Recently there was an article examining "the modern dating crisis" by examining Mormons and Orthodox Jews:
http://time.com/dateonomics/
It did have some interesting information, though the research didn't feel intellectually vigorous. At least for me, part of that is knowing that a large part of the breast implant market in Utah consists of married women. I'm not sure that's so much about dating.
The premise of the article is that because men outnumber women in the dating pools of these religious groups, thus having more options, this puts extra pressure on the women to increase their desirability. There is pressure on the physical appearance of the Orthodox Jewish women too, but there has also been a huge increase in the use of dowries, and their relative value. Apparently in Mormon culture there is only the focus on appearance, hence breast implants.
The article mentions at least one patient who is getting implants because her boyfriend would like them bigger (also, the plastic surgeon mentioned sees a lot of college age women coming in for Botox injections), so it's not that unmarried woman are not affected. Still, there are a lot of housewives getting the procedure too.
That is probably not completely unrelated. The ads are there for everyone to see, so even if they are geared toward one demographic, they could affect another.
There is a very interesting article on the topic at http://www.beautyredefined.net/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-salt-lake-city-is-vainest-of-them-all/, which lets us know - among other things - that Salt Lake City earned the title "Vainest City in the Nation" in 2007, based on an index of plastic surgeons per capita and spending on beauty products.
Vanity is not a Young Women value. It's not a Gospel value. It should not be something we want any of our women to aspire to. But if we tell them that they have to be attractive, and then our messages that are purportedly about other things - like modesty - still focus on the appearance of the girls, that is a likely result.
Then, if they succeed too well in being attractive, it becomes so easy to modesty-shame them.
- "That top is too tight."
- "It wasn't before the implants."
Initially my concerns with the modesty shaming was that it can alienate people who may forget that the Church is true if they find enough members being jerks. That is a concern, but even without that, this seems like a concept destined to make women neurotic and keep them from discovering their true potential.
I'd call it manure, but manure can at least produce good results. This is toxic.
I'm do have some thoughts about how focusing on service and charity, gratitude, and developing your own talents while appreciating the talents of others would do a lot more to foster true modesty anyway, but these attitudes aren't about modesty anyway. They are about keeping women down, and modesty-shaming allows women to also have a position above someone else. When your heart is right, there probably are some clothes you won't wear, but you're not going to care a lot about what other people are wearing.
That's all I have to say on this for now. Oregon Field Guide's "Unprepared" airs October 1st at 8 PM on OPB. You can watch it online too. Check it out, and then we will go back to talking about earthquakes.
(Actually, not just earthquakes; megaquakes. In fact, the megaquake. Yeah, be ready for that.)
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Tradition
When I was around third grade a Pakistani family moved in next door. They were the first Muslims I had ever met.
The mother was not allowed to show her legs because of modesty. The oldest daughter was getting close to where she would be of an age to think about that (I believe it was 12). As her mother was American, and not Muslim, I was not sure that she would adhere. There was some potential for friction there, and eventually she started visiting her father less, though that was not necessarily the cause.
We met three other Pakistani families through them, and they all followed the same rules for modesty, focusing on adult women having their legs covered.
My religion believed in modesty too, so I related to that. Their rule was stricter than ours, because Mormon women can wear shorts, but in terms of modesty in dress being important, more emphasis on it approaching adulthood, and a higher burden on women than on men, it was pretty similar.
Years later seeing hijab, niqab, and burqas, it looked like Pakistani women had gotten off easy, but I have seen Pakistani women wearing head coverings as well. Perhaps it is different if you are rural or urban. There were also times when clothing rules changed drastically in Iran and Afghanistan, based in changes in power.
I concluded that often rules of modesty might be based more on tradition than religious doctrine. That would not be at all surprising. Local climate influences dress, and availability of materials, and habits can be strong.
I don't want to sound disrespectful at all in my writing. One young friend recently defended hijab - which she wears - as a way of keeping people from judging you by your looks so they will focus on your mind instead. There is value in that. People do focus on looks too much.
I can see her point, but I also remember Marji making fun of the sexuality that radiates from a woman's hair in Persepolis, and that with hijab people can still judge your face (which does look better framed by hair), and that people are free to judge her father on his looks since he does not have to wear it.
Modesty is a good trait, and so many good things can be said about it. There is also a lot to be said for not making everything sexual, or having women compete to attract, or for reducing women to their very dangerous looks. I am afraid though that much of what we do in the name of modesty flies specifically counter to that.
And now I am talking about Mormons again, but more on that next week.
The mother was not allowed to show her legs because of modesty. The oldest daughter was getting close to where she would be of an age to think about that (I believe it was 12). As her mother was American, and not Muslim, I was not sure that she would adhere. There was some potential for friction there, and eventually she started visiting her father less, though that was not necessarily the cause.
We met three other Pakistani families through them, and they all followed the same rules for modesty, focusing on adult women having their legs covered.
My religion believed in modesty too, so I related to that. Their rule was stricter than ours, because Mormon women can wear shorts, but in terms of modesty in dress being important, more emphasis on it approaching adulthood, and a higher burden on women than on men, it was pretty similar.
Years later seeing hijab, niqab, and burqas, it looked like Pakistani women had gotten off easy, but I have seen Pakistani women wearing head coverings as well. Perhaps it is different if you are rural or urban. There were also times when clothing rules changed drastically in Iran and Afghanistan, based in changes in power.
I concluded that often rules of modesty might be based more on tradition than religious doctrine. That would not be at all surprising. Local climate influences dress, and availability of materials, and habits can be strong.
I don't want to sound disrespectful at all in my writing. One young friend recently defended hijab - which she wears - as a way of keeping people from judging you by your looks so they will focus on your mind instead. There is value in that. People do focus on looks too much.
I can see her point, but I also remember Marji making fun of the sexuality that radiates from a woman's hair in Persepolis, and that with hijab people can still judge your face (which does look better framed by hair), and that people are free to judge her father on his looks since he does not have to wear it.
Modesty is a good trait, and so many good things can be said about it. There is also a lot to be said for not making everything sexual, or having women compete to attract, or for reducing women to their very dangerous looks. I am afraid though that much of what we do in the name of modesty flies specifically counter to that.
And now I am talking about Mormons again, but more on that next week.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
False modesty
I have been getting very irritated with talk of "modesty" lately. Let me start with a little story:
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/women-denied-palais-entry-for-wearing-flats/5088395.article?referrer=RSS
This may seem like it has nothing to do with modesty, but the element of inspection reminded me of another story I had recently heard of women back in the day having to kneel to demonstrate that their skirts were long enough, based on whether their hems touched the floor or not.
Allow me to suggest that if that is necessary to tell if the skirt is long enough, it's long enough.
The common factor is that the female body is subject to inspection. Once that is expected, the criteria can become increasingly arbitrary and ridiculous. A heel does not automatically make a shoe beautiful - some heels are really tacky. Many shoes are hidden by the gown length anyway. (I believe I read something about some women being asked to raise their skirts slightly so the heels could be checked.)
Therefore you can decide that even if a girl's collarbone is currently covered, the possibility of the sweater that is covering the collarbone being removed is reason enough to decide that the shirt is still inappropriate enough to send her home.
This teaches our young women two things: their bodies are shameful things and they are not capable of making their own decisions on what is appropriate. Because the reasons their bodies must be hidden are so frequently centered around distractions for the boys, girls are also taught that it is not about them. Even something as basic as what she puts on in the morning is not about her. Finally, though clearly the problem is how easily distracted and low-minded boys are, it is the responsibility of the girls to fix it.
Sadly, she is still required to be attractive, but not attractive in a way that violates the prevailing ill-conceived rules about what is and is not acceptable. Yoga pants cover the legs up, but too closely. Tight sweaters are okay if the bra doesn't show through. And seriously, when did collarbones become sexualized?
This is not about modesty, or respect, or any of the things they say it is. This is about controlling women. This is about patriarchy. No matter how many women help uphold the crooked system, it remains crooked.
This is the kind of mindset that leads to modesty-shaming, where a young woman at girls camp might be shamed for wearing capris and a sleeved t-shirt because the sleeve ends above her elbow and the shorts don't go far enough past her knee. I saw the picture, she was fine. She was also in a place where there are no boys, but still, how dare she have any skin other than her neck and face showing! Now we just need to decide that the neck and face are also evil so that we can require burqas and be done with it.
I was reading the Pauline Epistles lately, and if anyone is going to say something that sounds stupid and sexist it will be Paul. You know what he says about modesty and women? Don't spend too much time on your hair.
Fixating on clothes would be immodest. The path that we are on is one that will require young women to spend far too much time worrying about clothes, and they won't have any fun with it, but it will at least provide plenty of opportunities for judgment and alienation.
If we can't do better than that on modesty we should quite talking about it. We should at least understand it before we try and teach the young poeple how to do it.
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/women-denied-palais-entry-for-wearing-flats/5088395.article?referrer=RSS
This may seem like it has nothing to do with modesty, but the element of inspection reminded me of another story I had recently heard of women back in the day having to kneel to demonstrate that their skirts were long enough, based on whether their hems touched the floor or not.
Allow me to suggest that if that is necessary to tell if the skirt is long enough, it's long enough.
The common factor is that the female body is subject to inspection. Once that is expected, the criteria can become increasingly arbitrary and ridiculous. A heel does not automatically make a shoe beautiful - some heels are really tacky. Many shoes are hidden by the gown length anyway. (I believe I read something about some women being asked to raise their skirts slightly so the heels could be checked.)
Therefore you can decide that even if a girl's collarbone is currently covered, the possibility of the sweater that is covering the collarbone being removed is reason enough to decide that the shirt is still inappropriate enough to send her home.
This teaches our young women two things: their bodies are shameful things and they are not capable of making their own decisions on what is appropriate. Because the reasons their bodies must be hidden are so frequently centered around distractions for the boys, girls are also taught that it is not about them. Even something as basic as what she puts on in the morning is not about her. Finally, though clearly the problem is how easily distracted and low-minded boys are, it is the responsibility of the girls to fix it.
Sadly, she is still required to be attractive, but not attractive in a way that violates the prevailing ill-conceived rules about what is and is not acceptable. Yoga pants cover the legs up, but too closely. Tight sweaters are okay if the bra doesn't show through. And seriously, when did collarbones become sexualized?
This is not about modesty, or respect, or any of the things they say it is. This is about controlling women. This is about patriarchy. No matter how many women help uphold the crooked system, it remains crooked.
This is the kind of mindset that leads to modesty-shaming, where a young woman at girls camp might be shamed for wearing capris and a sleeved t-shirt because the sleeve ends above her elbow and the shorts don't go far enough past her knee. I saw the picture, she was fine. She was also in a place where there are no boys, but still, how dare she have any skin other than her neck and face showing! Now we just need to decide that the neck and face are also evil so that we can require burqas and be done with it.
I was reading the Pauline Epistles lately, and if anyone is going to say something that sounds stupid and sexist it will be Paul. You know what he says about modesty and women? Don't spend too much time on your hair.
Fixating on clothes would be immodest. The path that we are on is one that will require young women to spend far too much time worrying about clothes, and they won't have any fun with it, but it will at least provide plenty of opportunities for judgment and alienation.
If we can't do better than that on modesty we should quite talking about it. We should at least understand it before we try and teach the young poeple how to do it.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Mormons and consent
Conversations about consent are becoming more common, and they are necessary to overcoming rape culture.
If that phrase startles you, well, this is mature content. I'm not going to be tawdry at any point, but I will be frank.
It is easy for active members to feel like we don't have a part in this conversation - if you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex. That may seem like we cannot make any contributions other than hypothetical. That is a mistake.
First of all, obviously Mormons have sex all the time. At church I see pregnant women, babies, and little children everywhere. Sex has played a big part in that.
Consent matters for married couples. Imagine a night where a chaste married couple is going to bed. He wants to have sex, but she doesn't.
Once upon a time, the husband forcing sex would not have been legally considered rape. It could have left some of the same scars on the wife, and it wouldn't have been a building block in a healthy respectful relationship though.
Let's say this husband would never force sex, but he shames her for not being there for his needs, when her job is to sustain and serve him; after all, it is his work that provides their house and all the nice things they have, and lets her stay home with the kids. She feels like dirt and gives in, then feels worse.
This would also not be considered rape, but it is still not a healthy relationship building block. The husband shows a lack of respect for the wife and her needs, and it is selfishness on his part. Sometimes when people talk about enthusiastic consent, they mean things like this. A person can not want it but still not fight it, for a variety of reasons.
I suspect another common scenario could be the wife not really feeling like it, but making herself available for feelings of obligation - perhaps she thinks of England while she does her wifely duty - but that, while better, is still not as good as it could be.
If both the husband and wife care about each others' needs, communication can help a lot. Then you can discuss the tiredness, and look for ways to relieve some of the burden. You can decide on morning sex instead of evening sex so everyone gets a fresh start. You can realize that some positions are not enjoyed as much as others and accommodate that.
I could go on in that vein, though we might start to venture into the tawdry, and really, that's not necessary. There is information on there on specific ways to increase your pleasure and on improving communication, which is often a good thing to do regardless.
No, my point here is one of equality. The reason it wasn't a crime to rape your wife is because she was yours; if she wasn't quite a much a piece of property as your table, she surely wasn't as much of a person as a man. There was tradition in that, but is has never been God's way.
The importance of establishing consent is that both people have to be free to say no before their yes can matter. That is partly that sex is very intimate, and can thus become very degrading when not wanted, but also because both parties need to have rights. They need to be equal.
It should be obvious that the right to not feel violated supersedes the right to have sex. The temporary frustration of not getting satisfied one way does not linger like the regret of acquiescing when you didn't want to, or burn like being forced when you didn't acquiesce. If your thought to concerns on the part of the other party is to get over it and it is no big deal, you do not deserve sex and I hope your partner sees that. Sex is a big deal.
So we should be able to talk about it. We should be able to know what the good parts of doing it are, and how it can go horribly wrong, and how a couple can work to make it more enjoyable for both of them.
We need that, because both people matter. Both parties are equally valuable. My examples have focused on reluctance on the part of the woman, because historically she has been the one most likely to lack status, but it works both ways. No woman should guilt or drug or intimidate a man into sex either. We believe in love and respect and kindness for all people.
So keep that in mind, and we will use it to take another look at modesty next week.
If that phrase startles you, well, this is mature content. I'm not going to be tawdry at any point, but I will be frank.
It is easy for active members to feel like we don't have a part in this conversation - if you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex. That may seem like we cannot make any contributions other than hypothetical. That is a mistake.
First of all, obviously Mormons have sex all the time. At church I see pregnant women, babies, and little children everywhere. Sex has played a big part in that.
Consent matters for married couples. Imagine a night where a chaste married couple is going to bed. He wants to have sex, but she doesn't.
Once upon a time, the husband forcing sex would not have been legally considered rape. It could have left some of the same scars on the wife, and it wouldn't have been a building block in a healthy respectful relationship though.
Let's say this husband would never force sex, but he shames her for not being there for his needs, when her job is to sustain and serve him; after all, it is his work that provides their house and all the nice things they have, and lets her stay home with the kids. She feels like dirt and gives in, then feels worse.
This would also not be considered rape, but it is still not a healthy relationship building block. The husband shows a lack of respect for the wife and her needs, and it is selfishness on his part. Sometimes when people talk about enthusiastic consent, they mean things like this. A person can not want it but still not fight it, for a variety of reasons.
I suspect another common scenario could be the wife not really feeling like it, but making herself available for feelings of obligation - perhaps she thinks of England while she does her wifely duty - but that, while better, is still not as good as it could be.
If both the husband and wife care about each others' needs, communication can help a lot. Then you can discuss the tiredness, and look for ways to relieve some of the burden. You can decide on morning sex instead of evening sex so everyone gets a fresh start. You can realize that some positions are not enjoyed as much as others and accommodate that.
I could go on in that vein, though we might start to venture into the tawdry, and really, that's not necessary. There is information on there on specific ways to increase your pleasure and on improving communication, which is often a good thing to do regardless.
No, my point here is one of equality. The reason it wasn't a crime to rape your wife is because she was yours; if she wasn't quite a much a piece of property as your table, she surely wasn't as much of a person as a man. There was tradition in that, but is has never been God's way.
The importance of establishing consent is that both people have to be free to say no before their yes can matter. That is partly that sex is very intimate, and can thus become very degrading when not wanted, but also because both parties need to have rights. They need to be equal.
It should be obvious that the right to not feel violated supersedes the right to have sex. The temporary frustration of not getting satisfied one way does not linger like the regret of acquiescing when you didn't want to, or burn like being forced when you didn't acquiesce. If your thought to concerns on the part of the other party is to get over it and it is no big deal, you do not deserve sex and I hope your partner sees that. Sex is a big deal.
So we should be able to talk about it. We should be able to know what the good parts of doing it are, and how it can go horribly wrong, and how a couple can work to make it more enjoyable for both of them.
We need that, because both people matter. Both parties are equally valuable. My examples have focused on reluctance on the part of the woman, because historically she has been the one most likely to lack status, but it works both ways. No woman should guilt or drug or intimidate a man into sex either. We believe in love and respect and kindness for all people.
So keep that in mind, and we will use it to take another look at modesty next week.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Ashley Madison and me
I have been very interested in this whole Ashley Madison thing.
If you aren't familiar, it is a site that people use to set up affairs, so married people can cheat discreetly. At least, that seems to be the specialty. I don't think you have to be married to use it. Their data was hacked and being released.
Initially I had never heard of the site, and I didn't think a lot about it except that it was unfortunately that we had just named our new kitten Ashley.
Then I saw some people tweeting about how this could be very dangerous for the users. Some of them could be in abusive relationships, some might be in open marriages where it wasn't anyone's business, and while in my head there are probably still better ways to deal with it, yes, there can be some pretty difficult experiences out there, and it's not my job to judge. I heard that there have been at least two suicides related to the breach, and that may not even be the cheaters - some people finding out that they have been betrayed will feel a lot of pain from that.
None of that is to justify adultery, but the initial thing you picture when you hear about it is overly simplified, and so while many people's first response was to think this was funny, it wasn't.
There was some food for thought there, but it was other stories that fascinated me. For example, apparently Ashley Madison was trying to get the breached material that was posted online taken down using copyright law. I learned that in an article explaining why that would not work under copyright law, and that article was very well-written and informative about copyright law.
The side note from that and other articles is that apparently part of the problem is that Ashley Madison had been paid money to delete certain information and not done so, making them derelict in customer service, and probably not really on the ball in terms of basic privacy protection which is a notable failing in any service using "discreet" as a key word. There is a level on which I find myself not terribly surprised about a site set up for this purpose not behaving completely ethically and responsibly.
Now the next interesting thing may counteract the final interesting thing, but it probably doesn't all the way. Anyway, it turns out that a lot of the female profiles were fake. A lot of men thought they were talking to women, but were really talking to other men.
Whether this means that it was rare for people to progress all the way to meeting up, I don't know. Even partially pursuing the intent to cheat can cause relationship harm, so this may be bad enough. However, it is worth remembering that not everyone is who they say they are, especially online.
Last but not least is user data, some of which may be invalid. Apparently in terms of famous names that have shown up, Josh Duggar has really admitted to using it. Of course, having already admitted to molesting his sisters and a baby sitter, we may be less surprised by depravity on his part, but Christian vlogger Sam Rader also admitted to it. It's enough to make you wonder about this article:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/expert-400-church-leaders-will-resign-sunday-because-names-surfaced-ashley-madison-hack
So, when you rank the states paying for Ashley Madison, and the state paying the 8th most is Utah, well, some of those accounts could be fake, but the paid accounts might be less likely to be fake, and we have to consider it at least possible that there are many Utah users, and many of them are LDS and active.
If you recall, before I got distracted by the mega-quake article I was writing about chastity and modesty. If it was not obvious, I have decided to wait to write more on the earthquake until after Unprepared airs October 1st, so this gives us some time to talk about sex. Religious people can get weird about it, and it does not make us more righteous. It can even make it harder for us to remain righteous.
The September posts are going to try and break that down.
If you aren't familiar, it is a site that people use to set up affairs, so married people can cheat discreetly. At least, that seems to be the specialty. I don't think you have to be married to use it. Their data was hacked and being released.
Initially I had never heard of the site, and I didn't think a lot about it except that it was unfortunately that we had just named our new kitten Ashley.
Then I saw some people tweeting about how this could be very dangerous for the users. Some of them could be in abusive relationships, some might be in open marriages where it wasn't anyone's business, and while in my head there are probably still better ways to deal with it, yes, there can be some pretty difficult experiences out there, and it's not my job to judge. I heard that there have been at least two suicides related to the breach, and that may not even be the cheaters - some people finding out that they have been betrayed will feel a lot of pain from that.
None of that is to justify adultery, but the initial thing you picture when you hear about it is overly simplified, and so while many people's first response was to think this was funny, it wasn't.
There was some food for thought there, but it was other stories that fascinated me. For example, apparently Ashley Madison was trying to get the breached material that was posted online taken down using copyright law. I learned that in an article explaining why that would not work under copyright law, and that article was very well-written and informative about copyright law.
The side note from that and other articles is that apparently part of the problem is that Ashley Madison had been paid money to delete certain information and not done so, making them derelict in customer service, and probably not really on the ball in terms of basic privacy protection which is a notable failing in any service using "discreet" as a key word. There is a level on which I find myself not terribly surprised about a site set up for this purpose not behaving completely ethically and responsibly.
Now the next interesting thing may counteract the final interesting thing, but it probably doesn't all the way. Anyway, it turns out that a lot of the female profiles were fake. A lot of men thought they were talking to women, but were really talking to other men.
Whether this means that it was rare for people to progress all the way to meeting up, I don't know. Even partially pursuing the intent to cheat can cause relationship harm, so this may be bad enough. However, it is worth remembering that not everyone is who they say they are, especially online.
Last but not least is user data, some of which may be invalid. Apparently in terms of famous names that have shown up, Josh Duggar has really admitted to using it. Of course, having already admitted to molesting his sisters and a baby sitter, we may be less surprised by depravity on his part, but Christian vlogger Sam Rader also admitted to it. It's enough to make you wonder about this article:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/expert-400-church-leaders-will-resign-sunday-because-names-surfaced-ashley-madison-hack
So, when you rank the states paying for Ashley Madison, and the state paying the 8th most is Utah, well, some of those accounts could be fake, but the paid accounts might be less likely to be fake, and we have to consider it at least possible that there are many Utah users, and many of them are LDS and active.
If you recall, before I got distracted by the mega-quake article I was writing about chastity and modesty. If it was not obvious, I have decided to wait to write more on the earthquake until after Unprepared airs October 1st, so this gives us some time to talk about sex. Religious people can get weird about it, and it does not make us more righteous. It can even make it harder for us to remain righteous.
The September posts are going to try and break that down.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
2015 Garden Report
Will anyone be terribly surprised if my plans expanded beyond what I said I was going to do back in May?
I did plant the one cherry tomato plant and the one pumpkin plant. I did plant the lettuce tray. They it just didn't feel like enough.
Some of that was caused by additional research. I was looking at
companion planting charts to make sure there were no conflicts between
pumpkins and tomatoes, and I saw a note that when basil is planted with
tomatoes they grow ten percent bigger. I really wanted to check that
out, but I was only planting cherry tomatoes. Should they even grow ten
percent bigger?
Also, as I looked up the pumpkin type that I had got, Spirit, it seemed like they wouldn't be big producers. It might be a good idea to get another one. I went to the garden center searching for two more tomato plants (because I had two more tomato cages), a basil plant, and one more Spirit pumpkin.
The pumpkin plants were completely gone, and I had no idea there were so many types of basil. I went with Sweet Italian because that seemed most likely to have a kinship with me. For tomatoes I got one Early Girl (I have always been fond of that breed) and one Jet Star, because that's Ray Toro's Danger Days alter ego and that was awesome.
Ultimately, I probably should have stuck with one tomato and one pumpkin.
The lettuce tray never did a single sprout. I am not sure how it managed to fail so badly.
Jet Star only had one tomato, and Early Girl looks like there will be a total of six when the rest ripen. Those are both good breeds, so I am wondering if they were just put in bad spots. I did add plant food and egg shells to the soil, but they are closer to the concrete and their spots did not have the soil worked as much by the ivy. Maybe it was the exact wrong kind of basil.
(Incidentally, I keep finding new ivy sprouts in odd places. I suspect that will go on for a while.)
I also for a long time only had one pumpkin.
Even without the crookneck squash encroaching, I guess pumpkin fertilization is not a guarantee. You see, pumpkin blossoms are gendered. You get a lot more male blossoms, and you need more quantitatively, but you still need some female blossoms, because only they will become pumpkins.
A female blossom is recognizable by the green knob at the base of the flower. If she gets fertilized, that know grows bigger, and a darker striped green, then keeps getting bigger and turns orange. (Well, the color changes can be different for different breeds, but that's how mine went.)
If the blossom doesn't get fertilized, it shrivels up and falls off. I had that happen more often than not. I lost at least three, so was starting to think about hand pollination, but then I didn't get any more female blossoms. Fortunately a few days ago I got one more, and without any interference on my part it is turning into a pumpkin.
This is especially good because it means I will have a pumpkin in October. The first one is already ripe.
Also, they are kind of small. Spirit may not be the breed for me, but also there is reason to believe that I am kind of the opposite of a green thumb with pumpkins, and am going to have to keep making slow incremental process.
At least my cherry tomatoes are going strong.
They may be going a little too strong. I should have guided their early growth more. They are now a gloriously messy bush, that frankly may have been responsible for suppressing Jet Star. They come in so many different sizes that I have no way of knowing if they are ten percent bigger than they would be otherwise. I have to consider the basil claim not validated at this point.
Still, even without either reserving a community garden plot or rototilling, I grew stuff. I have those cherry tomatoes I coveted now. I wanted more than one pumpkin, but even before I had to admit that my pumpkin growing was a big improvement over last year. Now that is doubly true.
That's how my garden grows.
I did plant the one cherry tomato plant and the one pumpkin plant. I did plant the lettuce tray. They it just didn't feel like enough.
Also, as I looked up the pumpkin type that I had got, Spirit, it seemed like they wouldn't be big producers. It might be a good idea to get another one. I went to the garden center searching for two more tomato plants (because I had two more tomato cages), a basil plant, and one more Spirit pumpkin.
The pumpkin plants were completely gone, and I had no idea there were so many types of basil. I went with Sweet Italian because that seemed most likely to have a kinship with me. For tomatoes I got one Early Girl (I have always been fond of that breed) and one Jet Star, because that's Ray Toro's Danger Days alter ego and that was awesome.
Ultimately, I probably should have stuck with one tomato and one pumpkin.
The lettuce tray never did a single sprout. I am not sure how it managed to fail so badly.
Jet Star only had one tomato, and Early Girl looks like there will be a total of six when the rest ripen. Those are both good breeds, so I am wondering if they were just put in bad spots. I did add plant food and egg shells to the soil, but they are closer to the concrete and their spots did not have the soil worked as much by the ivy. Maybe it was the exact wrong kind of basil.
(Incidentally, I keep finding new ivy sprouts in odd places. I suspect that will go on for a while.)
I also for a long time only had one pumpkin.
Even without the crookneck squash encroaching, I guess pumpkin fertilization is not a guarantee. You see, pumpkin blossoms are gendered. You get a lot more male blossoms, and you need more quantitatively, but you still need some female blossoms, because only they will become pumpkins.
A female blossom is recognizable by the green knob at the base of the flower. If she gets fertilized, that know grows bigger, and a darker striped green, then keeps getting bigger and turns orange. (Well, the color changes can be different for different breeds, but that's how mine went.)
If the blossom doesn't get fertilized, it shrivels up and falls off. I had that happen more often than not. I lost at least three, so was starting to think about hand pollination, but then I didn't get any more female blossoms. Fortunately a few days ago I got one more, and without any interference on my part it is turning into a pumpkin.
This is especially good because it means I will have a pumpkin in October. The first one is already ripe.
Also, they are kind of small. Spirit may not be the breed for me, but also there is reason to believe that I am kind of the opposite of a green thumb with pumpkins, and am going to have to keep making slow incremental process.
At least my cherry tomatoes are going strong.
Still, even without either reserving a community garden plot or rototilling, I grew stuff. I have those cherry tomatoes I coveted now. I wanted more than one pumpkin, but even before I had to admit that my pumpkin growing was a big improvement over last year. Now that is doubly true.
That's how my garden grows.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Earthquakes and the individual
I am not done with all my asking around yet. Most of the contacts are related to getting better at recovery, which will be a community effort. How long will it take PGE to get electricity running again? How long does ODOT think it will take to get the roads in good order again?
Some of my thoughts come from a preview of an Oregon Field Guide that will be airing on Oregon Public Broadcasting on October 1st. That's not really that far away. Some conversations may be more productive afterward, though there is no reason not to talk about things now.
Even assuming the best case scenario, where communities up and down the coast prepare, with different levels of government cooperating with each other and with businesses and private citizens, it will not rule out the need for at least some level of personal preparedness.
I had noted a while ago that 72-hour kits seemed to have gone out of vogue, mainly because they were not going to last long enough. I am starting to hear a lot about kits again, but no longer with the 72 hours. They are less likely to give a time period.
The reality is, its hard to predict how long you might be roughing it, and the longer it seems like it might be the more discouraging it gets. It is nonetheless very empowering to prepare.
I think a good starting point is the results of the Aftershock tool, which were on the PBS site. For my address, these were the megaquake results:
Water will be available at distribution centers within about 2 weeks.
Natural gas will be back up within about 2 months.
Electricity will take closer to 3 or 4 months.
Police and fire response could take about 7 months to recover.
Water and sewer will take over a year to get operational again.
The restoration of top priority highways will take about a year and a half.
Getting health care facilities back to normal will take about three years.
There had also been details like structures being damaged, which means we might not be able to stay in the house.
Let's take it line by line.
Even under best-case scenarios, it's very likely that there would still be a two week delay on water, so putting in a two week water supply is smart. If you have your own well, that may seem like a non-issue, but study what issues would be likely to cause operation issues or contamination. A lot of our food storage will require water for cooking, so that is another factor to consider.
There will probably be a time period without heat. Do you have extra blankets. If you are having to sleep outside, do you have sleeping bags and tents that can endure lower temperatures. Personally, I worry more about losing air conditioning on warm days than heat on cold days, but both are possibilities.
There will likely be a time period without electricity. Do you have flashlights? Do you have replacement batteries for those flashlights? Do you know how much light they give, and whether it will work for necessary tasks? Do you have an alternative means of cooking, and know whether it is safe to use in the house (most are not)? If gas comes back before electricity, which is likely, will your gas appliances work without electricity available for the controls?
Also, and this is very important, if electrical power has been knocked out but you have gas where the lines have potentially been disrupted, so there could be a leak, do you have glow sticks so that you will not cause a spark by turning on a flashlight and possibly ignite the whole place? (There are sparkless flashlights available, but you would have to seek it out.)
With health care facilities, roads, and emergency services, there are a few different things to think of. Having a 4x4 can be nice, but that's a bigger investment than buying a Sterno stove or some lanterns. There will probably be some time cut off from resources.
Food storage is good. Food storage that contains variety, including some things that can be eaten without cooking, is even better. We are working on three months, but we would love to have a year. Having a garden where you grow some of your own is nice.
Knowing first aid, so you can be of assistance when you cannot get the professionals, is really good. Also, thinking about things like if you have some time where you can't get prescriptions filled, or if you have a household member who uses oxygen, or equipment that requires electricity, takes some thought.
It is great to get neighbors involved too, so that they know that they can come to you, and you know you can go to them. If we get a year's supply of food for the house, and none of the neighbors had food storage, we could help feed them and that would be great, but supplies would run out pretty fast. If everyone has a few months worth, that helps us get along better. It takes away a lot of the stress because we know we won't starve or fight each other over food.
I know that some people could see that there are seven months without the cops and decide the best response is to stock up on guns and ammo. People who encourage you to buy gold are also anticipating the total breakdown of society, but where they still believe that gold will be valuable for barter.
I still think I would rather have a supply of food than gold, because if there is no one to trade with, or they are trading more gold, or ammo, well, the food is going to be useful no matter what. More to the point, I think a great part of preparedness is to prepare to not have a total societal breakdown. There are a lot of people I care about out in society. There are people I don't know too, but I would probably like them if we met - I'm pretty good at liking people.
So when I am looking at what Metro is doing and wondering what OHSU's plans are, that's why. I'm not interested in being a survivalist if that means cutting myself off, and not caring about the people around me. That can't possibly be right.
So on October 1st I will be watching "Unprepared". I will be recording it. I will be listening for the part I can play. There are some good resources at the site already.
I will be thinking about me and my household, but I can look beyond that too. That's something we need to do together.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/unprepared/
Some of my thoughts come from a preview of an Oregon Field Guide that will be airing on Oregon Public Broadcasting on October 1st. That's not really that far away. Some conversations may be more productive afterward, though there is no reason not to talk about things now.
Even assuming the best case scenario, where communities up and down the coast prepare, with different levels of government cooperating with each other and with businesses and private citizens, it will not rule out the need for at least some level of personal preparedness.
I had noted a while ago that 72-hour kits seemed to have gone out of vogue, mainly because they were not going to last long enough. I am starting to hear a lot about kits again, but no longer with the 72 hours. They are less likely to give a time period.
The reality is, its hard to predict how long you might be roughing it, and the longer it seems like it might be the more discouraging it gets. It is nonetheless very empowering to prepare.
I think a good starting point is the results of the Aftershock tool, which were on the PBS site. For my address, these were the megaquake results:
Water will be available at distribution centers within about 2 weeks.
Natural gas will be back up within about 2 months.
Electricity will take closer to 3 or 4 months.
Police and fire response could take about 7 months to recover.
Water and sewer will take over a year to get operational again.
The restoration of top priority highways will take about a year and a half.
Getting health care facilities back to normal will take about three years.
There had also been details like structures being damaged, which means we might not be able to stay in the house.
Let's take it line by line.
Even under best-case scenarios, it's very likely that there would still be a two week delay on water, so putting in a two week water supply is smart. If you have your own well, that may seem like a non-issue, but study what issues would be likely to cause operation issues or contamination. A lot of our food storage will require water for cooking, so that is another factor to consider.
There will probably be a time period without heat. Do you have extra blankets. If you are having to sleep outside, do you have sleeping bags and tents that can endure lower temperatures. Personally, I worry more about losing air conditioning on warm days than heat on cold days, but both are possibilities.
There will likely be a time period without electricity. Do you have flashlights? Do you have replacement batteries for those flashlights? Do you know how much light they give, and whether it will work for necessary tasks? Do you have an alternative means of cooking, and know whether it is safe to use in the house (most are not)? If gas comes back before electricity, which is likely, will your gas appliances work without electricity available for the controls?
Also, and this is very important, if electrical power has been knocked out but you have gas where the lines have potentially been disrupted, so there could be a leak, do you have glow sticks so that you will not cause a spark by turning on a flashlight and possibly ignite the whole place? (There are sparkless flashlights available, but you would have to seek it out.)
With health care facilities, roads, and emergency services, there are a few different things to think of. Having a 4x4 can be nice, but that's a bigger investment than buying a Sterno stove or some lanterns. There will probably be some time cut off from resources.
Food storage is good. Food storage that contains variety, including some things that can be eaten without cooking, is even better. We are working on three months, but we would love to have a year. Having a garden where you grow some of your own is nice.
Knowing first aid, so you can be of assistance when you cannot get the professionals, is really good. Also, thinking about things like if you have some time where you can't get prescriptions filled, or if you have a household member who uses oxygen, or equipment that requires electricity, takes some thought.
It is great to get neighbors involved too, so that they know that they can come to you, and you know you can go to them. If we get a year's supply of food for the house, and none of the neighbors had food storage, we could help feed them and that would be great, but supplies would run out pretty fast. If everyone has a few months worth, that helps us get along better. It takes away a lot of the stress because we know we won't starve or fight each other over food.
I know that some people could see that there are seven months without the cops and decide the best response is to stock up on guns and ammo. People who encourage you to buy gold are also anticipating the total breakdown of society, but where they still believe that gold will be valuable for barter.
I still think I would rather have a supply of food than gold, because if there is no one to trade with, or they are trading more gold, or ammo, well, the food is going to be useful no matter what. More to the point, I think a great part of preparedness is to prepare to not have a total societal breakdown. There are a lot of people I care about out in society. There are people I don't know too, but I would probably like them if we met - I'm pretty good at liking people.
So when I am looking at what Metro is doing and wondering what OHSU's plans are, that's why. I'm not interested in being a survivalist if that means cutting myself off, and not caring about the people around me. That can't possibly be right.
So on October 1st I will be watching "Unprepared". I will be recording it. I will be listening for the part I can play. There are some good resources at the site already.
I will be thinking about me and my household, but I can look beyond that too. That's something we need to do together.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/unprepared/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)