The Stannard 5

[thestannard5blog]

My Review of 50 Shades of Grey in 5 Movements

I saw 50 Shades of Grey (FSOG) last night. My husband and I went to a new theater in our home town and saw it on an XD screen (think IMAX size). I've had several people ask me if I was going to see it and then ask for my review. So here goes.

First, you can't just say "I liked it" or "I hated it" and have it mean anything unless you know something about the person giving the review. For example, If I were reviewing District 9 it would be important to know that post-apocalyptic dystopian fiction is my favorite genre. I love the social commentary and philosophical treatise on the nature of humanity. Similarly, if I were to tell you I didn't like The Godfather movies it would be important to point out that I have generally disliked every "Mob" movie I've ever seen. Yes, The Departed. Hated it.

For me to review FSOG for you, you need to know that I'm a romance novel reader. When I was 14 I bought a brown paper bag of romance novels for $1 at a neighbor's yard sale. They were "bodice rippers" and all historical. The first I read was Silver Rose by Penelope Neri. 

Since then I've read somewhere around 5,000 romance novels. No joke. I read one or two a week for the last 25 years (don't worry I read other things to. Last year I read 205 books down from 2013 when I read 243). I've also been writing romance novels and erotica since I was 18. I have a shelf of books staring at me right now with titles like; Writing Hot Sex and The Love Plot: How to Plot Your Romance Novel in addition to the other titles I have on the craft of fiction writing. 

This is important because if you've never read a romance novel or did and didn't like it then there are some things you need to know. Remember those annoying analogy questions on the GRE? Like Aviary is to Birds as ___ is to Chickens? (Coop, it's coop.) Well, Romance Novels are to Novels as Soap Operas are to Film and TV. Know what I mean? Have you ever seen the story lines and dialog in a soap opera then you know they seem grossly exaggerated compared to the realism and subtlety we are used to in acting.

Romance novels follow a formula. One, they always, and I mean always, have a happy ending. This is actually the distinction between erotica (titillating books featuring sex) and romance (titillating books featuring sex and love). When I write erotica, two (or three!) people hook up, fuck like bunnies, and go about their business. Hot sex. That's the point. When I write romance (or erotic romance which tends to have more frequent and more detailed sex), two people may hook up, fuck like bunnies, but somewhere along the way realize they can't live without the other. That's what makes it romance.

Another rule, romance novels have one purpose: to evoke a specific set of emotions in the reader - you can call it butterflies in the stomach (romantic) or straight up arousal (erotica). When I write a romance novel I have no delusions that I'm writing the next great literary novel. I'm writing a variation on a tried and true and much loved story archetype.

And I do mean much loved. The romance genre does 1.8 billion (that's a "B") dollars a year and has devoted followers like me. So, readers are very savvy about the "rules" of romance and expect a novel to meet their base expectations in nearly every instance.

The most important rule, as a writer, is that a romance novel is about a once-in-a-lifetime love. Anything else in the book is a secondary (or precipitating) event to the story of this fairy-tale-style love. Why? Because, I'll reiterate, romance novels have one purpose: to evoke a specific set of emotions in the reader. That emotion is first love and, if you've ever been trapped in the throes of infatuation that typifies first love, tends to feel like no one in the history of earth has ever felt a love like this love, right here. 

To say it another way, a romance novel, unlike a non-romance novel that may serve the purpose of depicting a real-life relationship, is depicting the wild emotions of infatuation in new love. This is its purpose. 

When you know that the aims of the book are different you can begin to understand if a romance novel is a "good" one or not. This is why so many romance novel readers, like me, can ignore shitty dialog or stilted writing (which is an earned complaint about the FSOG books), because a book can have all those things and still evoke the emotion of young love. 

This is the problem with everyone's opinions on FSOG. Long before the movie I heard people complaining about the book. The hero was controlling and confusing, the heroine made bad decisions, the sex was unrealistically perfect. Well DUH! Is all I could think. It is a romance novel! Alpha male that needs knocked down a notch? Check. Vague heroine (so I can slip my own psyche into her role easily and thereby experience the emotions) whose brain stops functioning when said alpha male touches her? Check. Toe-curling, kegel muscle clenching, clitoris tingling sex? Check. Sounds good to me, where do I get a copy?

So my review depends on you. Pick the category that fits you to proceed.

1. You are a romance novel reader and you read FSOG and like it.

Girl, you will love this movie. We so infrequently get to see our favorite books on the screen (and let me just say RIP Zalman King). This certainly isn't your favorite book since you know romance novels but the movie takes away a lot of the horrible decisions EL James made. For example, the movie doesn't expect us to believe that a 22 year old exists in North America that hasn't even sent an email. 

Jamie Dornan, playing Christian Grey, is gorgeous. He has this little smirk of a smile which completely encapsulated the "I have a naughty secret" vibe of Christian. Dakota Johnson, playing Anastasia Steele, is beautiful and down to earth. The sex is the best thing on the big screen since 9 1/2 Weeks. They actually showed nudity not shadows and nipple-profiles. 

2. You are a romance novel reader and you read FSOG and didn't like it.

Girl, go see this movie. Unless your complaint about the book was the BDSM (what? you don't know what you are missing, msg me and I'll send you a list of great BDSM novels) then you'll hate it. If your complaint was the shitty writing then I think you'll like it. This is the closest thing to a romance novel movie we've ever had the chance to see. 

3. You are a romance novel reader or possibly a romance/erotica writer and you didn't read FSOG because that type of shitty, mainstream, vanilla excuse for erotic writing is an offense to your quality sensibilities.

I have no idea why EL James' book made millions while so many other, superbly written, romance novelists can't even feed their families. The publishing industry sucks. I don't get it either. There is literally nothing special about these books. They are meh. 

However, if you can admit that you are just jealous, even if rightfully so, and move past it then, like I said above, this is the closest you'll get to a romance novel movie.

4. You are living the BDSM lifestyle and object to the rules that are broken or the portrayal of BDSM as only resulting from childhood abuse.

I hear you. FSOG is not about a BDSM relationship. It is about a man who endured horrific child abuse in his early years and, when adopted by an affluent family, had learned by age 6 to find solace in hard work and perfection. But it gets worse. At 15 he is sexually abused by a friend of the family (an all too common truth). This child predator forces this boy to be her submissive for six years. Yes, six years. His whole, important, formative teen years are spent being groomed by a sex predator who happened to be a dominate. 

This is offensive to anyone who has a natural, healthy proclivity for domination or submission. Neither are pathologies. They aren't the result of some trauma or abuse. But, they can be. Especially if it is trained into a young and impressionable mind by a predator.

I'm sorry the popularity of this book has made your life even more difficult to explain to close minded people. I just challenge you to remember this is THREE movies not one. The second and third book are about healing this little boy. The man ends up not being a true dominate or sadist but a guy who survived hell and found control to be his coping mechanism. In the end they find a comfortable existence with domination and sadism playing a small role. This is why I think the books were so popular. Most American's aren't living BDSM but many might play with tying up or spanking and thus the book's "BDSM-lite" allure.

You probably won't find the movie titillating. And, since that's the point, I don't think you'd like it.

5. You are a domestic violence worker/domestic violence survivor and you worry about the effect this movie will have on our culture of violence towards women or on young impressionable minds.

I have the same worry. Our culture steeps young girls in myths about love and relationships. Romance novels can contribute to that if they exist in a vacuum. I would have been damaged by the "perfection" of romance novels if I didn't have parents who helped me see how real relationships work. We see violence against women so ubiquitously that it becomes blase to us. This is a huge problem.

Banning this movie will work about as good as banning art ever does. That is to say, not at all. This movie is not the cause of the problem and eradicating it won't solve the problem. This problem is much deeper. Many of the things that terrify us for young people to see terrify us because we let these things be the only explanation they ever see. We are so uptight about sex and about talking with our kids about sex that we just don't. If you don't have a parent or loving adult at home telling you that sex is fun and exciting but also not the end-all-be-all of romantic relationships then you will have a skewed view of romance. This is why I advocate being very open and proactive in discussing sex and romance with your kids.

As far as the movie goes, seeing the movie in 3rd person (instead of the written first) makes Ana seem stronger. Never in the movie do you get the feeling she is being coerced or manipulated or that she feels fear of Christian. You can clearly see a man trying to control her and you can equally as clear seeing her refuse to take his shit. Notice she never signs the contract. She doesn't want to have a contractual relationship with Christian and so she doesn't. She absolutely refuses to do this on his terms. I think it is a great example of a strong woman.

Once again, the point of this movie is titillation. If you aren't into that then don't see it. If the situations in the movie - particularly hearing about the abuse of a child at the hands of an adult - then don't watch the movie. Contrary to the current hubbub you are not required to view this film. If you don't like romance why would you watch a romantic movie? I don't like Spongebob so, guess what? I'm not going to see the movie. Simple.

SPOILER ALERT! At the theater when the movie ended everyone was pissed. So here goes: Ana is fed up with having a boyfriend she can't touch (Christian has burn marks on his chest that he gained in his earliest years and an extreme aversion to being touched that is made clear in the movie) and demands he show her the full extent of the pain he wants to inflict on her.

He does in a dramatic scene (which is fully consenting and she never uses either of her safe words) where she realizes that she won't be a part of such a broken relationship. He attempts to stop her from leaving, and an implication that he'd use seduction to stop her is there, and she says, "NO!" And she means it. She leaves him and the credits roll.

But, guess what? There are two more movies! What will seeing the effect of his abusive and controlling ways have on Christian? Will Ana demand not to be controlled? Will Christian's past catch up with him? Will Christian heal and be able to love Ana?

I can't wait to see.

[nappy-headed-hoe]

Apparently I should keep my thoughts to myself when I see people being racist.

*Note: “you should be assessing your behaviour, your language, and mindset for signs of prejudice, discrimination, and sympathy/support for unfair and violent treatment towards racially persecuted people in your country”

- zanabism

[thestannard5blog]

A Lesson On Sex & Gender for People Over 40 (Like Me)

I recently answered some questions on the Gender Neutral Parenting Facebook page that were asking about non-binary genders. I found with this person's questions, like many others, I have to first correct misconceptions about sex and gender before we can even begin talking about the intricacies of gender.

If you find this stuff confusing don't feel bad! I was born in the seventies and went to school in the eighties. I can say for sure if you are my age or older (and many people younger) there is no conceivable reason you would understand sex and gender (unless you work in the fields of human sexuality). Why? We were taught it incorrectly!

People sometimes get so defensive in being corrected about these topics and it really isn't anything to be upset about and I'll tell you why.

You know how in 1975, when I was born, no one had a home computer? I think it was 1988 before we got a computer and I, being middle class, got it before lots of people. In school we played Oregon Trail on a DOS computer, right? My point is - look at us now! I'm writing this on my iPad as I lie in bed. This tiny device isn't hooked to anything. It is magically pulling information out of the air for me and holds more power than NASA used to put a man on the moon.

If computer technology went so far, so fast in the last forty years then why wouldn't the study of psychology? Child development? Sexuality?

Would you insist on using FORTRAN when you can use a newer (and less eye stabby) computer language? No way! Times have changed and you've happily left your middle school science class in the dust because YOU KNOW BETTER NOW.

For some reason we feel that psychology, the study of the human mind, was complete when Freud laid it down in 1885. What? The human mind is so much more complex than this ipad and yet we accept that what we learned in seventh grade must be true 25 years later?

It is just silly! So, let me give it to you straight: THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU ABOUT SEX AND GENDER. Please don't feel bad. Your seventh grade teacher told you what they knew to be true at the time. Times change and you've been busy living your life which probably didn't involve chromosomes or dipliod cells. It's ok not to know this stuff. 

For those of us of a certain age EVERYTHING we know about sex and gender is WRONG. Not your fault. Not an idictment of you as a person or meant to call you stupid. You aren't stupid and you aren't a bad person. You just haven't learned what we now know about sex and gender.

So, please, it is without any shame or judgement that I share this information with you. Because I didn't know it either and I'm glad someone told me.

Here is my answer to the person asking about gender but saying "male and female" because I think it will help lots of us!

First: male and female are names of SEXES not of genders. Sex is comprised of both chromosomal arrangement (called genotypic sex) and physical presentation (called phenotypic sex). Neither of these are binary. There are dozens of chromosomal arrangements in humans. For example xy, xx, xo, xxx, xxy, and so on. There are millions of arrangements of physical sex characteristics from one you'd never know about like an xy individual having androgen insensitivity and developing characteristically female body parts despite being genotypically male to a wide array of genital presentations that are neither male nor female. I imagine you aren't asking us about sex but about gender. Gender is a social construct. That means it isn't a concrete or scientifically observable phenomonon (unless you're an anthropologist!) it is merely an idea social groups of humans use to make sense of their world. Social constructs can be bad. E.g. Race. There is not a "biological" concept of race, rather it is something humans make up to divide us. Social constructs can be good. E.g north, east, south, and west. These things don't exist in any quantifiable way. They are simply ideas we've all collectively decided to use to help us navigate our space. Gender, as a social construct in most western countries has developed thus: we see (erroneously) two sexes and we are going to set rules for how each sex should behave and then call this gender. Because of this incorrect definition of gender we have the social concept of two genders: man and woman or boy and girl. In non-western cultures these man-made rules are completely different and many societies haven't incorrectly assumed that there are only two sexes and thus their idea of gender is also not binary. Simply because gender is a social construct doesn't make it any less real. Money is a social construct too and people kill and die for it all the time. Should I say "money doesn't exist" because it is a man-made idea? No. Same with gender. Gender may be man-made and culture-specific but within those cultures it is very important. Here's the good thing about social constructs though: than can change when we learn more. As a society we can no longer ignore the millions (yes, millions) of people born everyday that do not fit into the male/female sex binary nor that millions are born that do not fit into the man/woman gender binary. Our social concept needs to catch up with reality.

[thestannard5blog]

[thestannard5blog]

[thestannard5blog]

[thestannard5blog]

Whiteness, Cultural Appropriation, and Spiritual Power

Powerful point. Did you know Nelson Mandela has said he never felt powerlessness in all his years behind bars. Where is this deep rooted resilience and power? Why don't white people have it? (I think the rest of this requires you to know that race is a social construct and thus "white" isn't a thing. It is a lie we've been blanketed in.) I do think white people are drowning in meaninglessness which is the strongest definition of powerlessness. We all inherit a legacy of intense evil. Millennia of rape of the land, peoples, and personhood of millions. Then we are raised with the lie both that we are good for the world (manifest destiny) and that our social structures are good for all. The lie that our culture allows anyone to rise to the top, that we have a mobile culture where initiative and hard work are all it takes to rise up. It is cognitive dissonance from the moment we are born. We feel a phantom pain because these lies are impossible for a soul to pretend is true. So, in order to keep this social stricture in place we've also had our souls suppressed. We have an empty, third-person religion dominating us. A religious tradition (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic - basically this is a "feature" of monotheistic religions) that tells us we are sinners in need of a savior, that this world is just a test and thus not inherently important (manifest destiny again), and that "others" are our enemy. We are discouraged from knowing ourselves, our souls, we are punished for finding personal empowerment. I think every single white person in the US (perhaps all western cultures) knows a deep rooted but un identifiable malaise that comes from the disconnection we are forced to believe in order to maintain the status quo. We manifest this in mental illness, violence, and a cult of busy-ness that keeps us from hearing the truth that our souls are crying out to us to discover. That we are one with every other being on the planet and with the planet itself. To understand cultural appropriation we have to unveil the lies. To recognize that we are *continuing* to rape people's cultures (instead of the lie that these things happened "before") requires awareness that we are empty and powerless and disconnected. This is painful and many people can't tolerate the soul pain caused by seeing without blinders on what it means to be white. I encounter these white people in my work everyday. They can't even swallow the fact that they have privilege. It is too painful and they've been taught that self reflection or listening to the voices of their soul is a sin (religiously) or condemned (socially). They are powerless and trapped in their whiteness. Cut off from their own source of power. How could such a person understand cultural appropriation? They will always use the scripts of white culture they've been taught: we share culture, these people are better off with our culture because we bring them medicine and salvation. What we do is benevolent. They have to believe this or face the fact that they are part of a system of demonstrable evil. I think when white people are able to break through their conditioning - and it is a break: painful rending of our white facades to expose our souls who've been neglected and forgotten - they then feel lost. When everything you know and everything you've done and had done to you was damaging your soul and (since we are all one) every single other person and living thing on the planet it can be easier to hide. Get busy again so you don't have to think or feel. Some social justice minds call this the colonized mind. We (white people) colonize indigenous peoples taking their culture and language but we never take their souls because they know their power. They know they are one. But, in order to make us docile accomplices to white colonization we also had our minds colonized. We operate and are victims of racism too. Racism takes our power by disconnecting us from our souls. The spiritual traditions of indigenous people all have the same root. The way the "major" "religions" of the western world have the same base - literally the same "god" - indigenous belief systems, from Tibet to the Yucatan, share the common thread of flowing from personal power instead of personal submission. When we first hear a spiritual tradition that wakes up our dormant souls we don't know how to make it our own. How could we? We've been told to look outside ourselves for spirit since birth. So, we drape ourselves in the outward appearance of the tradition. We wear saris and bindis or start smudging everything with sage. Immunity saying those things are necessarily bad but they are the empty shell of the spiritual tradition and veer toward cultural appropriation. This is why social justice work is so important to spiritual development. They can't happen in a vacuum. Without understanding how to decolonize our minds we will continue to "adopt" native cultural traditions in a way that continues to demean and harm said culture. But, with the hard work of dismantling our colonized attitudes and beliefs we can reclaim our power. Our power that we are all one and that any harm to the least of us harms us all. This is the way we find our own spirituality. I don't think it can be done without the examples of native cultures. We need a lighthouse to help us navigate in the dark until we can shed the layers of lies that are "white culture", find our own power and then turn it back on the white culture that sought to harm us in the first place.

[thestannard5blog]

I Don't Want To Cure Autism

http://tomplastow.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/dear-autism-parents-we-dont-want-to-be-cured-2/ This isn't the first article I've read that calls out people (often parents) that want to "cure" autism. Bigotry has a long history of being couched in medical-speak. Like drapetomania for example (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#United_States:_slavery_justified). I'm a nonvaxer and I believe vaccines sometimes cause "autism" (don't worry I'm going to explain why I put that in quotes). The parents this article is talking about are parents like me so I took this very seriously the first time I heard the accusation. Being socially just and non ableist is important to me. First off, Autism Speaks isn't an organization I'd support. It is wrong that no one on their board is on the spectrum. Any other social activist organization that didn't have inclusive representation would be bad in my book too (imagine a Latina feminist organization with all white men on the board? Um, no thanks). However, I do believe in the cause Autism Speaks fights for but that cause is NOT autism. Autistic people do not need to be cured. They are unique and valuable just the way they are. Full stop. However, there is currently this group of people being called "autistic" incorrectly and this is who I want a cure for. If a child is born and exhibits autistic behaviors then they are perfect the way they are and need only coping skills if anything. If a neuro typical child has a traumatic brain injury like those caused by a vaccine reaction that causes severe brain swelling allopathic doctors incorrectly label this as "autism". Partly this is simply because autism isn't diagnosable through a blood test. It is a cluster (or spectrum) of behaviors grouped under the heading "Autism". But another part is pure collusion. There is a vested monetary interest in pretending that vaccines don't cause traumatic brain injuries. By labeling it autism they can then point to autism demographic studies and say vaccines don't cause autism while ignoring the fact that vaccines do cause behaviors that doctors choose to call autism. An autistic child doesn't need a cure anymore than a downs child does. A child, however, like my friend's, who got a vaccine on Friday and by Sunday had pulled out every hair on her head, no longer used speech, stopped making eye contact, and spent hours rocking back and forth DOES NOT HAVE AUTISM although that's what doctors will (and did) label it as. They have a brain trauma cause by encephalitis caused by a chemical and metal attack on the central nervous system. They NEED A CURE. So, the problem here is the ignorant insistence the medical establishment has in calling these two completely separate things with some shared behaviors "autism". It is an insult to real autistics and to the children who have been the victims of vaccine injury. Autism Speaks raises money to cure these children who are in desperate need of a cure. Unfortunately, that can cause parents with truly, naturally, wonderfully autistic children to try to "cure" their children's beautiful uniqueness. But should AS change their name? Or should the medical establishment get their heads out of their asses and practice the Hippocratic oath and acknowledge these kids who have been injured by one-size-fits-all approach to prophylactic medicine?

[the-glitter-clit]

[ll3erry]

Saw this hanging on my teacher’s desk and read it. Yesss

[thestannard5blog]

Surviving and Ending the Abuse Cycle

I come from an abusive family.

I could couch that in prettier language like "dysfunctional" family or state that the primary problem is substance abuse which *results* in abuse. I can also admit that none of us experienced Flowers In the Attic- style abuse.

But all those are subtle ways we create an abuse culture. So I won't do it. It is disrespectful to all the women before me who survived abusive behavior at the hands of their husbands and all the kids who walked on egg shells to avoid getting hit. And you shouldn't have to live in an attic while your own mother slips you arsenic to say you were abused. 

I'm unbelievably lucky. My dad made a decision at some point before having me to stop the cycle.  He decided he'd seen what alcohol brought to his family through his own father, uncles, brothers and sisters. And he decided to abstain.

Do you know how that feels? I am literally a tiny filament of a decision from having a much different upbringing. If my dad had followed his family's footsteps and became an alcoholic I probably would have grown up with a great deal of physical violence. 

I saw it first hand in my best friend Chris who endured physical abuse at the hands of her otherwise loving but drug addicted father. I witnessed it happen to me when my Aunt got drunk one night and turned her wrath on my 14 year old self.

This is why it struck me as odd when I casually mentioned the abusive legacy of our family to my cousins. I didn't think I was doing anything but calling the kettle black.  A kettle we all knew through lived experience was fucking black.

I was wrong.

One thing that abusive families do well is keep secrets. Keeping the abuse a secret and hiding behind a  "happy family" veneer. 

Two of my cousins recently had quite a laugh about a halloween costume depicting a grown man (I've seen a child version and *shiver* a black-face version) dressed in a Ray Rice uniform and dragging (yes, dragging) a black doll by the hair.  It was clearly depicting and "laughing" at the fact that a huge football player knocked a woman unconscious.

Let me not mince words. This image and the whole story about Janae Rice's abuse is very triggering to me. I was in an abusive marriage and hearing people blame the victim for the abusers punch is nauseating. To see people don the costume of an abused woman and her abuser is disturbing to the extreme.

Let me be perfectly clear here: I am NEVER going to scroll past this kind of hate. My children live in this world and I'm not going to be silent. Every. Time. I see violence against women and children I'm going to be vocal and defend it. 

Every. Time.

Why? Because no woman should have to live her life with her drunk husband at the bar while she raises his kids. No woman should ever be hit for any reason. Ever. And until that concept is so deeply entrenched that no one would dare laugh at a joke involving domestic violence I will keep calling it out.

So, to my cousins and everyone else who thought "domestic abuse" was a humorous way to celebrate a children's holiday; PLEASE STOP. It wasn't funny when your parents drank too much and hit you. It wasn't funny when our grandpa hit our grandma. It wasn't funny when Grandpa's parents hit him. I just isn't ever funny. PLEASE STOP.

I'm so sorry you were abused. I'm even more sorry that our society tells you to "focus on the positive" or "they did the best they could" or "keep it secret" and "don't air family business." These are all ways that abuse victims are revictimized by their abusers. Then victims internalize these messages and become players in their own victimization.

That isn't an accident. If you become implicit in your own abuse then you feel shame which makes you even more likely to keep the secret and perpetuate the cycle.

See, that's why it wasn't enough that my dad decided not to drink and not be violent. He also talked to us about it. He told us how "discipline" was sometimes handled in his family so we would know the difference. 

Breaking the cycle of violence REQUIRES that we break the cycle of silence first.

When my whole family (aunts, uncles, distant great aunts and uncles, cousins and in-laws) imploded on facebook defending my grandpa it was painful to watch. The pattern of abusive family secret keeping was so glaring that they could teach it in a psychology of abuse graduate level class.

So, let's clear up some misconceptions;

1. I SAID: "our family history of generational violence and abuse". How did every single family member take that? I was calling grandpa an abuser.

How ironic that no one asked if I was talking about my dad hitting me or some other of our many alocoholic family members. You all knew exactly where my statement cast shadow.

Grandpa was an abuser. He drank too much. He came home and he hit. I know he hit grandma and my dad because my dad told me so. I don't care if he was drunk. I don't care if his abuse was open fisted or closed fisted (it was closed at least a few times). I'm not splitting hairs on if you have to leave marks to be "abusive". 

For my grandma and my dad and my kids I'll say that abuse is abuse. No sugar coating allowed.

Does this mean I don't love my grandpa (RIP)? Hardly. All the good things about my dad? He got those from his parents too. He is kind to animals. He is smart as hell. He made a HUGE decision to stop the cycle of violence. My grandma and grandpa get credit for that.

I don't honor my grandparents by pretending their lives were idyllic. My dad had a conversation with his dad before he died about why he hit him. What great closure that was for them both. Grandpa told my dad that he was never shown love growing up. He wanted dad to be tough so he was hard on him. I love that my grandpa gave my dad that gift of acceptance and (half-assed I guess) apology. Thank you grandpa.

Our family didn't have this one aberration of abuse. Grandpa experienced it. His parents probably experienced it. His brothers and sisters experienced it. It is multigenerational patterns of abuse. And it is insidious because we believe that to love our forefathers we have to pretend they did the best they could.

I mean, maybe they did do the best they could. Given their situation and addiction to alcohol, I think they did they best they could. How do you parent five kids if you were never shown love? 

2. I drug my grandmother's name through the mud.

I said what I did *for* my grandma. And Janae Rice. And all other women who've been hit by the person that is supposed to love them. I don't know my grandmother much. She was never very grandmotherly toward my sister and I. That's ok, she had a hard life. 

I speak out because no woman should have to live her life wondering if her husband will come home (from a bar) and start a fight. People should be screaming from the mountains that we see a football player knock a woman unconscious and our first thoughts go toward how it was her fault and what a good football player he is. 

This is the same fertile ground that created the Stubenville scandal. Trust me Stubenville is good at hiding their dysfunction. My family lived there. It isn't an unrelated example. The pathos of "sweep it under the rug" and "smile pretty and ask for seconds" is what allows men to beat their wives, parents to beat their kids, and teenagers from being gang raped by football players. 

Grandma, I know you probably won't read this and probably still think I'm wrong that I told the truth. I'm sorry I hurt you. If I had one inkling of the explosion that would happen from me simply pointing out the alcoholism and abuse in our family I might not have said anything. But, I'm still glad I did. I don't want your life for my daughter. I didn't want it for you. But look what you did? In spite of your hardships you raised a boy that decided to be a different kind of man. That is amazing. Thank you so much.

3. I'm a bully.

This is almost as upsetting as the denial of abuse was in the first place. My cousins both called my "calling out" grandpa (which I didn't do) "using" my family for my social justice work. Ok, true. I do use my life to fight for justice for the oppressed. That isn't accidental or something I'm going to stop while there is breath in my lungs.

If you can't handle the truth I tell then it is best you stay away from me. I won't condone violence to placate your feelings. I fight for the grandmas, Janae's, and other victims. And I do a damn good job of it.

But, let's get something straight: standing up for victims and telling the victimizers they are wrong is NOT BULLYING. 

Bullying is:

unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose ( http://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/ ).

Bullying, like racism, requires a power differential. When I defend the oppressed that is the opposite of bullying. It isn't bullying to tell you that you are wrong. What YOU are doing is called bullying. You are taking a woman while she is down (literally in Janae Rice's case) and repeating the violence by making it a joke.

I won't be a bystander to your verbal violence. You have a right to say something ignorant (like domestic violence is a funny costume). I have a right, and a duty, to call you out on your shitty attitudes. Because we can't leave all the calling out to the Janae Rices of the world. I speak for those without a voice.

Like my dad. He was just a boy. He didn't deserve to have the moral failing of his parents and his parents' parents fall on his boyhood shoulders. That isn't funny. And I'm not gonna just "scroll" and move on. As if FB doesn't become the electronic cloud in which public opinion forms. 

You go ahead and post pics of cute kittens (I will too!). I'm going to make the world a better place and I'm going to continue to use FB to do so. You calling me a bully for doing this insults true bully victims and, again, further victimizes people like grandma, my dad, YOU, and all other victims.

4. It wasn't my business

The other accusation I got was that I was talking about something that doesn't concern me. I was never abused by grandpa. He was quite mellow by the time I came around.

This is another reason I had to speak out. Multigenerational abuse is dangerous because the roots run so deep. Think about it. In a four person family domestic violence only requires the smiles and silence of four people. People who are currently being victimized and live in fear and shame. It is both easy to keep the secret and then, thankfully, easier to grow up and get away.

When the abuse has been happening for several generations and across the family tree horizontally there are so many people involved in keeping the silence. The roots intertwine and bury themselves deep thus perpetuating the cycle.

Do you think I grew up neutral to the abuse my dad experienced? He didn't have to tell me specific instances of what happened (although I'm glad he did). He is an emotionally scarred person because of his upbringing. Don't you think he hurt his kids in some ways? That's how emotional trauma happens. It hurts and it  can't stay inside so we force it on to others just to be able to cope.

That doesn't mean my dad was  horrible. I love my dad more than almost anyone on the planet. Some of my favorite things about myself come from my dad (and mom). He played games with us, always told us he loved us, and we were always well cared for and never, ever punched.

But, I don't honor his step out of the cycle if I try to pretend their weren't wounds I was given by him. Wounds that were laid because they were laid on him, and on him because they were laid on his dad. Hence: cycle.

The fact is that my great grandparents' (whom I never met) inability to nurture their child (my grandpa) had profound effects on my dad which had profound effect on me. And I see these profound effects on my own parenting.

What my grandma lived through effects me. It effects my kids. It effects my cousins and their kids whether they want to believe it or not. It will effect our kids' kids. 

It is our job to HALT THE CYCLE as much as possible so the next generation has less healing time. Less healing time means less trauma passed on. This is how we root out the abuse culture in our families.

Dad, thank you for stopping the cycle and giving my sister and I the best upbringing you could. I promise to improve on what you gave me and pass love on to my kids. I'm so sorry people want to tell you that your abuse was imagined. Don't you dare believe them. You are brave for telling the truth. The generations that succeed you will know that you pulled the plug on the secret and stepped out of the closet into the Sun. I love you.

If you or someone you love is experiencing domestic violence please call the free and confidential domestic violence hotline.

[thestannard5blog]

Lena Dunham's Sexual Abuse Bombshell and What Parents Can Learn From It

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/lena-dunham-describes-sexually-abusing-her-toddler-sister

This website is hardly a good source but the quotes are verified. In Lena’s new book she describes an instance when she was seven of sexual abuse of her one year old sister. Some will argue at my use of the term “sexual abuse” but when one person can not consent to an older person then I stand by the term.

Lots of people are arguing over whether this means Lena should be prosecuted or shunned for her nonchalant recounting of a horrific act. I’d like to focus instead on what this can teach those of us currently parenting young children.

What would you do if you found your children in genital play?

It is completely normal for children to be curious about their bodies and the bodies of others. When I was seven and in the second grade a boy told me he’d “show me his if I showed him mine”. I knew from my parents that no one gets to see or touch my body without my permission. So I said no.

This is why it is so important to talk about consent and bodily autonomy FROM BIRTH. Tell them their body belongs to them and that they can control what is done to it. Read more about how to teach this from birth in my lets talk about sex series:

Let’s Talk About Sex Part I: Yes, It Starts at Birth http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/lets-talk-about-sex-part-1/ Let’s Talk About Sex Part II: Your Curious Toddler and Preschooler http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/lets-talk-about-sex-part-ii/

When my sons were born my two year old daughter asked to touch their penises when I was changing their diapers. I told her no because their bodies belonged to them and you needed permission to touch. Since babies can’t consent we only touch them to clean them and watch their non-verbal cues for dislike/discomfort. She has since changed their diapers but she still repeats “my body, I decide”.

If I find my daughter touching a younger sibling I don’t want to scream, “OMG WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? DONT TOUCH!” The message will be scary and shaming. It shuts down further discussion. Instead I’d be firm but gentle that we don’t touch other peoples genitals and little sister can’t consent.

Then I’d address the curiosity with subtle questions not grilling. Perhaps she’s found that genitals can be pleasurable and she needs to know that it is ok to explore her own genitals. I talk this month in Natural Mother Magazine about the normal practice of masturbation in children.

http://issuu.com/naturalmothermagazine/docs/nov_dec2014/c/slx070w

I’d also increase my level of supervision with both kids. If the baby is inserting things in her vagina (which is also common and not indicative of a problem per se but is dangerous from a health perspective) then she needs a closer eye. I’d also want my older child to know that if she suspects her baby sister has put something in her vagina she should notify mom or dad immediately.

The older girl might be curious about bodies and how they all look the same or different. I’d probably show her images and diagrams and help her learn what she needs. Like the Great Wall of Vaginas art exhibit http://www.greatwallofvagina.co.uk/images

Most kids will be ok with the rules and happy that mom listened and didn’t lecture. If the behavior persists or comes with other red flags like those I mention in the masturbation article above then talking to a medical professional might be in order.

I don’t know why Lena’s mom handled it the way she did. I don’t know if Lena is a sexual predator or a woman whose childhood involved some non-consensual sexual situations. Is she a victim or a predator? I suspect a bit of both.

For us parents though, this is a reminder that how and when we talk about bodies, touch, and sex is vastly important.

How would you handle finding your kids touching each other’s genitals?

[thestannard5blog]

Vaccines and Feminism

I think the vaccine debate is often a hidden misogyny. Saying things like "2 seconds on Google" or calling those who don't vax "anti-vax truthers" implies that non-vaxers are stupid, alarmist, and selfish.

I love and respect science which I worked in for a decade. But, believing in science doesn't mean I have to ignore non-science. Science can't explain why acupuncture works but it does. Science says vitamin E doesn't reduce pre-menstural breast tenderness but I have 20 years of experience that says otherwise. That's fine. If the science isn't there then the medical profession should steer clear but we - individual people - don't have to steer clear. It is the same with vaccines.

Like the story of a mother whose daughter got a vaccine on Friday and by monday morning had pulled all of her hair out. She is a statistical anomaly and therefore her mother is just being hysterical. That's misogyny. We have no respect for motherhood, mothers, or the choices women make for their families.

While worrying about measles I think we should also worry about how we treat women and women's choices in the process.

I don't consider myself anit-vax. To be anti-vax would mean I want to end the practice of vaccination. I don't. The science is clear that vaccines produce the intended effect (reduction of childhood illness and loss of work productivity of parents due to illness) at an acceptable societal risk. If I were a government policy maker I would look at the science and recommend vaccination.

However, I would also respect a person's right to choose. I would never want to live in a country that mandated medication. Would you?

The fact is that Dr. Offit (an infamous pro-vaccine expert) and I agree on many things:

* vaccines produce antibodies

* vaccines reduce the occurrence of clinical illness

* vaccines reduce work absences

* vaccines are effective in the majority of those who take them

* vaccines don't work in 5-35% of people who take them - even after boosters.

* a small percentage of people will have a vaccine reaction that is moderate to severe.

A minute on the last one: Yes, vaccine proponents know and admit that sometimes vaccines harm - even kill. An infant that dies after the HepB vaccine because of a yeast allergy is an example of a person for whom a vaccine was NOT the best choice for health. No one disputes this.

And yet Mr. Offit and I disagree on a few points.

* the risk is negligible.

* the risk/benefit is not needed on a per-patient basis - a one-size-fits-all plan is sufficient

* the small number of adverse reactions is an acceptable risk for the wealth of good vaccines do.

I'm a conscientious parent. I don't do anything on a one-size-fits all plan for my three kids. I weigh the specific information about my child with the risk/benefit of a treatment. As with childbirth, education, nutrition, etc. I've done extensive research from good old medical journals and the CDC's own website. I never once consulted Jenny McCarthy (/eyeroll). My choice is that the benefits of vaccination did not outweigh the risk which was elevated in my case due to a family history of adverse vaccine reactions.

This is a right that should be respected. Respected because this is a free country where we can make our own decisions about our bodies. Respected because I should be respected as a woman and a mother as capable of making decisions for myself and my kids

Of course, some then say that I'm being "selfish" and putting others in harm's way. This is a difficult one because my obligation to society is very important to me. I would never take lightly the idea that my actions effect others. I don't "hide in the herd" and hope other people keep vaccinating.

The fact is I don't believe that non-vaccinated kids are anymore dangerous to can't-be-vaxed people than vaccinated children. There is plenty of science that agrees with me.

"Herd immunity" - a term stolen from natural disease vectors and used in vaccination despite no experimental verification of it working the same in induced immunity - is very debatable. But, let's say we believe whole-heartedly in herd immunity. There are still other ways in which vaccinated children also pose a threat to the non-vaccinated. For example, serotype replacement with HiB, carrier status with whooping cough, and vaccine shedding with live viruses like flumist and chicken pox.

These are agreed upon cases where a vaccine actually harms the herd. The decision that Dr. Offit makes is that this is an acceptable harm. That's fine. I don't make the same decision.

My children are a harm to an immunocompromised person when they are sick or carrying illness. I meet my obligation to the community by keeping my kids healthy and then keeping them home when they are ill. Vaccinated children are a harm to an immunocompromised person when they are sick or carrying illness. They are less likely to be sick (with vaccine available diseases) but just as likely to be carrying illness.

So here are some things that are terribly misogynystic to say to a mother (sarcasm in parenthesis):

* you just don't remember the death and destruction before vaccines (because, yes, I'm incapable of using history to make decisions and if I can't see it it doesn't exist)

* you don't understand the science (let's talk about the immune system and see who knows more)

* you just follow Jenny McCarthy (yes, I'm a vapid celebrity devotee because I'm a girl and girls are like, totally superficial)

* you are harming your children (OMG, this parenting thing is sooo hard! When will they feed themselves?)

* you are harming your community (whatever that's their problem I don't want a stinky chemical in my precious and pure children)

* you are just a conspiracy theorist or "truther" and thus anti-science (I'm a girl, math is so hard!)

I know an awful lot of non-vaxing moms and none of them are alarmist or uneducated on vaccines. None of them are shitty moms that don't care about their kids. They are smart, compassionate, wonderful mothers who have made a decision for their families that should be respected even if you disagree with it.

I'm all about common ground. I know that vaccines are a heated issue. I don't expect pro-vax people to completely understand my viewpoint. I do expect that we can both respect the humanity in each of us.

 Posted with Blogsy

[thestannard5blog]

IVF and Feminism

This is a working post. You might want to come back and read later! I'm new here and reading old threads so excuse the bump of something forgotten. This caught my notice because in addition to having three Ivf kids I've written for years about the politics of fertility. It is easy for me to jump on the bandwagon of defensiveness because my precious children are in the world due to Ivf. At the same time I wanted to examine the arguments critically. With that in mind I still have much more to read on the topic. Two things are standing out thus far: the critical analysis (I've been reading the Finn website linked) predicates on 1) Ivf success rates being abysmally low and 2) the safety or lack there of of positive psychological and physiological outcomes of Ivf. The first is an over generalization in my experience. Since Ivf treats a number of underlying medical conditions, the success rate varies greatly. I was given (and concurred based on my own research) a 60% success rate. This changes the dynamic of conversation in the second problem of psychological outcomes. If your success rate is 5% the risk of the drugs and the emotional trauma of Ivf are different than if the success rate is 50% and so on. On the second point I don't think the proper question is "is Ivf healthy mentally/physically for women?" But rather "how can we make Ivf (or art) safer for women". Right now much of the risk - high doses of hormone treatments, multiple embryo transfer (leading to multiples - I have twins), and the severe (severe!) psychological pain of infertiltiy - is inordinately unbalanced by the financial and political hardships associated with reproductive technology. Some examples: In the US Ivf is prohibitively expensive. I know women who sold their houses, cashed in their 401k and went into severe debt to attempt Ivf. Because the desire to have children is linked (by patriarchy) to how much misery you are willing to endure, women feel compelled to attempt near-financial suicide to achieve, or even say they tried their best to achieve, pregnancy. The problem here is partiarchy's shitty view of motherhood AND capitalists shitty view of the distribution of medical and technological bounties of the modern world. These issues are outside, IMO, the discussion of Ivf. We know that the primary risks to a woman's health in Ivf is due to ovarian overstimulation. But, why are women pushed to the limits of overstimulation? We can do Ivf completely free of the drugs or with a low dose protocol and yet we don't. Why? See financial problems above. We know that pregnancy is more successful during a frozen embryo transfer (FET, my twins are FET) than a fresh cycle because of the physiological stress of ovarian stimulation. Yet, some countries it is literally illegal to freeze and embryo (Italy is an example) and here in the US the "pro-life" argument is always in an uproar about frozen babies. I'm rambling but I think the critical analysis should be around the political and economic problems inherent with ART and THEN focus on the partiarchy's role in the martyrdom of motherhood and ONLY THEN be critical of the procedure of I've itself. Then we can make reproductive choice a true choice and not a rock and a hard place. Lastly, I did ICSI. This isn't because my partner wanted biological children at the expense of my body. He was fine with adoption or donor sperm two full years before I was ready to accept it. I did ICSI because, once funded, it was cheaper than donor sperm. The insurance "industry" makes a bunch of decisions about reproduction that precludes a "best option" choice through social policing of women's choices. The Catholic Church for example, considers donor reproduction of any kind to be an "abomination" and this the illusion of choice is removed for many women.

[thestannard5blog]

I Do Not Pledge Allegiance

I don’t believe in saying the pledge of allegiance. Funny, since I was the person to read it aloud every morning of my junior and senior year.

People react strongly when I say this. How dare I not love my country!

It would be easy for me to use the excuse of the “under god” line which was added in 1954 as my reason for not reciting this oath. And that is one reason. I don’t believe in the tyranny of a state mandated religion. One persons “god” shouldn’t be anywhere on our money, court rooms, or schools.

But that is only one tiny reason. There are several others I’d like to share:

1. Taking a pledge.

Have you ever reflected on what it means to pledge something?

Pledge means a solemn promise or undertaking. synonyms: promise, undertaking, vow, word, word of honor, commitment, assurance, oath, guarantee

First, should five year olds, who can’t legally make decisions or enter into contracts, be pledging to anything?

Second, to say this pledge I have to solemnly (seriously and earnestly) take a vow or oath. This shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. I can only evaluate if I can take such a serious oath based on careful review of what I’m pledging to.

2. Allegiance and Patriotism

Allegiance is to give loyalty and devotion to a thing. It was historically used by subjects to swear fealty to a monarch. In this case we are swearing allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Giving allegiance to a flag is just stupid but the implication is that you are giving you allegiance to is The United States of America so I’ll focus on that.

So, let’s talk about loyalty. Loyalty is about being reliably faithful to a person or thing. This is easy to see in interpersonal allegiance. I have an allegiance to my husband as I’ve agreed (taken an oath even) to be loyal to him.

My loyalty has limits imposed by my own morality. If my husband murdered someone I would not help him hide the body (sorry babe) because murder is immoral. This is what makes it different than fealty which doesn’t really care about your morality which is completely subsumed to the sovereign you are giving your fealty to.

Loyalty to an impersonal thing like a government should also have caveats for morality. This is why we expect soldiers to disobey orders when they are morally wrong as in the My Lai Massacre or the Abu Garaib torture. Loyalty in this instance means follow orders but not at the expense of morality.

Patriotism is defined as love of country and of our compatriots (fellow countrymen). I’ll talk about love of country in a moment but love of compatriots seems a simple thing. Of course I love my fellow Americans. Especially when we prove how loving and powerful we are as when we came together after 911. It warms my heart. I want all my compatriots to be happy and fulfilled.

Here’s the problem with love of compatriots. Compatriots are, by definition, those you have a common country with. Whether that is land, government, language, or ethnicity, the whole concept is based on Us and Them. Saying I’m “patriotic” implies I have love for other Americans instead of (at worst) or at least more than (at best) non-Americans.

This is where we get the idea that loving our country also means “there is no country I’d rather live in” which quickly slides in to: my country is the best. Better than yours. My compatriots matter more than you “others”.

I don’t think this is ever a positive view to hold but even if it were you better be sure your country deserves such devotion which I’ll talk about in a moment.

So patriotism and allegiance. Do they go hand in hand? Patriots are usually very allegiant but those with allegiance aren’t necessarily patriots.

For example, a mercenary has allegiance to his employer but isn’t necessarily a patriot. Their allegiance comes from a choice to act on behalf of a country/government not out of love of said country. Someone who is allegiant but not a patriot can not always be counted on to give “blind” allegiance.

A patriot, on the other hand, holds allegiance so strong that they will forgo their own sense of morality in order to show undying love for country/government.

For example,

"Stephen Nathanson contends that patriotic loyalty is not always a virtue. A loyal person can, in general be relied upon, and hence people view loyalty as virtuous. Nathanson argues that loyalty can, however, be given to persons or causes that are unworthy. Moreover, loyalty can lead patriots to support policies that are immoral and inhumane. Thus, Nathanson argues, patriotic loyalty can sometimes rather be a vice than a virtue, when its consequences exceed the boundaries of what is otherwise morally desirable. Such loyalties, in Nathanson’s view, are erroneously unlimited in their scopes, and fail to acknowledge boundaries of morality.[17]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty

In other words, loyalty driven by patriotism and nothing else is a vice not a virtue. For your loyalty to be virtuous it must have an accompanying morality that isn’t dictated by the object of the loyalty. It is the ultimate check and balance.

Allegiance can’t be given lightly. You have to think about the actions of the object of your loyalty. How likely are you to have moral conflicts with the object of your loyalty? Is an act of morality that might not be loyal seen as “unpatriotic”? Is loyalty valued over morality?

If any of these are true the object in question might not be worthy of my loyalty.

3. The Republic

The pledge’s next line is about our allegiance to “the republic” represented by said flag. A republic is a form of government where the people rule through direct democracy or through elected representatives.

American republicanism is a bit different from other concepts of a republic in the classical world.

"Republicanism is the guiding political philosophy of the United States. It has been a major part of American civic thought since its founding.[1] It stresses liberty and "unalienable" rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.[2]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States

This sounds like something I would be willing to pledge allegiance to. But, only if the current state of our country was represented by this definition.

Is the CURRENT republic worthy of allegiance? Are liberty and unalienable rights central values in America today? Do we have inherited political power? Do we vilify corruption?

Or has corporate money eclipsed any true republicanism? Is corruption seen as an unavoidable feature of the system or rooted out wherever it is found?

4. Liberty and Justice for All

The final phrase of the pledge also sounds great but only if it is in any way true for us and our compatriots.

Liberty is freedom. Are we free? Are we all equally free? Or do we lead the world in imprisoning our compatriots? Are our compatriots of color given the same liberty as white compatriots or are they three times as likely to be jailed for equal offenses?

Do we all have access to justice? Or does money become the ticket to justice instead of it being a birthright of our country?

Does our country act justly in its relations with other countries. Do we keep our treaties? With the Western Shoshone Nation for example? Does our country respect justice when enacting trade laws? Or do we enslave and ravage other countries in order to promote the interests of our compatriots only?

If I’m going to pledge allegiance to something I’m going to have to take that seriously and ask some hard questions before I do. I want to know that this country deserves my allegiance and that my loyalty will not be immoral at least some of the time.

I don’t pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. The republic for which it stands has been corrupted by corporatism and the aristocracy of capitalism. Our nation doesn’t operate under any god I recognize. Liberty is dependent upon your skin color and net worth. Justice is entirely dependent upon immoral and selfish interests and applied unevenly based on skin color and net worth.

The United States of America does not deserve my allegiance. It is unworthy of it. I don’t pledge it out of blind patriotism. I don’t recognize my compatriots as more important than my non-American brothers and sisters.

When my government realizes it has become completely unworthy of your pledge it will be the first step towards deserving it.

I pledge allegiance to humanity and all the kindness and good for which it is capable. I pledge allegiance to the cooperative spirit and peacemakers that work everyday to make the world a more just and free place for everyone. Not just compatriots defined by outdated lines of nationalism.

And my kids won’t say the pledge until they can cogently answer these questions for themselves.

FAQs:

"Then get out" If you can’t understand the right of an American citizen to NOT pledge allegiance then you don’t understand anything about this country.

"You can only say this because of the freedom of America" Agreed. There are certainly many countries where I could be killed or imprisoned for refusing to pledge allegiance. I don’t think the only criteria for allegiance to my country should be that “it could be worse”. I have a higher standard than that.

"No country lives up to your standards" Agreed. I could tell you dozens of countries doing a better job in a lot of these areas but that isn’t really my point. I don’t want the US to become like some other country and then I’ll pledge. I don’t want to pledge to a country. Nationalism is an antiquated idea that no longer serves the needs of the Earth or humanity. Technology has made us smaller, closer. We have the opportunity to erase our arbitrary boundaries that make us hate and kill each other. We can move beyond us and them and realize our future is only secure if we are WE.

"But the troops…" My refusing to pledge allegiance to this country does not mean I don’t love our troops. My dad and husband both served. I’m a pacifist and don’t believe in the military at all. That doesn’t change the intentions behind their actions when they enlisted. There are many beautiful things our military does. It isn’t the fault of individual soldiers that warmongering is such a big part of our current ethos as a nation. Someday, without war, these military men and women will continue their peacekeeping work without the violent side.

[thestannard5blog]

By Dominick Mucci

[thestannard5blog]

5 Ways To Prepare For a New Location

Getting ready to move to a new area is one of the best things about fulltiming. What do I want to see and do while I'm there? How can I get out of the touristy things and really experience a community?

Well, as a Librarian you know I'm going to do this to the hilt. I know some will be more fly-by-the-seat types and I actually am that way once I arrive but I like getting to know a place first. Here are 5 things you can do to prepare for a new place:

Wikipedia and Google - First get to know the place. Wikipedia will give you lots of information like size, history, points of interest. Then I use Google to find out more information about the local attractions. I also Google the place + homeschool and find some great resources for local homeschooling like this page of homeschool field trips in the bluegrass state.

Libraries and Local Government - you simply must know where the local library is! The one in Campbellsville has a homeschool group so I'm already planning on meeting new people and I haven't even arrived. Libraries are good sources for community events and librarians simply know every damn thing so go meet them. Most cities also have their own website with information for visitors.

Facebook - use the facebook search for things like "campbellsville homeschool" or "campbellsville mother." From the google search you already did you'll know other terms. For example, for me, "central kentucky" became a search term. I'm already a member of some key groups on FB to meet other parents, like the Central Kentucky Homeschool Social Group.Hey, FB isn't just about political arguments and cat pictures after all!

Volunteer and Charity Work - one way to contribute to a community if you are only transient is to volunteer by finding soup kitchens, food pantries, or thrift stores and seeing if they need help. An easy way to do this is to find the non-profits and charities with Great Non-Profit. And don't forget to check out Volunteer Match to find volunteer needs in your chosen city.

Find Parks and Playgrounds - This time use google maps (which I also used to find the local restaurants and grocery stores) to find local parks. Check out the National Park Service and the State Park Service for you state.

Search Map of Play for great pics and reviews of local playgrounds.

What do you do to plan your next stop?