Occupy

The day after Thanksgiving we avoided the stores, and went for the first time to Moorehead Planetarium, in Chapel Hill. We noticed, while driving around that Occupy Chapel Hill had setup camp right in front of the post office a block or so away from the Planetaruim. Todd and I thought it would be a great opportunity to ask questions of these enigmatic, but enthusiastic protesters. We informed the kids about the basics of the movement, the value of free speech, and encouraged them to formulate their own questions to ask the people involved in the protest. At the end of the day when we had time to glance at their literature and read their worn signs, there were few people hanging around to talk to. We wandered past a young man leisurely strumming a guitar and finally asked a few questions of an older gentleman, who seemed to have some strong personal opinions, but I don't know how well they represented the movement. I really don't know exactly what represents the movement best. In all honesty the first article I read about the movement seemed more entertaining than an onion article, and it took me a moment to realize the story was real.

I have a little experience with protesting. Back when I was a teen, there was a summer-long string of vibrant pro-life protesting outside of abortion clinics. The church I attended was involved, and I was very interested in protecting the rights of the unborn. I got rides to the protests, and held signs. I prayed and watched as those who were blocking clinic clients were arrested by police. I listened as angry members of the National Organization for Women yelled loud rhyming poems at us. I sang songs with other protesters. I felt I was part of something big, exciting, important and meaningful. I also saw things I found disturbing. One incident was particularly repulsive to me. Local TV cameras had come to film our protest that day and I saw a small group of people keep an eye on camera activity. When the camera turned to them they burst into fake tears, and started yelling phrases that might have come from the mind of an unborn baby. "Why do you want to kill me, Mommy?" and similar disturbing phrases pierced the air. Then the second the cameras were turned off the people became silent, brushed themselves off, and just stood there. At the time the thing that disturbed me the most was how those people were more focused on gaining media attention than being genuine.

I say this not to take a pro-life or pro-choice side and begin that polarizing debate. If you want my opinion about that I can get into it at another time. My point is that I am naturally distrusting of protests of any kind. I have seen first-hand that they are not always what they seem.

There are protests that do accomplish their intent. But if the people you want to get through to are so addicted to abusing capitalism that all they respond to is the almighty dollar, I don't think they will be intimidated by massive amounts of people who would rather gather and gripe than earn money. Todd had the great idea of beginning a website that posts all relevant information about companies for the public to see. If people are thinking of working with a company they can find out how much the CEO makes, how much they contribute to philanthropy, things like that. Such a website could possibly affect how the company is viewed in reality, and therefore, possibly directly influence how much money they make in the future. I think if people were really interested in blowing the cover on big business they would look into how big business works, what influences them, what could hurt them. To affect change in how businesses are run you need to speak their language.

Best of luck to you in the "Occupy" movement, but I sincerely hope it doesn't represent the best and brightest of those who want to bring accountability to the American financial sector. I agree on the need for change, and though it is not a cause I am choosing to spend my time on, I hope those that choose to address it find a more efficient means.

First Lego League

Evan had the awesome opportunity to participate in First Lego League this year. For those of you who don't know what that is there is really no short explanation. The theme this year was "Food Factor". This means that all of the Lego robot missions and the research project we related to food safety. The team began by assembling all of the components for the mission table. Then each team member had a chance to work with a Lego robot to accomplish a variety of missions to earn points. The team also did a research project about how to keep sweet corn safe from a specific type of fungus. We went on a field trip to talk to a farmer and one of the team members contacted a researcher in Oklahoma for more information. The team presented a skit as well as their robot runs at our local library as part of the league requirements. So not only did they get to build with Legos, they learned computer programming, writing, researching, public speaking, and teamwork. I have to admit I like the idea of Lego league as much as Evan does. We didn't win any awards this year, but the boys did a great job at their tournament and we are looking forward to next year.

Pink and Blue

Obviously I have kids. There are boys. There is a girl (and for almost two years there were girls). There are differences. I have heard many people with many opinions about the differences between the sexes. I have heard people with and without kids tell me that outside of physical differences there are no differences between the sexes. I think I understand where they are coming from. I think they are reacting to the idea that has been so pervasive that there are insurmountable differences between sexes. Women are not allowed to be strong and smart, while men are not allowed to be sensitive and nurturing. I sympathize. For many years growing up I wished I was a boy, because I felt like boys were respected, and I was not. I felt like boys were allowed to have opinions and I was not. Boys could do anything, interesting things, and I could not. I wanted nothing to do with being part of a sex that was so boring and limiting. If that was what was meant by "differences between the sexes" I would have thrown out the idea long ago. To some people that is still what the difference is: weak and strong, smart and dumb, hard and soft, yin and yang. In science, in real life, the differences are not so simple, not so stereotypical, but still very obvious.

I admit that my opinion is partially based on experience. My boys and girl are different, but not in a completely stereotypical way. In a perception way. As I have looked into the science of it everything makes perfect sense. Boy and girl brains are different in a real way. This does not so much make us fit a mold, but it affects how we perceive the world: how we process the information we get and how we disperse it. Also, every one of these differences is on a sliding scale. While most boys and girls perceive things in a certain way, there is a spectrum.

One idea is that the differences between the sexes are completely created by the environment. I think this is funny, actually. I have been told that since Todd and I have stereotypical roles in our family that it would be natural for my girl to be girly, and my boys to be boyish. It is true that my children will learn something about the world from the fact that I don't work outside the home, and many other things they see around them. But how did this influence the tendency my one year old has to play with wheels? He loves wheels. Stroller wheels, car wheels, toy wheels. He spins and watches, and spins. Wheels are typically a male thing to play with. Cory has had equal access to stuffed animals and dolls. He did play with a stuffed pig once. He picked it up and smacked the ground with it numerous times, but most often he does not find these toys interesting. He has also had access to many gender neutral toys, and he loves many of those as well. This preference for wheels was painfully obvious, and we did as we have done for all of our kids. When we pick up on an interest, we encourage it. Wheels it is, and Cory received a set of cars with nice wheels from Grandma for his birthday, which he loves. I am not aware of either Todd or I , or any of our other kids, ever playing with wheels around Cory. (The other kids are all playing video games these days) Where did he learn to love such a typically male thing like wheels? If you ask people who insist this gender difference is purely social I am sure they can come up with some type of explanation for you. If you ask a scientist, they will tell you they have seen that boys tend to prefer toys that move, to those that don't. They will tell you that boys tend to see the world in a slightly different way than girls.

Those of you who know my kids, know that Evan is Todd, and both of them have very few preferences that could be construed as anything but male (except for Todd's love of Celine Dion). That is who they are. Arin has preferences that are more balanced. He likes action figures, but he loves the female heroes. He plays superhero squad, but he also plays " let's go shopping for clothes" games. He doesn't like to wear dresses, but he does like his nails painted black and his hair long. That is Arin. Nina loves pink, though, now she is really developing that rock star edge. They all have different interests, but scientifically it is not their interests that separates their sexes, and that is what we as a society need to get over. Boy is not blue and girl is not pink. Boy is speaking in more noises than words as they learn to speak. Girl is taking in information to a brain that is more entwined and connected than a male brain. Girl is being affected by maternal hormones in a different way than men will never know. Boy is developing mentally at a different pace than girls.

The science is fascinating,but what I want to leave you with most is the value. I believe men and women are different, but I don't believe that can be narrowed down to a stereotype. We have been teaching Evan and Arin that all men are not Daddy. There are men who stay home with their kids, who dance and make art, and work in factories. But being a man of any kind is a good thing. We don't want either of them to wish they needed to be a different sex to express who they are. Likewise, I feel like some people judge me because I have chosen to stay with my kids and teach them. They feel like women meed to be strong and have jobs. I think women need to feel like we can do anything, including stay with our kids. Many women wish they could stay with their kids, but can't or don't for many reasons. I do think women tend to be more empathetic than men, but I don't think it is weak, and I think it would be a great quality for a world leader, if a woman chose to be one. I think we are more nurturing, but I think nurturing is vitally important in this world, and needs to be valued equally or more than the strength to plow the next guy over. I think people, including extreme feminists, have chosen to place great value on male traits, when society vitally needs all kinds of traits to be healthy. I think the answer is not making everyone into strong, tough, male-ish people, but elevating female traits to the place where they belong. We need nurturers, and empathizers if this world is going to continue. We need to get away from the idea that being different is bad, or exceptionally good, for that matter. Different just is, and we need to work with it. I think this is a perfect case of society limiting science. Science has discovered the truth, that males and females are different, even if that difference is minor, but society is so hung up on our social history, that it is limiting what we are allowed to know. We could be teaching to the strengths of both sexes, and encouraging intellectual advancement in this way. We could be educating parents about the specific, exact differences between the sexes since society doesn't seem to understand anything but pink and blue, thus encouraging generations of people who are comfortable with who they are even if they don't fit the stereotype. We could be showing everyone that there is more to life than the corporate ladder, because the truth is that both sexes value nurturing, and family, and people who value their families tend to have more satisfying lives over all.



These are all great links if you want to know more, but let me warn you they are just the tip of the iceberg. Scientists of all kinds are learning more about the brain all the time, and everyone has an opinion about the information coming out. As with many topics you can often find articles to confirm your personal biases. I am trying to be balanced.

Time Magazine article titled "Who Says a Woman Can't Be Einstein?"

"Why Gender Matters" website

City-Journal article titled "Can We Make Boys and Girls Alike"

Great Schools.com article titled "Girls' and boys' brains: How different are they?
I actually tend to disagree with this article, so those of you who don't like what I have to say may like it. I feel the evidence it sites is rather weak overall.


Blog entry referencing the Canadian child "Storm"
If you haven't heard about the case of "Storm" it is pretty interesting and you should totally read the link to the Canadian article "the 'genderless' baby". It is turning out to be a polarizing idea.

Loads of information on gender differences from Education.com

Young Man Evan, and Minecraft

Evan was a creeper (from Minecraft) for Halloween. He has been a video game character for Halloween every year since he was three. As a side note Arin was Saber Tooth and Nina was a teen Rock Star/Vampire (notice the eye-roll, perfect with her costume, don't you think?)

Evan is beginning to do that growing up thing where you can't just throw a lego kit at him for his birthday, and make him jump for joy. (Ironically, though, you can still give him cardboard and make him excited, go figure). Now he is entering older kid territory. He is obsessed with Minecraft, but he already bought a minecraft guy, so now there is no expense. There is no obvious way we can spend money to buy his happiness. What do we do? Todd thought about buying Evan a program so he could make youtube videos of his minecraft experience, but then he realized it was free. We thought about buying him a headset with a microphone so he could record the videos, then we realized we already owned one. So Evan's birthday came (Hence the Minecraft cake-type conglomeration). He had a great party where a few friends brought over their own computers. Everyone interacted in the virtual world and the real world simultaneously, yelling across the room, while mining in the same cave on the computers. But Evan never unwrapped a present or from us or asked for one, until about a week later, when Evan realized he didn't get a present. I mentioned that Daddy had intended to set him up to make a video, and Evan held Dad accountable. The video happened, and I think both Evan and Dad were equally excited. Evan, because he could share his love of Minecraft, and Dad, because, since Evan will probably not be a motocross superstar, there is still a chance he could make a fortune making youtube videos. In real life we are all proud of Evan. Also in real life we know very well that some of the best things in life are free or intangible things. That is why Nina's present was a trip to Greensboro, along with her pair of cool shoes. Evan's gift included time with Daddy, which the kids always value, and as a bonus, the record of that time will live on in the form a video intro to Minecraft.



PS. Whatever your motives, Notch, thanks for creating a game that inspires my kids to creativity and teamwork, even if it is addicting.

Desert Rose

Lots of people feel alone as teenagers. They are misunderstood by their parents, and have trouble fitting in at school. I felt alone, too. The primary culprits in my situation were introverted parents and religion. If you know me you know what a nerd I am about certain things, and it has always been this way. Back when I was a teen, I wasn't into drugs, smoking, drinking, sex. I had personal daily devotions. My biggest critique of the other Christians around me was that they did not live their beliefs. Not even my parents were as diligent with their quiet times as I was. My parents wanted me to hang out with Christian friends, because we shared belief in God. I wanted to hang out with my secular friends because we shared similar morals. My Christian friends were drinking and partying (not that my parents knew this), whereas my secular friends were either not doing those activities, or were perfectly open to my not doing them. I know that I had a good life, then. I had my own room, I had food, I wasn't mistreated. I was a good girl, and even the "rebellious" things I did were really laughable. I asked questions, I "ran away" once, but since I didn't have friends to hang with, and I didn't feel like sleeping in a field in the cold, I didn't last more than a few hours. I snuck out to a pg-13 movie and a battle of the bands. What a trouble maker. My parents didn't understand that I was a good girl, and, partially because of my actions, and partially because I was a girl in a family with an archaic gender value system, I was the black sheep. So this song became my theme. I would blast it in my room, and sing and dance to it. It moved me. I knew God would one day reward me. My time would come when I would have friends, love, and a full satisfying life that would make a difference. I have that life now, though it doesn't look like I would have imagined it then. God has rewarded me, though my concept of who or what that is has evolved a great deal. I thank God daily for what I have, because I feel a deep need to express gratitude somehow. This song is still special to me because I remember the time when I felt God was the only one who really knew me. I don't know what I would have done at that time without my idea of who that was then.

Environmentalism as Religion

I love Earth. I think it is a great place to live, especially since I don't know of any other "Class M" planets within a reasonable distance to compare it to if I wanted to escape it. In reality though, I have as cushy a life as I could ask for, and I would love to ensure the same for my children and theirs. So I do care about the environment in the sense that I don't prefer worldwide annihilation within the next few generations. I teach my kids to pick up their trash. We have changed to compact fluorescent bulbs. We fill up the recycle bin. We re-use paper. Taking care of the earth is very nice at that involvement level. Many people worldwide however, have turned environmentalism into something entirely different, however. It would mean little to me if this only affected random far-spread cults. I see this belief system in people I meet daily, however, and I think that this perspective on environmental issues can hurt the earth, and science as a whole. The problem is clearly laid out in Michael Crichton's video, and also in this article by Robert Nelson, and this short blurb from the New York Times

My main point against environmentalism as religion is this: to truly solve a problem as complex as helping the earth to stay clean and life-supporting, we need to be able to pursue solutions that are truly beneficial in every aspect. In its present state, the environmental, sustainable movement, is so ensnarled in popular opinion, politics, and merchandising, that no one can get a clear idea of what is truly helping and what is hurting. Politicians say the right environmental thing so special interest groups will continue to fund them. Grocery stores and construction companies continue to sell high priced alternative items that say they are good for the environment, and people continue to ease their conscience by sacrificing a bit of extra money for what they consider to be the greater good. Maybe they are better for the environment. Where money is involved how can we know for sure? How environmentally conscious a person is has become an easy measure of their value in society. The problem becomes very apparent when huge amounts of money are sunk into technologies that are lovely in theory, but amount to crap in real life. I absolutely think we should be thinking about alternatives to all the fuel we consume, but if solar power in its present state is not a viable alternative we should be allowed to acknowledge that. If we are better off as far as money, pollution and waste is concerned, throwing plastic bottles in a landfill rather than trying to recycle them, or deluding the public into thinking they are being recycled, the environmental religion will not allow us to say so, lest we be black balled and proclaimed planet-haters or something. For science to work well: for real advancements to be made, we must be allowed to speak the truth. We must be allowed to be creative and think of things that would truly help on all levels. I think buying fewer plastic bottles, especially water bottles, would absolutely help the environment on most levels. Recycling them after I use them? I don't know if it is truly viable. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, these are all very nice thoughts, and they are all very good ideas, and in certain circumstances, like Hoover Dam, for instance, they work very well, but for these great ideas to be brought about into truly useful technologies we must be able to be honest. Solar and wind power are really in their infancy, and a lot of work will need to go into making them truly useful on the large scale. Possibly so much work that we would be better off trying to make the electronic devices we use more efficient first.

The truth is at stake if we believe every banana peel we put in the compost bin will save the earth. The truth is what will lead to real solutions, and no dogmatic, organized, unquestioning group of people will ever be able to absorb the sometimes messy, unbecoming, contradictory things that surface when one truly wants to know the truth. No religion likes too many questions, and without hard questions we won't get real answers.

A Day at The Track

A few weekends ago, on a gorgeous Sunday we finally made it the dirtbike track again. Todd had us ready with four working dirtbikes. That was quite a feat in itself. Mine had been suffering a perpetual flat tire a while back. Todd's bike badly needed some serious "tweaking" (my official mechanical word for whatever they did to tune it up), and training wheels on the smallest bike so both Nina and Arin could ride, if they wanted to. Evan hopped on his bike when we got there and pulled his usual shift, riding every moment we were at the track, and then just conking out in the car the minute he stopped riding. Nina ran a couple of laps around the nice flat parking lot since we were able to beat the rush for a few hours. We encouraged her to try the new flat track and she refused, about ready to quit for the day. In the meantime, Arin got his turn. He is not afraid of much, so he dove right into the flat track. I ran (he told me I was a good runner, what a sweetie) with him and gave him some tips his first time around. After that it was smooth sailing for him. While he was riding Todd and I were encouraging Nina to give it another shot. The spill she had when she first got on the bike over a year ago was still haunting her. I told her the story of my first spill, and how I got back up and tried again (making me the accomplished rider I am today ;) ) She was not convinced. Arin moved over to the mini-track, which has hills and turns that are fun, and great for kids who have ridden a little before, rookie teens and beginning adults who are not too proud to join the kids. Finally, Nina got back on the bike, after that the rest is history. She got going, and we just about had to pry her hands off the handlebars to give Arin a turn. She was the last to quit for the day (about one second after Evan).

I got on the track very soon after we got there, as well. I hate traffic. It was my biggest concern going on a beautiful day like that day. It is not that the other guys on the track are rude, or mean to me. They all have been very polite in the half a second they are in my presence as they whiz by me. It is just that I don't always know where to be. I very much don't want to impede them, and I don't want to have to adjust my run. It is all I can do to concentrate on getting where I think I have the best chance of not biting the dust. My worry was in vain on this day, however. I had the track to myself at the beginning, and I needed it. It had been a year and a half since I had been on that bike. I had a baby in the meantime. It came back to me, though, and lucky for me, there was no mud (I hate mud, too!) and the track was in great shape. I had fun. Riding the bike does not really coincide nicely with the neural pathways I have formed up to this point, but I swear I am formulating some new ones. Now the way my brain sees riding the bike looks nothing like bike riding in the brain of someone who takes to this naturally, and does well at it. My brain sees it more as a what-the-heck-is-she-doing-and-how-do-I-survive-this-wierd-circumstance pathway. But it is exciting to ride when I do it right, and satisfying when I plunk the bike down after catching some air, which I actually do on occasion. Todd laughs at me, and he makes no comment, but he does answer my questions when I have them, and takes care of my bike when I don't know what's wrong. I think this is perfect behavior from a man in this case.

Speaking of my man. He got his turn, and he tackled the big track, humbly commenting on the other guys that jump higher than he does. Oh, stop already. He was finally happy with the performance of his bike, which is probably the first time in years my perfectionist guy has had a satisfying experience on a bike he owns. He said he enjoyed himself more than he had in a long time, which is no small feat for a guy as intense as he is.

So, in short, it was a perfectly awesome day at the track.

Brave New World

Wow, I just finished "Brave New World," and I found it really fascinating. I realize, however, that I would not have been nearly as intrigued by it a decade ago as I am now. I have a much broader understanding of human nature, and a decidedly less dogmatic view of morality as I did then. The idea of "everyone belongs to everyone else,"may have been such a distraction to me then that I may not have been able to think about the greater point. I think one of my favorite characters is Mustapha Mond. He is not a main character, but he represents an interesting worldview. I suppose to a certain extent he may represent my worldview. From my reading of reviews of the book, the appropriate response of the public who reads it is to be disgusted at the lack of freedom society has in the book. I don't necessarily feel this way. I think that most people alive now would respond well to a society that conditioned them to be happy in their station in life. They would really enjoy having attainable goals, and parting with the relationship drama that plagues so many lives these days. If a society like the one portrayed in the book could be attained, I think the majority would be willing and happy cogs on the gears in the mechanism of life. I would really like to know the exact truth of what happens on the "islands" free thinkers are sent to, however. If they are truly islands where people with dangerous ideas are allowed to experiment with them outside of the framework of regular society, then I think that is a possible acceptable way to preserve both free thought, and drone society. If the "islands" are code for some sort of extermination, or permanent drugged state, then I suppose I would not prefer that system as much.

I think it is interesting that when reading this book the majority of people will consider themselves an alpha, or possibly and alpha plus plus in this society, and others, never themselves would have to be deltas and epsilons. The truth is, most people who read this book are not alphas, they just don't realize it. Wouldn't there be some usefulness to giving those people peace with their station in life. It is true that there are some jobs that no one prefers to do. Who does these now? Underpaid people who often have very sad, very hard lives. If people were bred for these jobs, and their lives were pre-programmed with plenty of food, recreation, sex, and no-side-effect drugs when they needed a break from life, might that not be an improvement? Of course then there is the downside of life for people like Mustapha Mond, who must sacrifice his own intellect, and scientific advancement for the whole of society to preserve the illusion for the majority.

What would it mean to society if the only people who truly suffered were those whose intellect allowed them to comprehend more than the life they experienced. People like Mustapha Mond, Helmholtz Watson, and Bernard Marx. And even though they suffered, it was an intellectual, and not physical suffering, experienced by those who had the mental capacity, not only to empathize with others, but to suppress their own desires consciously for the greater good. In some sense, I believe people who have greater life comprehension do that now in order to function in society, so this would not be a very big sacrifice. If you were allowed to have your own ideas as long as you did not spread them, that may not be so big a sacrifice.

The savage is a wonderful character as well, and years ago I would have identified with him to a greater degree. He presents a beautiful confusion, that is able to show interesting sides of the different people he interacts with. I don't particularly find value in the simple life for it's own sake, so I don't feel particularly sorry for him. I also see him as a combination of all the guilt and pain brought on by the responsibility we have felt toward organized religion, and other philosophies that were more prevalent in past times. I am not nostalgic for olden times because there seems to have been some kind of beautiful magic in them that we can no longer access. I believe old ideas are interesting, but unlike the savage, I don't hold that they are all true and valuable. I don't believe in unnecessarily harming yourself because of guilt brought on be putting inappropriate importance on texts that likely had very different original meanings than we ascribe to them. I think of them as a view into other thought processes. It is nice to honor ancestors, but I believe it is wrong to keep society from exploring it's potential, imprisoning it to voices from the past that we do not fully understand. I do find it interesting that old ideas are so taboo to the stabilization of society. It is also fascinating that even though their society is portrayed as modern it is not allowed to advance for fear that change would bring destabilization.

Where I would fit in this society I don't know. I value my right to explore unconventional thinking and archaic ideas alike. If I had the option to do this exploration in my private life, on my own time, but would still be required to exist in a superficial society during the work day, I would very likely take that deal. I do love being a mother, but I also understand that if a society could manage to create healthy individuals without the family unit, there would be certain advantages to that. If I could understand the inner workings of the system, even if I couldn't change them, I would not necessarily charge for revolution. Maybe a happy medium. Maybe, if need be, and if the islands were really islands where people of free thought could do what they wished, I would join them. Maybe it would be like an artists colony where wise people could pool their thoughts and leave them for future generations.

In the end, I know this entire world is just another theory: a utopia, or dystopia, as it is labeled, to add to the museum of ideas that could never really work in the near future, anyway, because human nature has such a desire to fight against it's own best interests. While I am not anywhere near ready to give up being viviparous, there are some things I would be willing to hide if it meant that the poorest among us could have happy lives with little hardship.

While this society may or may not work in reality, I believe it is arrogant of Americans, and first world countries in general to think there is no other better organization of society than what we have now. Maybe now, in our time we are at the pinnacle, but in the future, we may find that the individual freedom we value so much now, is not helpful for the furtherance of humanity as a whole. We may find that if our purpose isn't defined by things like meaning, and oneness with the universe or self-actualization, that a more unified goal may emerge that is better for everyone. Maybe we will decide that peace and a sort of deluded happiness for all is worth the price. I honestly can't imagine it, but it is worth considering.






I just watched a few clips from the 1998 movie that was made from the book. (I hear there may be a new movie of the book coming out in December of this year). I found them to be superficial. It seems to me that if you obsess about the promiscuity, and indoctrination of the population you are missing some very key points. If you think about it all children are indoctrinated to some extent, and most grow up to be approximately as deep as most of the population in Brave New World. As far as promiscuity, the type that is portrayed in the book is not the type that we are familiar with. Promiscuity in present society is deviant to monogamy, whereas promiscuity in Brave New World basically is monogamy. They have put great planning into making it basically as safe as monogamy and, in Brave New World, monogamy is deviant. The promiscuity in Brave New World, was really the equivalent of monogamy today and therefore, not nearly as exciting to those who participated in it as quality monogamy is to us. Get over it people. That is why I think the movie is going to get bogged down in things that are really beside the point. The sexuality thing was just a symptom of the real solution that society had found, which was really fascinating.

You may also be interested in getting a flavor for the times Aldous Huxley lived in by viewing this interview of him.

Nina and Cory

This is my photo tribute to my most recent birthday kids. Nina, my glamor girl rock star who has expressed a recent preference for pink skulls with bows on their craniums, has joined the ranks of the 7 year olds in our house as of September 29. She and Arin will both be 7 for the next six months, though they are each a very different 7. Nina is 7 going on 17 whereas Arin is just, well, his normal sweet sensitive self.


Cory on the other hand is now 1. He turned one on October 1, and we celebrated by taking him to a Walk to support Midwives. He said hi to the Midwife who delivered him at home a year ago that day. Then we went camping in the evening. What a birthday! Interestingly Grandma and Grandpa presented him with an adorable doggy cake at our family celebration, which he found disgusting. Cory grimaced at the sugar and then scarfed a raspberry, causing Todd to immediately call into question Cory's true parentage. Obviously Cory is lacking any DNA from Todd. Cory is destined to be the epitome of the baby of the family. Mom, Dad, and everyone else in the family at this point tend to think he is the cutest, happiest thing ever. Cory is actually hard at work extending Dad's life. I don't think I have ever seen Todd smile so much as he does when he is around Cory.

The 10 Year Marriage

On July 28 of this year Todd and I had officially been married 10 years. As far as I know we are both still pretty happy with our arrangement. We are appropriately addicted to each other and habituated to each others idiosyncrasies, or so a happy marriage would be described scientifically. Ok, I admit it. Todd is just hot and that is all there is to it. Of course Todd understands that the only way I find a guy to be hot is if he is handsome, loves my kids, rides a motorcycle, and can stimulate intellectually challenging conversation with me. Ooo Baby, lets compare utopian philosophies.
A while back I posted the pros and cons of a theoretical universal 7 year marriage. Where society as a whole agrees to serial monogamy as the norm. (Technically we are almost there now). I was doing my best to be open minded and to explore a philosophy objectively. In honor of my ten year marriage run I would like to pronounce my official stance on the 7 year marriage concept. BULLSHIT!
In my experience things like divorce, serial monogamy, open relationships and the like have one thing in common: egocentricity. There is a strain of "I have needs and they are not being met, therefore I need something new or different" (me, me, me). Marriage is work, but then all human nature is based on rewarding striving with a goal accomplished and the appropriately released brain chemicals. If you avoid the striving you give up the reward, which leads to depression, and other mental imbalance. All of the above are an attempt to avoid digging deep into making something work by giving of yourself. Research is showing that one excellent way to combat depression is to volunteer, or sacrifice your time to help others. I have found this to be true in my own experience. I have also found that when I was in the throughs of depression, being grateful, or giving of myself was like dragging along cement overshoes. In an embarrassing way there was something comforting about the self-pity that accompanied my depression. Similarly there is comfort in thinking of your own needs, especially in a society that is so hung up on women keeping their own identity and men not becoming the slave of their women. This is why it is important to choose a person who respects you and your ideas, but also challenges you to change. Loving you for who you are is over-rated in my opinion. One of the things I loved about Todd is he encouraged me to grow and change. One of the ideas behind the 7 year marriage is that after seven years the two of you have grown into different people, and therefore are no longer compatible. Todd and I have shaped each other into better people. Thanks to him I am more organized and methodical, ( though I clearly have room for improvement), and thanks to me Todd is learning to relax and be grateful for what he has. (which is going to add years to his life, I tell ya) We had opposite strengths and we are balancing each other out.
Disposable relationships encourage carelessness which can lead to the basic risks all teens are warned of as well as emotional ambivalence. Once you start down this path it is difficult to believe how rewarding true love can be, become vulnerable enough to accept or give true love and therefore experience the rewards, or care about anyone else, the world, or yourself. This is why learning to be vulnerable in love is not just done in a vacuum. Living for another person grows character, character leads to a person being a better individual, and this mature, giving individual is good for society.
One of the most important effects of transient relationships is the affect they will have on the children that come out of them.
People continue to de-value children in society. They are regularly being used merely as the definition of ultimate injustice when one is killed or hurt in the news or movies, but other than that they are primarily the brats we grown ups are stuck with on a daily basis. We sort of love them as a reaction to naturally flooding hormones, but other than that we are not sure what to do with them. We all know how our childhood defined who we are now. Studies are fairly clear at this point that the most positive environment for children to be raised in is one with the same two stable parents. With every variation to this norm the risk of them not doing well in life increases. This means that for every parent that chooses not to take their relationships seriously there could potentially be another dysfunctional adult put into society in the next generation. It takes time, and yes, patience to deal with children. Unfortunately patience is more commonly seen as an Amish value: very useful when we all had to milk our own cows, but not so relevant now. Obviously I am of the school that believes kids are not stupid. I believe your future kids should be in the back of your mind in every relationship you have. My preference is that beginning in high school you don't date others, but yourself. Spend time journaling, and get to know yourself. You cannot know what you want until you know who you are, and I believe dating in high school is a waste of time. Be friends with a variety of people, but most marriages that occur directly following high school do not have good success rates so spend the time investing in what will really help you find your soul mate. Know thyself, then when you are over 21, and have been on your own. Look for a friend in a meet-up group who has similar passions, be friends for 9 months, date for two and a half years, get engaged over a sweet poem in a rented mustang convertible at the Grand Canyon, get married six months later, after sanitizing a friends barn for the reception. Move immediately away from all friends and family and start a new life in a new state. Start having kids only when you are ready and then determine to invest in them. Face challenges by supporting each other, not by blaming (Some of us are still working on that one). Commit to checking to see if your partner is ok after you throw them out the window in frustration. Seriously, though, everyone has their days. What Todd and I have done is constantly analyze to see if we could figure out the why of our actions. Not just dwell on the superficial. Realizing the true emotion behind the action helps breed compassion. Interestingly, neither Todd or I have blinders on. We each have had our days of wondering how our lives would have worked out if we had married someone else. Both of us agree that we have met almost no-one who would suit us better. Yes, as I have said, we are comfortable with the life we have habituated ourselves to, but being the rationals we are, the pros of any other person we know don't come close enough to give us regrets. We have it good. We are very thankful for that. It has been an excellent, challenging 10 years. I am looking forward to the next 10.

Origami Yoda

Normally I like to share the high-faluting grown up books I like to read. This one is decidedly not grown-up, though it is possible to pull some grown-up truths out of it. This is an audio book I have listened to multiple times with my kids. They like it, and Mom gets a kick out of it, too. There are some drawbacks. The main characters in this book are in middle school so there are girl-boy issues. I don't mind this much because my kids are fully aware that OTHER kids have crushes, dates, kiss and do things like that. Language is the other issue. The author, in order to make the book believable, uses bad language like "butt" and "stupid" and various other negative names like "loser" to prove his point and set the tone. (This is bad language at my house, anyway.) If you can get beyond that, or incorporate some talks about appropriate language into your teachable moments, there is some great stuff in this book. The premise is that a rather dysfunctional kid in school has made an origami yoda (thus allowing for some pretty entertaining star wars references) that he puts on his finger as a puppet. The dysfunctional kid goes around the school and his origami yoda gives other kids advice on some of the difficult things these middle schoolers are facing. The narrator is trying to figure out if yoda is "real" or not. Not only does this book give practical wisdom about handling some tough social situations, it has lead to some very exciting conversations about other things that we may or may not believe in. Are there mystical things in the world? Can everything be explained by logic? It even led to some great conversations about religion and god. There are some neat plot twists that I didn't expect. The author just came out with a new book this August called "Darth Paper Strikes Back" How awesome is that? He likes to share the origami pattern wealth on his website and apparently is prepared to visit school groups with masses of green paper squares so everyone can create their own paper yoda guide. I better stop now before I get into the bad star wars puns. So may the force.... oh just....the end.

The Culture of Our Discontent

I loved many insights made in this book. As with many conclusions that are drawn from information gained in the fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology, I do not assume that all of the information presented in this book is law. I see the information gained here as a smattering of fact presented in conjunction with common sense conclusions, and the author's bias. It helps my opinion of the book that I agree with many of the conclusions the author has drawn. She brings attention to the lack of real evidence we have that the Western way we treat mental illness is working. She questions the use of drugs in many scenarios, but I believe has a realistic respect for the undeniable aid drugs have given to some who truly need them to function. One of the most interesting points she brings home is that other cultures are worth learning from when it comes to treating mental illness, and even defining it. She calls for those of us in Western culture to drop our arrogance and view even primitive cultures as a source of education about human nature. That outlook, along with the evidence she puts forth made this book a wonderful educational experience for me.



The Following are quotes form the book by Meredith F. Small:


Pg. 127 - Western Culture is no different from any other culture in producing conditions that encourage expression of particular psychologies. We cannot assume that our metal illnesses are all biological - that is, biochemical - while their mental illnesses are all culturally constructed.

Pg. 146
like any good tribe, we have collectively agreed that genes, physiology, biochemistry, and biology are where the answers must lie, even though no one has really demonstrated that our belief system, and our treatments, are any better than poisoning chickens, casting a spell, or trance dancing.

Pg. 149

The author is interviewing Arthur Kleinman, a psychiatrist and medical anthropologist, chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Harvard.

What is missing from both diagnoses, Kleinman feels, is an understanding of how the human mind is entwined with the whole experience of being an individual embedded in a family, a culture, and a society. Mind and body cannot be separated, and both are affected by everything else in life.

pg. 156

The Western medical model of mental illness is dangerous because it is arrogant. We have the best medical facilities, the most sophisticated technologies, and the most comfortable life. Surely we should also be the happiest people on Earth. Yet with all these advantages, it appears that mental illness, especially depression, is ubiquitous in Western culture. By unquestioningly accepting out own belief system, we run the risk of not learning from other cultures that might, in fact, be coping much better.