Faralee's Fallacies

Star Trek

2009-12-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

I'm kind of a Star Trek nerd. Well, I'm nerdy in many ways, love of start trek is just one facet of my nerdiness, I suppose. Can I just say, the new movie was awesome! There seems to be this idea going around the web that Trekkies don't like the movie because it's too "cool". Now granted, I am not one of those true Trekkies who dress up in my star trek uniform just to hang out in my basement. I only wear my uniform for special occasions. :) But I loved loved loved the new movie, and I believe most of the supposed critique of the movie by the trekkie community are just rumors. There is a short video which depicts Trekkies bashing the movie, but its made by the onion. And although its pretty obvious that its fake, there was a lot of comments about it afterward to the affect of, "the funniest part about it is thats actually what the trekkies are saying! What a bunch of nerds." Well, I honestly couldn't find any negative reviews period. Maybe I just don't know where the die-hard fans post? I suspect the reason why non -trekkies are so eager to say trekkies hate this movie is because that makes it easier to like it. If the nerds like the movie too, how can you like it and still be cool?

Well, sorry, but the nerds love it. I don't think I have delusions about the original star trek movies, I know they're not "cool", but I loved them anyway despite the shortcomings. Still, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate coolness. And for me, the first time I saw it there something surprisingly personal about the new Star Trek; it was like suddenly having the head-cheerleader say my name. Felt a little strange, but great. Its my new favorite movie. And I don't care if everyone else likes it too, It's awesome. And thats the truth :)-

Nursing is easy...

2009-11-04T07:58:00.000-08:00

Because of a fun little conversation I had with some friends and family the other day, I've been thinking a lot about nursing lately. There is a statistic going around (and I have learned that its true, or at least as true as any statistic can be proved to be). That more educated women are more likely to nurse and to nurse for a longer period of time. Now I am not exactly sure what we mean by this when we say it. Of course the insinuation is that smarter women nurse. But that's silly. And the statistic itself is very strange to me because my college experience definitely didn't directly prepare me to want to nurse, in fact quite the opposite. Many people wouldn't expect to see educated and high class women nurse for very long, if at all; Even though the statistic suggests that those are precisely the type of women that are doing it. And maybe that's why we make such a big deal about it. As nursing women, we are tired of being looked down on for no reason. And society just hasn't caught on yet that this is the enlightened, cool thing to do.

Well, that may explain why we like the statistic, and why its spread around in nursing circles like wildfire, but I still wonder how it could possibly be true. What is it about being educated that makes women nurse longer? If its not the learning or atmosphere itself? (And believe me, its not). What is it about going to school that prepares us in any way for breastfeeding. Well, I think I've figured it out. It comes down to seemingly futile endurance. Maybe everyone's experience with school isn't the same as mine, but I had more than a few moments of, "what the heck am I still doing this for?" School was hard, but nursing, for all its beauty and ease is one of the hardest things I've ever had to stick out in my whole life. Its painful, boring, frustrating, painful, you get sick of being the only one able to "fix" the crying, the baby takes way way longer to sleep through the night, and did I mention painful? And most of the time it seems oh so futile. You have to wonder why you are torturing yourself. There are great formulas out there, right? It would be nice to share that responsibility and get some rest. But somehow we pull through, maybe just because school trained us to do; stick it out.

Well, of course its not quite that simple. Wikipedia had this to say, "More highly educated women are more likely to have access to information regarding difficulties with breastfeeding, allowing them to continue breastfeeding through difficulty rather than weaning early." That's probably true too. I also heard on a news segment that support from other nursing mothers or family is also a hugely contributing factor to breastfeeding. Hey, that's how women survive everything. But I gotta say, the main reason I kept up with nursing was pure laziness. Laziness beat out over pain and frustration. Nursing is always, always available and conveniant, and especially once the pain goes away, you can sleap right through it. Don't get me wrong, I love it. Its a special mommy time with my baby, gives me peace of mind, and there are tons of physical benefits for me and the wee one. But for the first little while, Its really hard to see that, and if I wasn't so lazy, I probably wouldn't have done it. And I really believe that in most cases, bottlefeeding has very few if any negative consequences, and lots of benefits. The most serious problems with bottle-feeding only occur in infants who have an inclination toward certain health problems in the first place. Which means that most kids are not adversely affected. There is a chance for serious problems, but its hard to ignore that there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in most kids.

So although I really hope that everyone who want to can nurse as long as is good for their kids, I cannot blame or judge those who can't, or those that quit early. I'll say it again, IT IS HARD! Its worth it, but hard. And though it gets better after the first month, that will probably not the be the end of the difficulty for you. So maybe rather than just telling one another that more educated women nurse, Lets just support one another, no matter what we decide.

How to win friends and influence people

2009-05-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

When I was a young teen, my Dad gave me this book and told me it was a book that had changed his life. I read it, loved it but have ever since then found myself needing to defend it. Its not a new book, the first edition was first published 1964 I believe. Since that time, there has grown a lot of misconceptions about it. Probably for good reason. One of my friends said it might as well have been called how to eliminate enemies and manipulate people. Kind of has a nice ring to it actually. And more than just the title, there are elements of the book that sound really manipulative. For instance, listen to this list skills that are covered by chapters in the book:

* THREE FUNDAMENTAL TECHNIQUES IN HANDLING PEOPLE

* THE SIX WAYS TO MAKE PEOPLE LIKE YOU

* THE TWELVE WAYS TO WIN PEOPLE TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING

* THE NINE WAYS TO CHANGE PEOPLE WITHOUT AROUSING RESENTMENT

I consider myself a nice person, I don't like manipulation. If my father hadn't given me this book and told me to read it, I would never have done so and probably would have been suspicious and judgemental about people who did read it. I mean, for goodness sake, techniques in handling people? and the last one might as well have said how to fix people without arousing suspicion.

Well, over the years I've noticed that those who say this is a worthless manipulative book are those who have not read it. I've never hear anyone who has read it say anything but absolute life-changing, positive things about it. And to those who did say negative things about it, I almost always have said, "well, yes it could be used for manipulation, but that wasn't the intent so its not a manipulative book." But I've changed my mind. Someone who reads this book from beginning to end couldn't truly use it for manipulation. I know that may be hard to believe, and I probably won't convince you (you'll probably have to read it for yourself) but let me give you some examples of the actual content, and perhaps I can change your mind.

In the chapter about honest and sincere appreciation:

"people sometimes become invalids in order to win sympathy and attention, and get a feeling of importance. . . some authorities declare that people may actually go insane in order to find, in the dreamland of insanity, the feeling of importance that has been denied them in the harsh world of reality. If some people are so hungry for a feeling of importance that they actually go insane to get it, imagine what miracle you and I can achieve by giving people honest appreciation this side of insanity."

and from a chapter about becoming genuinely interested in other people:

"For years, I made it a point to find out the birthdays of my friends. How? Although I haven't the foggiest bit of faith in astrology, I began by asking the other party whether he believed the date of ones birth has anything to do with character and disposition.I then asked him or her to tell me the month and day of birth. I then kept repeating the date to myself and the minute my friends back was turned, I wrote it down and transferred it to a birthday book. And when that day arrived, there was my letter or telegram. I was frequently the only person who remembered."

and :

"Why talk about what we want? that is childish. Absurd. Of course you are interested in what you want. You are eternally interested in it. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want. . . if you want to know how to make people shun you and laugh behind your back and even despise you, here is the recipe: never listen to anyone for long. Talk incessantly about yourself."

This book is a study in psychology and sociology. But in my opinion, it could have been just as easily named "How to be a caring, unselfish influence in the lives of those around you."
Then why wasn't it? Well, I think partially because Dale Carnegie believes what he said in that last paragraph. He believes the readers will not read a book in order to care better for others, but that we would only do it if it got us what we want.

And, as I said, its not just the title, honestly he does make a point to talk about the ways his own life and friendships are better because he follows these principals. He talks about being able to influence coworkers, friends, clients. He talks about how to deal with others' frustrations. But he doesn't influence them for selfish benefits, unless you count a better relationship with those around you as selfish. Perhaps it is. The definition of manipulation is exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage. Now in my opinion, if someone with devious intent picked up this book and started living by its principals, they would either be forced to give up the devious intentions, or else soon give up living by the book's principals because its just not quick enough or easy enough to give honest appreciation all the time, to let people talk through their frustrations entirely without butting it, and to always encourage others to talk about themselves. In fact writing this blog makes me realize I really need to read this book again and try doing those things better.

(Side note, I fully realize this is not even close to being a substitute for the principals of living by the doctrines of scripture. Study of the doctrine will change behavior better than the study of behavior will change behavior. Yep)

Im shy! Unbelievably Shy!!

2009-01-30T09:57:00.000-08:00

People have funny expectations of children and babies. Of course, every parent hopes their child will be quick to learn to talk walk and crawl. We probably assume that the quicker a child is to progress, the smarter they will be (Of course thats not always true. Not even close. Albert Einstein took three years to learn to walk. Stupid kid) . We expect our babies to be jolly and outgoing. We assume they will get along equally with everyone. Even though I have a hard time not believing these things myself, I realize deep down that thier silly. But even more silly is that people expect it of other people's children as well. Like People are always trying to get babies to smile at them. Its a rush. But babies who won't are...somewhat of a disappointment. People who don't get a smile from your baby are even prone to tell stories about such and such baby that always smiles at them. And its hard in that situation not to apologize for your baby, saying something like, "I don't know why she's that way," Or, "Hes just tired and hungry, it has nothing to do with you." Do we honestly think babies cant be shy unless something wrong with them? And when they get older, undoubtedly, you're toddler will encounter someone they don't get along with. I can't tell you how many times I heard, "She usually not like that, I don't know why shes being so mean," Its not just something we say in passing either, many many hours of worrying and conversation has gone into why this toddler doesn't get along with that toddler. Now I'm not saying we should condone meanness ever, but why should we be surprised that a toddler is different with one person that they are with another. As adults we don't get along with everyone exactly the same way. Different people make you feel differently.

And my favorite one is we always want our babies to sleep all the way through the night. Now this one has good reason, cuz if they aren't sleeping, we aren't either. And there are lots of ways to help your child sleep through the night. But even a baby who's technically been sleeping through the night since they were three months old has days when she won't. Something upsets the schedule. And some babies just have a harder time at night than others. Well of course. Do all adults sleep through the night every night? If so, there wouldn't be so many sleep medications and aids out there. Lots of people have a hard time sleeping. We're silly to think babies wouldn't be the same.

Now let me say that even though my logic thus far has been "Babies are people too" this logic doesn't always hold up. Babies are different from people. Their habits are largely directed by their parents. And their needs are obviously different. For instance I had someone try to tell me that I shouldn't only be breastfeeding my baby because he would get sick of it. "Wouldn't you get tired of just drinking milk all day?" Well, of course this is false logic. Babies don't have the same taste buds or digestive ability as adults do. Anything but mothers milk could be hard on their system, and I have to say they like it. Even after they start eating other things, they keep wanting just the mothers milk just as much as before. Besides mothers milk is nothing like cows milk. Cows milk was made for baby cows. Mothers milk is a whole meal, designed just for your baby. Just thought I would add that in.

Manderin Chinese FAQ

2008-09-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

Chinese is so distant from English that it attracts a lot of speculation among English speakers. I speak Mandarin Chinese (though not quite fluently) and people often ask me questions about the language and culture. I'd like to clear up one particular misconception.

Can a Chinese person be tone deaf?

Absolutely: if you had ever attended a Karaoke party among Chinese speaking people, you would never ask that.

But how can a person who is tone deaf speak Chinese?

You'd be surprised how often I hear this. Most of the time it's probably meant as a joke, but deep down the asker really does wonder. Most people know that Mandarin and Cantonese are both tonal languages. Many think that each different tone represents a different note on the scale. The truth is, Chinese tones have very little to do with notes at all.

Think of the term tone more like tone-of-voice as in "don't take that tone with me young lady." There are five tones in mandarin: two clear tones; and two spoken tones and one non-tone (it varies from sentence to sentence. The first tone is a high clear tone; it is the one that sounds like a sung note. But it doesn't actually correlate to any note in particular; it is simply a held out note somewhere in the upper part of the voice. So depending on how high or low a voice is, the actual note can be very different from person to person. The second tone is the other clear tone, and it is a sort of swoop upwards. It is a bit like a person was trying to sing a note, but started out flat and so had to swoop up to find it. The third tone is voiced, and is just a little wiggle at the bottom of the voice. And then the fourth is the explosive. It goes down, very quickly, and explosively. Think of it the same as the quick abrupt way an English speaker might say “Hey!”

With each tone, there really isn’t much movement because of the speed at which it is spoken. In my opinion, Chinese actually doesn’t have any more tonal movement than English. But it sounds more musical than English because it is quick; each word changes independently and rapidly, instead of the more smooth transitions of English sentences.

"One less" case of cervical cancer?

2008-02-05T21:10:00.000-08:00

Every time I see those commercials for Guardasil I feel like throwing something at the TV. From the very beginning of their whole campaign I just knew I was being manipulated. The first commercials didn't mention anything about a vaccine, but just about HPV, seemingly an altruistic move to simply educate women everywhere. "Cancer from a virus, I didn't know that!" The girls all gushed. Then a few months later, big surprise, the commercials start advertising a cure. Almost like, "you know that cancer causing virus you've been hearing so much about? Well we finally found a cure!" As if it hadn't been them that informed you of it in the first place. And now they are doing a huge push, if you hadn't noticed. Is it because they are concerned about our girls? Of course not, actually, the generic brand of the vaccine is about to come out, and they gotta sell sell sell before people go cheaper. I realize that pharmaceutical companies are just businesses, and they gotta make choices that appeal to the widest possible audience. The problem I have is there is just so much they leave out.

Most importantly, they never mention that HPV is a STD. Even on their site, they try to make it sound like it is more than just an STD because:
"Anyone who has any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact with an infected person can get HPV—-intercourse isn't necessary." I hate to say it, but many, if not most, STD's are like that.

I fully realize that not everyone can promote abstinence. For this reason, you might say its a great thing to have a vaccine for such a dangerous virus even if it is an STD. I'm just offended by all the partial honestly, and its hard for me to move past that. Especially when the main reason for the omitting of such crucial information seems to be they want younger customers. The vaccine is advertised for girls nine years old and up. So the conscientious mothers in the commercial say, "I want my daughter to be one less." If Guardasil was required to add that it was for an STD, I'm pretty sure they would have a few less mothers bringing in their nine year-olds for the vaccination. Mothers don't tend to think of their young daughters as sexually active at any age, let alone nine. But preteens and teenage girls probably won't be bringing themselves in either. So that makes for a much much smaller audience. Which means less money. The commercial should say "I'm gonna be one more" One more dollar (if only it were just a dollar) for the pharmaceutical industry.

On a side note, I'm afraid there may be a few doctors out there who don't do their homework when it comes to Guardasil either. Fae's doctor told her that the vaccine canceled out the need for pap smears. Um, yeah thats wrong on so many levels. Not that I'm saying don't trust your doctors on this but....Well, maybe I am.

Women don't get addicted to porn?

2008-02-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

This is something that frustrates me alot, but its such a delicate subject, I can never think how to broach it: Pornography. Its a scary subject for some, sensitive for others, and silly for (I hate to say) the majority. I know most people in the world don't believe that viewing pornography is a bad thing. But I'm not really talking to those people here. I'm talking to those who believe porn is damaging. Many of us know that anyone can get addicted to porn, but I'm not sure we really think about women as being part of that "anyone". Today in church I heard a statistic that was a bit shocking. 14% of LDS women are addicted to pornography. These are women who do believe pornography is bad and detrimental to their eternal soul, and yet can't quit!

I think part of the problem comes because too many women think we, as women, aren't vulnerable (and therefore sometimes we put ourselves in compromising situations). And also I honestly think many women don't really know what porn is. I know that seems like I'm not giving us enough credit, but let me explain.

I don't think the same kinds of porn attract women as men. Its been said many times that men are more visual than women. Typically, when we think of porn, we think of the visual stuff: pictures and movies namely. But there is a whole other category thats basically non visual. I'm talking about romance erotica: Romance novels(you know the kind) and sometimes even romance movies. Women may not be all that stimulated by pictures, but throw a little romance in there, and some women can be just as hooked as some men. In my educated opinion, anything that leads a person to think lastingly about intimate situations, not in direct relation to your spouse, is pornography. And yes, many romances do just that. On purpose.

So the result is that women young and old, who didn't intend on subjecting themselves to anything questionable are getting addicted to pornography. And the same consequences apply as they do for any kind of porn addiction: spiritual deadening, guilt, damage to self esteem. It effects every relationship ever after, and can damage your sex life with your husband. And it can lead to much much worse.

The good news is that once you've read or seen romance pornography even once, even if you didn't know what it was before, you would know afterwards. The feelings are unmistakable. The spirit always lets you know when its been offended. Unfortunately, for some women, by then its already too late. What am I trying to do then? Keep the innocent but conscientious away from even getting that first taste. Avoid romances that may have prolonged sex scenes. Avoid (dare I say it) Harlequin romances. I know someone's going to hate me for saying that, but I speak from experience when I say most of them are pure porn. And its sometimes hard to tell which ones aren't until its too late. Avoid anything that stimulates you in a way only your husband should.

I hope in the future more and more is brought to light about this subject, so that our numbers of LDS women addicted to porn can drop even lower. It starts now.

Is going to see Golden Compass as bad as going to see a Rated R movie?

2007-12-06T16:28:00.000-08:00

Ok, This isn't just about the golden compass (though I will get to that). I just titled it that to get your attention. This is really about why I don't see rated R movies. Many intelligent people, my teachers and classmates especially, have made fun of me and those like me for not wanting to see rated R movies or any movie that I don't deem worthy. Something they say a lot is, "Those who won't see that movie think that if they see it, they will become it. If they see a movie about gay people, they'll be forced to be gay." And then they laugh.

The main problem with this fallacy is that many of us aren't sure whether its true or not. We often just laugh along with them and say, well, I guess they're right. But let me assure you that the whole idea is at best, a half-truth.

When it comes to our children it may be somewhat true. We hope that our kids are learning their morals from us, and not the media, but TV can be very convincing in its point of view. Kids who don't really have their morals in place yet are easily influenced. So yes, we do worry that if they see a movie that glorifies violence, they'll want to act it out.

I do not believe we do it for the same reason when we restrict ourselves however. I realize I cannot speak for everyone. But for me, I don't watch immoral movies because its putting myself in a place of darkness. I (and many others) believe that in order to gain the guidance and influence of God, I should try to be clean. When I watch things that are what I consider immoral, I decline my chance to have divine guidance: not just during the show, but lastingly afterward. When I don't have God's help in my life, I make unwise choices, its harder to deal with trials, and especially it becomes harder to resist temptation. My temptations may have nothing to do with the movie. For instance, I may never have been tempted by infidelity, but perhaps I''ve always been tempted to yell at my kids.

So what am I saying? Am I saying that a movie that glorifies homosexuality will make me yell at my kids? Maybe so, if that is what one of my personal struggles happens to be. We still always have a choice in our actions. But why make it harder on ourselves than it already is?

That being said, my objection to see immorality doesn't necessarily extend to an objection to see everything that disagrees with my beliefs. For instance I don't believe most of what is in the Nicene Creed, but I don't have objection to reading it. On a lighter note, the science fiction and fantasy I read is all bunk. I don't believe any of it to be a true depiction of life, yet I still feel ok about reading it. Why? Because I don't believe that reading or seeing something that is untrue is darkness. I believe that God allows us to suspend reality occasionally. I don't believe subjecting ourselves to untruths really has any relation to subjecting ourselves to immorality.

Maybe that is elementary and obvious to you. But I have to ask then, whats all this hullabaloo over the Golden Compass series? I have to first admit that I have never read it, and I haven't yet seen the movie. But from what I've heard, the series presents a world in which there is no God. Rarely has a series been so bold as that. Even so, its a fantasy isn't it? The rest of it is all fantastical, and so is that. Why can't we just accept it as a fantastic story in which people can do things that are impossible in reality, and in which there is no God, which to many of us is pure fantastical fiction?

Now there are some philosophy's and untruths that I do think can be darkness, simply because they are more than untruths: they are anti-truths. This is why I try not to read anti-Mormon literature. Instead of just informing me what others' beliefs are, anti-Mormon literature is trying to tear down my beliefs, and that to me is pure darkness. So let me say that if the Golden Compass is actually trying to dissuade people from believing in God, then its very possible it is darkness, not just fantasy. If there are people that read it and say, you know, this is true. There is no God because of the points presented in this book, then I guess I won't see it or read it. A movie just isn't worth losing the influence of the spirit over for me. And though it can be different for everyone, I know I don't want to subject myself to Anti-god media, any more than I want to see a rated R movie.

Santa

2007-11-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

I don't believe in Santa. Not just that I don't believe hes real, but I don't believe he should be part of the Christmas traditions. That being said, I love my husband and I like him happy and he always had Santa in his home growing up. We've talked about Santa many times in our marriage, and I believe he supports me. Even so, I bring it up around Christmas time to make sure we're still on the same page. So the other day I asked him, "are we going to tell our kids about Santa?" and he said, "No Well tell them about Sandy Clause."
"Santy Clause?" I said laughing at his pronunciation.
"No, San-dy. Sandy. Sexy Santa,"

This is his way of changing the subject and keeping me from ranting. It worked. I'm still laughing.

Ok that wasn't as my blog sudgests a fallacy, but its funny.

The longer you know your spouse before you get married, the better?

2007-11-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

Most people will tell you its better to date a while before you get married. There seems to be a general feeling of disapproval for anyone who doesn't know each other for at least a year. I've especially heard a lot of people criticize Utah Mormons for getting married too fast. I got married to my husband after knowing him almost a year, and yet when people ask how long we knew each other before we got married, I still fudge a little on the exact timing, leaving out that we only dated for only about four months of that. And when I say, "about a year", people always say, "oh good. I don't think you should ever rush into it."

Well, the whole thing is silly, and its a fallacy to boot. As with many fallacies, it comes from a partial truth. Of course you want to get to know one another before you get married. But how long does that take? There doesn't seem to be a magic number on dating time for optimum success. Some will tell you the longer the better. Well, I hate to say, that just isn't true. Statistically speaking, time dating doesn't seem to make that much difference on long term success.

There are two exceptions to that of course. Those who elope after knowing each other too short a time (as in like a day or two) don't give themselves great chances of success. The other exception is those who wait too long. Particularly those who co-habitate. If you believe that waiting longer gives you greater chances of success, you'd think that people who live together for a few years would know each other so well, being married would be a snap afterward. But statistically, those who live together before getting married have about 50% more chance of divorce. Crazy, but true. Why? Didn't they know what they were getting into? I've watched many a Divorce Court with such cases, and they always say, "Well she changed," or even more often, "I though he would change and he didn't." It appears that getting to know each other well didn't really help them that much. The reasons for getting a divorce were still the same as couples who waited to live together until after they were married. I think the problem is that people change. Feelings change, priorities change, bodies change and in lots of cases marriage changes you no matter how long you were dating beforehand.

There are some things that I think people ought to know about thier spouse before getting engaged: Common values, mutual goals; but in my opinion, commitment level is the biggie. It can see you through most of anything. My parents, for instance, got married after knowing each other no more than 4 months. Lots of people would shake their heads in disgust at that (sorry mom). But my parents have been married for 41 years. They are very different people, they don't think the same, they don't really like the same kinds of things. But because they are committed in their heart to each other, they make an effort to continually cultivate love, to make common goals, and to have fun. So there.

Do women accept advice easier than men?

2007-11-02T10:35:00.000-07:00

Why do men never ask for directions? Its an old joke thats so overused it's become passe. There is some psychological backup for it, however. When a man asks for directions, advice, or even just talks about his problems he is admitting that these are problems that he can't handle on his own. In a way, how ever small or insignificant, he is admitting the superiority of the person he asks advice. This is why men don't talk about their problems or ask advice very often. They would rather work it out on their own if they can. Its got more to do with self-respect than pride.
As hard to understand for women as that is, I've seen a mirroring of that in an issue I've newly become acquainted with: Motherhood.

Motherhood changes everything in the way we speak to each other. Where normally we would happily share our struggles in order to build emotional closeness, when it comes to discussing mothering problems often we keep our mouth shut. Where normally we would respond to other's struggles with understanding and validation, we give only advice. Whats happened to us?!! What is it about motherhood that has changed the way we deal with each other? Are we just as afraid to receive advice as men?

I think so, but we're just not used to receiving it so readily from each other.

Many would disagree with me. And perhaps I am projecting my problems onto everyone else. But in my experience, whenever the mothers around me talk about problems they either talk about them in the general sense, or in the past tense: "Sleep issues are always hard..." or "A while back we were struggling but now..." Just in case no one noticed, this is not the way we talked to each other before or about other issues. And despite my desperate desire for comfort and validation about the subject, I just can't bear to share my feelings for fear I will only receive advice; Like it would mean somehow that the adviser is a better parent and knew intuitively what I was too week and stupid to try. I've even been too scared to read about the subject for fear it would say anything but your struggles are valid and normal. It sounds crazy: suspiciously like a joke by Dave Barry about why men never stop to ask for directions. And yet, when the tables are turned and another mother is sharing with me, I have a really hard time not responding with advice too. But why!!

My theory is that motherhood is just too darn important to us. Its so integrated in the way we feel about ourselves and our divine role and inborn abilities that we just can't risk being told we're bad at it: Or even have it implied. We can't bear to think that everyone around us is getting it, and we're not. So whats the result? We only ever share specific successes and offer advice to each other to show ourselves that we do know what we're doing after all. Unfortunately, this means we get exactly what we were trying to avoid. All around us, everyone is always talking about how easy such and such method was, or how long their baby is sleeping, and since no one is talking about the struggles, deep inside we assume no one else is having any. We get the opposite of the validation we were seeking. Its got to stop! Struggling Mothers of the Universe, speak up! And lets leave the advice for after the comfort, ok? Remember when we always used to do that?

Are we just afraid of advice as men? I think so, it just depends on how close the issue is to our hearts.

Horses in America

2007-11-01T12:44:00.000-07:00

Even though a lot has been said on this subject, the fallacy that there were no horses in America during Book of Mormon times annoyingly continues to prevail. Actually, I guess the real Fallacy is that there is any certainty about it. In truth, there is no conclusive evidence either way. Most LDS don't think about it much probably, just as we don't tend to think about most other anti-Mormon propaganda. I was surprised when I did some studying how much information there was out there. Anti-Mormon literature still maintains, "There were no Horses in America prior to Columbus." and though there are many rebuttals to this made by Mormons, there are also many things written by non-Mormons which, with no apparent awareness or regard to BOM claims, still claim the possible existence of pre-Columbian horses in America.

The fallacy was born from some premature conclusions by the early Europeans. When Spanish horses were brought to the Americas, there was no native horses to be found , nor did the native Americans seem to know what the beast was, calling it a deer. Many Europeans saw this as another reason America was inferior to Europe. So out of national pride the idea prevailed far longer than the evidence did.

By the mid 1800s, fossils were found in America from horses during the ice age. The big question was (and still is by the way) when and more importantly why did these species die out? There are plenty of disagreements about the answer to that. Only two things are clear: first, there were horses in prehistoric America, and second, there weren't any when the Spanish arrived.

Everything excluding that becomes a little fuzzy. Theres practically no Archaeological evidence of horses after 10,000 BC. There are several native American pictographs depicting horses for a long time after, but none after about 200BC, (The Book of Mormon mentions horses about up till the birth of Christ). The lack of bone or fossil evidence many scientists say is really not that spectacular. Many different species in different places, if there weren't many of the animal or if their bones were not used as tools, leave very little if any archaeological evidence. As to those who say there should at least be more pictures or paintings of the horse if there still were any: I say, we haven't found everything there is out there. And the pictures were not usually meant as an encyclopedia of all the animals they encountered. From my understanding, pictographs were usually made to tell a story, or honor a hero. I just don't think we can assume that only those animals pictured at any given time were the animals that were there.

Also, not meaning to be cheeky, but there is some important evidence from the natives, not in the form of pictures, but in writings: The Book of Mormon. If the scientific community did accept the book of Mormon as ancient writings, then they would accept it as evidence of horses or something similar in the Americas during that time. Its not in contrast to any other evidence, just the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence frankly can't be taken as evidence.

Others say references to the horse may not be a horse at all. But another similar creature that we already know was present during that time. This is a whole different argument entirely, but in my mind, its slightly irrelevant. The point to me is, the scientific community admits there is no evidence against the existence of horses is America during this time, and there may be some evidence for it. Thats good enough for me.