RSS
 

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

The tragedy of patriarchy

16 Mar

I touched on this briefly day before last in the post I shared from the Facebook smack-down, and I wanted to clarify my observation a bit.

I said that the tragedy of patriarchal societies is that men are possibly victimized by it more than women. When you think about who truly gets the short end of the stick, it seems to me that men are the unwitting recipients in every worst way.

First, I need to define what I mean by “patriarchal society”. It’s not completely accurate to say “a society dominated by men”, because that doesn’t really describe it. In practice, it’s more like “a society dominated by an impression of what masculine-driven power desires should be”. From an evolutionary perspective, men are charged with providing food, shelter, protection for the tribe, and keeping the histories. Women are charged with care-giving, food preparation, healing, and keeping the mysteries. Together, they create a whole social structure that functions well in relatively small groups – and even in our current version of civilization with massive cities and sprawling uninterrupted population, we tend to create our “tribes” through friends and business arrangements. When a society becomes patriarchal, the tasks of the men are considered to be more important – more valuable – than the tasks of women.

While the origins of the shift might be based in a momentary need to rally against an enemy or to feed a sudden expansion in population, the failure to return to balance creates a dangerous climate the likes of which we are suffering through right now.

But it is not the collective decision of all men to create this imbalance. It is the work of a relatively small handful of people (mostly men) who make the decision and then, tasting the illusion of power, fall into the trap of greed, believing that to keep all of the power to themselves, they will continue to be “more”.

The illusion of power and the structure that emerges is supported by and propagated by sowing distrust between the genders. The “temptation of Eve” and the stories of succubi are classic examples. The preposterous notion that women are the properties of their husbands or male relatives is further evidence. (And who would think to truly control someone less powerful? There is no need – unless the secret truth is that women were acknowledged from the very beginning as being at least if not more powerful than their male.counterparts.)

Men in the general population are taught to distrust women, and men often feel “distrust” as very similar to “threat”, and how do men traditionally deal with feeling threatened? They intimidate and present violence. This puts women, in turn, in a place to distrust men – and, even worse, to distrust themselves if they have bought into the religious and mythological foundations of the distrust.

Here’s where the wound happens: Women do not share the mysteries with the men. They do not feel safe speaking the same language or talking about private things, and men are left feeling isolated from their women, knowing on some intuitive level that they are not receiving full communications.

And so more distrust is sown.

Women, however, know the nature of secret things, and they support each other well through unspoken rituals that men do not have. Even under extreme repression, women will mostly tend to find ways to keep their true power separate and sacred as much as possible. Because they did not teach the men the nature of mystery, men do not have this. (Men, likewise, do not tend to teach women the ways of force and power, which seems at first glance an appreciable trade-off, but it’s not.)

Women find comfort in each others company in a far more intimate way than men do between themselves, but intimacy is a human need, not gender based. Men feel the lacking, like a craving for a food they can’t identify, and they must force themselves out of a mode of existence defined by a refusal of intimacy (the norm) if they will have any kind of lasting happiness at all.

This is why I insist that gender equality is a human rights issue, not a “battle of the sexes”. It hurts everyone within that society, and repressing one part, no matter how seemingly small, robs the whole of what should be inalienable rights.

I personally want to share that real power and intimacy with a male counterpart as I do with my women-friends, but that cannot happen without trust, and even the most well-mannered male raised in a patriarchal society will be suspect.

 

A discussion on equality and women’s rights

14 Mar

Normally, I try really hard not to put my foot in it, but something about the vibe today had me itching for some kind of intensive discussion.  So much has been on my mind concerning equality, women’s rights, and how we are such a divided species, this particular image – and the ensuing comments – just kind of… happened.

I’m attaching the whole conversation in this text file.  I’ve tidied a lot of the “filler text” and changed the names to protest the ignorant, but the majority of it is left as it was written, including the misspellings.  I have left the “Likes” for the comments that were thumbs-upped.  (Yes, it’s long – over 110 comments by the end of it – but if you can bear with me, you’ll find something amazing.)

Here’s the long and short of it, though (and some of the funnier quotes):

JS starts the whole thing off by accusing the original poster (LV) of “painting all men with the same brush” and “reverse sexism”.  I pointed out that all of the statements from the meme are derived from current GOP rhetoric and standard attitudes towards women in “most non-personal social situations”.  JS accused it of being a manifestation of ego and suggested that women stop playing the “blame game”.  (Yes, that was the sound of my safety coming off.)

I said:

Are you unaware of where the original context is derived? And that’s an honest question, not sarcastic, given that you do not appear to have either a vagina or breasts. I’m sorry you’ve been trained to think that calling something the “blame game” somehow refuses a person the right to point out a true injustice, which is what the image is doing. If you are uncomfortable with the statement of the original image, then perhaps you need to examine your own ego and ferret out where that sense of guilt comes from. If you were emotionally unaffected by it, you wouldn’t feel the need to deride a contextually legitimate statement.

JS replied that we are all victims on some level and deserve compassion (JS’s Facebook profile is heavily littered with Buddhist imagery, though not a lot of original Buddhist thought.)  Be aware that he made statements like “All ur referring 2 comes from the nanifestation of ego” (sic) and “It takes 2 2 tango baby :) ”.  I replied:

We also deserve proper spelling and punctuation, but we’ll not hold that against you, either. You appear to be someone deeply concerned with compassion, so let me assist you in this: telling someone who is identifying an injustice that, basically, they have no right to do so is the OPPOSITE of compassion. Your “It takes 2 2 tango baby :) ” statement blames the victim of the injustice, which is really, REALLY not compassionate. If this is truly your path, please retreat and contemplate, because you missed a big lesson in there.

Somehow or another, it became a discussion about how unfair it is for “everyone else” to pay for the contraception of women in college – and how the numbers are inflated, it’s not that expensive.  ”Condoms are free” was even uttered (and I’m not taking that out of context, he did not say “Condoms are free at Planned Parenthood.”)  Naturally, the implied promiscuity launched into a back-and-forth about the alleged sexual behaviors of politicians, and my words were specifically skewed to imply that “GOP rhetoric” is the same as “all Republicans”, to which I said:

I said specifically “GOP rhetoric”, which I’d assume we know does not reflect the attitudes of most Republicans, and “most non-personal social situations”.

I’m fascinated that you assume “womanizer” is somehow equal with “treats women like trash” even though it really only means “likes to sleep with women without commitment”. If we go by popular media, we can really only be led to assume that all Democrats are passionately fond of a wide variety of pussy while Republicans are all very, very gay. ;-)

I am assuming neither, merely pointing out that the original image is derived from a collection of popular social points right now – and since you, Tom and Jarrod, also do not appear to possess bodily either vaginas or breasts, it should be taken as a communication of how your female friends and relatives and lovers are made to feel sometimes.

Then it turned into a “battle of the sexes” instead of what it really is – a debate about what constitutes human rights and equality for women – and from here, I’ll let you read the text at your own leisure.  The main reason I brought all of this up was to put into context several statements I made throughout the course of this discussion (found here if you want to read the original ORIGINAL text, and there might even be more after I post this) that I thought illustrated well some of the rights issues we are still facing as women and as humans:

?@TD, that’s a pretty massive statement, don’t you think? Right up there with “Democrats are pussy-mongers and Republicans are gay”? I think maybe a more accurate statement might be, Liberals expect the government to take care of the infrastructure and social needs that it’s *supposed* to, by virtue of being a *government*, and when it doesn’t work that way, it’s frustrating that private institutions have to step up to fill in the gap – which also does not always work well.

To all of our gentlemen-readers, please grok this: The issue is not about Fluke or contraception or condoms or Planned Parenthood or private vs public education. It is about the persistent and constant demeaning of a woman’s self-worth and control of her own body through a social environment of “absolutely no win” situations as described in the graphic. To imagine that it is anything less pervasive ultimately contributes to the overall problem.

Ironically, in an overwhelmingly patriarchal society, it’s the men who suffer the worst for not having access to the proper and complete affections of women. :-/

And

When you take a woman’s right and access to her own fertility away from her – access to contraception and legal, safe abortion – you are handing the worst types of men a loaded gun to control those women through rape and forced procreation. You talk about the life-long guilt of an abortion, but I don’t think you can fairly state that, either.

The bottom line is that each person’s experience with fertility control – and human rights in general – is individuated, that any given person has their choice to avail themselves of contraception, abortion, safe health care, mental health support, etc, and that the process of removing those rights for even a small portion of the population is a violation of human rights as a whole.

And

Condoms are not free, TD. They are covered from Planned Parenthood either by government grants or by private donations. If condoms were free, Trojan wouldn’t have a business at all!

And your wife is lucky if SHE never felt that she was discriminated against. See, if YOU feel like your wife was *never* discriminated against for her gender… does that really count for her? And would you recognize it if it happened, given that you were not raised a girl? That is the upshot of the original graphic – that THIS is what women seriously have to deal with. No matter WHAT we choose to do with our sexuality, someone somewhere is going to be offended by it, and because we are not in a place of power, we can easily be victimized by it…

Also, I’m sure your insurance DID cover well-woman exams and other gynecological services even if they didn’t pay for birth control pills, which is where the majority of the costs come from when people try to scare folks away from taking responsibility for the medical side of it. The US, as is pointed out in other threads, has the most expensive healthcare and also the least effective.

TD, by the way, is also “offended” (his word) that women live seven years longer than men, that no one is out to figure out WHY they generally live longer, that there’s seven times more research into breast cancer than into prostate cancer (even though the prognosis for each of those conditions is about the same), and that women are the only ones who decide how and when to have sex.  Apparently, in TD’s world, the only scenario that happens outside of the “woman say yes, man get laid” scenario is rape, but I was already starting to feel bad for him, so I didn’t launch into the explanations of coercive intimidation or the wide varieties of other not-perfectly-consentual sex that does not happen in TD’s world.  I did, however, point out that sex was merely a symbol of the power of the woman, and that most discrimination happens in the work place, in the pay check, and now even more in the medical clinic.

I brought up the case of the woman who filed a discrimination suit against the fire department:

Me: There’s an interesting aspect to that that you are missing, TD: Some years ago, there was a discrimination suit against a fire department for not hiring women. They said that they were completely open to hiring women IF those women could pass the same physical requirements as men in terms of strength and capacity. One woman took the challenge, went through the trials, and *failed*. Later on, other women tried and *passed*. And honestly, as a woman, I’m proud of that – and as a mother, relieved, because if I were relying on someone to rescue my children from a burning building who did NOT have the physical requirements to take on that job, my children could die.

Equality is not about every person being required to do the exact same jobs as every other person: it’s about every person having ACCESS to the same resources. THAT is the issue. And when women are made to feel “no win” – just as you present that men are made to feel “no win” – equality cannot and does not happen.
Like · 2

Me: Women must adhere to a social standard of beauty and attractiveness in order to find a mate suitable to her tastes – and men do, too. If men are not aware of what those standards are, it’s up to women to define that for them. At the top of the list might be something like “honor me as an equal, and if you don’t like me for who I am, don’t f**k me anyway just because you want some tail!”
Like · 2

TD: When they lowered the lifting standard for women as firefighters, that was just stupid. Men were required to carry 150 pounds down a ladder, while women were only required to carry 75. Why not just lower the standard to 75 for men as well? If your house was burning, and the female fire fighter couldn’t carry your 100 pound child down the ladder, and she died in the fire, would you say, “Oh that’s ok, At least the woman got the job?” That’s ridiculous. And I agree with your second post. Like I have said several times, if a man doesn’t present himself in the manner that the woman likes, it is her choice to tell him to go away. There are plenty of things that are not fair, but you deal with it. Is it fair that businesses can off “Ladies’ Night” where women don’t pay, but men do? I hardly think that would stand up to a court challenge, but you and I know it will never go to court, because sometimes you just have to accept things the way they are.

Me: I did not support lowering the standard at all.

And here was the final statement that I made here, and I must say, I’m still pretty proud of it:

And that’s really the absolute best statement I can make about this entire discussion: I DO NOT SUPPORT LOWERING THE STANDARDS. I mentioned before that men are victimized by the patriarchal society as much if not more than women (mostly because women are better at keeping secret societies to themselves – we find ways to survive in small parts under duress).

On the whole, please check your sources. The “why” of how expensive health care is in the US, the many studies done on the *average* life expectancy of men, the reasons behind the drop-out rates – and *where* they come from… these are all parts of a much larger picture.

If women cannot lift and carry a 100-pound person, then they should not be firefighters. If a man can’t fight to kill in order to protect his interests (military or family), he should not be given a gun. If a *person* cannot do a task effectively and safely, they should be given a different task that they *can* do effectively and safely. THAT is not the question.

Discrimination happens when people in groups (gender, creed, color, etc) who are otherwise equal as humans are prevented from access to employment, health care, education, transportation, etc. by other groups who diminish and demean the first groups for whatever reason. A white male claiming society discrimination is as absurd as a Christian claiming that their religion is being persecuted in the United States – a perpetrator blaming the victim stance.

If you agree that the original image is deplorable, unacceptable, and demeaning (which you have stated), then do not try to tell me – a single mother with special needs kids who has lost jobs and job opportunities due to my gender, creed, and circumstance – how I somehow have the power. Sometimes “NO” is answered with a heftier blow against, and then you just have to find a way around it.

Women are perceived as the weaker gender, and so we are manipulated by people who do not include us in their proceedings – like the GOP discussion on access to women’s health care, including contraception and abortion, that included *NO WOMEN*. We are taking that back, day by day, through education (such as this discussion following the image above), through debate, through protest, and through stubbornness…

And while we could technically do it without your help, we’d rather than compassionate men were on our side, to walk with us and gain access to what it is they *really* want – the love and affection of a woman that has found them worthy and equal.

Until we win our place back in the world, hardly anyone will receive that, and that is truly tragic.

I know that the original JS was really just trying to troll, but I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to make something positive come out of it.  So, that’s what I did today.  I think I’ll go make a pi now.  With shoes on.  For my kids.  That I raise and support myself.

Despite the discrimination.

 

 
 

On single parenthood and Grothman’s Folly

03 Mar

Hopefully, by the time this posts, this horrible story will have become a footnote of history.  I’m not really holding my breath – and it’s one of those measures that couldn’t possibly ever be passed, right? – but to give you the short version, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin wants to update the state’s statutes for the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to require all literature to inform people that single parenthood is an overwhelming factor in child abuse.

That’s right.  I know it’s stunning, it boggles the mind, but apparently child abuse is a direct result of single-parent homes.

(Just writing that made me throw up a little in my mouth.)

Let’s examine some observational facts, shall we?

1.  The majority of single parents are not (as one might think) the result of having children out of wedlock.  Take a look at divorce rates across the country, and I think you’ll find that the likelihood is far more that single parents come equally from divorce and unmarried unions.  Oh, hey, look!  Here’s an article that says that divorced people are more likely to be single parents than having children out of wedlock (by a relatively narrow margin).  To put it another way, most single parents these days started out married.  Preventing “children out of wedlock” would not make a significant impact in this… person’s… concept of “contributing factors of child abuse”.

2.  A good portion of the dissolution of marriages (or even long-term relationships with children) is a result of (or at least heavily influenced by) the presence of some form of abuse.  It’s hard to pin an accurate statistic on this for a wide variety of reasons, but observation says that most abuse happens towards a spouse first, and then an amount also trickles down to the kids.  And when we talk about “abuse”, it’s almost necessary to define it more completely to reference physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, and/or emotional abuse.  Which abuse do you think the good Senator had in mind?  Is he implying that sexual abuse, for instance, happens mostly to kids of single parents?  If so, I’ve got news for him:  that is every kind of wrong.

2B.  I have a suspicion – not yet a theory, just a thought – that many cases of abuse come about from the stress of an unhappy relationship, and that if the two parents weren’t together past the realization of “this ain’t workin’”, the overall cases of abuse – spousal and child alike – would be greatly diminished.  Again, this is not a statement of fact, merely a thought, though it is one that I would be curious to see investigated more thoroughly.  Another way to put it would be that requiring or pressuring unhappy people to stay together actually would encourage child abuse, not prevent it.

3.  It’s not many cases where that abuse from the dissolved relationship translates down to the kids.  Sometimes, a case of neglect may result due to the sudden requirement for this one person to do the jobs of two – including having two jobs.  The roles that were once meant to be shared (whether they were or not before is immaterial, almost) now fall to one person, and there are times when even the best of us have to put off “kid duty” for the sake of working late hours or just vegetating in front of the tv or computer for a little decompression time.  (NOTE:  It only counts as neglect when it’s excessive, such as interfering with care and feeding.)

4.  I know many single moms who have to resort to a smack on the butt or even a proper paddle-delivered spanking to handle a kid who has now lost half of the disciplinary team.  Is that child abuse?  I think that depends on how it’s handled, but rather than wagging the finger at single parents for getting extreme in punishment, it would make a lot more sense to maybe provide them with a little extra support and training to learn how to handle their anger.

The bottom line is that to make even a suggestion of correlation (let alone causation) between single parenthood and child abuse is not just insipid and deranged, it’s downright dangerous.  I can already see the scenarios in my head of truly abused spouses being unable to leave their abusers because they’ll end up losing their kids for “electing for child abuse themselves”.  (No, I am not saying that this is what the proposed bill directly suggests, but it certainly lays the groundwork for such an event.)

Here’s a better pill to swallow:

If single parents got real support and were not vilified by conservatives and other similarly blinded groups, the place that they hold in our society as effective humans would be very different.  While the social stigma of the single parent has softened a great deal in the last thirty to fifty years, there is still a massive discrimination around it.  Single parents constantly have their financial stability denied with unfair hiring and paying practices.  You literally have to hide the presence of your children during interviews to stand a chance of getting a good paying job most of the time, and if you make too many schedule requests (time off for doctor’s appointments, home by 3 to greet the kindergartner, etc), you’re now guaranteed to be on the slow track for advancement and raises.  And don’t get the idea that it’s because single parents are less effective workers – the opposite is true – but the “butt in chair” perception as defining the “efficient worker” persists despite all kinds of evidence otherwise.

And what about the rest of the time when you can’t get a job at all, either because of unavailability of childcare or some other complicating factor?  ”Just get on state assistance” is a mantra that’s heard nearly all the time, especially by those in destitute situations, but the majority of people chanting that mantra don’t understand the implications:  Once you get on government assistance (which is usually barely enough to survive on, let alone get ahead), any change you make in income affects that assistance, which means that if you get $800 in food assistance while unemployed, let’s say, and then get a minimum wage job, your assistance gets cut even though you will technically be making less than if you’d stayed unemployed, put you in worse position to feed your kids.  And what if you’re a single parent with a special-needs child that requires a lot of medical attention?  Medicaid does not pay for the good doctors most of the time.

As a social safety net, the system doesn’t work for anything other than perpetuating poverty, which leads to personal stress and loss of self-esteem, which then leads commonly to abusive cycles.  The problem of child abuse is not created by single parents, but if it were, it would be because of their presence as unadmitted second-class citizens against those other people who managed to get all the way through business college instead of perpetuating the species, or those who chose to stay married in misery rather than stand up for themselves.  (And, yes, that is often a very real situation.)

I get what Grothman is trying to do, to get something done “to protect the children” because, hey, kids are always great PR.  But, as the saying goes, he’s got a great big head, and little bitty arms, and this plan was not thought through very well.

—————————————————————————-

Does this piss you off as bad as it does me?  Pop on over to Change.Org and sign the petition to stop this fraking madness.

 
 

Thoughts on terrorism

03 Jan

A few weeks ago, like many of my colleagues, I signed petitions and wrote letters to congressfolk to try to prevent changes to certain pieces of legislation.  The specifics of the laws in question aren’t really important at this exact moment, but one of the responses that I received really caught my attention and got me to thinking.

A congressperson who shall remain nameless sent this as the opening line to the email justifying the passage of the NDAA:

“I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants.”

Now, maybe my Constitutional law is a little fuzzy in all these years since I was in grade school, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s supposed to work.  Here was my reply:

“Let me point something out to you:

‘I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants.’

 ”You said that in your form letter to me.

“Now, let me point out something else:

 ’We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’

 ”That’s from the Declaration of Independence that started the process of American’s country-hood.  I realize it’s probably a little unfamiliar to you, but the point is that your first statement implies that what you term as ‘terrorists’ are somehow NOT human and therefore do not deserve the same rights as ‘all men’.  I strongly encourage you to re-examine your understanding of the ‘terrorist problem’.  Perhaps it’s this attitude that ‘terrorists’ are somehow not human and therefore ineligible for basic human rights that creates the problem in the first place.”

I know damn well and good that the chances of Senator Nameless actually reading my response are slim, but it’s been on my mind ever since.  I’m frankly still disgusted, even ten years later, that our response to the 9/11 event was the subsequent fear-mongering by the government to whittle away basic rights and liberties of not only “foreigners” but of our own people.

It is the daydream of many where we must sit and really wonder, though, what we would have done were we in the position of those in power.  Really think about this.  What would you do?  What would you have done?

I can tell you that I wouldn’t have done what they did – and I sure as hell wouldn’t be propagating the mistake now.  I have never regretted a single vote I’ve ever cast, but I’m hard-pressed right now not to.

Okay… besides this point about the current administration’s weaknesses, let’s really answer this.  What would I have done?

First, the question is, what created the problem?  What was done to whomever committed these acts that they felt this was their only recourse?  This is grade-school stuff.  Billy hit Johnny because Billy was mad.  Why was Billy mad?  Johnny took Billy’s toy truck without asking.  Was Billy right to hit Johnny?  No, but Johnny shouldn’t have taken the truck.  Johnny and Billy both get a time out, Billy gets his truck back, Johnny gets an ice pack, and they both apologize to each other.

Yes, I know that international politics is more complicated than that, but the premise is the same.  Really, especially on the international political level, it should start with “don’t take things that don’t belong to you” and “don’t hit”, but that’s already been done, so it’s really just a matter of cleaning up the mess from whomever sat at the desk before you.

Right after 9/11, there was a little internet game that came out.  It had you in the “sniper chair”, and the goal was to spot and shoot “terrorists”.  The catch was, for every terrorist you shot, two to ten more ordinary people became terrorists.  This is the crux of the problem:  we (they) use the word “terrorist” to dehumanize a person who has been hurt to the extent that they feel that terror (violence, bloodshed) is the only way to be heard, the only way to get things done.  (This is also known as “blaming the victim”.)  Except that most of the time, the person that created the hurt in the first place is a great big bully, and bullies don’t respond to “an eye for an eye” by realizing that they were being doodyheads and need to stop because we don’t live in a Hollywood-produced feel-good family movie.  They poke out the victim’s other eye.

It’s very similar to an abusive relationship.  Here we have an estranged ex, and the abuser keeps doing things to mess with him – being late on palimony payments, taking things from the garage when no one’s home, calling in anonymous complaints to the neighborhood association.  Finally, the estranged ex has enough and screams at the abuser in public – but no one realizes all that other stuff was going on, so the ex is the one that looks like a jerk.  The abuser continues the passive-aggressive behavior, and then the ex snaps to the point where he leaves a burning sack of poop died to a pack of dynamite in the abuser’s car.  Oh noes, the ex is such a bad person for blowing up that car!  Really?

Now, I will add a caveat at this point that suggests that the terror problem is exactly what it seems to be, that the truth has been told, and that we know everything about it.  No one starts acting like a jerk for no reason – especially not against an opponent several thousand times his size and even stronger than that.  Even more so, it’s especially weird when you consider that Islam is itself a wholly embracing and non-judging religion in its foundational points.  (And for this, yes, I’m back to speaking directly of the particular problem.)  Yes, there are sects of Islam that are extremist and violent and repressive, but there are also sects of Christianity that make those Muslims look like pacifist hippies by comparison – and in neither case do the actual numbers of those sects count more than a few thousand total.

And there are seven billion people on the planet.

You do the math.

I think my point is that to continue to use “terrorism” as an excuse to violate the rights that are allegedly being protected has always smacked of being disingenuous, but now it’s just getting ridiculous.  If, by the time this post goes live, there has not been some kind of mind-blowing and cataclysmic change in the system, I may very well have to do the unthinkable and run for an elected office – racy videos, checkered past and all.  I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the “clean-nosed” folks aren’t doing the job, so how about some people who didn’t go to Ivy League schools?

 
 

Gotta get outta this place

24 Jan

It’s not dire, but it is serious.

I was so looking forward to living in this duplex for at least a couple of years, but that’s just not going to happen.  It’s small, yes, and has the tiniest, almost-least-helpful kitchen ever, but it’s charming and relatively well-located…

Try as I might, I have not figured out how to make it safe for Daniel.  The tumor should be gone by now, given how much stuff he’s been on and for how long, but it seems like every time we make a little progress, if we have an order like we did a few weeks ago where we weren’t able to get his Heavy Metal Cleanse, it’s back to worse than before.  This means that he’s continuing to absorb those toxins, and everything that we’re doing is essentially treading water.

I won’t have it.  Absolutely not.

So, I’m looking for another solution that is, frankly, less appealing, but it will probably be safer and healthier – and does have some added conveniences (that we were supposed to have here but never manifested, such as being able to rely on relatives for a little extra kid care more than once a week, sporadically if at all).

I think I want to move up to the North Dallas/Richardson area.  The main reason that I’m choosing this option is that I’d like to be close to Joe so that he can help out a little more easily with the kids.  The downside is that this means that we’re pretty much stuck with getting an apartment – unless someone else frees up who wants to share a house, plus kids, plus my pets and whatever other pets we may have collectively…

The good side is that even though the rent will go up by over $150 per month (or more – still figuring that part out), the overall expenses might go down since utilities are generally less expensive in apartments versus houses.  That $150 will get us an actual three-bedroom, though, with far more square footage, maybe more of a balcony or patio on which to do a little container gardening (something that isn’t practical in our area due to “foot-traffic”).  The kitchens are all bigger, the appliances are maintained, and the kids will be delighted to know that disposals and dishwashers are standard.

On the downside, the use of gas will go up since it’ll take me a little more to get to the office, should I schedule any consultations – plus my social outings are mostly near downtown or in Arlington.  There’s the noise of all of the people around us, not to mention the noise that we ourselves produce on occasion, and the extra costs of things like pet deposits, transferring utilities, etc.

And yet, is there really any inconvenience that is too great to endure for my son’s well-being?  The answer to that is actually “yes”, but on the list of unacceptable things, living in an apartment is not one of them.

Well, as long as it’s a decent apartment.  I’ve already narrowly dodged a bullet on one that had a great rate, great location, and only four murders in the last twelve months.  (The official number changes, so that’s my reasonable guess.)

A few things will not be making the move with us, such as my awesome desk.  It technically didn’t survive the LAST move, but it’s “held up” okay by replacing one whole side with a short filing cabinet.  And we’re going to have to sort through things even more to try to avoid getting stuck with an additional storage unit to keep everything safe.

I do want to get the boys a new bunk bed so that they have plenty of room to play, and I think that means that Kira will get the futon (couch-style) on which to sleep, but that also means that I need to think about getting a bed as well.  So that’s… a lot of beds.  And a desk.  And maybe more shelves because gods know we don’t have enough as it is.  There’s still one whole box in the garage with most of my really important books in it that still hasn’t been unpacked.

There are so many other adjustments that need to be made, so many little things to take care of, and only five weeks in which to do it.  My rent’s paid up through February, which is a heck of a blessing so that there will be plenty of cash to take care of incidental expenses…

But, MAN, I’m getting sick of moving.  If my count is correct (and it could be off by a few), this will be my 47th address in my life.

Does anyone have any boxes they can part with for a while?