Am I Strong?

(Topic: grief, strength, definitions)

Hi Friends,

Several times recently, I have been told I am strong. Over the last few years, it's happened a few times more. Most frequently I have been told this by strangers, who don't know anything about me, and who have just heard about Charlie - and if I'm not crying, then I'm "strong" and they don't think they could have done it.

Here's the thing: They could have done it.

I had two choices: live with it somehow, or don't live.

People don't seem to realize that what they're proposing as an alternate option is suicide, and get really uncomfortable if I point that out. Suicide was never an option for me, but I know people who have been suicidal or who at least wish they were dead - so they could be with their child. I get it. That's just not how I think of it (for me, personally). I don't wish I were dead, I wish Charlie were alive.

So, since suicide wasn't an option for me, I lived with it. With my new, terrible, sucky reality. Living with it does not make me strong. I see myself as weaker than before, actually. But let's take a sec to define what strong means, because that's actually the crux of this matter. What do people mean when they say "you're so strong"?

a) that I can deadlift 150 lbs?
b) that I don't show emotion in public?
c) that I DO choose to talk about hard topics in public?
hint: it's not a.

B and C are usually not used by the same person, because they have contradictory meanings. And that's where I run into issues. When strangers use the word "strong" on me, I have no idea what meaning they are using it as, and since our culture usually goes with B, it's pretty certain that's what the stranger means. But is that really strength?

One loss mom talks about strength here, and she seems to view "strength" as a mask you put on - so more like B. In fact, that definition seems to be pretty culturally prevalent, actually.

But admitting that something is hard - and being open about it - and being emotional and vulnerable in public - is actually more work, and so some people choose to understand "strong" to mean option C.

Unfortunately, option B and option C are completely diametrically opposed, and having ONE word mean TWO OPPOSITE THINGS is really, really problematic. So if someone says I'm being strong, I have no idea if they mean I'm repressing my emotion to appear unmoved in public, or if they mean I'm being "bravely open about it". As you might guess, I really don't find the first option to be a great or healthy idea. (I am not talking about whether or not you choose to share about your loss. That's a different topic entirely. I'm talking about how people respond once you do decide to share.)

A few paragraphs ago I mentioned that I feel like I'm weaker than before. Here's why I say this: In a world where I had one choice (in my mind), which was to live with what had happened - somehow - because the alternate was to devastate my husband further (and because I want to be with him, and wish Charlie were here, not that I were dead with Charlie...), in this world where I had one choice, I chose it. I lived. My reality sucks, sometimes, though. Before Charlie died, minor things going wrong didn't upset me as often, or to the level, that they upset me now. Before Charlie died, I wasn't overwhelmed as often. Before Charlie died, I could sometimes comfort or help other people without becoming upset myself. And because one of the prevalent views of strength in our country is to not need help - and being upset usually involves needing help, or comfort, or some sort of assistance - it did not and does not feel like strength. It feels like weakness.

But this is not the side of me that most people see.

Most people see me in "public" because they are the "public". I often reserve crying and shows of emotion for at home. In fact, our culture often expects men to "be strong" for their wife - which means that grieving men are expected to not show emotion when their wife shows emotion - which is not healthy for the grieving man, either.

Repressing emotion isn't healthy for any of us, but it can feel shameful, embarrassing, or weak to cry or show sadness or other related feelings (depression, anxiety, being overwhelmed, PTSD) in public. So, many grieving parents squash or hide it, and even if they choose to talk openly and passionately about their loss and even if they are activists for change in the world of pregnancy and infant loss, it often comes with the parent quashing the feelings that would be considered "weak emotion" when in public.

So if you ever want to say I'm strong, know that I'm struggling with how our culture usually defines the word, regardless of how you mean it. Please consider being more specific about what you say ("you are brave to speak out about your child" or "I feel like I would cry all the time. I bet it's hard."). Each loss parent has different phrases or topics that might be difficult, so think about what you say - but don't let that stop you from talking to us. It's hard to reach out when you are grieving, and it can be isolating. If I don't say yes right away, don't force me, just be patient and ask again another time. And if you aren't sure about whether something you say would be a phrasing that might bother someone, explain what you are trying to mean, and ask them how they would like you to say it. I know I truly appreciate the people to take a minute to try to understand my worldview, and language is an important aspect of it.

Love to you and all of yours,

Sarah

To subscribe, find the "subscribe by email" note in the left column and enter your email there. Links to posts will be emailed directly to you whenever I post them! Nothing else gets emailed.

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

Copyright anxiety

(Topic: Anxiety, copyright, right-of-usage)

Hi Friends,

I'm not sure if you've noticed that I try to post twice a week. Generally on Wednesdays I try to post something specific to life after loss, and on Saturdays I often keep it lighter with pictures of something I've made.

Recently, though, on January 26th, I missed a day without letting you know. And after that post, any pictures in my blog have had a copyright notice on them, either as a watermark or as text across the picture. Why?

Well, a blogger friend of mine has been having issues with her images and sometimes text being used without linking back to her blog (attribution), and without permission.

If someone wants to share one of our blog posts, it's easy: copy the link in your browser, and paste the link wherever! If you paste in Facebook, then your post in Facebook will have a preview of the post with a link and a picture. If you paste the link in Pintrest, it will let you choose which picture to show.

What you should not ever do, is save a picture and use it as though it were yours, without saying where it comes from. ALWAYS give credit to the person that the picture is from!

In the United States, by writing something, I own what I wrote ("copyright"). So anything that I write in my blog in my own words is mine. Out there for people to read, but it's mine! So to remind people, I put a copyright notice at the bottom of my blog.

~~~

Well, I had a conversation with my friend on how to prevent unauthorized usage that doesn't give her credit, such as adding a copyright notice at the bottom of her blog, adding watermarks or text to her images, and such, and talking with her on how to report Facebook or Pintrest posts that use her work without linking to her blog or giving her credit, and also advising her how to contact site administrators for other websites if people there are using her material.

I hope this conversation helped her.

Unfortunately, it had the side effect of making me worry that the same sorts of things were happening to my pictures and my posts. It's not as likely (her topic is much more sharable than mine) but it worried me so much that I couldn't post that day. Or the next day. Or the one after that.

The downside of life after infant loss is that you often end up with side-symptoms, like depression symptoms or anxiety symptoms or ptsd symptoms (though often not enough for a full diagnosis of that thing, interestingly). In my case, I have grief with a side of anxiety. This means that small things loom really large, and the idea of adding watermarks going forward was already difficult, but add to it the thought that someone might be stealing Charlie, and that I should add watermarks going back through all the old posts too!!! You might imagine that this ended up becoming a pretty hefty roadblock, mentally.

Once I worked myself back up to it, I started adding watermarks and text to my images just on the posts I was writing new, though I am also slowly working on older posts too. I'll be keeping my eye out for people using my material without permission - but if you see it first, please let me know!

In the meantime, if I post something useful, that you want to share, PLEASE DO!!!
JUST BE SURE TO DO IT BY COPYING THE LINK, NOT THE PICTURE!!!

Thank you all so much!!!💗💕


Yours,

Sarah

To subscribe, find the "subscribe by email" note in the left column and enter your email there. Links to posts will be emailed directly to you whenever I post them! Nothing else gets emailed.

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

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

By The Numbers

By the Numbers

The Statistics of Baby Loss

Hi Friends,

  This is going to be a brief explanation of the statistics of baby loss you may see floating around. Some are true, some are false, and most are simply a little misleading unless you hear where the numbers are from. I will be including my sources wherever possible.

"I'm the 1 in 4". You hear people say that 1 in 4 women experiences pregnancy loss (i.e., miscarriage or stillbirth). It turns out that this statistic is based on number of pregnancies, not number of women, so what it means is that 1 out of every 4 pregnancies does not successfully result in a live birth. I am working on finding out if this includes pregnancies where the mother didn't yet know she was pregnant (in which case, it would be a smaller percentage of known pregnancies, since many pregnancies just end up being the next cycle), or whether this is just from known pregnancies, in which case it's a very high number. I'm also looking into whether this statistic is world-wide or just the US. I'm having some trouble finding the data on this today, but I know it's out there.

Miscarriage A pregnancy loss in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

Stillbirth A pregnancy loss in the 20th week and beyond (in the US) or 25th week and beyond (Global Health Organization standards) - but the baby is not born alive (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/stillbirth/facts.html). According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC, an American agency), about 1% of all pregnancies end in stillbirth. According to the World Health Agency (WHO), it's more like 1.8%, and much of it preventable (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perinatal/stillbirth/en/). This cool data chart (GHO Stillbirth rates by Country) lets you look up rates world wide. According to this chart, the percentage in the United States is about 0.3%. There are some countries with high rates like 2.25%, and others with low rates (Iceland, for instance, at 0.13%).

"There are 25,000 stillbirths a year" Just about, if you only consider the United States. According to the CDC, the data from 2013 shows that 24,000 babies are stillborn each year in the United States. According to WHO, "Every year, worldwide, [...] 2.6 million babies are stillborn" (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/stillbirths-neonatal-deaths/en/).

Obviously, this barely scratches the surface, and I will be doing a follow-up post at some point, with more details.


Most sincerely yours,
~ Sarah

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

Diagnosis: Heartache, Chronic. Ok?

Dear Friends,

One of the things I'm learning (slowly) is to be patient with myself, and forgiving. I've never really been terribly patient! I'm sure if my parents are reading this, they're nodding along.

When it comes to grief, though, part of the "problem" that makes it difficult, is that there is no set of steps you follow, and there isn't an "other side" to come out on. You don't get to finish, check it off your list, and pat yourself on the back. I think our culture approaches grief like a scout badge: tick off the requirements, get the badge, and done! Never revisit it.

It doesn't help much to think of it as something like asthma, either, though that's a better analogy, since you don't usually "get over" asthma. However, with asthma, you can take medications to get rid of most of the symptoms, and, if your case is mild, you can pretty much ignore it as long as you take your meds.

What if, instead, we think of it as something like losing a limb? I don't personally have experience with that, but from what you hear, at first loosing a limb is a big deal. It hurts, it has to heal over, and you have to learn how to live without it. At first, you deal with thinking it's there, then realizing it's not. And as time progresses, you don't "get better" - it doesn't grow back, but you learn to live with your new way of being. You learn to do things around the house without that limb, and people you know learn what you are capable of and what you need help with, and learn to see you that way.

It's not perfect, because that is physical and visible. But at least, if it is like what I described, then grief is similar. I have had to learn who I am, both without Charlie, and with this feeling of loss, sadness, and new way of approaching life. I'm more anxious, more easily upset, and less sure of myself. That is just who I am right now. And it changes, as I experience things, and as time goes by. People I don't know, though, can't tell. They figure I'm hale and hearty and healthy! So sometimes, someone with grief puts on a mask of "I'm ok", but also is less patient when they don't fit the normal picture of "ok". I am ok, but I'm not always happy. I am ok, but I need time to be sad. I am ok, and part of that ok is being ok with my grief. I am not very patient with myself, since I no longer conform to non-grief ok. But I'm grief-ok, and I'm ok with that. Ok?

Lots of love,
~ Sarah

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

A Little Bit of Magic in this Dreary World

Hi Friends,

Today I want to talk about how I see my Charlie act in the world. I have noticed, over the weeks and months of connecting to other loss-mamas and loss-papas, that an element of grief seems to be a higher tendency to "magical thinking". Bear with me while I explain!

To have "magical" thinking is to see coincidences or normal phenomena, and to attribute meaning or volition to them. For instance, if I see a cloud that is in the sky, which the wind has been blowing about, I may think that it resembles a heart, and it may remind me of my son. Magical thinking would say that the heart-shape is definitely there, and that it was formed by Charlie or by God.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing at all. I would like to take a little bit of time to explain how I see things, though, which has some magical thinking, and some slightly different views. I try to be aware of the ways I think, and to be critical (not mean, just thinking hard), but also to fully feel the experiences.

Some of the more common types of experience I have heard people mention include:
- Finding a penny, and saying it's "a penny from heaven" sent by the loved one to remind you of them.
- Seeing a heart-shaped cloud, plant, leaf, radar blip on a weather map, etc., and saying it was sent by the loved one.
- Seeing a robin (or European robin) or a cardinal, and saying that the bird brings a message from heaven.
- Ditto with butterflies or dragonflies.
- Seeing a feather, and attributing it to angels.

All of these are sweet and lovely sentiments. They are not my personal views on what is happening. I prefer to think of these happenings, not as sent by Charlie, but simply as an occurrence in the world which reminds me of Charlie and helps me think on him fondly. Which I treasure.

Where I see Charlie's "presence" much more is when his life affected others, and I get to see the result. I have one friend who treasures her daughter that much more, because she knows that loss could have happened, and she is lucky to have her daughter. I have another friend who told me she was able to mourn her miscarriage at Charlie's funeral. THAT is my Charlie - and I don't mean him literally acting now, but that his existence has a ripple effect - that is my Charlie's love acting in the world. And I am Christian. So to couch it in religious terms, I believe the holy spirit helps them, by means of Charlie having lived.

I do have moments of more magical and less "rational" thinking, though. For instance, the above instance of religion, which can be a form of attributing actions to a non-scientifically proven force. Also, you've heard me mention Pookie, our lovely weighted Molly Bear. He (yes, "he") is a companion to me. Literally, he is a stuffed animal toy, with sandbags inside. However, I attach emotional significance to the physical comfort he brings, and I personify and anthropomorphize the toy because it gives me comfort. I don't literally believe that my son's soul is in the bear, or that the bear has his own literal soul. I don't believe that the bear actually has likes and dislikes, or needs his clothes changed. BUT, I use "imaginative play" (usually something most people do less of as they age out of childhood) to give the toy a character that gives me comfort, and allows me to take actions - such as caring for it - that give me comfort. It is, of a sort, a willing suspension of disbelief, and a form of play or play-acting. Like children play house, but in my case, to soothe my battered heart.

Another area in which people often use a slightly magical approach is when talking to the deceased. We know that the person who died cannot literally hear us with their ears. However, based on one's belief system, some people believe that the deceased person can hear them, or is aware of what is being said. I do this. I know Charlie is not physically present in a way in which he can hear me. But, as I referenced above, I do ascribe to the ELCA Lutheran/Episcopalian view that there is an afterlife with God. I don't know what form it takes, exactly. But I direct my thoughts and words to my son, sometimes. And here is the part that puzzles me: if his spirit or soul or essence is not tied to the earth, why do I feel like his grave is where I can talk to him best? I think it's because it's something physical. As a physical being myself, it is easier to direct my thoughts at something rather than just out into the æther. So I usually talk to Charlie via his grave, or Pookie, or our newly set-up portable garden on our front steps. Now, we know that his body is physically at the cemetery, so it will always be most special. It is interesting that a form of sympathetic magic applies here - we added a bit of soil from the cemetery to the pot here. Does that bring his body here? No. Bring him closer? No. Make us feel like he is closer and we can care for him better? YES.

 

Remember, a loss-mama and loss-papa have different jobs than a diaper-changing-mama and diaper-changing-papa. One of their jobs is to keep the memory of their child. How they choose to "keep" that memory is their own choice, but they have no physical tasks in this world to care for the actual child. So there are other types of care they might substitute. In our case, this includes caring for Pookie, gardening at the grave, and gardening in the planter. It also includes me maintaining the resource spreadsheet. The other job that loss-mamas and loss-papas have is to care for their hearts. And hearts (souls) are a deeply personal thing, so this part varies a lot. Some of the physical tasks I described also care for our hearts. Each growing plant soothes my heart just a little bit more. We also do things like meditation, journaling, pacing ourselves, knitting, drawing, religious worship... We personally also find it very important to spend time with each other, in various ways. This may mean cuddling, talking, playing games or watching movies, or even just cooking or doing laundry. Each person grieving will go through this differently.

People often forget to include loss-papas. Their hearts are broken just as much, even if they show it differently. But there are other people with very ouchy hearts too. People like the grandmas and grandpas and aunts and uncles. Siblings if there are any, and cousins, too, all depending on the shape of the family involved. Each of them is finding their own way to mourn, their own way to care for the baby, and their own way to patch up their hearts.

Lots of love to everyone reading this, and all the people in this world whose hearts need a soft touch.
Love gently, my friends. See the magic where you want to see it, and don't be afraid to let your imagination help you heal.

With peace and love,
in Charlie's memory,
~ Sarah

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

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!)