The problem with Chex Mix is that although it may contain 60% less fat than potato chips, it still contains fat, and is still not the most healthy food around.
Back in the day (college), I was way more strict with myself about food. I wouldn't buy chips (although I did go through a pita chip phase during grad school). I would limit myself to one sweet thing a day. This lasted until a very stressful phase in grad school where I dropped to 124 lbs., and my doctor commanded me to eat more per day (this is when the pita chip obsession began - also my love of bagels with a TON of cream cheese on them). I ended up gaining back the weight, due to my wonderful husband's love, not the food. But I never went back to my strict policies with myself.
Which is unfortunate, because, while at a game night two weekends ago, the hosts offered us Chex Mix. Never before have I enjoyed Chex Mix so much. And now a bag of it is sitting in the pantry, calling to me, singing me its siren snacking song.
Must...have...willpower.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Props to Avril Lavigne and Howie Day
...and a shout out to minor contributions from Dave Matthews' Band, Keane, and Billy Joel for helping me complete two successful months on the elliptical machine 3X/week for 30 minutes at a time.
After the asthma nightmare that lasted for months last summer and fall, I'm happy to be back doing more than walking the dog around our hilly neighborhood. And my lungs are feeling healthy and strong.
Woo-hoo health! And bring on the pollen!!!
After the asthma nightmare that lasted for months last summer and fall, I'm happy to be back doing more than walking the dog around our hilly neighborhood. And my lungs are feeling healthy and strong.
Woo-hoo health! And bring on the pollen!!!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Equality
This morning my husband and I were talking about the CA supreme court's decision yesterday to uphold the legal status of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And then the topic shifted to gay marriage more generally.
We both agree that gay marriage should be legal as marriage between a man and a woman is legal, but for slightly different reasons. His philosophy is that a plethora of issues should be legal unless there's a compelling reason for them not to be. Thus, since he can't see how letting two men or two women marry would hurt society, he is not opposed to gay marriage. In contrast, he would be opposed to marriage between adults and children, because there's a compelling argument that such an arrangement would cause undue harm to the children in question. For me, it's about equality; if I get the right to marry the person of my choosing (who happens to be straight), then I believe everyone else should get the right to marry the person of their choosing. Our arguments are very similar, and obviously come to the same conclusion. Additionally, I don't think either of our arguments are necessarily tied directly to the issue of gay marriage. For my husband, if actions are not hurting society, then they should be legal (whatever those actions are); for me, if I'm legally allowed to do something (whatever that something is), then others should also have the right.
I think opponents of gay marriage are also seeing a larger picture behind this particular issue. Their arguments may revolve around the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but the driving force of such sentiment is about god's will. So again, the particular issue doesn't matter (it could be gay marriage, abortion, etc.), but whether the outcome fits within god's will does.
As someone who grew up in California, and attended a fundamentalist Christian school for two years while I lived there, I am not surprised that there is so much disagreement about gay rights in the state. Not all Californians are the same. There's extremely liberal regions in CA, and extremely conservative regions. It's a huge state, and there's bound to be severe disagreements.
What strikes me as more interesting than debates within CA are the three states where gay marriage has been legalized: Maine, Vermont, and Iowa (please correct me if my information is incomplete). We're not talking about states with large urban centers (traditional hotbeds of liberalism)...we're talking about states with large rural populations. So what is going on here?
My first response was to claim something about the culture of the Northeast (where quite a few other states have given legal rights to same-sex civil unions). Perhaps the ideals of two important religious traditions in the Northeast (Quakerism and Unitarian Universalism) supporting equal rights for all people have infused the general culture to a great enough extent that the populations are willing to push for equal marriage rights. But this leaves me not understanding Iowa. I confess I haven't spent much time in the Midwest, but I was somewhat shocked when Iowa legalized gay marriage. Is there a similar tradition (perhaps based on religion, or otherwise) of equal rights in Iowa? Or is Iowa the outlier to the pattern we've seen in the Northeast (and to a limited extent in the Northwest)? What do you think?
We both agree that gay marriage should be legal as marriage between a man and a woman is legal, but for slightly different reasons. His philosophy is that a plethora of issues should be legal unless there's a compelling reason for them not to be. Thus, since he can't see how letting two men or two women marry would hurt society, he is not opposed to gay marriage. In contrast, he would be opposed to marriage between adults and children, because there's a compelling argument that such an arrangement would cause undue harm to the children in question. For me, it's about equality; if I get the right to marry the person of my choosing (who happens to be straight), then I believe everyone else should get the right to marry the person of their choosing. Our arguments are very similar, and obviously come to the same conclusion. Additionally, I don't think either of our arguments are necessarily tied directly to the issue of gay marriage. For my husband, if actions are not hurting society, then they should be legal (whatever those actions are); for me, if I'm legally allowed to do something (whatever that something is), then others should also have the right.
I think opponents of gay marriage are also seeing a larger picture behind this particular issue. Their arguments may revolve around the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but the driving force of such sentiment is about god's will. So again, the particular issue doesn't matter (it could be gay marriage, abortion, etc.), but whether the outcome fits within god's will does.
As someone who grew up in California, and attended a fundamentalist Christian school for two years while I lived there, I am not surprised that there is so much disagreement about gay rights in the state. Not all Californians are the same. There's extremely liberal regions in CA, and extremely conservative regions. It's a huge state, and there's bound to be severe disagreements.
What strikes me as more interesting than debates within CA are the three states where gay marriage has been legalized: Maine, Vermont, and Iowa (please correct me if my information is incomplete). We're not talking about states with large urban centers (traditional hotbeds of liberalism)...we're talking about states with large rural populations. So what is going on here?
My first response was to claim something about the culture of the Northeast (where quite a few other states have given legal rights to same-sex civil unions). Perhaps the ideals of two important religious traditions in the Northeast (Quakerism and Unitarian Universalism) supporting equal rights for all people have infused the general culture to a great enough extent that the populations are willing to push for equal marriage rights. But this leaves me not understanding Iowa. I confess I haven't spent much time in the Midwest, but I was somewhat shocked when Iowa legalized gay marriage. Is there a similar tradition (perhaps based on religion, or otherwise) of equal rights in Iowa? Or is Iowa the outlier to the pattern we've seen in the Northeast (and to a limited extent in the Northwest)? What do you think?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Growth
I have always believed that the person you marry should challenge you to be your best self, and to grow and change when necessary.
Through knowing my husband for the past eight years, there are numerous ways I have grown, but today I'm reminded of how my views of the military have changed.
I grew up hearing stories about the huge fights my mother and father used to have with her family about the Vietnam War. My mother and my father, who grew up Quaker and did alternative service during Vietnam, did not believe in the war. In contrast, Uncle Jack (my mother's oldest brother), had enlisted in the Navy when he was 17 (I'm not sure how), had served in WWII, and was then serving in Vietnam. My Uncle Sonny (my mother's middle brother) had served in Korea as a radio technician, and my Uncle Jim (her younger brother) was drafted to serve in Vietnam as an airplane mechanic.
Although I knew that all three of my uncles had been in the military, I always leaned more towards my father's views of war. In fact, since I didn't believe in war as a good outcome to conflict, it didn't occur to me to think of the soldiers as separate from war, until I met my husband.
My husband, who has no family members in the military, but whose best friend was in the Marine Corps for quite a few years, has a tremendous sense of gratitude for the service of military personnel. This gratitude may be the result of growing up male and being a history buff, both of which have exposed him to the awful realities of war. Whatever the source of his gratitude, my husband has helped me to separate the wars from the individuals, and that has helped me to grow.
I still do not fundamentally believe in war as a solution to political problems (although I do realize its necessity, from time to time), I have come to have a deep appreciation for the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I may not understand why they choose to join the military, or endorse their beliefs (especially the ones who join because they want to further god's will), but they all put their lives on the line for their country, and for that I have immense respect.
On Saturday, my husband and I shook hands with two veterans collecting donations for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Foundation. I'll admit, it was hard for me to step beyond my revulsion for war and thank them, but it was worth it.
Through knowing my husband for the past eight years, there are numerous ways I have grown, but today I'm reminded of how my views of the military have changed.
I grew up hearing stories about the huge fights my mother and father used to have with her family about the Vietnam War. My mother and my father, who grew up Quaker and did alternative service during Vietnam, did not believe in the war. In contrast, Uncle Jack (my mother's oldest brother), had enlisted in the Navy when he was 17 (I'm not sure how), had served in WWII, and was then serving in Vietnam. My Uncle Sonny (my mother's middle brother) had served in Korea as a radio technician, and my Uncle Jim (her younger brother) was drafted to serve in Vietnam as an airplane mechanic.
Although I knew that all three of my uncles had been in the military, I always leaned more towards my father's views of war. In fact, since I didn't believe in war as a good outcome to conflict, it didn't occur to me to think of the soldiers as separate from war, until I met my husband.
My husband, who has no family members in the military, but whose best friend was in the Marine Corps for quite a few years, has a tremendous sense of gratitude for the service of military personnel. This gratitude may be the result of growing up male and being a history buff, both of which have exposed him to the awful realities of war. Whatever the source of his gratitude, my husband has helped me to separate the wars from the individuals, and that has helped me to grow.
I still do not fundamentally believe in war as a solution to political problems (although I do realize its necessity, from time to time), I have come to have a deep appreciation for the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I may not understand why they choose to join the military, or endorse their beliefs (especially the ones who join because they want to further god's will), but they all put their lives on the line for their country, and for that I have immense respect.
On Saturday, my husband and I shook hands with two veterans collecting donations for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Foundation. I'll admit, it was hard for me to step beyond my revulsion for war and thank them, but it was worth it.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Pride
Today was the last day of class, and my students applauded at the very end.*
It's a good day.
*I must say thank you to my husband for not telling me, "I told you so" when I recounted this story to him earlier. I've been stressing all semester about whether I was teaching a good class or not, and he's had the unenviable job of reassuring me. Well, apparently he was right that I'm a good teacher (or else I'm really good at fooling my class ; ).
It's a good day.
*I must say thank you to my husband for not telling me, "I told you so" when I recounted this story to him earlier. I've been stressing all semester about whether I was teaching a good class or not, and he's had the unenviable job of reassuring me. Well, apparently he was right that I'm a good teacher (or else I'm really good at fooling my class ; ).
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Spousal Social Capital
Today, after reading/editing/commenting on the fifth of the papers my husband has written this year, I realized what a benefit it is to him to have a sociologist for a wife (and for me to have a sociologist for a husband, of course ; ).
Not only can we assess the quality of each other's arguments, in addition to the regular editing tasks (watching for logical organization, comma splices, etc.), but having each other as spouses mean that we have an automatic confidant in the workplace.*
With only my own experience to go on, I'm prepared to say that our mutual career is an incredible asset professionally. And I'm wondering if such "spousal social capital" in the workplace will only become more common as more women have entered, and continue to enter, the workforce.
*Of course, this benefit has also sometimes taken the form of a curse. I remember a specific time period (around completing my dissertation), when I tried to forbid the discussion of sociology outside our department. Not only did this not work very well at all, it caused a bit of friction, since both of our identities are highly tied to being a sociologist, and of course you want to share important things with your spouse. Good times!
Not only can we assess the quality of each other's arguments, in addition to the regular editing tasks (watching for logical organization, comma splices, etc.), but having each other as spouses mean that we have an automatic confidant in the workplace.*
With only my own experience to go on, I'm prepared to say that our mutual career is an incredible asset professionally. And I'm wondering if such "spousal social capital" in the workplace will only become more common as more women have entered, and continue to enter, the workforce.
*Of course, this benefit has also sometimes taken the form of a curse. I remember a specific time period (around completing my dissertation), when I tried to forbid the discussion of sociology outside our department. Not only did this not work very well at all, it caused a bit of friction, since both of our identities are highly tied to being a sociologist, and of course you want to share important things with your spouse. Good times!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Family-Friendly Company
NPR today has a story about family-friendly companies that are allowing parents to bring their young babies (up to six months old) to work.
The companies are finding that women come back to work earlier, which is useful, since approximately 1/4 of women quit their jobs when they have a baby. And the women feel a lot less stress because they don't have to leave their babies at such a young age.
The number of companies allowing this is small (approximately 140 in the U.S.), but the idealist in me has high hopes for the spread of the idea.
You can find the story here.
The companies are finding that women come back to work earlier, which is useful, since approximately 1/4 of women quit their jobs when they have a baby. And the women feel a lot less stress because they don't have to leave their babies at such a young age.
The number of companies allowing this is small (approximately 140 in the U.S.), but the idealist in me has high hopes for the spread of the idea.
You can find the story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
