Preface to Future Posts

My horizons have been expanding lately, and so I've started writing about things I've never really considered before. I'm sure that very few, if any, of my arguments are original... but they're new to me and clearly they haven't been said often enough, or to the right people, or something. Because if they had, I wouldn't have encountered the situations that made me think of them. If that makes any sense at all.

So if what I write in the next few posts seems old hat to you, please bear with me. A lot of this is new to me and I'm just figuring out what I think about it all. But you'll be seeing a lot of posts about things that need to change – because if you know me at all, you know I can't shut up when I think something is wrong.

Morals and Religiocentrism

My boyfriend Dylan is an atheist and a skeptic. Since those words define a big part of his life, when I try to describe him those are some of the first words I use. However, I've started to recognize a pattern in the responses of others when they hear those (to me) innocuous words; when I say “atheist”, they often hear “person without morals”. The first few times I heard a response indicating this concern (to one degree or another), I was pretty much just baffled and wanted to defend him... but after hearing it a few times I started to really think about it.

To me, it just seemed kind of jerky and religiocentric at first glance. But the implications are chilling. The fact that this association is so common says something – something bad – about our ability, as a culture, to take personal responsibility. Instead of being willing to make their own decisions, to really think through their actions and be ready to explain or defend them (or make amends) should the need arise, a great many people are content to simply do as they are told. Not only are they content to do so, but they consider it morally superior. While I can intellectually understand that this is based on the belief that God is morally superior to human beings, I think it is an incredibly slippery slope. If people are consciously seeking an outside source for moral correctness, one which they consider infallible (as God is supposed to be, by his very nature), then they are:

a) not practicing small decisions about morality – the results of which inform bigger, more important decisions, and

b) giving up all personal responsibility for their actions.

This means that those people are actively promoting a culture in which individuals are less able to make morally correct decisions, more able to place blame, and more willing to accept the dictates of an authority figure without first judging the merits of said dictates. A strong leader could very easily take that culture and bring ordinary people to do incredibly immoral things under the guise of being moral. They wouldn't know how to judge for themselves.

Is that not terrifying? Especially when you think of how that has played out historically.

I guess the best thing to hope for is that those people are only making logical errors instead of projecting their own flaws on others. If that is the case, then most of them should be able to think for themselves in any extraordinary event, and behave in a moral way... but history doesn't support that hope.

I suppose I have been guilty of believing that our society is more morally advanced than ever before, when the more likely explanation is that technological advances and a strong government have caused our moral decisions to be fewer and easier than they could be.

By the way, Dylan is also a blogger – one who actually writes regularly and takes his blogging responsibilities much more seriously than I do – and you can read his work at www.skeptimusprime.com. 

Birthday "Cake" Tutorial

Recently I was asked to bring a birthday craft to my babysitting job, so we could celebrate the twin boys turning 8 (They also have an older sister). I usually pick up crafting supplies for babysitting at the Dollar Tree, because if I spend a lot on materials I end up basically working for free – and while I love the kids, a girl's gotta make a living.

I've always loved the idea of using a candlestick as a pedestal for a plate or a bowl, and when I hit that section at the Dollar Tree my eyes always pull together all the candle and vase things to see what would look pretty together. This time it occurred to me that a small, flat, round candle holder on top of the pedestal would make a cute cake stand and it hit me – crafty birthday cakes!

Materials:

A candlestick ($1)

A small plate or flat candle holder ($1)

A set of 2 styrofoam circles ($1 – I found these with the floral supplies)

A few birthday candles ($1 or on hand)

Acrylic paint and paintbrushes (on hand)

Hot glue or E-6000 ($2 and up, or on hand. I used hot glue, but I think E-6000 is washable?)

Procedure:

Glue together the two styrofoam disks, and glue the top of the candlestick to the bottom of the plate. I just eyeballed it but you could measure and trace from the center if you want it to be perfect. I didn't take a picture of this part, but I think it's pretty self explanatory.

The styrofoam is already glued, and now we're adding our base coat of "frosting".

 Paint the cake however you like. I went with a base coat of blue paint and some simple pink dots, but the kids did swirly patterns, smiley faces, letters, even a monkey! If you want the “icing” to be 3-dimensional, you can hot glue the pattern and paint over it, or use puffy fabric paint. One of the boys added some sequins to his cake.

Painting the "cakes" and adding candles. Almost done!

 Decide where you want your candles and press them firmly into the styrofoam. We had no trouble, but if you used a lot of paint you might have to poke a hole first with something sharp to get the candles in, or poke them in while the paint is still wet.

The finished "cakes". They look good enough to eat!

Put the cakes on their stands and admire! Aren't they cute?

Easy vs. Right

“I don't understand why anyone wants 'the right' to bear arms.”

“You have to be mentally unstable to want that 'right' anyway, by definition.”

“Why does anyone even want to own a gun in the first place?”

These are all comments that I've seen regarding the right to bear arms. I've written about guns before, a little blurb in my last post, but I feel like I need to write more because it seems that there is a gradually prevailing opinion that gun owners are dangerous and unstable.

Let me start by saying that I completely understand how scary guns can be. As a child, if I was watching TV with my parents and a gun came on the screen, I would get up and leave the room. I did this well into my teenage years – I was terrified by them. I still do not own a gun, and I have never fired one or even held one. But I believe this is something I need to remedy.

See, historically, guns were a way to not only protect oneself, but also to provide food for one's family. Back in the days when people were predominantly self-sufficient, a gun and ammunition could make the difference between surviving the winter and starving – and not just for an individual, but for an entire family. Although this level of dependence on hunting for food has almost disappeared, it still exists for some families in rural areas. Are they “mentally unstable”? I don't think so. Honestly, I respect them for being able to provide for themselves without a grocery store. Not many of us can do that.

I've also read that the average city can only go a few days without the incoming transportation of food. In a situation like that, the size of one's community shrinks rapidly. People don't care about their neighbors anymore – they don't feel like they can afford to be generous, because if it's not freely available then it must be saved for their families. Or taken for their families. The balance of power without weapons is based almost entirely on physical size and strength, or some form of unarmed fighting technique, which most Americans do not have. But if a ninety-pound woman has a firearm, then a two-hundred-pound man can no longer take her food from her, unless she gives it freely. Of course, in order for it to act as an equalizer, she needs to know how to use it confidently. She must have practiced with it in times of peace, when others might consider her “mentally unstable”, so that it is available for her if/when she needs it.

Speaking historically again, we live in the safest time period ever recorded, which is why I don't really understand people who talk about how things are getting “so out of control”. Violent acts only make the news because they are so rare, in terms of percentage. Most people I know have never had a violent act committed against them, and even those that have experienced violence have lived in safety for the vast majority of their lives. Violent seem prevalent simply because there are so very many of us.

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that people don't seem to care about being self sufficient anymore. Their argument is based on fear, but this is contradictory to what they say they want. If we rely on others, i.e., the government, to meet our needs, then we are no longer able to meet our own needs. What would happen if we stepped outside the realm of government protection? What if the government collapsed, or we were invaded by another country and everything were thrown into chaos? What if the government continued to become more powerful and decided we didn't need the things it was supposed to provide? I grant that these scenarios are not likely, but they are possible. And the more we give away our rights, the more we give up our control to others, the more likely they become.

Our forefathers wanted us to be prepared to hold a revolution. They had personally experienced a government with too much control, and they wanted to prepare us to win our freedom again if need be. If they were to see us now, constantly dependent upon others to meet our most basic needs, I think they would be disgusted. They would be disgusted at not only the way we need to be taken care of, as adults, but also the way we are raising our children to do the same.

I believe that even if you choose not to own a gun, you should learn how to properly care for one. Know how to load and unload it, know how to clean it, and know how to fire it. Be able to ascertain that a gun is unloaded. And teach your children proper gun safety, too, even if you think they aren't in contact with guns, because you never know what they will discover at a friend's house. Knowing safe procedures cannot possibly cause worse damage than knowing nothing and doing it anyway.

Believe me, I get it. The guns of today are not the same as the firearms used when the second amendment was written. But when we're talking about using them as an equalizer, and being prepared to revolt if need be (however unlikely it seems right now), why would we want to place all the power in the hands of the very people we might need to defend ourselves against? The only reason I can think of is because we've chosen safety over freedom. That is not the choice I would make, for me or for my future children, and it is not the foundation on which this country was built.

Better to focus on helping people not want to hurt or kill others – because, I'll say it again, criminals don't follow the law. Antisocial behavior is the hallmark of someone who needs help, not a well-adjusted person. Therefore, rather than trying to limit the freedoms of honest, well-meaning citizens, we should be trying to help the mentally-unstable become stable. It's a lot more difficult than just taking away all the guns, but it will lead to a healthier society all the way around.

My experience with children has shown me that the easier way is rarely the right way. For example, spanking a kid might get them to comply with you in the short term, but it also leads to more violent behavior and lack of respect for authority (because fear is not the same as respect). Children who regularly experience corporal punishment tend to follow the rules only when an authority figure is present, or, in more extreme cases, when they are so cowed by fear that they are psychologically damaged. Punishment and reward systems, in general, consistently devalue the very behaviors we wish to encourage. And yet, these are the easier ways to parent (at least in the short term), and so they are commonly implemented. But these methods are only effective in the short term, and cause exactly the opposite of the desired effect, in the long term. Then people wonder why so many adults are in therapy; why people have violent and antisocial behaviors; why people hurt, and why they hurt each other.

And this is the model we are trying to implement with adults? Because it works so well with the children, right?

No. The easy thing is rarely the right thing, and gun control is no exception. In this matter we seem to be a nation of cowards – we need to man up and do it right. And the place to start is by helping people raise this generation of children to be mentally healthy. This happens in homes, yes, but it should be happening in schools, too. We need to provide resources for people who are at their wits' end raising children alone, or while struggling with their own issues. We would need to study “the system” extensively in order to develop such a plan, but I feel confident that it could be done – if we are willing to try. If we are brave enough to give the new system some time to work. If we are willing to take some control of, and some responsibility for, our own protection and defense.

I am, but I can't do it alone. If the majority of Americans would rather be safe than free, at some point our children, or their children, won't be either one.

Sympathy and Outrage Make People a Little Crazy...

I will not deny that the recent shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut was a terrible, terrible tragedy. All shootings are tragedies and doubly so when children are affected – whether it be violence against them, their friends, or those on whom they depend. Nevertheless, some of the things I've seen posted on Facebook, in shared sympathy, are kind of ridiculous.

One person suggested that companies should not launch any funny or lighthearted advertising campaigns this weekend, because “now is not the time”. I understand not wanting to diminish the pain of the people who are trying to deal with what happened, but there really isn't anything we can do to make it better. It's over and done with, and even though they'll be living with the results for a long time, there's nothing we can do to retrospectively prevent it. Taking away anything that could possibly cause laughter would only serve to bring the rest of us down, too. Besides, they'll be depending on the emotional support of people they know and love. The rest of us are strangers and I'm sure they could care less if we go on living our lives. I guarantee they aren't thinking about strangers right now.

And who knows? Maybe some of them will need a little break from all the heartache and a funny commercial could help them get through this horrible time. I believe that we, as strangers, have no right to impede on their personal tragedy. Who are we to say what would make their suffering better or worse?

The other thing I've seen is regarding gun control laws. No one has specified exactly what it is they would like to see changed or tightened, but I personally would ask for caution on this particular topic. The right to bear arms was built into our constitution so that honest citizens could protect themselves from criminals and from overbearing governments – it is the one freedom which guarantees all other freedoms – if we (meaning honest citizens) have the guts to use it when necessary.

This seems like common sense to me, but maybe people don't realize that criminals, by definition, break the law. Any gun control law - any law at all -  can only govern the way honest people act. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but no action is better than counterproductive action. Making it more difficult for “good” people to get guns will limit their ability to protect other innocents from “bad” people.

I think the best thing we can do to protect ourselves and our children is learn how to identify and neutralize a potential threat. That defense takes many forms. Early identification of mental health issues and providing parenting support to families are incredibly important. (Research showsthat for every tax dollar spent on early childhood education, up to thirteen dollars are saved later, because those children are far less likely to end up in the penal system, or to depend on government assistance.)

Of course, sometimes issues aren't due to a lack in the person's upbringing, but rather an imbalance of chemicals in the brain, or some trauma that caregivers were unable to prevent. It's probable that there are other reasons for mental instability leading to dangerous anti-social behavior.

That's where other forms of defense come into play. Knowledge of self defense techniques and a reasonable amount of vigilance can help us change the odds if a terrible situation comes up. Even if the techniques are never used, the confidence brought by knowing them can help keep people from panicking, and they might be able to make more effective choices. I don't assume that my ideas would prevent every single tragedy from occurring (in fact, I think some tragedies will occur no matter how well we protect ourselves), but I think they would be far more productive than the other ideas that I've seen floating around.

Recommending Another Awesome Blog

One of my favorite blogs, Penniless Parenting, is doing a giveaway and I want to win! I also want other people to know how awesome the blog is. This post is a way to do both - by sharing info about Penniless Parenting's giveaway I get entered to win, and I get to tell my readers to check it out, too. But don't win, okay? That's supposed to be me :D
Now, this feels kind of like cheating because no one actually reads my blog yet, but I will try to make it better by posting this to my Facebook page, too. That is all!

Thoughts on the Sacred and the Erotic

I just read a blog post from PhD in Parenting, which addressed the meaning of "discreet" in terms of dress whilst breastfeeding. One of the comments brought up the dichotomy between the sacred/holy and the erotic/sexy. I don't believe it was intended for that to be the focus of the comment, more that it was an offhand explanation of his personal preferences/opinion.
But it made me think.

 Why do we have that dichotomy? Why is that a part of our culture? A part, it seems, of many human cultures - though I'm not traveled enough to speak from experience.

For me, the erotic without the sacred (at least in company) is pretty much blasphemy. I mean, if you need to take care of things yourself, by all means do so. Biology has to have a say, too. But the act of lovemaking is, to me, the giving of oneself fully, and the accepting of another. Fully.

It is a closeness, a bonding, a love and a joy so deep that another human being can be created out of it.

That's really not something to be taken lightly, or diminished. In fact, there is no closer experience that two adult human beings can share, and it is, therefore, one of the most sacred things that human beings can experience. At least, to me it is. The only thing I can think of that could possibly rival it is the carrying and birthing of a child - but that's another discussion altogether.

That's why I can't understand people who say, "it's just sex." Is it? Do you really believe that? If you do, then I truly hope you have some other means of experiencing the depth which lovemaking creates within those of us who feel otherwise. Those of us who consider it sacred.

I suppose one could argue that I'm just parroting back what mothers have been telling their daughters for years - the standard party line they give in school sex ed classes. I remember the silly paper hearts they made us tear up and try to tape back together.

But somehow, it seems like those lectures missed the point. Maybe it's because they focused on trying to avoid the sacred along with the blasphemous. Maybe it's because sacred is defined differently by every human being. Or, maybe, it's because they try to emphasize the value of "saving it" without really acknowledging the value of "giving it". Because, really, what they're thinking about is teen pregnancies and STDs. While those are important topics and also not to be taken lightly, they overlook the depth and meaning that sex should always include.

As I said once before, biology has to have its place. But, because we're human, the psyche does, too. When we separate what was meant to work together, and stripping away the most valuable part, that is when the beautiful and sacred becomes dirty. Why would we do that to ourselves?

Why can't the erotic also be the sacred? And if it hasn't been in the past, why not give ourselves back that power? No one can take it from us. We can only deny ourselves, and that strikes me as a particularly foolish thing to do.

I don't know exactly how I will talk about this with my daughters, when I have them. But I do know that there won't be any paper hearts, and I'm pretty sure that we'll talk about it before biology starts to get pushy.

Most importantly, I know that I will never devalue the act of lovemaking.

I'm not sure how this ended up being a post about sex education. All I really meant to say is that the erotic is the sacred. The only way to make it otherwise is to intentionally strip from it everything worth having.