Pookie's First Flight

[trigger warning: this post will discuss themes related to strong emotion, miscarriage, fear, and grief]

 Dear Friends,

Guess who just took his first airplane flight?!? [and probably his last... more on that later].

We recently took a trip to Boston, and this was the first time I'd flown with Pookie. Previously, all trips we've taken with him have been some form of road trip.

The first exciting moment was when we got to the security checkpoint at the departure airport. I had Pookie in my carry on, so he'd be with me, plus I wouldn't quite trust the baggage handlers to not lose him or something... This was an airport in a smaller city, and despite Pookie's X-ray showing the sand weights inside of him as just "dense", they swabbed him down, he came up clean, and the young man who was the agent swabbing him down was very receptive to my explanation of "please be careful, he's a bereavement bear who is weighted to weigh the same as my son who died..." to which his response was "that is such a good idea!" We cleared security with no issues and went on our way.

Pookie liked being up high. I love being up high. We had a reasonable flight, layover, and flight, though a little bumpy because the weather was gusty.

I've already posted about Pookie's adventures in Boston. I'll skip over that, and tell you about the day we left Boston.

After our visit in Boston was over, I was ready to go home. I'd over-done it a bit, had a sore foot, and was having an off day. Then a character in my book had a miscarriage, and then a friend did too, so I was hearing about that all day... all that to say, I wasn't exactly in a great place starting the whole travel home. I'd already been weepy on and off, and was generally really ready to just get back to the comfort of my own home.

When in the airport in Boston, we'd successfully checked our bags despite having to rearrange some weight, and had plenty of time to spare. The security line was completely empty, so we thought this would go smoothly! I always opt out for personal reasons, and choose to be patted down rather than walk through the x-ray gates. For some reason, I was waiting forever, while my carry on and purse were already long since on the other side (and, incidentally, not within my view, either).

Eventually, a female agent finally came around to pat me down, and asked me where my things were. I pointed out 2 of my bins, and then as I saw the third bin with Pookie - unsurprisingly having been selected to be swabbed down - I saw Calvin's face, and my heart started to pound. I knew something was wrong and that it would not be as simple as it was on the way there.

As I was getting patted down, hubby and the other agents filled me in that, because Pookie's insides look dense and funny on x-ray, we couldn't touch him, and they had literally called the bomb squad. Despite the swab coming up clean. I started to shake and get very upset, as they hemmed and hawed, and wouldn't let us near the bear (though the female agent was very kind, and made sure that while she finished the pat down, I was facing Pookie the whole time, and she held a box of tissues near me for most of the rest of this story).

When the bomb squad agent came, he asked about the x-ray and about the swab: and despite it being clean, since he had been called and because the x-ray just shows that the sand is dense, and doesn't show what it is, and since the other agents didn't believe our (true) story about what a Molly Bear is, he had to check things himself. At this point he told us that he has, in the past, actually cut open teddy bears, to sample the sand and make sure it's not problematic. This, however, is problematic on another front: this is traumatic for the loss parents, since the bear is a stand-in for their child. It is traumatic to be flagged as a threat, when you are flying with a bear that is supposed to bring you comfort. And it is particularly traumatic when they think your poor little bear is a bomb threat, and start threatening him with knives. Not only that, but the bears are weighted to the tenth of an ounce! Cutting open the bear and taking a sample to test could ruin that, which would be horrible too.

The bomb squad man seemed (a tiny bit) sorry to be putting us through this, though the other agents didn't seem to be. But at this point he talked down to me, and said that "bad guys" (literally his wording) use teddy bears to smuggle things. And he only said that he had cut open bears, not that he was about to do it to Pookie, but it was pretty strongly implied that he was considering it. Eventually he said that we would have to expect this treatment at any airport we went through (we didn't, obviously, but we don't know which airports will have hyper agents and which have more humane agents, so that's a gamble). And I asked what our options would be - if we don't want him threatened with surgery. He said an option would be to put the bear in the checked baggage. I didn't say it in reply - but they scan those too, and open those when I'm not there to defend Pookie! So NO WAY IN H.... would I trust that option! So it seems our only option would be to NEVER FLY AGAIN.

At some point the other agents, including a supervisor, seemed to get tired of watching me try not to hyperventilate, and said loudly in their huddle of agents that "THIS YOUNG LADY IS CLEARLY QUITE DISTRAUGHT, CAN WE FIND A SOLUTION?" After which they muttered for a bit and decided to let us go, but with a strong warning.

As you can imagine, this was absolutely terrifying to go through. And very, very difficult to relive, as I have been typing. Hubby was just as upset as I was, and it took us a very long time to calm down. We both looked reasonably calm by the time we boarded our plane, though we were still quite overwrought by the experience. And as you can imagine, neither of us ever wants to go through airport security with Pookie again. Pookie himself was very patient through it all, and gave marvelous hugs to me and Daddy (hubby) as soon as we were through. But despite the fact that I love planes, we will not be flying again. And if you have a weighted bear, I urge serious caution about traveling with them by plane - at least as long as airport security functions the way it currently does. The sense of relief when we'd finished the layover and second flight and got out of the airport and finally to our own car, on our own terms... it was such a long trip. We were so glad to get home.


Yours,

Sarah

To subscribe, find the "subscribe by email" note in the left column and enter your email there. Posts will be emailed directly to you whenever I post them!

Resource list: Visit my spreadsheet at www.tinyurl.com/infantloss

Breastfeeding vs. Male Entitlement

So just recently, a friend of mine had an experience that made me upset (and her more so). She was told by a relative, who had not said anything prior to this, that breastfeeding in "public" (in this case, at his home) was not ok. Could she please be more discreet and do it in another room?

This troubles me on several levels. These are not listed in any particular order.

First of all, satisfying the male.
Second, removing the act from view, and non-normalization
Third, isolating the mother.
Fourth, ignoring the child's needs.
Fifth, making their protest age-dependent.

First: Satisfying the male.

Breastfeeding, by its very nature, is something only a woman can do. There might be isolated medical cases you can cite to the contrary, but under normal conditions, only a woman can do it. I believe that it is this reason, similar to menstruation, female orgasm, and masturbation, --- in other words, things that might be uncomfortable for a late 19th century male to think about --- that breastfeeding is a semi-taboo topic in our western American culture, and why, in our culture, we ALLOW men to "feel uncomfortable" around breastfeeding. And - here's the kicker - we allow that discomfort to tell us what to do. Why should a man's discomfort take precedence over the health and well-being of a child? A man would not force a 5 year old to drink apple juice in another room because "apple juice for a child makes him uncomfortable". The child needs fluids, and if the mother and father decide that their child needs a meal, or a drink, or other PARENTAL CARE - than it is not in the purview of another man to whine about their parenting and to force them to do it his way.

Second: Removing the act from view, and non-normalization.

If we persist in saying yes to these requests to satisfy these males' slight discomfort, and hide breastfeeding away in special "breastfeeding rooms" and bathrooms and bedrooms and under covers, then people don't get used to it. If people won't get used to seeing it, they won't get used to the idea that breastfeeding is a normal - in fact, the normal - way to feed children. It is ideal, in so many ways there is not room to list them all. Biologically, even the best formula doesn't live up to the adaptability of breastmilk, and the closeness and emotional stability nursing gives the child. So why do we not consider it to be the best way, and all others are good options for when breastfeeding is not possible, for whatever reason?

Third, isolating the mother.

By asking the mother to move, rather than letting her choose time, location, and level of coverage, the mother is left out of many activities and ends up very alone. If the mother chooses, then it is her choice, and she may be using the nursing time to have some quiet/alone time - and that's fine. But if it is forced on her, it becomes unwanted solitude. This is not fair to the mother, who is part of the society and community in which she is nursing, especially if it is her family or in-laws. And it is not fair to the child, either, especially if they are slightly older, since they learn that their way of eating, connecting with mom, and they themselves, are not welcome.

Fourth, ignoring the child's needs.

If a child has been raised as a breastfed child, no person (or man's) discomfort or request can take away that this is how the child is used to being fed, comforted, and hydrated. To make the request that the mother nurse the baby in another room could potentially cause the mother to put off the nursing session and delay the child's needs. This is not fair to do to the child.

Fifth, making their protest age-dependent.

This is a fascinatingly culturally dependent objection. Many people in the United States have come to realize that nursing for the first 6 months to 1 year is recommended by the medical community and may be a very good idea. What many Americans do not realize is that in many other cultures it is perfectly normal to breastfeed into toddlerhood, and not only gives them a healthy, safe food, it also gives them the haven of Mommy to come back to periodically while exploring the world. This makes the child more confident in their explorations and sure of themselves, if they have a safety net. The U.S. is not used to this idea. Unfortunately, many people - particularly males, interestingly - act ok with small babies breastfeeding, but start to act uncomfortable when the child gets older. However, the benefits to mother and child DO NOT CHANGE just because the child passes a birthday. The mother and child will wean when that mother and that child are ready. And it is NEVER the purview of a non-parent to object to the parenting choices of others.

PLEASE, friends, support all nursing moms. They are trying to give their babies the best, and do not need an entitled male to make the difficult job of parenting even harder.

Oh, and by the way: it's LEGAL, in all PUBLIC SPACES, in OHIO. So if anyone tells you you can't, at a place like a library, a mall, a restaurant, a park, etc: tell them that it actually is your right per Ohio Revised Code § 3781.55. So there.

Most sincerely yours,
~ Sarah

Infant loss resource document: www.tinyurl.com/infantloss

Poem: Sadness isn't Catching

Hey, Kid, Get Off My Lawn!

Summary: If someone is not like you (let's say, they're a different age, or race, or religion), don't make sweeping statements. While you might (maybe) be right about a few individuals, you will be dead wrong about a whole lot more.


“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”
― often attributed to Socrates


Hi Friends.

I have recently had the (mis)fortune of hearing, in various contexts, statements which amount to "young people, they're no good". I would like to examine my experience more closely. Generally, here's why I'd like to address this topic:

1. I generally fall within the age that they consider "young",
2. AND their statement is incorrect regarding me and most (if not all) of the people I know who are my age or close to it,
3. THEREFORE their statement, while (maybe) right about a few individuals, is FALSE,
4. ADDITIONALLY (as seen at the head of the article) people who are no longer the youngest generation have been saying similar things for thousands of years, literally,
5. AND since they are in many cases stating it in my presence or even directly to me, this is rude and offensive.

While we as a culture seem to have figured this out about some categories, at least when we are talking in public, we fail woefully in other areas. And I have noticed that age discrimination or ageism is ridiculously rampant... and is extremely frustrating.

To approach this issue logically, let me start by defining a few terms

• Child: someone under the age of, let's say, 15
• Teen: 15-18. Yes, I know the numbers that end in "-teen" start earlier and end later, but culturally, high school is a dividing line.
• Young adult: 19-35 or so
• Middle aged adult: 36-60 (or so, of course...)
• Older adult: 60 and up

These are not hard and fast definitions. What they do, though, is help you understand what approximate generation I am referring to. If necessary for clarity in a particular instance, I will be more specific. Please note that in the statements I overheard, the people making the statements did not specify an age range that they were targeting with their statement.

I would like to begin by repeating a few of the statements I have heard, and then I will examine them for logical fallacies and factual error. This will place them in a context of fact and clear thinking, which will help demonstrate why broad statements are, at best, not helpful, and, at worst, hurtful or harmful.
Note: I cannot guarantee that the wording of these statements is exactly what was said to or around me. I am filtering it through my memory, which means I might unconsciously be remembering them in a particular way ("personal bias").

1. Young people lack conviction. They are unable to stand behind their beliefs. They will start a civil war. (Speaker: mid 60's. Upon being pressed, the speaker seemed to consider people below about 40 to be "young".)
2. Young people don't learn anything. They aren't held accountable. Children are not learning useful skills. (The speakers in this conversation were approximately in their 40s. They seemed to refer to younger adults then they are, at first, and then drift into what is being taught in schools.)
3. Young people don't have a religion. They don't go to church. They don't know what to do in church. They don't know the Lord's Prayer. They don't know God and how God takes care of you. (Speaker: mid 80's.)

Statement One:
Young people lack conviction. They are unable to stand behind their beliefs. They will start a civil war.
There are a few logical fallacies in this one. If young people lack convictions in the first place, then they have no beliefs to be wishy-washy about. So if the first sentence is true, the second is false. Or, if the second one is true, the first one is false. In either case, if they have no beliefs or if they are just wishy-washy about them, then they would not have the wherewithal to actually stage a civil war. If sentence two is true, they might manage a riot... So if sentence three is true, one and two are false.
As to the facts of the statement: I know some wonderful women in their 20s who are very opinionated about social justice. They not only 1) have an opinion/belief/conviction, they 2) speak out about their beliefs and explain them kindly to others, and 3) have jobs that enable them to act on their beliefs (one of them is a social worker).
Since the older adult who made this statement to me did not specify otherwise, her statement applies to all "young people", and by providing the above example (and, I hope, being an example myself), I have at least shown that her statements do not apply to ALL "young people".
I would posit that there are many young adults who have very strong beliefs and stand behind them. Whether or not this will result in a war, I hesitate to opine. I would like to believe that many young adults have strong opinions that would lead them away from that possibility.

Statement Two:
Young people don't learn anything. They aren't held accountable. Children are not learning useful skills.
This was overheard in a post office, and initially the person making the statement was referring to her own coworkers, who, as far as I have seen, all fall squarely into the middle aged adult category. She was annoyed that something had been incorrectly alphabetized. So despite the tone of her statement and, if I remember correctly, the wording, she is actually referring to herself, since she falls into the same age category as those who should have sorted the mail. And yet, the alphabetization was something she clearly thought she could do. So if the first sentence is not about young adults, teens, or children, but she actually meant middle aged adults, she proved her own statement false by being her own counter-example. If she actually meant it to apply to "young people", then she made her own statement non-applicable by the mere fact that no "young people" were actually involved in the issue she was complaining about.
Sentence two was where the conversation between her and the customer at the counter drifted into even more murky territory about what age they were discussing. Did she mean that the Postal System should find the person who committed a minor clerical error and reprimand them fiercely? The implication was that the guilt was on the children in school, which seems to be a logical error too, since if they aren't being held accountable, it would be her own generation, the middle aged adults, who are the ones not enforcing their own standards.
The third sentence was regarding cursive being taught in schools. Their primary argument was that you need to know cursive to be able to sign your name. This is false because 1) you can print your name and it will be a valid signature, as long as you do it approximately the same way each time, and 2) it is legal to sign with an x.
In fact, let's talk about that: Did you know that adult literacy is lower than you would expect? There are a HUGE number of illiterate adults. And I don't just mean that they haven't gotten a classical education and haven't read the right books. I mean that they truly cannot read or write, or can only do so at a very low level (Department of Education report). We're talking at least 20% of the population in America. If you took the whole U.S. and mixed us up and pulled out 10 people randomly, two of them can barely read and write. And another one or two would still struggle some. Interestingly,  according to a U.S. Department of Education survey analysis, "Older adults were more likely than middle-aged and younger adults to demonstrate limited literacy skills." They attribute this to a likely lower number of years of schooling.
So if lack of literacy affects older adults more, and signing with an x or with non-connected letters counts as a signature, the argument for learning cursive as a child is null and void. Additionally, the generation choosing the curriculum is primarily middle aged adults and older adults. Blaming the younger generations seems to not be applicable here.

Statement Three:
Young people don't have a religion. They don't go to church. They don't know what to do in church. They don't know the Lord's Prayer.
Sentence one and two are not completely false. She is correct that church attendance is not exactly high amongst young adults, and that, when surveyed, many do not profess belief in a particular religion. But it is not true to say that they "don't", so sentence one and two are FALSE regarding ALL young adults. Some do have affiliation with a particular religion and do still attend the worship meetings of that religion.
So sentence two is a little bit limited in scope: it is possible to have religion or adhere to a religion and not attend church (a designation for Christian worship meetings).
Sentence three is where this statement begins to contradict itself. Since sentence two says they don't go, so how do you know if they know what to do or not? But if they ARE showing up, which is how you would be able to identify the situation in sentence three, then sentence two is proven wrong. Plus, sentence three means you have a great opportunity to introduce them to the religion and traditions you seem to feel they are lacking, rendering sentence one false or at least tenuous.
Sentence four: this is false, as I know many who do. While it is true that not as many young adults are familiar with the traditions the older adults grew up with, and maybe even particular items within that tradition like the Lord's Prayer, that does not mean that ALL young adults have issues with these things. Again, I'm going to use myself as a counterexample here. There are still parents who raised their children within a particular religious tradition, and those children have grown into young adults who know the traditions, even if they no longer attend or feel an affiliation to that tradition
This entire statement completely ignores other religions as valid options. That is unfair. Sentence one says that young people have no religion but the further sentences make it clear that only Christianity is valid. However, there are some young people that DO have religion (making sentence one false) even if it's not Christianity. This does not get addressed by the rest of the sentences, rendering them inapplicable after her first sentence.


You may have noticed a few things as I tried to logically dissect the statements:

1. I have an opinion that not all young people (however you define that) have the flaws the speaker lists. A few do, but not ALL. And when I don't have those flaws, I feel like their statement is a personal affront to me. So when I wrote this, yes, I was a little bit upset that there are some older individuals who seem to think that everyone my age is horrible. I wonder what older adults though of THEM when THEY were young? (Again, Socrates. Seriously. Every generation thinks the next one fails at life. Yet we go on. Take a deep breath - we'll be fine, we'll grow up, and we'll complain about the next generation just as loudly as you do about us).
2. Is it true that ALL people who are in their 70s are all the same in any way? No. Were they all alike when they were young? NO. So why would anyone expect ANY demographic of any type to be all identical?
3. I am a Christian. I have specific ideas of what that means. But one of the things I feel strongly about is that you should be kind and considerate. Making sweeping statements about a particular demographic, when a representative of that demographic is in the room but does not fulfill your statement, is neither kind nor considerate, nor in any way open minded.
4. All of the speakers I heard were female. Yes, I said "her" in every single one of my rebuttals above. But I think that has more to do with the fact that I am female, and I tend to be around other females, as well as the fact that I have hobbies that are often done by retired females, so many of the groups I end up in primarily feature that demographic.
5. Please understand that I have no issue with people older than I am. In fact, most of my friends are older! What I take issue with is that these particular people were making broad generalizations. And these broad generalizations are false, contradictory, and offensive.

Ok, a few quick requests:
If you comment, please think carefully before you submit.
Please be kind and respectful.
Please, no sweeping statements.
AND PLEASE, NO POLITICS. 

Thank you for listening. 

Yours,
Sarah (young, opinionated, religious, literate, and verbal about it!)