?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So I've been very busy...

... mostly with work stuff, the way one is.  I did a little bit of fic writing.  I got the materials I need to prepare for a professional certification exam.  Fortunately, I didn't schedule yet, because I haven't had any time at all to study for it.

I gave my old ... well, what?  Not really ex, not really flame.  That guy I went out with a couple of times, from 2012.  Anyway, I gave him my new number and we talked for half an hour today.  He sounds depressed, but not that suck-you-into-a-sinkhole depressed that S. gets.  It sounds situational ... but it still doesn't sound like fun to be around.  He asked me to have dinner tonight and I told him I was busy with work for the rest of the month.

Jack is curled up in a ball (with his trademark one foot sticking out) and is snoring lightly.

Anyone else read the novels of Lenora Mattingly Weber as a kid?  I wrote a couple of para. in praise of those books, but I just read someone else completely trashing them for their 1950s POV and concerns, so I deleted them.

(I think, to be honest, that the person who trashed them made the fairly elementary mistake of assuming that every era was just like her own, except that people of earlier times insisted on maintaining an elaborate web of lies about things that are really eternal verities.  Times don't change, by this formulation:  only people do.  I don't think this is necessarily true.)

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
glory_jean
Jun. 15th, 2014 07:22 am (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the author in question, but I recently re-read one of my childhood favs. Madeleine L'Engle's early books are set in roughly the same era and I found certain things eye-opening.

For example. their cavalier attitude toward serious childhood illness we have vaccinated away is understandable. But it was their lack of concern for kids missing a month or two of school that just floors me considering how these missing just days 3 days a semester will get you eyed by the truancy people, no matter the reason. It was a different world.
np_complete
Jun. 15th, 2014 08:40 pm (UTC)
I wonder if the lack of concern about missing school due to illness might have been because serious illnesses were so prevalent: every kid was going to miss a month or so at some point and there was nothing you could do to prevent it, so you might as well just design an accommodating curriculum. And keeping the kid at home made more sense than having him or her infecting the whole town. (Or, perhaps, the whole town would get infected at once, and nobody would be in school!)

I'm probably one of the older people to have missed mumps entirely: I received an experimental vaccine as an infant. It worked: my younger sister got mumps and was miserable, but I didn't. (We'd moved by the time she was born, so she wasn't part of the study/program/volunteer group.)
glory_jean
Jun. 16th, 2014 12:19 am (UTC)
No doubt that's the reason. But it's amazing how foreign childhood illness is these days that schools now stigmatize kids who can't be helped by vaccines.

Even when I was a child and I would miss one or two weeks at a time (because I was sickly and my doctor just shrugged and said to live with it) the school would just prepare a homework packet for me. They did give my mom a little flak but I ran consistent fevers throughout my illnesses and the rules (then and now)say they are not allowed in school until 24 hours after the fever breaks. They never however, sent a letter for truancy or characterized my absences as "excessive" as though my illness was some sort of aberration or act of defiance.

But these days even with my son's tendency to spike fevers in the danger range they treat me like a criminal who is trying to con them.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )