Chazley Dotson

makerswomen: Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg...

Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:34:27 -0500

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg show what leadership looks like. After a 5-4 decision to uphold the muslim travel ban, the only female justices on the court were the ones to fiercely oppose the ruling in a scathing dissent.

WE 👏 DISSENT 👏 TOO. 👏 #NoMuslimBan

The Toddler is adopted! He was so loud that we got to go first....

Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:35:56 -0500

The Toddler is adopted! He was so loud that we got to go first. He entertained the crowd with descriptions of stepping on spiders and demonstrations of English and Spanish counting. He also tried to play red light green light with one of the attorneys. When the judge arrived, we went to the front of the courtroom and he wanted to stand and repeat everything Daniel said. He high-fived the attorney at the end and got a brand new ‘noceros, which is what he calls his favorite animal, the rhinoceros.

I dreamed that I was about to break up with a guy, but it was the apocalypse, and a huge claw...

Sun, 24 Jun 2018 07:07:16 -0500

I dreamed that I was about to break up with a guy, but it was the apocalypse, and a huge claw reached in through the window, stabbed him through the chest, and dragged him outside.

I thought, well, that takes care of that.

I’ve never regretted becoming a parentBut they’re drowning out Fiona Apple with “Jingle Bells.”

Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:55:04 -0500

I’ve never regretted becoming a parent

But they’re drowning out Fiona Apple with “Jingle Bells.”

This isn’t fixed.

Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:31:12 -0500

trans-parenting:

“You can’t do it through an executive order.”

That was President Trump five days ago referring to the family-separation policy on the White House lawn. Today’s executive order to reverse that policy today is a step back from what the President of the American Association of Pediatrics described as “government sanctioned child abuse,” but the executive order is little more than a half-hearted and cowardly response to growing public outrage. Here’s why:

Every one of the people in this Administration who enacted, enforced, and repeatedly changed their story and lied to the American people to defend family separation still has a job. There’s the President of course, but Jeff Sessions, Kirstjen Nielsen, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Steven Miller, and I am sure there are more. That right there is a clear lack of real responsibility or accountability for the damage that has been done to these children.

It’s a small thing, but there’s no other way to read the titling of the order - “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation” - than as an abdication of the Administration’s responsibility, and a continued passing of the buck to Congress.

Like the “travel ban” and its multiple iterations, this is essentially an attempt to back an aggressive and inhumane policy towards what is just palatable enough to continue to enforce.

The order offers no explanation for the how the Administration will handle the 2,000 children already detained and when or how it will reunite them with families.

It leaves in place the “zero-tolerance” prosecution policy that led to these heinous acts to begin with, and is still actively being used to deter both immigrants and refugees.

Rather than separating children from parents, this policy seeks to imprison them all together. Our country has been down this road before, and it doesn’t end well.

In addition, the order prioritizes criminal proceedings for families, meaning that courts will take action against families first, rather than say…those who have committed serious crimes.

The executive order only applies to children who come in with immediate legal parents. Aunts/uncles/siblings/etc. have no legal claim under this policy. Those children would still be detained. And they’d still be detained separately.

The order sets up a legal challenge that may lead to longer (potentially indefinite?) detentions for families.

The Administration continues to push its hard-line immigration agenda - demanding a border wall and increased security/enforcement, cuts to legal immigration, an end to the diversity visa lottery.

There’s no fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) - a program the President unilaterally ended - and no clear legislative path forward to fix it.

The President continues to spew unapologetically hateful, racist rhetoric about immigrants and refugees.

Bottom line: This executive order was a reactionary public relations move that ends a problem that never should have begun in the first place; and it does nothing to address the broader problems of an Administration that has a stated goal of punishing people who are simply seeking a better life in this country. Children will continue to suffer, families will continue to suffer, and the Administration will continue to use them to further their political aims and agenda.

Keep speaking up, keep fighting back. This is far from over.

Book Display Suggestions for a Horrible, Horrible Week

Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:28:10 -0500

Book Display Suggestions for a Horrible, Horrible Week

The Island at the End of Everything

Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:01:40 -0500

The Island at the End of Everything:

This is the book I’m reading this week.

It’s a hard book to read right now. The “clean” children of people with leprosy have been taken away, forced to live in an orphanage, even though they are not orphans. And what are they going to do about it? Children have no power in our world. No one is listening to their voices.

terfs-hate-women: candygirl1997: ambitchousrobot: bogleech: Every day I’m still getting notes on...

Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:15:44 -0500

terfs-hate-women:

candygirl1997:

ambitchousrobot:

bogleech:

Every day I’m still getting notes on an old post where I said that eating healthier costs more money and of course every so often is another health zealot swearing I’m wrong.

EXCEPT:

one dollar at dollar tree

one dollar at mcdonald’s

A fucking quarter almost everywhere

And what these bozos aren’t factoring in is that these foods, loaded with salts and fats and carbs and sugars, are FILLING for a shitload longer than whatever colon cleansing non-GMO avocado unicorn poop some thinspo blog is bragging about. The box of oatmeal creme cookies even lasts more than a day, just two of those things and I have no appetite again for hours.

Personally we are eating better and making more money currently but when I was a kid it was all the above shit and potatoes. Lots and fucking lots of potatoes.

STOP FUCKING TELLING POOR PEOPLE THEY’RE STUPID FOR NOT EATING LIKE YOUR HIPSTER ORGANIC CRAP

Another thing they’re forgetting is food waste. Fresh produce only lasts so long. So to regularly eat fresh you have to 1) go grocery shopping more often and 2) have your meals planned out ahead of time to use everything.

When you only have $50 or less for food for the month, it’s devastating to see $10 worth of fresh produce rot. Especially if it’s because you just don’t have time to cook it. (Poor people usually juggle multiple jobs, work overtime, or work jobs with inconsistent schedules like retail or food services.) They don’t have time to run to the grocery store 3+ times a week, especially if they have to hit up multiple stores to get the cheap prices. They don’t have time to spend 1+ hour every week doing a meal plan. And they probably don’t have that much time or energy to cook.

When I was severely poor (like, we determined which bill to pay each month by how close they were to being shut off. “We paid water last month, so they won’t turn it off until next month. It’s been two months of electricity though, so we should probably pay that before we get a cutoff.) we did not buy fresh. All our veggies were canned, because they don’t spoil. We had lots of ramen, just in case we ran out of money and couldn’t buy groceries for a while. We didn’t buy meat unless we knew we would cook it that day because we didn’t want to see it spoil. We ate a lot of boxed meals. And when I was working 60+ hours a week, you can bet your ass I ate a lot of cheap packaged shit like little debbie. Because I didn’t have time to cook before my 12 hour work day, I only got 4 hours of sleep and I wasn’t sacrificing 30 minutes for a hot breakfast, and I couldn’t afford to eat out.

Anyone who says shit like this has never been poor. When you’re poor it’s not just money you’re lacking, but time, and resources, and mother fucking energy. It’s rough. And I wouldn’t be so quick to judge them if I were you, because the poor have been through more than you could ever understand.

remember when i said veganism was clasist & not an option 4 most of society n they were all in my inbox actin like typical vegans…. well there u go

I’ve been dirt poor, and I can tell you it’s not easy to eat healthy. It takes a lot more time and work and energy than many people have. But if we make a whole bunch of assumptions (you have a little time, basic cooking skills, no kids, and aren’t working 12-hour shifts), then you’re basically me fifteen years ago. I made lentils and lentil soup and split pea soup by the gallon, so my weekly shopping looked like this:

Frozen spinach: $1
Bag of dried lentils: $1.44
Vegetable bouillon is $2.93 for a pack of 8, so weekly: $.73
Bag of dried split peas: $1.37
4 lb of potatoes (because I like them in the split pea soup): $2.46

That’s $7 for about 10 meals.

If you have an extra buck one week, a bag of carrots goes nicely with both lentils and split peas, and when you get tired of those (and you will), you can get a lot of meals out of a container of plain oats and a bag of brown sugar, and you can make a ton of refried beans if you buy dried beans ($1 a bag) and make them yourself. This is all freezable, too.

So yeah, it’s harder and a lot more time-consuming than mac and cheese, but if you have the basic cooking skills, all you need is an hour and the energy to cook.

amandabees: brandx: “You can get away with buying babies around the world as a United States...

Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:10:59 -0500

amandabees:

brandx:

“You can get away with buying babies around the world as a United States citizen. It’s not a crime.”

—

Richard Cross, Senior Special ICE agent. Via Foreign Policy

The linked source article provides decent insight as to why adoption/foster ‘care’ in the US is particularly a imperialist shitshow, ripping apart birth families & communities on massive global scales.

Side note: I’m stuck on the implications of “it’s not a crime” as the obvious extension of “you can get away with it”.

This is why, if you’re going to be a foster/adoptive parent, you do the research. You do the advocacy. You get involved, even when the caseworkers and court tell you it’s not your business. Because there are kids out there who are removed from their families because of racism and corruption, and there are kids who are removed from their families to save their lives.

If you’re going to be a part of this imperialist shitshow, you need to know the difference.

Photo

Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:33:14 -0500

foster-queer: On “a special kind of person” We took Squid to church this morning and I remembered...

Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:32:41 -0500

foster-queer:

On “a special kind of person”

We took Squid to church this morning and I remembered why I hate taking foster kids (esp babies) to church.

Every old person demanded to look at him. (He was asleep in the wrap so I just left the top of his head out.)

So so so many people told us “congratulations,” maybe thinking we adopted him? And several others said, “Good for you.” Uh, what?

But the worst. THE WORST. is “it takes a special kind of person.” The third time someone said that to me this morning I literally just had to walk away.

I HATE when people say that to me and I’ve never been able to figure out why, but Sarah finally hit the nail on the head when we were talking about it: Saying only “a special kind of person” can do foster care is giving yourself an out. “Oh, you’re different, it’s easy for you to do that. It would be too hard for me.”

That is so damn invalidating. I think that’s why it makes me so mad. It IS hard. It’s SO hard to do this. There is maybe 10% reward, 40% neutral survival, and 50% shit. Sure, there are small victories, and the kids are fantastic, but you have to slog through some serious shit to get to any of the bright spots.

I hate being praised for doing this. What I need is for more people to do it and do it well; for more people to vote for people who will fund better services for families; and for more people to remember that foster kids are just kids, not scary demon children who will inevitably end up in jail.

Foster care sucks almost all the time. But you don’t do it for you. You do it for the kids who need you. You have to be there for them all the time, just hanging on to the slim chance that you could make their lives better in some tiny way.

THIS.

c-bassmeow: gorgonsach: x American workers as individuals and...

Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:26:39 -0500

c-bassmeow:

gorgonsach:

x

American workers as individuals and the labor movement as a whole is so demoralized that the average worker is convinced that working in an at will state is fine, that unions are bad, that collective bargaining and labor rights are a thing of the past, and that the rich are this benevolent group that they too can be a part of if they just work hard enough and save. Americans are sycophantic and cowardly when it comes to fighting corporate power. Our entire culture is permeated with a corporate ethos. We claim to hate tyranny and authoritarianism by the government, yet we have no problem with corporate tyranny and corporate measures to spy on us, tell us what to do, and tell us what we can think and say. At least people in other countries can flip cars over and burn things and show their anger when corporate power tries to take over their country or when companies want to slash benefits. It’s also interesting that we are one of the hardest working (in hours) Western nation yet we are one of the most unproductive …. who would have thought that treating your workers right is actually beneficial in the longterm for a companies interests.

Photo

Sat, 16 Jun 2018 12:20:27 -0500

niggazinmoscow: It’s fucking prison camps holding 1,400...

Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:02:14 -0500

niggazinmoscow:

It’s fucking prison camps holding 1,400 children. that’s fascism.

The Toddler says “noceros” instead of “rhino.”

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:01:15 -0500

“We pre-read so we make sure the 4th grade books are appropriate.”

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:25:10 -0500

ottermoose:

chazley-dotson:

I got this today. I’m genuinely curious about what people are so afraid of their 4th graders learning. That sex exists? That gay people exist? That people curse? That some people don’t believe in God? That people die?

I understand being protective of your kids, but they ARE going to have to face these topics, and I’d far rather my kids learn through the incredible empathy of children’s literature than from the older kids on the bus.

Well, given my recent experience reading children’s classics aloud, I’d hope they’re in the look out for:

+ tired sexist tropes

+ “brutal savages” that are really just any number of indigenous groups asserting that, no, you may not homestead this land.

+ Nazi’s with really the very best intentions

+ kindly slaveholders and the slaves who love them

+ romantic entanglements indistinguishable from emotional abuse slash generally normalizing possessive male jealousy

I could go on.

I totally did not expect a list that I would agree with on this topic. But, yes, absolutely. I wouldn’t keep my kids from reading Little House on the Prairie, for one, but we would have a TALK about how indigenous groups are portrayed. And we’re going to have lots of TALKS about healthy relationships before they start reading YA.

witchyfaekin: mswyrr: favedump: Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children,...

Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:16:15 -0500

witchyfaekin:

mswyrr:

favedump:

Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:

“State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street. 

“Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.

“Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.

“Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.

“Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.

“Rephrase your idea a ﬁnal time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.

Mr. Rogers Had a Simple Set of Rules for Talking to Children - The Atlantic

Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send. Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never suggest to children that they not cry.

In working on the show, Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R. Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse children in that way.

In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of child development is actually derived from some of the leading 20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for almost half a century.

This is one of the reasons Rogers was so particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.

That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.

janglingargot: systlin: I honestly always find the term ‘spinster’ as referring to an elderly,...

Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:13:19 -0500

janglingargot:

systlin:

I honestly always find the term ‘spinster’ as referring to an elderly, never-married woman as funny because you know what?

Wool was a huge industry in Europe in the middle ages. It was hugely in demand, particularly broadcloth, and was a valuable trade good. A great deal of wool was owned by monasteries and landed gentry who owned the land.

And, well, the only way to spin wool into yarn to make broadcloth was by hand.

This was viewed as a feminine occupation, and below the dignity of the monks and male gentry that largely ran the trade.

So what did they do?

They hired women to spin it. And, turns out, this was a stable job that paid very well. Well enough that it was one of the few viable economic options considered ‘respectable’ outside of marriage for a woman. A spinster could earn quite a tidy salary for her art, and maintain full control over her own money, no husband required.

So, naturally, women who had little interest in marriage or men? Grabbed this opportunity with both hands and ran with it. Of course, most people didn’t get this, because All Women Want Is Husbands, Right?

So when people say ‘spinster’ as in ‘spinster aunt’, they are TRYING to conjure up an image of a little old lady who is lonely and bitter.

But what I HEAR are the smiles and laughter of a million women as they earned their own money in their own homes and controlled their own fortunes and lived life on their own terms, and damn what society expected of them.

Just wanted to add that the suffix -ster was originally specifically feminine, a means of denoting a lady known by her profession. Spinster = female spinner, baxter = female baker, webster = female weaver (webber), brewster = female brewer. If one of the ladies named Alys in your village was known for selling her excellent weaving, you might call her Alys Webster (to differentiate her from, say, Alys Littel who was rather short, and Alys Bywater who lived near the pond).

This fascinates me for many reasons, but especially in the case of modern families with last names like Baxter or Webster or Brewster. What formidable and well-known ancestresses managed to pass on those very gendered names to all their descendants, when last names were changing from personal “nicknames” into indicators of lineage among the middle and lower classes? There’s a forgotten story of a fascinating woman behind every one of those family lines.

“We pre-read so we make sure the 4th grade books are appropriate.”

Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:08:01 -0500

I got this today. I’m genuinely curious about what people are so afraid of their 4th graders learning. That sex exists? That gay people exist? That people curse? That some people don’t believe in God? That people die?

I understand being protective of your kids, but they ARE going to have to face these topics, and I’d far rather my kids learn through the incredible empathy of children’s literature than from the older kids on the bus.

Foster Care Study at UCI

Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:06:34 -0500

Foster Care Study at UCI:

I’ve known Jessica since she was in middle school! She is looking at areas of foster care and adoption that are devastatingly under-researched. If you fit her requirements, please contact her. Her email address and phone number are available through the link.