Facebook and Babies – or, Pregnancy, Parenthood and the Internet (esp. Social Media)

Warning: I’m sure this will offend some people out there, but heck how many people are really reading this anyway? I’m going to diss a whole hell of a lot of the shenanigans I see going on with parenthood and the internet (forums and social media, primarily BabyCenter and Facebook). If it offends you, well, that’s too bad.

Really Screwed Up Stuff I See:

• Posting photos of your home pregnancy test.

Why is this an issue? Well, I assume if you’re posting a picture of your pregnancy test, you’re still within the first trimester of pregnancy, which is when the majority of miscarriages occur. Wait until you’re out of the first trimester. Also, I don’t need to know that you have awesome peeing-on-sticks or peeing-in-cups skills. Also, it’s pretty damned inconsiderate to anyone on your Facebook list who is having difficulty conceiving or is infertile.

• Dilation updates via iPhone during labor!

Why is this an issue? Frankly, no one really needs to know how many fingers the OB nurse was able to insert into your cervix. Either the Demerol is really frakking good, or you’re an attention whore. “GUYS I’M IN LABOR! DID YOU SEE? DID YOU SEE?” (Yeah, we've seen every post from the past 6 hours coming through our feed).

• Telling your 400+ Facebook friends that you think it’s time to give your child(ren) a new sibling, and that you’re working on it!

Why is this an issue? It’s great that you want to give your child a sibling. I applaud you for that. However, I don’t want to know that “you’re working on it.” Frankly, most people DON’T want to think about other people having sex, and it makes me think that you’re an attention whore.

• Albums of 75+ photos from your hospital stay / child’s first two days of life.

Why is this an issue? Do you really need 75+ photos of your hospital on Facebook? No, you really don’t. This just makes me think you’re yet again a moronic attention whore. I’m sorry, but your newborn infant isn’t that cute, and frankly, neither are you or the 30 people you invited to the hospital. AFK vomiting.

• Circumcision photos

Why is this an issue? Don’t you think that circumcision is kind of a private affair? Do we really need to see your infant’s foreskin being removed? Do we want to see this procedure? No, most of us DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS. This just makes me think you have poor judgment.

• Photos where we can see the mother’s vagina directly after the child is born.

Why is this an issue? Personally, I find a vagina to be a personal subject, and once you post pictures of it on Facebook, it’s rather public. A woman’s vagina should be between her, her significant other and her medical practitioners. If you’re posting these photos on Facebook, this just makes me think you have extremely poor judgment.

• Photos of the baby directly after birth …

Why is this an issue? Yeah, I’m sorry, no one needs to see a baby covered in amniotic fluid, blood and vernix. Go ahead and take these photos if you’re that excited, but please don’t post them to facebook. MAYBE post the photos after the second APGAR test is performed.

• Status updates talking about being covered in bodily fluids/solids.

Why is this an issue? We get that you’re a mother. We get that it’s a huge task, and it can be kind of gross. Do I really need to know that you wandered around all day with puke or poop or pee on you? No, and neither do the other 400+ people who saw your Facebook status pop up right before dinner time …

• Status updates talking about having clogged milk ducts.

Why is this an issue? I kind of have issues with people who post photos of them or their wife breastfeeding. I mean, it isn’t that big of a deal, but do I need to see it go through my status feed when I log onto Facebook in the morning? That’s not really as big of a deal as someone updating their status message and giving the gory details of having a clogged milk duct. Oh my God, seriously?

• Taking a name that’s sacred or very special from another religion or culture and naming your child that name (i.e., Cohen).

Why is this an issue? I don’t have a problem with using names from other cultures. I do have a problem with people naming their children something like Cohen (the Jewish priest class) or Shiva (a Hindu God). These are very special names to those cultures; respect that instead of your zeal for uniqueness.

• Trying to make a popular name unique by changing the spelling and in the process stripping the name of any of its redeeming qualities …

Why is this an issue? The traditional spelling of my name is Caitlin. It’s the Anglicized version of the Irish version of Catherine/Cathleen. It’s spelled with a “C” not a “K”. It’s spelled with an “I” not a “Y”. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. You know what spinners are on car tires? Spelling a perfectly wonderful name like “Caitlin” as “Kaitelynn” is just as tacky as putting spinners on your tires. Technically, they’re all pronounced the same way, so she’ll still be one of many Caitlin/Caitlyn/Kaitlin/Kaitlyn/Catelynn/Kaitelynn’s in her grade if the name is popular that year. You aren’t really being unique, you’re just being a disgrace to the English language.

• Giving your kids matching (“sibset”) names!

Why is this an issue? I’m sorry, but I just absolutely hate cutesy sibset names. Your uterus is not a theme park, so why have themed kids names? If you want to theme something, pick a theme for your kid’s birthday parties, not their names.

• Twilight names ...

Why this is an issue? Twilight is a crappy book. Isabella/Bella and Jacob were popular before Twilight, but then you see a rise in names like “Cullen”, “Emmett”, “Jasper” and “Rosalie” since the books were published and even more so after the films were released. How do you explain to your kid in ten years that you named them after characters with absolutely no personality?

And, that's not all I have to say on the subject. Some day, I will post about it even more coherently.

Dear People Arguing Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

What the crap am I writing about?

For those of you writing for or against abortion, I’m going to give a brief summary of what I learned at the beginning of AP English when I was in the eleventh grade. That has been a while, probably 8 years ago.

Our first assignment was to read and annotate Aristotle’s rhetoric. He divided argumentation or persuasion into three categories: ethos, pathos and logos. My explanations oversimplify it a bit, but I hope this helps.

Logos – This is the appeal to logic. This is where in an argument you use facts and logic to support your case.

Pathos – This is how you appeal to the emotional sensibilities of your audience. You do NOT tell your audience how they should feel. This is where you use narrative to spark feelings and imagination in your argument.

Ethos – This is where you establish your credibility on the subject. What makes you an expert on the subject? What is your ethical credibility to the subject? You also need to to establish the credibility of any sources you cite.

A brief example of how this works?

I have bipolar disorder, and one of my assignments for my Medical Anthropology class was to pick a topic that I found important. My subject was the social stigmas attached to mental illness. I wrote a paper on it, and presented my findings to the class via PowerPoint presentation.

I did not simply follow my paper for my presentation as many students did; I established ethos first before I began the body of my term paper, in which I appealed to both logos and pathos!

I started my presentation with a narrative (appeal to pathos), with an anecdote intended to establish my ethos once it played through in the course of the presentation! The anecdote was not finished until the end, and it was meant to leave the audience thinking, which it did.

The rest of my presentation was primarily factual (appeal to logos).

This was the string that really tied my presentation together. It wasn’t until the end that I fully established my “ethos” in the presentation by revealing that I had bipolar disorder and was being treated for it! This helped to fully establish my “ethos” in this situation, because I revealed that I had been living on in the face of the stigmatization I was criticizing.

Why am I targeting abortion debates?

Why did I pick the abortion argument for my debate to criticize? It’s extremely polarizing and the civility is nearly nonexistent in dialogue. On both sides when I see people debating this, I see the inappropriate use of all three of Aristotle’s pieces of rhetoric.

Your appeal to logos is more important than your appeal to pathos. Your appeal to ethos here is going to be in demonstrating that you know what you’re talking about, that you’re well-researched or well-educated on the subject – or that you’re a professional in the field. Basically, your logos should help you establish your ethos here.

Try to use language that is correct from a logical standpoint. Insisting on using the word “baby” versus “zygote”, “blastocyst”, “embryo” or “fetus” is pointless if you’re arguing about medicine and developmental biology, where these terms are far more correct than the term “baby.”  It’s a potentially inappropriate appeal to pathos that can easily detract from the entire point of the argument in a way that can completely undermine you, if you don’t know your audience.

Whatever side you’re on, also avoid name-calling and labeling (moron, idiot, baby killer, bible thumper, pro-abort, anti-choice, godless, atheist, fundy, anti-woman, bad Christian, etc). Avoid appeals to God and the Bible unless you’re discussing the Bible and Christian Tradition(s) on whether or not abortion is permissible.

Remain civil. Check your facts beforehand, and check the facts of the person arguing against your view. If someone gives an incorrect fact or quotes improperly (such as out of context), do call them out on it for the sake of honesty. Be charitable while you do this. If they continue to cite facts incorrectly or give quotes out of context, continue to call them out for dishonesty.

Mathematics and an update!

I am by no means brilliant at math (I in fact hated math until calculus), and it isn't a subject I enjoyed in high school; however, I did learn my order of operations pretty early on, and I use them when appropriate. 

Spending time on Facebook and going through the math questions, I have found that an inordinate number of my Facebook friends are absolute failures at math. Not only that, but most people in general are absolute failures in basic mathematical principles.


My mathematical terminology here is not precise because I am not a mathematician, so forgive me for any transgressions math folks out there! The basics of what I'm going to talk about are, for the most part, correct when trying to explain all of this for the average mathematical layman out there. 

Examples: 

The equation or mathematical expression in the above picture is:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 x 0 = ?

The equation or mathematical expression in the above picture is:

5 + 5 + 5 - 5 + 5 + 5 - 5 + 5 x 0 = ?

In both of these questions / polls, as you can see as of about 3:45 today ... most people got the answers completely and utterly incorrect. The first poll (the question with the ones in it) has been ongoing for about 5 months and still the majority of people answer ZERO, which is absolutely incorrect.

Their reasoning? 

• ANYTHING MULTIPLIED BY ZERO IS ZERO! SO THE ANSWER IS ZERO!
• IF YOU WANTED ME TO GET 14 YOU SHOULD HAVE PUT PARENTHESIS AROUND THE MULTIPLICATION.
• THERE ARE NO PARENTHESES, SO THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS DOESN'T APPLY HERE.
• IT ISN'T ALGEBRA, SO THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS DOESN'T APPLY HERE.
• MY CALCULATOR SAYS IT'S ZERO!

These incorrect lines of reasoning are repeated ad nauseum in the comments sections for these questions. Some people are trolling, but the vast majority of responses like this are people attempting to legitimately defend their incorrect answer of zero. 

The correct answer in the first example is 14, which only 37.4% of respondents got correct. The correct answer in the second example is 15, which only 38.6% of respondents got correct. So basically, more than 60% of people responding to simple (albeit lengthy) mathematical equations/expressions are either lazy or absolutely do not understand how the order of operations works in math. Actually, it's probably a bit more complex than my either/or dilemma here, but I'm leaving it at that.

Explaining PEMDAS and Its Usage:

For those reading who don't know, the order of operations (usually called PEMDAS in America, sometimes called BEMDAS in other locations) follows this basic structure:

Parentheses - (or Brackets in the case of BEMDAS)

Exponents

Multiplication

Division

Addition - performed from left to right, right along with subtraction!

Subtraction - performed from left to right, right along with addition!

According to the order of operations as laid out via PEMDAS, you have an order you seek out in the course of solving a mathematical expression. If the expression has parenthesis in it, you solve whatever is in parentheses first. If it has none (or you've already solved within the parenthesis), you move on to solving exponents (which includes roots which are basically exponents with values between one and zero. A negative exponent will basically turn a whole number into a fraction except one and zero. Anything to the power of zero is one, except for zero which is technically indeterminate but a calculator will tell you it's one. Don't let these tidbits blow your mind, I just find it pretty cool). If the equation has none (or you've already solved for the exponents), then you move on to multiplication and division. Once multiplication and division are complete, you go to the leftmost part of the expression and solve the addition and subtraction from left to right.

PEMDAS is a mnemonic acronym, and to help students further teachers will often teach them "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally." For a cynical math teacher (and I believe there is plenty of reason for a teacher to be cynical given what I've seen), the mnemonic might be something more along the lines of "Please Excuse My Dumb Ass Students" if someone else is helping them grade homework, tests and quizzes!

Things that PEMDAS does not require to be applicable to solving a mathematical expression: parenthesis or "algebra". You use PEMDAS in algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, programming and physics -- oh, and in basic math!

Reasoning Behind Getting the Incorrect Answers (and Why These People Are Wrong):

"Anything multiplied by zero is zero! So the answer is zero!"

This is partially correct, because when a number is multiplied by zero ... the answer is zero. HOWEVER, if you follow the order of operations, you multiply by zero before you do any of your left-to-right addition or subtraction. So, in those mathematical expressions, by the time you get to add or subtract, you will be adding by a zero at the end, not multiplying by it.

"If you wanted me to get 14, you should have put parentheses around the multiplication!"

Parentheses in this situation are for noobs and pussies who can't remember the rest of PEMDAS. These examples for the Facebook questions are extremely simple mathematical expressions. If you cannot follow PEMDAS, I sincerely hope you are NOT seeking a career requiring any mathematical skills that involve anything past using your fingers to count. Parentheses are primarily used in situations where the rest of PEMDAS needs to be circumvented (you know, like in the case of writing out certain pieces of polynomial expressions) or if an extremely long and/or complex equation needs clarification.

"There are no parentheses so the order of operations doesn't apply here!"

Wrong. The order of operations applies in the majority of mathematical or computational situations whether or not there are parentheses, and that majority including these two examples. Parentheses are simply a starting point for you to figure out how to compute whatever expression or equation you got. No parentheses? No problem. Move onto the next part of PEMDAS. The end. Deal with it. 

"It isn't algebra, so the order of operations doesn't apply here!"

Seriously? OK then, if the order of operations only applies in algebra, then it doesn't apply in geometry, trig, calculus, physics, programming, etc, etc. You realize that is incorrect, because it applies in all of these situations? Oh yes, and it also applies to the basic mathematics you learn in elementary school.

"My calculator says it's zero!"

Well, I guess your calculator isn't programmed to follow PEMDAS. Therefore ... operator error. Derp.

So How'd You Get What You Got?

I guess we'll start with the first one (the one with all the ones and which equals 14) and whittle it down piece by piece according to PEMDAS taken to the extremes of literalness.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+1x0=?    (P: none)

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+1x0=?    (E: none)

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+1x0=?    (M: 1x0=0)

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?      (D: none)

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?      (A: 1+1=2)

2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?        (A: 2+1=3)

3+1+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?          (A: 3+1=4)

4+1+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?            (A: 4+1=5)

5+1+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?              (A: 5+1=6)

6+1+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                (A: 6+1=7)

7+1+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                  (A: 7+1=8)

8+1+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                    (A: 8+1=9)

9+1-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                      (A: 9+1=10)

10-1+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                       (S: 10-1=9)

9+1+1+1+1+1+0=?                          (A: 9+1=10)

10+1+1+1+1+0=?                           (A: 10+1=11)

11+1+1+1+0=?                             (A: 11+1=12)

12+1+1+0=?                               (A: 12+1=13)

13+1+0=?                                 (A: 13+1=14)

14+0=?                                   (A: 14+0=14)

14

Yep, 14. Not 0.

After spelling that out, I don't think I need to work you through the equation with fives and zeros. And no, I will not help you with your math homework. Go do that crap on your own and keep it away from me!

In other news related to my post from yesterday, Penn State fired Coach Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier during last night's Board of Trustees meeting.

A few thoughts on the Jerry Sandusky / Penn State Football scandal

If what was reported in the Grand Jury Presentment is true, Jerry Sandusky committed some extremely depraved and disordered actions. I personally find it extremely disturbing that a child predator, by virtue of fame and connections, managed to found his own charitable organization (The Second Mile), which placed him in contact with a plethora of potential victims – not just any victims, but victims who ended up being especially vulnerable to his predatory behaviors because of their life situations. 

Predators will always tend to prey on the disenfranchised, but I can think of few things more heinous than molesting, sexually assaulting and raping underprivileged children because the organization that you founded gave you contact and control of them. He violated these children and he violated the law. Not only did this man violate his victims in a physical manner, he also violated their childhoods and violated their trust. 

When it’s all said and done, Jerry Sandusky will get something of what he deserves. I read the Grand Jury report, and let me just say … some of the report is raw, visceral and explicit. I really don’t understand the principle of releasing the man on $100,000 bail after the atrocities he committed.

The sad thing is, Jerry Sandusky ended up with a long string of enablers along his path. These include the DA from the 1998 investigation who dropped charges. For everything after the 2002 incident, this includes the graduate assistant (now a positions coach at Penn State), Joe Paterno (the Penn State football coach), Timothy Curley (the Penn State Athletic Director at the time), Gary Schultz (the Penn State Senior Vice President of Finance and Business), President Spanier, and the board of trustees or directors for The Second Mile.

These images were taken from http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6277

The Grand Jury Presentment outlines how a matter of child endangerment was swept under the rug by the organizational chain of command and NEVER reported to law enforcement. These people went up the organizational flow chart instead of doing the morally and legally appropriate thing to do: report the incident to someone who could and would investigate what happened, and press charges if necessary. People were more worried about the reputation of the organization than they were about the victims of the crime. As the current Pennsylvania DA Linda Kelly stated, “Those officials, to whom it was reported, did not report the incident to law enforcement or any child protective agency, and their inaction likely allowed a child predator to  continue to victimize children for many more years.”

So no, good ol’ Joe Pa never reported Sandusky’s potential transgressions to the actual police. Please quit saying that he did. Part of Gary Schultz’s job as the Senior VP of Finance and Business at PSU was oversight of the police department; that doesn’t mean that Joe Paterno actually went to the cops. That’s about like saying that going to the town treasurer to report an incident of a retired town official raping someone in the bathroom of the town courthouse is the same as going to the cops.

Also, you want to know how long Jerry Sandusky continued working with The Second Mile? Until September of 2010 when he stepped down to focus on his family and personal matters. One of the victims was still being contacted by and harassed by Sandusky well into 2005 and 2006.

What will his enablers face? Curley and Schultz may face counts for perjury and failure to report child abuse. What about the graduate assistant (now a positions coach) and Joe Paterno? They cooperated with the grand jury investigation and went through the organizational chain, so they don’t face charges of failure to report child abuse? Really? Seems like they both failed to report child abuse as well.

As far as Curley and Schultz go, Schultz seemed to be the bigger idiot in the Grand Jury Presentment. He agreed that what happened to the victim in 2002 may have been sexual in nature and that it was “inappropriate”, but he wouldn’t agree that what happened was “serious”. Really, Mr. Schultz? If someone in a position of power over you (say, President Spanier) fondled your package without your consent, you wouldn’t find it to be a “serious” offense or violation of your person?

Really, the whole situation is sickening ALL the way around. Yes, Jerry Sandusky is responsible for most of what happened, but the people around him at Penn State and The Second Mile enabled him. Almost as disgusting as the molestation of children is the fact that a former DA in 1998 and then Penn State officials in 2002 swept allegations under the rug, and it was probably more about the image of the institution and the safety of its legends than anything else.

A lot more needs to come out about the entire situation, especially the cover up after the 2002 incident. If Curley and Schultz are prosecuted, I’m sure more information will come out about all of it. Also, people everywhere out there, quit acting like Joe Paterno is a victim here when people complain about his lack of action enabling a predator. Real victims here? Eight or more people who had their childhood destroyed.

So what is this all about?

Why am I making a blog?

Because I'm rather opinionated and someone suggested I should write my opinions in blogs. I mean, just about everyone's doing this, so why shouldn't I?

The title of the blog comes from joking about writing a book about the paper folding arts (such as origami, but trust me, the Japanese aren't the only cultural group that has paper folding as an art), advising people on how to make their tinfoil hats stylish for their next conspiracy theorist convention by making them from origami or other paper hat designs . At the same time, the book would debunk the popular conspiracy theories.

Basically, the blog will be my opinions (supported by facts).

I do have another blog, but the thing serves a completely different purpose to this one.