush, so I instantly thought of watermelon slices! How cute for summer, right? I again used the pink M.A.C. featured above and the same Art Deco brand of striper brush. The dotting tools were only a few dollars on Amazon, and the light green colour was one from Julep which I seem to have misplaced somehow. I'll post the name of it when I find it.
So there you have it! If you have any questions about the colours or techniques I used, you can send me a shout on twitter @hannahxb.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Product Review: Joan by Julep
Last week, while looking around the internet for various nail art / manicure blogs, I kept hearing about some brand called Julep. After visiting their website and signing up for the mailing list, I was offered a free trial box (for which I only had to pay the shipping, which was $3.99). How could I pass this up?! I went for it. And yesterday, my package arrived. Hurrah!
Let me explain in more detail how the Maven program works. After ordering my free trial box, I decided that I would sign up to be a Maven. Basically you take a quiz to determine your style profile (of which there are 4). After that you're taken to a preview of past boxes in all the style categories, just to give you an idea of what they offer. On the 20th of each month, you're sent a preview of the box they plan on sending you. If you hate the contents, you're allowed to switch boxes entirely, or you can opt to send your box to a friend for that month, OR you can opt out of the box for that month completely. The option to change my mind was a big plus for me, since I am the most indecisive person ever (I took the style quiz three times and switched it up when I signed up). The boxes are shipped on the 27th, the same day you're charged on your credit card.
When you sign up for the Maven program, boxes are $19.99 per month with free shipping. You can pick any add-ons upon checkout starting at around $5, which isn't bad. With every box you receive, you earn points called Jules which you can redeem for free stuff. The box above is a sample box for the It Girl style profile. It contains, from the top: a silvery shimmer polish called Rebel, a teal shimmer called Marion, and a dark burgundy red with gold shimmer called Joan. All their nail polishes are "3-free" which means they're free of the three most horrible chemicals found in nearly all of the nail polishes out there, which is a huge plus. It also came with a little packet of pedicure cream, which Julep calls the best ever. I'll have to review that one later. That reminds me: not only do they offer nail products, but beauty products as well--nail conditioners, hand cream, and the like.
Here's what Joan looks like on my nails, through my phone's camera:
In real life, the colour is a bit less purple and leans more towards the dark red / burgundy part of the spectrum. Wearing it feels like it's a better and more fancy version of a dark red that you would wear if you were a classic 50s beauty, like my grandmother. The gold sparkles really give it a kick. I just love it. The polish itself goes on smoothly, and if you were really in a rush you could probably get away with a single coat. I always do two just to make sure it looks even. They are high quality polishes that really deliver on their promise of fantastic colours, and without the big 3 chemicals to boot.
All this adds up to a pretty sweet deal! I get a ton of new pretty polishes to try, for a reasonable price, which is probably equal to or less than I would spend on nail polish each month (no lie, I'm a nail polish addict these days). I highly recommend the Julep Maven program!
(If anyone reading this wants to try the Julep program, feel free to click on this referral link: http://www.julep.com/rewardsref/index/refer/id/117750/ and you can enter the unique invitation code 9066750.)
 |
| Yay! |
When you sign up for the Maven program, boxes are $19.99 per month with free shipping. You can pick any add-ons upon checkout starting at around $5, which isn't bad. With every box you receive, you earn points called Jules which you can redeem for free stuff. The box above is a sample box for the It Girl style profile. It contains, from the top: a silvery shimmer polish called Rebel, a teal shimmer called Marion, and a dark burgundy red with gold shimmer called Joan. All their nail polishes are "3-free" which means they're free of the three most horrible chemicals found in nearly all of the nail polishes out there, which is a huge plus. It also came with a little packet of pedicure cream, which Julep calls the best ever. I'll have to review that one later. That reminds me: not only do they offer nail products, but beauty products as well--nail conditioners, hand cream, and the like.
Here's what Joan looks like on my nails, through my phone's camera:
 |
| Pretty, no? |
All this adds up to a pretty sweet deal! I get a ton of new pretty polishes to try, for a reasonable price, which is probably equal to or less than I would spend on nail polish each month (no lie, I'm a nail polish addict these days). I highly recommend the Julep Maven program!
(If anyone reading this wants to try the Julep program, feel free to click on this referral link: http://www.julep.com/rewardsref/index/refer/id/117750/ and you can enter the unique invitation code 9066750.)
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Product Review: Sally Hansen Salon Manicure in "Midnight in NY"
Right! So here we go with another product review. Hopefully it will be the first of many. I say hopefully because I have a huge list of products that I want to review (probably over 25 at this point) but whether or not they all get reviewed is completely dependent on how lazy I am in the next few months. Ideally spring would come early and we would all get super-energized with all the sunshine and melting snow and longer days and whatnot. OFF TRACK. Anyways! If you're interested, here's what I think about this brand and colour of nail polish.
At first glance I was thrilled at this colour. I, like many girls (ie the weird girls) had had my own stint with black nail polish in late grade school/early high school. And so the thought of a black that was different, and a wee bit fancier, than the regular old black excited me. It had sparkles! And little tiny ones at that! So it seemed a bit more grown-up, refined, and just... better.
And so I was so excited to try it... until I tried it. It went on super sheer, so in order to make it an opaque black I literally had to apply about 4 coats. Annoying! (Though this seems to be a common trait throughout much of the Complete Salon Manicure line. Why?!) Not to mention it chipped and flaked only 2 days after I had applied it. And once it's on your nail, you barely see the sparkles. They should have been made a TOUCH bigger.
 |
| "Midnight in NY" ... sounds fancy. |
 |
| SPARKLESSSSSSSSSS |
I've had better luck with other colours from this same line (Plum Luck is a favourite of mine; only 2 coats to awesome solid colour!) but this one just did not do it for me. And it hurts a little, because I wanted to love this colour so much. I guess I'll just have to start with a regular black base coat, and apply this over top for a bit of sparkle.
Would I buy it again? Probably not. Would I recommend it to a friend? Yes, if she wanted something a bit fun for a night out. Otherwise a no-go. Sorry Sally.
xo B.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
In the Quest for Easily-Baked Goods
Today is not a very nice day. It is dark, dreary, windy, rainy, and cold (well, colder than I'd like it to be). As if nature hadn't ruined this day enough, it decided to start throwing a temper tantrum at about 3am that was so loud it shook the house and woke me up with some seriously spooky sounds.
And so as a result of all this craziness I decided to do one thing I know that almost always makes me feel better: bake something. It has been far too long. Since I was feeling extra tired I knew it would have to be a recipe requiring minimal effort on my part. I found the perfect one thanks to my Twitter friend Russel van Kraayenberg (@rvank) of the wonderful dessert blog Chasing Delicious.
The Classics: Chocolate Chip Cookies | Chasing Delicious
I followed that recipe to a T and the result was some cookies that were pretty delicious, but not perfect, on account of a few mistakes I made:
- I used a coarser grain of salt, which means that the salty taste of the batter is pretty obvious and overpowering and lingers in your mouth after swallowing the yummy cookie you just ate. Not good. Next time in a recipe like this I'll use my salt grinder as it puts out some pretty powdery salt. Not sure what I was thinking there. Was probably not thinking.
- I preheated my oven as I was starting the recipe, when I should have done it closer to the end. My butter was too hard and so I wanted to get some heat into the ceramic mixing bowl I was using to help facilitate the softening and mixing or the butter and sugar. Result: oven was closer to 425C than 375C and the edges of my cookies were already a really dark brown 3 minutes into the baking time. Woops. They ended up only staying in there about 7 minutes for the first batch, 9 minutes for the second after letting the oven cool off a bit. Both batches were pretty dark, but thankfully not burnt.
- Not enough chocolate. I only had about 1/8 cup of chocolate chips, and about 2.5 squares of dark chocolate left over from one of those large thin slabs of 70% cocoa bars. Luckily this was a pretty small batch of cookies, so every cookie has at least a few chunks of chocolate, but... still not enough for my liking. But hey, that's impromptu baking for you.
And so a last-minute baking adventure was pretty much a success. These cookies should last me a little while... like until tomorrow. Happy baking!
And so as a result of all this craziness I decided to do one thing I know that almost always makes me feel better: bake something. It has been far too long. Since I was feeling extra tired I knew it would have to be a recipe requiring minimal effort on my part. I found the perfect one thanks to my Twitter friend Russel van Kraayenberg (@rvank) of the wonderful dessert blog Chasing Delicious.
The Classics: Chocolate Chip Cookies | Chasing Delicious
I followed that recipe to a T and the result was some cookies that were pretty delicious, but not perfect, on account of a few mistakes I made:
- I used a coarser grain of salt, which means that the salty taste of the batter is pretty obvious and overpowering and lingers in your mouth after swallowing the yummy cookie you just ate. Not good. Next time in a recipe like this I'll use my salt grinder as it puts out some pretty powdery salt. Not sure what I was thinking there. Was probably not thinking.
- I preheated my oven as I was starting the recipe, when I should have done it closer to the end. My butter was too hard and so I wanted to get some heat into the ceramic mixing bowl I was using to help facilitate the softening and mixing or the butter and sugar. Result: oven was closer to 425C than 375C and the edges of my cookies were already a really dark brown 3 minutes into the baking time. Woops. They ended up only staying in there about 7 minutes for the first batch, 9 minutes for the second after letting the oven cool off a bit. Both batches were pretty dark, but thankfully not burnt.
- Not enough chocolate. I only had about 1/8 cup of chocolate chips, and about 2.5 squares of dark chocolate left over from one of those large thin slabs of 70% cocoa bars. Luckily this was a pretty small batch of cookies, so every cookie has at least a few chunks of chocolate, but... still not enough for my liking. But hey, that's impromptu baking for you.
And so a last-minute baking adventure was pretty much a success. These cookies should last me a little while... like until tomorrow. Happy baking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)