In today's world, children and money go together as an inseparable pair: it costs money to raise children, and children today are targetted consumers and spend money or influence how money is spent. There has been a lot of discussion here and on other blogs about how to handle the child/money connection. My next postings are going to be my two cents on what that child/money relationship is, how to introduce it to children and how to handle it in day to day living.
First, most young children are literalists, when they are not being fabulists. They listen to adults speak and they take literally the words that they hear. It behooves adults, then, to be careful when speaking about monetary matters around and to children. When a child overhears an adult say "One more price raise on fuel/utilities/food and we're going to go broke," they are going to take that statement literally, and they are going to get scared. As fabulists they will imagine what broke might mean for them, and it's not pretty. Instilling fear or terror is NOT part of educating a child in good spending/saving habits. Therefore, in my opinion, children should not be privy to the conversations of their parents as regards exact or actual ups and downs of family finances.
If there is an actual worry about how the parents are going to make ends meet, if there is a temporary setback financially, this should not be shared in detail with young children. If a child should ask why certain wants or luxuries are not appearing any longer or are appearing infrequently it should be sufficient to say: "We are being careful about money right now." "Being careful" is something even a young child can puzzle out, since they are routinely told to be careful of their belongings. "Being careful" does not translate to "I'm going to go hungry" or "We won't have any place to live."
As children get older their knowledge increases and their view of happenings in the world gets better. But they are still children. Again, in my opinion, even 10-12 year olds should not be burdened with the total facts and figures of a family's budget. And when some luxury items do not materialize or disappear they need to be told that there is no money for THOSE items, but that regular living will not be affected.
What keeps children on an even keel, what allows them to grow up healthy in mind and in body, is a sense of continuity and steadiness. They trust that their parents will provide for them now, tomorrow and for the tomorrows coming down the road. It's fairly axiomatic that the job of parents is to protect their children; sometimes their job is to protect those children from parental anxiety. Right now money is an issue not just for individuals but for our society in general; we may be heading for a partial depression, or we may already be in one. Prices are soaring and money, for most families, is not available to the extent it was even one year ago. Adults are having money worries, justifiable ones at that. But those worries, in all their gory details, should not be shared with young kids.
So if we are not going to be talking to children about the actual nuts and bolts of our personal finances what are we going to be teaching them about money, good spending habits and budgeting? Stay tuned for part #2.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Congratulations Kallah
So, it's official now. The engagement was publicly announced yesterday and tenoim were written in front of millions of witnesses. All the "family" was present in record numbers. Of course, as with any other engagement, there were and still are a lot of the family who think that the other boy the kallah was seeing would have been a better choice. However, the choice has been made and it's time to say mazal tov.
Before the celebrations reach fever pitch it might be a good idea to remember that the kallah's divorce from her present husband is not yet complete and won't be until January. Maybe the kallah's present husband will behave himself in the time left to him, knowing that his replacement is already there, and maybe he won't. Still lots of damage this present husband can do before he packs his things and leaves.
As to the present engagement, well new kallahs and chasonim always walk around so starry-eyed. They believe that happily ever after is a sure thing. They are sure, on a short acquaintance, that they know absolutely everything they need to know about their future spouse. Problems? Nothing that can't be worked out in record time.
And then comes the marriage. Lots of grand ideas that sound so plausible during the fairy tale engagement that aren't quite so simple once the couple is living together. Lots of surprises that no one thinks about before taking the leap into marriage. And yes, lots of muchatonim and family members who aren't happy with the shidduch and are taking a "prove you are really good enough to marry into our family" attitude. Nothing like squabbling family to put the damper on the "I'm the new choson" euphoria.
What kind of marriage will it be? Only time will tell. It could turn out to be just fine; it could turn out to be ho hum; it could turn out to be a stormy passage. But hey, if it turns out less "perfect" then the choson promised, in four years there will be another divorce. Strange but the kallah is awfully popular, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are other candidates for husband already planning their strategy for how to win the kallah, even before the official wedding has taken place. Unlike those wedding vows that say "till death do us part," this choson needs to remember that "death" can come in four years.
So yes, the family is going to give the choson a chance, even if a grudging chance, and maybe this shidduch will unite an already squabbling family. And if it doesn't happen that way? Four years may seem like forever but in the grander scheme of life it's just not all that long. And my advice to the choson? The same advice I have given to lots of other chosonim: when you get married you marry the whole family. Ignore that to your peril.
Welcome to the family, new choson, and we hope you will remember that we are a family, and all of us are worthy of consideration.
Before the celebrations reach fever pitch it might be a good idea to remember that the kallah's divorce from her present husband is not yet complete and won't be until January. Maybe the kallah's present husband will behave himself in the time left to him, knowing that his replacement is already there, and maybe he won't. Still lots of damage this present husband can do before he packs his things and leaves.
As to the present engagement, well new kallahs and chasonim always walk around so starry-eyed. They believe that happily ever after is a sure thing. They are sure, on a short acquaintance, that they know absolutely everything they need to know about their future spouse. Problems? Nothing that can't be worked out in record time.
And then comes the marriage. Lots of grand ideas that sound so plausible during the fairy tale engagement that aren't quite so simple once the couple is living together. Lots of surprises that no one thinks about before taking the leap into marriage. And yes, lots of muchatonim and family members who aren't happy with the shidduch and are taking a "prove you are really good enough to marry into our family" attitude. Nothing like squabbling family to put the damper on the "I'm the new choson" euphoria.
What kind of marriage will it be? Only time will tell. It could turn out to be just fine; it could turn out to be ho hum; it could turn out to be a stormy passage. But hey, if it turns out less "perfect" then the choson promised, in four years there will be another divorce. Strange but the kallah is awfully popular, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are other candidates for husband already planning their strategy for how to win the kallah, even before the official wedding has taken place. Unlike those wedding vows that say "till death do us part," this choson needs to remember that "death" can come in four years.
So yes, the family is going to give the choson a chance, even if a grudging chance, and maybe this shidduch will unite an already squabbling family. And if it doesn't happen that way? Four years may seem like forever but in the grander scheme of life it's just not all that long. And my advice to the choson? The same advice I have given to lots of other chosonim: when you get married you marry the whole family. Ignore that to your peril.
Welcome to the family, new choson, and we hope you will remember that we are a family, and all of us are worthy of consideration.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Vote!
Just one word for today--VOTE! As the NY Lottery loves to remind us "You have to be in it to win it." Applies to voting as well.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Same or Different?
I may be on hiatus from active shidduch making but that doesn't mean I'm not still interested in what is going on. I still regularly read what is being said about how to make a shidduch and on how to choose a spouse. One thing that I've read fairly regularly has me a bit puzzled.
Advice is given that you should be looking for someone who "matches" you. There should be ideas and ideals and hashkafa in common. There should be interests in common. There should be personalities in common. This all boils down to looking for someone who is just like you. All this is supposed to somehow "guarantee" that you will avoid heavy disagreements in marriage. Really? Why?
The first boy my oldest daughter ever went out with with was very quiet, so quiet that she wondered if she had not gone on the date by herself. Okay, their personalities didn't match as far as she could see so it was no to a second date. It happens that this boy was the son of a good friend of my sister's, which is how the date was set up, so she reported to me when this young man became a choson. She mentioned the kallah's name. When I mentioned the name to my daughters they totally cracked up. The kallah had been a classmate of one of my daughters and was known in the class for being the most "lively" and most talkative of all the girls, what we sometimes call in Yiddish a "bren." The personalities and approaches of the choson and kallah were exact opposites. And yet this shidduch worked then and is still working now. The kallah was honest enough to know that any boy that talked as much as she did was always going to be in "competition" with her, and the choson was wise enough to know that somebody in his married life would have to be a talker.
Instead of looking for a clone of themselves, this couple was looking for the qualities and characteristics that they didn't have but thought were important. They were looking for "completeness" and that requires puzzle pieces of different shapes and forms to come together to form a whole picture.
This doesn't mean that there should be nothing held in common between the boy and the girl. Obviously there are ideas and items of religious observance that can make a difference to the success or failure of a marriage. But then, having a 100% match on hashkafa doesn't mean the marriage is going to be successful either. There is more to marriage than hashkafah.
That first couple? He talks a lot more now and she listens a lot more now. How did that happen? It's called living together and it takes time.
A dear friend of my daughter's was a very bubbly personality. She also married a boy who seemed, at least on the outside, to be her exact opposite. A few of the girls spent a shabbos with this couple after their marriage. One brought up the husband's quietness. And this marvelously observant young married woman said: "It doesn't matter if he doesn't talk to you as long as he talks to me when it's important that we talk."
And before someone asks, yes my husband and I were very different when we got married--still are. But together we formed a stronger unit than either of us could have alone.
Advice is given that you should be looking for someone who "matches" you. There should be ideas and ideals and hashkafa in common. There should be interests in common. There should be personalities in common. This all boils down to looking for someone who is just like you. All this is supposed to somehow "guarantee" that you will avoid heavy disagreements in marriage. Really? Why?
The first boy my oldest daughter ever went out with with was very quiet, so quiet that she wondered if she had not gone on the date by herself. Okay, their personalities didn't match as far as she could see so it was no to a second date. It happens that this boy was the son of a good friend of my sister's, which is how the date was set up, so she reported to me when this young man became a choson. She mentioned the kallah's name. When I mentioned the name to my daughters they totally cracked up. The kallah had been a classmate of one of my daughters and was known in the class for being the most "lively" and most talkative of all the girls, what we sometimes call in Yiddish a "bren." The personalities and approaches of the choson and kallah were exact opposites. And yet this shidduch worked then and is still working now. The kallah was honest enough to know that any boy that talked as much as she did was always going to be in "competition" with her, and the choson was wise enough to know that somebody in his married life would have to be a talker.
Instead of looking for a clone of themselves, this couple was looking for the qualities and characteristics that they didn't have but thought were important. They were looking for "completeness" and that requires puzzle pieces of different shapes and forms to come together to form a whole picture.
This doesn't mean that there should be nothing held in common between the boy and the girl. Obviously there are ideas and items of religious observance that can make a difference to the success or failure of a marriage. But then, having a 100% match on hashkafa doesn't mean the marriage is going to be successful either. There is more to marriage than hashkafah.
That first couple? He talks a lot more now and she listens a lot more now. How did that happen? It's called living together and it takes time.
A dear friend of my daughter's was a very bubbly personality. She also married a boy who seemed, at least on the outside, to be her exact opposite. A few of the girls spent a shabbos with this couple after their marriage. One brought up the husband's quietness. And this marvelously observant young married woman said: "It doesn't matter if he doesn't talk to you as long as he talks to me when it's important that we talk."
And before someone asks, yes my husband and I were very different when we got married--still are. But together we formed a stronger unit than either of us could have alone.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
A Timely Reminder
We set our clocks back one hour last night. Some electronic gadgets will automatically adjust for this setback; others you will need to manually readjust. A room by room check is a good idea unless you don't mind getting up for work and arriving an hour early.
On Vice Presidents
There has been a lot written about the people who are running for the Vice Presidency. A lot of that writing has expressed worry about the Vice Presidential candidate's possibly becoming President. The following is some data about the Vice Presidents our country has had up until now, which might put some people's minds at ease.
We have had 43 Presidents beginning with George Washington. There have been 46 Vice Presidents attached to those Presidents. We should note that for 42 years of our country's existence there were no Vice Presidents in office at all. Of those 46 Vice Presidents only 14 have gone on to become President: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, George Bush. Of those 14, eight of them served only one term or part of one term as President.
Eight Presidents died while in office, four from natural causes and four by assassination. They were: natural causes--William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt; Assassination--Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy. One President, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign. Of the Vice Presidents for these nine Presidents, five of them completed the remaining terms of the Presidents whom they succeeded into office; only four of them were elected to the Presidency after having completed the previous President's term in office.
In short, our history does not seem to support our concerns about those running for Vice President. Historically we have not "liked" Vice Presidential candidates sufficiently to elect them on their own merits. Only 1/3 of Vice Presidents have gone on to the Presidency--14 in all--and nine of them were not elected but were completing the terms of their Presidents. Only four were considered by voters to be sufficiently presidential to be elected. Given our history, even should something happen to either candidate running now for President, the chances of their vice presidential running mates being elected to the presidency is less than 10%.
Sorry, but could we focus on the issues rather than on the running mates, running mates who have mostly been inconsequential for the country?
We have had 43 Presidents beginning with George Washington. There have been 46 Vice Presidents attached to those Presidents. We should note that for 42 years of our country's existence there were no Vice Presidents in office at all. Of those 46 Vice Presidents only 14 have gone on to become President: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, George Bush. Of those 14, eight of them served only one term or part of one term as President.
Eight Presidents died while in office, four from natural causes and four by assassination. They were: natural causes--William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt; Assassination--Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy. One President, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign. Of the Vice Presidents for these nine Presidents, five of them completed the remaining terms of the Presidents whom they succeeded into office; only four of them were elected to the Presidency after having completed the previous President's term in office.
In short, our history does not seem to support our concerns about those running for Vice President. Historically we have not "liked" Vice Presidential candidates sufficiently to elect them on their own merits. Only 1/3 of Vice Presidents have gone on to the Presidency--14 in all--and nine of them were not elected but were completing the terms of their Presidents. Only four were considered by voters to be sufficiently presidential to be elected. Given our history, even should something happen to either candidate running now for President, the chances of their vice presidential running mates being elected to the presidency is less than 10%.
Sorry, but could we focus on the issues rather than on the running mates, running mates who have mostly been inconsequential for the country?
Political Labels--worth less than a penny
I don't write about politics; however, we are coming quite close to national elections and everywhere I go it would seem that there are two questions of such pressing concern that even strangers will ask them. 1--Are you a democrat or a republican? 2--Who are you voting for? The first question falls squarely into a topic I cover in my Advanced Expository Writing class: labels.
There are some practical areas where labeling people may have some use. There are also areas where labeling serves no practical purpose, but instead is used as a way of stereotyping people or forcing them into a mould which may or may not fit them. "Democrat" and "Republican" are two such labels. I'm with Mark Skousen when he says: "The three main reasons why labels are best avoided in political discussions are: (1) Labels are often an inaccurate description of a person's or group's views. (2) Labels often become pejorative terms used in character assassination (3) Labels put people into political boxes and keep them there, preventing individuals from objectively considering alternative opinions and changing their minds." Go ahead, I dare you, come up with a clear cut definition for those two terms that will stand up to every use and in every case. It can't be done.
The following are some political labels that are commonly applied to groups and individuals:
Radical
Left-wing
Left-wing liberal
Left-leaning
Leftist
Right-wing
Conservative
Ultra-conservative
Arch-conservative
Moderate
Religious right
Progressive
Capitalist
Democrat
Tax-and-spend-Democrat
Republican
Tax-and-spend-Republican
Liberal
Libertarian
Independent
Extremist
Anarchist
Social Democrat
Contrarian
Soccer mom
Patriot
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Out of touch
Concerned
Misguided
Fundamentalist
Flaming liberal
Centrist
Populist
Silent majority
Moral majority
Heartland centrist
Elitist
Special interest lobby
God-fearing
Principled
Unprincipled
Wrong-thinking
Wrong-minded
Dyed-in-the-wool
NASCAR dads
Security moms
neocon
Isolationist
Hawk
Dove
Pro-choice
Pro-life
Bleeding heart liberal
Majority
Minority
Oppressed minority
Your political stance—and thus your label—depends on whose ox is being gored. Asking if someone is either a democrat or a republican fails to take into account that at any given moment as regards any given area that concerns me I may be an amalgam of lots of different labels, none of which may apply five minutes from now if I focus on a different area of concern. Looking at the list above I recognize that every one of those labels could apply to me, singly and in combination, at some point in time.
To vote for a party, at least for me, is an impossibility; both major parties say things I may agree with on a particular subject at a particular time. They each say things I vehemently disagree with as well. And this is one reason why I don't write about politics: the words used to label the various political actions and ideologies are so ephemeral as to prevent a reasoned argument. Unless there is 100% agreement and congruence about what a label means across the board then all we are doing is arguing apples and pillowcases.
What's worse, for me, is that all the candidates running for office this year seem far more interested in slapping on labels on their opponents rather than clearly and cogently telling me what they believe and what they hope to do about the specific problems facing Americans. It was all summed up for me in the answer given by someone who is running locally. He was asked what his position was on local school overcrowding, and what he would propose to end the overcrowding. His answer? "Like my fellow Staten Island Republicans, I am appalled at the conditions present in our local schools. When elected I will make it my business to end this assault on our children. They deserve more from us. A united Staten Island Republican caucus is our best bet for doing something about the school situation. My opponent has no workable plan for changing things, just more rhetoric about how things need to change."Anyone else see the irony in this answer, if it can actually be considered an answer at all?
So to those who keep asking my party affiliation, my answer is "all of the above" and sometimes "none of the above," or maybe "some of the above." As to whom I am voting for, well, I started this posting out by saying I don't write about politics. As part of that, I don't discuss for whom I am voting--that is between me and my ballot in the privacy of the voting booth. What I do do is encourage everyone to vote; it's both a right and a privilege.
There are some practical areas where labeling people may have some use. There are also areas where labeling serves no practical purpose, but instead is used as a way of stereotyping people or forcing them into a mould which may or may not fit them. "Democrat" and "Republican" are two such labels. I'm with Mark Skousen when he says: "The three main reasons why labels are best avoided in political discussions are: (1) Labels are often an inaccurate description of a person's or group's views. (2) Labels often become pejorative terms used in character assassination (3) Labels put people into political boxes and keep them there, preventing individuals from objectively considering alternative opinions and changing their minds." Go ahead, I dare you, come up with a clear cut definition for those two terms that will stand up to every use and in every case. It can't be done.
The following are some political labels that are commonly applied to groups and individuals:
Radical
Left-wing
Left-wing liberal
Left-leaning
Leftist
Right-wing
Conservative
Ultra-conservative
Arch-conservative
Moderate
Religious right
Progressive
Capitalist
Democrat
Tax-and-spend-Democrat
Republican
Tax-and-spend-Republican
Liberal
Libertarian
Independent
Extremist
Anarchist
Social Democrat
Contrarian
Soccer mom
Patriot
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Out of touch
Concerned
Misguided
Fundamentalist
Flaming liberal
Centrist
Populist
Silent majority
Moral majority
Heartland centrist
Elitist
Special interest lobby
God-fearing
Principled
Unprincipled
Wrong-thinking
Wrong-minded
Dyed-in-the-wool
NASCAR dads
Security moms
neocon
Isolationist
Hawk
Dove
Pro-choice
Pro-life
Bleeding heart liberal
Majority
Minority
Oppressed minority
Your political stance—and thus your label—depends on whose ox is being gored. Asking if someone is either a democrat or a republican fails to take into account that at any given moment as regards any given area that concerns me I may be an amalgam of lots of different labels, none of which may apply five minutes from now if I focus on a different area of concern. Looking at the list above I recognize that every one of those labels could apply to me, singly and in combination, at some point in time.
To vote for a party, at least for me, is an impossibility; both major parties say things I may agree with on a particular subject at a particular time. They each say things I vehemently disagree with as well. And this is one reason why I don't write about politics: the words used to label the various political actions and ideologies are so ephemeral as to prevent a reasoned argument. Unless there is 100% agreement and congruence about what a label means across the board then all we are doing is arguing apples and pillowcases.
What's worse, for me, is that all the candidates running for office this year seem far more interested in slapping on labels on their opponents rather than clearly and cogently telling me what they believe and what they hope to do about the specific problems facing Americans. It was all summed up for me in the answer given by someone who is running locally. He was asked what his position was on local school overcrowding, and what he would propose to end the overcrowding. His answer? "Like my fellow Staten Island Republicans, I am appalled at the conditions present in our local schools. When elected I will make it my business to end this assault on our children. They deserve more from us. A united Staten Island Republican caucus is our best bet for doing something about the school situation. My opponent has no workable plan for changing things, just more rhetoric about how things need to change."Anyone else see the irony in this answer, if it can actually be considered an answer at all?
So to those who keep asking my party affiliation, my answer is "all of the above" and sometimes "none of the above," or maybe "some of the above." As to whom I am voting for, well, I started this posting out by saying I don't write about politics. As part of that, I don't discuss for whom I am voting--that is between me and my ballot in the privacy of the voting booth. What I do do is encourage everyone to vote; it's both a right and a privilege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)