I did not go to prom, and I did not get to question many people who went about their experience, because most of them weren't in school. However, thanks to Facebook, I got to read about it all anyways. For the past few weeks I have heard people talking about where they are going to college, or what they are doing over the summer, so what I got when looking through people's photos and posts was a sense of something finishing. Prom seems like sort of an afterthought, something no one really thought about until it was about to happen. Even though there are many more things to be done as the year ends (graduation, etc.) I got the impression that prom sort of marked the beginning of the end.
And in a way, prom really is the perfect way to end high school. Everyone goes out on a high note, looking like the best possible version of themselves. The night serves the function of foreshadowing the next few years of everyone's life, all the adult things they'll get to do, and how mature and put together they'll look doing them. Simultaneously, it is a chance to reflect, and spend time with people, possibly for the last time. So perhaps it is more of a stage of transition than an actual ending point.
After reading about prom and talking to people about it, I have decided that while I don't want to make a huge deal of prom, I do want to go (at the beginning of this unit I didn't want to; me and one of my friends joked about going to an anti-prom). It is one of the few stereotypical high school events I would regret missing. However, I want the experience to be unique in some way, or challenging. I don't know how yet - maybe I'll try to spend less than $100 on everything, or plan everything in the week before - but it will be different than what I've read about.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
HW 58 - Prom Interviews
I interviewed three people: E (who has not been to prom yet but is going this year), L (who went to four different proms when she was in high school), and my mother (who went to her junior prom).
E is going with a friend. She thinks that prom doesn't seem to be as big a deal in New York City as it is in the suburbs. "The culture is different," she said. "It's not so much about boyfriends and girlfriends. This might be because in other places people couple up and take limos, so you might feel awkward if you're the only one without a date, but here we can just go on the subway." She said she was looking forward to going and seeing everyone dressed up, even if going did involve taking a lot of pictures and "cheesy dancing". She also thought that prom would give more of a sense of community than other school events, because most people go, and everyone sort of plans for it together. She also said that while she didn't think prom was exactly a 'rite of passage', she still thought it was a good thing to experience - "everyone has their prom story."
This interview got at aspect of prom people have brought up in class - the fact that prom is different here than it would be other places. Several people have mentioned that at SoF, prom isn't really a big deal, especially considering it almost didn't happen. I thought this might be because here, people usually have other stuff going on besides school, and it isn't where they spend all their time, whereas someone at a high school in a more suburban or rural area might be more involved. I also noticed how E said that everyone has their prom story. This conjured to my mind a time one of my friends said something similar about the SAT, that no matter who you are, you have to suffer through it. While originally it annoyed me that prom seems to be the exact same night everywhere, it is something that most people can tell a story about - it's something that people can bond over. There aren't many experiences like that, that almost anyone can say they had.
L said:
"I went four times (to junior prom in 9th and 10th grade, senior prom in 11th grade, and to a friend's senior prom in 11th grade). It was always sort of awkward. One time I got a dress and I found out a senior girl had bought the same one, so I exchanged it for another one only to arrive to see someone else wearing that one too. I think it's funny how now people have Facebook groups where they post what dress they bought so that that doesn't happen. The last prom I went to, which wasn't at my school, was the one I liked the most because there was less stress, since I didn't know everyone there. Also, we went bowling afterward, which I thought was cool, because at my dad's high school the Italian kids would go to prom and the Jewish kids would go bowling, and I got to do both. The only regret I have is that I didn’t go to my senior prom. I think that prom is mean to be a celebration, but people spend too much money on it, and there's too much planning involved. I also don't like that people worry so much about where to go afterwards, because that shouldn't be the most important part of it - it should be about getting to see everyone you know one last time, a celebration for everyone graduating."
I thought it was interesting that she said when she went to her friend's prom, it was less stressful, because she didn't know anyone. This highlights the pressure people are under to have a perfect night, to look and act a certain way (as does the whole prom dress thing). I guess if you don't know anyone there, some of the stress might be taken off because nothing is expected from you. Her opinion that people worry too much about prom reinforced my original thought on the subject, which was that people shouldn't take it as seriously as they do, it should just be another part of graduating.
E is going with a friend. She thinks that prom doesn't seem to be as big a deal in New York City as it is in the suburbs. "The culture is different," she said. "It's not so much about boyfriends and girlfriends. This might be because in other places people couple up and take limos, so you might feel awkward if you're the only one without a date, but here we can just go on the subway." She said she was looking forward to going and seeing everyone dressed up, even if going did involve taking a lot of pictures and "cheesy dancing". She also thought that prom would give more of a sense of community than other school events, because most people go, and everyone sort of plans for it together. She also said that while she didn't think prom was exactly a 'rite of passage', she still thought it was a good thing to experience - "everyone has their prom story."
This interview got at aspect of prom people have brought up in class - the fact that prom is different here than it would be other places. Several people have mentioned that at SoF, prom isn't really a big deal, especially considering it almost didn't happen. I thought this might be because here, people usually have other stuff going on besides school, and it isn't where they spend all their time, whereas someone at a high school in a more suburban or rural area might be more involved. I also noticed how E said that everyone has their prom story. This conjured to my mind a time one of my friends said something similar about the SAT, that no matter who you are, you have to suffer through it. While originally it annoyed me that prom seems to be the exact same night everywhere, it is something that most people can tell a story about - it's something that people can bond over. There aren't many experiences like that, that almost anyone can say they had.
L said:
"I went four times (to junior prom in 9th and 10th grade, senior prom in 11th grade, and to a friend's senior prom in 11th grade). It was always sort of awkward. One time I got a dress and I found out a senior girl had bought the same one, so I exchanged it for another one only to arrive to see someone else wearing that one too. I think it's funny how now people have Facebook groups where they post what dress they bought so that that doesn't happen. The last prom I went to, which wasn't at my school, was the one I liked the most because there was less stress, since I didn't know everyone there. Also, we went bowling afterward, which I thought was cool, because at my dad's high school the Italian kids would go to prom and the Jewish kids would go bowling, and I got to do both. The only regret I have is that I didn’t go to my senior prom. I think that prom is mean to be a celebration, but people spend too much money on it, and there's too much planning involved. I also don't like that people worry so much about where to go afterwards, because that shouldn't be the most important part of it - it should be about getting to see everyone you know one last time, a celebration for everyone graduating."
I thought it was interesting that she said when she went to her friend's prom, it was less stressful, because she didn't know anyone. This highlights the pressure people are under to have a perfect night, to look and act a certain way (as does the whole prom dress thing). I guess if you don't know anyone there, some of the stress might be taken off because nothing is expected from you. Her opinion that people worry too much about prom reinforced my original thought on the subject, which was that people shouldn't take it as seriously as they do, it should just be another part of graduating.
And my mom said:
"I went to my junior prom, but not my senior prom. The theme was 'Stairway to Heaven'. People didn't have after-prom stuff, since in the neighborhood I lived in parents were very strict and wanted to know where their kids were at all times. I also don't think it was as elaborate as what people do today - it was in our high school gym, and people just went in their cars, not limos. Most kids had jobs, and if they were going to prom, the money for it would have been their own. It just wasn't as big a deal as it is now, it was just a night to have fun."
Since my mom's prom was a while ago, I thought maybe this was why it wasn't as "planned". It seems like putting a lot of effort into planning for prom was a fairly recent thing, perhaps the result of all the 80s and 90s movies that seemed to glamourize prom. It would make sense that this glorification of prom started then, because this was also when teenagers started being a more visible part of society. They were also another group of consumers, and a group with a lot of money, so it was a good move to sell them the idea of prom, a night where if you have the right dress and shoes you can be a princess.
Overall the interviews showed me that not everyone is enamored with the idea of prom, and not everyone thinks it is a 'rite of passage'. While they all assured me that it was not to be missed ("go, even if you think it's lame"), no one seemed to have had the romantic movie version of it either - it was just a night with friends. While originally I disliked the fact that prom seems like something people are forced into doing, and they go because they feel like they have to, I now sort of like that it's something most people have in common. I like the idea that I could one day be in a room full of people I don't know, but they would have had roughly the same experience.
Since my mom's prom was a while ago, I thought maybe this was why it wasn't as "planned". It seems like putting a lot of effort into planning for prom was a fairly recent thing, perhaps the result of all the 80s and 90s movies that seemed to glamourize prom. It would make sense that this glorification of prom started then, because this was also when teenagers started being a more visible part of society. They were also another group of consumers, and a group with a lot of money, so it was a good move to sell them the idea of prom, a night where if you have the right dress and shoes you can be a princess.
Overall the interviews showed me that not everyone is enamored with the idea of prom, and not everyone thinks it is a 'rite of passage'. While they all assured me that it was not to be missed ("go, even if you think it's lame"), no one seemed to have had the romantic movie version of it either - it was just a night with friends. While originally I disliked the fact that prom seems like something people are forced into doing, and they go because they feel like they have to, I now sort of like that it's something most people have in common. I like the idea that I could one day be in a room full of people I don't know, but they would have had roughly the same experience.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
HW 57 - Initial Thoughts on Prom
At the beginning of the year, when I was introduced to the five topics we would be studying (food, illness & dying, birth, care of the dead, and prom), Prom stuck out for obvious reasons: It isn't something you encounter on a regular basis (like food or illness) or a stage of life (like birth or death). It's also a more specific topic, and unlike many of the other topics, there's sort of a scripted way that it's done. There is no specific way to eat or die, but prom generally goes a certain way: Girls wear dresses, guys wear tuxedos, they get there in a limo, and everyone takes awkward pictures that they laugh at later. It seems odd that in a country like the United States, where we take pride in the fact that "we are all different", we would have this tradition that's basically the same no matter who you are and where you live - it's almost standardized.
Personally, I think that all the ideas that other people seem to have about it (which I got from the articles we read on Monday, and from movies) - that it's the pinnacle of your high school experience, that it's a girl's chance to be Cinderella, that it's a step into adulthood - are sort of laughable. I feel like there are much better parts of high school, and of life, than that one night. Prom seems to encapsulate all the best parts of adulthood (independence, glamour, etc) in order to make us look forward to it, even though few moments in adult life are like that. It also seems to be a way for people to pretend that they are more well off than they really are, that they are glamorous and new and sparkly, if only for one night.
However, it's also the only time someone might get to dress up to that extent, and spend time with people they know in that sort of setting, where they are expected to act polite and grown up and classy. It also seems to be looked back on pretty fondly - everyone remembers their prom, the beautiful awkwardness of it. Prom does seem sort of a nice idea, as long as it isn't taken too seriously.
Questions:
Does the place someone lives, the high school they go to, or the family they grew up in affect how they view prom, or how important/relevant they think it is?
How have proms changed over time, especially in light of modern cultural influences (the internet, Facebook, etc.)?
How/where did the idea of prom originate?
How do changes in prom traditions (ex. a school not electing a prom king and queen) reflect changes in cultural norms?
Conversely: Why, when so much else has changed, are many aspects of prom still the same?
Personally, I think that all the ideas that other people seem to have about it (which I got from the articles we read on Monday, and from movies) - that it's the pinnacle of your high school experience, that it's a girl's chance to be Cinderella, that it's a step into adulthood - are sort of laughable. I feel like there are much better parts of high school, and of life, than that one night. Prom seems to encapsulate all the best parts of adulthood (independence, glamour, etc) in order to make us look forward to it, even though few moments in adult life are like that. It also seems to be a way for people to pretend that they are more well off than they really are, that they are glamorous and new and sparkly, if only for one night.
However, it's also the only time someone might get to dress up to that extent, and spend time with people they know in that sort of setting, where they are expected to act polite and grown up and classy. It also seems to be looked back on pretty fondly - everyone remembers their prom, the beautiful awkwardness of it. Prom does seem sort of a nice idea, as long as it isn't taken too seriously.
Questions:
Does the place someone lives, the high school they go to, or the family they grew up in affect how they view prom, or how important/relevant they think it is?
How have proms changed over time, especially in light of modern cultural influences (the internet, Facebook, etc.)?
How/where did the idea of prom originate?
How do changes in prom traditions (ex. a school not electing a prom king and queen) reflect changes in cultural norms?
Conversely: Why, when so much else has changed, are many aspects of prom still the same?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
HW 56 - Culminating Project Comments
My comments on others' blogs
Amhara:
I thought this post was beautifully written, especially the last paragraph. Your writing was very descriptive, and I could visualize the woman swerving over in her car. I agree that people are in denial over the fact that they will die someday, but when they realize they will, they feel ashamed.
I really liked this part:"Even though this didn't work out as we wanted I still looked at it as a somewhat successful experience. It showed me how serious and sensitive death is to people. I saw how serious the dress code was because I felt horrible that I was the only one (besides Kevin) who wasn't dressed up in a black suit and I don't know if I should feel bad about that. I saw how the funeral home approaches death, because the vibe of serious and quiet was very strong as soon as you walk in the place." This was my favorite part, because I always wondered why people dressed up for funerals. It doesn't really make sense - when people are unhappy, they generally don't want to put a lot of effort into the way they look. I suppose it is out of respect, but I still don't understand why people would be so strict about it.
I liked that even though your original idea for the project didn't work out, you still got something out of the experience. Your descriptions of the funeral home were interesting, and although you didn't get to go to the wake, it still seems like you got something out of the experience. My favorite line was: "We waited here for about fifteen minutes in that time everything was pure and clean. There was a sound of a water fall."
Comments on my blog:
Jasper:
I liked your post I thought the idea was very interesting to look up: what would happen if you just left a body to rot? I was surprised that it takes almost 20 years to completely decompose! It makes sense that people are buried under ground. Then most importantly I like how you connected it back to people embalming bodies and getting "sealed" caskets in this fantasy that they're body will remain the same forever. Nice post.
Amber:
I like how you questioned your reader at first, then started to answer these questions throughout your essay. Your questions made me pause and think about an answer to each of them before reading on. I was interested in how a body decomposes; as a class we discussed different approaches to death such as burial, cremation and embalming, but we never really went into each approach to death and how it is played out. I think it would have been even more interesting if you had put in some pictures for each stage of decomposition. I was able to create pictures in my head while reading your paper, but I was curious to see what each stage actually looks like. I know some of these photos might have been disturbing to some viewers, but this is a natural way of death; there is nothing abnormal about it. Nice job.
Eloise:
HOLA LINDA,
En su "blog post" usted habla de lo que pasa con el cuerpo cuando muere y es dejado a descompóngarse, y los etapas differentes hasta que son uno con la tierra.
Me da felizidad que mi "blog post" le dio la inspiracion de escribir este ensayo. Yo creo que dio mucha informacion buena rapidamenete y muy claramente. Creo que era muy interesante.
Pero me pregunata como usted personalmente piensas sobre este subjeto y lo que usted quiere hacer con su cuerpo. Me gusto much so texto.
perdon que mi espanol es tan "rusty" !
BUEN TRABAJO LINDA CON EL PELO RIZADO !
Amhara:
I thought this post was beautifully written, especially the last paragraph. Your writing was very descriptive, and I could visualize the woman swerving over in her car. I agree that people are in denial over the fact that they will die someday, but when they realize they will, they feel ashamed.
I really liked this part:"Even though this didn't work out as we wanted I still looked at it as a somewhat successful experience. It showed me how serious and sensitive death is to people. I saw how serious the dress code was because I felt horrible that I was the only one (besides Kevin) who wasn't dressed up in a black suit and I don't know if I should feel bad about that. I saw how the funeral home approaches death, because the vibe of serious and quiet was very strong as soon as you walk in the place." This was my favorite part, because I always wondered why people dressed up for funerals. It doesn't really make sense - when people are unhappy, they generally don't want to put a lot of effort into the way they look. I suppose it is out of respect, but I still don't understand why people would be so strict about it.
I liked that even though your original idea for the project didn't work out, you still got something out of the experience. Your descriptions of the funeral home were interesting, and although you didn't get to go to the wake, it still seems like you got something out of the experience. My favorite line was: "We waited here for about fifteen minutes in that time everything was pure and clean. There was a sound of a water fall."
Comments on my blog:
Jasper:
I liked your post I thought the idea was very interesting to look up: what would happen if you just left a body to rot? I was surprised that it takes almost 20 years to completely decompose! It makes sense that people are buried under ground. Then most importantly I like how you connected it back to people embalming bodies and getting "sealed" caskets in this fantasy that they're body will remain the same forever. Nice post.
Amber:
I like how you questioned your reader at first, then started to answer these questions throughout your essay. Your questions made me pause and think about an answer to each of them before reading on. I was interested in how a body decomposes; as a class we discussed different approaches to death such as burial, cremation and embalming, but we never really went into each approach to death and how it is played out. I think it would have been even more interesting if you had put in some pictures for each stage of decomposition. I was able to create pictures in my head while reading your paper, but I was curious to see what each stage actually looks like. I know some of these photos might have been disturbing to some viewers, but this is a natural way of death; there is nothing abnormal about it. Nice job.
Eloise:
HOLA LINDA,
En su "blog post" usted habla de lo que pasa con el cuerpo cuando muere y es dejado a descompóngarse, y los etapas differentes hasta que son uno con la tierra.
Me da felizidad que mi "blog post" le dio la inspiracion de escribir este ensayo. Yo creo que dio mucha informacion buena rapidamenete y muy claramente. Creo que era muy interesante.
Pero me pregunata como usted personalmente piensas sobre este subjeto y lo que usted quiere hacer con su cuerpo. Me gusto much so texto.
perdon que mi espanol es tan "rusty" !
BUEN TRABAJO LINDA CON EL PELO RIZADO !
Monday, May 16, 2011
HW 55 - Culminating Project - Care of the Dead
I decided to write an essay (Choice 3) about how bodies decompose if left alone (mentioned in Stiff, but not in detail), in order to shed light on why people embalm, cremate, etc. This was inspired by Eloise's blog post about the idea of not having to be "cared for" after death - simply letting one's body decompose naturally.
The Decomposition of a Dead Body
What happens after someone dies?
They are embalmed for a funeral and then buried. Or they get cremated, and their ashes are put in a container and buried, perhaps spread somewhere by family members.
What happens after someone dies if no one does anything? If they let nature take it's course, and leave the body outside to rot?
Immediately after death, the body will gradually go into a state of livor mortis, also called pallor mortis. This is when the blood is no longer being pumped around the body by the heart, so it settles in the lower half of the body. This stage takes about 12 hours to happen and can help someone determine how long ago someone died, useful information for coroners or anyone else examining the body. About 3 hours after death, the body will go into rigor mortis, which is when the muscles of the body become stiff (this is why cadavers are sometimes called ''stiffs''), due to lack of oxygen.
The body also begins to lose heat almost immediately after death, about 2 degrees Celsius in the first hour and one degree every hour after that, until the body is the same temperature as it's surroundings. Body temperature is also useful in determining when someone died. After three days, rigor mortis ends and the body becomes soft again (when animals are being processed for meat, rigor mortis is prolonged with "alternating current", in order to preserve the meat).
The next step is decomposition. Bloat, or putrefaction, is the first stage of decomposition. Gases accumulate inside the body, and body parts look bloated. These gases also cause liquids to leave the body through the mouth, ears, nose, and other exits. The gases also cause pressure, and sometimes the skin will tear open. Around this time, maggots and other insects will begin to feast on the body, if they haven't already. This makes the skin "slip" and rupture, causing more gases and fluids to be released.
The second stage of decomposition is decay. The body will lose much of its mass during this period, due to the maggots having fed on it, and most of the fluids having been absorbed by the surrounding environment (this puddle of fluids is called a "cadaver decomposition island"). Any maggots or insects that fed on the body will leave. The soil surrounding the body will absorb some of its nutrients.
The final stage of decomposition is skeletonization, or diagenesis. All moisture in the body is lost, and only the bones are visible. At this point, the bones will be the only thing left in the area that surrounded the decomposing body, as the rest of it has either been eaten by maggots or had turned into soil. Eventually, plants will begin to grow again (if the body was outside), and the bones that aren't taken by animals will fully decompose after 20 years or so (in the meantime, moss or algae may grow on them). Occasionally, the bones will become fossils.
The rate at which a body decomposes depends on many factors. Generally, if the body is exposed to "the elements" - air, water, etc. - as described above, it will decompose at a faster pace. Warmer weather tends to cause the body to decompose faster, whereas colder weather causes it to decompose more slowly. There are also instances where the body is naturally "embalmed", and does not decompose (for instance, if it is in an extremely dry environment, or in a peat bog).
Throughout the process of decomposition, bodies generally look disgusting, and more like zombies than actual people. Since decomposition starts to be visible a few days after death, it is understandable that people would want to reverse or pause some of the effects by embalming the body, or not have to deal with them at all by cremating it. However, it seems like embalming and cremation stem from the denial that a loved one is simply a human who will eventually rot if left untouched, and both methods function as a way to avoid this realization. People like to believe that their friends and family are special in some way, exceptions to biological rules, and that if they are put in a casket that is sealed with super glue they will never change. However, this simply is not true.
Bibliography
How long does it take a dead body to decompose? . (n.d.). Curiosity.com, Retrieved from http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/take-dead-body-to-decompose
Stages of decomposition. (2009). Australian Museum, Retrieved from http://australianmuseum.net.au/Stages-of-Decomposition
Kade, A. (2010, August 23). A human corpse post-mortem: the stages of decomposition. Environmental Graffiti, Retrieved from http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/chemistry/news-afterlife-human-corpse-stages-decomposition
Raymunt, M. (2010, December 02). Down on the body farm: inside the dirty world of forensic science. The Atlantic, Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/down-on-the-body-farm-inside-the-dirty-world-of-forensic-science/67241/
The Decomposition of a Dead Body
What happens after someone dies?
They are embalmed for a funeral and then buried. Or they get cremated, and their ashes are put in a container and buried, perhaps spread somewhere by family members.
What happens after someone dies if no one does anything? If they let nature take it's course, and leave the body outside to rot?
Immediately after death, the body will gradually go into a state of livor mortis, also called pallor mortis. This is when the blood is no longer being pumped around the body by the heart, so it settles in the lower half of the body. This stage takes about 12 hours to happen and can help someone determine how long ago someone died, useful information for coroners or anyone else examining the body. About 3 hours after death, the body will go into rigor mortis, which is when the muscles of the body become stiff (this is why cadavers are sometimes called ''stiffs''), due to lack of oxygen.
The body also begins to lose heat almost immediately after death, about 2 degrees Celsius in the first hour and one degree every hour after that, until the body is the same temperature as it's surroundings. Body temperature is also useful in determining when someone died. After three days, rigor mortis ends and the body becomes soft again (when animals are being processed for meat, rigor mortis is prolonged with "alternating current", in order to preserve the meat).
The next step is decomposition. Bloat, or putrefaction, is the first stage of decomposition. Gases accumulate inside the body, and body parts look bloated. These gases also cause liquids to leave the body through the mouth, ears, nose, and other exits. The gases also cause pressure, and sometimes the skin will tear open. Around this time, maggots and other insects will begin to feast on the body, if they haven't already. This makes the skin "slip" and rupture, causing more gases and fluids to be released.
The second stage of decomposition is decay. The body will lose much of its mass during this period, due to the maggots having fed on it, and most of the fluids having been absorbed by the surrounding environment (this puddle of fluids is called a "cadaver decomposition island"). Any maggots or insects that fed on the body will leave. The soil surrounding the body will absorb some of its nutrients.
The final stage of decomposition is skeletonization, or diagenesis. All moisture in the body is lost, and only the bones are visible. At this point, the bones will be the only thing left in the area that surrounded the decomposing body, as the rest of it has either been eaten by maggots or had turned into soil. Eventually, plants will begin to grow again (if the body was outside), and the bones that aren't taken by animals will fully decompose after 20 years or so (in the meantime, moss or algae may grow on them). Occasionally, the bones will become fossils.
The rate at which a body decomposes depends on many factors. Generally, if the body is exposed to "the elements" - air, water, etc. - as described above, it will decompose at a faster pace. Warmer weather tends to cause the body to decompose faster, whereas colder weather causes it to decompose more slowly. There are also instances where the body is naturally "embalmed", and does not decompose (for instance, if it is in an extremely dry environment, or in a peat bog).
Throughout the process of decomposition, bodies generally look disgusting, and more like zombies than actual people. Since decomposition starts to be visible a few days after death, it is understandable that people would want to reverse or pause some of the effects by embalming the body, or not have to deal with them at all by cremating it. However, it seems like embalming and cremation stem from the denial that a loved one is simply a human who will eventually rot if left untouched, and both methods function as a way to avoid this realization. People like to believe that their friends and family are special in some way, exceptions to biological rules, and that if they are put in a casket that is sealed with super glue they will never change. However, this simply is not true.
Bibliography
How long does it take a dead body to decompose? . (n.d.). Curiosity.com, Retrieved from http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/take-dead-body-to-decompose
Stages of decomposition. (2009). Australian Museum, Retrieved from http://australianmuseum.net.au/Stages-of-Decomposition
Kade, A. (2010, August 23). A human corpse post-mortem: the stages of decomposition. Environmental Graffiti, Retrieved from http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/chemistry/news-afterlife-human-corpse-stages-decomposition
Raymunt, M. (2010, December 02). Down on the body farm: inside the dirty world of forensic science. The Atlantic, Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/down-on-the-body-farm-inside-the-dirty-world-of-forensic-science/67241/
Monday, May 9, 2011
HW 53 - Independent Research A
1.
A Doctor at the Funeral
Death is something doctors see all the time. However, I sometimes find it hard to deal with the death of a patient, especially one I have known for a long time. I will sometimes go to the funeral, but it is hard to know where I fit in amongst the patient's family and friends. And it never gets any easier.
Grief, Unedited
In books and pop culture, we often see the image of a widow or widower who takes a very long time to get over the death of their significant other. As it turns out, several studies show that people who lose their spouses may not actually bemoan this loss for as long as we think. Many people begin to get over their loss after six months or so, which conflicts with the popular notions people have regarding the grieving process. Perhaps these studies will change these notions.
Analysis:
Both of these articles brought up topics that were different than the ones addressed in Stiff. The book focused more on various practices of caring for the dead, and veered more toward the direction of scientific descriptions and commentary rather than the feelings of those who have lost a loved one. Both of these articles are about how people grieve. The first article is from the perspective of a doctor, which is interesting because this is someone whose feelings aren't normally considered, although they should be - some doctors have known their patients since they were born. The author mentioned that while people at the funerals she went to were usually perfectly nice, it was sort of awkward to be there - she felt like she was intruding. The second article talks about a survey that asked people about their feelings after their spouse died. This article was interesting, because the results of the survey contradicted the widespread idea that people take a long time to grieve. The writer even mentioned that many people did not believe the findings, which shows how people often find it hard to get used to a new idea.
2.
I went to the Riverdale Funeral Home (Which, interestingly enough, is not in Riverdale) and spoke with Jim, who is the office manager (he works with families to see what they want and orders things for them). Because I already knew about embalming and cremation from reading Stiff, my questions were more focused on the day to day life of working at a funeral home. First I asked why he had started working there, what got him interested in the job. He said he had been working there for almost 30 years, and he had started working there when he was a junior in high school, because his brother knew the owner from little league. He also said that his grandmother was taken here, and he had always had a curiosity about this line of work. He is also a high school English teacher, and he said that the jobs were alike in the way that "you can't bring things home with you" - you have to be able to separate yourself from it. This is especially hard because sometimes he has to arrange a student's funeral, or the funeral of a family member or close friend (it is a family - owned funeral home, so they know a lot of the people coming in).
The reason I asked more personal questions as opposed to general ones was because I wanted to get a sense of what it was like to work in a field where you're seeing something all the time that most people only get a glimpse of, when someone they know dies. It does seem to give people a different perspective, but not as much as I thought. Working at a funeral home always seemed to me like it was something that would define the way someone lived, the way having a very specific job or passion that required a certain lifestyle would. I didn't think about the fact that it is a nine to five job like many others - that people do get to go home at the end of the day.
A Doctor at the Funeral
Death is something doctors see all the time. However, I sometimes find it hard to deal with the death of a patient, especially one I have known for a long time. I will sometimes go to the funeral, but it is hard to know where I fit in amongst the patient's family and friends. And it never gets any easier.
Grief, Unedited
In books and pop culture, we often see the image of a widow or widower who takes a very long time to get over the death of their significant other. As it turns out, several studies show that people who lose their spouses may not actually bemoan this loss for as long as we think. Many people begin to get over their loss after six months or so, which conflicts with the popular notions people have regarding the grieving process. Perhaps these studies will change these notions.
Analysis:
Both of these articles brought up topics that were different than the ones addressed in Stiff. The book focused more on various practices of caring for the dead, and veered more toward the direction of scientific descriptions and commentary rather than the feelings of those who have lost a loved one. Both of these articles are about how people grieve. The first article is from the perspective of a doctor, which is interesting because this is someone whose feelings aren't normally considered, although they should be - some doctors have known their patients since they were born. The author mentioned that while people at the funerals she went to were usually perfectly nice, it was sort of awkward to be there - she felt like she was intruding. The second article talks about a survey that asked people about their feelings after their spouse died. This article was interesting, because the results of the survey contradicted the widespread idea that people take a long time to grieve. The writer even mentioned that many people did not believe the findings, which shows how people often find it hard to get used to a new idea.
2.
I went to the Riverdale Funeral Home (Which, interestingly enough, is not in Riverdale) and spoke with Jim, who is the office manager (he works with families to see what they want and orders things for them). Because I already knew about embalming and cremation from reading Stiff, my questions were more focused on the day to day life of working at a funeral home. First I asked why he had started working there, what got him interested in the job. He said he had been working there for almost 30 years, and he had started working there when he was a junior in high school, because his brother knew the owner from little league. He also said that his grandmother was taken here, and he had always had a curiosity about this line of work. He is also a high school English teacher, and he said that the jobs were alike in the way that "you can't bring things home with you" - you have to be able to separate yourself from it. This is especially hard because sometimes he has to arrange a student's funeral, or the funeral of a family member or close friend (it is a family - owned funeral home, so they know a lot of the people coming in).
The reason I asked more personal questions as opposed to general ones was because I wanted to get a sense of what it was like to work in a field where you're seeing something all the time that most people only get a glimpse of, when someone they know dies. It does seem to give people a different perspective, but not as much as I thought. Working at a funeral home always seemed to me like it was something that would define the way someone lived, the way having a very specific job or passion that required a certain lifestyle would. I didn't think about the fact that it is a nine to five job like many others - that people do get to go home at the end of the day.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
HW 52 - Third Third of the COTD Book
Precis:
In 1700s and 1800s Paris, there was much discussion over whether the soul was contained in the head, and if a head cut off by a guillotine was aware of what had happened to it. This was due to various accounts of people having seen eyes open and close, or a jaw clench, after the head was cut off. In the 1960s, a neurosurgeon named Robert White began experiments which took the brain out of a human and connected it to the body of another animal. In the past, many cultures have used various parts and wastes of humans (dead and alive), such as saliva, urine, teeth, blood and fat to cure an array of ailments. Some people also eat parts of humans, due to scarcities in food or cultural norms. There are many other ways to care for the dead, including "water reduction" cremation, which uses lye and water pressure as opposed to fire, as well as "human composting". I have decided that unless I am brain dead and people can use my organs, my husband will decide what happens to me. If I have to decide, I want to be given to a medical school to be used for dissections.
Quotes:
"Do you know that it is not at all certain when a head is severed from a body by the guillotine that the feelings, personality and ego are instantaneously abolished...? Don't you know that the seat of the feelings and appreciation is in the brain, that this seat of consciousness can continue to operate even when when the circulation of the blood is cut off from the brain...? Thus, for as long as the brain retains it's vital force the victim is aware of his existence." (200, S.T. Sommering quote)
"Could there come a day when people whose bodies are succumbing to fatal diseases will simply get a new body and add decades to their lives - albeit, to quote White, as a head on a pillow? There could." (215)
"It seems to me that the Chinese, relative to Americans, have a vastly more practical, less emotional outlook when it comes to what people put in their mouths.....The fact that Americans love dogs doesn't make it immoral for the Chinese of Peixian city, who apparently don't love dogs, to wrap dog meat in pita bread and eat it for breakfast, just as the Hindu's reverence for cows doesn't make it wrong for us to make them into belts and meat loaves. We are all products of our upbringing, our culture, our need to conform." (236)
"I will include a biographical note for the students who dissect me, so they can look down at my dilapidated hull and say, 'Hey, check this. I got that woman who wrote a book about cadavers.' And if there's any way I can arrange it, I'll make the thing wink." (292)
Analysis:
When the author started discussing the modern human compost movement (taking place in Sweden), I was reminded of the food unit, and the organic food movement - both seem to be people going back to the "natural order" - the way things were before they got industrialized and complicated. However, human composting isn't what I thought it would be - simply burying the body whole, and letting nature take it's course. The deceased is first put into a chamber of liquid nitrogen, and into one where ultrasound waves or mechanical vibrations will break him into small frozen pieces, which are then freeze-dried and used as compost for a memorial tree or shrub (262). This was slightly disappointing to hear, as it doesn't actually sound that much more "natural" - but I guess it isn't trying to be. Human composting is simply a more environmentally friendly alternative to cremation, where the dead person is used to facilitate the growth of a plant, which will hopefully continue to live for a long time. However, a man named Tim Evans did compost someone in the way I imagined it would happen - he simply composted the body with wood shavings and manure. However, this necessitates using a shovel to break the body down as it decomposes, the thought of which might upset some people.
In 1700s and 1800s Paris, there was much discussion over whether the soul was contained in the head, and if a head cut off by a guillotine was aware of what had happened to it. This was due to various accounts of people having seen eyes open and close, or a jaw clench, after the head was cut off. In the 1960s, a neurosurgeon named Robert White began experiments which took the brain out of a human and connected it to the body of another animal. In the past, many cultures have used various parts and wastes of humans (dead and alive), such as saliva, urine, teeth, blood and fat to cure an array of ailments. Some people also eat parts of humans, due to scarcities in food or cultural norms. There are many other ways to care for the dead, including "water reduction" cremation, which uses lye and water pressure as opposed to fire, as well as "human composting". I have decided that unless I am brain dead and people can use my organs, my husband will decide what happens to me. If I have to decide, I want to be given to a medical school to be used for dissections.
Quotes:
"Do you know that it is not at all certain when a head is severed from a body by the guillotine that the feelings, personality and ego are instantaneously abolished...? Don't you know that the seat of the feelings and appreciation is in the brain, that this seat of consciousness can continue to operate even when when the circulation of the blood is cut off from the brain...? Thus, for as long as the brain retains it's vital force the victim is aware of his existence." (200, S.T. Sommering quote)
"Could there come a day when people whose bodies are succumbing to fatal diseases will simply get a new body and add decades to their lives - albeit, to quote White, as a head on a pillow? There could." (215)
"It seems to me that the Chinese, relative to Americans, have a vastly more practical, less emotional outlook when it comes to what people put in their mouths.....The fact that Americans love dogs doesn't make it immoral for the Chinese of Peixian city, who apparently don't love dogs, to wrap dog meat in pita bread and eat it for breakfast, just as the Hindu's reverence for cows doesn't make it wrong for us to make them into belts and meat loaves. We are all products of our upbringing, our culture, our need to conform." (236)
"I will include a biographical note for the students who dissect me, so they can look down at my dilapidated hull and say, 'Hey, check this. I got that woman who wrote a book about cadavers.' And if there's any way I can arrange it, I'll make the thing wink." (292)
Analysis:
When the author started discussing the modern human compost movement (taking place in Sweden), I was reminded of the food unit, and the organic food movement - both seem to be people going back to the "natural order" - the way things were before they got industrialized and complicated. However, human composting isn't what I thought it would be - simply burying the body whole, and letting nature take it's course. The deceased is first put into a chamber of liquid nitrogen, and into one where ultrasound waves or mechanical vibrations will break him into small frozen pieces, which are then freeze-dried and used as compost for a memorial tree or shrub (262). This was slightly disappointing to hear, as it doesn't actually sound that much more "natural" - but I guess it isn't trying to be. Human composting is simply a more environmentally friendly alternative to cremation, where the dead person is used to facilitate the growth of a plant, which will hopefully continue to live for a long time. However, a man named Tim Evans did compost someone in the way I imagined it would happen - he simply composted the body with wood shavings and manure. However, this necessitates using a shovel to break the body down as it decomposes, the thought of which might upset some people.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
HW 51 - Second Third of COTD Book
Precis:
Dennis Shanahan analyzes the injuries (wounds, broken bones, etc.) of the dead to determine how they died, in order to determine the nature of a plane accident. He does this by looking at patterns of injuries in relation to where the people were sitting on the plane, and the severity of the injury. Cadavers are also used to test extreme water impact - what happens when someone falls into water from a plane. Plane companies tend to design planes with cost in mind, not safety. Cadavers (and animals, and gelatin) are used in the U.S. Army to test the effectiveness of rifles, among other things. People have also used cadavers to study what happens to the body during crucifixion. There are also "beating-heart cadavers", which are fully functioning except for the brain. These can be used for organ donation. If someone is brain dead, in the U.S., they are considered fully dead.
Quotes:
"Rick hands me the trigger string and counts down from three. The gelatin sits on the table, soaking up the sunshine, asking beneath the calm, blue Tennessee skies - tra la la, life is gay, it's good to be a gelatin block, I....BLAM!....As John Wayne said, or would have, had he had the opportunity, this block of gelatin wouldn't be bothering anyone anytime soon." (141)
"The sticking point is the word 'informed'. It's fair to sat that when people donate remains, either their own or those of a family member, they usually don't care to know the grisly details of what might have been done with them. And if you did tell them the details, they might change their minds and withdraw consent. Then again, if you're planning to shoot guns at them, it might be good to run that up the flagpole and get the a-okay." (146)
"The human liver is a boss-looking organ. It's glossy, aerodynamic, Olympian. It looks like sculpture, not guts. It looks engineered and carefully wrought. Its flanks have a subtle curve, like the horizon seen from space." (178)
Analysis:
The book talks about the debate over where in the body the soul is. Most doctors believe it is in the brain, as the brain is where thought takes place, but some people think it is everywhere in the body, so when you amputate, say, a finger, you have lost part of your soul. I looked up the definition of the word 'soul', and found it to be:
- The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
- A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
This doesn't really distinguish the soul from someone's conscious thought. Not to mention, the soul is an idea, not an actual, tangible object, not a "part". So I thought it was funny that people spent all this time arguing over where in the body the soul is, as if it's something that one can see, that is visible in someone's body - "Oh look, we found the soul. It's in his foot!".
Dennis Shanahan analyzes the injuries (wounds, broken bones, etc.) of the dead to determine how they died, in order to determine the nature of a plane accident. He does this by looking at patterns of injuries in relation to where the people were sitting on the plane, and the severity of the injury. Cadavers are also used to test extreme water impact - what happens when someone falls into water from a plane. Plane companies tend to design planes with cost in mind, not safety. Cadavers (and animals, and gelatin) are used in the U.S. Army to test the effectiveness of rifles, among other things. People have also used cadavers to study what happens to the body during crucifixion. There are also "beating-heart cadavers", which are fully functioning except for the brain. These can be used for organ donation. If someone is brain dead, in the U.S., they are considered fully dead.
Quotes:
"Rick hands me the trigger string and counts down from three. The gelatin sits on the table, soaking up the sunshine, asking beneath the calm, blue Tennessee skies - tra la la, life is gay, it's good to be a gelatin block, I....BLAM!....As John Wayne said, or would have, had he had the opportunity, this block of gelatin wouldn't be bothering anyone anytime soon." (141)
"The sticking point is the word 'informed'. It's fair to sat that when people donate remains, either their own or those of a family member, they usually don't care to know the grisly details of what might have been done with them. And if you did tell them the details, they might change their minds and withdraw consent. Then again, if you're planning to shoot guns at them, it might be good to run that up the flagpole and get the a-okay." (146)
"The human liver is a boss-looking organ. It's glossy, aerodynamic, Olympian. It looks like sculpture, not guts. It looks engineered and carefully wrought. Its flanks have a subtle curve, like the horizon seen from space." (178)
Analysis:
The book talks about the debate over where in the body the soul is. Most doctors believe it is in the brain, as the brain is where thought takes place, but some people think it is everywhere in the body, so when you amputate, say, a finger, you have lost part of your soul. I looked up the definition of the word 'soul', and found it to be:
- The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
- A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
This doesn't really distinguish the soul from someone's conscious thought. Not to mention, the soul is an idea, not an actual, tangible object, not a "part". So I thought it was funny that people spent all this time arguing over where in the body the soul is, as if it's something that one can see, that is visible in someone's body - "Oh look, we found the soul. It's in his foot!".
Sunday, May 1, 2011
HW 49 - Comments on Best of Your Break HW (HW 50 below)
My comments on others' blogs:
Amhara:
I really liked your last paragraph, because you said what you learned from talking with your grandmother ("Having built up emotions and guilt with no resolution can definitely cause emotional distress, and not being able to ever know how the deceased feels adds to the grief of the mysterious aspect of death")and stated how it affected you ("It is only human to feel unbalanced when you are handling unresolved hardships, but this reminds me how important it is to always express how I truely feel to people and always look for closure in different circumstances"). I also thought that this was a really good insight: "If your connection to whomever is deceased is weak (or has been weakened) it is very easy to begin to focus on yourself and how you feel about the situation, which isn't necessarily selfish." You acknowledged the fact that people don't always think about the deceased person - they will focus on themselves, and the situation they are in, and how they have to act.
Chris:
I agree with Amhara - I liked that you were honest about not having much experience with the topic. I also liked that you still had ideas about it; this part was especially perceptive: "Personally I have a fear of death because I always wonder how it would affect my mother if I died. It’s hard to face the fact that the people we have set up relationships with already in this world can go away instantly. In this sense it seems like the dead are treated terribly, once dead we burn and bury them never to be seen again. Not able to push them back in memory but able to push them physically off the earth." You got at the idea that the way we care for the dead is actually sort of cruel; we shove them away and try not to think about them. This is something I hadn't previously considered.
People's comments on my blog:
Amhara:
In response to your interview with your aunt "M", I thought it was very smart of you to connect us separating ourselves from the dead or the dying "because that would involve facing the fact that it's going to happen". This relates to a similar point the author of my book, Tom Jokinen, made about humans making the topic of death and the dead a taboo in general because it is an aspect of nature we can't control. I believe that your aunt had a good point about dying at home being a better environment for the one who is dying. One thing you can explore is how dying at home effects everyone else in the family. Another thing you could explore that you mentioned in this post is how formal funerals are more suppressed and why or why not this may be true.
Marilena (Mentor):
You said to comment on the second paragraph. I liked how you connected what M said to your previous thinking on the subject. It is true that people tend to avoid talking about death - I think that this is partially because it makes them feel so helpless. We could die at any moment, but no one ever talks about that. I agree agree that dying people are isolated from regular society, but I think that there are reasons for this, aside from the obvious fact that they might need medical care. People might want to be alone at the end of their lives, or with a few people who are close to them - they might want that privacy, instead of being out in the world with everyone else. You could go further by explaining what you think the cultural norm actually is.
Chris:
I think the most interesting part of your blog (because I think the idea of insight is to overused, why be insightful when we can be interesting). I have to agree with a lot of what your aunt "M" said in popular media it is seen as "death is scary and cold, full of ghouls, ghosts, and dread" and it is also something that has been taken and turned into something we don't learn or talk about. And I like the rest of your blog but as I type this I find out "Osama Bin Laden is dead" which I don't believe because I don't believe what these people say. However I find it interesting that everyone on Facebook even myself feel like this is something to update. The idea that your aunt talked about is very interesting and I feel like it is something that we should cover in class.
Amhara:
I really liked your last paragraph, because you said what you learned from talking with your grandmother ("Having built up emotions and guilt with no resolution can definitely cause emotional distress, and not being able to ever know how the deceased feels adds to the grief of the mysterious aspect of death")and stated how it affected you ("It is only human to feel unbalanced when you are handling unresolved hardships, but this reminds me how important it is to always express how I truely feel to people and always look for closure in different circumstances"). I also thought that this was a really good insight: "If your connection to whomever is deceased is weak (or has been weakened) it is very easy to begin to focus on yourself and how you feel about the situation, which isn't necessarily selfish." You acknowledged the fact that people don't always think about the deceased person - they will focus on themselves, and the situation they are in, and how they have to act.
Chris:
I agree with Amhara - I liked that you were honest about not having much experience with the topic. I also liked that you still had ideas about it; this part was especially perceptive: "Personally I have a fear of death because I always wonder how it would affect my mother if I died. It’s hard to face the fact that the people we have set up relationships with already in this world can go away instantly. In this sense it seems like the dead are treated terribly, once dead we burn and bury them never to be seen again. Not able to push them back in memory but able to push them physically off the earth." You got at the idea that the way we care for the dead is actually sort of cruel; we shove them away and try not to think about them. This is something I hadn't previously considered.
People's comments on my blog:
Amhara:
In response to your interview with your aunt "M", I thought it was very smart of you to connect us separating ourselves from the dead or the dying "because that would involve facing the fact that it's going to happen". This relates to a similar point the author of my book, Tom Jokinen, made about humans making the topic of death and the dead a taboo in general because it is an aspect of nature we can't control. I believe that your aunt had a good point about dying at home being a better environment for the one who is dying. One thing you can explore is how dying at home effects everyone else in the family. Another thing you could explore that you mentioned in this post is how formal funerals are more suppressed and why or why not this may be true.
Marilena (Mentor):
You said to comment on the second paragraph. I liked how you connected what M said to your previous thinking on the subject. It is true that people tend to avoid talking about death - I think that this is partially because it makes them feel so helpless. We could die at any moment, but no one ever talks about that. I agree agree that dying people are isolated from regular society, but I think that there are reasons for this, aside from the obvious fact that they might need medical care. People might want to be alone at the end of their lives, or with a few people who are close to them - they might want that privacy, instead of being out in the world with everyone else. You could go further by explaining what you think the cultural norm actually is.
Chris:
I think the most interesting part of your blog (because I think the idea of insight is to overused, why be insightful when we can be interesting). I have to agree with a lot of what your aunt "M" said in popular media it is seen as "death is scary and cold, full of ghouls, ghosts, and dread" and it is also something that has been taken and turned into something we don't learn or talk about. And I like the rest of your blog but as I type this I find out "Osama Bin Laden is dead" which I don't believe because I don't believe what these people say. However I find it interesting that everyone on Facebook even myself feel like this is something to update. The idea that your aunt talked about is very interesting and I feel like it is something that we should cover in class.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
HW 50 - First Third of Care-of-the-Dead Book Post
Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach
Precis:
Many people will find this book disrespectful or otherwise offensive. In fact, when I was writing it, I often wondered if people were questioning my sanity. However, I find the subject fascinating, and worth sharing. Cadavers are often disassembled, and the different parts are used for medical students to practice various procedures on - for instance, heads are used to practice face lifts. Only until recently did the people dissecting or otherwise using cadavers begin to feel guilty about what they were doing - one woman told me about her disgrace when she unwrapped a pair of hands to find the fingernails painted with nail polish. Historically, a deficiency in cadavers has caused anatomists to go to extreme lengths to find dead bodies to dissect - including paying people to dig up recently buried bodies. The University of Tennessee Medical Center is the only one in the world dedicated to studying how humans decay - they leave dead bodies outside, and study them throughout various stages of decomposition. When a body is embalmed, it is preserved only temporarily, long enough that it will look presentable for an open casket memorial service. Cadavers are also used to study what can happen to a person in a car crash, which can help car manufacturers build cars that are safer to drive.
Quotes:
"The problem with cadavers is that they look so much like people. It's the reason most of us prefer a pork chop to a slice of whole suckling pig. It's the reason we say "pork" and "beef" instead of "pig" and "cow." Dissection and surgical instruction, like meat-eating, require a carefully maintained set of illusions and denial. Physicians and anatomy students must learn to think of cadavers as wholly unrelated to the people they once were." (21)
"It is tempting to believe that the author's impersonal references to the corpses belie some sense of discomfort with his activities. He does not dwell upon their looks or muse about their sorry fate. He cannot bring himself to refer to the dead as anything other than a size or gender. Only occasionally do the bodies merit a noun." (45)
"Life contains these things: leakage and wickage and discharge, pus and snot and slime and gleet. We are biology. We are reminded of this at the beginning and the end, at birth and at death. In between we do what we can to forget." (84)
Analysis:
I was oddly undisturbed by anything in the book so far. I thought I would be; however, it seems more enthralling than disgusting. But I realize to many, the book would be very disturbing; as the author said, there will be people who think that to do anything to a dead person other then bury or cremate them is wrong. This is understandable once one reads about the many things that are done to cadavers when they are "donated to science" - they could be used for plastic surgeons to practice on, or as a dummy in a car-crash test. Some people would initially think of donating one's body to science as an altruistic act, imagining a scientist finding the cure to an infectious disease as a result of dissecting it - but they might change their mind if they found out people were instead using it to practice doing nose jobs. Maybe there will one day be a way in which someone could get to choose what happened to them if they decided to donate their body to science. On the other hand, if that happened, there would be far fewer cadavers for plastic surgeons to practice on, which could lead to increased risks for people undergoing cosmetic surgery (including people having necessary reconstructive surgery).
Precis:
Many people will find this book disrespectful or otherwise offensive. In fact, when I was writing it, I often wondered if people were questioning my sanity. However, I find the subject fascinating, and worth sharing. Cadavers are often disassembled, and the different parts are used for medical students to practice various procedures on - for instance, heads are used to practice face lifts. Only until recently did the people dissecting or otherwise using cadavers begin to feel guilty about what they were doing - one woman told me about her disgrace when she unwrapped a pair of hands to find the fingernails painted with nail polish. Historically, a deficiency in cadavers has caused anatomists to go to extreme lengths to find dead bodies to dissect - including paying people to dig up recently buried bodies. The University of Tennessee Medical Center is the only one in the world dedicated to studying how humans decay - they leave dead bodies outside, and study them throughout various stages of decomposition. When a body is embalmed, it is preserved only temporarily, long enough that it will look presentable for an open casket memorial service. Cadavers are also used to study what can happen to a person in a car crash, which can help car manufacturers build cars that are safer to drive.
Quotes:
"The problem with cadavers is that they look so much like people. It's the reason most of us prefer a pork chop to a slice of whole suckling pig. It's the reason we say "pork" and "beef" instead of "pig" and "cow." Dissection and surgical instruction, like meat-eating, require a carefully maintained set of illusions and denial. Physicians and anatomy students must learn to think of cadavers as wholly unrelated to the people they once were." (21)
"It is tempting to believe that the author's impersonal references to the corpses belie some sense of discomfort with his activities. He does not dwell upon their looks or muse about their sorry fate. He cannot bring himself to refer to the dead as anything other than a size or gender. Only occasionally do the bodies merit a noun." (45)
"Life contains these things: leakage and wickage and discharge, pus and snot and slime and gleet. We are biology. We are reminded of this at the beginning and the end, at birth and at death. In between we do what we can to forget." (84)
Analysis:
I was oddly undisturbed by anything in the book so far. I thought I would be; however, it seems more enthralling than disgusting. But I realize to many, the book would be very disturbing; as the author said, there will be people who think that to do anything to a dead person other then bury or cremate them is wrong. This is understandable once one reads about the many things that are done to cadavers when they are "donated to science" - they could be used for plastic surgeons to practice on, or as a dummy in a car-crash test. Some people would initially think of donating one's body to science as an altruistic act, imagining a scientist finding the cure to an infectious disease as a result of dissecting it - but they might change their mind if they found out people were instead using it to practice doing nose jobs. Maybe there will one day be a way in which someone could get to choose what happened to them if they decided to donate their body to science. On the other hand, if that happened, there would be far fewer cadavers for plastic surgeons to practice on, which could lead to increased risks for people undergoing cosmetic surgery (including people having necessary reconstructive surgery).
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
HW 48 - Family Perspectives on the Care of the Dead
I interviewed two of my aunts, M and F.
Me and my aunt M discussed how death is portrayed in popular culture. She said: "In pop culture, death is scary and cold, full of ghouls, ghosts, and dread. In our culture, children are screened from any exposure to it, not taken to funerals, not seeing frail elderly people at all in their lives, and generally not wanting to. I'm convinced that we 20th century Americans do everything possible to avoid being close to dying or old people. We go to hospitals to die in sterile impersonal surroundings. We send our frail elderly to nursing homes to be cared for by strangers. I was brought up thinking that this was correct and desirable."
Her idea about how death is hidden from normal life reminded me of when this was discussed in the illness and dying unit, and how everyone came to the conclusion that people shouldn't have to die in a hospital hooked up to machines, and should instead get to die at home. I thought that what she said certainly aligned itself with my experience - although I wasn't really sheltered from death (I just didn't ever know anyone who died), it certainly wasn't shoved in my face. However, it seems natural to want to avoid talking about death, because that would involve facing the fact that it's going to happen, and there are enough unpleasant things to think about in one's life aside from the fact that it is going to end one day. But I understood what she was trying to say: it is good to question the idea that we should send dying people away to hospitals, because this makes death seem like something scary instead of something natural.
I also asked her about ways of caring for the dead that she has seen. She said: "I have attended traditional Catholic funerals and wakes with lots of kneeling prayers and crying sobs, but much storytelling and riotous memories. And I've been to very still formal funerals with open caskets and impersonal words. And I've been to memorial services with singing and dancing, and sweet hugs." The general sense I got from her descriptions was that the more formal funerals, where people's feelings are suppressed and everyone is composed, aren't as meaningful as the ones where people are sharing stories and letting feelings show. This made me wonder what it would be like if funerals were always happy occasions, if anyone would question this and wonder why people celebrated someone being gone.
When I interviewed my other aunt, F, she talked about how she decided to become an organ donor because she liked the "idea of the person who died being able to continue to help the living." This was something I forgot about in my initial thoughts, probably because it isn't really a dominant practice in the U.S., although I know that in some countries it is - everyone is automatically an organ donor unless they opt out of it. I was thinking that maybe I should be an organ donor, but then I thought no, what if someone awful gets to stay alive because they have my kidney or something? I could never live with myself if I allowed that to happen.
F also mentioned that at memorial services she likes talking with others about the deceased person, because she gets to hear stories that help her remember them, and she gets to meet other people who knew the person well. I liked this idea, that someone could meet people and make friends in the wake of a death, that the event would help someone forge connections they wouldn't have made otherwise.
I realize that I've gone on too much about my own thoughts and reactions to my family member's thoughts, and that this is starting to sound too much like my journey of self discovery instead of analysis. However, I can't really do too much analysis, as my two aunts are sisters and very close, and basically agree on everything. I will say that their way of approaching death is certainly contradictory to the cultural norm, or at the very least contradictory to what I know the cultural norm to be. I've also learned that my aunts outright refuse to be sad about anything, even the one thing that you would think people would agree is something to be sad about.
Me and my aunt M discussed how death is portrayed in popular culture. She said: "In pop culture, death is scary and cold, full of ghouls, ghosts, and dread. In our culture, children are screened from any exposure to it, not taken to funerals, not seeing frail elderly people at all in their lives, and generally not wanting to. I'm convinced that we 20th century Americans do everything possible to avoid being close to dying or old people. We go to hospitals to die in sterile impersonal surroundings. We send our frail elderly to nursing homes to be cared for by strangers. I was brought up thinking that this was correct and desirable."
Her idea about how death is hidden from normal life reminded me of when this was discussed in the illness and dying unit, and how everyone came to the conclusion that people shouldn't have to die in a hospital hooked up to machines, and should instead get to die at home. I thought that what she said certainly aligned itself with my experience - although I wasn't really sheltered from death (I just didn't ever know anyone who died), it certainly wasn't shoved in my face. However, it seems natural to want to avoid talking about death, because that would involve facing the fact that it's going to happen, and there are enough unpleasant things to think about in one's life aside from the fact that it is going to end one day. But I understood what she was trying to say: it is good to question the idea that we should send dying people away to hospitals, because this makes death seem like something scary instead of something natural.
I also asked her about ways of caring for the dead that she has seen. She said: "I have attended traditional Catholic funerals and wakes with lots of kneeling prayers and crying sobs, but much storytelling and riotous memories. And I've been to very still formal funerals with open caskets and impersonal words. And I've been to memorial services with singing and dancing, and sweet hugs." The general sense I got from her descriptions was that the more formal funerals, where people's feelings are suppressed and everyone is composed, aren't as meaningful as the ones where people are sharing stories and letting feelings show. This made me wonder what it would be like if funerals were always happy occasions, if anyone would question this and wonder why people celebrated someone being gone.
When I interviewed my other aunt, F, she talked about how she decided to become an organ donor because she liked the "idea of the person who died being able to continue to help the living." This was something I forgot about in my initial thoughts, probably because it isn't really a dominant practice in the U.S., although I know that in some countries it is - everyone is automatically an organ donor unless they opt out of it. I was thinking that maybe I should be an organ donor, but then I thought no, what if someone awful gets to stay alive because they have my kidney or something? I could never live with myself if I allowed that to happen.
F also mentioned that at memorial services she likes talking with others about the deceased person, because she gets to hear stories that help her remember them, and she gets to meet other people who knew the person well. I liked this idea, that someone could meet people and make friends in the wake of a death, that the event would help someone forge connections they wouldn't have made otherwise.
I realize that I've gone on too much about my own thoughts and reactions to my family member's thoughts, and that this is starting to sound too much like my journey of self discovery instead of analysis. However, I can't really do too much analysis, as my two aunts are sisters and very close, and basically agree on everything. I will say that their way of approaching death is certainly contradictory to the cultural norm, or at the very least contradictory to what I know the cultural norm to be. I've also learned that my aunts outright refuse to be sad about anything, even the one thing that you would think people would agree is something to be sad about.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
HW 46 - Initial Thoughts on the Care of the Dead
My only previous experience with this topic was when I was 11, and my father's family had a memorial for my grandparents, who had died when I was young. They had it then because my grandparents donated their bodies to science, and it took a while to get back whatever was left, which had been cremated. I just remember feeling like I was playing a part by being somber and sad; after all, I never really knew them, I just knew I was supposed to be respectful for other people's feelings. I don't think this really counts as previous experience, because as I said, I didn't really know them. Other than that experience, I know little other than what I've read in books and seen in movies. It's odd to know so little about something that happens all the time, and something that nearly everyone I know has been through at this point in our lives. Most people haven't gone 17 years without knowing someone who died, who is dead, who will die soon.
Because I have gone my whole life without having been through this experience, I haven't really been taught a way to think of and act towards dead people. I know it's supposed to be sad, obviously; I know you aren't supposed to celebrate the fact that someone is dead, but rather celebrate their life. I know that once someone is dead, no one ever brings up the bad things they have done, only the good things. I'm not sure what the social norms surrounding this topic are, simply because it isn't often discussed. Most people I know say they'd like to be cremated, but I don't think that is the norm; I would imagine that the "normal" thing to do would be a funeral, as this is what it usually portrayed on TV and in movies.I think this unit will be interesting, because I won't have many predispositions about the way people are "supposed to" be taken care of - what I learn will be the way I first think about it.
Questions:
- How did cremation become an acceptable practice for care of the dead?
- What is the difference between a funeral and a memorial, and how/why do the two get confused?
- What happens before someone is put in a coffin?
- Which ways of caring for the dead are less harmful to the environment?
- What role does religion play in the decision of how to care for the dead?
Because I have gone my whole life without having been through this experience, I haven't really been taught a way to think of and act towards dead people. I know it's supposed to be sad, obviously; I know you aren't supposed to celebrate the fact that someone is dead, but rather celebrate their life. I know that once someone is dead, no one ever brings up the bad things they have done, only the good things. I'm not sure what the social norms surrounding this topic are, simply because it isn't often discussed. Most people I know say they'd like to be cremated, but I don't think that is the norm; I would imagine that the "normal" thing to do would be a funeral, as this is what it usually portrayed on TV and in movies.I think this unit will be interesting, because I won't have many predispositions about the way people are "supposed to" be taken care of - what I learn will be the way I first think about it.
Questions:
- How did cremation become an acceptable practice for care of the dead?
- What is the difference between a funeral and a memorial, and how/why do the two get confused?
- What happens before someone is put in a coffin?
- Which ways of caring for the dead are less harmful to the environment?
- What role does religion play in the decision of how to care for the dead?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
HW 45 - Reply to Other Peoples' Comments
@Lily: Thanks! I was also initially interested in this topic because people always told me I would want kids later in life, but I never got why. I was actually glad to know that there were biological reasons behind people having kids, because up until I learned that I always assumed people just did it because it's a "rite of passage".
@Elizabeth: I actually did ask my mom about my birth, and why she decided she wanted kids. She just said she always liked children, and she felt she was financially and emotionally "ready" to have kids. I decided not to include this because I wanted to focus more on the decision-making aspect, and she always knew she wanted kids - there wasn't really a decision to be made.
@Elizabeth: I actually did ask my mom about my birth, and why she decided she wanted kids. She just said she always liked children, and she felt she was financially and emotionally "ready" to have kids. I decided not to include this because I wanted to focus more on the decision-making aspect, and she always knew she wanted kids - there wasn't really a decision to be made.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
HW 44 - Comments on Other People's Projects
My comments on other people's blogs:
Beatrice:
You gave some background information about the history of planned parenthood and attempts made by house Republicans to cut funding for it. I particularly liked your video, because it was fun and very creative, but still related to your project. It also showed that high school kids care about issues such as this one. Your project matters to me as I have been doing research for a paper about the spending cuts Republicans have proposed, and how these cuts will affect various programs (They also planned to cut money from schools and programs like head start, which would lead to many teacher layoffs, and fewer resources for students). The only advice I would give is to give an explanation of what the video is about at the beginning or end of it.
Chris:
You explained how what you learned in class led you to want to interview a nurse or doctor, and then you told the story of you quest to find someone to interview. You also documented this journey, along with the responses from the doctor you interviewed. I particularly valued the fact that you interviewed various people after you couldn't find a doctor, and that you were willing to get kicked out of Babies R Us for the sake of this project. Your project matters to me because you wanted to hear other people's opinions about pregnancy and birth, and why they had these opinions. One thing I thought you could have done would be to analyze one of the interviews, or how what the doctor told you did or didn't match up with what you knew previously.
Amhara:
You interviewed your mother about your birth, and then gave her information about birth that we learned in class. I liked that you acknowledged that you had a biased opinion going into the project - people don't always realize or admit to this. You project matters because you brought up the idea of birthing centers, which hasn't really been discussed. The only advice I would give is to make it more clear what the intention of the project is.
Elizabeth:
You started with a personal story and then interviewed people on their thoughts regarding same-sex adoption. I liked how you explained your earlier confusion about the subject - this made it clear why you chose to investigate this particular topic. Your research and interviews matter to me because they highlight differing opinions - someone said that the child might be affected if they didn't have a role model of gender, but your research implies that this wouldn't matter, the child would be fine. One thing you could have done was interview a same sex couple, or the adopted child of a same sex couple, to get their perspective.
Comments on my blog:
Lily (Protege):
Hey- wonderful work (as usual)!!!! You write with journalistic professional-ish-ness but you maintain a still warm presence. Also, this issue is very interesting to be because I am one of those people who says she doesn't want kids- because the whole giving birth process really grosses me out. Everyone is always telling me how I'll get over it when I'm older and I always question that so the "baby fever" paragraph was fascinating to me. I guess the phenomenon makes sense because everyone is always talking about how you'll get it when you're older. I couldn't find anything to correct in your work, excellent job!!!!
Elizabeth:
Your work focused on the question "Why do people choose to have children or not?". This was a unique subject that we did not examine in class and I thought that it was nice to hear about a new perspective of birth. Your project mattered to me because I think about the future a lot and whether or not I'll have children. I think to further your project you could have gotten a little more "personal" and maybe interviewed your parents or something on the subject. Great job!
Jasper:
Sophia you're project went into reasons why people in the U.S. decide to have and not have children. I like how you explore so many reasons to have or not have children and you use statistics and surveys for evidence. This is important to me because I was also very curious about the reasons for having children because it seems like something almost everyone wants at some point in their life.
Beatrice:
You gave some background information about the history of planned parenthood and attempts made by house Republicans to cut funding for it. I particularly liked your video, because it was fun and very creative, but still related to your project. It also showed that high school kids care about issues such as this one. Your project matters to me as I have been doing research for a paper about the spending cuts Republicans have proposed, and how these cuts will affect various programs (They also planned to cut money from schools and programs like head start, which would lead to many teacher layoffs, and fewer resources for students). The only advice I would give is to give an explanation of what the video is about at the beginning or end of it.
Chris:
You explained how what you learned in class led you to want to interview a nurse or doctor, and then you told the story of you quest to find someone to interview. You also documented this journey, along with the responses from the doctor you interviewed. I particularly valued the fact that you interviewed various people after you couldn't find a doctor, and that you were willing to get kicked out of Babies R Us for the sake of this project. Your project matters to me because you wanted to hear other people's opinions about pregnancy and birth, and why they had these opinions. One thing I thought you could have done would be to analyze one of the interviews, or how what the doctor told you did or didn't match up with what you knew previously.
Amhara:
You interviewed your mother about your birth, and then gave her information about birth that we learned in class. I liked that you acknowledged that you had a biased opinion going into the project - people don't always realize or admit to this. You project matters because you brought up the idea of birthing centers, which hasn't really been discussed. The only advice I would give is to make it more clear what the intention of the project is.
Elizabeth:
You started with a personal story and then interviewed people on their thoughts regarding same-sex adoption. I liked how you explained your earlier confusion about the subject - this made it clear why you chose to investigate this particular topic. Your research and interviews matter to me because they highlight differing opinions - someone said that the child might be affected if they didn't have a role model of gender, but your research implies that this wouldn't matter, the child would be fine. One thing you could have done was interview a same sex couple, or the adopted child of a same sex couple, to get their perspective.
Comments on my blog:
Lily (Protege):
Hey- wonderful work (as usual)!!!! You write with journalistic professional-ish-ness but you maintain a still warm presence. Also, this issue is very interesting to be because I am one of those people who says she doesn't want kids- because the whole giving birth process really grosses me out. Everyone is always telling me how I'll get over it when I'm older and I always question that so the "baby fever" paragraph was fascinating to me. I guess the phenomenon makes sense because everyone is always talking about how you'll get it when you're older. I couldn't find anything to correct in your work, excellent job!!!!
Elizabeth:
Your work focused on the question "Why do people choose to have children or not?". This was a unique subject that we did not examine in class and I thought that it was nice to hear about a new perspective of birth. Your project mattered to me because I think about the future a lot and whether or not I'll have children. I think to further your project you could have gotten a little more "personal" and maybe interviewed your parents or something on the subject. Great job!
Jasper:
Sophia you're project went into reasons why people in the U.S. decide to have and not have children. I like how you explore so many reasons to have or not have children and you use statistics and surveys for evidence. This is important to me because I was also very curious about the reasons for having children because it seems like something almost everyone wants at some point in their life.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
HW 42 - Pregnancy & birth culminating project
Why do people decide to have children?
The answer to this question may seem simple, especially when thought about in evolutionary terms: People have children in order to pass on their genes. This is the case for most species, and for these species, it is not something they have to make a decision about. However, thanks to birth control, humans have a choice in the matter, and are in fact the only creatures on earth that have this choice.
While most people still choose to have children, there is a growing group of adults who are to put off having kids, or forgoing the idea all together. It seems as though they have decided that there are more reasons not to have kids then to have them. This change seems to have to do with shifts in social norms; it is more acceptable to not have a child now then it was fifty or sixty years ago.
A New York Times article suggests that the growing number of people who choose to have children later in their lives is indicative of a larger cultural shift wherein young adults take longer to grow up, putting off having children, and viewing marriage and parenthood “as lifestyle choices” as opposed to “pre-requisites for adulthood”. The article points to a 2003 U.S. Census study, which found that 19% of U.S. women age 40–44 did not have children (compared with 10% in 1976).
Choosing to have a child later in life is mostly viewed as respectable, since many women choose this in order to get an education, or advance in a job. However, people choosing not to have children at all suggest that there are actually many reasons to make this choice. Many women think having children is a waste of the planet's resources (contributes to overpopulation), or a waste of their time (they think they could do more for humanity on their own then they could by having a child).
Or they’re a waste of money. While most western countries offer new parents paid maternity/paternity leave (up to 50 weeks in Canada) and health care coverage, the United States only offers twelve weeks of unpaid maternity/paternity leave (and that’s if you have worked for a covered employer for at least 1,250 hours over the previous 12 months, among other restrictions). While other countries also have “baby bonuses” – money given to new parents to help them raise a child – the US offers little support to new parents.
Research suggests that being a parent may not even make someone happy, as people are led to believe. A Newsweek article from 2008 (“Does Having Children Make You Happy?”) suggests that non-parents are actually happier than parents:
The most recent comprehensive study on the emotional state of those with kids shows us that the term "bundle of joy" may not be the most accurate way to describe our offspring. "Parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," says Florida State University's Robin Simon, a sociology professor who's conducted several recent parenting studies, the most thorough of which came out in 2005 and looked at data gathered from 13,000 Americans by the National Survey of Families and Households. "In fact, no group of parents—married, single, step or even empty nest—reported significantly greater emotional well-being than people who never had children. It's such a counterintuitive finding because we have these cultural beliefs that children are the key to happiness and a healthy life, and they're not."
For various reasons, more and more people are choosing not to have kids. Terms often used to describe these individuals are childfree, or childless by choice. There is actually an international social club called No Kidding!, which was created for people who have never had children, no matter what the reason (this means it would include people who weren’t physically able to have children). The intent of No Kidding! is to give adults a place to talk to other adults about things other than raising children, and to take part in activities or events held by the club (concerts, hiking trips, etc).
Even though more and more people are choosing to put off or forgo having kids, many people still do. Why?
Obviously, many people choose to have kids because it is simply what is done when one reaches a certain point in their life. Many people think it will bring them happiness and joy that they might not otherwise have.
However, there might be deeper biological reasons women want to have kids. An article by Corrie Pikul published in Elle about why and when women choose to have children suggests that when women reach a certain age (around their 30s), they have a greater motivation to have kids. The article quotes Warren Miller, a psychiatrist at the Transnational Family Research Institute who has spent 40 years researching why women get pregnant, as having said: “The childbearing urge is an element of the “nurturant bonding system”. It’s an adaptive urge to raise love, and care for a needier being then ourselves – nature’s plan for ensuring that we take care of the children we produce.” This implies that there is another aspect to wanting to have kids – wanting to take care of someone.
Anna Rotkirch, the director of the Population Research Institute at the Family Federation in Finland, has conducted extensive research on these urges. She analyzed the stories of 106 women who wrote to her about their experience with “baby fever” – the compelling urge to have a child, to constantly be thinking about it. One woman described the “painful need to be pregnant” and added “if someone had earlier tried to describe such a feeling to me, I would have rolled my eyes and encouraged her to get a life”, implying that “baby fever” a feeling that is impossible to imagine unless you have it. The source of these urges has not yet been established.
It is also important to remember that many people don’t have extreme urges to have kids, but want them all the same. It might not even be because “it’s the normal thing to do” – they might just want to have a child because they like children.
WORKS CITED:
"Does Having Children Make You Happy?." Newsweek 28 JUN 2008. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html>.
Pikul, Corrie. "The Clock-Watcher: How do you know when - or if - you should have a baby?." Elle Magazine. Feb. 2011: 164-166. Print.
Courtenay-Smith, Natasha, and Morag Turner. "Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies - Because they're not eco friendly." dailymail.co.uk 21 NOV 2007. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html>.
http://www.nokidding.net/about.html
United States. Family and Medical Leave Act. , 1993. Web. 4 Apr 2011. <http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/index.htm>.
Cohen, Patricia. "Long Road to Adulthood Is Growing Even Longer." New York Times, 12 JUN 2010. Web. 3 Apr 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=3>.
Canada. Employment Insurance (EI) and maternity, parental and sickness benefits. , Web. 3 Apr 2011. <http://142.236.154.112/eng/ei/types/special.shtml#How>.
Friday, April 1, 2011
HW 41 - Independent Research
A
Belkin, Lisa. "Why Does Anyone Have Children?." Motherlode: Adventures In Parenting. New York Times, 07 JAN 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/why-does-anyone-have-children-2/>.
Someone wrote in to the author of the blog, asking why people decide to have children. The author of the blog then tells her story of why, and invites others to do the same in the comments section. This source is more of a personal story type of writing, but it is still valid, and provides some valuable data. This source would be helpful if I wanted to quote someone saying why they had kids.
Pikul, Corrie. "The Clock-Watcher: How do you know when - or if - you should have a baby?." Elle Magazine. Feb. 2011: 164-166. Print.
Author discusses her own ambivalence about whether or not to have a child, and wonders if she will stay indecisive, or if her body will give her some signal. Cites evidence from various studies that try to find physical/psychological "signs" that women are ready to have a baby. Touches on emotional aspects surrounding peoples decisions ("For any given woman, the desire to have a child can be a heartfelt longing, a fantasy, an excuse, or something to be denied - or all of the above, at different times"). Seems like a very good source of information, although it is sort of vague (she basically says that there are a lot of different factors that make people decide, and that it's different for everyone - well, obviously).
Bailey, Ronald. "Why Are People Having Fewer Kids?." Reason.com, 26 FEB 2008. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://reason.com/archives/2008/02/26/why-are-people-having-fewer-ki>.
Discusses a film about the worldwide decline in births, and the various factors contributing to this decline. Lots of statistical data about birthrates in different countries, which would be useful for a discussion of why women in different countries decide to have children. However, this may be a biased source, seeing as the author mentions that him and his wife do not have children.
"Evolutionary Biology Explains Why Poor People Have Lots of Kids at a Young Age." Neatoblogs. Neatorama, 24 JUL 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/24/evolutionary-biology-explains-why-poor-people-have-lots-of-kids-at-a-young-age/>.
States that people who have had tough experiences growing up have children as a sort of defense mechanism, since these people have a greater risk of something happening to them, and therefore feel the need to have children. Article is too short to be very useful, but further research could be done as to whether this statement carries any weight.
Jayson, Sharon. "Most parents have kids for 'joy'; to many it 'just happened'." USA Today, 06 MAY 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-06-whykids06_ST_N.htm>.
Discusses a poll taken by the Pew research center, and the various responses to the questions people were asked. Statistical data seems valid, and could be very useful.
"Does Having Children Make You Happy?." Newsweek 28 JUN 2008. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html>.
Discusses how in America, parenthood is portrayed as making people nothing but happy, when the fact is that this isn't always true. Author asserts that people are disillusioned, and like to believe that they are happy, even when they aren't. May be a slightly biased source, seeing as the author has a child, but it adds to the conversation, since it brings up how parenthood is portrayed, as opposed to how it actually is.
Senior, Jennifer. "All Joy and no Fun: Why Parents Hate Parenting." New York Magazine 04 JUL 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/>.
In-depth discussion about why people decide to have children, and whether this make them happy. Longer and more detailed then any other article about the subject. A good source, since it discusses different points of view, backed up by actual data (not just personal experience).
Courtenay-Smith, Natasha, and Morag Turner. "Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies - Because they're not eco friendly." dailymail.co.uk 21 NOV 2007. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html>.
A woman talks about not wanting to have a child, and how it was hard for her to find a doctor that would let her get sterilized when she was younger, as they thought she would regret the decision. This also ties into the aspect of doctors having control over patients. While this is an interesting viewpoint, it might not be the best source of information, as most of the article is the woman discussing her reasons for not having kids, as opposed to universal ones.
Belkin, Lisa. "Does Having Children Make You Unhappy?." Motherlode: Adventures In Parenting. New York Times, 01 APR 2009. Web. 1 Apr 2011. <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/>.
Author discusses a study that found that people who have children report being significantly less happy than people who don't, even after their children aren't living with them anymore. Author quotes a psychologist talking about the reasons people have children. This is a valid source, but the sample size of the study, among other things, would have to be investigated.
B
I would like to use this research to write an essay discussing the different reasons people decide to have children. This topic is interesting to me, because it is interesting to question why people do things that seem commonplace - is it because they want to, or because they know it is expected of them? This would enable me to learn more about different people's perspectives, as well as the biological/ psychological reasons behind them.
My essay will focus on the following questions - Why do people decide to have kids - Is it simply because having children is what is considered normal, or is there a broader biological reason? What factors do people take into account when making this decision? (For instance, in countries where parents receive money from the government to support their child, are people more likely to have children because they feel they can afford it?)
Belkin, Lisa. "Why Does Anyone Have Children?." Motherlode: Adventures In Parenting. New York Times, 07 JAN 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/why-does-anyone-have-children-2/>.
Someone wrote in to the author of the blog, asking why people decide to have children. The author of the blog then tells her story of why, and invites others to do the same in the comments section. This source is more of a personal story type of writing, but it is still valid, and provides some valuable data. This source would be helpful if I wanted to quote someone saying why they had kids.
Pikul, Corrie. "The Clock-Watcher: How do you know when - or if - you should have a baby?." Elle Magazine. Feb. 2011: 164-166. Print.
Author discusses her own ambivalence about whether or not to have a child, and wonders if she will stay indecisive, or if her body will give her some signal. Cites evidence from various studies that try to find physical/psychological "signs" that women are ready to have a baby. Touches on emotional aspects surrounding peoples decisions ("For any given woman, the desire to have a child can be a heartfelt longing, a fantasy, an excuse, or something to be denied - or all of the above, at different times"). Seems like a very good source of information, although it is sort of vague (she basically says that there are a lot of different factors that make people decide, and that it's different for everyone - well, obviously).
Bailey, Ronald. "Why Are People Having Fewer Kids?." Reason.com, 26 FEB 2008. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://reason.com/archives/2008/02/26/why-are-people-having-fewer-ki>.
Discusses a film about the worldwide decline in births, and the various factors contributing to this decline. Lots of statistical data about birthrates in different countries, which would be useful for a discussion of why women in different countries decide to have children. However, this may be a biased source, seeing as the author mentions that him and his wife do not have children.
"Evolutionary Biology Explains Why Poor People Have Lots of Kids at a Young Age." Neatoblogs. Neatorama, 24 JUL 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/24/evolutionary-biology-explains-why-poor-people-have-lots-of-kids-at-a-young-age/>.
States that people who have had tough experiences growing up have children as a sort of defense mechanism, since these people have a greater risk of something happening to them, and therefore feel the need to have children. Article is too short to be very useful, but further research could be done as to whether this statement carries any weight.
Jayson, Sharon. "Most parents have kids for 'joy'; to many it 'just happened'." USA Today, 06 MAY 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-06-whykids06_ST_N.htm>.
Discusses a poll taken by the Pew research center, and the various responses to the questions people were asked. Statistical data seems valid, and could be very useful.
"Does Having Children Make You Happy?." Newsweek 28 JUN 2008. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html>.
Discusses how in America, parenthood is portrayed as making people nothing but happy, when the fact is that this isn't always true. Author asserts that people are disillusioned, and like to believe that they are happy, even when they aren't. May be a slightly biased source, seeing as the author has a child, but it adds to the conversation, since it brings up how parenthood is portrayed, as opposed to how it actually is.
Senior, Jennifer. "All Joy and no Fun: Why Parents Hate Parenting." New York Magazine 04 JUL 2010. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/>.
In-depth discussion about why people decide to have children, and whether this make them happy. Longer and more detailed then any other article about the subject. A good source, since it discusses different points of view, backed up by actual data (not just personal experience).
Courtenay-Smith, Natasha, and Morag Turner. "Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies - Because they're not eco friendly." dailymail.co.uk 21 NOV 2007. Web. 31 Mar 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies--theyre-eco-friendly.html>.
A woman talks about not wanting to have a child, and how it was hard for her to find a doctor that would let her get sterilized when she was younger, as they thought she would regret the decision. This also ties into the aspect of doctors having control over patients. While this is an interesting viewpoint, it might not be the best source of information, as most of the article is the woman discussing her reasons for not having kids, as opposed to universal ones.
Belkin, Lisa. "Does Having Children Make You Unhappy?." Motherlode: Adventures In Parenting. New York Times, 01 APR 2009. Web. 1 Apr 2011. <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/>.
Author discusses a study that found that people who have children report being significantly less happy than people who don't, even after their children aren't living with them anymore. Author quotes a psychologist talking about the reasons people have children. This is a valid source, but the sample size of the study, among other things, would have to be investigated.
B
I would like to use this research to write an essay discussing the different reasons people decide to have children. This topic is interesting to me, because it is interesting to question why people do things that seem commonplace - is it because they want to, or because they know it is expected of them? This would enable me to learn more about different people's perspectives, as well as the biological/ psychological reasons behind them.
My essay will focus on the following questions - Why do people decide to have kids - Is it simply because having children is what is considered normal, or is there a broader biological reason? What factors do people take into account when making this decision? (For instance, in countries where parents receive money from the government to support their child, are people more likely to have children because they feel they can afford it?)
Monday, March 28, 2011
HW 40 - Insights from Book - Part 3
This past weekend, I found myself at a cocktail party with Marsden Wagner, the author of the book I just finished reading. To demonstrate that I really read it, I said, "Hey - thanks for writing Born in the USA. Your idea that obstetricians in the US tend to be uninformed about how to treat regular, low-risk births, and instead treat pregnancy and birth as illnesses that need to be cured made me rethink the way I view medical care in the US.
1. Humanizing birth (treating it as a natural process) by educating the public, doctors, and other maternity care providers (midwives and obstetricians) (220).
But Dr. Wagner, surprised to be talking to someone who instead of sharing their own birth story actually rephrased the main idea of the text he spent months giving birth to, asked me, "Really, which parts were most effective or important for you?" So I told him: "Well, in the last third of the book you focused on what should change about how birth is treated, and how those changes could be implemented, which restated and added onto the ideas presented to the first 2/3rds of the book. But let me be more specific." And then I listed the top 3 ideas from that final third of the book (I somehow even managed to list page number references, probably because I have a photographic memory when it comes to reading and remembering details from books about how pregnancy and birth are viewed in the US).
1. Humanizing birth (treating it as a natural process) by educating the public, doctors, and other maternity care providers (midwives and obstetricians) (220).
2. Preserving the patient's right to sue a doctor, in order to make doctors more accountable for their actions (224).
3. Using science to improve maternity care - but using scientific data that is accurate in order to help women give birth, as opposed to using it to defend harmful choices made by doctors (246).
At this point, realizing that he was having a unique conversation with a serious reader of his book, Mr. Wagner asked - "But what could I have done to make this a better book - that would more effectively fulfill its mission?" I answered, "Well, let's be clear - your book sought to provide narratives, historical analysis, and policy analysis from the perspective of a practitioner and public health specialist (you), in order for the book-reading-public to better understand pregnancy & birth in our culture. Given that aim, and your book, the best advice I would give for a 2nd edition of the text would be to be a bit more concise - things don't need to be restated that much - and explore more different aspects of birth, with the same detail that you used in Born in the USA.
But I don't want you to feel like I'm criticizing- I mean, I haven't even written a book (yet). I appreciate the immense amount of labor you dedicated to this important issue and particularly for making me think about how doctors become isolated from society after all those years in medical school, and how this changes the way they view their work and their patients - the hospital becomes a small world, centered around making people feel better, even when they aren't sick in the first place. In fact, I'm likely to view medical care and doctors in general differently as a result of your book - I'll probably be more skeptical about things I am told about medical care, and less likely to do what a doctor suggests without questioning it first."
Dr. Wagner replied, "Thank you! Talking to you has made me realize that teenagers today aren't as apathetic as the media makes them out to be, which gives me hope about our future as a society!"
But I don't want you to feel like I'm criticizing- I mean, I haven't even written a book (yet). I appreciate the immense amount of labor you dedicated to this important issue and particularly for making me think about how doctors become isolated from society after all those years in medical school, and how this changes the way they view their work and their patients - the hospital becomes a small world, centered around making people feel better, even when they aren't sick in the first place. In fact, I'm likely to view medical care and doctors in general differently as a result of your book - I'll probably be more skeptical about things I am told about medical care, and less likely to do what a doctor suggests without questioning it first."
Dr. Wagner replied, "Thank you! Talking to you has made me realize that teenagers today aren't as apathetic as the media makes them out to be, which gives me hope about our future as a society!"
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
HW 39 - Insights From Book - Part 2
Wagner , Marsden. Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to Put Women and Children First. University of California Press, 2006. Print.
A topic discussed in this book that "The Business of Being Born" did not touch upon is the interference of ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) in the world of obstetrics. ACOG tends to publish recommendations for how obstetricians should treat birth without providing any significant scientific data to back up these recommendations. This is one reason why so many obstetricians started using Cytotec in the 1990s - ACOG pretty much said it was okay to use it to induce labor (even though it sometimes caused uterine rupture). The book also has a whole chapter about how midwives are treated as inferior to doctors (even though becoming a midwife requires someone to attend many births before they are able to practice, unlike doctors, who might only see one or two births throughout their time in medical school) - this was something the movie mentioned, but did not go into detail about.
The major insight the books seems to be communicating is on page 126: "Women in the United States have the right to choose who they want to attend the birth of their child, and they also have a choice regarding where the birth will take place - in a hospital, in an alternative birth center, or at home. These are two different choices; though if an American woman chooses a doctor as her birth attendant, she cannot choose a home birth, since doctors in the United States no longer attend home births. Home births are attended only by midwives, and since that represents a loss of business for doctors, doctors attack home births with zeal." My initial response to this was curiosity over whether women really do have these choices. He said that women have the right to choose who they want to attend their birth; however, the book also points out that there are times where a woman has a doula with her at the birth, but the doula gets kicked out by the doctors for "interfering". He also said women have the right to choose where they want the birth to take place. However, when there seems to be so much stigma associated with home birth, is choosing where to have a child really a choice? It can't be, if women aren't always given all the information they need to make the right decision for their own birth.
Five interesting aspects of pregnancy and birth that deserve wider attention:
- "To give birth, a woman must open up her body, wide. This profound social and biological act requires everything a woman has and is. All maternity services should reflect this fundamental fact and should be designed to assist and support this woman. Most of the present care system for birthing women is designed not to assist the mother, but rather to control her." (190)
- "To give birth, a woman must open up her body, wide. This profound social and biological act requires everything a woman has and is. All maternity services should reflect this fundamental fact and should be designed to assist and support this woman. Most of the present care system for birthing women is designed not to assist the mother, but rather to control her." (190)
- Using an Electronic Fetal Monitor does not increase the chance of a healthy baby, and can increase the chance that invasive interventions (such as c-sections) will be done unnecessarily. (154)
- Every year, the National Center for Health Statistics reports an increase in home births attended by midwives. (151)
- "Fear of litigation has become an excuse that allows doctors to continue to use interventions such as induction of labor and C-section that they prefer to use for other reasons." (159)
- "Hospitals are highly symbolic of the medical model of birth - twenty-first century cathedrals with priests in white robes. A hospital is usually one of the biggest buildings in town, the halls are quiet, and outsiders are awed when they enter and feel reverence for those walking by dressed in white." (187)
A claim made in the second hundred pages of the book is: "Direct-entry midwives aren't even eligible to take the standardized national midwifery examination until they have attended at least fifty births, but there is no requirement for a labor and delivery nurse to have experience as a birth attendant before a hospital assigns her to monitor women in labor, and doctors who do not become obstetricians often finish medical school having attended, if they are lucky, maybe one or two births, but any M.D. is licensed to attend births" (117). I was surprised by the fact that there is a number of births that midwives have to be there for, so I researched whether that was true in all cases. I found a passage in the book Midwifery and Childbirth in America by Judith Rooks that states that midwives (as of 1981) must assist at fifty births and act as the primary attendant at another fifty throughout their three years of training. So the evidence the author gave was valid (although he actually understated it), and helped prove his point: that midwives go through a lot of training, and should not be considered inferior to doctors.
Monday, March 14, 2011
HW 38 - Insights From Pregnancy & Birth Book - Part 1
Born in the USA: How a broken maternity system must be fixed to put women and children first, by Marsden Wagner.
1) The book seems to be organized the way a lot of non-fiction books (that focus on an issue/problem) are: What is wrong, how it went wrong, and what can be done to change it. This is done with the book overall, and it is also done within each chapter; a chapter will have an anecdote that serves as an example of a particular aspect of what is wrong with birth, and then the author will go on to explain how it got this way and what can be changed.
2) While the title of the book would indicate that the question it tries to answer would be somewhere along the lines of "How can a broken maternity system be fixed?" it seems like the real question the book is answering is more like "How is the current maternity system in the US molded to be convenient for doctors, as opposed to being better for women?" I guess my answer to this would be that doctors see pregnancy as an illness, and they want to make women "better" - as long as this can happen in a time period that is convenient for them. This makes it impossible for pregnancy to be suited to an individual woman's needs, and therefore impossible for it to be a better experience for her.
3) The insight the author seems to be trying to communicate (so far) is that a lot of the time, many interventions doctors do aren't necessary - the birth would have happened fine if the woman was left alone. While I agreed with this, I do think that there are times where it is better for people to be in a hospital for birth. The author keeps saying that most births are low-risk, and don't need to happen in a hospital, but how does one know whether a birth is low-risk before it even happens?
4) Aspects of birth that deserve public attention:
- When doctors are in medical school, they only see births where something went wrong; they go through school without ever seeing a normal birth.
- There is an increased chance of a baby dying if the baby is born at night, when there are fewer doctors around.
- It is hard for a woman to sue a doctor (to find a lawyer that will take her case) for giving her an episiotomy without her permission, because the doctor can always argue that it was necessary (even if it wasn't).
- Doctors spend so much of their training in hospitals that they forget about the real world; they are removed from any outside life, which makes their job their life.
- Many women choose to have c-sections because they want a scheduled birth, or because they don't want to face the "risks" of having a vaginal birth.
5) The author uses pretty sound evidence throughout the book; however, it seems like he is repeating the same thing over and over, just citing different sources. There are lots of statistics; at times it seems like the author is simply listing them, without analyzing them. It does seem like the evidence is reliable though, and the author has an annotated bibliography in the back of the book detailing the sources he used and the ideas each source discusses. The author also anecdotal evidence to bring up new issues; for example, he will tell a story of a woman who had trouble giving birth due to the fact that the nurses were told to wait until the doctor arrived, and then he will explain the reasons that this happens a lot, and how it is harmful to women.
Also, because the author used to be a doctor, he has insight into the culture of a hospital and the stresses that doctors and nurses have to deal with; this is an aspect of hospitals and birth that someone who wasn't a doctor wouldn't have insight into.
1) The book seems to be organized the way a lot of non-fiction books (that focus on an issue/problem) are: What is wrong, how it went wrong, and what can be done to change it. This is done with the book overall, and it is also done within each chapter; a chapter will have an anecdote that serves as an example of a particular aspect of what is wrong with birth, and then the author will go on to explain how it got this way and what can be changed.
2) While the title of the book would indicate that the question it tries to answer would be somewhere along the lines of "How can a broken maternity system be fixed?" it seems like the real question the book is answering is more like "How is the current maternity system in the US molded to be convenient for doctors, as opposed to being better for women?" I guess my answer to this would be that doctors see pregnancy as an illness, and they want to make women "better" - as long as this can happen in a time period that is convenient for them. This makes it impossible for pregnancy to be suited to an individual woman's needs, and therefore impossible for it to be a better experience for her.
3) The insight the author seems to be trying to communicate (so far) is that a lot of the time, many interventions doctors do aren't necessary - the birth would have happened fine if the woman was left alone. While I agreed with this, I do think that there are times where it is better for people to be in a hospital for birth. The author keeps saying that most births are low-risk, and don't need to happen in a hospital, but how does one know whether a birth is low-risk before it even happens?
4) Aspects of birth that deserve public attention:
- When doctors are in medical school, they only see births where something went wrong; they go through school without ever seeing a normal birth.
- There is an increased chance of a baby dying if the baby is born at night, when there are fewer doctors around.
- It is hard for a woman to sue a doctor (to find a lawyer that will take her case) for giving her an episiotomy without her permission, because the doctor can always argue that it was necessary (even if it wasn't).
- Doctors spend so much of their training in hospitals that they forget about the real world; they are removed from any outside life, which makes their job their life.
- Many women choose to have c-sections because they want a scheduled birth, or because they don't want to face the "risks" of having a vaginal birth.
5) The author uses pretty sound evidence throughout the book; however, it seems like he is repeating the same thing over and over, just citing different sources. There are lots of statistics; at times it seems like the author is simply listing them, without analyzing them. It does seem like the evidence is reliable though, and the author has an annotated bibliography in the back of the book detailing the sources he used and the ideas each source discusses. The author also anecdotal evidence to bring up new issues; for example, he will tell a story of a woman who had trouble giving birth due to the fact that the nurses were told to wait until the doctor arrived, and then he will explain the reasons that this happens a lot, and how it is harmful to women.
Also, because the author used to be a doctor, he has insight into the culture of a hospital and the stresses that doctors and nurses have to deal with; this is an aspect of hospitals and birth that someone who wasn't a doctor wouldn't have insight into.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
HW 37 - Comments on Birth & Pregnancy Stories
Comments on my blog:
Chris: "Wow, this is a really good and complete post, honestly I was thinking for a while how i could try to help you make this better and there are not many ways that I think you can make it better. You did a great job recording your interviews and analyzing what you learned and what you put in bold was a good idea that I had also thought about in many of my class. Its something that i wrote about in my blog post and you'll see this when you read it but here is your best line ""When someone said "it's a girl," I realized my eyes were squeezed shut and there was already a bundled up baby in my arms. Instead of being overcome by instant love like everyone told me I would be, I just felt kind of awkward. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do or how I felt." I like this a lot even though its a quote because it sounds like something that most moms would say but I think its like this because mothers do love their babies and i talk a lot about why I think this is in my blog so you blog and mine have a lot of the same ideas. Good post."
Lily (Protege): The part I liked best was this~
"And I was actually glad to know that it's okay to feel uncertain, or to not know what to feel. Her story showed me that even with something as natural as birth, people still feel awkward sometimes."
I thought this was really relatable. The above quote was the best for another reason, too. You seem very earnest and you're interperting the interview with a lot of emotion while maintaining admirable professionality. I can't think of anything to change, your work is really remarkable for this.
Marilena (Mentor): I thought your best line was:
"I was struck by how different her story was from the way birth is usually described. While I knew labor and birth were painful, I always thought that it would all be okay in the end - this is what people have always told me. I always figured that while going into labor would be scary, it would also be somewhat exiting - I mean, you're about to have a child."
This was good analysis, as it shows how what you learned is different then you have previously heard. It also reveals what you think the experience of birth would be like (which has been affected by what you have previously been told).
The only suggestion I have is that you could have gone more in depth with the analysis of the third interview."
Amhara: I thought it was smart of you to explain the physical and mental effects DURING a pregnancy, which is something I didn't really have in mind going into this assignment. Its important to explain those specific things because in our culture there are many assumptions and stereotypes of women while pregnant. It was also interesting for you to talk about how other people treated her during the pregnancy because that is also definitely a factor.
I believe that your best thought was:
"I thought it was interesting how her friend's death made her want to have another child. "
because you were touching on the big idea of what motivates people to have children! and this is a very unique and beautiful example of that.
My comments on others blogs:
Chris: I thought this line was really interesting:
"If a child is a child when its first in the womb at about a month old because it has to be taken care of then how come the men don’t help. If they are only going to help after the baby is born then maybe women are more suitable to take care of the children."
It is interesting how no one ever points out the fact that the baby needs to be taken care of before it's even born. I liked your idea that the father should be willing to help throughout the pregnancy as well as after the birth.
Your interviews seemed to contrast each other - while the mother in the first interview described the father as being extremely involved (which was, as you said, not the expected answer), the mothers in the second interview described the fathers as being less willing to help.
I thought you did a good job of displaying this contrast between the two interviews, and questioning why mothers don't get the support they need during pregnancy. All in all, nice post.
Amhara: First off, this was my favorite line from the interviews:
A- "Did you receive any pain relievers?"
F- "No, this wasn't America" {Laughs}
I really liked the whole first interview, because it was interesting, as you said, to hear about how birth happens in other countries (like how there are maternity homes instead of hospitals).
You also built off your previous ideas after each interview, and you brought up many different topics: natural vs. induced labor, whether the father should be there for the birth, and why birth makes people uncomfortable.
I also didn't know until recently how common it is now for labor to be induced by a doctor; I've heard this isn't very good for the mother or the baby.
All in all, I thought your post was well done and organized. I also liked this line of yours: "It was also interesting to see how these two different parts of the birth process were connected to one another. It makes me imagine the process as a game board where your path is altered depending on where you move."
Chris: "Wow, this is a really good and complete post, honestly I was thinking for a while how i could try to help you make this better and there are not many ways that I think you can make it better. You did a great job recording your interviews and analyzing what you learned and what you put in bold was a good idea that I had also thought about in many of my class. Its something that i wrote about in my blog post and you'll see this when you read it but here is your best line ""When someone said "it's a girl," I realized my eyes were squeezed shut and there was already a bundled up baby in my arms. Instead of being overcome by instant love like everyone told me I would be, I just felt kind of awkward. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do or how I felt." I like this a lot even though its a quote because it sounds like something that most moms would say but I think its like this because mothers do love their babies and i talk a lot about why I think this is in my blog so you blog and mine have a lot of the same ideas. Good post."
Lily (Protege): The part I liked best was this~
"And I was actually glad to know that it's okay to feel uncertain, or to not know what to feel. Her story showed me that even with something as natural as birth, people still feel awkward sometimes."
I thought this was really relatable. The above quote was the best for another reason, too. You seem very earnest and you're interperting the interview with a lot of emotion while maintaining admirable professionality. I can't think of anything to change, your work is really remarkable for this.
Marilena (Mentor): I thought your best line was:
"I was struck by how different her story was from the way birth is usually described. While I knew labor and birth were painful, I always thought that it would all be okay in the end - this is what people have always told me. I always figured that while going into labor would be scary, it would also be somewhat exiting - I mean, you're about to have a child."
This was good analysis, as it shows how what you learned is different then you have previously heard. It also reveals what you think the experience of birth would be like (which has been affected by what you have previously been told).
The only suggestion I have is that you could have gone more in depth with the analysis of the third interview."
Amhara: I thought it was smart of you to explain the physical and mental effects DURING a pregnancy, which is something I didn't really have in mind going into this assignment. Its important to explain those specific things because in our culture there are many assumptions and stereotypes of women while pregnant. It was also interesting for you to talk about how other people treated her during the pregnancy because that is also definitely a factor.
I believe that your best thought was:
"I thought it was interesting how her friend's death made her want to have another child. "
because you were touching on the big idea of what motivates people to have children! and this is a very unique and beautiful example of that.
My comments on others blogs:
Chris: I thought this line was really interesting:
"If a child is a child when its first in the womb at about a month old because it has to be taken care of then how come the men don’t help. If they are only going to help after the baby is born then maybe women are more suitable to take care of the children."
It is interesting how no one ever points out the fact that the baby needs to be taken care of before it's even born. I liked your idea that the father should be willing to help throughout the pregnancy as well as after the birth.
Your interviews seemed to contrast each other - while the mother in the first interview described the father as being extremely involved (which was, as you said, not the expected answer), the mothers in the second interview described the fathers as being less willing to help.
I thought you did a good job of displaying this contrast between the two interviews, and questioning why mothers don't get the support they need during pregnancy. All in all, nice post.
Amhara: First off, this was my favorite line from the interviews:
A- "Did you receive any pain relievers?"
F- "No, this wasn't America" {Laughs}
I really liked the whole first interview, because it was interesting, as you said, to hear about how birth happens in other countries (like how there are maternity homes instead of hospitals).
You also built off your previous ideas after each interview, and you brought up many different topics: natural vs. induced labor, whether the father should be there for the birth, and why birth makes people uncomfortable.
I also didn't know until recently how common it is now for labor to be induced by a doctor; I've heard this isn't very good for the mother or the baby.
All in all, I thought your post was well done and organized. I also liked this line of yours: "It was also interesting to see how these two different parts of the birth process were connected to one another. It makes me imagine the process as a game board where your path is altered depending on where you move."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)