Privilege: This Idea Has Got To Go - The Road to Peace Does Not Start with Division

I recently succumbed to a quiz on Facebook that let me know that I am "not privileged" because I was born into poverty, and I am female. But I am "privileged" to be white, heterosexual, educated, happy to be female, and to not feel ashamed of or oppressed by my (lack of) religion.

This idea has got go. Let me explain--

Privilege means "special treatment." Academia has decided that to be a "normal" member of a given society necessarily means to be "treated better" than those who are "not normal."

In one sense academia is absolutely correct: of course it is easier to be "the norm" than it is to be different. Take something as benign as height. I am a woman who is almost six feet tall. This means I was teased a lot in elementary school. It means I am taller than 75% of men in this country--I did not enjoy the "privilege" of a large dating pool when I was younger. This means I "feel oppressed" every time I go shopping because the waistline of almost all shirts and dresses hit me at my breasts. It means if I want to wear heels I will be taller than every man at the party and sometimes even mistaken for a man. It means I had to get used to be stared at. It means the first thing anyone ever says to me at a bar is something about my height. It means that feeling comfortable in any standard seat--cars, busses, trains, planes--is a hopeless dream. It means that all kitchens, bathrooms, and showers will require me to hurt my back to use them. And that the only bed long enough for me to be comfortable in costs a fortune and doesn't fit in most bedrooms.

Yet no one wants to hear about how hard it is to be tall, so back to my point:

I went to Scandinavia once, and it was Heaven. I was finally the norm. I actually didn't even realize how uncomfortable (physically) the short-norm is here in Los Angeles until I went there. It sucks being a tall person living in a world designed for short people. Short people don't know how lucky they are! Not because it's inherently better to be short, but simply because in this society at this time it's more comfortable to be short because that is the average, norm, standard, etc.

Should short people feel guilty about this? Should they try to make it up to me? And: would it be accurate to describe them as "privileged?"

I think this would be a misuse of the word "privileged." I think "normal for our society" or "standard" or "average" or "mainstream" would be more clear. Academia uses "privileged" instead to" evoke awareness." But by "evoking awareness" they actually mean "You Should Feel Guilt."

The problem with inflicting guilt on those who are normal in some way is obvious: Who gets to decide which areas of normal are a privilege and which areas are not? Today, it is a "privilege" to be wealthy, white, heterosexual, and Christian. But it is not considered a "privilege" to be short, to eat the Standard American Diet, to follow Standard American Medical Dogma, to be a member of a Dominant Political Party, to feel seen and understood when watching Mainstream Television, to follow Mainstream Parenting Practices,  or to communicate in Standard American Judgement-Speak.

Why not?

I have never felt as oppressed for being female as I have for being super tall. Yet being female is what I get to complain about. Being from a poor background made my life a lot harder, but not nearly as hard as eating the WAPF diet. It's legal for me to work super hard to try to change social classes. It's not legal for me to eat how I want to. And despite my high quality education, people think of parents like me (who unschool their children and don't vaccinate them) as abusive. Because of my political views (Libertarian) I have FBI agents show up at my meetups and follow my social media. It is definitely scary to be openly homosexual in some places in this country. But it is also quite scary to be openly Libertarian.

And you know what--I know quite a few wealthy, white, heterosexual, Christian men who are not be able to eat what they want to because it is illegal, who suffer intense oppression for their political views, who feel physically uncomfortable all the time because of their size, who are shamed and despised by society for not raising their children in a mainstream way, who live in fear of CPS showing up at their door, who are considered weird for not wanting to sleep with 100 women, who feel angry, oppressed, and unfairly treated by their society. Is it possible that the "privilege" invented by academia is based on a subjective experience that no one gets to fully escape?

Is there really a guy so average that he has never felt judged or oppressed by his society in his entire life? Because I've never met that guy. Everyone I have ever gotten to know, once I know him well enough, turns out to have a freak flag of some kind.

I would like to suggest the following:

1. In any human group there will always be an infinite number of ways people can be categorized.

2. In every category there will be a bell curve--a norm.

3. Norms are always in flux, always changing.

4. The current Norms--and those people who represent them--are not the enemy. 

4. The enemy is and always will be: the oppression of those who are not the norm, the minority of any given bell curve.

5. Everyone is a minority in some way.

6. The smallest minority, the minority everyone should fight for, is not the categorization of the day, but the individual. The oppression we should all fight is the oppression of the individual. The respect we should all demand is the respect for the individual. Not a given category.

7. Focusing on the category du jour doesn't unite, it divides. It doesn't lead to peace, it leads to war. Regulation, force, condemnation, guilt--these all lead to war.

8. The road to peace is changing our focus, from the "who is the bigger victim" contest, to a discussion of what we are needing in this moment--which is usually the freedom to be ourselves.

9. The road to peace is clarity, honestly, and vulnerability. When I am feeling angry about some perceived oppression, the way for me to connect with my oppressor is not self-righteous indignation, but the truth of my experience, which is usually: "I feel so lonely." When I see a movie with not a single intelligent female in it. When no one in my social class understands me. When I wander the aisles of grocery stores starving and there is literally nothing I want to buy. When I see condemnation or disgust on your face--I feel so sad, so lonely, and so scared. At first I think I want to fight my oppressors, to hit them, to make them suffer as I have suffered … but the truth is I just want them to have compassion for me, for how hard it has been, how hard it will be to be different. The great news is that feeling different and lonely are universal human emotions that everyone can empathize with. 
10. Individualism is the answer. Not compassion for my gender, but compassion for the person in front of you, not compassion for my economic class, but compassion for person in front of you, not compassion for "what it must be like to be x," but compassion for the individual in front of you.

This is how our brains work. A category of people is abstract. Compassion felt for an abstraction is not real compassion but abstract compassion, hypothetical compassion. Real compassion, felt compassion caused by our mirror neurons, the compassion that leads to peace can only happen when humans perceive the person in front of them--and we can only perceive, focus on, and get mirror neurons for one person at a time--one REAL person.

We were all raised in school to feel compassion hypothetically. I would like to suggest that this is not the way.

The other day I had to listen to my friend tell me that the government needs to "nudge" me to make the "right" decisions. I had two choices, I could say: "I feel so scared when I hear you say that you want to force me to do what you think is good for me instead of letting me decide for myself. I feel so scared." Or I could say, "I will fight you to the death for my right to make 'bad' decisions, you evil oppressive scum!"

Which one of these roads will lead to connection, mirror neurons, compassion, respect, and peace?

Notes:

-My brother, who is 6'8" spent many years being angry that the first thing anyone ever said to him was about his height. I took a different approach, choosing instead to see the constant comments about my height as an attempt to connect with me. My height is not the norm. It would be silly for me to pretend otherwise and sad for me to get angry at people who don't know just how many people comment on my height every day. I read an article on Facebook recently in which a black girl expresses a similar wish, that she could get through a week without someone commenting on her race. I imagine redheads are equally bored with comments about their hair. But anger at everyone who accidentally points out that you are not the norm in some way is not the solution. 

-I can hear the academically brainwashed (who I have just alienated with that judgement:) saying, but some norms lead to unfair social advantages?!! Those born to wealth do have an unfair advantage! Tall people have an unfair social advantage even if they suffer physically! First of all, tall men maybe, but at least in my experience--there are plenty of potential male employers out there who have no desire to hire a woman taller than they are. 

-Again: stop categorizing. Focus on the individual. If you focus on the individual as a whole, we all have our advantages and our disadvantages. It is only when you name a category that one of us can be a winner and the other a loser. Look at whole people. If you look at a whole person you will find that no one has it that easy. We all have our struggles. We have all experienced pain.

-I am not suggesting that "Life is fair." Nor am I suggesting that "Life is not fair." Any abstract statement should only be made in a certain context, so I could say, "Life is fair in death. We all die." Or I could say, "Life is unfair in its very nature. Humans tend to value fairness. Mother Nature doesn't."

-Humans are so obsessed with this abstract idea of fairness that many cultures invented an afterlife that would finally make things fair! Common sense: There is no way to make life fair (please YouTube Harrison Bergeron). Like I have argued before--if wealthy people should pay a penalty for the advantages wealth provides, pretty people should have to pay a penalty for their faces and strong people should have to pay a penalty for their athleticism. Where does it stop? This obsession with fairness? And who gets to decide what is the best advantage to have and what advantage is not important? You cannot decide for me. This has to be an individual decision based on individual experiences and values. Wealth is an advantage for some children; it is a disadvantage for others. Abstractions should not be made outside of a context.

-When we communicate honestly about envying someone who we think got lucky in some way, we find that all people are … people. Imperfect. Struggling. When we say, "Man, you are so lucky you were born to wealth. You should feel really guilty." They cannot reply honestly. They are not allowed to complain. They are not allowed to feel what they feel, to be real, honest, and human. They cannot connect with us. If we were really in touch with what was really going on, we might say, "Oh man I envy you for being born into such wealth!" He can connect with that, he knows what envy feels like, and he can say honestly, "Well ... I had a lot of money, but a miserable childhood. In fact, I'm still miserable. I've been envying you this whole time because you of your close relationship with your family and how happy you seem!"

-We cannot make life fair. I wrote a blog post about this before--http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2014/12/book-review-kohlbers-theory-of-moral.html

-Though I disagree with Kohlberg, I do agree that Level 7 moral thinkers (the highest level of morality) give up on fairness and focus on compassion. Read NonViolent Communication!

-What should we do about how unfairly mother nature confers her advantages? Nothing. Because to "fix" it requires playing God, punishing some for their so-called advantages and rewarding others for their so-called disadvantages. This creates a society of people who all want to be disadvantaged. It creates a society of people who feel punished for what was not their fault--and for what is good about them. It creates a victim mentality and a war mentality instead of a connecting and compassionate mentality. 

-But that is a utilitarian argument. What should we do about unfairness? We should never act on an abstraction that isn't contextualized. Once there is an actual context--which means individuals--we can decide the best way to get our needs met. But in the abstract, we deal with hypothetical people. This doesn't work.

Positive Psychology, Stoicism, and the Fruitless Pursuit of Happiness

Recently my husband asked me to explain to him why I am not a stoic. This post is my answer. Though I am excited to do this post (because I love organizing my thoughts), I think it's only fair to warn my reader that I do not consider myself an expert in either positive psychology or stoicism. I do know enough about them, however, to know that they contradict my understanding of epistemology and neuroscience.

Both positive psychology and stoicism I summarize thus: Repress your negative emotions! Repress them I say! But I don't mean repress. Repression is bad. But seriously, repress. I'm not advocating denial here but... look for the good and don't examine the bad!

Both of these psychological systems begin with the premise: The Point of Life is To Be Happy.

There is a major problem with this premise. If happiness is my highest value, if I decide that today my goal is just to feel happy, the quickest and surest way to achieve that goal is drugs. If this is the path I take, then my life will be: Moments of "happiness" while I do my drugs followed by days of drudgery while I do what it takes (for my physical survival) to get to my next day off in which I can do drugs. My life is: drudgery and drugs.

But let's say I chose no drugs. I try to pursue "healthy" happiness. It still doesn't work. How often does one pursue an evening of happiness only to find that it doesn't actually make one happy? How often does one find happiness while doing some random task that one thought would suck? Now my life is: Happiness is so frustrating! So elusive! Such a hard master! I need more control! More control over this elusive god! If I can just get enough control, then I will win! (This is the conclusions reached by the positive psych folk and the stoics.)

The problem is the premise. The pursuit of an emotion as the goal of life. To quote myself (from my book): "Most people begin with the assumption that emotions are primary, they seek ways to control and influence their emotional states. But our emotions let us know how we are doing; they help point us in the right direction; they let us know what is working and what needs our attention. Our strong emotions tell us: Pay attention to this! If we listen, our emotions can be great aids in the pursuit of our values. But attempting to manipulate them, like attempting to command what we see or hear, is just refusing to acknowledge reality. It doesn’t change reality and does not serve us." Emotions give us information and energy. They are tools for us to use. They are not neither good nor bad. They are not punishments and rewards for our behavior.

I do not pursue happiness. Happiness is what happens when I am busy pursing my values successfully. But I will only experience happiness if I check-in, if I come into the present and perceive. My consciousness has two primary modes: abstracting and perceiving. When I am abstracting successfully, I may experience flow. I sit down to write and eight hours disappear. I have no idea where they went, but I think I was happy. Perhaps if I had paused for a moment and checked-in with myself (perceived) I would have noticed that I felt happy, but I didn't. Any feeling can only be experienced when you pause and check-in (perceive). Most psychologies and religions attempt to teach this one very valuable skill: stop abstracting and start perceiving. Come into the present. Check-in with yourself.

When I pause at this exact moment I note: I feel very happy. I am full, rested, my body feels good, I hear my son chatting away cutely in the background, my home is tidy and beautiful, and the view outside my window is delightful. Hmmm... I also notice the sounds of traffic which I don't like, and I notice that I am thirsty. I will go back to ignoring the world around me and disappear into my writing again, my abstract brain, but I should really get a drink of water because that little ping, that little unmet need, is going to decrease my overall happiness.

Though the background emotion going on right now for me is happiness, I do not claim to feel it unless I focus on it. As soon as I get back to work, the truth is, I am not feeling anything. My subconscious is storing emotional information for sure, but since I am not focusing on it, it stays subconscious--it is just information. I would argue that I spend most of my life not actually feeling anything. And that's okay. I'm busy doing. For me, feelings are tools, information, they help me direct my actions to meeting my needs and values. But the emotion itself is not the need or the value.

There are times when I seem to pursue emotions. I find that I am drawn to sad music or a sad movie. Why? Why would I seek sadness? Because my subconscious is trying to get my attention, and I am ignoring it. Because that is the background emotion going on for me whether I have come into the present to realize it or not. Because there has been a build up of information now that needs to be felt/perceived. By feeling the sadness that I have been ignoring, I can release it. If I focus on it and figure out why I was sad, then I can understand it and make different choices.

Our strong emotions give us information and energy. That is their purpose. Emotions are not causeless. They evolved to be part of us because the SERVE us. No one is arguing that positive emotions don't serve us--they're fun. But if negative emotions didn't serve us, they wouldn't exist.

Negative emotions provide us with a great deal of energy to change our lives. Repression, numbing, and drugs enable us to live lives we couldn't otherwise live. Most of us have been repressing since childhood. We have never lived a life we wanted to live. We have never lived sustainably with ourselves. We have been taught to put off resting, to put off perception, to put off processing, to put off fun. We have been trained to stay in our abstract brains. Usually, by adulthood, there is so much sadness and anger that has been repressed that coming into the present is quite unpleasant. So we don't. We work (in our abstract brains) and then come home and numb. This is the life I described above in which people "pursue happiness": drudgery--or at best nonexistence--at work, while we await our next drug binge at home--which is more nonexistence. If this is your life--why live? You just want to not exist, so what are you doing?!

Those who advocate positive psychology and stoicism have a tendency to write about human emotions as the behaviorists do: we are dogs or rats and can be trained to be some way or another. "You can train your brain to be happier! Happiness is just a habit!" They say. Emotions are only habits to the extent that we are not being conscious or present. People who focus on consciousness, presence, and perception don't need to "program habits" or worry about "habits" much at all. (For more on this read Nathaniel Branden's The Art of Living Consciously.)

"What you focus on expands! Never focus on anything negative!" They say. But you have to focus on your negative feelings in order to bring them into your conscious awareness, so you can gather the information you need to make different choices. Once you are done gathering the information, the emotion disappears. Unless the problem you need to solve is a major one, then the emotion will expand exponentially--propelling you to change your life. Pain will give you the energy you need to change your life.

But what about depression? That keeps people in bed! Exactly. Depressing your emotions--refusing to feel your pain--will be so exhausting that you have to stay in bed. Stop de-pressing whatever it is you need to feel, start writhing in pain or anger or sadness, and pretty soon you will be up and about fixing the problem. (And by pretty soon I mean quite possibly two to five years depending on how long you have been repressing.)

That's what our intense negative emotions are for: they make us make better choices for our lives. If we don't feel them, if we numb out, repress, or drug out, we won't change our lives. Part of me is like: cool.  I like the Matrix. Drudgery and drugs has worked for this long. Why change now? But the other part of me knows that's just fear. And I used to be really afraid of pain. But now, eh, it's just pain.

I am so sorry to be the bearer of bad news, for those of you who got very excited by the promises of positive psychology and stoicism, but all you can do is train your brain to repress a ton of information that would have served you. Negative emotions are not bad! And neither are negative dispositions.

Many psychologists want us to make sure our kids are Happy All The Time because that way their Happiness Set Point will be set to Very Happy. This is crap. An optimistic disposition is genetic and, though it is a fine disposition, it is no better than having a pessimistic disposition. Common sense: If pessimistic dispositions were bad for our survival, they would not exist. There is a great lecture available on iTunes University called "In Defense of Pessimism" which explains that pessimistic people are just as happy, just as successful, and just was healthy as optimistic people. They just have different strengths. In An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth Chris Hadfield says that extreme pessimists are the only kind of people who should be astronauts--because the skill of ruminating on every little thing that may go wrong is a GREAT skill. Pessimistic ruminators are the safest, most detail-oriented people. There are many other professions in which the skill of being able to think of everything that may go wrong is of the utmost importance.

A few hundred years ago Big Religion switched its stance from saying that unhappiness (suffering) was a sign of piousness to saying that happiness was a sign of piousness (a reward from God for being Good). Unhappiness became a stigma, something that only happens to sinners. Pessimistic people became social pariahs and everyone quickly learned to have a "public persona." From the 1800's on all Americans had to exude absolute cheerfulness at all times to prove to their neighbors that they were good Christians. And… nothing has changed. Except that today we defend this fake cheerfulness using pseudoscience. Anyone who looks into the research will find decades of psychologists attempting to change pessimistic people into optimistic people and finding that it cannot actually be done. Pessimistic people cannot be saved--though they can learn to be fake. Sadly, the very thing that would have been their super power is the thing they were taught to be ashamed of and keep hidden.

One last note: we live a in a society in which happiness is a major aspect of relationship control. No one will follow your advice unless you are Perfectly Happy. No one wants to be your friend unless you seem happy and successful. (Lol, I mean people won't befriend you to use you unless you have what they want….) It's horrifying for people to research the lives of their heroes--Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden--and find that they are taking advice from people who claimed they were The Happiest People on Earth but… the proof isn't there. Alcoholism, fear of driving, loneliness and alienation, disappointment, inflexibility, angry demeanors, meanness, infidelity, repeated divorce--these are not signs of happiness!

Today the people who sell happiness to us are careful to have perfect public personas. But I worked for a lot of them. People who, to the outside world, seem perfect, happy, wealthy, and wise. It was my job to make their children as good at faking it as the parents were. One set of parents were so anxious about whether or not I would succeed, they bought drugs for a particularly important social engagement. If I failed to make the kids act like perfect, happy, angels the plan was to drug them! Almost everyone I worked for was on drugs--drugs to sleep, drugs to wake up, drugs to get through the day, drugs to deal with particularly stressful days. I came away from a decade working for the top .001% thinking: How horrible to be them!

I don't tend to believe anyone who claims to be happy (outside of a moment). They are either trying to sell me something or they are in total denial. And I know all about that because I've been there and done that. If you follow this blog you know I spent a great deal of my life being fake-happy because Good Girls are happy. At the time I had no idea that I was being fake. I thought I was disciplined, and I also thought I was happy. But the happiness was very tied to goodness, to better-than-other-people-ness. A major clue that we are repressing a part of ourselves is when we passionately hate something in other people. I look back, and I see so clearly how I hated and stayed far away from (or tried to fix) anyone remotely negative or unhappy. If you are truly happy, you let other people be.

And more importantly, people who are honestly happy and not repression-happy know it and are honest about it. They are clear that it is momentary. They admit freely that they don't always feel that way because to be honestly happy means that they feel. Which means feeling the entire spectrum of emotions.

Happiness--all feelings--can only be felt when we are in our perceptual brain. If we want to feel more happiness, we must come into the present more often. But there's a catch: coming into the present more often means we will feel more things, not just happiness. Which is why anyone--or any psychology book--that tries to promise you more pleasure without more pain… is just snake oil.

Happiness is great, I love feeling happy, but at the same time, it's not that important to me. I am far more interested in difficult intellectual problems, in creating beauty, and in people I love. These things matter to me. My feelings are just information and sources of energy that help me with the pursuit of my goals in regards to what actually matters to me.

For those of you who know more about positive psychology and stoicism than I do--have I misunderstood these ideas? Do I need to do more research?

A final note: What I have written here is what I understand based on Objectivist epistemology in which information (consciousness of reality) is valued above all. I love this epistemology, and it is the only epistemology I have encountered that makes sense without contradictions. But I think it is important to note (as I mentioned above) I do not believe the champions of this system of thought--Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden--were particularly happy people. Brilliant, yes. Happy… no. But nothing in my research has led me to conclude that those who search for truth will find happiness (I am thinking of Joseph Cambell's stuff here. Jesus and Buddha found enlightenment not happiness). According to Darrin McMahon, author of Happiness: A History, consciousness and acceptance of our emotions is one way humans at different times and in different places have dealt with "the more-happiness problem". Drugs are another way--and a valid way. Drugs as the only form of true happiness available to human beings has been supported as an idea by more than one great philosopher--Schopenhaur being one of them. Many philosophers throughout the ages have also decided that repression and rejection of all emotion is the best way to go. So, as much as I am content with my own relationship to happiness, with Objectivism, I am not claiming that it is The Happiness Maximizing Route.

Ugh, one more note: I have a hunch that positive psychology and stoicism as psychological ideals, arrive in cultures where people feel powerless over their external world. For example, the best defense of positive psychology I have read (which still didn't convert me) was Victor Frakyl's book about surviving in a concentration camp. In such a place there is no other power except over yourself, no other goal you can accomplish except the goal of controlling your emotions, no other way to experience joy. If happiness is found in our perceptual reality there is none in an ugly, miserable world. If happiness is found abstractly from accomplishing an intrinsically motivated goal, there are none one can accomplish as a slave. Which leaves abstract escape as the only way. Repression of perceptual reality, and making the goal one can accomplish controlling the abstract self.

I Never Read to My Son. Yet He Can Read. And He's Only 3.

My three-and-a-half year old can read. He can sound out simple three letter words. This is SO exciting for me! Partly because I'm his mom, and it's just frigging exciting. But also because I rejected the behaviorist parental script that instructed me to read to him. I feel like I just got away with something BIG.

As a baby, I never read a single book to Anders. Someone gave him one of those cloth baby books, and I did leave it in his room with all his other toys. He chewed on it periodically, but I never sat him on my lap and read it to him, and I never once saw him leaf through it like a book. But I did see him, once he could crawl, get his hands on my books and stare at them as he saw me do.

As a one-year-old he owned two books: that little cloth one and one called Baby Faces that featured photos of babies feeling different things like sad, mad, and tired. I read that photo book to him on airplanes (less than a dozen times total throughout the whole year). Anders continued to play at reading with my books. By this age his play reading also involved having a pen or highlighter in his hand and making little scribbles in the books (just as he had seen me do).

As a two-year-old he had about a dozen books on subjects in which he had shown interest: animals and machines. No story books though. The dozen books he owned were books that showed only photographs of real life with words beneath the photographs. I never read those books to him though as that would have been very boring (and philosophically horrific) for me. As before, he continued to play at reading with my books.

All this time I did read to him from the book I was reading if he asked me to. I read a lot. I always had a book in my purse. When we went somewhere, like the park, he would play, and I would read. When we went to the store, and he wanted to play in the car before getting into his carseat, I would read while I waited for him. He would often see me reading in the morning and evening as well. About once a week he would climb onto my lap, and I would read aloud to him whatever I happened to be reading at the time. We still do this. I am reading a book on death right now, and I read him a paragraph of it last night about which he commented, "How interesting!"

Also, I never shoved the alphabet down his throat. He never owned clothes with letters all over them. He never owned puzzles or dishes or placemats or rugs or toys that featured the alphabet. He didn't and doesn't to this day own a single thing, not even a decoration, with the alphabet on it. He never watched any Sesame Street or any of those other shows that claim to teach kids to read. He knows none of the children's songs that involve the alphabet either--or any children's songs for that matter.

When he turned three I read to him his first story books: Where the Red Fern Grows, and all of the Little House books. He loved these books, and so did I. They did have some pictures, but very few. I did edit the books a little, so that the characters modeled communication skills I support.

When Anders was three I asked him if he wanted to learn to read. He said, "No." I said, "Okay. Maybe when you are older!" Three months later I asked him again if he wanted to learn to read and he said, "Yes!" So I got the Hooked on Phonics program for pre-schoolers and we started learning letter sounds. I did not teach him letter names as that is highly confusing, and there is no point. The purpose of the ABC song is not reading but alphabetizing. One does not need to learn to alphabetize until one is using a dictionary and conceptualizing alphabetical order--maybe age seven.

I did not do anything gimicky to make learning letter sounds fun. I did not do a letter for a whole a week or give letters personalities or faces (like in Ron Paul's reading curriculum). Hooked on Phonics was the simple program I was looking for--though I would have liked it to be even more simple with fewer colors and distractions. Anders usually learned one letter each day we worked on them, and we usually worked on them five days a week. Learning a letter rarely took more than five minutes. Within three or four months Anders had learned all his upper case and lower case letters and finished the entire program except for the six horrible story books that came with the program that I did not read to him--one of the books was pure propaganda for cereal and another for corn.

Anyway, after we finishing the Hooked on Phonics program for preschoolers, I bought the next one--Hooked on Phonics for kindergarteners. That is the program we are doing now in which he sounds out simple three letter words. Our current program came with about thirty little books for him to read. All have anthropomorphic animals, but since he is very clear on reality at this point, I'm okay with it. Moreover, we talk about it. Because he has not grown up with any exposure to anthropomorphic animals, he thinks the idea of a cat speaking English or driving a car is absolutely hilarious.

If Anders had chosen to not learn how to read until he was seven or even eleven I would have been okay with it, but it would have surprised me. My hypothesis was that the number one thing I could do to encourage my son to read was not reading to him, but rather, reading. Just by being myself and doing what I consider enjoyable, I modeled a behavior that my son decided to acquire.

But he's only three. He may decide to take a break on learning to read while he focuses on mastering some other skill. He may take a break for years. He may be able to read, but chose not to. He may be able to read, but be a terrible reader. And of course he could be reading right now not because of any behavior I modeled, but because it is in his DNA, i.e. it could be nature and not nurture.

Also, I don't want to make it sound like I buy into the "kids must be readers!!!!" ideal. Anders's reading is an exciting result in my parenting experiment and an exciting milestone for me as a parent. But I am not trying to make him "a reader." I think many parents think reading is the cause rather than the effect of an active mind. Though I would agree reading can contribute to having an active mind, I think it can only contribute if the mind is already active.

Notes:
-A while back I read some interesting accounts of teachers from the 1800's complaining that picture books were making it impossible to teach children to read. "The kids stare at the pictures instead of the words!" the teachers wrote into newspapers.
-When I worked with kids I read to them a lot and found it to be very unsatisfying. Babies just wanted to eat the books. Toddlers memorized ridiculous nonsense and, worse, received parental approval for spouting ridiculous nonsense. Preschoolers internalized terrible ideas about life like magical-thinking and control-oriented relationships. So not only did I find reading to children to be unsatisfying because of the behavior it produced in the children, I found almost all kids books to be philosophically horrific and simply not fun for me.

Addendums:
-Before I got the Hooked on Phonics program I tried the Kumon program which I found even more horrific in terms of propaganda. I will do an entire post about in the future.
-I did get Anders one alphabet toy--magnets--so he could feel the letters with his fingers. I got rid of them after a month as they made my kitchen ugly, and I just didn't think it was necessary.
-Anders has two Montessori letter games on our iPad that he plays on airplanes, which is to say, not often.
-I did read Anders thirty or so versions of The Three Little Pigs and The Little Red Hen while I was researching these stories for myself when he was a little over three. So he did get to hear some picture books.
-The Hooked on Phonics program instructed me to teach the ABC song, and when Anders was very good at the letter sounds, I decided it wouldn't hurt, so I taught it to him. This turned out to be a terrible idea. He loved the song, of course, but it took us about three weeks to recover from its confusing influence i.e. he still says "pee" sometimes instead of "puh" when he is trying to sound out a word.

A Reader Asks: Should I Put My Foot Down About Bedtime?

I was recently emailed: "So, for example, at a very young age (say, 1 year old), would you suggest putting your foot down when they refuse to go to bed?" 

My reply: I would never "put my foot down." That to me sounds very controlling and disrespectful to another person's needs. If your dignified French houseguest were refusing to go to bed, would you "put your foot down and insist that he do so?" What I did with my son, and what I still do is:

1) Lots of natural light during the day, especially morning and evening so as to keep natural rhythms.

2) Low lighting at night. (This is largely a personal thing. I have trouble sleeping, so I do it for myself, but it really helps him to get in the bed-time mood.)

3) I go to bed. If he ever wants to stay up I say, "I see that you are not ready to sleep. I am, so I am going to go to bed. When you are ready to go to bed, you know where your bed is!" My son had a floor bed, so he could crawl/scoot into it at a very young age. But children aren't that particular. They will pass out anywhere. If your son's room is a RIE-Montessori bedroom, it should be 100% safe for you to leave him in. 

It should be noted that my son almost always chose to go to bed with me and still does. Every now and then he has a lot of energy and stays up. When he is ready, he puts himself to bed. This works well for both of us.

Sometimes Anders stays up and keeps me awake. This is upsetting for me! So I tell him how frustrated I am feeling and how annoyed and how much I am needing sleep and needing quiet. Sometimes, when he was younger, I had to be very assertive about my needs. "This is a room for people who are awake. This is a room for people who are sleeping. You may not come in here right now." Sometimes he would opt to play very quietly in the sleeping room and that worked too.

Every now and then, my son would absolutely refuse to meet my needs. Every time this happened I would realize (at some point) that he was overtired and simply unable to meet my needs... or his own. When Anders is overtired, he acts like I do when I am overtired. It feels kind of like melting. When I am overtired I don't even want to go to sleep because I am so tired that I don't want to do anything and going to sleep feels like doing something! That is a good time to just hold him. Just hold him while he cries and tells you about how miserable he is feeling. The best thing in those moments is for him to pass out in your arms, fully supported and loved. (Likewise, when I find I am so tired that I feel like I am melting, being cuddled by my husband is the best thing in the world!)

Then there are the times when Anders is not overtired, but I am. At those times, I said something like, "Anders, I love you so much and I wish I could meet your needs right now, but I'm too tired. I have to meet my needs--that's all I can do right now." And then I go to sleep. Before he could talk he could already understand this and he would come and tuck me into bed.

The problems happen when you have a tired parent and a tired child. No one can stretch to meet the other person's needs. (I hope I have expressed already that even the very youngest babies WILL try to meet your needs if you have been communicating with them about it from birth.) When there are two tired parties I usually fight the strength to meet his needs and put my own on hold. Doesn't happen often but it has happened.

Children who are not "made" to go to bed enjoy going to bed. It's just part of the day. It's what we all do in the evening. This makes me think of another book Parenting a Free Child by Rue Kream. 

It also should be noted that my son is always welcome to sleep with me. He goes back and forth. A month on his own a month with mom. Sometimes I want alone time with my husband and I ask for it. And just as before, much of the time he is happy to meet my needs and then other times he just can't and we have to go from there and have a discussion.

But I always start from the place that what he wants is as valid as what I want. His wanting to be awake is as valid as my wanting to be asleep.

Why Are There So Many "True Believers" in Objectivism?

A friend recently emailed me the above question. Though I have not read the book, The True Believer, here is what I know:

From the Objectivist Epistemology perspective I would define a True Believer as someone who

1. Fully accepts all abstractions as long as they were made by Ayn Rand

2. Is fanatically uninterested in questioning those abstractions

Assumptions I would make--

-True believers have not taken the time to fully examine or understand Rand. Much easier/less time consuming to read Atlas Shrugged and say, "YES" and then move on to other things. 

-Since the true believer hasn't fully studied or understood, he is very threatened by people who have. Perhaps he does not have the time to go back and question. Perhaps he wants to move on with his life.

For example:

1. Since I am unwilling to be an expert in nutrition myself, I HAVE to follow someone else

2. I studied nutrition for 5 years before concluding that Weston A Price was the expert whose rules I would follow.

3. That was A LOT of work. I have NO desire to go back to studying nutrition in order to find a better expert to follow

4. So when it comes to Weston A Price, I follow. End of story. There would have to be A REALLY GOOD REASON for me to even consider changing my abstract rule that Weston's advice = the right advice. Moreover, following Weston's advice has benefitted my life in very real ways, therefore my abstract rule about him being the right expert to follow has been strengthened over time rather than weakened.

5. So I am not a "true believer" because I am not pathological BUT, I am in the sense that I 1. Fully accept all abstractions as long as they are made by Weston A Price and 2. Am Extremely uninterested in changing those abstractions

Many Objectivist True Believers are likely similar to me. Not necessarily pathological but just extremely uninterested. They want to be studying new things, growing and changing, not questioning old abstractions, not going back. 

I imagine pathology is caused by people who did not put 5 years into studying Rand. So to continue in my example: I try to understand nutrition, but I find the information too contradictory and bewildering. I intuit that Weston A Price is the answer and I stick to that. There is now a pathology--there is NO WAY I can question my abstract rule that he is right because it was made based on intuition. To question requires me to understand and... I wasn't able to do that. I don't want to admit that to you or myself so I shut down entirely when the question of changing my abstraction comes up.

Now, the second part of your question: why are there so many OBJECTIVIST true believers?

Because Objectivists, and all freedom lovers, have shown in scientific studies to be more analytical than most other people. Changing abstract rules is super hard and takes a long time and almost always requires re-perceiving. Analytical people who prefer to think abstractly are generally terrible at coming into their perceptual brains, terrible at re-perceiving, and often against it because if they only ever read Ayn Rand's fiction, her characters do not model this. She never got to write much about her epistemology or how it connects to psychological health, so in order to discover the necessity of re-perceiving, the True Believers must read Nathaniel Branden.

But, you may be thinking, to buy into Objectivism one does not have to perceive anything so much as logically induce. This is accurate, but recall that in order to be pathological about something I *bet* (have not read the book yet) they did not logically induce Rand's abstractions themselves but rather felt them (perceived) from her fictional books. This is one of the purposes of fiction--the reader gets to perceive abstract ideas rather than induce them. Fiction largely bypasses our rational brain and feeds abstract rules straight to our subconscious. I would love for a study to be done on how many of Rand's True Believers have read and understood her nonfiction. Because to understand something is *usually* to be able to question it.

Moreover, our brains abstract. That is What They Do. In order to not fully turn into an Us-and-Them Thinker, one must constantly come into perceptual reality (for this I recommend studying NVC). This will be the subject of my next book (maybe)--the Limits of Freedom. It's neurological i.e. for a free society to work it will HAVE to have freedom oriented nurture because it is in our nature, the nature of our brains, to make our lives easier by creating abstractions. Abstractions always come with judgement. This is why I say Rand speaks of freedom in words of war. She writes of freedom abstractly. With judgement. But when humans are interacting they must be PRESENT. They must be in their perceptual brains. The second you are not in your perceptual brain you are abstracting the other person--which means attempting to control them. 

On a last note, I tend to feel Very Passionately about my politics because I feel so oppressed by our society. Oppressed, passionate people are easy to mistake as true believers because anything that sounds like statism to me I don't just rationally disagree with, I passionately, angrily abhor. I applaud all freedom lovers who can stay present while discussing freedom with statists. It would be like being black and offering respect to a white supremacist while he tries to convince you being black is bad. Or being a woman and listening respectfully to a misogynist. I marvel at the people who can do this.

Also, despite freedom lovers being more analytical in general than statism lovers, there are just as many statist True Believers (or more even) than Objectivist True Believers. I would assume they fall into the same trap for the same reasons, but there is even more available information and more support by the culture. To be a Liberal True Believer you don't even need to have read anything. You just need to go to public school and watch a little TV.

The Little Red Hen by Roslyn Ross

Once upon a time there was a Little Red Hen who invited her three best friends—a Dog, a Cat, and a Duck--to come and live with her.

The Little Red was very excited to live with her friends. She thought, “I don’t have to clean my house by myself anymore! How much more fun it will be to clean with my friends than alone! To take care of the garden together and sweep and do dishes together! And it will take so much less time for four of us to care for one house than for each of us to care for our own houses!”

The Little Red Hen did not discuss what she envisioned with her friends. They had no idea what her expectations were. And she had no idea what their expectations were. So after they moved in together, the Little Red Hen was unpleasantly surprised to find that the Dog napped all day, the Cat played with string all day, and the Duck swam in the pool all day. No one did any work but her!

The poor Little Red Hen found herself washing all the dishes—even dishes that she did not dirty. She found herself sweeping the floor all by herself—even when she was not the one who dirtied it. And she worked in the garden all by herself—even though everyone ate the food that grew there. The Little Red Hen felt very disappointed, sad, and frustrated.

So obviously:

She asked her friends for help.

She asserted her needs.

She explained her feelings.

She did all of these.

But her friends just made excuses,

and in a rather manipulative way,

claimed the Hen was being too sensitive,

and their behavior was okay!

The Little Red Hen didn’t know what to do, so nothing changed. She continued to do all the household chores by herself. One day while she was working in the garden she came across a grain of Einkorn wheat. She looooved sourdough bread, and so did her friends.

“Look guys!” She said. “Look what I found! Will you help me plant it?”

“Nooooo!” said the Dog who was about to take a nap.

“Nooooo!” said the Cat who was playing with some string.

“Nooooo!” said the Duck who was swimming in the pool.

“Guys!,” said the Little Red Hen, sighing heavily, “I would really like some help.”

She tried to get through to her friends.

She asserted her needs.

She said, “I’m feeling frustrated you guys!”

She did all of these.

But her friends just made jokes and laughed,

and in a rather dishonest way,

said they would be helping if they could,

but they just had no time today.

The Little Red Hen didn’t know what to do. She was starting to not really like her friends anymore. She planted the wheat all by herself. She watered it every day, cultivated the soil around it to prevent weed growth, and after not too long, a big, beautiful plant was ready to be harvested.

“Look guys!” She said. “The wheat is ready to be harvested! Who will help me so that we can have fresh bread soon?”

“Not me!” said the Dog who was about to take a nap.

“Not me!” said the Cat who was playing with some string.

“Not me!” said the Duck who was swimming in the pool.

The Little Red Hen was feeling so lonely and disappointed that she burst into tears.

She told her friends her feelings.

She asserted her needs.

She said, “This isn’t what I thought living with you guys would be like!”

She did all of these.

Her friends didn’t make eye contact with her;

they looked the other way,

They said that she was being too emotional,

And crying wasn’t okay!

Then they shrugged their shoulders,

and so very hard they tried

to convince the Hen to repress what she was feeling

and keep it all inside.

The Little Red Hen was very disturbed. She knew it was important for her health to cry when she needed to. She knew it was imperative that she express her feelings and needs. And she also knew she could not go on living with the Dog, the Cat, or the Duck. She thought about what she should do while she harvested the wheat and while she ground it into flour. Then she put some of the flour in a cup of water so that it would ferment and develop a rich sour flavor. Each day she added a little more flour and water to the bubbling mass. By the end of the week it was time to add the rest of the flour, make the dough, and bake it. And by the end of the week, the Little Red Hen had decided to try to communicate with her friends one last time.

“Heeeey guys!” She said, “Who wants to help me make bread?!”

“Not me!” said the Dog who was about to take a nap.

“Not me!” said the Cat who was playing with a ball of string.

“Not me!” said the Duck who was swimming in the pool.

The Little Red Hen got angry.

She had too many unmet needs.

She yelled, “You realize I can’t go on like this right?

I am not going to keep supporting you three.”

They got very defensive and said

Oh you have to

They explained they just couldn’t work like she could

They couldn’t do what she could do

The Little Red Hen angrily stormed into the kitchen to put the bread in the oven. She now knew that these animals were not her friends. They were entitled moochers. And she knew what she had to do.

Pretty soon the whole house smelled of freshly baked bread. Of course the dog woke up from his nap and strolled into the kitchen, and the cat stopped playing with her string and flounced into the kitchen, and the duck stopped swimming and waddled into the kitchen.

The Little Red Hen took the bread out of the oven and looked at them.

“Are you hoping to help me eat this bread?” She asked.

“Yes!” said the Dog.

“Yes!” said the Cat

“Oh yeah!” said the Duck.

“I don’t think so!” said the Little Red Hen. “You didn’t help me care for the wheat, or grind the flour, or ferment the dough. You didn’t help me make the bread. So you will not be helping me eat it. And moreover, you have not helped to maintain this house, so you shall not be living in it any longer.”

The Little Red Hen felt instantly relieved. For so long she had not stood up for herself. She cut herself a slice of bread and began to eat it. It was very tasty.

The Vaccine Decision Is a Trust Decision Not a Science Decision

I was asked recently what my position is on vaccines. This is what I know: I am not an expert! I don't have a lab where I can do my own experiments to verify data others are presenting me with. All the reading and documentary-watching in the world won't change that. I am going to have to trust someone else's advice here.

And that actually makes my decision pretty easy.

There is the pharmaceutical industry and the government on one team. And the other team is the Weston A Price Association and Dr. Mendelsohn.

I don't trust the government at all. Nor the pharmaceutical industry. And when it comes to these two, I am extremely wary of possible hidden agendas, especially financial ones.

Following the advice of the Weston A Price Association cured my husband's hair loss, my acne, my menstrual cramps, and gave me a beautiful, healthy baby who never had cradle cap, crusty eye, or spit up. And that's just in my immediate family. I could go on and on about the evidence I have seen with my own eyes about the benefits of following their diet for my family and friends. The Weston A Price Association does not profit from telling me to not vaccinate. (They do profit from telling me to take cod liver oil, but this post isn't about that.)

Following the advice of Dr. Mendelsohn, who wrote my favorite medical book, How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor, has saved me from a ton of parental worry, many pointless trips to the doctor, for not just my son but my husband and me too. Moreover, my grandfather was a doctor, and he gave this book to my mother in the 1980's. He said the medical industry was headed in a bad direction and no longer to be trusted. Dr. Mendelsohn and my grandfather have no hidden agenda that I can imagine either.

When it comes down to the only decision I get to make – which set of experts to trust – what decision I should make is clear.

It's terrifying – I want my son to be vaccinated against every horror life has to throw at him! And it's hard to reconcile my identity as a science-whorshipper with that of an unvaccinator. So I have to constantly remind myself of what Ayn Rand warned: Science isn't the science I love unless it's done on the free market. The meme that unvaccinators are anti-science is just advertising from two untrustworthy sources – big pharma and the government.

Personal anecdote: My vaccine free child is now six years old. He has had one fever in his entire life (when he was one and teething), he had diarrhea once that lasted a day when he was two, had a cough that was very slight and lasted a few weeks when he was three ... and that's it. He is gorgeously healthy. I don't worry when he plays with sick kids because I know he wont get sick, or if he does it will be nothing more than a runny nose. He also doesn't have any strange issues that doctors excuse as genetic, like eczema. I have two vaccinated nephews on my husband's side that have eczema (it runs in his family). My son's pediatrician - who suffers from eczema herself - says that she believes vaccines are a major trigger for eczema and that if you have eczema in your family, you should not be vaccinated.

Note: I studied nutrition pretty intensely for five years before I considered myself qualified to judge who to trust in that arena. Here is a link to a series of posts I wrote about my path to determining that Weston A Price diet is the one to follow:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2011/08/thinking-womans-pregnancy-before.html

The other thing that makes me lean on the "no vaccines" side of the fence is this study (link below) showing that 12% of children in Ulster County, NY have eczema, but only 1% of unvaccinated children from there have eczema. 8% of children have allergies, but only 2% of unvaccinated children... 

It's not this study itself that makes me question vaccines. It's that these studies aren't done all the time by interested scientists. If vaccines were about real science, the scientists would be passionate about finding out whether vaccines are actually ideal or not. They would be open to questioning. They would be open to being wrong.

Businessmen wanting to make money, on the other hand, are not interested in learning more about vaccines and their consequences for human health, they are only interested in convincing/coercing you to buy their product. My experience with vaccines has been all the latter. This makes me think that vaccines studies are done by $cientists, not scientists. 

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ny-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-reveals-staggering-statistics-which-the-ny-doh-refuses-to-acknowledge/?fbclid=IwAR36kcEVzRL7wS8OlJIxVsEMvkuFOWeH2aVgbXwGtVzXfiAqi0kvJbm4TJM

Anders's Homeschool Curriculum age 3

Anders is 3 1/2 and knows all of his letter and letter-sounds. I simply ask him each day if he would like to work on his letters with me and he almost always says, "Yes!" We have been doing the Hooked on Phonics program for preschoolers (that I bought on Amazon.com) and it only took about six weeks for us to finish the first book (all the capital letters) and he has loved it. We are now about halfway through the second book (lower case letters).

He also has been going to Kumon for math since March. All we do thus far is count. Again, I just ask him if he would like to do some math and he almost always says, "Yes!" No pressure from me or fake enthusiasm. Likewise when it's time to go to the Kumon center. It is 100% his choice to go or not. He chooses to go almost every time. I think only once or twice in the last month he has said he was too tired to go, and it has always been fine with me.

All of Anders's work is kept next his bed, so I usually ask him if he wants to work right before we go to bed. This has been a wonderful experience as we cozy up and cuddle while working and then he goes to sleep.

Anders tried out 4 different gymnastics classes before finding one that he liked and wants to go to consistently. He tried out 2 different swimming classes and hated them and has decided to wait until he is older to learn to swim. Ditto with karate. He liked the first music class he tried so we have stuck with that and he continues to go though I notice the teacher is very authoritative, and I don't like the class very much, so after this next month I plan to ask him if he will try a new class. He loves going to My Gym which is just a indoor gymnastics-like gym for kids with free play. He also enjoys going on hikes with me, errands, and watching construction sites.

Most of his day is spent doing with me whatever I am doing or doing his own work--which involves various building projects in the back yard, sometimes "fighting fires," and generally a 40-minute sit down at my desk where he "answers emails," makes real phone calls, "writes letters," and "writes books." He also takes care of his "baby girl" or his "baby sister," cleans--he is actually quite good at mopping, and "organizes."

What I hear from strangers (and I agree) is that he is extremely well-spoken, independent, confident, happy, and outgoing. And cute. I get asked if he models at least once a day :) People are often terrified of the "freedom" I "give" him around cars, pools, in crowds, and when climbing but he has never shown me that he is not competent at making safe choices in any of these areas.

*Anders initially started with Kumon math and reading but the Hooked on Phonics program was far superior and seemed less commercially motivated. I will post soon about the Kumon reading program which I swear must accept money from the corn and sugar industries….

*When I read to Anders it is usually from whatever book I am reading or something like Little House on the Prarie. I continue to avoid almost all kids books.

*Anders has a very active imagination and will turn anything into what he wants it to be. He does not need toys to be realistic at all. For example, he brings his "baby sister" with us whenever we go anywhere in the car. He buckles her in before he gets into his carseat. She is a squirt gun.

*Anders has never been exposed to superheroes or magic. He has commented to me that he wishes he could fly like a bird and I have agreed that it would be awesome. If you ask him he will tell you he is going to work in construction when he is bigger or as a fireman. The imaginary games he plays almost always involve these two things--what he thinks he will be doing in the future. He also talks often about being a father himself one day (and is sad that he does not get to be pregnant) and shows an interest in caring for babies and dolls. 

The Next Step in Women's Liberation is Actually Children's Liberation: Empower Women By Empowering Children!

I am very grateful for all the things Betty Friedan (author of The Feminine Mystique) did so that I was raised in a less sexist world. That being said, her book is pretty bad for two main reasons. First, Friedan writes emotionally rather than rationally. She does not appeal to my rational brain but rather attempts to manipulate me emotionally by painting a very dramatic portrait that pins every problem ever on women staying home with the kids. Friedan has to resort to this style of emotional fluff (that I find very boring) because of her failure to research more thoroughly her subject which led to her failure to grasp the bigger picture. She needed to study the history of women's rights for two thousand years, not one hundred. She needed to study the history of family life for at least a thousand years to understand why women are home with the kids. Then she would have written a much more interesting book.

Social roles are fascinating. Playing the part of "woman" or "man" rather than being yourself, the human propensity for living an inauthentic life based around trying to be someone else's idea of good, is a common human problem, not a female one. But Friedan doesn't address the human problem of role playing, she just attacks one role played by one group of people in one short time period. And even in her time period men suffered from the exact same inauthentic, self-less existence that comes from playing a role--their role was "breadwinner". Their role demanded that they be "strong" and never cry. They couldn't like pink or cuddling. A role is a role. It's damaging to the human psyche because it is a role--what the role dictates doesn't matter that much. 

Friedan's failure to examine the big picture is perhaps why she ends up arguing (rather stupidly) that all satisfaction in life comes from working outside the home. For sure one's productive work is a huge part of one's life satisfaction, but there is a big difference between the work people do that they are intrinsically motivated to do and find deeply satisfying and the work they do for their survival. Most people will never find a way to combine the two. Moreover, most people in most places in most of human history had to spend the majority of their time focused on their survival, and not soul-satisfying passion-work. That is life. To have milk (up until 100 years ago) you had to milk a cow every day twice a day 365 days a year. You think that isn't drudgery?! Until very recently there weren't a million jobs from which to chose, most people were going to farm or hunt or gather. Learning how to deal with the basic drudgery of survival was a major life skill that everyone learned in childhood. And even in Friedan's time period I can't imagine that most men's work was super intellectually stimulating, that all men just hopped out of bed in the morning excited to go do their jobs.

But moving on to what I think is actually more interesting.

If Friedan had done more research she may have also realized that even if all women worked outside the home SOMEONE has to take care of the kids. Friedan thinks it should be the government. She advocates state sponsored daycare. On moral grounds I cannot agree with that as that means I have a "right" to have as many babies as I want, and you are forced to pay for their babysitting whether you want to or not. Moreover, state-sponsored daycare means the government is raising all the kids--no thank you!

There is also the problem of health. To maximize the health of our children, they should be spaced 4-5 years apart and breastfed for 3-5 years each. Pumping milk is largely a lie as it will cause decreased milk supply and lead to a failure to produce enough milk. What this means is that daycare and women in the workforce equals unhealthy kids. And unhealthy women as women are also less likely to get cancer if they breast feed for longer. Only for a tiny amount of time in the history of the human race have babies been breast fed for only a few months. (In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Juliet nursed until 3!) Which is to say: it is not the "feminine mystique" that convinced me I should stay home with my children, it is reality. Because health is my highest value, I cannot choose otherwise but to "stay home" because that is the only option our society gives me.

And THAT is the problem.

Someone has to raise the kids + kids should be spaced 4-5 years apart + kids should be breastfed for 3-5 years DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN women need to stay home with the kids for 5 to 20 years depending on how many kids they have.

If Friedan had looked back far enough, she would have noticed that in many places and times women did not have to stay home with the kids because the kids did not have to stay home. It wasn't until the Victorians decided that children needed to be removed from the world (so that they would never learn about sex, drinking, and gambling) that women got stuck in the house (because someone had to stay home to police the kids who had to stay home). Being stuck in the house SUCKS. For women AND FOR CHILDREN. The woman's role that Friedan has such a big problem with was a poor solution to the real problem--the removal of children from the world.

I have a great lecture about this on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQuMWgH7Ibk

The solution isn't daycare and school and women in the workforce. The solution is a change in the way we live and especially in the way we think about children--a society and workforce designed for people of all ages. Fascinating to me that we make so many laws to make buildings accommodating for the handicapped but never children. In many Latin American malls it is simply assumed children will be there--breakables are kept on high shelves and every store has a box of toys. How strange to think of a world in which children are actually considered! And welcomed!

The next step in women's liberation is actually children's liberation. Because until children are liberated from their roles as pets and slaves who need to spend all day being policed in schools, someone will have to do that policing. And that someone will have to be women if the woman values health.

Other notes:
-Her research led her to conclude that in the post-war period women got stupider. My research has shown me that ALL Americans got stupider, men too. Nutrition and physical degeneration could be to blame. But also our methods of schooling and parenting and also the mass media. The point is: I don't think it was just women that got stupider.
-Parenting is exhausting when done alone with no time off, not just when sexism is present
-It's crazy to me that Friedan thinks all the bored housewives *must* go back to school for intellectual stimulation. I find school programs so restrictive compared to the freedom of being able to study whatever grabs me! I get to chose my own reading list! And read for as long as I want on no one's schedule but mine! I have read a book a week since my son was born. I puzzle over huge philosophical issues all day while I am home. My husband was cracking up the other day because I gave him a lecture on how the current science of consciousness applies to epistemology while I was cleaning the fridge. He is jealous of all the reading I have time for that he does not have time for.

Success Takes Generations: Why You May Want To Do the Same Job as Your Parents

We know it takes a certain number of hours (let's say 10,000) to develop excellence in any skill. But skills only account for part of what makes for a successful career. Ecosystem knowledge (who you know, how that social system works) is just as important.

That is the big shock that most twenty-two-year-olds are in for. All the skill in the world does you very little good without knowledge of the ecosystem and the people within it.

Most people know that in Hollywood "who you know" matters more than talent. But Hollywood is not some special industry where that is the case. That's the case every industry. The first ten rungs on the ladder are all merit based, yes. But after that, when two equal players are vying for the same part, success becomes more relationship based. Building relationships in any given industry takes time. Let's say ten years of time.

My point is that outlying success takes 10k hours of skill development and 10k hours of ecosystem development.

Simply by virtue of spending eighteen years sharing a house with you, your child will have a certain number of hours in the skills you have and a certain number of hours in your ecosystem. This is a huge leg up in whatever field it happens to be that you work in.

For example, I didn't try to acquire skills in my parents' lines of work. I never assumed that I would be following in their footsteps; I focused on school. Even so, I knew so much about wine (my mother's line of work) that I taught a class on it to my peers when I was in college. Later my husband, after reading countless books, but having no real world experience, decided he wanted to be a farmer. As a child I had hated my father's line of work (farming) so much that I specifically avoided learning about it. And yet, after my husband and I moved to a farm, it turned out that I knew quite a lot about farming.

I wish a school counselor had sat me down when I was eighteen and said:

"You have two paths ahead of you. In one, you choose to work in wine, a field where you already know more than 99.9% of the other people your age in the world. You will find a career in wine natural and easy because you have grown up in that ecosystem. You already know what part of that world you like the most, and you know the people in that world you need to know to get where you want to go. Should you choose a career in wine, you will find success naturally and quickly, depending on the hours you put in, of course.

"The other path open to you is one of exploration. You go to college, study different things until one catches your fancy, and then set out to acquire knowledge and skills in that field. Four to ten years and much debt later you will have the skills, but you won't know anyone or how that job works in the real world. So you will spend what is left of your twenties and all of your thirties acquiring the social network and ecosystem knowledge required to do your chosen line of work. If you work hard, and develop the right relationships, you will be successful, but much later and with much more strife than if you had chosen to work in wine.

"Do you like this other career SO much more than wine that you are willing to work until your fifties for career success rather than attain it in you thirties? Or to put another way, do you hate wine so much, that you would be happy to leave your family, your home town, your friends, your social network, your world, to pursue the life of a pioneer?

"If you are super passionate about something else, and it absolutely must be your line of work rather than your hobby, then by all means go do it, but if you could be happy working in wine, you will have a much easier life, you will find career success at a much younger age, and you will be much closer to your family.

"Lastly, by the time you are thirty there is a high statistical probability that you will want to start a family. Should you have attained career success in your twenties, you will have much more time and energy to focus on your children. And a lot more money. Are you so passionate about being a pioneer in a new field that you are willing to sacrifice having children or you are willing to have children, but not have a lot of time or money to put into them?"

I am not saying that kids should do what their parents do or that parents should push their kids to do so, just that if it works out that way, it would be very advantageous.

Many parents push their kids to do something different than what they did because "they want a better life" for their kids. But here's the thing (and I have told this story before):

I met a guy the other day named Matt. He never went to college. He was raised by a single mother, an immigrant. She worked a minimum wage job and could barely feed him when he was a kid. He quit school at sixteen. He is now forty years old and owns thirty-two convenience stores. He makes a fantastic living. How did he pull that off? Hint: He was not a pioneer.

His mother worked at a 7-11 for his entire childhood. She couldn't afford daycare, and they didn't know anyone, so he hung out at her 7-11 after school. He knew how to run the place by the time he was twelve, started working there himself when he was fourteen. He saved up and bought his first 7-11 when he was twenty-five. Killed it. Most people who run 7-11's don't understand how to run them, he told me. He does.

The lesson: If you are a struggling pioneer don't assume your child will struggle as hard as you. You paved the way. Your child has been paying attention. Invite your child to your life. He will do it better. Don't assume your career is a dead end or you life isn't a worthy one to invite your child to join. If you can just keep it together, despite the insane difficulty of your life, your children will do great.

Gladwell points out in Outliers that it is very rare for children who grew up in poverty to become very wealthy, but it is very common for them to make it to the middle class. Children who grow up in the middle class are the ones who are more likely to become very wealthy. Which is to say: A truly successful career may require three generations to make.

I have noticed this in Hollywood. Failed actors have children who are working actors and grandchildren who are stars. I'm not arguing that this is The One Rule; there will always be exceptions, but this idea that building something amazing takes more than one generation was common knowledge for farmers in the time of Laura Ingles Wilder.

The pioneers were going to have it rough, and they knew that going in. They knew that to break in virgin land takes a decade. Want a tree to shade your house? Another decade. But they also knew that if they did the work, their children and grandchildren would have it easier than they did. The farm would get better over time.

If they moved to a farm far away, in a climate they knew nothing about, it was even harder. Move far enough away and you don't even know what native foods to eat, dig up, preserve, and avoid, nor do you know the dangers of the area. For example, Scandinavians could more easily succeed in Wisconsin than Florida, the climate in Wisconsin at least being similar to what they knew.

Not saying they couldn't succeed anywhere. Just saying: How hard do you want it to be? Is it worth it?

Doing a career other than what your parents did is like being a pioneer.

It may be unfortunate that we idealize, as a culture, "getting out" of our hometowns and not following in Daddy's footsteps. When we are choosing our careers, we might want to think a lot more long-term than we are currently thinking.

When we see a family "outlier" we are not noticing the generations of focused people that came before him and are responsible, in part, for his success. It's the same with family failures. No one exists in a bubble. We are all bred and raised by specific people in specific circumstances, and we turn out the way we turn out for a reason. Failures, like successes, take generations to make.

UPDATE

Decided to look up the pattern of success in Donald Trump's family. Here it is:

The first generation came with Fred and Elizabeth, immigrants from Germany, no experience in real estate. Fred worked as a barber and an inn manager. He saved, bought land, and put an inn on it. Did that several times. Then switched to houses and apartments. By the time he died he owned the house his family lived in, five vacant lots in the Queens area, and had fourteen mortgages on other properties all totaling a net worth of about 500k in today's dollars.

His son, Fred, worked at the family's construction sites from a young age and took over his father's business. (The other son, John, went to college and did fine as an electrical engineer, though he had children there is nothing about them on Wikipedia, so he disappeared into obscurity.) So Fred, second generation, is still scrappy, but has a focus, unlike his dad. He marries a maid, builds up the family business, pulls some interesting/possibly immoral deals, and does well enough that his children attend private school. His children do fine for the most part, though all end up divorced. He was a super hard working second generation guy, though the focus was definitely business and not health or relationships.

One of his children is Donald who, third generation that he was, takes his family's business big. Donald has another brother that also works in the family business and does very well financially but no kids. They have a sister who becomes a judge and does fine. Her one child becomes psychologist. They are still a scrappy family, not intellectual, not what you'd call a "good" family. All of them, every single one, is divorced. And it's not like real estate is their sole focus. Donald (and his most successful child, Ivanka) does reality television and writes books in addition to real estate. Ivanka has clothing line in addition to real estate. So no idea where this family is headed but the point remains: I think outlying success takes more than one generation.

Lack of Motivation and Entitlement Among the Wealthy -- Would a Baby Fix It?

I find the general lack of motivation and attitudes of entitlement of the extremely wealthy fascinating. But I think about it very differently than most.

I was raised by poor people. I thought it rather sucked, and got a full scholarship to a private boarding school and then a full scholarship to a private university and then worked for insanely wealthy people in Los Angeles. At this point in my life I have actually spent as much time around extremely wealthy people as I have around extremely poor people.

Here is what I think about "lack of motivation":
-The healthier I get psychologically, the less motivated I am. I was always very driven as a child--but driven by necessity (I hated being poor) but also driven by insecurity (if only I achieved x, I would finally be good/happy/pretty/rich enough). I no longer suffer from either of these issues (that much) and consequently, my drive has nosedived.
-The better I get at coming into the present moment, at listening to my body, at being in touch with my real needs, at not judging myself, the more time I spend resting and relaxing.
-When I am in Nicaragua I note how lazy most animals are--cows, chickens, dogs, cats. They spend a little time eating, a little time playing, and a lot of time laying around. I notice this about my neighbors. Where we live in Nicaragua it is not that hard to build a little hut and get some food. There is a Ted Talk about this called Life is Easy. It is. If you don't mind third world poverty, you can spend most of your life just hanging out.
-So consequently, when I think about people with so much wealth that they don't actually have to work, when I talk to my friends and they tell me about the lack of motivation they are suffering from, my answer is: Do less. Lay around more.
-At lunch today I told my friend this and she said, "But then I will never be the best in the world at something." Which brings us to entitlement.

Here is what I know about "entitlement":
-The healthier I get psychologically, the less I care about success. I am going to die one day. And whatever "success" I find, I don't get to take it with me. However much money, however many awards, however much approval I get from friends or strangers--it doesn't matter very much. I am still going to die. I won't care how many people attend my funeral because I will be dead. I won't care if I left behind books or movies that people love for centuries because again, I will be dead. The more I come to terms with that reality, the less future success I need and the more interested I am in enjoying life right now.
-The irony is that when you stop caring about being successful, you get to fart around doing those stupid things you kind of enjoy. You have no motivation to work and achieve so you basically rest and play. Because playing is fun, you do it enough that, little by little, you become pretty damn good at whatever is "play" for you. And you find success. But strangely, you don't really care anymore, because that's not what you were after. And there are all these people who are whipping themselves into being the best in the world at x who can't even compete on your level--because they are working and you are playing.
-This is why life can seem so unfair. One person is killing himself working sooooo hard to achieve x and another is just farting around and achieving it. Even if the person killing himself does achieve x, it doesn't make him happy--and that makes him even more upset! He killed himself for this and he's still not good enough or rich enough or whatever. He climbed to the top of the mountain and can only see more mountains. And on top of that there are a million guys just like him yapping at his heels. He has been sucked into playing the game of thrones. After all that hard work, he doesn't even get to rest. He's got a full time job just keeping his spot at the top of the mountain, a spot that doesn't even make him happy like he thought it would. But definitely a spot to which he feels entitled. After all, he sacrificed everything to get it.
-Entitlement is not an attitude problem. It's the tragedy people suffer from when they "should on themselves," when they make themselves do what they didn't want to do and desperately need payment for their misery. Feeling entitled to a certain result means you are seeking the wrong result  for the wrong reasons.

Everything I have read thus far has led me to the following conclusions:
-We are all working too hard and need to rest more.
-Chasing success will never make us happy.
-Playing will.
-And if playing doesn't make us successful, at least it will have been fun.
-Because fun is the only success.
-We're all on the Titanic. There are no lifeboats. Whether you're the captain or just someone dancing to the music, you're going down.

That's me buying the story we are sold by today's priests, the "mental health" dealers. But part of me can't help but think that they are totally wrong. The purpose of status and wealth (evolutionarily) was procreation. What if the unmotivated wealthy are just ...  childless? That's what the money is for. That's why your parents subconsciously worked so hard to get it. That's what success is for--to attract the highest quality mate you possibly can and then breed as many babies as you possibly can. 

Humans can (and do) reject their biological purpose. But if you find yourself purposeless, instead of pursuing more empty joy, try biological fulfillment. 

Attachment Parenting Makes Moms Miserable: Why RIE Is Better

On Facebook I was recently asked: "I'm curious if you would mind sharing what you find problematic with attachment parenting?"

My answer is too long to put there, so I will put it here!

First: I think Attachment Parenting is better than Standard American Parenting. That being said, if you are going to switch from one person's How To Parent List to anther's, I think RIE is a lot better than AP. But AP is the popular one, and RIE is the one no one has ever heard of. That kills me.

Second: My first exposure to AP was the horrific Continuum Concept. This emotionally manipulative, factually inaccurate book was traumatizing to ME--and I have studied hunter gatherers and could scoff at the writer's constant claims that All Humans In History were parented (and meant to be parented) This One Way. Moreover I have studied nutrition and could scoff at the writer's claim that babies spit up out of the "stress of not being carried" rather than modern diet. My biggest issue was her claim that baby-wearing solves all problems.

First the facts: baby wearing was not practiced by all hunter gatherers. Far from it. It was practiced by tribes who lived in places where putting the baby down involved the baby getting bit by something and dying. Like the jungle, for example. And even in the tribes where babies had to be carried, the mother didn't single-handedly carry her baby all day. Carried babies spent an average of 4 hours a day in the arms of someone else. In some tribes it was 8 hours.

Now my issue: Tribal people who have perfect posture and beautiful bodies and straight teeth with no braces--their bodies can handle carrying babies all day every day. Likewise, their healthy babies can be carried for the first two years of their lives, and still go on to develop healthy bodies due to their fabulous nutritional status, and their exercise-plentiful and furniture free lifestyle.

I think baby-wearing is a tragedy when it comes to the physical development of babies from mothers who show signs of physical degeneration (crooked teeth, deviated septum, poor posture, cavities). Dr. Emmi Pikler's research about proper body development (see RIE.org a tiny book called Bulletin #14) is far more relevant and important for current American babies. A mother could follow RIE principles for her baby's physical development and baby wear, but only if the mother's body is capable of doing so without being damaged.

Today, especially in America, we have seen a lot of physical degeneration. Most women I see carrying their babies look like they are hurting their bodies. Only mothers who have straight teeth without ever having had braces and perfect posture, who eat a WAPF diet or something similar, and feel little to no physical discomfort while baby wearing, should even consider carrying their babies the way AP advocates.

For babies the first two years of their physical development are crucial, especially if they are Western babies suffering from physical degeneration due to Western eating habits. Dr. Emmi Pickler shows that babies should never be propped, never be put into a position they can get themselves into. No belly time ever. No sitting until they can get themselves into a seated position. No holding baby's hands and helping him to walk. No walkers or bouncers. Flat strollers and carseats. Back problems start in infancy because our parenting methods prevent our babies from developing their cores. Many physical development issues (irregular head shapes, one leg longer than the other, weak hips) are actually parenting-method issues. Her report is only 30 or 40 pages long and is one of the most important things any Western parent can read. Moreover, there are many books written about the proper carrying of babies so as to encourage healthy spine and core development. As far as I know, AP does not talk about this. They simply instruct: carry, carry, carry, without the warning that carrying, done incorrectly, is damaging for both mother and baby.

It saddens me that AP mothers believe they will hurt their babies if they do not wear them! So not true! Baby-wearing is irrelevant to developing secure attachment! There are so many ways to meet an infant's needs and to raise a securely attached infant! Children need a happy mom and connection with their mom far more than they need to be carried. Moreover, I have seen many miserable babies forced into being carried when they wanted to roam. I have seen babies struggle to get free and then resign themselves to their fate of captivity. This is very against my ideas about respectful parenting. Carrying should only happen by mutual consent.

Third: The main issue I have with AP is a focus on rules rather than authenticity. I have met too many miserable AP moms. AP moms, in my experience, tend to be very passionate Good Moms who are Doing It Right but who are miserable. This has led me to the conclusion that AP focuses too much on meeting the child's needs and not enough on finding ways for both the parent and child to get their needs met.

Fourth: The emphasis in AP is responding quickly to a crying baby. Not connecting with the child. Not being present with him when he is happy and sad. Nope, just make sure you drop everything every time he is sad. Again I will add here that Dear Parents: Caring for Infants with Respect does a way better job of describing respectful parent-infant interaction AND focuses on how both baby and mom can get their needs met, rather than just baby.

Fifth: AP demands that you breastfeed. I can get behind this one! Unless you don't want to. Because I can't get behind ever making yourself miserable to be someone else's idea of good. For sure it is healthier for your baby to breastfeed. And you--you will be less likely to get breast cancer. But otherwise, out with the rules. Ditto with their prescribed hours of bonding after the baby is born and co-sleeping. I love sleeping with my son. And a recent study showed that it is good for his heart. But it was also best for me as I could not sleep with him in the other room--I woke up all night to check on him. It worked much better for me to have him close. And like I said, I looooooove sleeping with him. It brings me so much joy! But if it didn't bring me joy, if it caused strife in my marriage, if he were a kicker or a snorer--I wouldn't hesitate to request that he move into the other room. And I wouldn't think for an instant that this would harm our relationship. We have a very secure relationship--not because I ever wore him and not because he is near me while I am sleeping, but because of how we interact when we are awake.

It is absolutely possible to create a secure attachment with a baby who is not carried, not breastfed, sleeps in his own room, and who spent his first hours of life alone and miserable. Therefore AP drives me crazy! Secure attachment is created by respect for one another's needs and sensitivity to one another's needs.

The point is to have an amazing life. Children need happy parents! They need people to model how to get their needs met. And by making sure you get your needs met, you model for your child how to assert his own needs.

Anyway, I am glad that AP moms are breastfeeding, co-sleeping, bonding, and responding to their babies when they cry. I just wish the focus were on authenticity and mutual respect rather than a new definition of Good Mom.

Health Note - Reader Cures Her Own Migraines

I was emailing recently with a reader who mentioned she had had migraines. I asked her about them and here is what she wrote:

I actually have my migraines completely under control, I'm happy to report.  I did have four during my pregnancy - all during the second trimester - but only one of them was really bad; the rest were all quite manageable.  I am completely gluten-free and can only tolerate minuscule amounts of grass-fed dairy, which I found out after adopting an anti-inflammatory diet (Paleo/primal/WAPF).  Diet combined with magnesium supplementation daily and regular chiropractic care keep me migraine-free and have for a few years (with the exception of pregnancy).

I am so excited to be finding such inspiring, proactive people through this blog!