Office Space is great. No one should watch it.

I am currently watching Office Space.  I don’t know why I put this movie on; it was a terrible idea.  I thought “hey I’ll watch office space and work on my Competency Exam!”  This was a bad idea because I have no motivation to work to begin with, like, the other day I got 2 sentences written in 2 hours. That is how little I care about grad school right now.  Now, as I watch Peter Gibbons, I see myself as a student.  I just don’t care.  I can’t be made to care.  Every moment that I sit in class is the worst moment of my life.  It’s not because I dislike my profs (despite previous posts) or that I don’t want to learn the material, I just hate it.  I hate listening to other people talk just to hear themselves, the specific people that take over conversations, the learning of outdated material.  Talking about HIV/AIDS related Dementia and mortality rates, the notes cited a study from 1995.  I refuse to believe this has remained unchanged in 17 years.

I just had a terrible revelation.  I think I’m Milton.  Just keeping to myself and fantasizing about destruction.

It’s not even that I dislike my field.  I just dislike what I’m forced to study.  There are theories that I would love to learn more about, but are never addressed.  I’ve recently been fascinated with Carol Gilligan.  This will never be discussed in class.  I taught myself Judith Rich Harris.  Again, they will never discussed.  I had a prof openly acknowledge that he was teaching outdated material that no one uses anymore, that the field has changed and the information was only historically relevant.  But he did not supplement this with the new material!!!!  WTF?  I pay for these classes bitches!  In all fairness, that prof has since been let go.

You know that scene where the boss at Chotchkie’s asks Jennifer Aniston’s character “You want to express yourself right?” and she has this concerned, confused, intimidated look and just nods.  That is how grad school feels.

I’m probably going to regret writing this.

Advertisements

One for WIN column!

Santorum drops out and all of our vaginas are a little safer!


Huzzah!!!!!

I don’t know how this man managed to get people to listen to him, oh wait, small-minded people want small-minded leaders.  Well, fuck them.  One of the greater evils up for election has dropped.

And now I bring you a bunch of Santorum memes!  Huzzah!

Oh that’s enough.  Have a good night!  Happy living, sexing, contracepting, medicining, and religioning as you choose!

Paternal Attachment–I created a Professor “oh crap” moment. Sorry :(

I just received a really fantastically awkward response to a question about the absence of fathers in attachment theory.  Anyone who has read a bit of attachment theory quickly realizes that most authors are talking only about mothers.  The pressure is placed on the mother to create a secure attachment, to ensure that they provide the ideal level of boundaries and warmth.  I’m not going to go over all the 4 levels of attachment, but suffice it to say, it is a difficult balance to define and for a woman to enact.  Many parents achieve this with little difficulty (yay for them!)  Psychologists tend to pathologize all everything except secure attachments.  (wiki-link, if you’re curious to want more! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory) In my opinion, children and adults are more adaptable and resilient than we give them credit for.   But even outside of psychology, culture gives mothers the responsibility of creating the early blueprint for attachment.  The relationship with the father is considered tertiary, consequential.  Short of outright abuse, anything the father does is juuuuust fiiiiiiiine.

The field of attachment research focuses almost solely on mothers.  We have a ton of information on how mothers attach to their children and a massive lacking of information about fathers.  A few people have attempted to explore how fathers form bonds with their children, but this collection of research is very, very small.  The field of psychology and relationship science instead assumes that paternal attachment is just the same.  The problem with this is that we simply don’t know.  It is worth exploring but it is not being really explored.

I brought up this issue in class after watching a video clip on corrective attachment therapy. This type of therapy is primarily applied when an infant is diagnosed with Failure to Thrive and no biological/medical base can be identified.  Failure to Thrive occurs when a child and parent have no attachment, are out of tune with one another, the parent is not meeting the child’s need for security.  This failure of relationship result in the child not eating or taking in nutrition or not sleeping.  The child does not grow.  FTT does not occur only in first days/weeks of life, but can appear age 3 or even older.  It creates a great deal of disruption in the entire household, especially if two parents are involved.  The video we watched and every discussion I’ve ever had on this topic throughout multiple classes, revolves around the mother.  Treatment revolves primarily around the mother, teaching the mother how to appropriately respond and build an empathetic connection with the child.

So, in my infinite curiosity, I inquired as to why the fathers were not more involved.  They were obviously involved and equally as disengaged from the child.  At least one of the families featured involved two working parents.  Why is the father’s lack of attachment not emphasized.  I received a very bumbling and unsatisfying answer that mentioned the working father, the importance of the “feeding relationship” (think breast feeding–even though few mothers currently breast feed), the father not wishing to create more tension in the family.  To my prof’s credit, he acknowledged that this was an area that was lacking, but he came back around to excusing that.  At no point did he imply, yeah dads need to be involved!  They can have bad attachments too!  I followed up by stating that it seemed father’s were excused in their Ego-Centric level of awareness with their child, and that it is accepted or expected that fathers relate to their children in this way.  Again, I received more bumbling and nothing resembling a satisfying answer.

Poor guy.  He went out of his way to inject “father” every time he said “mother” and tried to inject some comments about patriarchy for the rest of the lecture.  I felt kind of awkward as he answered the question, as awkward as I was annoyed.  It was a clear moment of “oh crap I have a feminist in my class!  What do I doooooo?”  But the field of psychology and attachment are dripping with misogyny.  Hell when you break it down the whole field was created by men to control and condemn women’s natural impulses and urges.  Fucking Freud.