Eight years ago tonight, I sat down & pressed "publish" on my very first blog post.
EIGHT YEARS.
That's a long time. :)
Unlike many other ALI bloggers, I started blogging nine years post-Katie (17 years now) and six years post-fertility treatments (14 years now).
And now 8 years has gone by.
I'm not always sure how I keep coming up with things to write about, but hey, I'm still here...!
Here are a few updated stats:
Number of years blogging: 8
Published posts (including this one): 973 (and I'm hoping to crack 1,000 before 2015 is over :) )
Average # of posts per year: 122
Average # of posts per month: 10
Published comments: more than 7,225
Page views (tracked since May 2008): 369,100+
Followers: 151
One thing I know that's kept me writing is the growing number of other childless/free bloggers to "talk" to and share experiences with. As I mentioned in my blogoversary post last year, when I first started writing here, there were just a handful of blogs dedicated to living without children after loss &/or infertility. (Most notably, Pamela Jeanne, who is still blogging at Silent Sorority, was already out there with her original blog, Coming2Terms.)
Today, there are a lot more of us in this corner of the ALI community -- and the numbers are continuing to grow. There are some really excellent blogs out there (which you can find in the blogrolls on the right side of this page), and communities such as Life Without Baby, founded by Lisa Manterfield, and Gateway Women, the brainchild of Jody Day in the United Kingdom. And earlier this month, Karen Malone Wright of The NotMom organized the first-ever conference for women without children in Cleveland, which brought together more than 100 women from across the United States, as well as Canada, China, Hong Kong and Iceland! That's pretty amazing!
More than 1 in 5 women today do not and probably will never have children, by choice or for a variety of complex other reasons -- and there's a growing momentum within this community. More and more, we are writing and speaking up about our experiences -- the good and the bad -- and drawing some much-needed attention to our unique issues and needs. And the rest of the world is (finally!) starting to take notice. Slowly but surely, we're making progress.
As always -- thank you all for reading/listening, commenting and just being here.
Blogoversary #7 (2014)
Blogoversary #6 (2013)
Blogoversary #5 (2012)
Blogoversary #4 (2011)
Blogoversary #3 (2010)
Blogoversary #2 (2009)
Blogoversary #1 (2008)
First post
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
#MicroblogMondays: Learning to let go
In the middle of painting the entire house -- which involved clearing out & then refilling my closets (which is why I haven't been around the blogosphere much this week) -- I took the opportunity to go through my wardrobe and pare things down a little.
And I packed up my maternity clothes and sent them to the Salvation Army thrift store.
I have so few keepsakes from my pregnancy with Katie. I never bought much in the way of clothes or toys or equipment for her -- first because the pregnancy was so tenuous, almost from the start, and second, because I was lectured by dh's relatives not to buy too much, because I was going to get tons of gifts at my shower on the September long weekend (which ultimately never took place).
So my maternity clothes (along with a pile of pregnancy books) represented the bulk of what pregnancy-related items I had, and they meant a lot to me. I had some pretty cute outfits, and I remember how much fun I had shopping for them (my mother was visiting me when I made my first foray into a maternity wear shop, early in my pregnancy, and I am so, SO glad we were able to do that together, and that she could share that experience with me) and where I wore what outfit.
I kept the outfit I wore that fateful day of my six-month checkup... the dress I wore to the funeral... and two other pretty dresses that I loved and didn't want to let go of, at least just yet. Everything else went to the Salvation Army.
I have to admit -- it didn't hurt as much as I thought it would. Of course, I took my sweet time in making this decision... 17 & 1/2 years!!
Maybe that's the key. Take your time, and don't let anyone rush you into doing things before you feel good & ready to do them. Grief has no timetable.
You can find more of this week's #MicroblogMondays posts here.
Monday, October 19, 2015
#MicroblogMondays: Buy me some peanuts & Cracker Jack
I am, I admit, emotionally attached to several of the pro teams of my youth (i.e., the Winnipeg Jets, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers & the Saskatchewan Roughriders -- NHL hockey, CFL football & CFL football, respectively), and I will watch the odd game -- the big ones -- the Jets' emotional return to Winnipeg after a 15-year absence (I was in tears just during the warmup!), the Canadian Olympic hockey team's gold medal victories in 2002 & 2010, the Grey Cup (CFL championship game) every year (which I will take over the Super Bowl any day!). And the TV set is almost always tuned to the Toronto Maple Leafs when we visit FIL on a winter Saturday night. But I don't make a point of regularly watching any team's games.
That said, it's October. Which, in North America, means baseball playoffs. Baseball is another one of those sports I don't generally follow -- but this week, the Toronto Blue Jays (Canada's only Major League Baseball team) are playing the Kansas City Royals for the American League championship (and the chance to go to the World Series) for the first time in 22 years. Game 3 is tonight. (There's also a federal election today, but who cares about that, right?? lol)
Last Thursday night, as dh & I watched a nail-biter of a do-or-die game against the Texas Rangers, which would determine who went to the American League finals, I posted on Facebook, "I haven't been this tense over a baseball game in, oh, 22 years. (Come to think of it, I haven't WATCHED an entire baseball game in 22 years, lol.)"
22 years is a LONG time. Generally, I find baseball a pretty sleepy game to watch. I went to a couple of Blue Jays games at the SkyDome (oops -- Rogers Centre -- but it will ALWAYS be "SkyDome" to me...) in the first few years after it opened in 1989. But I watched every one of the Jays' 1992 & 1993 World Series games, often staying up until 11 or 12 o'clock at night, and then dragging my butt into work the next morning. (Of course, I was far from the only one!) When the Jays won the first time, in 1992, the victory parade was held at lunchtime on a weekday. My boss & I walked a few blocks over from our office to the parade route. Even though we went about an hour in advance, the sidewalk was already 12 deep with people. All I saw were the tops of people's heads as the cars bearing the players & the World Series trophy passed by, to deafening cheers. Oh well, I WAS there. ;)
It was fun. It would be nice to do it again. And if you think we went nuts in 1992 &/or 1993 (or even on Thursday night, when the entire city, maybe even the entire country, went collectively bonkers), just wait until that mythical "someday" when the Maple Leafs (our hapless hockey team) reclaim the Stanley Cup...! ;) (The last time they won was in 1967 -- 48 years ago.)
You can find more of this week's #MicroblogMondays posts here.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Dying alone
The New York Times had one of those long-form journalism pieces this weekend that remind you why they are THE New York Times. "The Lonely Death of George Bell" by N.R. Kleinfield is a story that will stay with you long after you've read it. Incredibly sad -- but wonderful writing, a great piece of detective work, both by the writer and by the government officials trying to learn more about George Bell's life and relationships. As several commenters noted, it's somewhat ironic that such a private and reclusive man who lived and died in solitude is being eulogized so publicly. On the front page of the Sunday New York Times, no less!!
Dying alone is something that I think a lot of childless people fear -- although I'm sure it happens to plenty of people with children, too. I'm not especially afraid of dropping dead suddenly of a heart attack or in my sleep (because hey, I'm never going to know, right?), but the idea of becoming ill or incapacitated in some way and unable to call for help does bother me a bit. Although dh has promised me that he will haunt the nephews if I am left by myself and they don't look in on me regularly. ;)
It's a sobering reminder about the importance of human relationships and staying in touch with the people who mean something to us. (And that goes for all of us, whether we have children or not.)
Dying alone is something that I think a lot of childless people fear -- although I'm sure it happens to plenty of people with children, too. I'm not especially afraid of dropping dead suddenly of a heart attack or in my sleep (because hey, I'm never going to know, right?), but the idea of becoming ill or incapacitated in some way and unable to call for help does bother me a bit. Although dh has promised me that he will haunt the nephews if I am left by myself and they don't look in on me regularly. ;)
It's a sobering reminder about the importance of human relationships and staying in touch with the people who mean something to us. (And that goes for all of us, whether we have children or not.)
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
"Singles Day"?? Hmmm...
If you're a regular reader of my blog, you'll know the love-hate relationship I have with "Family Day," a made-up statutory holiday in February, marked by Ontario & several other Canadian provinces. My problem is not so much having a holiday in February (my least favourite month of the year), but the label slapped on it, in a blatant attempt by the various governments involved to pander to "family values." (Click on "Family Day" in the Labels section of the sidebar at the right to see relevant past posts on the subject.)
So I was amused to stumble on an article (with podcast link) in my Facebook feed today -- an interview (about five minutes long) with a member of the Alberta provincial legislature, Ray Park, complaining that "Family Day" discriminates against single people, and proposing an equivalent "Singles Day" holiday.
I thought the guy was being just a LITTLE tongue-in-cheek -- although I agreed with the gist of many of his comments. I was curious which political party he belonged to & tried Googling him, to no avail. I did a little more research & gradually realized that the program the clip came from, "This is That," is a satirical news show on CBC Radio. Well, that explained it ;) -- although if you read any of the comments on Facebook, a lot of people clearly did not get the joke.
As with all satire, of course, there is a point being made, an element of truth in what's being said, if you listen carefully. When you name a holiday "Family Day" and urge people to celebrate their families and spend time with them, you might think you're being politically safe (who has a beef against families, right??) and inclusive (we all have families, right?).
Except not all of us have families, at least, the way most politicians define them, when they talk about "family values" and "hard-working families." Yes, we all have parents -- & possibly some siblings, and aunts, uncles & cousins, maybe some nieces and nephews, if we're lucky. But not all of us are lucky enough to have the children we wanted. Not all of us want children. Are my husband & I a family, in the eyes of these politicians? We might think so -- but I get the distinct impression that policymakers don't share this view. They tend to be fixated on the standard stereotypical image of a family -- mom, dad, 2.1 children and perhaps a family pet. Plus, even if your family more or less fits this definition, there's no guarantee that it's a happy family. Some people may not want to celebrate and spend time with their families -- sometimes for very good reasons.
So you can't blame singles, or childless couples, or people who are estranged from their families -- people whose families don't fit the standard definition -- for taking umbrage at yet one more reminder (as if we needed one...) that, in the eyes of many, we just don't count, that we are somehow lesser-than.
Yes, I know, you can pick holes in anything if you try hard enough. Yes, it's a holiday -- in February! -- and I do appreciate that.
But families come in all shapes and sizes and colours these days. We've come a long way in recognizing and accommodating diversity and making our society more inclusive, in terms of things like gender, skin colour and religion. And we've made a start at recognizing a broader definition of family -- that families can be multi-generational, headed by single parents, that Heather can have two mommies. It's time we started recognizing that singles and couples without children, for whatever reason, can be families too.
So I was amused to stumble on an article (with podcast link) in my Facebook feed today -- an interview (about five minutes long) with a member of the Alberta provincial legislature, Ray Park, complaining that "Family Day" discriminates against single people, and proposing an equivalent "Singles Day" holiday.
I thought the guy was being just a LITTLE tongue-in-cheek -- although I agreed with the gist of many of his comments. I was curious which political party he belonged to & tried Googling him, to no avail. I did a little more research & gradually realized that the program the clip came from, "This is That," is a satirical news show on CBC Radio. Well, that explained it ;) -- although if you read any of the comments on Facebook, a lot of people clearly did not get the joke.
As with all satire, of course, there is a point being made, an element of truth in what's being said, if you listen carefully. When you name a holiday "Family Day" and urge people to celebrate their families and spend time with them, you might think you're being politically safe (who has a beef against families, right??) and inclusive (we all have families, right?).
Except not all of us have families, at least, the way most politicians define them, when they talk about "family values" and "hard-working families." Yes, we all have parents -- & possibly some siblings, and aunts, uncles & cousins, maybe some nieces and nephews, if we're lucky. But not all of us are lucky enough to have the children we wanted. Not all of us want children. Are my husband & I a family, in the eyes of these politicians? We might think so -- but I get the distinct impression that policymakers don't share this view. They tend to be fixated on the standard stereotypical image of a family -- mom, dad, 2.1 children and perhaps a family pet. Plus, even if your family more or less fits this definition, there's no guarantee that it's a happy family. Some people may not want to celebrate and spend time with their families -- sometimes for very good reasons.
So you can't blame singles, or childless couples, or people who are estranged from their families -- people whose families don't fit the standard definition -- for taking umbrage at yet one more reminder (as if we needed one...) that, in the eyes of many, we just don't count, that we are somehow lesser-than.
Yes, I know, you can pick holes in anything if you try hard enough. Yes, it's a holiday -- in February! -- and I do appreciate that.
But families come in all shapes and sizes and colours these days. We've come a long way in recognizing and accommodating diversity and making our society more inclusive, in terms of things like gender, skin colour and religion. And we've made a start at recognizing a broader definition of family -- that families can be multi-generational, headed by single parents, that Heather can have two mommies. It's time we started recognizing that singles and couples without children, for whatever reason, can be families too.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)