So, a person I know gets called (her words) to certain children, in the 3rd-5th grade range. If she clicks with them (ie, they respond strongly to her personality and are highly motivated by things like trips to a high school baseball game), then she makes a silent commitment to them that she will see them through the next 15 years. She will wake up at 5 am through their middle school years and make sure they get to school on time, pick them up every day and get them dinner, sign them up for sports teams and summer camps, bail the family out when bills threaten to overwhelm them, and so on. Gets the kid from a massively impoverished background through college. It's a gigantic commitment, completely exterior to any formal program. She takes on one child about every 15 years. (She's in her late 50s.)
It's amazingly generous and definitely helps that one kid out tremendously. It's also incredibly culturally...complicated. The mother of the most recent mentee came around when the mentor covered enough bills that the mother came to see her as a source of help, rather than a threat to take away her child. The mentor has also learned a ton about the amount of racism that her mentees face, and so has grown tremendously herself. It's interesting, but I sort of don't know what to make of the whole thing.
So, she's done this twice? Three times? Because I'm a terrible person, I think she sounds kind of like a child molester -- not so much for what she's doing, as for choosing to do it outside of any organizational oversight.
I mean, she probably isn't, she's probably just a wonderful, giving person, but that's my first reaction.
Twice and in the early stages with a third.
(I figured I'd say it first so no one else had to be inhibited about it.)
How does she acquire impoverished gradeschoolers, to be close enough to them to feel a specific call? Church, school, or something else?
1 is really quite reminiscent of a character in Geek Love.*
* which is a definite book recommendation if anyone hasn't read it.
Through the public school system, I believe. I know a lot about the mentee who is about to graduate college, not that much about #1 and 3.
I know you say she gives money to the families, but I've never seen any way to do this for just one kid and not do at least something for siblings, which then turns into siblings and cousins, which then turns into "My friend is trying to apply to colleges and can you help her?" and so on. It seems like it would be upsetting for the other kids to see one getting drastically different treatment like that, though maybe I'm misunderstanding. (And I do know that mentoring usually only goes to one child per mentor and I'm not the norm because I didn't feel I could really provide that.)
It really is an impressively good thing to be doing, assuming that I'm just being an ass about saying she sounds like a child molester.
8 is interesting -- I hadn't quite formulated it, but yes. Do you have a sense of how she supports one child in an impoverished family/friendship network without isolating the child from the network or ending up providing support globally?
Well, it sounds like an informal, intense Big Brother/Big Sister. Which I could see as a positive. There's that bit in Living My Life where (adult) Emma Goldman has some rich friends who want to put her through nursing school, but then they want to exert various kinds of moderation on her political activities, so she tells them to get lost, even though she's heartbroken about not getting to finish nursing school. I guess that is where I would see some problems -- are you going to wind up cutting people off from their roots? Determining who they are "supposed" to be? The part about getting a call -- that also seems problematic, what are the intangibles that she looks for? Could be less altruistic than it seems.
But mostly a good thing, I suppose.
Then again, there's the bit in A Rebours where Des Esseintes gets the street urchin hooked on visiting the high-class prostitute, then cuts him off, and the kid ruins himself committing crimes to feed his sex addiction. Probably not really analogous though.
For #2, mentee has a slightly older brother who did not respond to the carrots that she was offering. Mentee also has a younger sister who might have responded, but by that point the mentor realized she couldn't afford to also take on the younger sister. The family has a narrative that the mentor only takes on boys. It's not actually a rule, but it's a convenient way to depersonalize the sting for the younger sister.
Part of the call she's talking about might be finding an isolated kid without a tight network of obligations (single parent, few involved collateral relatives, that kind of thing). That might tend to both produce a kid who was likelier to be attracted to a strong relationship outside the family, and also limit the complication of dealing with the kid's network.
Mentee #1 no longer connects very well with his family of origin. Mentee #2 is still very close with his family. Mentor wants him to stay close with them, but is also concerned with what will happen when he has a stable paycheck and 20+ cousins who dropped out of high school in 9th grade and immediately became parents.
. . . which then turns into "My friend is trying to apply to colleges and can you help her?" and so on.
That reminds me of this passage which I still find interesting, but is perhaps off-topic from this discussion.
I think the call is halfway between called-by-God and clicked-personality-wise. Mentee #2 comes from a huge family, and the network seems complicated, but she's fairly untroubled by it - she was called for this one kid in particular.
OT: This will presumably be all over the Internet in thirty to forty-five minutes.
Does the person at issue have children of her own? I have very good (older) family friends who, as a couple, do not have children of their own but have done something like this for a number of kids, starting in probably about 1980. I think it's been tremendously satisfying to them and has given them a great extended sense of family. They now live outside of LA but regularly come and visit the grown mentees for holidays, etc. They are also my sister's godparents and are super involved in her life, though unlike the other "mentees" (who were basically poorer inner city kids, the couple at issue lived in what is now my neighborhood and is basically a ghetto, and would find and take on neighborhood kids) my sister obviously needed much less in the way of basic support. Anyhow, it seems like a total win-win for everyone involved; like a lot of personal charity, it doesn't solve systemic problems and hence isn't really a broad "solution" to anything but it seemed to enhance the lives of both mentor/mentee considerably.
Something about it rubs me the wrong way. I'm having trouble articulating it, but I'll stumble around and maybe someone will refine it. It seems like a very personally gratifying thing for the mentor to swoop in and "fix" one special, lucky kid's life. The mentor gets to pick the best, nicest, most agreeable kid, give them extreme levels of support, and make good things happen for them. It's hard to imagine what might happen if things went a little wrong - a teenage girl gets pregnant, rebels against mentor, something - does the mentor just cut ties? Maybe I'm reading a combination of My Fair Lady and one of those "inspirational teacher saves ghetto youths" that's not there.
Of course, I'm sure it's good and a nice thing to do and all, and I'm sure it does help one kid to middle class stability, but it still seems a little . . . something.
She does have grown children of her own, but the benefits to everyone involved are very similar to what you describe.
These comments are reminding me that one of the reasons I quit formal mentoring is how much I hate the word "mentee" even though I'm not usually a super-prescriptivist. But also, more pertinently, because it didn't seem fair to take the two girls out when their brothers didn't have mentors yet just because they were boys and not enough men sign up to mentor, but it wasn't logistically or economically feasible to take four kids out every week or two. (And Lee stopped helping because she got fed up with the family, so eventually I had to tell them and the mentoring program I couldn't do it anymore after meeting my initial commitment....)
Can I ask about the race of the person involved? In the case of my family friends, the couple was African-American and definitely saw the mentoring thing as a way of giving back from people who had made it to those who hadn't. (Although about 3/4 of the kids they helped were Latino). I got the vague impression that this is a pretty common mode of charity in the African-American community; there's another woman who lives on my street who's kind of a life-meddler, middle-class-values-encourager for neighborhood kids.
This is going to turn into one of those "True Detective sucked because they didn't solve Murder, only murders" discussions where we all reveal our individual levels of discomfort with the tragic choices inherent in any ameliorative or eleemosynary endeavor and circle around the Peter Singer no-sacrifice-is-sufficient-unless-total drain in fruitless discomfort, isn't it?
Mentor is white, and very well-connected in this small (racist) town. Mentee 1 is hispanic, mentee 2 is black. I thought I was pretty clear on the degree of racism in these sorts of pockets, but some of her stories about what #2 has faced actually took me aback. ("He can't come in here unless he wants to clean dishes" said to Mentor and Mentee together, from an old family friend. Etc. Housing harassment. Tons of disapproving gossip.)
I've kind of thought vaguely about mentoring some neighorhood kid but (a) I have kid (soon to be kids) of my own (b) I'm super lazy and (c) what the hell would I say, my life lessons are "be born well-off, be very lazy, read a lot for fun and have basic logic skills, and you too can help gigantic corporations fight over the merchandising rights to 1970s TV shows."
My mom has done something similar for a family friend. (She first stayed at our house for a month or two at around a year and a half old when her mom was in the hospital after a suicide attempt and we've been quite involved since then.) On the one hand I think it's been rewarding: she was a really great kid and seems to have grown up into a great adult. On the other hand, heavy involvement hasn't lead to really great things. She's definitely the most competent adult in her family in at least a few generations, but that didn't stop her from getting knocked up as a teenager.
If 27(a)(ii) is news, congratulations to you and First Ninja.
the Peter Singer no-sacrifice-is-sufficient-unless-total drain in fruitless discomfort
This is, in fact, not what he recommends:
http://givingonepercent.org.au/index.php/how-much-to-give/giving-guide
that didn't stop her from getting knocked up as a teenager.
I think if you're going to do this sort of thing, you have to divorce yourself from thinking about outcomes like that as failures. I mean, it depends on what your goal as a mentor is, but I think something generic about improving the young person's life and prospects is probably going to be the best for all involved.
NickS, thanks for the link in 17. Now I'm planning to read the book about the kinship group. TO Halford's point, I've also seen a lot of informal mentoring roles especially across class lines in local black communities and I think I probably count as playing that role in certain respects for Mara's family and the kids I've tutored since I got involved with them through (black) family and church channels.
Oh, hey, I just had a really great conversation with Colton, who turns 20 in a month and is doing really well. He's been working a good job that lets him travel around Texas and some surrounding states, and now he's been accepted into a community college nursing program (2 years there, then 2 more at a 4-year school) starting next winter. He's working crazy hard and is now car-less, which works now but won't when he starts school. So I'm going to get in touch with Sir Kraab when I have time tonight and see if we can work up a plan for the money the Mineshaft gave that got put away for when he was in a position to need it. Things have been going well for him, and it would be good to play a part in making them better.
Yay, Colton!
While I appreciate Ydnew's sense that there's something that feels a little saucily about the situation, I have to say that I've long envisioned acting in a similar, but perhaps less intensive, role myself. For the past few years this has involved my god kids and a small handful of my students, but for some reason I've assumed that at some point I'd end up taking on a teenager that needed a mentor. This is probably because I've benefited from some pretty intense mentoring myself.
That was supposed to be 'sketchy.' Stupid autocorrect...
30 makes me feel pretty good, although we tend to give more to charities that organize around poverty (and other issues) than to direct relief, which one could quibble with Singer about, and a chunk of public radio, which one could probably not.
ok, I need some advice. I just found out my somewhat estranged older aunt is on her deathbed, and I want to send her a card. I want the note to be kind and somewhat personal and sort of a "let's put the past behind us" but without saying that explicitly. I have no idea what to write. I found a sympathy card which says "May you feel God's comfort and grace all around you" in it, which although my aunt isn't religious she is into sentimental greeting cards, and it didn't read too much as a sympathy card, I thought. But anyways, how do you write "I'm sorry you're dying" without writing that? Plus, how do you write, "I'm sorry you'r dying. Oh, btw, I'm not mad at you and here's what I'm up to with my life." Remember, we're kind of uptight Northern Europeans who don't explicitly say what we mean, and my aunt is particularly old fashioned and doesn't really believe in open displays of emotion. I need to send the card tomorrow (want it to get there before she dies, which is probably going to be weeks, but could be days or if she's really lucky a few months).
8: only child?
The odds are against it. For some reason not being able to conceive is a joy reserved for stable responsible people who want nothing more than to raise a child.
39: I wouldn't worry too much about sentimentality, in the circs... 'X told me you weren't well. I'm very sorry to hear it. Thinking of you --'
Maybe, if I could fit in a 'I'm doing Z; when Q I remember doing N with you.' Those always puzzle the recipients, who seem to remember more M or even B, but oh well.
39: I think the wording of the card is quite appropriate for the occasion, and given your desire for the N. European reserve, maybe you don't need to say much more. To make it more personal, is there one fond or at least interesting (good) memory you can recall to share with her? That's a nice way to express, with sincerity, that you will remember her into the future, and with no hard feelings. And then maybe end with a simple "I'll be thinking of you every day," which avoids any projection of whether you think she has days or months left.
41.1 and 42.2 et seq. seem to me to get it right. The issue of the wording on the card seems to me to be: are >you religious? If so, fine, otherwise it might seem forced and insincere?
"I'm sorry you're ailing. I wish you all the comfort and care, and I know that you're in good hands with Aunt X.
Some updates: I've been working at..."
I found a sympathy card which says "May you feel God's comfort and grace all around you" in it, which although my aunt isn't religious she is into sentimental greeting cards, and it didn't read too much as a sympathy card, I thought.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "not religious", but I'd be pretty pissed off at a message like that. To me it comes across (if consciously sent to someone not religious) as "This is your last chance to turn to God or you'll burn".
For some reason not being able to conceive is a joy reserved for stable responsible people who want nothing more than to raise a child.
This is like the law of emergency medicine that the body's resilience to trauma is inversely proportional to the body's owner's value to society. See the variation in "ability to cope with being shot" between 50 Cent and John Lennon.
I think I'd leave out the updates.
My kooky, somewhat estranged, and definitely exasperating aunt* passed away yesterday. She'd been ill a long time, and I suppose I should have sent a card. I could say that maybe I would have done if I'd known how serious things were, but to be honest I did kind of know, and I probably wouldn't have done anything different even if I knew more detail. I'm not all that good a nephew.
* Technically wife of my first cousin once-removed: my dad was orphaned at 7 and raised by his aunt and uncle, who's children have been aunt and uncles to me.
46: Dubbing "Imagine" over Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convince deaf people to stop masturbating wouldn't have been one-tenth as entertaining as "In Da Club".
Now overdub this version of "In Da Club" over something.
46: See the variation in "ability to cope with being shot" between 50 Cent and John Lennon.
Well, also, see the variation in "ability to treat trauma, improvements 1980-2000" or possibly variation in "ability to withstand shooting in men, age 25 vs age 40"
This is like the law of emergency medicine that the body's resilience to trauma is inversely proportional to the body's owner's value to society.
This is kinda rude.
Whatever else it may be, emergency medicine can definitely be fairly described as rude.
46: I've seen this referred to as the Law of Conservation of Malignancy (that is, that it either expresses itself medically or in your personality).
cf. Evelyn Waugh's remark when it was announced that Randolf Churchill had had a tumour removed but it was benign: "Trust the doctors to find the only bit of Randolf that isn't malignant and cut it out."
51: To be fair, so was the original it was playing on.
49 is so awesome. I don't have a lot of tolerance for the "white people doing earnest/ironic acoustic covers of black songs," but this one's a total success.
55: which is a bit much coming from Waugh, whose commanding officer once suggested that he should not take part in the landings at Salerno because of the unacceptable risk that he would be shot by one of his own side.
58. It would probably have been me if I'd been old enough. I know no good of the man. But Randolf was pretty loathsome too.
49 is so awesome. I don't have a lot of tolerance for the "white people doing earnest/ironic acoustic covers of black songs," but this one's a total success.
Ditto on all counts.
I know no good of the man.
Come on, he may have been personally loathsome, but some of his books are great.
49 is so awesome. I don't have a lot of tolerance for the "white people doing earnest/ironic acoustic covers of black songs," but this one's a total success.
Based on that I watched the video and . . . it's well done and very interesting.
The quoted sentence uses the construction "earnest/ironic" which seemed odd, since the two are often opposites, but the video is, indeed, both earnest and ironic.
The thing that strikes me is how much the performance sells it -- his obvious pleasure and the way that he does so much with his face (particularly his eyes). It's constantly signaling both "don't take this seriously" and "pay attention because this isn't easy" and the combination of the two works surprisingly well.
I just wish he'd replaced the word "Fifty" with "Formby" in the lyrics. It even fits!
Update: thanks for the advice, but apparently too late. My aunt died last night. I haven't sent the card. Unfortunately, I already wrote "Dear [Aunt's Name]" so I won't be able to repurpose it as a sympathy card. I'm having a little whiplash from finding out my aunt was not responding well to cancer treatments on Saturday, and then her passing away yesterday. Apparently most people usually live another 1-3 months, but my aunt didn't make it a week, I don't think.
Sorry for your losses, CC & Britta.
When we moved last year, I found a stack of unsent thank-you notes from my wedding. One of the recipients had died in the interim.
||
Evidence for my "Ezra is counterproductively clueless" thesis:
The silver lining is that politics doesn't just take place in Washington. The point of politics is policy. And most people don't experience policy as a political argument.It's really only that middle sentence that matters. How stupid and/or naive do you have to be to believe that politics is about policy and not power? Does Ezra watch Game of Thrones and imagine that the eventual victor will be whoever provides the best governance?
I see that "technocratic fallacy" is already a thing, but perhaps we could coin the Technocrat's Fallacy, on the model of the Pundit's Fallacy. My definition would be the idea that, if only we got well trained technocrats into all the important positions, what would follow would be optimal policy, with politics itself vanishing in a puff of smoke.
|>
It is possible that missing a couple months of cancer treatment was the gentle outcome. My condolences.
66: And most people don't experience policy as a political argument.
The ACA is policy and has been *the* political argument of the past 4 years.
I think 66 is pretty unfair to that particular article, the point of which is precisely that more information about policy issues doesn't tend to change people's political views.
On a brief skim, the main problem with the Vox site appears to be that it is extremely boring. I also don't find the FAQ type policy briefings particularly informative, not really any different than what you find in the explanatory paragraphs of a NYT article. Maybe it'll get better/more interesting.
And that comment wasn't meant to take away from the condolences -- I'm sorry to hear that, CC and Britta.
Condolences. This makes me feel bad about my own estranged relatives. (Note to self: do not rely on postal mail for last-minute reconciliation.)
Sorry, Britta. I'm glad you thought about her and I hope that helps you feel better about her death. I wish I had a better way to say that, but I don't right now.
Thanks everyone. Like I said, it still doesn't really seem real. My grandmother only died about 7 years ago, so it's hard to process that her daughter would die so soon after. My aunt was in her mid 70s, but both my grandparents lived to fairly old ages, so I assumed she would too. My mother visited her the day before she died, which I feel better about.
It's really only that middle sentence that matters. How stupid and/or naive do you have to be to believe that politics is about policy and not power? Does Ezra watch Game of Thrones and imagine that the eventual victor will be whoever provides the best governance?
Erik over at LGM covered this well.
74: but, as many (including me) pointed out, he's wrong. Or at least not entirely right. In a really trivial and boring sense, he's right, because politics is a way to get power. But politicians want that power, a lot of the time, in order to execute policies.
Does Ezra watch Game of Thrones and imagine that the eventual victor will be whoever provides the best governance?
That is actually the way it's turning out. He's flawed, but Stannis is definitely the best of the Five Kings at governance - he's the only one who takes it seriously and really worries about the good of the realm - and he's winning. The Erik Loomis types who thought politics was just about power and splendour - Cersei, Joffrey, Tywin, Balon Greyjoy, Renly - have all ended up dead or humiliated. And most of book 5 is about Dany realising that being a queen isn't just about seizing power by force; it's about policy and governance.
I'm sorry for the deaths also. Now matter how peripheral or estranged it gets to you. There's also how you deal with and appear to everybody else in your family, and what to say.