Thanks to Sarcasmo, I learned about a really neat feature on the website of the British Library. It’s called Turning the Pages and contains scans of old manuscripts and printed books. It’s really remarkable to see how much writing and typesetting conventions have changed. The example I was looking at Vesalius’s Anatomy. The text is written in Latin. One interesting thing about the typesetting is that in some instances, the letter s looks as we typically set it now, while in many others, the symbol looks like a curvey letter f. You can see something similar on the title page to Elizabeth Blackwell’s book of botanical illustratons, although you can see the difference between the f and the s. The anatomy text also shows the use of V for U.

One thing I haven’t seen in any of these texts, but have seen elsewhere is the use of a symbol that looks like Y for Th. I saw that a lot when I was taking a class on the sonnet at MIT. I’ve also heard that in very early texts, there was much less use of punctuation, making it harder to tell when sentences start and stop. I’d love to find a book about the history of how writing and printing of modern English has evolved over the last few hundred years (although half of this post has really had to do with Latin).

On Tuesday, the New York Times posted this article on women attending elite universities and whose main goal is motherhood.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many women have such a plan. One survey found that 85 out of 138 Yale undergraduate women—over 60%—planned to stop working full time when they started families. The sample size is small and consists only of women at Yale, but the results do still raise questions.

These young women seem to greatly value family life. Those who were interviewed for the article expressed desires reflect the choices of their mothers (or other female role models). I think there’s something to be admired in the fact that these women wish to pass the values of their mothers on to their daughters and that they wish to have an active role in the upbringing of their children.

For many careerwomen, the need to balance work and family and the impossibility of having it all can be frustrating. These young women accept the choice as necessary, and they accept rather than rail at the status quo. One of the female professors at Yale interviewed for this article called these women “realistic.” A Yale survey involving alumnae found that less than 50% of the women in their 40s still worked full time. This younger generation seems, as a group, to want to follow in the previous generation’s footsteps.

Although it is only mentioned in passing, there is also the important question of return on investment (ROI). For these young women, the investment of both time and money is worth it because it will allow them to have fulfilling part time work or to return to work when their children are over. It also allows them the opportunity to meet husbands who will be able to financially support such a choice.

The parents of these women are also important stakeholders. The parents interviewed seem happy enough with (if you’ll permit me to be reductionist) choosing family over career. Of course, these parents also have an interest in seeing their future grandchildren raised in a manner consistent with their own values, so it’s not totally surprising.

Of course, then there are feminists and women’s rights advocates, who did and still do fight a long and difficult battle so that these young women could have such a choice.

Educators make up a final group of stakeholders. In one sense, they are the ultimate payers. It’s their reaction that interests me most, although I suspect they have not yet had the time to react. It appears that there may be a great deal invested in preparing these young women for leadership positions they won’t take. Should these funds be diverted elsewhere? What about those women who do choose (or end up on) ambitious career paths? Is it fair to deny them resources on the chance that they might choose not to fully use their intellectual abilities?

For that matter, is it fair to say that one can’t stay home with one’s children and still develop one’s intellect or become a leader? Is it fair that right now most women can’t have a fulfilling career and devote oneself satisfactorily to one’s family?

I don’t believe that the work is over for those who advocate for greater flexibility in the workplace. Reading this article makes me think that their work is more important than ever—not because I begrudge these women their choices, but because I’d like every person to be able to make a choice that is satisfying and is in keeping with that person’s values.

I can’t see myself ever letting go of ambition. I suspect it’s been drilled permanently into me by 18 years of people telling me I had so much potential to live up to. I really came to hate the word “potential” after a while. Today, I know that I have stakeholders to answer to, and one of them is myself.

There are a few final points I’d like to make about this article.

First, it’s important to remember that this article focuses mostly on Yale, so what is presented may not be generally applicable, perhaps even to other Ivy League Universities.

I also wanted to point out some of the quotes used. There is this one, about the young men in Harvard’s American Family class.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”

This is one young woman’s explanation of why she wants to stay home with her children:

“Parents have such an influence on their children,” Ms. Ku said. “I want to have that influence. Me!”

There are some other curious choices, and I wonder if there isn’t some rhetorical purpose behind them.

This post refers to:

Story, Louise. “Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood.” New York Times. September 20, 2005.

On Tuesday, while waiting for the SEPTA R6, I had a conversation with a man about god. I didn’t intend to, but suddenly there it was with me caught in the middle. What probably did it was telling him I don’t go to church and wasn’t a Christian. (He asked.) Most people would attempt to get away as quickly as possible. I actually sat and listened to him, though, and the conversation provided some food for thought. (No, I have not been saved.)

This man spoke of god as being…what was the word he used? Amazing? I can’t accurately recall. The tone in which he spoke is more important, though. It was reverential, as if faith did live behind it. I got the impression that this man was a true believer, and he apparently believed in much of what faith seems to require.

Acceptance of duality is perhaps one of the hardest of these requirements. God is kind and cruel. This man spoke of this cruelty, and did so by making reference—at first oblique, then explicit—to Hurricane Katrina. In other cases, I have heard and read words to the effect of, “Well, God must have a plan, and this is part of it.” After this disaster, it seems there has been more commentary along the lines of, “Well, they deserved it.” The hurricane becomes a demonstration of god’s power and his wrath towards the wicked. “How can anyone make plans to avoid god’s power?” the man asked.

More than any other city, New Orleans has a reputation as a place of sin, a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was exactly this comparison that the man on the platform used. I didn’t ask him, “Well, what about the children living there?” I wish I had. I want to know what he would have said. At the time, though, it seemed like there was too much to digest, too much to try and remember. I felt ill equipped to engage in a dialogue with him.

This platform preacher also made passing reference to evolution. “What good is evolution if it can’t give you eternity?” he asked. What good indeed?

I have related what this man said, but I would also like to consider, as well as I am able, who this man is.

Though he did not identify himself as such, the man could be called a born again. He apparently had been saved, lifted up from some low place. He did not tell me any details. He is black—African American if you prefer—spoke with a rasp suggestive of vocal damage, and did not look affluent. His stated profession was coach of professional sports teams: all sports, he said upon my asking. He had an agenda but was polite and appeared respectful, if not necessarily of my beliefs, then at least of me as a person. He did not seem drunk, dangerous, or crazy. He did however, have a certain energy that I suspect would be very persuasive to someone who was desperately seeking meaning.

I don’t know if I will put myself in the position of being preached to any time soon. However, should I find myself there, I think I would like to engage in a dialogue. This man is someone I need to understand. There are millions who are this man in lesser or greater degree. When I meet them, I would like to do so with civility, with respect, and with a greater ability to speak my own views, to engage in dialogue.

I am working on a few posts that will feature actual content. (Really, I swear!) In doing so, I realized that I wanted to discuss things that don’t directly have to do with writing, science, or medicine. As a result, I’ve decided to focus on writing and on nerdiness of all sorts.

For those of you wondering, the posts in progress have to do with religion. I see this as a topic that, while not falling into the aforementioned fields, is something that eventually must be examined when writing about science or medicine. Religion has also undoubtedly influenced much (arguably most) writing.

But until these posts, good night and fare well.

Welcome to Two-Penny Words. This site is dedicated to the several types of writing I engage in: creative, medical, and science writing. Upcoming features will include a categorized resources page, a page dedicated to promoting my writing, and future entries on this blog page.

I realize this isn’t much to go on, but I hope you’ll be patient and bear with me. I’ll try to make this site as entertaining, informative, and useful as I can. Perhaps, occasionally, I’ll even manage to be all three at once.