The exhaustion of the heavy lifting

I'm going to start with a funny (somewhat) story about emotional labor.

My household consists of my mother, two younger sisters and me, and our older sister is frequently here. We were all invited to a milestone birthday party for a neighbor. We noted the date and intended to go. We put the invitation on the side of the fridge, but did not write it on the calendar.

On the day of the party we suddenly remembered "Oh! That's tonight!" I looked at the invitation to check times and things, and saw that it requested RSVPs by a date that was fifteen days previous. No one had caught that.

We ended up not going. What we should have done was called that day and we would have been reassured that we should come anyway. What would have been better yet would have been calling with an RSVP the day we got the invitation and marking it on the kitchen calendar so we were well-reminded.

The problem is that even with all of these women, no one is the wife. I tend to let my sisters worry about schedules because they are busier and it's easier for me to be flexible. However, I have more capacity for remembering, and December is a busy enough month that it should have been my turn to ride herd. We did not get that worked out.

I thought of the situation in those terms because of this anecdote in a New York Times article:

These invisible duties become apparent only when you don’t do them. I’m reminded of the time I went on an emotional labor strike. I asked my husband to manage an event we were both invited to, and when we showed up two hours late, per his mistake, all eyes were on me. “We expected you much sooner,” the host said — only to me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/smarter-living/stress-gap-women-men.html

Yes. that is exactly how it happens, but I know one reason that the article resonated with me more was an early reference to problem-solving dreams, which have been a frequent occurrence for me.

We don't have a clear household structure, but we are more than roommates. That can be resolved with active communication. It requires mutual respect, but it is doable. There are married couples who do this too, and they have better marriages for it. Many couples do not, and the most likely result is a burned out wife.

It is important to remember that sexism is just as structural as racism. When men are satisfied with a balance in responsibility that favors them, it does not automatically mean that they are evil or stupid or anything like that. They may not even be unresponsive to complaints, because many women don't know how to articulate why they are unhappy in a situation that seemed to work for their parents, and where they are fulfilling roles that are lauded as the most important work that a woman can do.

We are still working out the vocabulary for it. The previous article refers to a pretty good article on emotional labor from The Toast, but what it really reminded me of was another one from Bazaar:


http://the-toast.net/2015/07/13/emotional-labor/
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/ 

The term emotional labor has been out there for a while, but the first encounter with it that I remember was the Bazaar article, and I remember it because it gave me a word for a concept that I understood instantly.

It's not a coincidence that The Feminine Mystique referred to "the problem with no name". There are many problems for women that may be harder to identify because men's problems come first. (The Toast article gives some really good elucidation on that.)

Even never having been married (though certainly having observed many marriages) or having dated much, there is constant expectation of attention. Sometimes it is simply mystifying why there is a need to comment when it is merely to let me know that he knows a fact that I also know. Even more baffling is the right apparently felt by strangers to encourage me to smile, ask me questions, and then give me advice based on those answers that is incredibly ignorant. Yes, sometimes you get free drinks out of it, but I'd rather pay for the drink. I often enjoy conversation, but that's not really what this is; the failure to observe or respect any boundaries seriously reduces the chance of a good conversation.

That is all very tiring with strangers (and also has some dangers that we will get too), but when it happens with the man you love and are committed to as well, that can be a poison. If you try and talk about it - eloquently or not - and he's not hearing it because it puts more work into his life, sometimes there are unhappy marriages and sometimes there are divorces and it is really easy for unmarried women to stay that way. Even though you hope that not all men are going to be like that, it is hard to be optimistic about the ones you're meeting.

When there were more single breadwinner families and that breadwinner was usually the husband, there could have been a certain logic to the wife taking responsibility for all of the domestic chores and maybe even all of the emotional labor, though there could certainly an unsatisfying inequality there. When you have women working equal hours (but with less pay, and having to deal more with other sexism and very likely some harassment), and then they still do the bulk of the housework and the childcare, and then men still won't contribute more emotionally - or even even recognize her contributions - that is why I say men are the biggest threat to marriage.

I have heard it blamed as selfishness on the part of men, and I feel it is very important to stress that it is not generally a conscious selfishness, more like a child's selfishness. There is less of a pattern for growing out of it. This is more obviously a problem for women, but it is not great for men either.

There will be additional posts and things to work on, but the most important thing for anyone reading this now is to consider where and how you fit in.

Pause in the series - Merry Christmas

Although I hate to prolong the suspense, there are ways in which it seemed unseasonal to write a post on the problems with men right before Christmas, though if I were not so tired I would probably have done it anyway. I'll pick back up next week.

Clinging to the past

In case it has not been obvious, these last few posts go together and I will continue posting about this for the next few weeks. Topics we are going to look at include how the current paradigm is bad for women, how it is bad for men, and whether constructed gender differences even make sense.

For this post, I want to go with a question at the end of the last post. It built off of the question of whether women have this special gift of being able to predict and understand men's needs, and whether men would be willing to give that up. I suspect not.

My thinking there has been going on since reading an older conference talk in my personal study, "The Moral Force of Women" by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, from the October 2013 General Conference:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng

I suppose what stuck with me most was how he acknowledged the historical double standard, and even said the response you would hope for would be men improving themselves, but then still spends more time asking women not to change. His is not the only talk to contain those themes. That quote from Sister Nadauld has been used often, and always in the same way.

I agree that the solution to the double standard is not women becoming worse. I find it frustrating that the answer is always then a focus on how women need to stay soft and good so that we can continue to elevate men. We are so lovely and supportive and uncomplaining, and completely and utterly failing at elevating men.

Yes, we often succeed at making men comfortable, but this does not improve them. If discomfort is not absolutely necessary for change, it is at least one of the most reliable motivators. Working toward change will disrupt comfort anyway, so it may be best to not get too attached.

Still, when women are telling men that they need to change, suddenly off the pedestal we come. Men get condescending if that works and angry if it doesn't, sometimes scarily so.

The truth is, I am a compassionate person, so I will always be more drawn to alleviating discomfort than causing it. I am seeing too many examples, though, of ways that women accommodate men, and choose our words carefully, and try so hard not to hurt any feelings, and there is no reciprocation and no reward. Encouragement to be selfless shouldn't lull us into being ineffective.

If I may draw another lesson from racism, people will often react to criticism of racist behavior - even when mildly and kindly given - as persecution, drawing a disproportionate defensiveness in response. As frustrating as this is, it makes sense. In a white supremacist society there has been so much designed toward the comfort in being white that anything threatening that can feel fundamentally wrong and frightening.

Our society is male supremacist too.

I know some men are better. I believe that more men can be much better, but the change will take conscious effort. I am afraid that the motivation is not there.

I will keep at it from my end, knowing that I may tick off several people, and being torn between caring and not caring. How we balance that will have to come later on.

For now, though, there is something that I have been hinting at that I am ready to come out and say now:

The biggest current threat to marriage and family is men.

I will back that up over the next week or two.

The special gift

For my point today I am going to be making an analogy that can serve as food for thought for the week. There are two problems with the analogy.

One is that I don't have any good sources for the first part of the analogy. I have read people talking about it, it makes sense, but I know first-hand sources would be better, and I apologize for their absence.

The other risk is that it can be used incorrectly, so I am going to give a warning against that now.

When you examine various types of marginalization, there is a risk of taking too much from the comparisons. The common risk is that a group that is less marginalized will see some similarities to another group and decide "That's us now!" Probably without realizing it, they erase the other group from the present day, when it is very unlikely that the original group's oppression has ended.

Don't do that!

Having said that, here we go.

The thing that I have read but can't point you to is that Black people have a clear understanding of white ways that is not reciprocated. One useful result of this is that when people set up fake troll accounts pretending to be Black, they are not convincing. They mimic what they think is accurate, but they don't understand what they are trying to do.

In the context of tweets, in many cases it is the grammar. They see the use of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and think it is just bad English, not recognizing it as a language with its own rules. They could study the language, but that they are trolling anyway may indicate that they are not going to make the best use of their time.

My post is not really about that, but more about Black people understanding us (periodic reminder that I am white and I know it). This is about them being able to switch between dialects and social norms and ways of being, and how that competency came about.

In some ways it is easy because of white dominance. Celebrated authors are mainly white. Casts of movies and television shows are mostly white, and so are the writers and producers, which may have even more to do with the end product. The education system has been controlled by white people, and the point of views informing the text books - even if more liberal - are largely white. Legislators are mainly white. Yes, there are cries for diversity and sometimes some progress, but the white influence is ubiquitous. Even as we borrow from Black people, it gains acceptance and popularity through white people. That is why when you think of early rock and roll, you are more likely to think of Elvis than Sister Rosetta Tharpe.

Beyond the omnipresence of white culture, understanding it is also a safety matter. Black parents talk to their children about how to deal with the police in a manner that white parents don't need to. It's not fair, but it is necessary. Knowing which towns you can't be in after sundown is a life or death matter. Knowing how much likelier you are to be perceived as angry if you don't carefully control your voice can be a life or death matter, but it is frequently a career matter.

There are many discussions that can be had within this topic about intersectionality and structural racism, and we are not getting into that now. The point now is just that as a group that has faced prejudice and oppression and been expected to be deferential to white people, Black people understand white people really well.

Now, I want you to consider this excerpt from President Nelson's talk in the General Women's session in the last conference:

Men can and often do communicate the love of Heavenly Father and the Savior to others. But women have a special gift for it—a divine endowment. You have the capacity to sense what someone needs—and when he or she needs it. You can reach out, comfort, teach, and strengthen someone in his or her very moment of need.

Women see things differently than men do, and oh, how we need your perspective! Your nature leads you to think of others first, to consider the effect that any course of action will have on others.

Is that a gift or a necessity?

Think of that paragraph on white dominance and how easily it could be changed to a paragraph about male dominance and still be true.

I'm not saying it's only a survival mechanism; we are sensitive to the needs of other women too, they are careful to say. I will say that a lot of social conditioning goes into it. So, is that a special gift, where we expect it of women and not of men?

And if not, are men ready to give that up?

Before we go further...

I have more critique to give, of both President Nelson's comments in the Saturday evening session, and of gender constructs within the church in general. However, before I do that, I want to point out some things that are good.

We should be better than other churches, given the resources that we have. In some ways we are. We are certainly not always better enough, and if we can come to some understanding about why that is - and improve it - that would be ideal.

One thing that I have hinted at but am not done talking about is how there seems to be a doubling down on chauvinism that I think is a backlash to #metoo and other things. That is not exclusive to our church, and I think is much worse outside the church.

Some other religious types are starting to bring up Eve's mistake more, for their justification of how women taking the lead ruins everything. We know that was something that needed to happen, and was a good choice.

On the purely speculative side, I have wondered whether perhaps men having the priesthood and taking the leadership roles is because of that. Since women are more likely to take the initiative and accomplish things, and since much of mortality is getting better at things that are hard for you, then maybe it is logical that roles have been set up so that everyone has to do what is harder, including women waiting for men to do the right thing. However, that is just speculation, and probably less likely than a lot of it being that gender doesn't really matter all that much except for man-made constructs.

(I will get more into the things get said about gender in church next week.)

I will also allow that getting back to early feminism, with The Feminine Mystique and the problem that had no name, women inside the church were probably better off.  Remembering that it was a problem more of middle class women who didn't have enough to do, with church callings and service and at least some putative doctrine of equality, I could believe that women in the church had more fulfillment than women outside the church. It wouldn't have been perfect, but nothing earthly is.

Still, a lot has changed now, and that might not hold up. For example, one reason women with lower incomes did not worry so much about the purpose of their lives was that they were too busy working. There are now far fewer women who have the luxury of choice.

There are good things in that, as some women have found fulfilling careers and undiscovered abilities.

There are also bad things, in terms of encountering sexual harassment, a lack of respect in the workplace, unequal pay for unequal work, and unequal distribution of labor in the home despite both parties working.

As the world moves forward in this way, I am afraid many members are ill-equipped to grasp the problems there, and probably not very well-motivated in the case of the men. After all, the old system has worked really well for them.

More on that next week.

A big way in which he was wrong

Let's revisit President Nelson's talk in the Saturday evening session.

Between him and President Oaks, there was a message that social media might be a source of stress and unhappiness, and that can be a good reason to take a break.

That is fine. There are good points to it. I wrote about that:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/10/using-social-media.html

Here is what I think that they missed: one reason many women were having bad feelings right around then were the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, where women were being painfully reminded of how much gets done to us by men, and how little it matters to men.

Much like the Clarence Thomas hearings, there were multiple accusers, but only one got to speak. It got her publicly ridiculed, though in this case they were trying to be kinder, so many people were suggesting that she was just mistaken about who did it, rather than saying that she was lying and crazy. However, there were still a lot of people calling her crazy and lying and evil. Many people were sympathetic to the disruption in his life, easily forgetting that weeks later she had still not been able to return home or to her job.

Of course different women reacted differently. Some women even participated in the attacks on Christine Blasey Ford. They have their own price to pay for that. However, more women were angry. Women who had experienced their own sexual assaults - including rape - were plagued by their own memories. Specific things that she said in her own testimony were felt physically. That especially included the memory of the laughter, and the memory of the fear that she would be killed, even accidentally, because of the disregard.

Even for women with the "easier" backgrounds of never having been physically assaulted but "only" being harassed at work or held back - things where the problem can only be your sensitivity or some problem with you, and not the problem of men just mattering more and being allowed to get away with more - it brings a lot back.

Even the comparisons with Clarence Thomas and all the focus of #metoo made it worse, because there is still so little progress. There were so many good reasons to not confirm Kavanaugh, and he still ended up confirmed for life. Dr. Ford's worst fear was that she would do this and go through it and turn her life upside down and it wouldn't matter; that's pretty much how it went down. It was a completely reasonable fear, and still one that gets no sympathy, only blame for not coming forward.

(Pro tip: the people who blame you for coming forward late really didn't want you to come forward at all. They are mad, but they are being disingenuous in their reasons.)

So here's the thing: while taking a break from social media AND news coverage might lessen the acute stress of those hearings, it doesn't do anything to alleviate the stress of being treated as less, even by the people who claim to honor and love and admire you.

Even very good men do not seem to be ready to understand that.

One more thing about the financial threat to families

I know I said today I would go into the second threat to marriage, but it didn't feel right.

My issue is that what I want to say will be off-putting to some, but I want readers to at least have to consider the possibility. I am currently pondering if there is a process I can follow whereby laying the groundwork and connecting the dots will make it more palatable. Maybe it will be better to just be blunt.

For now, though, there was a point that I had thought about making last week, but when I was writing, it didn't come up.

If you recall, last week was about how financial problems threaten families, and while it is not necessarily a concentrated, intentional attack, the damage still gets done, mainly because of greed.

That is largely the greed of a shrinking few, as economic mobility becomes more constricted, but it is abetted by the pride of others. Pride makes it easy to compare and assume that the misfortunes of others are due to their stupidity or laziness, but you are good and the bad things that happen to you are unfair.

There are obvious downsides to that way of thinking. I am sure some are less obvious (like an increasingly difficult to suppress anger that burns harder as your luck runs out despite your goodness), but there is another, terribly "duh" thing that we frequently miss:

Jesus spoke really strongly against the wealthy.

He told people that he provided for animals and plants who did not labor. If you look more closely, you can see that the birds and flowers do what they are supposed to do, but he was not promoting toil for acquisition. The guy who was so prosperous that he wanted to build bigger barns died, without getting to enjoy the fruits of his labor. The rich man who did not help Lazarus languished in Hell. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Don't get caught up on whether that was the name of a certain gate; that would be missing the point.

I could bring up many scriptural examples. That is not just the teachings during the mortal ministry of Jesus, but also from other prophets, on both continents, where in multiple dispensations there have been saints who have practiced communal living.

Over and over again, wealth is bad. Could that be because its accumulation tends to involve exploiting others? Could it be because having too much tends to make people forget God? Could it be because the more people have, the more they think it is not enough, but nor realizing why? There are reasons.

None of that devalues hard work, but there is no scriptural basis for allowing unbridled capitalism or laissez-faire capitalism, or anything else where you justify people working hard for poverty wages so that a few people can be wildly wealthy.

It may be in the service of avoiding the obvious that the dehumanization and vilification of others happens, where you assume they are lazy, and not deserving of food or vacations or being able to spend weekends enjoying the company of their children, but I promise you, there is still no scriptural justification.

Just something to think about while I try to find a tactful way of saying...

Attacks on the family - Money

One thing that struck me about conference was that there were two different stories told where families lost everything financially without it being their fault.

(I strongly suspected that the bishop in Elder Holland's story was exercising unrighteous dominion on the "full tithe payer" question, and it may have been a missed opportunity not to point out that was a possibility, but at least he did not rule it out.)

It felt like an acknowledgment that it is getting much harder to keep afloat financially. The stories were past, but them coming up now at a time when so many are struggling felt significant to me.

It's not that the longstanding councils about avoiding debt and spending wisely were wrong, but things are worse, and not necessarily in ways that can be fixed by individual choice. Just consider the debts that have traditionally been considered acceptable:

• Education - costs have risen in a way that wages have not, making college a far riskier proposition than it should be.
• Homes - theoretically using caution and not being greedy could have saved you from the housing bubble (for all of my problems, I have still never been underwater on the mortgage), but the market fluctuations still have an impact.

In addition, consider that around the time of the recession, medical debt was responsible for around 62% of bankruptcies. Healthcare reform improved that for now, but as repeal has been repeatedly threatened and some protections lost, you have examples of people hoarding and rationing their medications. That is not ideal for health, nor is the stress associated with it.

Finances can be a threat to the family in two ways. Concerns about being able to provide for a family are a factor in at least some decisions about marrying and children. Church leaders have encouraged us to have faith for years, but that has required less of a leap in the past.

Beyond that, financial stress can tear existing families apart. Going back to those medical bankruptcies, an illness that bankrupts the family is probably severe enough or long-lasting enough that the bankruptcy would be far from the only stress. Some adversity can bring families closer together, but that's not always how it works.

When survival feels like a struggle, you are not your best self. This often means not being a picnic to be around. Spread that around a household, and it is not great for families.

In addition, strong families require time spent together. Our church has historically encouraged having one stay-at-home parent, but they emphasize that less now, presumably because fewer people can make it work. A prominent member of the church and presidential candidate said that modern families needed to have 2-3 jobs to keep going - is that good for families?

There are two important things to note here. One is that when we think of an attack on the family, there may be something alluring about imagining a Hollywood that corrupts people because they are evil and hate families, but it is false. (Which we already covered.)

It is not completely unreasonable to think about these financial stresses as an attack on the family, but it is not helpful to understand it as a personal attack. Unbridled capitalism only cares about getting the money, not whom it's hurting, and there is no one source. There are many, many businesses that will pay as low as possible and avoid taxes as much as possible. It's not just the Walton family or John Schnatter.

Once upon a time there were better wage regulations and unions and programs that did curb the economic inequality. Some reverses should be possible.

Right now Italy's birth rate is at an all time low. There are multiple reasons for that, but I do know that young people are reluctant to marry and have children. Job insecurity plays a role, but also there are traditions where a wedding is expected to cost around 30,000 Euros, which very few people have. Doing it really cheaply would still be 15,000.

Now, it should certainly be possible to break those traditions, and encourage elopements or smaller ceremonies or some ways of economizing. However, doing that still leaves the issues with jobs and doubts about successfully supporting oneself, let alone a family.

Those aren't necessarily easy things to fix, but if you care about people - as individuals and as family units - they need to be addressed. It requires honesty, but it can be done.

There is one other big threat to family happiness, both for people deciding to marry and to stay married. It gets back to that conference talk that started this series.

We will get to that next week.

Assumptions: Marriage Equality Edition

Going back to those stories from 2007 World Congress of Families, a lot of the focus was on the corruption of the world, where corruption mainly equated gay people, and the harmful effects this would have on children.

For some context, this was kind of a critical mass period for marriage equality (which they were primarily calling gay marriage or same-sex marriage at the time). Some countries and some states supported it, but other states and countries were taking specific steps to ban it. Dick Cheney had punted to states. The 2007 congress happened between South Africa legalizing same-sex marriage and California's Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage.

https://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030

Sometimes you will see a reaction against change coming. I have been advised that Armand Mauss of WSU has done some work on this and calls it retrenchment theory, though I have not had a chance to look into it. I see some things related to it now that I will refer to later. Part of my seeing a pattern now is because there was a five year period where it feels like conference talks were more about being heterosexual than anything else. The timeline makes sense. Perhaps we should call it a gay panic.

The important thing for today's post is that generally the stated logic for the condemnation of marriage equality was the harm it would wreak on children, who needed both a mother and father. That may have seemed plausible in 2007, but it has been generally well-established that children raised by same-sex couples do equally well.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6 

Let me point out that some of those studies focus on lesbian couples, I believe because at one point it was more common to find children with lesbian couples than with gay men in long-term relationships. There are some ways in which it is easier for women to get children without a husband.

That leads to a second point worth noting. I remember some research showing that children raised by same-sex couples had better outcomes. That would not have been a slam on heterosexual families, but more likely a reflection of that fact that children don't just happen for gay couples. Straight couples may have accidental pregnancies or give in to societal pressure while their own feelings about having children are ambivalent. I suppose it's possible that gay couples may start to get the same kinds of pressure to have children now, but in general, historically a gay couple that has children has really wanted them and jumped through several hoops for them, allowing for a more thorough preparation for raising children.

I also know that there will be people who mentally recoil that a family with two parents of the same sex could have children that are happier and healthier than a more "traditional" family, because that's the way it was ordained, right? That's how nature says it should be, right?

It's certainly more common; you will get no arguments from me there. Marriage between a man and a woman is no guarantee either. That is very clear.

In the absence of guarantees, we can still look at things that help and hurt, and we should. Helping families isn't a bad goal, but it also won't be served by lying to ourselves.

As it is, the primary difference between children raised by gay couples is that they are less likely to be raised homophobic than the children of straight couples. Yes, society may still give them messages that it is not okay to be gay, but they are less likely to internalize them.

Once again, I know that there are people who will not be happy about that. For gay children who become gay teenagers, I like that they will be less likely to need to run away to the danger of the streets, or waste a lot of time hating themselves (I mean, more than straight ones; adolescence is rough no matter how you cut it). I love that they are less likely to be suicidal. However, straight parents are also capable of getting those results, if they can also not be homophobic.

There have also been some concerns expressed about gay marriage devaluing straight marriage.

There may indeed be some threats to "traditional marriage" out there, and I want to get into that next week. For now, let's talk about different people wanting to get married, especially people to whom it has been denied. That seems to make marriage look valuable.

I suppose the issue goes back to the idea that if you tell people that being gay is okay they will do it, when otherwise they wouldn't. That just isn't how it works. No one should still believe that. Those kids who run away or kill themselves, they have been emphatically told that it is not okay, and somehow they are still gay.

So, if someone in a heterosexual marriage leaves it for someone of the same sex, that was there before. There may have been good things about the marriage, but it was built on a lie, and that tears at people.

In conjunction with thinking about writing this, I have been thinking about couples I know where someone gay pretended to be straight - which would have been the only way for all but the most recent of them to have gotten married. There were moments of happiness in those marriages. There are beloved children from those marriages. They still all broke up.

They often broke up with feelings of betrayal. There was broken trust. Sometimes there was cheating. In the case of one, there was abuse that was at least partially inspired by her perceived failure to cure him. He believed he could conquer being gay, and that sex with a woman would fix that and he had to get married to do that.

Does anyone think this helps?

(I am afraid that it is not a coincidence that the least horrible of the breakups was one where neither was a member of the church.)

It is common for people to want to be married to someone who is attracted to them. There are people who lost significant chunks of their lives because they believed someone who was never going to be able to be attracted to them, but wouldn't tell them.

(No, none of these examples are Josh and Lolly Weed. They were always honest with each other. The terrible thing is that I keep thinking of more couples who went through this.)

You may have complicated feelings about this; I am not going to hold it against you. I am going to suggest that you redirect your efforts. You can still help families. You can even work to help traditional families, but make it more a matter of helping families than fighting gay people.

That will require honesty about what families need and what makes good families. You may have a mental image that is wrong. Maybe it mixes up correlation and causation. It may be wrong enough to keep you from helping.

We can work on that.

Assumptions - Hollywood edition

We recently watched Back to School, a 1986 movie with Rodney Dangerfield entering college with his son. It's not a great movie, but there are worse ones.

I had seen clips from it over the years, and it reminded me a lot of a made-for-TV movie that came out the year before, The Undergrads, with Art Carney, who goes to college with his grandson.

Both films feature a conflict with one professor, a romance with another professor, and initial difficulty where many people help the mature student with cramming. It works out, though a little more dramatically in the cinema version.

The thing that really made me want to compare had to do with the professorial conflict. For Art Carney it was with the history professor who saw the New Deal as positive and helpful. Art Carney was the contrarian who argued about the harm of FDR's policies (though not the ways in which that harm was calculatedly racist to try and appease the South, even though this was not ultimately enough to keep the Dixiecrats from breaking off, a topic for another day). The evil professor gave Art Carney his only C, threatening the B average he needed to maintain his academic standing. Fortunately, the English professor whose advances he had rejected gave him an A, and got her rejection rescinded.

For Rodney Dangerfield (who also got an A from his English professor/love interest), the conflict was with a business professor. It started with an interruption in class about how you wouldn't build a factory, you would be better off renting one, and how you will need to grease union palms and things like that. While a successful businessman (Dangerfield's entry into academia is facilitated by him donating a new school of business) would know a lot about business, and the example makes sense, there are things to know about building a factory that it would be reasonable to go over in a business class. A student can disagree and still learn.

Mainly, watching the broader comedy that was made for the big screen, I remember wondering if anyone involved with the film had actually gone to college. Also, I saw that mindset of academia being impractical and elitist and liberal. So Hollywood making fun of it isn't that liberal, really.

I would have had these thoughts on the movies anyway, but they would normally come up on the weekday blog. I am blogging about this on Sunday because of a couple of articles from the October 2007 Liahona (I first read the items in my Italian study) about the fourth World Congress of Families, and an address given there by Bruce C. Hafen.

In their defense of the family, there were a lot of assumptions made about what would help families and what would hurt them. Some of them were questionable, if not obviously wrong. A lot of the conference seemed to focus on how wicked Hollywood was, and what a bad influence it was on soceity, with notable exceptions.

It has been popular for a long time to view Hollywood as both liberal and wicked. I remember Michael Medved writing think pieces about it from maybe a few years after those movies were made. His book Hollywood vs America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values is from 1992.

I want to re-examine that perception.

First of all - with notable exceptions - we know Hollywood has made it very hard for women and people of color to get ahead. That is certainly not as liberal as it should be, but is less surprising as we have learned recently how many powerful people in the film industry have been serial sexual abusers. Hollywood has been very good at shoring up power.

In that way it reflects society at large, and reinforces the existing power structure. You could find evil in that, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening.

I think what we are generally seeing with movies is that they reflect society. If people use profanity regularly, it will appear in movies. Some movies will try and use it in unusually clever ways, which could spawn some imitation. I am not saying that the movies have no influence, but I don't see any signs that Hollywood is in general trying to change the course of society.

(When there is one white guy who is able to be accepted by another culture and quickly learns all their ways - maybe a chosen one kind of thing - or the rank beginner is wiser than the experienced person, there is ego there, but it is an ego that reflects society.)

It felt like the biggest corruptions feared from Hollywood were liberal values that included sex outside of marriage (which conservatives do a lot of) and granting humanity to gay people. Certainly, Hollywood could be better about that, but that felt like the main concern. Conspiracy theories about the gay agenda aside, I think that is more of people in movies accepting what society in general accepts.

If entertainment is reflecting society, and there are things that are bad about that, it seems reasonable to look at improving society. That might be a better use of time.

Beyond that, we need to be better at looking beyond the assumption.

Assuming Hollywood is evil in a liberal way gives conservatives a great target, and that's convenient for their fundraising. It does not...

• cause Hollywood to lose money
• result in better entertainment (yes, you have pro-religious films - Fireproof came out in 2008 - but I stand by that not resulting in better entertainment)
• does not improve society
• cannot improve society because the assumption stops further consideration of what problems really exist and how they work.

I think I am going to continue with some of those assumptions, and I will probably be pulling from those two articles more.

I feel like I should give some practical suggestions for improving entertainment options, but if I go down that rabbit hole it will probably be on the main blog.

Using social media

Yes, I did watch the Saturday evening session of Conference the following week.

For the people who were upset with it, I get it, and definitely in two different (though related) areas.

It also was not as bad as it could have been. I can certainly believe in a correlation between anxiety and cell phone use. Building on that, social media use can be several different problems.

Now, I think there was a specific issue that was not comprehended, and that there are reasons for that. I am going to revisit that, but for now I want to treat just the issue of a social media use.

One reason I appreciated the mention of the phones in the previous talk is that taking time off from it can be complicated. Maybe there are calls that you need to take, or texts that you need to see.

Social media can be like that too. Many women - especially in our church where they try to be able to stay within the home - rely on social media engagement. Taking time off had affected sales for some women who did participate. Sure, not all usage is business-related, but that can be a factor.

If part of the purpose of the fast is to see what you missed when you return - and what you were better off without - then part of the benefit is that you should be using social media more consciously. Taking time to consider your normal patterns is a good idea in general.

Yes, a period of abstinence may help bring more clarity, but that is not a guarantee. I know someone who takes regular breaks from Facebook because it hurts her self-image. That she keeps finding the need to repeat it may mean that her fasting isn't effective either.

I am going to go through a few common issues with social media, and some thoughts about them.

~ I find myself spending too much time on social media, and leaving other things undone.

This is a totally easy one to fall into. The easiest solutions usually involve some sort of scheduling, where you allot certain times to catching up on the internet, and then let it alone. If you do have anxiety related to social media, and part of it is the pressure to keep up and respond, this can be a big help. Yes, it can seem that by taking a few hours away you will miss more things, but then you find that you still get plenty of information, and that things don't burn down if you don't reply right away, and it works out.

~ I compare myself to others and feel worse,

This is also easy to fall into, but in my experience, jealousy issues are more about your inside than other people's outsides. If you are not happy with your own life or accomplishments, that is something that you need to examine, but doing so will make everything better.

This is more individualized, because it may be that you have been selling your own accomplishments short, and need to acknowledge your own worth. It could be that you should be accomplishing more, and then you have to figure out what you can be doing and how you would like to incorporate that. Introspection can be difficult, but it is truly important.

~ There are people who make social media an unpleasant experience.

Yes, you are responsible for your own feelings, but the answer to that is not necessarily letting other people be abusive and telling yourself it's not a big deal. It can be fine to mute people. It can be healthy to unfriend people. It can be enormously helpful to block people. And remember, family are people!

I do not like to block, and fortunately I can put up with a lot. There are times when it just doesn't make sense. There are people who enjoy using passive-aggressive putdowns and people who are always spoiling for fights. If they make you want to leave Facebook completely, but you would miss other people, block those suckers. You will feel much better.

It is also possible to block game requests instead of people, if that is the specific source of stress.

~ I am getting targeted abuse from strangers.

Solutions to this have to be very personal, because the structural issues are not being fixed. My experience has been more seeing the abuse happen to political activists, especially women, especially people of color, but Instagram appears to be succumbing to a lot more abuse, even with lifestyle pages and things you wouldn't expect to draw attention.

My best recommendation is to read Bailey Poland's Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online as a starting place, and then you need to weigh your options. Some platforms have better options for controlling your interactions. You might decide to keep Facebook and dump Twitter. Figure out what works best for you.

~ My time online shows me so many problems in the world and it is overwhelming.

I had a coworker with PTSD whose therapist recommended a news fast, and this was years ago. I hope she has made a lot of progress (that workplace wouldn't have helped), but the news is worse now. (And this is kind of where we are getting to things that will come up later.)

I would feel completely irresponsible disengaging, though there are days when it's very tempting. However, my religious faith is one of the things that helps me to not be overcome. We can sanctify our engagement with the world.

A few years ago I was always spotting people in crisis, and trying to talk them down from cutting and suicide attempts and even a few psychotic episodes. That was stressful, but I often felt guided in it. I knew it was important, because they were important. Some of us are still in touch, and some of us aren't, but a few have told me I saved their lives. I know that, and I also know that there were crises that I didn't see.

There are things that can be overwhelming, but there are also possibilities to do good. There are chances to have fun, and be glad for other people's vacations and hobbies and pets. We can pray for their health and their promotions. It can be very good.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that we are not alone in this. We can pray for guidance and receive it. For all that we do not know, there is someone who does, and who will answer as we listen.

Planning for pastimes

I had a really bad week, followed by a good day yesterday.

Part of that was covered in the post here. That is not really the point, except that it deals with the issue of respite time. (That post is really more about how anticipated events can go stunningly wrong.)

Technically, I had also been out the previous Saturday night, but some text messages about concerns while I was out added stress and subtracted relief, while giving me some real concerns about backup options. When Monday was a crushing disappointment that left me in a funk. There was a minor thwarting on Wednesday and something that hurt a bit more after that. Building on each other, it became what we might call Gina's Horrible, Terrible, No Good Very Bad week.

Fortunately, I was given another shot on Saturday. Breaking down and crying on the phone Friday probably helped, but that wasn't intentional.

That gave me a free afternoon, but there was the question of what to do with it. The truth is, the longer one goes without a break, the harder it is to conceive of a successful break. I thought of different things, but I ended up doing the one thing I had written down.

I had something written down because it was an assignment for this caregiver thing I've been doing. Imagine you have a fairy godmother whose only job is to give you free time in different increments. What would you do with a free fifteen minutes, or an hour, or three hours? It works up to an entire weekend.

The problem I ran into is that I give myself a lot of assignments. Even the things that I enjoy - like walking and reading - become obligations to me. These are books I need to read because I know I need to know these things. I need to get this walking in because I want to be ready for the Turkey Trot. It makes a lot of things questionable as quality relaxation.

There is probably some failure of imagination, too. Getting together with a friend could be good, but I never expect them to be free at a time that I can make work. There is often so little notice, and they all have families. Some things take more money than I have. Even getting downtown takes bus fare.

(And now I don't think I can justify leaving at night, or if the person in charge will be that one person - except maybe I can train her better, but how many times have I addressed how specific things are not helpful, and why, but they still happen?)

Regardless, even though I did try and think of other things, the only thing that seemed plausible was the one I'd written down. I rode (with a book) down to the Waterfront, and walked the Waterfront Park/Eastbank Esplanade loop. It is 3.8 miles. The Turkey Trot is 4, and will have more uphill, but still, conditioning shouldn't be a problem. Then I ate at August Moon (which is my favorite, but it also meant I could use a real bathroom), still with my book. I read about 120 pages. On my way home I got a 7-Up and an Uno bar, because those are things I like. (So I did spend money, but not as much as hot tubbing would take.)

And then it was back to cooking and entertaining and engaging, again, but I was better at it than I had been.

I don't know that I will have a break like that for a long time, so I prayed that it would last me. I mean, all of the problems are still in place. It nonetheless did me good, and I would not have been able to do it if I had not visualized it before. It was just a bonus that it was such a beautiful day.

I understood the point of the exercise when we did it: if you can imagine these things that you will enjoy, you can use the unexpected breaks better and find ways to make them happen more. What was less clear, but still very real, is that often when the opportunity comes up your brain is fried, and you are not functioning on all cylinders. You need to have plans already in place.

It is one more way of being prepared.

A little bit of conference

This is not going to be a lengthy post, because many of my regular readers my be watching 8-10 hours of church broadcasting, and you don't really need any more.

If you are wondering if I could blogging as social media, yes. I haven't actually watched that session yet. I am sure I will have some thoughts on it, and also pretty sure I won't do it, but we'll see.

My thoughts for this post are mainly inspired from early yesterday, from both the announcement on the changes to the meeting structure for next year, and also the references to the change from home and visiting teaching to ministering.

I have had this same thought in relation to other changes, like with homemaking to enrichment to relief society meetings during the week, and curriculum changes, and so on. Everything they change seems to be at attempt to get us to live more by the Spirit.

The new thought is that a big part of that is to get us to love and serve each other better. That makes sense, with charity being above all, and loving God and your neighbor being the greatest commandments (and inextricably linked).

And usually my thoughts along with that are "Good luck!", because those are attempts that face a lot of resistance. They should keep trying, and we should keep trying, because this is so vital.

Finally, I can concede that it is possible to have a lot of love for others and carry that out well without being greatly terribly sensitive to promptings. Inspiration could make you more efficient, but love produces positive energy and can get things done.

However, something is terribly wrong if you are listening to the Spirit more and not feeling an increase of love. So it stays important. We need to do this.

One day Facebook strike

I participated in a Facebook strike today, which has delayed all posts.

The strike was for women to stay off of Facebook from 8 AM to 9 PM. I did Pacific Time, but I'm sure not all participants were in sync. That's fine.

Other people I know did not participate because that felt like being silenced. That is an excellent reason not to participate, and I support that.

Honestly, the reason it sounded good to me is because I am so absolutely sick of men and the amount of attention they believe they need. I am sure in the future I will write more about that, but taking some time off sounded good.

(I still have a load of nonsense that I need to sort through, and I would have more if some other stuff hadn't been deleted.)

As it is, I was not sure what to write about today. There are two topics that have been weighing on me, and I wasn't sure if I was ready to write on them, but taking a break and letting some other things happen seem best.

If I can offer something helpful, perhaps the best thing is some information for regarding domestic violence.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline:

https://www.thehotline.org/

Recognizing the signs of an abusive relationship and getting help:

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence:

http://www.ncadv.org/

Domestic Violence Resource Center

https://www.dvrc-or.org/

Remember, being religious is no guarantee against domestic abuse. Our church supports the patriarchy pretty well, which leaves room for a variety of abuses. We can do better, but sometimes before you can get better you have to get safe.

Your local Prepare Out Loud

This is a quick one, but you may remember that I expressed great enthusiasm for Prepare Out Loud, and interest in their intention to schedule more events in the fall:

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/03/prepare-out-loud.html

There are currently three more scheduled:

September 25th - Portland (Montgomery Park)

September 26th - Gresham (Mt. Hood Community College)

September 27th - Sherwood (Sherwood Center for the Arts)

https://www.redcross.org/local/oregon/about-us/our-work/prepare-out-loud.html

The addresses, times, and additional information are at the link, if one of these works for you.

I am holding out for one for Beaverton (maybe Hillsboro could work), but my plan is then to make fliers and give them to every neighbor. That means definitely on this block, but it might mean a ways off of the block too. Previously that could have meant an additional dozen or so fliers; now there are some new buildings. I will have to figure out how much effort I can put into it.

What I already know is that the more widespread preparedness is, the better off we all are. It's not just that desperate people might try and take by force, though I know that is one line of thinking. I also know that I would want to help people, but preparing supplies for a whole neighborhood is not practical. I do not have room for that amount of supplies.

It is true that letting someone know about an event does not take them all the way through to preparedness, but if even some percentage of the invited attend, and a percentage of them takes steps, then we are further along. 

It also can ripple out in other ways. Maybe a family on this street comes and makes their own kits, but then at Christmas they give out a few more kits, making inroads into another neighborhood.

We have seen an increasing number of natural disasters. There is a lot that can be prevented, but it can be mitigated. Things can be made much better by neighbors talking to each other and working toward a common goal better.

An interesting and helpful discussion is not a bad way to start.

Meekly strong

We had a lesson recently about meekness. It reminded me of something I had learned in the past, and I understand it better now.

I have written about it before, but I hadn't realized it was so long ago:

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2013/10/preach-my-gospel-chapter-6-christlike.html

I also hadn't realized that when I was writing on lessons from Preach My Gospel that it had been so long ago. Time flies when there is always something to work on.

If you read the old post, you will notice a lot of long compound sentences. I am somewhat better about that now, though those mostly get removed with editing. You don't have to read it, because I will summarize.

I had a mission companion who was very offended by a correction I made. The correction was unnecessary, but my trainer had done it to me, and it seemed reasonable then. It hurt her more than I thought I could, largely because of other burdens she was carrying.

Even though she was being really hard on me, I apologized and accepted all of the blame because it felt like the right thing to do. I understood at the time that it was related to meekness, but I also knew even then that I wasn't quite getting it right; it bothered me too much.

That period where she was treating me like an awful person and lashing out to hurt me had wounded me, and I was carrying that around for quite a while after. I kept almost bringing it up, wanting to get confirmation that it was wrong of her, and then pulling back because that was wrong of me.

Anyway, when we had the lesson I realized the failure on my part was my own insecurity.

She had to deal with some of those hurts that she was carrying around that had contributed. She made progress very quickly. One morning when I was studying she came out and hugged me. She had been praying and she felt a lot of love and gratitude that she was feeling better. I always remembered that moment.

Looking back now, I realize that in that moment we were far past her thinking that I was evil. That moment was a declaration of it, even if it didn't end up verbally covering everything that had been done and why.

She was okay at that point, but that didn't make me okay. That was my own baggage.

Of course, I wasn't the me I am now, who likes myself and knows that there was not always something fundamentally wrong with me since before I can remember.

I was somewhat on the path. I'd had some lessons (though this reinforced it) that insecurity is common, and that acting like you have it all under control and are always right is more likely to alienate people than impress them. I mean, it does impress some people, but it can still alienate them. There was still a lot for me to learn, and I am sure there was for her too.

Time flies when there is always more to learn.

What I see now is that meekness requires some confidence. It is not so much confidence in oneself, though that can relate. It is more that you know that you don't need to justify yourself and make every point heard. God knows, and all will be revealed and rectified in time.

For my situation, I do think ego was a part of it, though sometimes that ego is bound up with a sense of justice. When you know that you don't have to worry about that, then it is easier to simply put all of that aside and act only on love and integrity and what is right.

Then you can inherit the earth.

Sleeping in

Yesterday I slept really late.

It wasn't completely uninterrupted, because there were cats who wanted to be fed and a dog who wanted to go out, but where I often give up and start doing other things, yesterday I went back to sleep and fell asleep, not getting up until around 10.

I know, it sounds very slothful.

It was also the end of a very long week or so. The previous Friday there was a whirlwind trip to Spokane, with a long and miserable hike on Monday that left me far more physically depleted than I had counted on, and then a conference on Thursday and Friday.

Honestly, those were all good things (well, the hike was kind of a disaster, but that will be an eventual post on the travel blog). They also took a toll, and while I wasn't quite at the point of becoming ill, like back in June, I wasn't doing well.

So I slept - the best healer - and the things that did not get done that could have gotten done will probably still get done another day.

A few of the people at the conference were from the PDX Alliance for Self-care, and we had some discussion about that on breaks. One of the really important things is saying "no" sometimes.

I have reached a point in my caretaking duties where I am forgetting how to relax, and I am forgetting how to plan fun activities when spare time is for all the things that are running behind. I have to learn to do better for everyone.

After June I realized I can't afford to get sick. I keep having great intentions for health, but those become other things to do, when often what I need most is rest, and a lazy Saturday morning.

Kisses in your oatmeal

I just wanted to do an easy one today. I guess this is a life hack.

A few years ago I wrote on the main blog about what I called Moderate Changes, a plan for incorporating more nourishing foods into my life. The hardest thing at the time seemed to be incorporating more whole grains, which I have also written about in this blog, though that goes back even further.

One of the easiest and most economical solutions was oatmeal, not in the flavored packets (much more processed and much more expensive) but made with whole oats. It did not take long at all to get tired of that. I liked that I could add cinnamon, which is supposed to be good for diabetes (questionable benefit, but there is nothing wrong with adding cinnamon) and that I could add chia seeds for energy (I question how well that works also), but still, it got very boring, and made the sugary cereals extra tempting.

I don't even know why I got the idea to add Hershey kisses. I guess we had some around. Anyway, the chocolate really perked the oatmeal up.

I figured this was not a particularly good thing to do, but it was something that worked for me. It's like when people tell you that a salad with dressing has all the calories of a cheeseburger, but even if that is true, you are still getting a lot more green vegetables in the salad than you were on the burger. I did not expect the choice to be validated, but it was still getting me more oats and chia seeds.

Then doctors validated it.

I did not go seeking that. We were talking about nutrition in general, and my typical breakfast. I was expecting something about how it would really be better without the chocolate, or that it would be better with fruit, or at least stress how much better for you dark chocolate is (ugh), but on two separate occasions doctors have said "Actually, that sounds really good."

That's not necessarily that they are admiring my nutritional acumen. Really, I think in that moment they were wishing for chocolate in their oatmeal. Still, it felt pretty good.

Obviously there is always room for improvement, and I'm not recommending a total abandonment of nutritional concerns, but also, you do you.

Sometimes that works out.

Clearing out

I have embarked on a three-year plan for clearing things out.

It wasn't originally intended to take three years, but it did not take very long to realize anything shorter would be unrealistic.

In this case the "how" is very individual, so I will talk about it but the "why" may be the part that is more applicable.

I had been thinking that for environmental and economic reasons one definite requirement for a better world is less materialism. There are the resources for people to be fed and clothed and comfortable, but not so much for the excess, where there is always more and more. Without strictly defining that, for it to work the mindset of always needing newer and shinier will not work.

Those thoughts had been in mind, but it hit harder when looking at footage of the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. There were all of these mounds of possessions swept out by wind and water, and you couldn't even tell what they were anymore -- they were now garbage. That thought was not a reflection on anyone who owned the things; but a reminder that things are subject to destruction.

Other thoughts that have related are thinking about moving, and what a chore it would be, and watching a neighbor go through the contents of her late mother's home, and watching people needing to evacuate fires. Sometimes when you have some advance notice you can pack some things and save some things, but it is probably easier to focus if you have less.

Also, realistically, I have a lot of possessions now. I don't feel right just getting rid of them, but if I had never gotten them I would not have missed them.

I am not trying to promote a strict minimalist lifestyle, but I believe that greater consciousness about what we consume and what we keep will be really helpful.

In my case, a lot of the buildup has been in things that I am not ready to let go of yet: books, magazines, and embroidery kits. These are things that promised me some satisfaction at one time, and I believe that I can still get that enjoyment, but I haven't had it yet. I don't want to throw away the knowledge inside them, or the experience of working with them.

I am currently focusing more on the magazines, with some work on the books.

There was a time when I read magazines a lot; they weren't always piling up unread. Three that I enjoyed a lot and subscribed to were Smithsonian, Shape, and Psychology Today. Also, though it was more for the family and my mother, we had subscriptions to church magazines, the Ensign and Liahona. I have at this point discontinued all the subscriptions, because I can clearly no longer keep up, but the stacks remained.

The church magazines have become part of my gospel and Italian study, and there are sometimes parts of this blog that relate to that. They are working their way out - there are only three left after this morning - but the experiences have been good. I don't regret that they were saved, but I am also really satisfied to see them gone.

One additional issue with the more educational magazines was that sometimes I would read them but then save them, because someone would be interested in that, or I wanted to remember. I have gotten much stricter with myself. If I think someone else should see the article, I give it to them as soon as I am done. (It's usually Julie.)

It is also nice that I am not as worried about forgetting things. As I keep reading more science and history, things start to fit together. Maybe I had not thought about this random fact for a few years, but then when it pertains to something else I am reading it comes back to mind, "Oh yeah." And of course the internet makes finding things much easier when I can't quite remember. Now I can not only find that the experiment to have strangers fall in love was the work of Arthur Aron, but I can find the 36 questions used in the experiment on line.

(FYI, the experiment is really more about creating intimacy, but that is important for love, and developing those feelings of closeness can be intoxicating.)

Not everything has equal value. I ended up getting rid of a lot of the Shape issues without reading them. It was a well-written magazine, but it doesn't meet my needs anymore. I still maintain that it's better than Self, for what that's worth.

Not all of the books that I have had lying around for years have been great. Probably others will not be either, but some of them will be good, and they will still be done. Completing something is a wonderful feeling. I don't know that the long wait makes it better, but if there has been some frustration from seeing over and over again that something remains undone, completion vanquishes that.

In this way, it is becoming more conscious not just of my possessions and my surroundings, but also for how I use my time. This is something that I wanted. This is something that was important to me. It's slow, and if I had been staying on top of things all along it wouldn't have to be an issue, but it feels good.

You may not all have the same stacks of unread materials and uncompleted crafts (I did finish my Halloween basket!) -- for your sake, I hope you don't -- but there are probably some things that you don't need, where there is the opportunity to feel lighter. Doing it indiscriminately may lead to more problems, but proceeding thoughtfully can feel really good.

I expect that as I clear out this areas, the field will expand. We might be okay with less cookware. For example, I definitely need two stockpots, but we might not need so many loaf pans. Or maybe I should make more bread. I can think about that.

Mainly, I am a strong believer in thinking.

Living by the Spirit

After last week's post, it occurred to me that maybe I should do something on recognizing the Spirit. Emphasizing the importance of listening may not be that helpful without some idea of how to listen.

The range of possibilities is wide enough that it can lead to some difficulty. Honestly, D & C 9 gave me a bit of a complex:

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." Doctrine and Covenants 9:8

I never really felt burning in my bosom, until it was confirmed that I should go on a mission. Then it was my entire body on fire, not just in my chest.

It is still a really good scripture. The concept that you should study and then pray for confirmation is helpful in many situations. Still, it is better when you know the context. This section is about Oliver Cowdery learning to translate, and expecting it to be easier than it was. Wrong expectations can set us up for failure, but it doesn't mean failure is the only option either. Section 9 can teach us about humility and opening ourselves up to guidance, but it also teaches us that there are individual differences. Guidance for me may not feel like guidance for you.

I can tell you that at times when I have been feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost it has led to me crying, or feeling a warmth, or getting goosebumps, or suddenly understanding something I hadn't before - which has come in the form of words sometimes but sometimes just knowledge - butI might not remember everything I have felt, and there might be still more ways that apply for you.

I think sometimes the differences can relate to the context. Every now and then there is a dream that matters, and is not just about my subconscious sorting things out. Often when that has happened it has been for something pretty specific that it would have been hard to get without seeing and hearing it. For the two main times, they were also about things that I needed to do for someone else without knowing there had been a need, so I wasn't going to be pondering and praying about it.

Otherwise, a lot of my memorable encounters with the Spirit have come from simply putting myself in the right place: while reading the scriptures, or praying, or in church or in the temple. Also, sometimes I am too preoccupied to listen, and need to make quiet time. I used to think meditation was not needed if you prayed, but taking time to meditate can make your prayer better. Pondering - where we focus our thoughts - is often understood as necessary, but meditating to quiet thoughts can help too. If we regularly do things to invite the Spirit, that invitation will be accepted, and then answers will come.

I remember having it hammered home pretty hard by a teacher once that there is no revelation without a question. That would seem to not be true based on those dreams, but at the same time, even if I was not praying to know how to help my friend or sister, I generally am praying for my family, and to do well in my callings, and for help in knowing what I need to do and doing it. Leaving the channel open appears to be the main priority. There are always going to be more possibilities than we realize.

My go-to scripture is always Galatians 5:22:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,"

That is why I keep worrying about the increase of anger that I notice. It's not that there aren't things that deserve anger (and we can disagree on what those are), but being constantly angry will cut you off. Gloating will cut you off. Focusing on how much suffering people deserve, or the good things they don't deserve, will cut you off. Fortunately, we can pray for help with that too.


I have recently stopped to consider the guidance I have received over the years. Some of the growth has come from hardships that I did not choose, but as I have asked for help in dealing with those hardships, and acted on the promptings I have received for what to do, I have learned a lot. In the process, I have recognized my own weaknesses and how they have held me back, and actively sought healing for those weaknesses. That has been a long journey, and I never could have imagined the possibilities, but I am profoundly grateful for them now.

Let me add, then, that one hallmark of living by the Spirit is that there will keep being more. You will follow more promptings, gain more inspiration, and there will be more refining. It is not easy, but it is beautiful.

Staying spiritually alive

I am afraid this is going to be rather disjointed. I hope it will still have some value.

A few weeks ago we were teaching about the sacrament, and there was a question about how taking the sacrament without repenting could bring condemnation to your soul. I said that we are all in the process of being weak and trying to be better and not succeeding as well as we like, and we take the sacrament like that (though hopefully thinking about that and repenting as you take it). I then used the example that if you pretended to be good at home and at church, but were dealing drugs at school, taking the sacrament that way would be a problem.

Shortly after, I went back to that example in class and told them it wasn't a good one, but I used it because we don't like to mention drinking or sex to young people lest we give them ideas (which is only partially a joke). I also said that wasn't their biggest risk.

I told them that if they were with some friends and got pressured to drink or have sex and they did, they would know it was wrong right away, and then they would need to talk to their bishop before taking the sacrament, and also it would be a hard process so they are better off remembering that before they do it.

However, what would be easier to have happen (and I have heard through the grapevine does happen) is for them to just be kind of cold-hearted and mean. If they were snobby with the younger girls (our class has mainly young women, and our one young men wasn't their that day), or critical of the clothing of the poorer girls, or went along with the more popular girls in doing that, that would harden their hearts and could be easy to miss. It's happening in church; how bad could it be?

One of the eye-opening things on my mission was that people can know that something is wrong and still choose it, or know that something is right and not do it. Yes, there were plenty of examples before, but I had never been going around asking people to choose.

Sometimes it felt like the primary issue was that there was no sense of urgency, and I remember discussing that with my companion and wondering if it would get better. She predicted that the differences would become more obvious. That sounded logical and helpful, but now we are at a point where small children are taken from their parents, drugged, and thrown in cages, and even as the church reminds us about caring for refugees - which these people fleeing to the border are - there are members who applaud it. If that isn't obviously wrong enough, I am not sure there can be such a thing.

And, for anyone who is applauding it, that sounds like I am writing from a liberal point of view and can be easily dismissed. I assure you that the church leadership is more conservative than liberal, and yet, it becomes easy to dismiss them too. One blogger discounted an announcement because it came from the press department instead of being a member of the First Presidency speaking.

It is easy to get hardened - and I say that as someone who gets mad at conference talks pretty frequently, but then I still study them and find the good in them, and I try and do my best. Many people who got mad at the same things don't come to church anymore. That's not good either.

The only advice I can give you is to love and think.

Love people. Think about their needs. Last week when I said to think about your neighbors and if they would have difficulty evacuating? It will be hard to know that if you don't know them. The majority of them will probably not share your religious beliefs; fantastic! You need to see the good and the value in people who don't believe in you. And you need human warmth, which has some limitations on how well it can transfer through a screen.

Think about things. Don't echo the phrases you hear on the radio. If they keep repeating the same talking point, question why. Does it benefit someone they like? Does it hurt someone they don't like? and find your own ways of phrasing it, because if you find that you can't maybe there is an inherent logical fallacy in the thinking. I could give some examples, but I'm not doing that here.

Also - and this combines the loving and the thinking - cultivate your ear for the Spirit. If you are full of anger and pride and resentment, it will be hard to hear the promptings that you need. If you shut out common sense by an insistence on adhering to someone else's talking points, you can shut out realizations that way too.

It is great to have an emergency plan and kits and storage, but the most valuable means of preparedness is being open to inspiration and warnings. Don't throw that away. If you are afraid you might have, do whatever you need to do to get that back.

Making a plan - Wildfires

I wanted to spend some time on wildfires because they are affecting places we haven't been expecting. Some forest fires happen every year, and they can endanger homes, but we are seeing worse things here.

The earth is getting hotter, and when it is dry, it also becomes highly combustible. A spark from harvesting machinery can destroy that harvest and all the surrounding ones, because fire can move through grass more quickly than through trees. "Playing" with fireworks or arson (as suspected in Greece) can turn quickly out of control.

One additional potential issue with Greece is that there were people vacationing. Being unfamiliar with the area would have made getting oriented and out more difficult. Also, apparently the resort was not built considering fire safety.

Your family should have an emergency plan. Probably the fire part of that is thinking of a house fire, where meeting in front of the mailbox is fine and the fire department will arrive soon. Wildfires are different.

There is some excellent information available at http://www.readyforwildfire.org/Pre-Evacuation-Preparation/. I do encourage that, because it may cause you to think about things you haven't before.

Those thoughts may come from other sources. A recent news segment showed law enforcement in Washington visiting home owners and talking about risk reduction such as not storing firewood under the flammable and connected to your house deck, and clearing out dry brush near the house.

Even though we see images that look like solid moving walls of flame that will destroy everything in their path, the destruction will then seem random afterward, with intact homes near homes that have been burned to the ground.

Some of it probably is random, but some of it can be if there were things in place that allowed the fire to take hold, and maybe explode. That's when moving away the propane tanks and turning off the gas can make a difference. Maybe dampening the house - but not leaving the water running so as not to decrease water pressure for fire fighters - can help.

Many of your normal preparedness steps will be helpful for a wildfire, but because it disrupts a large area in a why that is not completely predictable, there are ways in which you need to be able to think differently.

Health may be affected even if home safety never is. Smoke can worsen air quality. This is true for children, the elderly, and for those with respiratory conditions, especially asthma. Being prepared with medication, so that inhalers are stocked and easy to access, or that someone on oxygen is not cutting it close on refills, will help.

You may need to keep people inside on a bad air quality day. Do you have air conditioning? Do you want to start using stronger filters? They are more expensive, but for some people it will make a difference. Think about those things now.

It is not just forests burning now; one fire was caused by a spark of harvesting equipment, and started burning the harvest. Food storage is still valuable. Growing your own food (to the extent possible) is still valuable. We don't talk about some of those things as much as we used to, but they are still needed.

We recently saw a television station shut down due to the fire, and if you are going to have to evacuate you cannot stay watching the coverage anyway. Make sure you have a portable radio with extra batteries so you can get updates.

It is great to have different family meeting places set up for different types of emergencies, but they may need to change. Not only can wildfires come from different directions, but they can change direction based on winds and other factors.

It is reasonable to follow community evacuation plans to near where the shelters are, but be warned that in large evacuations shelters and hotels quickly fill up. This not only means that your family may some day have a chance to serve others by opening your home, but you may need to accept that service. Also, as you are packing the car it is not a bad idea to include some camping equipment.

These have often been rural areas, where there is the possibility of having livestock, which seriously increases evacuation time. Think about your animals in advance, even if that just means that one of the many dangers of allowing cats outdoors or dogs off-leash and not in fenced areas is that you may not be able to find your pets when you need them.

But the other really important thing to remember is that this is a community wide issue. Know your neighbors and their needs. Help each other. Do you have older neighbors? Neighbors with disabilities? Neighbors with a lot of children? Neighbors who are not native English speakers? You may be able to be very helpful to them, and it is the right thing to do.

Part of emergency preparedness is surviving, but we need the survival of the soul, as well as the body. These are perilous times, and the most important thing is that our hearts do not wax cold.

I will try and write more about that next week.

Making a plan - Current photos

There is a lot of overlap between making an emergency plan and making an emergency kit. That came up last with with medication, and it is coming up this week with photos. There is just more to it than photos.

I thought of it because I saw a tweet with people putting out pictures of some people missing in the Carr fire, a great-grandmother and two children. You may have seen the photos too, and know that they have been found dead. That doesn't invalidate what I am going to say.

When there was still hope, it occurred to me that those weren't very good pictures. Some weren't very clear, and they apparently only had a side photo of the great-grandmother.

Normally you hope that everyone not only has a plan but can speak for themselves and provide identifying information. That might not happen, even if everyone is alive.

If an adult watching children gets incapacitated, the adult might not be able to explain and the children may be too young or too traumatized to provide names and contact information. Seniors with dementia can be alive but disoriented. That can also happen with other cognitive disabilities or in some cases after missing medication.

(For many of these cases, ID bracelets can also be a good idea. And yes, we talked about planning to keep your medication current last week, but there are so many things that can go wrong.)

My point is that it can't hurt to add photos of household members to your emergency kit. Make them clear, current photos with a front view. Children usually get annual school pictures, making it easy. Still, if there is a growth spurt or a haircut, maybe take a new picture. A lot of adults don't like having their pictures taken, but it's for safety. Refresh those pictures frequently.

Yes, you may have pictures on your phone, but what if heat damages your phone, or it gets misplaced, or they were blurry pictures that weren't very recognizable?

Obviously, kits can be left behind or get lost or burned. Also obviously, it is better if your family doesn't get separated. Emergency planning is knowing that there are things beyond your control and then trying to mitigate that.

Next week I want to spend some time on fires specifically, because we are seeing things we may not have seen before, and they require some adjustment.

For now, in the part of your plan that involves reuniting after an emergency, think about the things that can make it harder: who will need extra help? If we get separated miles from home, and can't go back home, what do we do then?

And as part of that, there are many advantages to having current photos.

Making a plan - Medication

There are two things that I want to talk about here. They could really both go into making a kit or making an evacuation plan, but I think it is beneficial to talk about medication separately.

The first thing is making sure that you have your medication. There are different ways of doing this.

I knew one couple who used two sets of weekly pill minders. One set would be in the emergency kits, and they other they would use. At the end of the week they would fill up the empty one, put it in the kit, and use the one that had just been pulled from the kit. That is one way of doing it.

Honestly, my plan is just to scoop mine up on the way out. Based on their location it is easy to do, and it is simpler. It doesn't provide for an emergency happening while I am away from home, but neither does the other couple's plan, assuming they are keeping their kits at home.

Fortunately, in a case where you end up going to a shelter, there may be processes in place for providing prescription medication. Having your correct dosage information will be helpful.

In the Prepare Out Loud presentation, they recommended taking the labels off of some old bottles and putting them in your kit, because that has all of the information. I saw the point, but knew that getting the labels off could be a frustrating process. However, most of the pharmacies I know also have a paper printout with the prescription that has everything on the label. This includes the name of the medication, the dosage, the prescribing doctor, and instructions for taking the medication.

That can be easily added to your kit, and with a couple of refills you could have home and work copies, or home and car copies. That is something to think about.

I'll give you one more thing to think about from that night. They talked about having supplies for pets, and I felt guilty because we were getting low on dog food. We had plans to go to the store and buy more, and we did and everything was fine, but in the event of an emergency that prevented us from getting to the store, we would have run out. We could share our food with her, but that wouldn't be ideal for her digestion, especially in a time that would probably already be stressful. (She would love it in theory.) Also, that relies on us being prepared for ourselves, and we should be, but as long as we are preparing that should be for everyone who lives here, whether two-legged or four-legged.

I bring this us not to talk about pet preparedness (although that is important to me), but to encourage you to not leave filling your prescription to the last minute. There are legal limitations to how much you can have on hand, so there will be a date before which you cannot refill. However, after that date, refill instead of leaving it to the day before. Playing it close like that can result in missed doses even when there isn't an emergency, because many days there is just life and that gets complicated enough.

That's when we move beyond emergency preparedness to provident living. Life is smoother when we do.

Making a plan - liquefaction

One of my biggest frustrations from all of my preparedness prep is not committing the liquefaction map to memory. Maybe taking a photo of it. I just wish I could refer back to it.

There was one in the classroom where I took my CERT training, many years ago. Online searches generally reveal maps that display a number of factors, and often where it is hard to zero in on my area.

Granted, you don't know where you will be. It might not hurt to know some of the risks for the other side of the river, but home is where I worry about most.

Liquefaction refers to the process of a solid or a gas going to liquid, but getting caught in this in-between state that isn't quite liquid but follows some of the dynamics of a liquid.

In an earthquake, sand, saturated dirt, and unconsolidated soil can be a at risk for turning into a suspension. Dirt soup may be the best way to think of it.

Interestingly, even without an earthquake a woman recently sunk in sand on a beach because of the water creating a quicksand effect. There are some differences, but the important thing to remember is that solidity may not be permanent.

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article214626755.html

That certainly doesn't sound fun for going across on foot, but where it can get really messy is when the soil liquefies under a structure, like a building or a road.

For example, if you have a seismically constructed bridge, but the roads on either side get broken up as the ground loses its solidity, that can be a transportation problem. It's still good for the people on the bridge that it didn't collapse.

(I've heard bad things about PDX airport.)

So I worry about the house collapsing, or that we will choose a nearby park as our meeting place, and then find that the spot will literally suck.

This is once again one of those areas where you may need to handle a little bit of ambiguity.

On the plus side, I know from my attempts at gardening that our soil is more of a clay type. It is very hard for it to get saturated because of the way it holds water.

Take the rays of hope where you find them.