The Part of Life We Call Death

Saying goodbye to mom

After the tragedy yesterday in Connecticut, of course my first reaction was to hide, keep my children inside forever, and even homeschool them.  I also again had the thought that is's a wonder that we actually live each day, rather than die.  I'm serious.  This will sound really pessimistic, but there are so many things that could kill us.  I think the first time I thought of that concept was a few years ago when I'd heard of some car accident.  Just the other day on the Today show there was a story about when someone is threatening to drive home drunk, most people let him or her.  Women protest it more than men, but in the end, the drunk drives.  In addition to the shooting, there was a stabbing of 22 children and their teacher in China yesterday. A couple weeks ago my not-yet-retired neighbor died of a massive heart attack.  He was healthy and fit.  Any one of us could get cancer or some other disease and die.  In so many ways, it's a miracle we're alive every day.

So how do we not fear death?  I think the first thing we need is an understanding of the Plan of Salvation and specifically that there is life after death; we need a testimony that we will live again.  We need to know that death is merely a passage to the other side, just as birth was a doorway to come here.  Perhaps we were just as nervous of birth before we experienced it as we are of death.  Maybe once we die, we'll realize it's not such a bad thing after all.  If we thought of death as a baptism where going down under the water might be a little bit scary, but coming up out of the water was the most beautiful cleansing thing, we might not be so fearful.

I'm again recommitted to teach my children the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that they will be prepared when their time comes.  I'm determined to help them not fear death, and as a mortician's wife once told me, to make it a part of life.

The State of Working-Class Men

I almost just "pinned" this, but thought I'd better save a few of the quotes from The No Good, Very Bad Outlook for the Working-Class American Man:

• Work, for men, means more than money: It connects them to their communities, makes them more attractive as mates and more successful as spouses, and is a linchpin of their self-esteem. When they don’t work, their role in the community tends to wither, harming the places where they live as well as themselves. Their family lives suffer, too. More and more often, less-educated men are strangers to marriage.

• Both men and women have suffered from the disappearance of well-paying mid-skilled jobs in factories and offices. But they have responded very differently. “Women have been up-skilling very rapidly,” said MIT’s Autor, “whereas men have been much, much less successful in adapting.” Women have responded to the labor market’s increased preference for brains over brawn by streaming through college and into the workforce—one of the great successes of the U.S. economy. Men’s rate of completing college has barely budged since the late 1970s.
• To women, men who either can’t or don’t earn a decent living are less necessary and desirable as mates; they’re just another mouth to feed. This helps to explain why rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth have risen to hitherto unimaginable heights among the less educated. Causality also flows in the opposite direction. The very fact of being married brings men a premium in their earnings, research shows, and makes them steadier workers, presumably because they have more stability at home. “Marriage is an institution that makes men more responsible in their pursuit of work and in their work-related duties,”
• Low-earning men are decreasingly able to form stable families. That, in turn, harms their children and communities. “Social capital disintegrates as you have a combination of drop in participation in the labor force and the disintegration of marriage,
• In 1970, more than three-fourths of men, no matter how much they earned, had wives; men at the bottom of the earnings scale were only slightly more likely to be single than were men at the top. Today, nearly half of the low-earning men are single, versus only a seventh of highly paid men.
• Family structure, in short, has become both a leading cause and a primary casualty of an emerging class divide. At the top are families with two married earners, two college degrees, and kids who never question that their future includes a college degree and a good job; at the bottom, families with one (female) earner, no college, no marriage, and kids who grow up isolated from the world of work and higher education. And the two worlds are drifting apart.

This is really sobering, not just the economic side of it, but what it's doing to the family.

Altruism

Photo: Slate

We recently watched part one of Atlas Shrugged on Netflix.  I noticed afterward that there was a related  program entitled Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged and thought that might also be interesting.  I started watching it and was fascinated by Rand's life and the background of her writings.  As I watched, I found myself being convinced that individuals should be equal, and that one individual shouldn't have to sacrifice for the comfort of others.  I was buying into the idea that alturism was bad.

Then it hit me as I recalled getting up at 6:00 each morning with the baby, being bitten while nursing, cooking, cooking, cleaning, and cleaning, that individual equality -- equal give and take -- is not like that at all in a family, especially a young one.  I don't think a family could function if everything were equal.  My kids and house would be a wreck if I didn't disregard my personal comfort and take care of them.  We'd also be destitute if my husband didn't personally sacrifice "his" income for the benefit of the family.

So, it's nice in theory that we should all be equal, and it should be possible with adults, but with a family, altruism must rule or the family falls apart.

Half the Sky

Last night my husband and I finished watching Half the Sky on Netflix.  Although in college (in the mid 1990s at BYU) I studied the topics presented in the film, I was heartbroken that some things are still so awful for some women.  I was especially struck with the beautiful faces that were put with the horrible stories; I couldn't believe that these children of God have such terrible experiences.

The film addresses six topics and their impact on, or how they're related to, women -- mainly in Asia and Africa.

1.  Rape
2.  Sex Trafficking (sex slavery)
3.  Education
4.  Maternal Mortality/Female Genital Cutting
5.  Intergenerational Prostitution
6.  Microcredit

As I watched the film, I couldn't but think of some of the parallels to our own country 150 years ago.  For example, some women TODAY have a 1:12 childbirth mortality rate.  If I remember correctly around the time of the Civil War in our country, it was 1:8 (I need to pull out the book at my mom's house that the statistic is in -- I could be wrong).  The mortality rate of a soldier was 1:20.  Can you believe your chances of survival were better as a soldier than as a woman?

Also, as mentioned in the film, males are more educated because traditional female work is more needed in the home.  The girls themselves may not be very valued, yet their care of the children and household is, so they parents keep their girls home.  Is that not the same way it was in our country a century and a half ago?  Additionally, some men don't want an educated wife, so if a girl is educated, she limits her opportunity for marriage.  I loved one quote in the film:  "Being smart lasts a lot longer than being pretty."


[graphic] The portion of the video that was completely infuriating was female genital mutilation.  Apparently, most men do not want to marry a woman who is "uncircumcised," and women who are not cut are considered unruly.  If an uncircumcised women bears a child, the child will be killed.  Not only is there an immediate risk to this practice (infection) which is done around ages 7-13?, but it interferes with childbirth.  Scar tissue is not at stretchy as un-scarred flesh and sometimes will create an obstruction to an imminent birth!  If the women happen to be in a hospital and this occurs, medical personnel can't even give a C-section without the approval of the husband, and many women and babies are lost.

[graphic] I did not know exactly what was done in a "female circumcision" and I don't care to describe it here, but you can liken it to having a mole on one's nose.  You could leave it there and not worry about it, or if you are a male in this comparison, you would cut just the mole off.  If you are a female, however, you wouldn't just remove the mole, you would remove the entire nose and stitch up the area leaving just a small opening at the bottom to let air in and mucous out.  You would not be able to experience the pleasure of smell anymore.

My husband found it interesting that to be considered marriageable, a woman had to be cut.  You could say that in that culture, it makes her more "attractive" to men.  How ironic that women in our own country feel that they, too, have to alter their appearance through breast implants, tummy tucks, and other surgeries to be attractive to men.  Really, is it that different in that regard?

It was apparent in the film that there is major conflict between and there are major discrepancies in the rights of men and women all over the world.  What I still wondered, though, was what are the feelings from one woman to another?  Do they generally look at each other as equals (equally lower class?), or is there a looking down upon one another, too?  When I did my student teaching in Western Samoa, I realized that there is quite a bond between siblings, yet not that connection from child to parent.  I believe it was because it was common for a parent to beat a child and assumed children did not want a close bond with someone who beat them?  If women are such the underdog, do they stick together?

I felt the film did a good job respecting differences in culture and not judging individuals.  I don't think after an interview, the interviewee felt he/she was made the bad guy (even when his/her life choices were obviously opposite the views of the film).  There were also a few remarks which implied the lack of respect for mothering/women's work in favor of careers and money.  Considering the circumstances, these women really could use the stability, yet I wouldn't want them to think of traditional women's work as a bad thing, either.

After studying and studying the LDS Church's Proclamation to the World on the family and trying to apply it to my life where I'm encouraged to be the primary nurturer and my husband is encouraged to provide and protect, I can see how the counsel can be even more beneficial in cultures where women are so marginalized.  The Proclamation clearly brings women and men to equal standing.  It encourages all to be educated.  It identifies women's and men's natural strengths and calls us to use those strengths together in raising a family.  It encourages us to kindly care for our children.

One of the last thoughts in the film was that like a bird, a family cannot fly if a wing is broken. I believe it was referring to the female half being broken, but I think you can also apply it to males.  If the men are not accepting of the women or are irresponsible for their spouse and offspring, then they are broken, too.  This is going to sound like a testimony meeting, but I must say that I am so grateful for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and living prophets who give us modern revelation on the family.  It is through this that we are empowered to be whole and complete.

National Council of Women

Belle Spafford at an International Council of Women convention

Image from lds.org

When I read Chapter 6 of Daughters in My Kingdom, I quite enjoyed the story about Belle Spafford and the National Council of Women.  According to DIMK, after being involved in the organization for some time, she (and the other Church ladies) weren't getting anything out of it anymore and wanted to discontinue their association.

Today I was reading chapter 24 of the George Albert Smith book, which gave another little detail about the situation. Apparently certain "members of the council had been antagonistic toward the Church and had embarrassed Latter-day Saint delegates at its meetings" (GAS, 257).  Wow!  I love learning about when there's more to the story!

So, if you put the two sources together, this is the story you get (highlighted text is from GAS, other text is from DIMK):

Sister Spafford learned a great lesson from President George Albert Smith about sharing the Church’s values with the women of the world. Soon after she was sustained as Relief Society general president, “a letter came from the National Council of Women, announcing their annual meeting to be held in New York City.

“Sister Spafford had attended those meetings before, and in view of her previous experience, she and her counselors carefully considered the invitation for several weeks.

“They decided to recommend to the President of the Church that the Relief Society terminate its membership in those councils. They prepared a statement of recommendation, listing all of the reasons for so doing.

Sister Belle S. Spafford, general president of the Relief Society, shared an experience in which President Smith taught her this principle. Shortly after being called to her position, Sister Spafford was notified of a meeting to be held in New York City by the National Council of Women. The Relief Society had been a member of that council for many years, but recently several other members of the council had been antagonistic toward the Church and had embarrassed Latter-day Saint delegates at its meetings. Because of this, Sister Spafford and her counselors felt that the Relief Society should terminate its membership in the council, and they drafted a recommendation expressing their views.

“Trembling and uncertain, Sister Spafford placed the paper on the desk of President George Albert Smith, saying, ‘The Relief Society Presidency wishes to recommend that the General Board terminate its membership in the National Council and in the International Council of Women, for the reasons listed on this paper.’

“President Smith carefully read the paper. Had they not held membership for well over half a century? he inquired.

“Sister Spafford explained how costly it was to go to New York, the time it took, and described the humiliation they occasionally experienced. She recommended that they withdraw because ‘we don’t get a thing from these councils.’

“This wise, old prophet tipped back in his chair and looked at her with a disturbed expression. ‘You want to withdraw because you don’t get anything out of it?’ he questioned.

“‘That is our feeling,’ she replied.

“‘Tell me,’ he said, ‘what is it that you are putting into it?

“‘Sister Spafford,’ he continued, ‘you surprise me. Do you always think in terms of what you get? Don’t you think also in terms of what you have to give?’

“He returned that paper to her and extended his hand. With considerable firmness he said, ‘You continue your membership in these councils and make your influence felt.’”¹²

 Sister Spafford later recounted:

“By appointment one morning, I went alone to see President George Albert Smith, taking the recommendation with me, together with a list of the reasons why the recommendation was being made. The President carefully read the typed material. Then he inquired, ‘Isn’t this the organization which the sisters joined before the turn of the century?’

“I said, ‘Yes, sir.’

“He said, ‘Am I then to understand that you now wish to terminate that membership?’

“I said, ‘Yes, sir.’ Then I added, ‘You know, President Smith, we don’t get anything from the Council.’

“The President looked at me with surprise. He said, ‘Sister Spafford, do you always think in terms of what you get? Don’t you think it is well at times to think in terms of what you have to give? I believe,’ he continued, ‘that Mormon women have something to give to the women of the world, and that they may also learn from them. Rather than have you terminate your membership, I suggest that you take several of your ablest board members and go back to this meeting.’

“Then he said with emphasis, ‘Make your influence felt.’”

She did make her influence felt. She participated in the National Council of Women and the International Council of Women and held leadership positions in those organizations for years. She stood strong for the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and for the purposes of Relief Society.

Sister Spafford obeyed this counsel and was later appointed to leadership positions in the National Council of Women, eventually being elected its president.

Every time Sister Spafford went to the International Council of Women (ICW), she was assigned to the “social and moral welfare” session. She recounted:

“At one time I protested going back into the social and moral welfare [session], and I was very friendly at that time with the ICW president. … I said, ‘I go all the time to this session, and it’s just getting so sordid that I’d like a change.’ She said, ‘Well, you’re certainly entitled to one, and I’ll see that you get it.’

“Then she came back and said, ‘We can’t grant your request because your own council insists that you remain in the social and moral welfare.’ She said, ‘It may be of interest to you to know the reason. Your national president says you always stand by the position of your Church in these matters and they know the position of the Mormon Church and they feel there is safety in having you there.’”¹³

Women in these organizations knew that their friend Belle Spafford would stand by the Church’s principles, and they needed that kind of wisdom and strength. In 1954 she was chosen as the leader of the United States delegation at the International Council of Women in Helsinki, Finland. As she led a grand march at the opening of the conference, her thoughts went back in time:

“As I looked out at the glittering audience made up of people of many nations … , my mind suddenly flashed back to the words of our pioneer [Relief Society] leaders … ‘standing as we do at the head of the women of the world,’ … ‘for the rights of the women of Zion and the rights of the women of all nations.’ … I knew that our pioneer women leaders had been given by divine insight a knowledge of the destiny of Relief Society. … It is my conviction that the time had come for Relief Society’s influence to be felt worldwide among womankind.”¹⁴

In 1987 the First Presidency counseled the Relief Society to withdraw from the National Council of Women and the International Council of Women. The time had come for the Relief Society general presidency to focus more energy on their rapidly growing worldwide organization rather than on other nationwide and worldwide causes. But as the Church has grown, Latter-day Saint women have continued to make their influence felt all over the world—in their communities, schools, and worthy local organizations. They have followed the pattern established by President Smith and Sister Spafford, thinking in terms of what they can give, not what they might get.

Cleaning Strategy

This was my friend's Facebook status -- I had to save it for future reference!

Contest with the kids: I clean the entire upstairs (3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, office, kitchen, living room, laundry room). They clean the entire basement (2 bedrooms, play room, family room, 1 bathroom). First one to finish wins their choice of treat and movie. You would think I have the short end of the stick, but you have not seen our basement. We have paused for dinner . . . , but they are soooo excited about the fact that they are winning. 

Non-Cognitive Development

Image from This American Life/Theo Takes the Marshmallow Test on YouTube

I just re-listened to part of a This American Life entitled "Back to School."  I actually started it during the week, didn't finish it, left it open on the computer, it disappeared (imagine that), then I found my notes on the desk and had to think and think what they were from.  Finally I figured it out, couldn't find the link to the broadcast on Facebook, but then just Googled it, got it, listened to it, then actually remembered that I had actually listened to it.  Oh, the life of a mother -- in one ear and out the other!  I suppose that's why I write things down:  I just know it's not going to stick for long.

Anyway, "Back to School" was quite fascinating.  It was inspired by a new book called How Children Succeed by Paul Tough.  I wanted to jot down a few of the highlights.

• Do teachers really make a difference?
• What should kids be learning in school?
• Is passing the GED really equivalent to actually earning a high school diploma?  If so, all 8th graders should take the GED -- if they pass, it would sure save a lot of time (32 hours to prep for the GED and over 1000 hours/year of HS) and money (it was kind of a joke).  They wondered if people who passed the GED were really as successful as people who graduated from high school.  They were more successful at life than high school dropouts who did not take & pass the GED, but they were far less successful than HS graduates.  GED-passers were more prone to drop out of anything:  jobs, marriage, military, etc.  So, the GED shows people are just as (book) smart as HS grads, but they're still missing something.  I wonder if college grads are even more successful at life.  I'm assuming yes.  What about college dropouts?
• So should we be teaching non-cognitive skills (character, behavior, personality etc.) in addition to cognitive (book smarts) in school?
• We may not be able to change a person's cognitive ability/IQ, but we can improve their non-cognitive skills at any age.

• People who struggled the most with non-cognitive skills were those who suffered major stressors when they were young, such as extreme violence.
• People with adverse childhood experiences had worse health as an adult, and were 2-4 times more likely to have heart disease, depression, suicidal, hepatitis, and other problems.
• Because as young children they suffered great stress, the stress pathways were ingrained in their brains.  The development of the pre-frontal cortex, where the non-cognitive skills are controlled, did not develop like it should.
• If a person had more than 4 adverse childhood experiences, they were 32 times more likely to have problems in school.

• What can we do to help people who struggle with non-cognitive behavior/skills?  They can be coached/mentored at any age.
• A child born into poverty or a bad neighborhood or whatever can be guarded against delinquency if he/she has at least one adult/person who shows care and concern for him/her.  Good parenting can revers the negative effects of stress/trauma.
• In rat studies, baby rats that had more attention in the first few weeks of life had more secure attachment (were happier, more well adjusted?) than baby rats that didn't.
• 2/3 of children are identified as having a secure attachment to a parent/parents; whereas, 1/3 are not.

I think this reminds me of how important it is to have a loving, caring, nurturing parent, especially in the early years of life.  It also tells me book smarts aren't the only thing that bring us success.  We also need good character and personalities.