The dread midlife crisis!

I'm not having one, now.  I'm too old to have one or even remember when I had one.  Maybe I'll figure that out at the end of this blog.

Yesterday, during a discussion with my new, young daughter-in-law the subject of midlife crisis came up.  Since she is a matchmaker, it ran to why there are so many women having midlife crises these days.  The idea being that women before women's lib didn't have a midlife crisis, it was a man thing to do.  Her reasoning was that women were now having the same responsibilities as men so the stress was doing it. 

My theory was that a midlife crisis was not an option when you couldn't support yourself, and never believed you had a choice to do anything except what you were doing--being a wife and mother.  The topic was dropped, we are both argumentative, but don't know each other well enough to want to create a monster over something so philosophical, but I thought about it over night and decided to see what, if anything, was going on.

Midlife crisis is a term coined in 1965 by Elliott Jaques stating "a time where adults come to realize their own mortality and how much time is left in their life. A midlife crisis is experienced by many people during the midlife transition when they realize that life may be more than halfway over. Sometimes, a crisis can be triggered by transitions experienced in these years, such as andropause or menopause, the death of parents or other causes of grief, unemployment or underemployment, realizing that a job or career is hated but not knowing how else to earn an equivalent living, or children leaving home. People may reassess their achievements in terms of their dreams. The result may be a desire to make significant changes in core aspects of day-to-day life or situation, such as in career, work-life balance, marriage, romantic relationships, large expenditures, or physical appearance.

Ok, that was pretty straight forward.  And women of my mother's age in the 60's were having something that fit that when I was in my teens.  I know this, because there were copies of "the joy of sex" book out there, and several women went out to find jobs while their children (14-18 year olds) stayed home alone in the summer, and a couple of families went through a divorce.  One woman actually got a job, and had an affair with her boss leading to a divorce--(that was good for some backyard fence time in the neighborhood). 

Since divorce seems to be seen as related to midlife crisis (amazingly, most articles/therapies seem to see it as related to marriage, a thing I think is false, but  I have no other measuring stick for the early years, so it will have to do).

Before WWII (think Rosie the Riveter) divorce rates were less than 5%.  After the end of that war, rates rose rapidly to 14% and by 1975, 40% of marriages were ending in divorce.  We are currently at 50%. (remember that is marriages, not people, some people get married repeatedly, and each of those count independently.)  From this, I see that the rise in independence of women does seem to be a possible factor in female midlife crisis.  But is it from the newly added, previously unexperienced stress of work, decision-making, and rat-racing? or is it because they can now dream and acheive something more.  

If we look at the identified parts of a midlife crisis compared to grief, we see an great overlap.  Perhaps we are just grieving for our own lost youth.

This is a list of the identified components of a midlife crisis.  They are juxtaposed with the stages of grief in parentheses)

1. Feelings of Depression

(Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the grieving person begins to understand the certainty of death. Much like the existential concept of The Void, the idea of living becomes pointless. Things begin to lose meaning to the griever. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and sullen. This process allows the grieving person to disconnect from things of love and affection, possibly in an attempt to avoid further trauma. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It is natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation. Often times, this is the ideal path to take, to find closure and make their ways to the fifth step, )

2. A Loss of Interest in Things That Used to be Important. (Any therapist will tell you this is a sign of depression)

3. Feeling a Need for Adventure and Change (Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.)

4. Anger and Blame of The Spouse (or some other person that influenced the current life choice) (Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"  Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.)

5. Unable to Make Decisions About Their Future. (depression symptom)

6. Doubt Over The Choice to Marry (or not marry, or have kids, or not have kids) (Anger)

7. A Desire For a New and More Passionate Intimate Relationship (could be denial, could be acceptance, depends on motivation)

Below is a list of the stages of grief in order--people do not really go through them in order or even in a straight sequence, frequently return to a stage in which they were more comfortable.  While the goal is to work through grief, some people live--and die there.

1. Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
   Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
3. Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if…"
   The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow undo or avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Other times, they will use any thing valuable as a bargaining chip against another human agency to extend or prolong the life they live. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…" People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?" when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it is a matter of life or death.
4. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
   In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief. This typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable mindset.

From an internet search--I saw this      

"The 'midlife crisis' is measurable, and it may be earlier than you think, study finds

A long-term study of wellbeing across three countries found a distinct dip in happiness around the ages of 40-42, according to new research published by the German-based Institute for the Study of Labor. The U-shaped curve suggests people regain their happiness later in life.

I think this is acceptance that is giving them their happiness back.  I also think that we could decrease our own difficulties with midlife crisis by thinking of our life, our whole life as a series of choices, rather than a set of roles.  People talk about wearing different hats; its a cute image, and perfectly describes the roles we take on through life.  They are hats, because they are not us.  We are not roles.  I can be a teacher for a while or a Doctor for a while, a parent, a brother, a wife, a committee chairman, or anything else but while I will learn different things in that role, I will still be me.  I am myself without any roles.

Every choice we make, eliminates a different choice and that starts pretty young.  The child that decides on baseball instead of science club, ballet instead of cheerleading, studying instead of socializing.  Each of those is a choice that can't be made again at the same time.  We can play a sport or learn an instrument at any age, but the benefits of longer experience at a younger age can not be regained.  I can go take tapdancing tomorrow, but I will not likely be good enough to perform on broadway when I start at 60.  Every athlete knows that their body does not have an eternal time to start and reach professional levels of performance.   While I might reach some level of professionalism with my painting before I die, I can't go back and become an amazing artist by 30, that is over.  The wife and mother that always wanted to write a novel can still succeed, but only if she still believes she can, and many of us lose our faith in our own ability.  

Does everyone that experiences grief for their own half-done life throw everything away and lose their mind?  Of course not, some buy a sports car, or take up skydiving.  Some decide to get to know themselves--again (that can be tough, especially if you thought you WERE the role you were playing)  Some volunteer, helping the world and meeting new people and learning new skills.  For others, they refind the love they had for their spouse, or finally decide that they don't want to spend more time on a bad marriage and get a divorce.  We have long acted as though divorce is the same as loser, but marriage should make both people better, not just one, and if both are unhappy, see a counselor.  You need insight, you need someone to give you some outside perspective, you need permission to love the rest of your life and live in happiness.  

So, do I think women didn't have midlife crises in the past?  Of course they did.  They couldn't buy a sports car--no money, usually no drivers license.  They couldn't get a divorce, because while they earned no money, they had a fulltime job, a 24/7 job with no days off.  Women's life expectancy in 1900 was 1-2 years longer than a man, by the 1970's they had a 13 year lead on men, today that is down to 5 years.  Is that because of the current push to return women to the 1900s in power/choices? or are we approaching a brick wall.  While the gap is closing  again (back to where we were before WWII), women are at 80+ years as opposed to late 60's-early 70's. And while that is partly better birth control/better health care/easier living conditions, I believe it is also better life quality.  Seeing the GOOD OLD DAYS as golden, happy times is just putting on those rose colored glasses.  If you really think being a woman in 1880 was better, be a widow on the frontier with 10 kids, be the 5th daughter of a farmer, the homely but intelligent daughter of a man with aspirations.  When women have no power over their own lives, they don't get to make their own choices, they get married off to who ever is seen as the best connection for dad, they get married off to whoever gets rid of that extra/nonproductive mouth to feed, or they lose everything, shipped to the poorhouse, kids to the poorhouse or work farms, strewed across the country with whatever relative is willing to put one of them to work.  

When you have your crisis, and you will, and I remember mine---I actually told my coworkers repeatedly that I now knew my life was half over.  It started with the death of my parents and at the time I was more than half their ages.  And ended at 50 when I realized that I needed to not waste the last of my life.  I didn't buy a sports car and didn't have an affair, I changed jobs, but not by choice (I actually have a big mouth, shocking) and I didn't move.  I did start painting, one of the things I always wanted to do, and I did quit worrying about the future, because every minute spent worrying about what might happen is a minute I could be doing something I want to do.  So I survived mine.  And everyone out their deserves to have their own and figure out how they want to survive it, also.

OBAMA

The name sounds foreign to many of us, and saying it in certain states, for example the red one I live in, will frequently start a tirade.  (The name itself is a bit odd.  Out of 44 presidents, his is the only Non-European surname.  We have 37 presidents with good old names off the British Isles, with most English, some Anglo-Saxon, some Welsh, some Irish, some Scottish, and some decidedly Celtic.  We have 3 Dutch names, and 1 German.  So much for the melting pot).

 Too often the tirade is about his appearance or his voice though the tirade never, ever, ever mentions race.  "This is not about race, its him."  Who are they lying to, themselves I think. "He is trying to make us communist", or "he's the next Hitler" (those people never seem to get that Hitler wasn't a communist.) "He is stupid". "He is------"something, something bad, something that is going to ruin the country.  Of course, I live in a state full of rabid born-again republicans.  For some reason, when rich powerful men start complaining about things not being good for them, my neighbors think they are part of that group. There is not a rich powerful man in the area, but they are all white--close enough.  We need racism and sexism and religionism (yes, I made it up, but what else would you call it when people line up behind religious affiliation like it is US or THEM---presidentially speaking, there have been 37 protestants, 4 unitarians, 2 quakers, 1 catholic and 1 jehovah's witness, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had no listed religion and probably could not have even been elected these days because of it).

We need those things, because while we have those things, we don't have to worry about the real dividing line.  It is and always has been the HAVES and the HAVE-NOTS.  It isn't just money the HAVES possess, it is also power.  That was what started our own American Revolution.  Our colonies had money because the colonies were full of resources and the colonists were cleaning up, but the wealthy colonists did not have any power, and the employed (that might be slaves, bond servants, or other peasantry) had little of either.  That revolution was for Power, the power to determine your own laws, use the tax money for the good of your own people and not just send it back to the king.

In South Africa, the HAVES were all white, they were HAVES because they profited off the horrible misuse of the HAVE-NOTS and we called it apartheid and legalized racism and wrong.  It was a place in which a small percent of the population ruled the larger percent with no concern for the larger percents needs, seeing them as things not peers.  Mandela is a hero for attacking that beast.  But while that was an obvious wrong, it is far from the only place where a small group rules the vast majority to the detriment of that majority.

The French Revolution was very similar, the royals, the nobles, the landed had everything and the people cutting the wood and growing the food and sewing the clothes etc, etc, etc, were frequently hungry and could not afford medicine or shelter or other basic needs. The Russian Revolution that resulted in the rise of communism in the last century was from a similar cause.  They had seen the less than perfect results of the French and American Revolutions and like China tried Socialism.  Reality is, if you read about a republic (which we in America are) or a democracy (which we are not, but frequently claim to be) or communism or socialism, they sound wonderful.  They are all high-minded ideals in which everyone is equal, everyone is able to live to their highest potential.  Apparently, power does corrupt and absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Add to that, what some professor from my ancient past once said, "its not hard to start a revolution, the hard part is stopping it where you want."  Wars are not led by high-minded idealists, they are led by people that aren't afraid to kill, to maim, to "get their hands"--or their followers hands "dirty".  And they never stop until the rich and powerful are back on top.  Humans are highly corruptible.  I don't understand it, but I have never had power or money.

But back to Obama.  My granddaughter was born during his first campaign.  Her mom was just starting to pay attention to politics and she followed the Obama campaign very closely.  My granddaughter has a kind of hero worship for the president.  By five she was looking at president pictures in old books and asking questions about the office.  She thinks she might want to be the first female president.  Since it hasn't happened yet I feel no need to burst that bubble.

Why has this president polarized the country so thoroughly?  What horrible thing has he done?  We made a huge deal about his birth, "he wasn't even born here" all over the internet, but he was, his mother was from Kansas, his father from Kenya.  And he was not alone, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson had mothers born in England, Andrew Jackson's parents came here from Ireland, James Buchanan and Charles Arthur both had fathers born in Ireland.  Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Ontario, Canada.  Apparently, the problem is with Africa.  But all people came out of Africa.  How is this not racism?

Okay.  Perhaps it's his agenda.  He does seem very focused on getting health care available to all people whether or not they can afford it (I have never been able to figure out the down side to this, although I do suspect the AMA and Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies are leading the lobby against--personally I wanted a full blown nationalized healthcare.
And there is immigration reform (how many immigrant ancestors are in your family tree, mine is pretty full of them).
This term's focus on gun control (we have no problem with denying violent criminals their second amendment rights, but seem to think that more guns easily available is the answer to the countries woes.  If the militias weren't so full of racists, sexists, and religionists, I might actually be more against gun registration.  Maybe it really is just that we need gun education starting in grade school and everybody has to carry by age 18.  We would either need half the police or half the number of everything else.
It might be a new kind of birth control.  It sounds a lot like anarchy.
Then there is the attempt to get more jobs.  We (editorial, since I don't know anyone making minimum wage that would be included in that "we") don't want to raise the minimum wage because the powerful rich people would not make more jobs.  So maybe we would only need half as many jobs if the jobs paid enough to live on.
Seriously, who has ever been hired to do a job that is not needed.
Rich and powerful people don't make jobs to provide poor people with jobs, they make new jobs because they have work that needs done and that work will make them a profit.  The amount of money involved in the difference between the current minimum wage and the new proposed minimum wage won't even make a blip on their radar.  They don't worry about their profits in dollar or ten dollar amounts, they worry about them in millions.
Keeping the workers underpaid just makes their profits higher, but no workers means no profit.  Not one of them is doing their own work for what they are profiting from.  I am also a fan of lowering  the amount of money salaried people can make and still get over-time.  Why should anyone not qualify for overtime.  If the job takes longer than 40 hours, maybe it is another job.  Paying one person  one salary to do two people's worth of work is a great way to raise your own profits.  But it is not right and there is another job. (amazing, isn't it)

Next is climate change.  In my state, we took a vote and their is no such thing.  We have never seen a lot of the weird weather that has occurred in the last 50 years, but it isn't new.  And it isn't caused by man, only god can change the weather---its because of all the godless, other race/other religion, sexually different people that currently don't have to hide or live in fear of being shot/lynched/tarred&feathered.  In truth, we live in a closed system (mostly closed) and setting off chemical reactions and contaminating the water and spewing gases can"t NOT alter that closed system.  Every action has consequences (physics not philosophy) and we humans has obviously altered the earth in the last 5,000 years.  The speed we are altering it has gone up tremendously in the last 100 years and we need to plan for the future of not just ourselves but our distant descendants.  (I personally would like my great-great-great-great grandkids to be able to walk in the spring air and see butterflies and recent evidence of wildlife walking on a dirt path in the country)

Last is voter access.  While we Americans don't vote as often as we could, we should not have any problems voting.  How do I feel about voter id's.  Make id's free and easily accessible and that is fine.  But use the difficulty of getting an ID like the old Jim Crow laws, and you are exactly as wrong as you sound.  We have seen crookedness in the voting world.  District Lines changed to make one group more powerful, another less powerful.  Long lines the day of, no parking, no workers, trying to close on time even when it was not physically possible for all the voters registered to vote at that place to finish within the allotted time. We have become a nation of slick, self-centered, other-haters. Was that always who we were?

I think that is not new, but Obama,  who my granddaughter unfailingly calls President Obama, has given a whole slew of people with no representation, with no toe-hold in the system, with no way to grab the opportunities this country is supposedly so free with--hope.

Keeping hope alive--Thanks, President Obama.

the bell curve

Otherwise known as the normal curve, what we like to be graded on, what we expect of a single population, favorite of researchers all over.  But what is it?
In IQ tests, its peak is 100, where 50% of the population is expected to be found.  Tests are tested and "normalized" around this.  We aren't sure if it is actually real, since we don't really know what IQ is except for that it is what IQ tests measure. We do know that the tests that similate IQ tests, those standardized tests we give to large numbers of students at a time, have to be altered as sometimes the test changes with culture and technological advances and just plain time.  (if you have never had an individually administered IQ test, don't brag about your IQ, its probably never been checked).

In other populations, you would expect in a total population that has not been skewed by other parameters, to find that 50% of that population  is on one half of the curve (say---right) and the other half on the left.  That makes the middle of the bell curve also the 50th percentile.  That means way over on the right of the curve, where it has dipped down pretty good, is about the 90th percentile. That means that if a person's number is way over there, there aren't very many people sharing that spot and they are doing "better, faster, older, smarter, richer, or whatever.   The same spot on the other side would be about the same number of people (or dogs, or tests, or whatever the "n" is) and about the 10th percentile and they would only be doing better than 10% of the participants. Its symetrical. Humans like symmetry, it's one of the things we use to judge beauty and fairness and whether we have applied our make-up correctly.

There are populations, that due to human intervention or some other force, do not fall on the Bell curve.  Examples would be chihuahuas and post-AIDS hemophiliacs.   The dogs have been impacted by genetic manipulation.  Not that we messed with their actual genes, but that we controlled their breeding.   For the traits that are desired, that the breed is bred for, the curve will be skewed to the right, and for those that are breed to remove the curve will be skewed to the left. For those poor individuals that experienced the discovery of AIDS while requiring blood products in the pre-testing timeframe, the curve is not just skewed, it is a cliff.

There are other things that can happen to a bell curve.  One of the more confusing is when it has two different hills.  That acually means you have two different populations being measured on the same curve.  An example of this, is the current wealth of the US. The best way to show this would be two show it on two bell curves--the top 2% and the bottom 98%.  The top 2% has 98% of the wealth, and by percentile, you would expect that the people at the 98th percentile would have more than 98% of the population.  But you would also expect that at the 50th percentile, 50% of the wealth would exist.  Not true here.  Everyone under the 98th percentile is sharing the same leftover 2%.  The two percent of the money is divided along a skewed bell curve, but not that severely skewed.  It skews to the left.  The top 98% of the money is its own bell curve, and it it also skewed to the left, with a much larger number of individuals making $300,000/year than the far right end, where the fortune-500 members live.

So,  in numbers, about 50% of the US population makes less than  $30,000/year, another 40% make $30,000-$100,000/year (we are now at the 90th percentile) and about 8% make over $100,000 but less than $300,000/year.  The next 1% is the makers of over $300,000 to under $500,000/year. That final 1% makes at least a half a million a year to several billion/year.  Curious?  The IRS has their own fortune 400 that is based on the top 400 income tax returns.  Stats only, the "who" is private.

So the point is? We have two population in the good ole US of A.  The ruling class and the peasantry.  Shades of Europe in the middle ages.

Since I should be doing my taxes and instead I'm writing this, I will make a suggestion.  Its a start, only, but its a new tax law suggestion.  A variation of the Flat Tax.  The biggest change would be to the individual deductions.  Where we currently get some number chosen from something that has nothing to do with life, I think we should plug in the income at poverty level.  That is what it takes to feed and clothe and shelter 1 person without assistance. In 2014, for one person, that is $11,670.  For a couple filing together, $15,730, for a family of 4, 23,550.  In Alaska, where the cost of living is higher, the same family of four would be$29,440, in Hawaii $27,090.  I personally would use Alaska for everyone since there should be some benefit to living in middle America.  Everything over that, whether salary, wage, capital gain, or any other source of income, would be 25%.  I think this would solve the problem of the person making 1 dollar over poverty and paying taxes and the person making 1 billion paying no taxes--and solve it well.
Reality is, it costs no more for a rich person to get enough calories to live, water to drink and shelter to stay warm than a poor person.  All that other stuff, the compounds and 3 vacation houses, the sixteen cars, the new wardrobe every season--designer and custom only, that is fat.  And fat should always be taxable.  Since we haven't gone with a national healthcare system yet, medical expenses should also remain until we figure that one out.  Interest?  I always liked it, but it is a sign of a sick economy and a sicker way of life, not a reason for a deduction.

If there were only 400 homeless people in the country, that would be fine, but we currently have constitution that implies equality yet the people making the laws that are supposed to support the ideal of equality are in the 2% almost to the man (was that an accident?  well there are 20  women in the senate and 79 women in the house, so perhaps I should have said person). There are 100 senators.  There are 435 representatives in the House, so that is 18% female.  All 535 members of Congress are worth an average $966,001 each, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

A typical American household has a net worth of about $66,740 – a value that has been declining since the start of the most recent recession. Between 2007 and 2010, the median net worth of American households sank 47.1 percent. Food stamp enrollment increased by 15.5 million since 2009 and recent job creation figures show that low-paying jobs have largely replaced higher paying ones.

At a time when the majority is struggling financially, the nation’s leaders are accumulating more wealth.  The new freshmen congress members have an average net worth greater than 1,000,000.

If they represent the people shouldn't their entry-level income mirror the average American? Is our country politically becoming as corrupt as any third world country?
 Where is the hope for the majority that is supposedly ruling?
Where is the hope?

American Hoarding

We have TV shows about it, and the crazy old cat woman is the epitome of the hoarder.  So are those depression-era survivors that have stacks of butter containers and newspapers and used aluminum foil neatly pressed, folded and stacked.

In the shows, someone with a mic and camera goes in to do an intervention---shades of addiction therapy---and for the horror and amusement of folks all over the country, makes snarky comments.

It probably is an addiction, and like all addiction, is a way of calming a fear--we call them anxiety, since they are not based on anything that anyone else can identify as real.  Addiction is just a nonfunctional coping mechanism.  We use them to feel better, but the end result is we don't actually do better, and they can kill us.
Being humiliated on TV is probably not the answer.

Because of the hype hoarders have gotten, every magazine and many TV shows are directed at thinning the accumulation.  Pronouncements of "don't keep anything you haven't used in 6 months"  and "if you have more than one of those throw it out" are the kinds of advice that are shared.  I'm not sure why no one ever says "stop buying all that crap".   Shoppers that shop for bargains weekly, buying things they already have, buying things they might someday need, buying to feel the void.  It is just as bad as hoarding, but apparently throwing your excess out is socially acceptable, or maybe it just doesn't sell ads the way the sellers would like.
I am not a hoarder. I hate to shop.  But if I find something that looks like a future art project, I'll probably get it and it will probably not be used in 6 months.  I currently have several boxes of depression-era fabric scraps for quilting, but I don't quilt 24/7.  I quilt when I feel like it.  I also have a roll of art canvas that I have been working on for several years.  I haven't made a new canvas in 2 years because I keep reworking the same stinking one.  Sometimes its just like that.  I have a stamp collection left from childhood, are all stamp collectors hoarders?  I realize that the need to obtain, examine, categorize and store a group of things can be seen as pretty odd.
But is it wrong?
Do they need an intervention?
If a person gains something from their collecting or making that calms them, grounds them, focuses them--is that an illness or is that a tool?
I have no answers, but do know that reality TV was made for the lowest type of entertainment.  If all that makes a person feel good about themselves is to be able to watch someone else be publicly humiliated for not fitting into the mold of the average, they might be more in need of help than the person spending their time stacking magazines around the wall or folding aluminum foil.
If you need to feel better, volunteer.
There are a milllion places to volunteer.  Hospices need volunteers for those of you that feel the need to help the dying and their families; and museums need volunteers for those of you that like to share in the amazing arts and science experiences that both children and adults can learn from and love. There are clean-ups of the environment to help the earth, animal shelters for animal lovers, construction and repair projects that fulfill that need to work with your hands.
There is story reading at libraries, schools need volunteers to present special collections and stories about the past.
There are a million things that are better than watching hoarders on TV.
And if you know a hoarder personally, see if they want to volunteer with you.  That might be a more useful coping mechanism for them. 
Maybe we can stop some of crap from accumulating unnecessarily in the landfills and on the TV line-up.

Gratitude for comfort.

Last night, after painting for hours and quilting for hours and waiting in a car for a kid's activity to end, and then hours of  TV, I went upstairs, and fell into bed.  The feel of the sheets, the weight of the quilts, the rumpled pillows---wonderful.
I lay their in the dark, the coolness of the sheets a contrast to the softness of the quilts, the sound of the wind made a lullaby.  I was no longer on the edge of old.  I was once again a child, and with that soft and gentle memory I drifted off.

Some people might ask "what kind of mattress?", "what was the thread count of the sheets?"  "What did you take?".  But the answer is much simpler, I turned the thermostat down two hours before bedtime.  When I was a child, winter in the bedroom was cold.  Quilts were a joy. Bedtime was a time of feeling your own body-heat make a tiny space of comfort.

We are currently in a time of---something?  I know I feel asleep for a few years and woke up to find that equality in this country of no class systems was no longer a given.  I'm not sure it ever was, but think that maybe I was just born at a strange spot in history when the middle-class was at its strongest and personal delusional systems were at an all time high.  I can no longer pretend, and when I hear the loyal patriotism, the repetition of meaningless platitudes and the Pollyanna preaching of "be positive you're just being negative, everything is fine", I yearn for my old bedroom in the winter, my tiny den of warmth and safety.

Childhood should feel safe and most parents manage a semblance of safe-feelings for their children. It isn't that hard, the little tykes have nothing to compare it to. Live a few decades, discover the powerlessness of parents with little money---translation to American--no power, of being that parent, of being the grandparent that is the safety net even though the entire net is made of plastic, high-interest plastic at that--and moments of comfort are truly rare.  Secure, well-adjusted children are a miracle.

The schools still try to make good little citizens, teaching patriotism--"this is the greatest country in the world, be proud to be here taking advantage of the many opportunities"  "you can do anything you set your mind to"  "work hard"  " participate in the democratic process".  I wish they would just focus on teaching them to use their minds, to think, to investigate, to make a plan and carry it out. Our public schools are not for the children, but for the machine that is our country.

First, how long since we were #1 in anything that was important.  We are geographically the fourth largest nation in the world.  We have the largest economy--but what does that mean.  We have the highest mean (average) personal income, but the second highest median personal income, so we have some really rich citizens, the problem being we don't have a lot of those rich citizens.  We have the most productive workers in the world!  Wow!  Are they well paid?  Well they aren't working in sweat shops, but who thought that made motivated and productive workers?  It has the 4th most unequally distributed wealth in the world.  So the teachers have us working hard, but it doesn't sound like very many of them really get to be Successful.  Oh, and we are #1 in military spending.  Good job teaching patriotism!

Participating in the democratic process is more difficult. We can all vote, unless we are felons.  But our vote is really more of a suggestion to the electorate.  We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. Greece was a republic.  Citizens voted.  Women were not voters.  2nd class peoples weren't voters. Some things really don't change.  We are a nation of pretenders.  "we are all equal"  "We don't have a ruling class" "Everyone has the same opportunity".  "this is the greatest nation in the world".
I think it has a good ideal; was built with nice principles.
 I think that many of the founding fathers were very idealistic.  But I have to wonder what the focus is in those schools that teach the children of our current ruling class.  Somehow, I can't see such platitudes meaning anything to children who already get an allowance bigger than our full-time minimum wage earners and last I checked, these kids weren't going to the military unless they start with rank.

So I am thankful for a cold bed with quilts, my comfort, my memories of feeling safe and snug.  I can only hope that those children out there with cold beds also find comfort and dream of a world where they are safe and warm and able to be anything they put their minds to.
Sometimes Dream-time is the best times we have.

IT SNOWED!

I was not expecting snow, but hadn't checked the weather all week.  The night was noisy; fascia rumbling in the wind, attic turbines whirring, whistling eaves, jangling chimes, 1 cat snoring, another one sneezing, but of all those sounds, no sound of snow falling.
The world is quiet, now.  Snow seems to absorb all the sound and with no cars moving outside, it is like being alone in the world.  Just me and my heater.
If you check the internet there are arguments about global warming although why that starts every time it snows is bizarre.  The "nothing has changed" crew apparently thinks it is proof of something. All those firsts in recorded history; tsunami's that wipe out populated coasts, hurricanes, massive tornadoes, none of that proves anything, but snow is proof.
In geologic eras, neither are really proof of anything.  If you are a animal that is currently adapting to living in an urban jungle instead of becoming extinct, you probably think the idea of humans changing the earth is pretty believable.  The population of the planet hit 1 billion about 1800.  It had doubled to 2 billion by 1927 and doubled again by 1974.  But in the last 12 years we have added another billion, bringing us to 7 billion. A billion in 12 years vs. a billion in 123 years.  It is estimated that it will take 200 years to reach 14 billion, but that is if we continue to have declining growth rates. In other words, if nothing changes in the next 200 years.
When I was a child, it was reported on the TV that by 2000, we would all have a life expectancy of 100 years.  (I realize we also expected to be flying along the highways in flying cars and vacationing on Mars)  Expectations stated now are about 75 for men and 80 for women.  In 1960 it was 68 for men and 73 for women in the U.S.  Between then and now,  we have had multiple wars.  We have HIV,  and Hepatitis C.  We have drugs that don't just make you feel good, they make you old in a pretty short time.  We have drug-resistant bacteria, terrorism, WMD, germ warfare, chemical weapons, and a whole lot of organized crime.  None of those increase life expectancy.
We will still have people that make it to 100.  I have pictures of three different relatives that became centenarians.  All of them died before 1940.  The government in this fine country is predicting very regularly that the baby boomers will bankrupt social security.  Too many old people getting pay-outs at the same time. No one griped that too many young baby boomers were paying in at the same time, and no one is pointing out that the baby boomers are not really racing to 100.  They have done a lot; first generation to make alcohol be NOT their ONLY drug of choice, first generation to get HIV from needles, and Hep. C. from needles and don't forget that weird time when we didn't know about either, so we passed out both viruses in the blood supply.  First generation to never go to war (when did we last have a war in this country?) but die in the military at the hands of the enemy(think police action, its only a dream), first since penicillin to die of sepsis despite antibiotics.  Between that and the environmental changes and the healthcare inadequacies, they might be the first to not have any centenarians.  We won't know that until 2040.

But today, there is no global warming and the world is soft and quiet.

Sitting here with a cold on my vacation.

I'm sitting here at the computer writing this with a head cold, drinking hot tea, blowing my nose, wondering how I would feel if this cold was the flu and not just a cold.  My symptoms are a bit of fever, some chills, a cough, sore throat, runny nose, achiness, headache, tiredness, slight nausea(assume from the snot running down the back of my throat.

Below is what the CDC says are the symptoms of the flu.

Influenza Symptoms

Influenza (also known as the flu) is a contagious respiratory illness caused by flu viruses. It can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. The flu is different from a cold. The flu usually comes on suddenly. People who have the flu often feel some or all of these symptoms:

• Fever* or feeling feverish/chills
• Cough
• Sore throat
• Runny or stuffy nose
• Muscle or body aches
• Headaches
• Fatigue (tiredness)
• Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea, though this is more common in children than adults.

* It's important to note that not everyone with flu will have a fever.

I am not terribly pacified by this.  But am also not terribly sick, just feel crappy, not like I'm dying.  

This years Flu Vaccine (the trivalent one) contained the H1N1, H3N2 variants of influenza A and an unspecified influenza B.  If you received the Quadrivalent, you also got a second unspecified influenza B.  The Shots are supposed to be about 86% effective against the strains that they are against.  This year we got lucky and it is the H1N1, so the shot could help.  

In addition to the flu, there are many, many, many viruses that present with the same symptoms.  The only way to know if you actually have the flu is to be tested for the flu.  This is almost always done by nasal swab.  If you have been told you had the flu, but were not swabbed for the flu, they were guessing.  Also, many people, just like me will assume that they have a cold, or another virus and stay home treating the symptoms and never know if they had the flu.  

As far as treating the flu, there is Tamiflu.   If you start taking it when your first symptoms start, it can make you have a much lessened illness.  I don't know if they test for the flu before doing that, but a lot of it is prescribed every flu season.  

It is known that the vaccine is less effective on people with poor immune systems, children under 2, the elderly, and people with chronic illnesses.  That is the same group that gets the most sick when they get the flu so also the group targeted to get the vaccine.  It is all very statistical.  

What is not mentioned is the concerns by those studying rheumatological illnesses that think all the vaccines might be increasing autoimmune disorders.  Or those that think that a year of testing (or less) might not guarantee that the new vaccine won't cause long-down-the-road side effects that we know nothing about, or that it is possibly a huge government conspiracy being used to create mutations, shorten life-spans, (choose your own horrible plan and place it here).  I tend to stay away from the huge conspiracy things since we have a hard enough time maintaining secrets and carrying out complicated plans with things like military secrets/utility bill changes aimed at helping the wealthy on the heads of the poor.

I didn't get a flu shot.  I may have to before I retire because I work in the healthcare industry.  I don't want one, I'm not trusting, and have always thought that reality is, I can only die once.  I wish we could find a way to cure flu if someone gets it.  But until we come up with a way to improve healthcare, make it more consistently good, more consistently caring, more patient-centered,  I'm going to just drink my hot tea and rub on some Vicks and read a good book.

Waiting for the chili to simmer...happy new year!

Its January 1st.  The 57th of my life.  Another chance to resolve to do better, to make promises to myself, to change, and ultimately many of the same resolutions will appear the next year.  I don't actually feel much guilt over this.  Either they are not realistic or I don't care about them that much or they are more than 1 year goals.
Some of the resolutions that are not back on the board:
1) Getting back to my weight at 16.   I saw a woman a few years back that walked constantly.  She was in her 70's, had dementia, and had apparently been an exercise and fitness (chose your noun here) since puberty.  Her family made sure her hair was always a perfect blonde and her clothes were high-end athletic.  Walking behind her, you would have sworn she was young and healthy, but when she turned around, even with the plastics and night creams, she was a lost and confused elderly woman.  That disturbed me the first time, but made me think about my life--and all life.  What is really important.
2) Saving enough money for a good retirement.  (too late, I want to retire, prefer not to be working at a job I don't feel inspired by up until the last hour of my life, but saving is not my answer, I'll have to find a way to budget myself and make some money off the many things I do love to do)
3)  Write the great American novel. (I'm going to settle for journaling and this blog which has been opened 213 times but may or may not have ever been read.  It makes me think maybe I will look like a crone from the back, but I will still be capable of  a conversation)
4)  Become a famous artist.  (I've already sold more paintings than Van Gogh and still have both ears, that is a kind of joke if you know his life).  I have asked the people that I have given paintings to NOT to put them in garage sales.  Every time a see a painting in a garage sale with a price that covers the frame at a bargain price it makes me think of puppies and kittens dumped by the side of the road.  I must admit I have gotten some great frames that way.)
5)Win the lottery (I'm lying, that is still on the list--hope springs eternal)

The real list this year is to keep me "making".  Paint a painting a month.  Draw daily.  Write daily.  Blog weekly.  Take a photograph every day (new camera).  Finish painting the house (that one is always on there and  always will be-I can out-procrastinate any paint guarantee, I seem.)
 The list goes on, reading more like a to do list.  I hang it where I can see it, then manage to avoid reading it for weeks at a time.
Every time I read it I do feel inspired to do something on it.
Because I have to be doing... always doing.
Maybe its because I'm in that stage of life that focuses on productivity.
Maybe doing keeps me from running through the street screaming that the sky is falling. I don't know, but the Chili is simmering.  It may need more seasoning.  Guess its time to finish making that.

Thoughts on Christmas morning.

For millions and millions of us in the US of A, it is time to be awoken by screaming, giggling children that can't wait to rush in under the tree and see what Santa brought them.  I loved that as a child and had many short of sleep christmas mornings with my own children.  It is child-dependent thing to do and I expect that my own children are currently rubbing the sleep out of their own eyes so they can watch children rip open gifts and throw new clothes to the side so they can play with whatever toy has caught their eye.
For some of us without kids in the house, Christmas morning can be more of a free-time.  Other people go to great lengths to be somewhere besides alone on that morning.  Some decide to sleep late or sign up to work or bake some more cookies to take to the family meal. 
I had always considered Christmas to be universal, but with roughly 1/3 of the worlds population (about 2.1 billion people) being Christian, that means that 2/3 of the world are probably not celebrating Christmas.  And very few cultures celebrate it the way it is commonly celebrated in this country.  If you add in the people celebrating the Winter Solstice (about 3.6 billion that includes those following Hinduism, tribal, Buddhist, Neopagan and Zoroastrians, then we are almost 70%, add Hanukkah, Chalica, and we are still about 70% (that would be two religions that total less than a million between them).  Add Kwanzaa and the many people that do not consider themselves to have a religion but that enjoy a good celebration as well as the next person and we have about 80% of the world celebrating something this week. Jehovah's witnesses don't do holidays and the 21% of the population that is Islamic are all that are not officially in holiday mode.
Its no wonder that so much of this countries retail income is from this month.  Many of these celebrations involve gifting.  Almost all holidays involve feasting.  Having a good time is good for the economy.
But is there a universal theme for this season?  In the northern hemisphere it is cold, the harvest is done, the calendar year is nearing the end, so what is it about?
Perhaps they do all share a theme.
Hope.
Peace on Earth.
Love for our fellow man. 
Respect and Happiness for our family.
A celebration of life, of still being alive and able to enjoy our loved ones.
What do we humans celebrate?  What do we ALL celebrate?  I think it might be hope for a better future, happiness for our descendants, a continuation of the goodness that can be such a human trait when we are not scrabbling and clamoring in our day to day lives.

Happy Holidays!

Marriage advice (from the chronically divorced)

I used to be married, but the last quarter of a century has been post-divorce.  I have definitely been divorced much longer than I was married.  I have about a half a cup more reason to give marriage advice than a celibate clergy member.

On the other hand, I have definite experience with what won't make a marriage work.

Women quite openly and men more occultly seek the white picket fence ideal.  It may be dressed up to look like a mansion or down to look like it is not so traditional as the parents' sad life, but it is pretty universal in this culture.  Gay people are fighting for it, people that came from cultures in which marriage is arranged and about something totally different than our culture's marriage ideal, fight for it against traditional parents and with threat to personal well-being.

Unfortunately, while I've seen it in movies, and sitcoms love it, I can't say I have ever seen the real thing.

What happens when two people with that ideal for themselves decide to marry?  They make the plans, they tie the knot, they start the family, and never get to know each other; the plan--the ideal, is more real than the other person.

Suddenly they are trying to force each other into the mold, she is supposed to suddenly love doing nothing more than watching children and cooking for the man and keeping the house clean.  These days that does not involve being a stay-at-home mom except for the very well-paid husband.  More usually it is in addition to at least one and sometimes two jobs.
Its as if that wedding ring was supposed to eliminate all of her but the part that the man needed for his ideal.
The woman is no less guilty of not recognizing the individuality of her new husband.  She is now expecting him to support her every want and need, to help around the house, romance her and tell her daily how amazing she is.  All that stuff he did for fun with his buddies is over, he is a husband now.

A few marriages can live like this for a bit, but few can maintain after the birth of a child.  Babies are exhausting.  Pregnancy is body-image changing, and while some men find their pregnant wife beautiful and sexy the whole time, others are terrified of all those changes.  The woman is also pretty terrified and insecure and those hormones are definitely not making anyone feel more stable. By the birth, (a beautiful and absolutely horror-show event) the whole ideal is starting to look a little ragged.

Then starts the reality.  Can he maintain helpfulness so they both get to sleep, or is it all on her?  Can she communicate what she needs in a loving manner or is it time to call names and make threats?  Does he start sounding like he was raised by an angry stand-up comedian?  Does she realize she sounds just like her mother?  Have they both yelled "I hate you" at each other repeatedly?  Has it come to blows or are they both calling the hair-pulling and pushing and throwing stuff  "normal"?

Why is this pretty predictable?  Because we don't ever tell our children that roles are not people. People do not cease to exist when they take on a role.  And trying to force the other person to be the role you expect is not possible.  People can play-act for a while.  We know that from the peacock suits that people wear to find a mate.  More than a few frogs and frogettes have maintained good hygiene, nice clothes and kindly dispositions long enough to find a mate, but they don't maintain that.  If you doubt that, shop at Walmart between ten at night and 3:00am on Saturday night.

Perhaps its time to pull down the white picket fence.  Marriage might offer great tax breaks, but all that role expectation only leads to high divorce rates, disappointment in ourselves when we can't force ourselves into those roles successfully and happily, and a lot of wasted money on white satin and floral arrangements.
Wedding pictures, while beautiful are as often found in the garage in a Rubbermaid as they are on the coffee table.  We shake our heads and tsktsk when a baby is involved in a divorce, but is being raised by two separate but sane people really worse than being raised in a house of name-calling, hatred, violence and escape using drugs and alcohol?
Our statistics say "yes, its worse", but I don't know how that was determined, and frankly, as long as divorced people or single people with children are seen as inferior as parents, the stigma will influence that.

I have always wondered how a child born outside of marriage has any less worth than a child born within a marriage.  The dominant culture in this country loves to put down cultures that stone women that have sex out of marriage and write poignant TV shows about the trials of children born to rape victims, but those things are culture, not truth.
Every child born is amazing and should not have to feel any shame for how they were conceived.

Marriage, should be a personal choice that does not involve the subordination of either person's basic personality.
Roles suck---if a woman and man find that she likes to cook and he likes to clean---cool beans.  If she hates all that but makes a butt-load of money, eat out or if he likes cooking, great.
It isn't about what the other person has to do to meet my needs, its about enjoying life together.

What is my advice, the one bit of advice found in every religion and philosophy--treat others like you want to be treated. (sadists and masochists excluded)

The Sears Christmas Catalog

I tried to cancelled Christmas this year.  I told my relatives I usually buy for that my Christmas to them was the money they would have spent on my gift.  Amazingly, we all rapidly decided that gifts for 4 small children was to be the extent of our gift sharing.  We would get together, eat food, talk, watch our 4 little children open their gifts and wish each other goodwill and happiness, etc.
For the next few days I felt as if I had won the lottery or paid off my mortgage, then I realized it was just relief at not having to find a dozen gifts that would be not well liked and not worth much less than the ones given to me by their recipients.  I wasn't going to have to increase my credit card debt, because the conversation among the parents of those 4 young children consisted of "I looked in his/her room and am going to have to clear out a bunch of toys to make room for this years Christmas gifts"  They were talking among themselves about taking the money they usually spent and putting it toward a family vacation, (I'll stay home and watch the house/dogs/cats/plants, that is a movie I have lived, I t-shirt I already own)  The oldest grandchild was insisting in no uncertain terms that she only wanted specific clothes items, no toys because she felt sad for the toys that didn't get enough attention.
Christmas is such a tradition, a tie to childhood, I wasn't sure whether to be elated or devastated so I decided to examine the memories.  And yes, the "buy more every year" was started by my own parents, and continued throughout their lives and was taken up by my sister and I.  By last year, it bore little resemblance to those mornings of my childhood when the tree seemed to be exploding with gifts.  Old pictures confirm that what seemed alot, was 2 stockings and a bunch(probably 5) of cheap unwrapped toys from Santa and 1 big gift each. There was usually only 2 gifts for each of my parents, one to each other, one from the kids--jointly given.  If more, it was homemade and not from an expensive kit.  The extended family was even smaller, each child receiving 3 gifts--one from each nuclear family, and that was ended when one branch had a population explosion and changed from name drawing to just a meal, to an annual Christmas Card to those you still had an address for.

Last year, at the extended family event that my sister and I have continued since our children grew up and started their own, there was a ring extending out 6 feet from the edge of the tree and all the gifts were bagged up in in multiples to keep it simpler.  I received 20 gifts.  I spent way beyond my means, felt great concern that I didn't give enough, and that no one liked their gifts and that I would never pay off the credit debt before next year rolled around..

I did a little research and discovered that the huge Christmas gifts on Christmas morning was not very common.  Rich Victorian children got some things, farm kids might get a box of crayons or a new homemade dress or doll.  Poor kids hoped for a piece of candy and some fruit and nuts.  By the depression, whatever had been passing as a tradition was decreased to a tree and homemade whatever.
So why did we think that way?  When did we decide that we needed to have more of everything for Christmas for it to be a happy holiday?
At the arrival of the annual Sears Christmas catalog.  The last one I saw was called the Wish Book---how magical is that.
When it arrived in the fall we would each spend time with it.  We would make lists of toys and clothes and shoes and foods that would make our lives perfect and fill our hearts with joy. We would present our lists and be told to mark the top 2 or three, then spend more time with the catalog trying to decide what was the most important.
Amazingly, we never knew we needed most of the stuff on our lists until the catalog arrived.

By the 1980's, the number of utterly amazing Christmas catalogs was uncountable.  So much stuff, so little time.  As an adult I knew there was no one that could afford to give me most of it, but the memories of the avarice and acquisitiveness was fond.  It was like the treasure-finding dream...and the 80's were by their nature avaricious and acquisitive; the profession of choice was entrepreneur, the shows were about stinkingly rich families that would do anything to get more.  We, as a nation were doomed to gross consumerism and one-upping the Jones'.

In 2008, all of our over-indulging, overly wasteful, credit-card addicted ways became a problem.  It was a depression not unlike the one our parents had survived complete with insane politics and an awful war that was expected to fix the problems.  Our parents were gone, our gardens grew only grass that we paid someone to mow and someone else to fertilize and we watered incessantly because just like the previous depression where our area was called the dust bowl, we were in a drought.  Some people lost jobs, but if we didn't lose them, our wages didn't go down, they just didn't go up.  Our benefits became weaker, our portion to pay for them went up.  Gas went up so everything that was trekked in went up.  If we were buying a house, that stayed the same, or we refinanced and it went down, as interest was way down.  But renters paid more and more for less and less, and getting a mortgage was now tougher than ever because no lenders wanted to risk default for less than 4% interest coming in.
But while we bought more economical cars, and got used to heating the house to 68 degrees F. and cooling it to 78 degrees F. and even started trying to eat better so we didn't have to buy a wardrobe a size bigger every year (eating better is only cheaper if you cook, cheap eating out is always fattening) ,we tried to keep that insane Christmas tradition.

I, for one, look forward to not feeling stressed out by the Holidays.  I do like Christmas Cards, though, with a nice letter or maybe a photo.  The perfect Christmas gift.