bearing blog


bear – ing n 1  the manner in which one comports oneself;  2  the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~];  pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation;   5  the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].


  • My nerdiness is actually multidimensional. Did you know that?

    Mark was telling me about some guy he works with who’s into geocaching.

    "Let me get this straight," I said.  "A person hides some stuff in the woods, notes the GPS coordinates, and gives the coordinates to someone else to find."

    "Yeah."

    "Like the big pile of gold in Cryptonomicon."

    "Yeah."

    "And looking for the stuff is called ‘geocaching.’"

    "Right."

    "Shouldn’t that be ‘geotroving?’"

    "Huh?"

    "Geotroving.  Hiding it should be geocaching.  Finding it should be geotroving."

    "No, see, it’s a cache.  You’re looking for a cache."

    "No, you’re not.  If I’m looking for something I hid, like my supplies for the winter, then I’m looking for my cache.  But if I come across someone else’s cache, it’s not a cache, it’s a trove.  I mean, who cares who hid the stuff.  The important thing is that I found it.  Get it?"

    "Ah."

    "Also it’s from the French.  Trouver.  To find."

    "Ah.  I see."

    "You should tell your co-worker that his sport has the wrong name."

    "Yeah."


  • While I’ve got the camera plugged in:

    Blog_024 Last week, while Milo was finishing his dinner, I noticed that he looked very very sleepy and was apparently about to nod off.   A better mother would have gently wiped his face and hands, lifted him onto her shoulder, and tiptoed off to tuck him in bed.

    I, on the other hand, waited until he fell face first into his pizza so I could take pictures.


  • 27 weeks. BELIEVE IT… OR NOT.

    Yesterday we paused on the way out of Mass to say hi to Father because Oscar had brought a rosary to be blessed.   Fr. D_____ blessed the rosary and then looked up at me with a smile and asked "How soon?"

    It always takes me a minute to figure that out before I remember that I’m really, really obviously pregnant.  "Oh, um, I’ve got three months left, actually."

    Genuine shock.  "No!  No way!"

    Here’s me in the bathroom mirror, today, at 27Blog_033  weeks:
    I Googled images of "27 weeks" to see how typical I am, since I feel really, really huge.  Look for yourself — there’s an amazing range, really.

    This woman, for example,  is actually made of plastic.  (Warning:  Normal, non-plastic people should not click here, and should not read the part where she writes about how she’s got to do some "serious sit-ups" because she’s still 10 pounds over her pre-pregnancy weight, which is apparently 43 lbs.,  at 7 weeks postpartum.  But her baby’s cute, to give her credit.)

    All joking aside, I’m not actually worried about my pregnancy weight gain, even though it’s on the high side by the numbers.  This is the third time, and both previous pregnancies I gained more than fifty pounds and made it back to the pre-pregnancy weight by the time baby was four or five months old.  So I’m assuming this is okay for me.


  • A glossary of Christian terms.

    Worth a few laughs, or at least a chuckle of admiration:

    Baptism
    Baptists are Christians who believe God can only be accessed by means of a swimming pool or, in some cases, a shallow outdoor stream. The first Baptist was John the Baptist, who was said to eat locusts and honey, although contemporary Baptists generally prefer barbecue.

    Sex
    Christians are not permitted to have sex. This unpopular doctrine was formulated by Pope Lactose LX at the Council of Disney in 1439. Despite this restriction, Christians have managed to increase their ranks to the point where there are roughly 2 billion of them. Scholars attribute this to the competitive health benefits and generous "flex time"
    arrangements offered by Christianity.

    Via Eve Tushnet.


  • Random link of the day.

    Ann Althouse on public accommodations for "emotional needs support animals:"

    What about the emotional needs created by finding that you’re seated in coach next to a small horse and a person who’s emotionally impaired enough to need a small horse and anti-social enough to impose it on you and shameless enough to exploit a law intended to help the disabled? Can I have a monkey to help me with that?

    No reason, I just liked the punch line.


  • Happy Mother’s Day to you too, lady.

    I have two sons — just two, so I’m only marginally experienced at this motherhood gig — ages 5 and 2.  I take my boys to Mass every Sunday. Like many other Catholic parents, and as is the norm in Catholic churches, I prefer that they, and I with them, remain in the pews during Mass.

    It’s easy with my five-year-old; by now, he knows how to behave and rarely requires correction other than a reminder to sit, stand, or kneel.   The younger one can be tricky.  If he squirms or drops a book noisily or points to the crucifix and yells, "There’s Jesus!"  I’m usually able to hush him in situ within a few seconds, whispering in his ear and pointing out various interesting things to look at. On principle, I always try, at least for a few moments, to settle him down where we are.  I prefer to leave only if he becomes disruptive and only as long as I need to, returning promptly to the pew once he settles down.  I’m willing to do this several times during a Mass if I have to.  How’s he going to learn if I spend the whole time in the nursery, watching Mass on closed-circuit TV while he and six other children play with Legos?

    We moms realize that the people around us don’t want to be disturbed (that’s one of the things I’m whispering into those little ears).  Still, it’s not as simple as "just leave."  Even the goal of minimizing disturbance to others requires constant evaluation of a specific dilemma: Which is going to be more disruptive to the people around me, spending a few more seconds trying to distract this little guy here in the pew, or hustling him AND his big brother AND my pregnant belly AND all our stuff out into the aisle and to the back?

    I think that most people in most parishes understand this.  In our parish especially, with its many large families.  So it’s not surprising that I can count on my fingers — maybe even on just one hand — the times when someone has either commented to me on, or glared pointedly at me because of,  my very young (<3yo) children’s "misbehavior" or noisiness.  You know:

    Can’t you WHISPER, please?

    or

    You know, they DO have some chairs in the back for when he misbehaves.

    Stuff like that.   Doesn’t happen often.  Nevertheless, there’s a pattern:

    No one has ever commented to me or my husband about my children’s misbehavior when my husband was with us.

    At least five times in five years, when I have attended Mass with a young child but without my husband, I have received negative comments or glares regarding my child’s misbehavior or my breastfeeding him.

    Isn’t that interesting?

    Without any further data, the obvious explanation would be that my kids are prone to worse behavior when their Dad isn’t around. Maybe my husband is a more effective disciplinarian.  Maybe they think that with me, they can get away with more. 

    But I don’t think that’s it.  I might, if I were discussing my older son’s behavior right now.  He’s five and would be capable of that kind of calculation, and he also knows how to behave by now.  But I’m talking about my 2-year-old, and my older son when he was a toddler.  Kids too young to have much self-control or even to have learned the etiquette yet.   And I’m pretty vigilant about their behavior in church (I have to be — see the second paragraph).  I’m confident that my toddlers aren’t systematically better-behaved when my husband is there with me.

    So what’s up?

    I’d like to impute charitable motives, but I can’t figure out any way that it is MORE charitable to reprimand a woman struggling to parent by herself than a woman who’s got her husband there to help her.  And I don’t, for example, notice a lot more people offering sympathetic "I’ve been there" smiles when I’m alone with my children.  I don’t hear more kind words or complements or even a knowing, "You’ve got your hands full," or even an offer when I arrive — "You look like someone who would appreciate an aisle seat — do you want me to scoot over?"   

    (And no, "We DO have a nursery, you know" isn’t a helpful offer.  It’s a reprimand disguised as a helpful offer.  Not sure?  Practice saying it out loud and see how it sounds.)

    So I always am left wondering:  Are these women (it’s always been older women) subconsciously trying to punish me for looking — somewhat — like a single mother?

    Or do they silently respect my husband’s authority in a way they don’t respect mine?   Does the same behavior that merits reprimanding a mother alone, become acceptable if a father is there radiating his tacit approval? 

    Or is the message simply, "You shouldn’t have come here and sat where you did, because you should have known you’d be unable to control them by yourself?"

    I’m not sure.  I can’t read their minds.  I do know that my husband approves of and supports the way I mother my children in public, which is not very different from most of the other families in our parish, I might add.  He’s glad, not ashamed, that I’m still able to breastfeed my two-year-old discreetly in the pew, especially since it’s such a sure-fire way to stop a meltdown in its tracks.  He, like me, strives to teach by example, which means staying in the pews as much as we can.   I think it must be obvious to bystanders that he has confidence in me.  It’s certainly obvious to ME.   So maybe it’s not just that I have A Man By My Side.  Maybe that confidence is contagious. 

    And maybe when I’m there with my two kids and my big belly, wondering how on earth I’ll carry the toddler out if he has a rare, real meltdown —  maybe they can smell fear.


  • The 2005 Baby Name Rankings are out.

    This is, of course, of capital importance to me, since I’m having a baby in August.

    In what has become a Mother’s Day tradition, Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, today announced the top baby names in the United States for 2005.

    “Based on all Social Security card applications for children born last year, Emily and Jacob are the most popular baby names for the seventh year in a row,” said Commissioner Barnhart.

    Well?  Don’t you want to know what they are?

    Boys:

    1. Jacob
    2. Michael
    3. Joshua
    4. Matthew
    5. Ethan
    6. Andrew
    7. Daniel
    8. Anthony
    9. Christopher
    10. Joseph

    BOOOOOOOOR-ING.

    Girls, a little better:

    1. Emily
    2. Emma
    3. Madison
    4. Abigail
    5. Olivia
    6. Isabella
    7. Hannah
    8. Samantha
    9. Ava
    10. Ashley

    This is really only nine names, as everyone knows that Emma and Emily are the same person.  I have to admit that I’m impressed by the performance of Ava, if a little disappointed, because I’m pretty sure that Ava (or something that sounds like it) was On The List, and now it has to come off because there is no way I am going to name any kid of mine one of the Top Ten, except maybe as a middle name, and that only if there’s a particularly choice saint’s name among them.

    And what’s up with Ashley?  Doesn’t anyone remember 1982?

    Since I live in Minnesota, it behooves me to check the popularity around here.

    Boys in Minnesota:

    1. Ethan
    2. Jacob
    3. Samuel
    4. Jack
    5. Andrew
    6. Benjamin
    7. Alexander
    8. Joseph
    9. Logan
    10. Tyler

    Boooooor-ing.

    Girls in Minnesota:

    1. Ava (WTF?)
    2. Grace
    3. Emma
    4. Emily
    5. Ella (a.k.a. Emily, a.k.a. Emma)
    6. Olivia
    7. Abigail
    8. Madison
    9. Sophia
    10. Hannah

    This isn’t going to change things much for us, I expect.  I prefer to steer clear of the top 50 male names and the top 100 female names (counting sound-alikes as the same, unlike the Social Security website).  Our sons, so far, are pretty safe:  Oscar’s number 116 (driven, I think, by Spanish-speaking families), and Milo’s number 728. 


  • Tomorrow is May 13th.

    May 13th, 2006 is…


  • Yum.

    The Girl Who Ate Everything attends a chocolate symposium.



  • Breaking news…

    Jimmy Akin is reporting that Fr. Altier and Fr. Weizbacher of St. Agnes parish will be moved to another assignment.

    Seems like it’s little more than a rumor at this point.


  • Exes.

    A lot of people bandy about the term "ex-priest" to describe a man who once received Holy Orders and since has been officially removed from clerical activities — that is, "laicized" (the correct, general, and non-derogatory term) or "defrocked" (a term which implies a punitive laicization). 

    "Ex-priest" is technically not correct in Catholic understanding.  We believe that Holy Orders, like baptism, forms an "indelible mark on the soul" — that a priest validly ordained is a priest forever.  Indeed, priesthood survives death, unlike that other nuptial state of being, matrimony.   So it isn’t surprising that even a laicized priest is bound by some rules that non-priests aren’t.  Jimmy Akin, ever a fount of interesting and detailed tidbits, has the story.

    The restrictions aren’t just about administering the sacraments.  They also cover things like serving in leadership roles in parishes and Catholic universities, and even teaching theology in non-Catholic universities.  One thing I didn’t know about laicization is that, although many of the restrictions are generally applicable, in practice each laicized priest receives an individual, personally tailored list of restrictions

    Also interesting is the fact that being laicized doesn’t automatically release a priest from celibacy — he isn’t automatically free to marry.  It is possible for a laicized priest to receive a dispensation from priestly celibacy, but that appears to be a second, separate decision.