Child Care Whoas....Who can ya trust?

So.... this is a letter a wrote earlier this year, to my son's old daycare facility. You will see why he no longer goes there. I complained to the "big whigs".... wonder if anything happened? For now, I'm over it.

To: Kare-A-Lot Staff
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43212

April 14, 2008
On Wednesday February 6th I had a discussion with M*** about my son, concerning his medication. Prior to our conversation, I discovered there was some concern regarding my son after I was told to call her in order to retrieve my son’s medication. I have a significant issue with the events that occurred on Wednesday February 6th. M*** informed me that My son’s teachers (S.P. and E.Z.) gave her my son’s medication stating, “Here is his medication, what do you want to do with it?” M*** also said that I simply drop My son off, I don’t say anything to the staff, I don’t listen to the staff, and I am very hard to get in contact with. My questions to you are the following: Do the other parents stay and chat with you when they drop off their children? Do I not speak to you when I drop My son off? Who said that I must listen to the staff? Every time you have called me haven’t I either returned your phone call or came straight to the daycare center? I often am unable to answer the phone because my phone is either on vibrate or off while I’m in class. I am a graduate student. And most master’s and PhD students fund their education by teaching undergraduates. I don’t have my phone on while I am teaching class and it is usually on vibrate when I am in my own classes. The last time you called I was in the class I teach. I left the class to come and pick up My son because you stated he was sick. You cannot say that I don’t either call you back or come directly to the center. Even if I never returned your phone calls or never came directly to the center, each of you saw me after My son’s recent sickness and none of you addressed your concerns with me. There is no excuse for that except that you all thought you had more of My son’s interest in mind than I did.
What did you except of me? When My son was sick the first time you all gave me a list of foods he should eat. I took this list and asked My son’s physician to ask about the validity of your suggestions then moved forward accordingly. Did you except me give you an update you on all that I do in taking care of my son? Do you request this of all the parents?
After My son went to the doctor, Ms. P. told me that My son woke up not feeling well and his body was “shaking”. She later expressed her concern to M*** and NOT me. If I was asked, then I would have informed the teachers that I had already talked to the doctor about the one episode when he woke up trembling , his temperature, and respiratory issues. I was told that it was a combination of side effects of the Albuterol and the temperature he had. There was nothing that could be done about it accept to give him Tylenol. I medication regime I was already giving to him. The symptoms simply had to pass. But no one asked me about My son waking up from his nap and trembling. It was an assumption among the staff that either I didn’t know or I didn’t care. But this “concern” was taken a step further. Not only did neither M*** or the teachers address me about his trembling at Kare-A-Lot, even days after this occurrence, M*** took it upon herself to call my son’s doctor AND called the pharmacy on the medication bottle to find out my son’s medical information to “get answers” as M*** stated. Attempting to retrieve my son’s medical information was inappropriate, she was over-stepping her bounds and it is ILLEGAL (see HIPPA act). In addition M*** took my son’s medication off Kare-A-Lot premises as a way of holding it collateral so that I had to call her so that she could tell me how she felt. But it’s not just M***. The teachers, who I saw every day, gave her the medicine. I don’t know M*** or any of the teachers well enough to give my son’s medication for them to remove it from the premises. I don’t know what M*** did to my son’s medication. I needed to get his medication refilled because I didn’t know if my son’s medication was tampered with. If I can’t trust his teachers and the director of the center to not over step their bounds, not consent me, remove my son’s medicine, and disobey laws trying to find out my son’s medical information, how could I continue to leave him with the Kare-A-Lot staff?
The Kare-A-Lot staff’s actions imply that you all were making a judgment call; however you clearly overstepped your boundaries by not consenting me in your decision-making regarding my child. You all are assuming that I need your assistance in raising my son. How did you formulate this prejudicial conclusion? Is it because I am a single mother? Because I am Black and My son is one of the few Black children at the center? Or is it because we utilized Title 20? So you all have labeled us based on you prejudices about low-income, Black single-parent families? That must be the reason because there is no other reason for you all to have disrespected us in this manner. There was no reason for you to assume that My son is in harm’s way and is not receiving the best care at home.
Lastly, after telling M*** about her inappropriate actions she proceeds to angrily storm off and say to herself, “I get lectured all day. By teachers, by parents. Soon the students will be lecturing me.” Was this a professional response to a parent who was concerned about the actions of staff that she must trust with the care of her son? It is because of these incidents that I removed my son from Kare-A-Lot at the end of February. It is unfortunate that Kare-A-Lot daycare prejudges their students’ parents and would rather coerce medical establishment into breaking patient confidentiality laws than simply asking the parents about their own children. I hope that there are step for recourse and Kare-A-Lot staff alter the way in which they interact with certain parents.

Sincerely,


Melissa Crum

CC: The Department of Job and Family Services
CC: Action for Children, Franklin County
Action for Children Franklin County78 Jefferson Avenue
Columbus, OH 43215(614) 224-0222 or FAX (614) 224-5437

What kinda egg are you?

I had an interesting discussion over facebook. Someone wrote the original article and I (as well as other responded) my responses are indicated with my name. Below are the posts. For any readers out there, let me know what you think.

The Independent Relationship
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 5:32pm
Written by N.J.

Since 2005, I have served as the relationships columnist for the local NY Times paper, the Gainesville Guardian. In the three years and 156 articles I have written, one theme consistently underscores the problems I am asked to "solve;" how to maintain one's independence while in a relationship.I have read numerous articles throughout the years that extol the virtues of being independent. I have heard men and women alike sing the "independent" anthem to the tune of Destiny's Child (men substitute "fellas" for "women"). There are conferences, seminars, CDs, DVDs, books, movies, stage plays, and music that promote independence as, not an option, but an imperative in our relationships. Yet, I must submit to you today that, as a married woman, the idea of an independent relationship is a paradox at best and fundamentally impossible.***NOTE: 1. I believe that marriage is the only destination for a romantic relationship between 2 single people. If you disagree with this basic belief, please refrain from replying as this article will not apply to you. 2. What I am about to say is based on my Christian beliefs. If you do not believe the same, please refrain from replying as this article will not apply to you. THANKS!***Let us look at the book definition of Relationship:"1: the state of being related or interrelated, 2: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as a: kinship b: a specific instance or type of kinship, 3 a: a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings b: a romantic or passionate attachment."Now, let us look at the book definition of Independent:“1: not dependent; 2: not subject to control by others; 3: not affiliated with a larger unit; 4: not requiring or relying on something or someone else; 5: not looking to others for opinions or guidance in conduct; 6: not requiring or relying on others; 7: showing a desire for freedom”If you look closely, you will clearly see that the very definition of relationship is contrary to independence. Following are a few questions that stem directly from the provided definitions:1. How can you be related or interrelated to something you are not affiliated with?2. How can you be connected or bound to something that you are not subject to control by?3. How can you be romantically or passionately attached to something that you desire to be free from?I have read several articles here on Facebook that lament marriage, dating, or any other form of relationship where one is no longer God of their universe as a financial and social burden. Authors have said that our world would be better if men could just be freed from the shackles of paying for dinner on dates, or buying a wedding ring. Other notes encourage women to stop looking to men for ANYTHING and get their own stuff, satisfy their selves sexually, and do anything else they can do to be as self-sufficient as possible. Allow me, however, to fill the vacuous space that argues the contrary.First of all, marriage is GREAT! Is it a walk in the park or a bed of roses, of course not. But was getting your degree easy? Is advancing in your career a piece of cake? NO! Nothing worth having will ever come easily, especially not something that requires you to devalue your immediate wants in favor of the mutual benefit of long-term happiness. The problem that I have with this continual push for “independent relationships” is that it goes against the very grain of our humanity. Genesis 2:18 (NKJV) says, “Now the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet for him.” Now, I want to draw your attention to a couple important points. The bible does not say that man cannot be alone; the bible says it is not good that man be alone. Therefore, man CAN be alone, but it is not the best situation for him to be in.The Hebrew word for “good” is Towb. As usual with most words in a foreign language, the English language does not do the word “Towb” justice. As used in this specific scripture, the word actually means “sufficient, satisfactory.” In other words, when God created the very first relationship, he recognized that independence was not sufficient or satisfactory. Now, before you get all huffed up and ready to justify how great you are as an independent woman or man, let us take a look at the next part of this scripture.God goes onto say, “I will make him a helper meet for him.” The Hebrew word for “meet” is the word “’ezer,” which means “complementary.” The word “complementary” means serving to fill out or complete: mutually supplying each other's lack. When God created man, if it were best for him to be independent, he would have left him that way. If it were best for a woman to be independent, God would have created her that way; yet, he did not! For one to truly be independent, they must be fully self-sufficient. Yet God says that the woman was to complement the man. How in the world can you complement something that lacks nothing?Paula White got it all wrong when she titled her book, “You’re All That!” In fact, you’re NOT all that and people who think they ARE all that never reach their fullest potential. Why? Because God created man and woman to mutually supply each other’s lack. You are born lacking and no amount of material wealth, academic degrees, fame, or status will meet the lack that you were created with. Have you ever wondered why people who seem to have it all rarely have stable relationships? It is simple; when you begin to believe that “you’re all that” and you see your partner as a want instead of a need, you will continue to be incomplete, going from person to person or bedroom to bedroom looking for the fulfillment that only a DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP can bring. Good marriages, solid marriages, are based on the mutual recognition that I not only want my spouse, but I need my spouse. If you are only in a relationship because you want to be, what happens when you stop wanting to be in it? In my four years of marriage, I have had days where I wanted to ring my husband’s neck. But guess what? He’s had those days TOO! Yet, because we know without a doubt that God brought us together to complement one another’s weaknesses, and because we are not so naïve as to deny that we have weaknesses in the first place, we can submit to one another’s strengths.Some of you may read this and shrug it off, preferring to maintain your semblance of independence. I ask you this question (rhetorically); are you happy? When the friends are gone home to their spouses, when only the perfume remains on your pillow from the one night stand, and when the men only call after midnight, can you honestly say that you are satisfied? When you make it to Senior VP and the job lays you off after 25 years of advancement, will you be able to say, “yeah, but the sacrifice was worth it?” It is often at the end of our life when we realize just how dependent we are as human beings on the relationships in our life. No one has ever said on their death bed, “I wish I would have slept with more women” or “I wish I would have worked more hours.” What they say is, “I wish I would have shown my spouse how much I truly love them” or “I wish I would have spent more time with my children.”It is my prayer that you discover and embrace your dependence while you have time to enjoy it, and not when you only have moments to regret it.

K.C. wroteat 9:29am on August 6th, 2008
Yaaaaaayyyy! I get to be the 1st to respond ;o)I kinda agree w/ most of what you said, but I do wish a couple of things would've been clarified. We have to look at the possibility that when most people say they want to maintain their "independence" in a relationship, they really mean "individuality". You're still two people, but you're one team. I SUPER AGREE with the part about you your spouse being your compliment, not only providing what you lack in the relationship, but as a true reflection of yourself so that you may become a better individual.Also, I don't want anyone to feel like "Control" is something that a relationship is built on. You do not have to relinquish control of your life to your spouse. But the Lord did say a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church, and in that aspect, spouses do not make each other do what they want the other to do, but they should be doing what's best for the household. And just as we are obedient to Christ because we know he wouldn't do anything to harm us or lead us astray (it's what's best for us), we should trust our spouses and believe that what they've requested of us is best for the relationship.

K.C. wrote at 9:37am on August 6th, 2008
And my last PSA for WOMEN.....The bible says "when a MAN findeth a wife HE findeth a good thing." please do not misunderstand this article to mean that YOU NEED to go FIND a man. Your mission in the bible is to be the best you possible. God will bless you with a spouse when you are prepared to be a wife. The roles of both are very defined in the bible, and I don't recall a situation where the lord has ever told a woman to get up and find herself a husband....On the same note, when God blesses you with a good man, don't get ignorant, and siddity, and caught up in the Sex and the City syndrome. You will mess around and miss your blessing. Books are not judged by their cover, or price tag, but by their content and the pleasure they bring. Who a man is today may not be what he is blessed to be years from now. (Think back to the guys you liked in high school and where they are now. You want a spouse, not the popular pick of the week)

BG (Southern Georgia, GA) wroteat 4:54pm on August 6th, 2008
I completely agree N.J.! Excellent points.

LJ wroteat 10:53pm on August 6th, 2008
N.J..........What a word! As I read this I could agree with all of your points. This is definitely an on time word with the way women and men alike desire to be married, but can't seem to understand complimenting that a God Ordained spouses bring to each other lives. Also another thing which my pastor Apostle Dannie Williams always points out is that God commanded the man to love his wife as Christ love the church, and if a man can do that a wife will automatically love her husband. I definitely needed my husband to find me, and I need my husband everyday. And he too says the same thing all the time. You're right you definitely have your days when you want to ring your husband neck...and he vis versa, but if at the end of the day misunderstandings can be resolved--which in Godly marriages should be an automatic--you are living the life of a married couple. If you don't mind I wish to share this word that you have imparted with my pastor. WHAT A WORD!

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:51am on August 7th, 2008
Hey N.J.! Long time no see…write :0)I can really feel K.C.’s comments. I think there is a HUGE difference between independence and individuality. I also believe you can’t only be (and only consistently be) independent from someone or dependant on someone. I feel that if you want to be independent then marriage probably isn’t for you. But if you want to maintain your individuality I feel that it is completely necessary in a marriage. I like the “team” analogy. If you choose to get on a team then you have to know that you must work with the other team members in order to win the game. But also everyone has their own INDIVIDUAL position. The position is different from the other members on the team but just as necessary. If everyone decided to play the same position, the team wouldn’t get anywhere. Before you join the team you should be “all of that.” Now it depends on what connotations you want to put on that phrase (cockiness, etc, if so then that’s NOT what I mean) but in order to be a good team player you need to know you position and the game well. As K.C. said when you are ready to be a wife God will present you with a mate. And as children of God I would hope we all think we are “all that”. I feel like God brings together two whole people who are happy with their lives and God brings each of them a helpmeet to make life even better. Also every person isn’t either happily married or having one-night stands. Something about that feels out of touch with the variety of women in the world and a tad judgmental. Let’s say this assessment is true, then if you are an “independent” person (which I think is a problematic term because no one is completely independent) and you are sleeping around smelling the “perfume remains on your pillow” are you really ready to be the wife God wants you to be? What is the stage between screwing around and marriage?
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
I feel it is the space between women wondering around feeling unfulfilled and those in successfully marriages are women are full of themselves (not in a negative way) and enjoying life, but has a firm grip on themselves, their ideals, beliefs, goals, and can write a list of all the things that brings her joy. She is living a full life and is constantly filling herself and opening herself to be filled by her creator. It’s when she reaches a point where she is a complete person (not seeking anything outside of God and knowing God will provide her with her needs and desires) that God will bring her a complete man. I feel like if a woman feels like she NEEDS a man to be complete her then there is some more self work that needs to be done. And if she feels she can be “independent” and still play on a team, then her ball-hoggin days will come back to bite her and the team will lose. But before she gets on a team she shouldn’t be pouting on the sidelines or in the stands, she should be studying the play book, training her mind body and spirit, grasping a better understanding of why she wants to be on a team, and what she can offer the other player involved. If she is sitting in the stands longing for her chance to jump in the game, I feel very sorry for her. There is so much happening that God is allowing to happen, has created for her to see and experience and she is missing it. All of it.I remember a sermon on singleness and marriage. It appears that God wants us to be married in order to stay out of sexual trouble and not that it is impossible to have a fulfilling life and be single. Look at Paul. 1 Corinthians 7 says Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.The fact that Paul is presenting marriage as an option and not a requirement is a big deal and should be acknowledged. We also have to take in to consideration the circumstances in which the bible talks about marriage and the idiosyncrasies in most West Asian cultures. With Adam, before Eve he wasn’t dealing immorality and he simply was the only man on earth! Come on now. He truly needed SOMEBODY. With King Soloman he didn’t NEED anyone, he had plenty of concubines but for him to be a better man of God, God felt he need Bathsheba.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 12:52am on August 7th, 2008
For most of the women in the bible they NEEDED a man not because God wanted them to be complete women but because the culture (that was is place before and after Jesus) set up gender roles in that way (ie. Why Mary caught so much flack, Ruth and Naomi’s story etc). And as we see, Paul is a man of God and was single. Now, I’m a good ole Southern Gal who wants to have a husband, kids, a nice big house, and anniversary vacations in Jamaica. So I want to be married. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be or I’m not happy now and it is unfortunate that singleness is being presented in such a negative way and the bible doesn’t even present it as such. Thinking of the goal of such as article… if the goal is to reach single Christians limiting their life possibilities to one-night stands and unfulfilled sadness is offensive. Or if the goal is to reaffirm the sanctity and pros of marriage to a married Christians audience (or preaching to the choir) than the nail was hit right on the head. But if the goal is to really help women be the best Christian women they can be then maybe we can think of different ways of addressing an issue that isn’t as once sided as we would like to think. Interesting article…awaiting more discussions! Tell your husband I said Hi!
__

M.A. wroteat 1:29pm on August 7th, 2008
Wow Melissa, great points. Very well put! To truly know what Gods wants for an individual, one has to have a PERSONAL relationship with him. Having real love for God is yet transformed into a relationship if both persons are evenly yoked. How can you really understand what Gods want for you, if you never speak to him? If one desires to be married, and its in Gods will, then it will come to past. I believe inorder for one to be whole with another, they need to know who they are as a child of God. Now and Days so many get caught up in marriage for superficial reasons, that they forget about the actual marriage. Well, when I look at the recounts of Jesus, he was not worrying about getting married, he was about Gods business! As christians, aren't we to be more like him??? Anyways let God's Will be done!

M.A. wroteat 1:29pm on August 7th, 2008
Great Article N.J., I like they way you elicit people to think!

N.J. wroteat 4:44pm on August 7th, 2008
Hi, Melissa. I read your replies and want to re-emphasize my point (which your comments lead me to believe was missed). As I said, this article is aimed at filling the vacuous space that argues in favor of dependent relationships. Both you and K.C. are absolutely correct; there is a difference between individuality and independence. This is why the note is titled "The INDEPENDENT Relationship." I am only addressing independence. Further, it is not addressing singleness, and certainly never offered "happily married" or "one night stands" as the only two states a person could be in. Still further, I am perplexed by your statement regarding how "singleness" is portrayed when "singleness" was not portrayed at all. I asked very specific, circumstantial questions that, if they do not apply to you, should not cause offense. Not sure where that came from; I read the article over again and did not see that anywhere in it. How you are offended by something that is not there is confusing to me; but, I think I was clear in what I said. Where something was not clear, it is better to ask a question than create a wrong conclusion.

Melissa Crum wroteat 5:38pm on August 7th, 2008
The portrayal of singleness that I am referring to is more so in your last paragraph. You say, “I ask you this question (rhetorically); are you happy? When the friends are gone home to their spouses, when only the perfume remains on your pillow from the one night stand, and when the men only call after midnight, can you honestly say that you are satisfied? When you make it to Senior VP and the job lays you off after 25 years of advancement, will you be able to say, “yeah, but the sacrifice was worth it?” “If seem to be asking the question to single women. Not a specific single woman (unless I missed that) but single women in general. You said the article was not addressing singleness but you clearly were. You painted a picture of singleness and one for dependant marriages. It doesn’t seem as you are simply addressing dependant relationships but rather stating that they are ideal and placing the single woman in a not so great light (e.g. Senior VP answering midnight calls). You said, “The bible does not say that man cannot be alone; the bible says it is not good that man be alone. Therefore, man CAN be alone, but it is not the best situation for him to be in.” But this again doesn’t necessarily support dependant marriages but rather unions between two people (maybe marriage, maybe not but doesn’t appear to specify dependant marriages). I was simply arguing a different side.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 5:46pm on August 7th, 2008
Also you stated, “you see your partner as a want instead of a need, you will continue to be incomplete, going from person to person or bedroom to bedroom looking for the fulfillment that only a DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP can bring.” You are arguing that ONLY dependant relationship will complete an individual. That is where I disagreed and I was arguing that, that is incorrect and I addressed scriptures that said so. Again I am simply addressing the advocating for dependant relationships in the article that wasn’t presented it as an option but a need all show should reach for. You reiterated the title of your article. I’m clear that you stated independence and not individuality. The truth is most people use the words interchangeably. That is why I stated my distinction.Last couple of points: I’m not offended. That’s too strong of a word. I could see how someone would be offended but maybe the word I’m looking for is disappointed (I don’t think that works either). Hmm, can’t think of a word. The English language is so subpar. I don’t think anything was unclear, I don’t feel as if I came to the wrong conclusion and if I had a question I would have asked it. Interesting discussion.
__

N. J. wroteat 7:39am on August 8th, 2008
A few thoughts, Melissa. You say that Genesis 2;18 does not necessarily advocate dependent marriages, just a union of some kind. Let's take a look just 6 verses down in the same chapter. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh." First things first; wife is the title of a married woman. Next, you are not "one flesh" and independent at the same time. Finally, God used the Hebrew word 'ezer to describe what the woman would be to the man; his complement. Allow me to reiterate that you cannot "complete, serve to fill out," or "mutually supply one another's lack" if you are "complete" to begin with. In your original reply, you sighted 1 Corinthians 7;1-4 and said that Paul argued that we should only marry to stay out of sexual immorality. This interpretation should have caused you pause when you consider what God said in Genesis 2;18, which (mind you) had nothing to do with sex. In v. 7. Paul says, "for I wish that all men were even as myself." This begs the question, "well, Paul, what were you?" Answer; he was celibate. Why? Because he came out of the school of thought that the physical body (flesh) needed to be conquered and the only way to do that is to not "feed" it. Finally, this note is not for women; it is for men AND women. If you look at the questions I asked towards the end, the first is for a man or woman, the second for a man, the third for a woman, and the final one for a man or woman. The English language is indeed subpar. This is why I always go back to the original text of the bible when I study a concept. Like God said in Isaiah 55;8-9, "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways. for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:39pm on August 8th, 2008
I stand corrected. The verses in Genesis do directly speak to marriage, but my major point was the dependant part which feels to like a loss of individuality (not independence). I align the idea of two married people having “one flesh” to the team analogy. You NEED your team mates to win the game. You NEED your husband/wife to make the marriage work.I have a different analogy. This is how I think of “completeness”. I’m an artist…visual person. So I think of cake ingredients. As an individual person we hope to be able to maneuver through life joyous. One individual is an egg. A good egg, a complete egg isn’t cracked or full of hormones, yoked spilled out everywhere. The egg can stand alone, give life or provide sustenance. If the egg is cracked, broken, yoke no longer in tact, it is looking for someone, something to patch it up. Once broken it is rendered helpless. I feel like some women are walking around broken hoping for someone to fix their shell. Often times many women believe the person with the glue is a man. (Now I know you were addressing men and women but I am only speaking for women). And the “fixing” is believed to happen in the bedroom. Now, if she is broken and yoke everywhere there is no human solution. She thinks a man can come along scoop of the mess, hold on to or put it back in the shell but it never seems to work out that way. That is where God comes in and puts her back together. Now a whole egg.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:40pm on August 8th, 2008
There are some downfalls in being an egg. Eggs are fragile. But they can still maintain a good life. There are a whole lot of things that make an egg and a number of processes that had to happen in order for the egg to be in existence. But let’s not be so quick to think that its walking around all hard with this tough exterior. If the egg , woman, is smart she will use her shell to her advantage and realize that God gave her a shell because her yoke isn’t supposed to be touched or handled by just any body (One could argue that, that is where the armor of God comes in, to protect her in her fragility). Its cool to be an egg. An egg can do a lot of things and could lead a nice life as an egg. On the contrary, one could argue that the egg could be put to greater use if it were presented with some other ingredients. Let’s say this egg was used in a cake. (For this analogy, let’s say the man consists of the rest of the cake ingredients). Now once the egg decides to be a part of a cake (one flesh) then it can never return to being an egg ever again (I could take this further into death of the husband, divorce etc but I’m not). The egg HAS TO merge with the rest of the ingredients to make the cake work. To make it taste good. One of the crucial necessities of making a cake “a cake” is that the woman (the egg) has to lose the shell. The armor she put on for so long. The protection that has been broken time and time again. The covering she has had to run to God to fix and have mistakenly offered to men to repair after she removed the armor of God when she wasn’t supposed to. She has to trust that God has brought her the right cake mixture and that she can trust the man with all of her yoke. The most vulnerable part of her. I believe women who want to be independent are afraid of removing the shell. Or they have become so bitter inside that they have boiled their yoke so hard that it really and truly can’t be mixed with anything.
__

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:41pm on August 8th, 2008
At least not the homogenous mixture that God says should be a part of a marriage. She might find some mayo-man and they make some decent egg sandwiches but its not the same. It doesn’t require her to have faith in either the man or God. (Now she could turn her boiled yoke into liquid again but that is a task for God cause can’t no human make that happen! Ain’t God miraculous?!) Most likely those women who wanted “independence” are women who are already cracked and feel themselves about to break or have been broken too many times before and want to prevent it again. Too bad they don’t realize THEY can’t. The situation, relationships, spiritual connections (wanted or unwanted), is much bigger than them. Ok, so now the woman has decided, allowed herself, to be a part of the cake. One could argue that now she has vanished in the sea of pound cake and lost herself. Her individuality. But not so fast. If it weren’t for the egg the cake wouldn’t stay together. If it weren’t for the egg you wouldn’t be able to taste the heaviness the thickness the texture of the cake (maybe vanilla flavor could be used in this instance..gotta taste the vanilla flava!). Some of her is gone. The shell. But she doesn’t really need it anymore so she doesn’t miss it. One can’t quickly decipher the eggs just by looking at the cake but we know its there. People don’t just see eggs anymore. They see a cake. When people see him they see cake. They see one flesh. And being a cake it great. But being a cake comes with its trials and tribulations.

Melissa Crum wroteat 3:41pm on August 8th, 2008
You gotta go through a blender/mixer, get crammed in a pan, just stuck in an oven in less than desirable heat. All the while compromising with these other ingredients, this man, trying merge successfully. After a while the cake comes out, cools off, and is ready to be presented to the world. All I am arguing against, and don’t think we differ that much, is the egg NEEDING to be a part of a cake. It felt as if the argument was that people are walking around day after day hoping and longing to be a part of a cake and I think that is a sad existence. It felt as if dependant relationships were being presented as THE way to be happy and I just can’t believe that God created all of us to wander around looking, longing for another human. That’s feels against God. Anti-God. Wondering around incomplete believing that another human can complete you. Maybe we can agree to disagree.These comment things need to be longer!

My declaration of knowledge, wisdom, clarity for my life and future journey

“Life may not be the party that we hoped for, but we might as well dance”

“Vision - Action = Observation. Don’t be a spectator be a facilitator of change”

“Follow Your Dreams but First Wake Up!!!”

“The measure of your life will not be what you accumulate but in what you give away”

“Well behaved women never make history”

“Mistakes and struggles are ingredients for character”

“Love yourself. If you don’t, there’s no guarantee that anyone else will.”

“Knowledge does not equal wisdom”

“Life is a series of reality checks to help one gauge the differences of the superficial and the truth”

“Education is the realization of one’s owe ignorance and the man who understands that is wise”

“Your everyday walk is your prayer”

“Joy is different from happiness. Joy is everlasting through good and bad times. Joy will allow you to move through trials and tribulations. Happiness comes and goes.”

“Never let anyone or anything steal your joy”

“Rebuke the spirit of complacency”

“You can cause angels to leave your presence by the conversation you engage in. Angels can’t be around negativity”

“Sinful people link up with sinful people in order to validate their feelings and acts.”

“Lust is never satiated”

“Many people don’t see miracles because of their negativity”

“God can not use those who ‘un-believe’ with faith going up and down”

“You can appear to be dying and it can really be a resurrection”

“Can’t get the devil out if you are hold on to him”

“People have a tendency to try to bring you down to their level”

“Carnal minds can’t understand spiritual things”

“Everyday is an experience, be sure to learn from it”

“I refuse to take this friendship as a consolation prize for a failed relationship”

“People always know what they don’t know”

“Where you end up is based upon where you are in your faith”

“If you tap into the greater things in faith the smaller things are automatic”

“Negative things in your life are meant to kill the “you” that you know in order to create the “you” that God knows”

“The wicked rejoices in aniquity. Cover aniquity with love. Deal with it in the spirit to block the enemy”

“Faith requires submission”

“One can go through religious motions with out spiritual change”



I Will
I will speak what I want into existence
I will surround myself with positivity and relay positivity
I will use what I have been blessed with to bless others
I will focus on my program and be the best
I will not let the negativity of my past effect my development
I will not let discouragement effect my life
I will not let what I can’t control, control me
I will not let the devil have reign over my life
I will be the best that I can be in every facet and aspect of my life

What I know
I know that God had given me freedom and I will be judged on how I used that freedom

I know that I am not perfect and mistakes will be made but I have to always regroup and focus on the One who gives me strength daily

I know my mind body and soul are temples and the managing of them reflect the dedication to my being

I know that the devil only has the power that I gave him

I know every relationship is another avenue for self-understanding and self-preservation

I know if I am to be a trophy I need to be one in all aspects – mind body and soul

I know that I have a destiny that I will never know until the end

I know that every thing I do has a multi-faceted purpose

I know that I have been placed on this earth for a purpose unbeknownst to me. I have been created by the ultimate creator and GOD DON’T MAKE NO JUNK!

Preparing the soda to be poured down the sink…it’s necessary.

Ok, something that I left out. J has a girlfriend. A relationship that, according to him, might end up being an "open relationship." Hearing him talk about his girlfriend makes him sound unsure about his relationship. An unsurety that I felt in our situation. Now this isn't me just coming up with old feelings from the past and bring them to the present for no reason. This may be a personality trait of his that I find problematic. He tells me now he has always cared for me but never officially made me his girlfriend even though we did relationship type things, (I met most of his family, his sister said I was only the second female he has brought to meet the family, for many years he came to my families Thanksgiving, attended my mom's wedding, visited Langston and bought him gifts etc etc). Recently, after his ride to the festival dipped on him, he caught a bus and stayed with me and Cam for the weekend. But what I am I to make of all of this? I believe a man goes for what he wants. A friend told me about the "He's Just Not That into You" and it is a tough revelation but I think J just is "not that into" me. Damn that sucks. Seriously, here I am pouring my heart out being, supportive being his friend, letting him know how much I care about him and he has even mention the possibility of us being together? On top of that, it sounds like he isn't too sure about this current girlfriend. I don't know about that though. Maybe he is. I can't worry about that though. I know that I was clear about I felt. I always have. I think I fell too hard and a TRULY wish I didn't. I'm back to wishing all of this would go away. The only difference now it that I can't make him out to be the bad guy. But I can go back to how I felt before. He cares for me, but not enough. Not nearly as much as I care for him. Damn that sucks. Well, what can I say. I love him. Probably will for a long time but I'm get over it.

You know it could be, I could be TOO open for him. I happened to read my horoscope today and some more info on Sagittarius.

The Sagittarian In Love

Sagittarians love any new form of sexual expression that challenges and excites them. Both tolerant and eager to please, THEIR HONESTY CAN SOMETIMES PROVE TOO MUCH FOR THOSE WHO PREFER A MORE MYSTERIOUS, OR VEILED APPROACH TO LOVE. Sagittarians are best involved with a steadier, stronger personality, who can understand their need for independence, yet still be there after an occasional flair of temper. Their frank and open motives are often misunderstood, threatening to more subdued signs. Although they hate to be tied down, they are willing to experiment with all manner of relationship styles. As long as their partner is able to keep up with their wide-ranging interests and is prepared to come up with new experiments in lovemaking (and certainly does not mind them doing the same), their relationship will be exciting and reasonably long lasting. Mutual honesty is the key to success for the Sagittarian.

Outside of all of that extra stuff, the second sentence really stood out to me. Maybe I'm being too honest. Too open. But that's me. I'm all about being as clear as I can be. But maybe I need to rethink who I need to be open with. But at the same time I have no regrets about saying how I feel. Being true to my sign I am "frank and open". This is me. And I like me. Love me.

I was hoping to hear from J but deep down I was really hoping to hear what I wanted to hear. So, what am I to learn from all of this not that I realize that J and I are not meant to be and I no longer have anger towards him?

So did we re-connect? I think it was for me to no longer have anger in my heart for him. Now I can end this the right way. I don't think he is the man for me. And I am not the woman for him. I have to be more careful of who I allow to enter into my heart. God says, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life" Proverbs 4:23.

I sent him a letter. Rather I sent him a link to my previous post about him and asked him for his thoughts. I haven't received a reply. He hasn't called. But at the end of the day, he has a girlfriend and he's just "not that into me." I believe he cares for me as a friend. We had a good time in the city but my inclinations for years ago still stand true today. We don't care for each other equally and that's ok. Because now I understand and I can work on removing him from my heart without malice as the force.

Here are some thoughts. A friend sent this to me. I have highlighted all the things that pertain to this situation:

SOLID, SPIRITUAL ADVICE ON MEN
A more important question is - how do you catch the RIGHT one?
Simple: You take only the bus that's headed in the RIGHT DIRECTION.

First we must allow our Heavenly Father to do the picking. And
second, the decision for a mate must be made on a spiritual and
intellectual basis before it's made on an emotional one.

"What about love? Shouldn't that be the third?", you ask. No, and I'll tell you why.
"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (Jer 17:9). The heart is willful and is driven by its own agenda. It does not consider things rationally and intelligently it just loves to love! Therefore you have to point it in the right directions: Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life"(Proverbs 4:23).

Whenever you meet a man, you need to get clearance from God, check out
his attributes, and then allow your heart to engage.

Dating exists not for mating; it exists for collecting data. I
believe that the biblical design would be friendship, courtship and then
marriage. Friendship is two people walking together in agreement and
accountability, learning and growing together.

Courtship follows the mutual agreement to commit to one another
exclusively - it is in the decisive turning toward the agreed-upon goal
of the marriage altar. It is a period of laying a foundation and
preparing your life together after marriage. But dating? Well, if you do
date, use the time wisely to gather facts:

1. Check out the fabric. Is the person mate material? Does this
man have an intimate relationship with the Father through Jesus
Christ? Does he care what God thinks about his behavior? Is he accountable to God as
well as another co-laborer in the faith? Accountability is an important
factor. It is imperative to maintaining a committed relationship. Is your
potential spouse a member of the same family - the family of God? Scripture is
clear on this: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.

For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what
fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). You need
to have common interests and values and agree on the essentials of living day to
day. You have a similar spiritual walk. You eat the same spiritual diet.
You enjoy a lot of similar things. You have like interests, like goals in
life, like opinions on basic life issues. You have had like experiences in
your background. Though there is some truth to the idiom that opposites
attract, like-minded folks fare better together. Furthermore, does he want to get
married? If you want to be married and your dreamboat isn't interested,
don't waste your time. Remember, women fall in love and get married.

Men decide to get married and then look for a wife. Note the
difference in order. So if a guy says he's not looking for anything
serious, take his words seriously. If he's not going in your direction,
get off the bus & wait for the right one.

2. Does this man want you? Is he pursuing you? The man who
is right for you will pursue you, and God's hand in the relationship will be
clear. No guessing, no fleeces, no dead ends. Scripture says: "He who
finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord" (Prov
18:22). Note - who finds whom? THE MAN FINDS THE WIFE. From the
beginning of time, God has transported men & women across the world in order to put them together.

At the RIGHT TIME, He will bring that man on the scene and he
will find you. In God's perfect design, the man is the one who recognizes his
mate. Adam has no problem recognizing that Eve was his missing rib. You
do not need to strategically place yourself anywhere. You don't have to
help a guy out because he's shy! Men will do whatever they have to do to get
what they truly want. The man in your life should recognize you as the pearl
of great price in his life and be willing to do whatever he must in order
to gain your hand.

If he is passive about gaining your affections, take it as a sign that he is not interested.

Many a woman's mother has suggested that
it is a good idea to marry a man who loves you more than you love him. As
cold as that sounds, it actually might be scriptural if you stop to think
about it:

"We love him because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Until
then, take the ultimate chill pill. You don't need a bunch of men in your
life to make you feel all right about yourself. You need only one
man your man, the one God has selected to select you. And trust me, the right
man at the wrong time can be just as awful as the wrong man at any
time. So trust God's timing in this. He is the ultimate matchmaker.
Relax, sit pretty and allow yourself to be found. Again - WAIT until
the man voices his intentions. He should take the lead in establishing
the relationship. You may have an inkling that he is the one, but God will
use the man to set the tone of the relationship. Allow him the opportunity
to woo you - this is your first act of submission. Jesus set the standard
for all men to follow. They should love us first. And they should lead the
relationship.

3. The man in your life should not desire to move into your house, only into your heart. A man who prepares for your future has made his intentions clear. A man who is husband material has the means to take care of a wife. He is a responsible human being who understands he needs to have something to offer. In short, a man should have the means to be a suitable lover for you.

4. Check out his buddies. Everyone knows birds of the same
feather flock together, yet most women fail to see the connection between a man and his friends. A man's pals tell you a lot about the person that you haven't seen yet. They reveal things about the guy's character that might be hidden when he is on good behavior. Everyone knows how to put his best foot forward. Don't stay focused on the foot, checkout the rest of the body!

5. Check out his relationship with his mother. How does he treat
her? This is your preview of how he will treat you. There are
lots of men who, because of a negative relationship with their mothers,
really don't like women, yet say they do. Unresolved issues between mother and son continue between husband and wife.

6. Remember that a man's family reveals the cloth from which
he's cut. Take note and decide whether you want your future with the man
in your life to look like his present family situation.

7. Check out the patterns of his life. Do you see repeated
cycles of drama in his personal kingdom? broken relationships?
problems in making commitments? including the job market? mood swings? Is a problem
always someone else's fault? Does he embrace responsibility or
shirk it? Does he keep his promises? Is he a man of good reputation? Remember
all garments look wonderful hanging in the store, but with wear,
some begin to unravel. Give yourself time and space to check out the man in your life.
Time will always reveal whether or not he is made of the right stuff.

8. Does this man have a vision for his life? Is he running with
that vision? Remember, God decided Adam needed help once Adam got
busy DOING his assignment. As we saw Adam, a man doesn't need help
until he is busy doing what he was created and called to do. Is the man
in your life guided by sense of destiny and purpose, or does he just allow
life to happen around him?
A man who is not certain of his mission can be a
most miserable person - and you'll be miserable too if you don't know where YOU
want to go in life. A man who has vision is not intimidated by a woman whose
mission statement is clear. He will be your best ally, cheerleader and assistant
because he wants you both to make it! A man who cannot be supportive of
your achievements because he is floundering in a sea of uncertainty over his
own life is not a healthy partner to have and to hold forever. Creating
dependencies or feelings of obligation is not the way to get the best
out of your man. Somewhere along the way, he will resent you and flee from the
smothering burden of obligation he associates you with. You want a man who
is firmly anchored in his identity in Christ. Remember, we are
looking for a man who will be priest and leader of his home. His first
instinct should be to want to cover you, redeem you, and provide for you. Your job is to
decide if this is the man God has ordained for you to complement.

9. Complementary. Do your talents and gifts complement his? Do
his gifts complement yours? What about your temperaments? Do you see the two
of you as an effective team capable of bringing blessing to the lives of
those around you? Do your futures mesh? Can you coordinate your gifts in an
attractive and effective way? This is why knowing your purpose is so
important.
Make sure your hearts beat for mutual causes. When I go
shopping I always consider the fabric, the fit and what I already have in my
closet. Will my next purchase be a complementary addition to what I already
have? If I find that I am going to have to buy shoes and matching accessories to
go with a new outfit, I leave it right on the rack. It is too expensive a
proposition. If the man you meet makes you feel that you need to
completely reinvent yourself, something is wrong. This is where I ask you to
consider the relationship in terms of cost. Is this relationship expensive
spiritually, emotional or physically?

Does your longing for a mate make you willing to forfeit who you
are in the process? Or does he see you as the gift that you are?
The man in your life should consider you a rare find, a priceless
jewel-because of you he is getting ready to get blessed big-time! Any
relationship that causes you to feel unworthy, unlovely, unacceptable, undesirable
or that you have to work for love, is TOO EXPENSIVE! God has called the man to
cover, protect and provide not only materially for a woman, but
emotionally and spiritually as well. You should be richer in mind, body and spirit
for your union with the man of your dreams. The man in your life should make
rich deposits into your heart and spirit, not withdrawals.

10. Does he have a healthy love & acceptance of himself?
Make sure the man in your life has taken time to heal from past relationships
and has made peace with himself. How he cares for himself is how he will
care for you. A man's relationship with God is crucial here. His love
for himself will only be as strong as his love for God. This is not
something that you can impart. You cannot be his savior or
teacher. That is out of spiritual order. In his rightful place as your personal
priest, he should be leading you to a richer relationship with Christ. If he is
causing you to compromise your faith and destabilize your walk, if he is leading
you into sexual sin or causing you to be distracted from your commitment to
Christ, the relationship is too expensive. Offending the Lover of your
soul, who promises you eternal love, is too high a fare to pay for a ride that
has a limited run. If you and your man can't soar in the Spirit, when the
force of your love for another is tested by the pull of gravity of the world,
your union will not be able to survive. So you decide. How much is your life
worth? How much is your love worth? You will be able to accept only
what you believe you deserve. God himself calculated the worth of your love
and decided it was worth His life. He now pledges you His love for eternity.
Yes, Jesus sets the example for all others to follow when He paid a
ransom for His bride. Should you expect less from a mortal man?

Throughout the Biblical age, men were willing to pay the cost for the hand that they desired.

The truth of the matter is, everyone knows that anything worth having, costs. And no one gets a ride in this life for free.

Another Thought about Soda...

Ambivalence might be too strong of a word. I feel the fizz dying down. This feels better. Time to get some clarity of mind.

Thoughts about Soda...

That last post was cathartic. I feel ambivalence setting in.

Volatile Cola: Where to Pour it?

I feel so confused. Frustrated. Aggravated. Helpless. It's the weirdess most uncomfortable feeling. I don't like it. I just came from the festival few days ago. This sucks. This attachment love crap. Whatever it is. Anyway I met up with J in the city. I wasn't sure what I was going to feel when I saw him. I hadn't seen him in about a year. Would he look the same? I look different than what I did a year ago. He told me he hadn't seen anyone from back home in a while so he didn't know how he was going to feel either. Ashley and I met him at the bus station. He looked the same. Still attractive. He cut all of his hair off. I didn't have a huge rush of romantic emotions. I felt comfort. Relaxed. Like returning to a place you once knew. You have familiarity because you've been there before. You remember being there years ago but it also feels new because it's been so long since you've been there. I was happy to see him.

As the weekend progressed I realized a bunch of other feelings happened. Showed up unexpectedly. Not only did I have the same "storybook" ideas of us rekindling a relationship but also all of the negative feelings I felt when we were together. It was my protective shield coming back. Me subconsciously finding any little things that might remind me of all the characteristics I felt he had and the ones I placed on him erroneously. I feel like I am way too vulnerable with him. I don't like it. Because I don't think or I don't know if he will or can handle me with care. Beyond my (slightly) tough exterior is a lot of mush. You have to handle mush carefully. I feel like I trusted him with my internal being before and he trampled all over it. Not purposefully. It just felt that way. It's hard to explain. With his family, money issues, school, and working third shift he had a lot going on with little time for me. He said he didn't really know then, how to include me properly, nor did he feel like he had the time or energy to nurture our relationship. But interestingly, now that I understand why he did such things (unknowingly) it doesn't make the negative way I felt go away. It still hurts. I still feel I need to protect myself. I feel like I have to put on an extra tough emotional shield because the ways I felt that he hurt me was unintentional. It like who knows what he is going to do or say thinking its to make the situation better and it results in me feeling worse. But this "unintentionalness" makes me want to stop saying "he hurt me". Because I could apply that phrase to Langston's father. He outright made conscious efforts to be absolutely horrible to me. I don't feel J has done that. I don't feel like he has ever done that. I felt hurt in our relationship but it is hard to place the entire blame on him. Many of the things going on in his life at the time was out of his control and I also feel like he hasn't learned how to express his feelings…his emotions, which allowed him to distance himself from me.

Ok, so now I don't feel so much like the victim. A casualty from a not so great situation from the past but not a victim. I stated in a previous post that I think I was more attached to J than loved him. This is where stuff starts getting confusing, weird, frustrating. First I must say, I believe that every time we are intimate or more so have sex with someone we deposit a piece of ourselves in the other person and that other person deposits a piece of their spirit in us. The more we are intimate with them, the more of them we have in us. That's why when we see an old flame there is something in us that moves. Tingles. Reacts. Butterflies. They are in there. In you. Because J is the person I have been the most intimate with and allowed myself to be the most vulnerable with I feel like he is taking up a whole lot of spiritual space in me. This creates the attachment. But I don't know that if the strong feelings I have are because of the deposits or I really love him or both. Do they work in tandem? You can have one without the other but I don't know how each feels separately (being attached or being in love). I can't say I have cared for any other man the way I have for J. I have cared for other men. Clarence would be the second strongest. I really cared (and still care) about Clarence. But the way I care about him now has changed. It's not in the romantic way that it was before. I think what helped was that I really realized how a relationship between he and I wouldn't work while recognizing that he is still and will always be a great guy. Kevin would be third. I feel like that was puppy love and more of a lust thing than anything else. I definitely saw how he and I could never be. But with J…I could see myself with J. What I did after we broke up was convince myself that he never really cared about me even when I had plenty of times that I could recall that spoke to how much he did care for me. But I wanted to believe that he wasn't good for me so that I could forget about him. Maybe I convinced myself too well. Up until now. Now I want to love him. But more so I want him to love me back. I don't like this feeling. I feel like closure is dependent on him. A part of me wants to tell him that I loved him then and still love him now and I want us to start over and be together. But I won't. Not blatantly. Why? Because I feel like I have exposed too much of myself, too much of my feelings thus far. But I still want him to know, although I feel like he already does. We had a talk while in the city. I feel like I have always been the one to be emotional and say how I'm feeling. He will say how he feels if I ask but he doesn't offer his feeling. Only time I remember him offerings his feelings was when he said he want us to be friends. But because he doesn't seem to express his feelings the same way I do it's hard to decipher if its strong, true, genuine. There are two problems with what I just said: First, why does everyone have to express their feelings the say I do? I have always said that I need to see my future husband cry at least once before we get married. Why? Because I need to know that he can and is willing to display a wide range of emotions. But after some more thought, I feel like its more about me not wanting to feel like the only vulnerable person in the relationship. How do I deal with someone who expresses themselves differently…a way I'm not used to? I feel like it has more to do with me not trusting J. Well, the feelings of me deeming J untrustworthy when I really wanted him to be the bad guy. I convinced myself that he was probably messing with somebody or many somebodies other than me when we were in a relationship. And decided that is why he was distancing himself from me. I couldn't think of any other reason at the time. I knew about what was going on in his life but I didn't think that was the reason. I feel like I was very selfish then. Or maybe more so scared and uncertain about a man I felt like a fell for too quickly. Although, all of those made-up characteristics I placed on him should be gone, they are still lingering in the background. The feelings are still hanging around.

The second is what makes me think that will be able to tell the authenticity of someone's feelings? I feel like I can feel other people's feelings. I can sense where someone is coming from. Which is why I could not completely convince myself that J was a bad guy because I did feel more great feelings than not so great ones. Then what am I expecting from him? To act like me? I don't want that. I'm looking for him to do something and I don't know what that is supposed to be. I just don't want to feel open and exposed anymore. I want to feel like he was/is just as emotionally invested as I was/am. He says cared for me then and does now but I don't know what is preventing me from completely embracing that. I think if I start really truly believing that J cared for me all this time and still does, then I will be opening myself up to a world of hurt. It like, I want the top popped on my shaken soda bottle of emotions but I don't want it to be initiated by him if he isn't interested embracing me fully. If the top is going to be popped and I know J isn't there to partake in all my feelings for him then I want to be the person who lets all of the shaken soda out and I direct the liquid down the sink, rinse out the empty bottle and prepare it for whatever, whomever, God wants to feel it with next. If I accept that J did and does care for me, then I feel like I will go back to feeling vulnerable and alone like I did once before. I would need him to put himself out there first. Tell me what he wants. Tell me how he feels. His vulnerability would make for a safe environment for me to openly and completely express my strong feelings for him. Or if he tells me he is not interested in forming a relationship that would be my signal to release the feelings I have. But because he hasn't done either of those things, I feel like all of these feelings I have for him are all bottled up inside and is causing frustration, anger, pain. My emotions feel volatile. Like I'm going to explode. It like a glass bottle of soda that has been shaken up. Open the lid with caution. Not that you will get hurt, but be ready. There is a lot of love and hurt in there. I just want the feelings (soda) to go away or be put to use. They need to be poured down the drain or J needs to start drinking. But is he thirsty…

So what am I supposed to do? How do I fix this? First I feel like I have given him too much power. This is crazy! He has the ability to affect my feelings and emotions and I don't like that. I feel like so much rests on whether or not HE decides to express is love for me ( I should say care because he never said love) or care for me, BUT even when he has demonstrated his affection it didn't suffice. It wasn't enough, I didn't understand it, or it wasn't in the form that I wanted. But that is ridiculous. Well it sounds ridiculous. Or maybe not so much. I feel like all of this is insecurity. Not insecurity about myself but insecurity in our interactions. I want to love him. Damn. But I'm scared that I going to end up feelings like once did. But why am I scared when he hasn't even mentioned him even thinking about getting in a relationship with me. Why should I care! This goes back to power thing. This doesn't feel good. So he can do one of three things: Tell me he wants to start a new relationship, blow me off, or says he wants to create a plutonic friendship. The second one feels like it would hurt, but one of two things would happen: I would back to thinking "see, I knew he really didn't care for me anyway" or I would take it in stride, the attachment would dwindle and it would be relatively easy to no longer deal with J anymore. The last option is a tough one. Especially given the bottled-up volatile emotional feelings I have for him. The whole time being his friend, I would be thinking of how I want to express my feelings towards him but couldn't because we were simply "friends". As for the first, in my head I would want the first.

I thought that if we were to decided to go back to a relationship and he treated me the way I need to be treated and I supported him the way he needs me to, then I would be able to actually feel that he cares for me and I would finally get the security I had been looking for in our relationship from before. It feels like I need him to prove to me that he cares for me. Is all of this about "fixing" the past, starting a new future or both? I'm at a standstill. I don't know how I am going to move forward with him. I feel I've been trying to convince myself of how I SHOULD feel and how I SHOULD handle J and I's situation but each attempt over the years has been unsuccessful. I feel like if he were to call me right now I wouldn't know what to say. I would still feel bottled up. I would be choosing my words carefully. Choosing my thoughts carefully, trying not to daydream about how I think we could be. This feels so stupid. Pointless is a better term. But not at the same time. Maybe because I feel like I should be able control this. I am told that God is not a God of confusion. What does that say about this situation? I feel like I either don't want him to ever call me again or call and profess his love for me (very storybook… I know). I don't think I can really deal with anything else. It's too difficult. Either option will allow me to have the space/opportunity/ability/support to do something with the carbonation in my cola bottle.

So did anyone watch CNN last night.....: an interesting conversation

On a listserve that I am on a number of people were talking about the Black in America special that aired. I read everyone's comments. This blog will start with my first comment and the rest is a dialouge that occur between one other person:

ME:

I have a few thoughts.
1) Because my research deals with imagery in media I believe there needs to be balance. But often times when Blacks say that they want balance, they would actually prefer 80% “positive” and 20% “negative”. But what often happens is Blacks don’t like to face some of the ugliness that comes with being Black in America. What is deemed “positive” is all the values that are associated with white middle class standards. Why is that? Why haven’t we re-evaluated our measuring stick? I have heard many people say “we shouldn’t have our dirty laundry aired for the world (white world) to see.” Well where are we to air this laundry? I heard someone say in a workshop or lecture. But one of the issues with that, is that that solution follows a middle class standard. One the issue with the Black Civil Rights movement was that it was a middle class movement. When would, let’s say, the single parent father with two kids, or the woman with health problems have times to go to a seminar? How many whites would you know take time out of there day to go to a seminar on Blacks and it didn’t pertain to their jobs? How often have you gone to a workshop or seminar on a whim? Workshops often times don’t work. As a director once said, film is the new literature meaning people get most (if not all) of their information from television. I believe this is the best medium to grasp a large and diverse audience. Then one could argue to put the special on BET but that doesn’t mean non-blacks don’t watch BET. I don’t understand how people think there is some Black inside track of communication where we can discuss issues. Even if we had seminars where would they be? What city? Would it be free? How do other people weigh in on the issues? If we are going to offer solutions we need to think about the logistics. As for balance within the program, I don’t really understand why people keep saying there isn’t a balance. In the 1st episode, they talked about the family would owned the company multiple times. They used them as a case study to talk about the increase of Black businesses, increase of Blacks in college since Brown vs. Board. They talked about the little brother is a pastor and how they acquired the business from the wife’s father which shows a legacy of Black entrepreneurship. In the second section the talked about Michael Eric Dyson’s history and the man with the three sons. The woman with “marry your baby daddy day” trying to get Black families together and the couple who were a part of that program. They showed black people doing their best like the black man trying to find a low income job, the single father with the two kids and single working multiple jobs. The “negative” situations were briefly shown. The boy who didn’t go back to high school and the pregnant woman with twins and the dead-beat baby daddy. They also brought up some interesting things that I wasn’t excepting (I was excepting a 2008 Moyihan Report), the research on blacks having less of a chance in attaining a low-income job and the social issues with Black skin color (light-skinned or dark skinned) and life chances. Why do we so easily forget the positive when it scares us in the face? I think don’t like to face the negativity. Let’s face and find solutions.
2) Paying kids to learn. I’ve worked with “at-risk”, “under-privileged” youth and it is interesting on some of their take on education. I have had students tell me, “I need to drop out of school so I can go work” they don’t want to take a shower in cold water because the electric/gas bill wasn’t paid. They are tired of moving. For me, my mom was the first in our family to go to college. I remember going to class with my mom at UF. I saw that my mom made more money that most of the low-income people in my family. For me, I could see that good grades paid off. What about the student that doesn’t? What about the student that does, but can’t worry about getting an A on the next test because the food stamps were stopped about the department job and family services found out the mother had a job thus no longer meeting the 142% below the poverty level requirement (and in many states like Ohio 142% is NOT an exaggeration.) Statistics show (and I believe it was mentioned in the segment) that Blacks students being to become disinterested in school at 4th grade. Therefore the experiment is happening at just the right age. We have to stop thinking that we can or will think like us. We have to think beyond what we want and what we think is right. It would be great if all people initially saw education as some gift that keeps on giving but it is challenging when the gift isn’t easily attainable or the benefits it’s supposed to reap.
3) Is marriage necessary? What conclusions are being drawn? Who says marriage equals stability with the 50% divorce rate? Who decided this was necessary? Where is the study that talks about Black men being absent from homes? Is that conclusion drawn by the number of unmarried couples? If so, that is very problematic.

RESPONSE:

Wow Melissa. You spoke on so many things that I thought about but you put an new spin on them. I didn't see the entire first episode so I cannot comment on it too much. I do want to respond to your comment about education. Both you and Talaina pointed out reasons supporting the initiative that are in line with the intended objective. I have spoken to a few people about this same topic and people seem to leave out the unintended consequences. For exampleLets say (and this is going on in several counties) you are working at a job that you love dearly and making good money. One day your boss comes in and says, we aren't going to pay you anymore. What would you do in this situation? Stay at the job or leave?An added twist. Say at this job you could not quit because of a contract and there would be sever consequences if you did leave. What would you do?Now think of this situation from the perspective of someone else, an Average American person and a low income person. If you could not leave and you were no longer getting paid, would you still be motivated to work? Would your performance level be the same?I posed this situation to you to ask, as I did with Talaina but didn't get a response. In this experiment every child will NOT get a financial incentive, so what happens with the kids that are not getting the money? would this encourage more cheating and steeling? So as Talaina mentioned, this initiative mirrors real life especially in the sense that this initiative has the potential to create a social order similar to society. The haves and the have nots, low middle and high class. Can you imagine what the social setting of the school would be, and how the safety of the kids could be challenged? Now it could be a good social experiment and these kids are very aware of the social structure that exists is society, but is school an appropriate place for them to experience this first hand too, like adults do with actual money, not just what kids wear, parents drive, etc.The intention of the program is to motivate kids to learn, but are they really learning? What happens when these kids go to a different school? Going through my education programs they always warn us about incentives. they should be meaningful, should be something the kids want, and should not be something that if they don't get the incentive they will not perform the task. Think of Pavlov's dogs, when they weren't getting the food, they stopped salivating. When the treats were taken away the behavior was modified.there is a lot of research out there, and was briefly mentioned on the program, that these types of reward systems do not work all of the time, and the ration of working to not working is in favor of not working. Jeffrey Pheffer wrote a book called What Were They Thinking and in it he talks about companies who cut salaries and benefits. He documented the risks and the ineffectiveness of doing this. (I bring this up to illustrate what could happen if the incentive isn't consistent and continuous). In this book he also talks about the effects of reward systems and how they work and where they fail. Deborah Stone wrote Policy Paradox And Political Reason and in this text she too spoke about the potential dangers with incentives and rewards programs.Again I am not disagreeing with your opinion on why it works and why it would be beneficial, I just feel there are several pieces of this puzzle that haven't been addressed in our discussions.

ME:

Well, I don't think anything is a guranteed solution. First, I was rewarded for good grades but I didn't stop striving for them. When you received an allowance for cleaning your room, after you left home did you stop cleaning? And if money isn't a good idea and won't achieve anything, how well have gold stars done in the hood? He is very careful to places this program in cities where the black population and drop out rates is high which is in low-income communities. If students are choosing work over school because they need money AND they dont see themselves in the ciriculum then not only does the work need to change but also the incentive. School reflects society. It is in school that students learn the social hieracrhy in their society (reinforced by rewards standards and circiculum choices). If its not money then its, lets say, who receives the most gold stars this week. Who ever have five gets an ice cream party. Whats the difference. There are still haves and have nots. But when you live in harlem (or columbus ohio) like the woman in the segment who has to drive/walk/taxi and hour to get to a tomato, that ice cream party does more harm than good.
As for the hypothetical, I think it is slightly flawed because no child is in a contract to stay in school. If they were there wouldn't be a drop out rate and this program wouldn't be necessary. The thing is children (esp. not in the program) aren't seeing benefits of school which is why they are leaving. Not only do they have to spend time in school but they have spend additional time studying. It is not a coincidence that the age students are dropping out is working age (15, 16, high school age) because they can legally work.
Yes, if the stuents changes schools she/he would reap the monetary benefits. But the hope is, just like your allowance or the Barbies i received for good grades, that the monetray benefits they received in fourth grade they will except it to translate in to a lucrative job.Its about making a connections. Most people dont go to school simply because its fun, often times its because of money. "I will get my masters ot PhD because I know not only will I be more knowledgeable but I will get a 10,000 pay increase." kids is middle and upper class home recognize it at an early age, why cant we do something for the students who are in a runt and cant see the "scholastic" forrest for the "underclass" trees. There is not one solution for everyone, so we have take ALL of the circumstances in each section/region/school/hood and start making connections between school, students' present everyday lives and the futures they are having problems seeing clearly.

RESPONSE:

I would like to start this by saying that I am throughly enjoying this conversation. You have challenged my thinking in a way that is making my head work in overdrive. Do you mind if I share this convo with some of the people I go to school with? I would love to hear their perspective on our points.As for the hypothetical, after reading what you wrote I think I missed a part. I didn't see the part where the program was being initiated for students who were also about 16. I thought it was for upper elementary and middle school, so those are the groups of kids I am referring to. The contract portion was in reference to the fact that kids cannot officially drop out of school before the age of 16, so the are essentially locked into going to school. So he continues this program though gradation from HS? Does he teach them about money management? (actual questions to get more information, not sarcasm)I hear all of your points, and I am still thinking some of them over. But I was never a child who was "rewarded" monetarily nor with gifts for good grades, or chores. My family tried to drill in the point that these are things that we are supposed to do. This is the perspective that I am looking at this incentive initiative. I live in Harlem and I understand and see why such a program is beneficial and important. But what does this teach our kids? Will it still really teach them about what they are supposed to do and keep high levels of expectations for them? Should there be an money reward for coming to school (tried in NY and they are getting rid of that program), staying out of jail, no doing drugs. I'm not convinced that kids will develop the understanding that somethings are not right to do and that somethings don't need a reward. I'm no saying this would be the effect with all kids, but the ones that are doing well and getting the money are probably the kids that would have done well anyway but needed an extra push. I agree with incentive programs for these kids, but not that kind of money and not as often as they do it. As for the bed thing, I do believe kids would stop doing it (not all but some) Because in my house I am supposed to make the bed in the morning, did it in HS, I stopped sleeping on beds when I visit with my parents becasue I hate making the beds (lazy I know LOL!) But the premise is, I don't have to do it so why. I am afraid students will also develop a smilar attitude with school. You are right, there isn't a motivation for school right now, especially with all the racist testing, horrible curriculum, underfunding and lack of quality/qualified/certified teachers in school. I am coming at this from the angle that if these issues were worked on, students will develop the interest int learning. (as for the PH.D comment, I agree that a lot of people do it for more money, but The people in my program are not in it for a pay increase. We are in it to make a difference in education. sounds very trite and save the worldish I know, but it is true. For what I want to do I do not need a PH.D and I would get to my goal sooner if I didn't go through it.)schools mirror society as you said, but do the students need to experience these social structures as blutly as they are out there in society in school. For some kids school is a refuge, a place where they can get away from their reality. I love the way you verbalized the connections issue, this is something we discuss in classes a lot. there is a lack of connection to the real world for some/most kids. There are several education "scholars" that are trying to figure this out but i am kind of frustrated because the issue seems so clear to me. the way teachers talk to low SES students is deplorable. they talk to their students as thought there is no hope for them and that they are only in school because they have to be (students and teachers). A change in tone and direction is what all kids need. In upper middle class families, like you said, have a different understanding of what needs to be done to be successful. The teachers are their gatekeepers meaning they give these kids more and different information that is given to other kids. i believe this too needs to get changed (along with what your are saying about PHD programs etc.) this is where I see the most problems with education and why I have such a strong conviction about this initiative, it will work, these types of incentive programs often do, but I am still worried about all the other issues around education that this type of initiative cannot address and cannot fix. Education is designed for the white middle class kid, as are the assessments. Like you were saying about standards, all students are assessed and judged on these random generic standards. I feel that this guys initiative reinforces this. Practical, but I don't like this idea. Society has been getting more and more materialistic and capitalistic and I fear what will happen to kids. (remember when you learned something for a test. Do you remember it a week later? often times not, because it isn't real learning.) Also when I talked about kids moving I was referring to students who move from a reward school to a non reward school. What happens then? Again what happens to the kids that don't get the money because they didn't make the grade? As for the other reward systems you mentioned, they are similar but not money. Money is money and people respond to it differently than a star. I hear you, the two systems are analogous and have the same basic benefits and drawbacks.I read this in a book and thought it was interesting. the book was taking about education policy and leadership and had this image of a pink elephant in the room. Depending on your position in the room is the perspective in which you see the elephant. You cannot see entire elephant from one position in the room, so you need to mover around to get multiple perspectives.This elephant thing wasn't a preaching type of thing I was trying to illustrate that I see why an initiative like this is needed and why it works. So I moved to a nother position in the room and I am seeing other things that i didn't see from the first position on the room.

ME:

i am going to go through your responses and questions:
Do you mind if I share this convo with some of the people I go to school with?
That sounds great. No problem. It would interesting to see how it goes.

As for the hypothetical, after reading what you wrote I think I missed a part. I didn't see the part where the program was being initiated for students who were also about 16. I thought it was for upper elementary and middle school, so those are the groups of kids I am referring to.
African-centered pedagogy states that black students become disinterested in school in the 4th grade, which is why the money for grades program is using upper elementary students. Their detachment from school manifests in their dropping out of school later on, usually high school. That is what the program is trying to be prevented. Their dropping-out often happens when their 15, 16, high school age because that is when they can get a job legally. In other words, many students are just holding out in school until they can get a job and acquire the money they and their family need/want.

The contract portion was in reference to the fact that kids cannot officially drop out of school before the age of 16, so the are essentially locked into going to school. So he continues this program though gradation from HS? Does he teach them about money management? (actual questions to get more information, not sarcasm)
No one is locked into going to school. If so, no one would be dropping out. There are some drawbacks for dropping out early like not getting a license but that obviously isn't stopping the dropout rate. To my understanding he doesn't continue the money 4 grades program through HS.
And it would be great to teach them money management but the ultimate goal is to prevent the students from dropping out and for them to see the connection between money and education. Money management is another can of worms. Even adults/college students/ grandparents dont even know how to manage their money. Can't conquer everything at once and if they tried it simply wouldn’t be smart. Also money management is also a middle class issue. If you dont have discretionary/extra income then there isn't anything to manage. If all your money is going to food and rent what is there to manage? That is one of the issues of being poor. And that is the type of students in the program. We have to get out of middle/upper class thinking. The issue isn’t what angle we look at the pink elephant it’s what lenses are we using. The lense determines our perception. After of realize we are using, classist, racist, sexist, ageist, and/or gender-bias glasses, and check ourselves, then we can start circling the elephant and make some real-life evaluations and holistic, well-informed decisions. Always using a middle class (assuming what worked for us will work from someone else) is ethnocentric and extremely problematic when we are trying to solve issues for people who did not grow up the way we did. Its important.

I hear all of your points, and I am still thinking some of them over. But I was never a child who was "rewarded" monetarily nor with gifts for good grades, or chores. My family tried to drill in the point that these are things that we are supposed to do. This is the perspective that I am looking at this incentive initiative.
But they didn't need to give you incentive it was staring you in the face. You grew up in a middle class home (I’m assuming your parents or people in your family went to college. correct me if I’m wrong. Or at least you saw the fruit of hard labor). You lived the benefits of a college education. You knew, saw, lived to possibilities of an education. What would have happened if you didn’t? If even the examples you did see (on tv in books etc) felt so out of reach that they didnt...i couldnt motivate you to do better in school? I have students who come to school hungry but see the drug dealer eating steak. I have girls who know they will have their own place in the projects or subsidized homes if only they have a child because you can’t get the housing, food stamps, Medicaid etc unless you are disabled or have kids. These are the people they see every day. Most likely not what we saw daily. It is extremely challenging to convince a child (my middle school students) to not get involved in the drug game (because they are too young to get a job anywhere else) not eat and live in poverty for about 5, 6, 7 more years so that maybe they can go to college (keep their grades up or they will have to pay) and hopefully get a job and THEN they can have some steak. In the mean time, they are hunger. Literally. And as they walk to school everyday, they are smell the New York strip beef and A1 sauce. Intrinsic award cant, WONT always top that. We have to try other things. Money for grades is one.

I live in Harlem and I understand and see why such a program is beneficial and important. But what does this teach our kids? Will it still really teach them about what they are supposed to do and keep high levels of expectations for them? Should there be an money reward for coming to school (tried in NY and they are getting rid of that program), staying out of jail, no doing drugs.
I think you are making it too complicated. If that was something being proposed in the money for grades program then that is something to discuss but its not. When we give hypothetical like paying people to stay out of jail is an attempt to make this one program more complicated that it is. Its rather simple. But if this plan works then hopefully all those other things will fall into place. I believe it was said in the segment that college educated or simply educated people are less likely to do drugs, have a criminal record etc. Also if students see the connection between a good livelihood and education then the goal is that they will go to school because they know there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm not convinced that kids will develop the understanding that somethings are not right to do and that somethings don't need a reward. I'm no saying this would be the effect with all kids, but the ones that are doing well and getting the money are probably the kids that would have done well anyway but needed an extra push. I agree with incentive programs for these kids, but not that kind of money and not as often as they do it.
I think there is a problem with assuming. You are assuming the students that are doing well was doing well before. You don’t know that. Over 10% of the prison population is gifted. So there is a good chance that a percentage of the students that drop-out are brilliant but there are extenuating circumstances that push them to leave school. There were students that were failing math but could change kilos of crack to dollars in minutes. There were students that were failing math but could explain to me the mathematic involved in the circumference of cars rims in relation to the type of car you have. These students know. They are brilliant! We just need to keep them in school so they can discover just how brilliant they are. AND hopefully satisfy their monetary needs. A big issue that is pushing them out. Years ago, 50, 60+ years ago black people were dropping out of school then. Why? Because their parents were sharecroppers, and if they didn’t get the seeds planted and harvested in time and pay their share to the white landowner, they were kicked off the land. Today its not much difference. How do keep the student home and in school? The under lying factor is money.

As for the bed thing, I do believe kids would stop doing it (not all but some) Because in my house I am supposed to make the bed in the morning, did it in HS, I stopped sleeping on beds when I visit with my parents becasue I hate making the beds (lazy I know LOL!) But the premise is, I don't have to do it so why. I am afraid students will also develop a similar attitude with school.
And they may. But even though you may say you are lazy, the goal of making your bed was not hard-work. The goal was cleanliness. If the goal was hard-work then your parents may have had you make everyone’s bed in the house or make your bed over and over again in the same day. But that wasn’t the goal. You may argue that you still aren’t that clean (I don’t know, just sayin) but I’m sure you understand what it means and says about someone who has a clean house (with a made bed). If you didn’t you wouldn’t think you were, lazy, unclean or anything else. You wouldn’t even think about it. You wouldn’t have a frame of reference because it wasn’t something you had to do. But the fact that you understand it is a neat thing to have your bed made is a large part of the goal your parents taught you. Its your choice to continue the chore. That’s the goal of the money for grades program. The goal is for students to recognize the link. Since education is tied to their livelihoods (unlike making their beds) the motivation to continue would ideally be stronger.

You are right, there isn't a motivation for school right now, especially with all the racist testing, horrible curriculum, underfunding and lack of quality/qualified/certified teachers in school. I am coming at this from the angle that if these issues were worked on, students will develop the interest int learning.
Again an assumption. Its easy to say that when a child has no other worries: where is my next meal coming from? We don’t have any money to wash clothes and kids keep picking on me. My mother/ father/ foster parent/grandmother else is abusing me. The lights are off again, how will I do my home work tonight especially since I have to babysit my little brother and sister until my mom gets home at 10pm. I have had students say such things to me. How do convince such a child to finish his algebra or be sure to type that essay by tomorrow ( I know you don’t have a computer just use the one in library…oh but you have babysit your siblings. Guess your hand-written essay will be scored less than you peers who types theirs). Why is it when students what to come to my after-school art/history class they have to bring their siblings too because they are responsible for them at 12 years old? How about we work on those issues. Are simply RECOGNIZE these extra issues and how they effects students in school. We have to get out of our MIDDLE CLASS thinking. We MUST remove the classist-ethnocentric lenses if we are EVER to move students forward. But we have to recognize that we have on the glasses first.

(as for the PH.D comment, I agree that a lot of people do it for more money, but The people in my program are not in it for a pay increase. We are in it to make a difference in education. sounds very trite and save the worldish I know, but it is true. For what I want to do I do not need a PH.D and I would get to my goal sooner if I didn't go through it.)
That’s fantastic but everyone isn’t like that. And everyone isn’t you. I sure you recognize that on the surface but maybe not internally. Especially if we often think people will think like us using the same method used on us (such as long as we keep drilling students about the importance of school they will eventually believe us). Even with your PhD program, you might not get a pay increase but one would argue that you would do your job better which equates to better quality work from you, which would equal job stability. If Florida was anything like Ohio, with that extra education, when jobs cuts come around, your extra education will save your livelihood. Education =money = better and sustained quality of life.

schools mirror society as you said, but do the students need to experience these social structures as blutly as they are out there in society in school.
They already experience it. We aren’t telling them anything new.
For some kids school is a refuge, a place where they can get away from their reality.
That’s the problem. School is too far from reality which is why students are detaching from the curriculum and not returning to school. It can be a refuge as far as maybe having lunch and other things but they still go home everyday. School needs to prepare students when they get home and leave the school.

A change in tone and direction is what all kids need.
They need much more than that. They get lip service all the time: teachers, tv, social worker etc. When something actually going to get done in the present.

but I am still worried about all the other issues around education that this type of initiative cannot address and cannot fix.
It’s not designed to fix everything. Nothing is. Its multiple things that have to work together. For example, There are people who were/are smart got thousands of dollars in scholarships for college and blew it all on whatever (liquor shopping whatever). Someone could argue that they should go through a budgeting class before they go to college and before they get their scholarship money. But that’s not the school’s goal. Their goal is not to teach them how to handle their money its rewarding them for their good work. A) What the difference between scholarships and the money for grades program? B) the school/foundation/organization or who ever gave the student money is not trying to cover all the possible bases that deal with the students reward. It would be absolutely great it they did but tell that to University of Florida, Ohio State, Alpha Kappa Alpha or anyone else who gives out scholarships a.k.a money for grades. Its not their goal. What they can do is point the students is another direction of a program/organization etc that does help students budget funds. Everybody has a separate role. Nobody can or should try to handle all issues at once and people that think it can happen often are not being very realistic.

Society has been getting more and more materialistic and capitalistic
Some would argue that it would be nice if we lived in a socialist country but we don’t its capitalist. And by teaching students that if that get an education that can acquire more money is a capitalist concept. More skills = more wealth/more capital, i.e. capitalism. Even by wishing that students have an innate desire to learn we would disappointed if they remained poor and read books all day. We would hope that they would become all that they can be CEO, entrepreneur, multi-millionaire…a capitalist. We live in capitalist system which is why these students are trying to be pushed to the bottom of the social, economic, and political latter. Capitalism doesn’t work unless a large group of people are at the bottom (the lower or "underclass”). So it is our job to teach them the society he live in and beat the odds in this capitalist world and understand the relationship between money, education, and society.

and I fear what will happen to kids. (remember when you learned something for a test. Do you remember it a week later? often times not, because it isn't real learning.)
That’s another assumption. African centered pedagogy says that as long as you relate the work/test to the students they will remember. That goes back to curriculum changes that reflect the students’ lives.

Also when I talked about kids moving I was referring to students who move from a reward school to a non reward school. What happens then?
We don’t know. All we can do is hope for the best. What happens when you leave a higher paying job for a lower one? Hope for the best. The program is designed for the students that stay at the school. You can’t account for the other students. It’s like you creating history curriculum on blacks in the civil war because you have majority black students who didn’t know anything about the subject and were really interested in it. But five of your students had to change a history class which is teaching European medieval pottery. Did you create a curriculum that took into account students that would be leaving you class? No, you created it based on the students that would be there. It would be great if they could stay and you knew it would be beneficial to them but that simply isn’t how things played out. So you can either worry about the students that left or really put all of your energy in the students you still have. I pick the latter.

Again what happens to the kids that don't get the money because they didn't make the grade? As for the other reward systems you mentioned, they are similar but not money. Money is money and people respond to it differently than a star.
Which is why the hope is that the students respond by staying in school and making the connection between money and education.

I hear you, the two systems are analogous and have the same basic benefits and drawbacks.
So why not choose the one with a variety of benefits and reflect the real-life lesson the students are in contact with already.

RESPONSE:

Wow Melissa! You have made me think of this in a new light. I feel as thought the things you mentioned are so clear as day. I know this guy is doing the program in NY and I think that I will try to scope it out when I get back and see how things unfold. I still have my reservations but you most def helped me see the elephant through a new lens and I feel as though I have moved to a different part of the elephant. What is most insulting is that some of the things you mentioned are some of the things that brought me back to school, and I couldn't see them when thinking of this initiative. I'm pissed with myself. My purpose in school is to help kids that are marginalized and left out in the white middle class school by looking at and eventually creating a culturally responsive school. This is what my research is going to be focused around. Can you send me some of the information of African Centered Pedagogy. I remember having students similar to yours and I as heartbroken because I had not idea what to do about it and there weren't many things in place at the school level to help kids with clean clothes, hunger, etc. Over time I figured out some things that I could do, but still I don't feel that it was enough. Your response to my issue with school issues underfunding, overcrowdedness, etc. really had me thinking. Am I being to idealistic? Although you said it was an assumption of mine to believe working on these things would help motivate kids, I agree whole heartedly, but I think it is worth a shot. You provided me wit the lens of looking at this initiative through the lens of the family and student, a very important lens, I feel like I have bifocals now. The assumption about the kids doing well in the program were doing well before wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the kids that are doing well no in the program are smart students who needed an extra push to really do well. Extra push being an incentive. I have had students who were boarder line but once they got an extra push they took off. I have had others that made significant improvements, but are still so far behind. Drop out: Technically kids cannot officially drop out before the age of 15 or 16 can't remember now. All sorts of people are sent out looking for the kids etc. granted this is theoretical, but it is what should be happening. We both know that it doesn't, but I wanted to put it into the hypothetical. This convo was great because we were both looking at the same issue through different lenses and different angles. I want to reread everything we have said and think about it and look at what we have said though my new bifocals.

Always using a middle class (assuming what worked for us will work from someone else) is ethnocentric and extremely problematic when we are trying to solve issues for people who did not grow up the way we did. Its important.

This is such and important issue. Though my career in education and education programs this has been a huge frustration and as you said problematic. off the topic of this incentive program, with the teaching force so dominated by white middle class women what could and should be done about this? I have been struggling with this in my research, practice, and life in general and when this topic comes up I usually don't have much to say because I don't know what to do or say about it. I can't expect a person that has never interacted with people different than them to have and understanding of the issues surrounding them or take themselves out of their reality.I don't know which topic this relates to but, since I got to UF I had issue with the way I was educated and the way others were. I was fortunate to go to a really good private school where the conversations in classes, college prep, and college advisory was so different than some of the people around me. I don't feel this is right. Even from pub. school to public school convos. are so different. I often feel that the upper mid, and upper class people have all of this knowledge and they do what they can to keep it to themselves and not share it with others and that shit pisses me off. i dream of some sort of a time where schools are not so vastly different (now talking about pub. schools) and students have the same basic opportunities and experiences. Utopic, probably, but I want to try to help in some way. Will this happen any time soon, Def. not prob not in our life time, but I think it is worth a shot. What do you think of my utopia?

ME:

What is most insulting is that some of the things you mentioned are some of the things that brought me back to school, and I couldn't see them when thinking of this initiative. I'm pissed with myself. My purpose in school is to help kids that are marginalized and left out in the white middle class school by looking at and eventually creating a culturally responsive school. This is what my research is going to be focused around.
It is easy and pretty intuitive to look at things the way we always have. We don’t know what we don’t know. But once we do know, what do we do about it. And if you do nothing, then that is when we should be pissed at ourselves. It’s hard when we see the problems with white middle class standards but we grew up in them and were judged by them and judged ourselves by them. It much more normal to us than we would like to think. It can be (is) challenging to step out of our skin and be as objective as possible but we really have to try. I commend you for trying on some new glasses. Now we have to ask ourselves what we going to do with our new vision and how are going to help other to trade in their glasses for some bifocals?

Can you send me some of the information of African Centered Pedagogy.

Two really good books are Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys by Jawanza Kunjufu. He has written tons of other books but I was drawn to this one because of Langston. He talks about education issues and over all social issues. I’ve heard great things about him from Afrocentric people. At the very least, it gives a new perspective that isn’t getting taught to teachers. Its a rather short book so you can get through it rather quickly. And African-Centered Pedagogy: Developing Schools of Achievement for African American Children (The Social Context of Education) by Peter C. Murrell Jr..I believe he is out of Northwestern. At least when this book was published. And The MisEducation of the Negro by Carter G. Woodson. Extremely powerful and I haven’t even finished it yet. It is also a short book and interestingly written in the 1930 but is unfortunately still relevant today.

I remember having students similar to yours and I as heartbroken because I had not idea what to do about it and there weren't many things in place at the school level to help kids with clean clothes, hunger, etc. Over time I figured out some things that I could do, but still I don't feel that it was enough. Your response to my issue with school issues underfunding, overcrowdedness, etc. really had me thinking. Am I being to idealistic?
I think it is idealistic people that are the only people who can make some really change. But the ability to be realistic with logistics of execution and a strong understand of the target audience (the children) is extremely necessary. Once idealism is coupled with realism things will happen organically. But we really need the realism. We have to understand the kids and get out of our own world.

Although you said it was an assumption of mine to believe working on these things would help motivate kids, I agree whole heartedly, but I think it is worth a shot.
I think just about anything is worth a shot, but if we have social, economic issues staring us in the face but we so desired for students to have a deep desire to learn on their own (or to think like us) who are we benefiting? The students or our own hopes and desires? We could be directing our energy towards the intrinsic goals but in the mean time we neglected or didn’t put as must passion and energy into the issues at hand that we end up doing a disservice to the students. We have all remember who are we doing this for? Sometimes it can be for our own happiness. When we realize that it can be a hard pill to swallow but we need to swallow it and hit the ground running.

Always using a middle class (assuming what worked for us will work from someone else) is ethnocentric and extremely problematic when we are trying to solve issues for people who did not grow up the way we did. Its important.This is such and important issue. Though my career in education and education programs this has been a huge frustration and as you said problematic. off the topic of this incentive program, with the teaching force so dominated by white middle class women what could and should be done about this?

What has helped me is making an effort to read and talk to people who work on the ground level. Grassroots efforts and controversial people. They often think outside of the box and probably didn’t have a traditional education if they were education at all. Often people who deem themselves Afrocentric. The interesting thing about Afrocentricity is that the concepts can really be applied anywhere. For example, with Jawanza Kunjufu. Some people love him. Some people hate him. Mostly because he is attacking the white collective ethos/white middle class standards that are being shoved down are kids throats. Therefore, in a Eurocentric society that reinforces Eurocentric ideals in their university school systems, you are most likely not going to find someone who is in direct opposition to the system on a PhD book list. We have to venture outside of the curriculum handed it to us because if we rely on that, then we are just going to repeat the same or similar reactions of our white counterparts. Why? Because we readin the same books they readin and we both are coming with the same wrong answers.

I have been struggling with this in my research, practice, and life in general and when this topic comes up I usually don't have much to say because I don't know what to do or say about it. I can't expect a person that has never interacted with people different than them to have and understanding of the issues surrounding them or take themselves out of their reality.
We have to keep reading keep talking to people and the students and it will come to us but we have to make efforts in areas, places, books that we normally would not have. I feel your frustration. I had to just starting talking to people. New York is full of fantastic grassroots effort. That is the place to be. You have to go searching. I don't know which topic this relates to but, since I got to UF I had issue with the way I was educated and the way others were. I was fortunate to go to a really good private school where the conversations in classes, college prep, and college advisory was so different than some of the people around me. I don't feel this is right. Even from pub. school to public school convos. are so different.

I feel this is a problem with the teachers. When I was subbing, the teachers didn’t raise the expectation level because they didn’t believe they could reach it. Teachers have to believe in their students. Unfortunately you cant teach that.

I often feel that the upper mid, and upper class people have all of this knowledge and they do what they can to keep it to themselves and not share it with others and that shit pisses me off.

Its all apart of capitalism. The idea is you can’t give everyone equal education. You HAVE TO HAVE an underclass. That is why the system is set up the way it is. No coincidences. But we have to know the system (capitalism, gentrification, property taxes and school funding curriculum formation (for teachers and students) etc) in order to start making some solutions.

i dream of some sort of a time where schools are not so vastly different (now talking about pub. schools) and students have the same basic opportunities and experiences. Utopic, probably, but I want to try to help in some way. Will this happen any time soon, Def. not prob not in our life time, but I think it is worth a shot. What do you think of my utopia?

You are talking about socialism and that was the plight of the Black Power Movement. Making everything equal and we see what happened with that. Murdering of Black Panthers and other Black Power movement activists many were excommunicated and/or thrown in jail (many still are in jail) called communist etc (and actually communism talks a lot about making everything equal which is why so many Blacks were deemed communists like WEB DuBois and others). This country (and most of the world) is built on capitalism. I don’t believe that means accept it and I don’t think we should thinks that it won’t ever change but teaching our students to prefer or work in a socialist (utopian) society does not help them when they enter into the world. We should teach them what socialism is, but make sure they understand that there are serious boundaries that comes with being who they are: black male, low-income, gay, black female, disabled, having a felon etc. then they can know the system in place AND have an understanding of new systems. They have to know the current system in order to challenge it. WE have to know the system inorder to challenge it. And they have to know the other options in order to know what a different outcome can be. But we first have to teach ourselves.

RESPONSE:

I have the miseducation of the negro, haven't gotten to it yet.I had a class with a prof. who feels he strives for social justice and feels that we need to be well versed in issues concerning other people, people different than us, and people below the poverty line (yes he is white) We were talking in class at the end of the semester wrap up and I made a comment that it was interesting that we read a bunch of texts about social issues concerning Black people and none of the authors where Black. There were two minorities, Asian and woman. After I said it, he stopped and thought about it and said he has to revisit how he will teach the class. I met a prof. from ohio (i think. Geneva Gay) and she insisted that I do my research on the authors that we read in class and insist that I bring it up. and as you said, do more research and read up on authors who are Black.If I go to jail for fear that I am a communist and because I am pumping socialism, will you come visit me?My feeling hasen't changed, I don't like reality. Therefore I will do as you said, combine my ideal/utopia with the reality of the kids I serve and in the school that I develop!Thanks again for the enlightenment.

ME:

Of course I'll visit you and I'll hold a rally outside of the jail for your freedom!

I have also heard of Na'im Akbar who wrote "Brothers of the Academy: Up and Coming Black Scholars Earning Our Way in Higher Education" (with Lee Jones) and "From Miseducation to Education." The VERY large problem I have with writing like these are that they focus on the Black male and consistantly minimize, gloss over, or completely neglect black girls. There books out there on young girls but really here alot about these two gentlemen. We really got to look our girls too.

Oh as a side note. Another problem is looking at all types of Black people. An African child may have a different experience that a Caribbean child who will not experience education the same as an African American child. The African child who isn't learning African history may feel just as neglected as an African American child in a eurocentric school. Africans often dont view themselves as African and most of the ones I have met really don't want to associate themselves with Black Americans. That is another can of worms, but in a place like NY, I could see how these issues would occur and be a breeding ground for diversity. Even more so, the diversity among Blacks that is often ignored.

This was a great conversation and I would like to hear if you get involved in some NY black youth programs.

Talk to you later