Have you ever seen a heart at the moment it breaks?
I have.
On Friday morning, I saw twenty-five little seventh grade hearts break simultaneously. I stood in their classroom and watched their faces as our principal delivered the news that their beloved teacher had passed away the night before. Every teacher with a first-hour class had the wrenching task of delivering this news.
Some kids started to cry right away.
Some hid their faces in their coats and sweatshirts, or put their heads down on their desks.
Some had questions but couldn't make the words come out.
Some were simply blank. Blank faces, blank eyes, blank minds.
I don't even know what Jon said after that because, quite frankly, I wasn't listening anymore. Most of it was lost in that horrible halting voice that happens when you're trying to keep it together. I was still one of the blank ones, and I had already had an hour to begin digesting the news - Abbey Czarniecki, one of our science teachers for 7th and 8th grade, died very suddenly late on Thursday night because of an undiagnosed malignant brain tumor. I'm fuzzy on the details, and at this point I don't want to ask. Let's just say that this was never in anyone's realm of possibility.
The starkest moment of our new reality came between first and second hours, when the kids were moving from one class to another. The silence was terrifying. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a middle school will know just how loud students can get. Screaming, screeching, slamming, yelling, cackling, and crashing are routine sounds. On Friday, few were talking. Few were laughing. Few were looking somewhere other than at the ground or at the person ahead of them. It was so out of the ordinary as to be deeply upsetting.
-----
As a school counselor intern at Wyoming Junior HS this year, I find myself in a unique position. I am only required to log 20-25 hours per week at the school in order to keep up with the total number of hours I have to complete by the end of the year. However, I've been working more or less full-time since the school year started. At first, I told people that it was because I wanted to get the full effect of working full-time as a counselor and to get ahead on hours in case I got really sick and missed a week or something.
But you know what? I'm beginning to think that there was a different reason for me to be there every day.
I am part of the Wyoming community this year. I am a fairly permanent fixture in the counseling office. The kids see me every day and know what I do there and they know where to find me if they need me. They know that I keep regular hours and that I can be depended upon to be available for them.
If I had put in only the minimum number of hours each work and chosen to work another part-time job, I wouldn't have nearly the understanding and love for this community that I have now.
I wouldn't know which teachers have been most torn apart by Abbey's death.
I wouldn't know which students have been hit hardest by their first close-up experience with death.
I wouldn't understand the effect of losing a colleague with whom you have worked for a decade and a half, as many of the WJHS staff are experiencing this weekend.
I wouldn't know which students were her basketball players, kids who have lost a coach in addition to a teacher.
Most of all, I wouldn't be tapped in so deeply to the communal grief taking place this weekend.
My individual grief is shallow - I didn't know Abbey beyond her roles as science teacher and coach. This weekend, other little tidbits have surfaced, isolated memories I have of Abbey, like the time she asked if I could switch a student out of her 3rd hour because he was driving her bonkers in exchange for a student that was driving another teacher bonkers. Or the time when I was first introduced to her and she told me that I had a picked a wacky place to work but I would come to love it in no time. (She was right, by the way).
These are small, almost inconsequential memories, and they are what I have.
For me, the communal grief is far more painful, like the moments when you have to see other people in pain. It's really hard to watch co-workers grieve, especially the ones I've had the most contact with and know better than I know others. It's really hard to watch them struck by a memory or a feeling or an image, something that only they can see, and then watch them try to keep their composure.
It's nearly impossible to watch my students grieve because I don't want them to have to know this feeling so early in their lives. They are not equipped yet to handle conflicting emotions - sadness over never seeing her again, fear that it could happen to anyone else, relief that she didn't suffer for very long, guilt about not saying hi to her in the hallway the day before, or about not feeling sad the way everyone else seems to be feeling, happiness over a particularly good memory of her class, shock and dizziness every time the grief train comes hurtling back...
School tomorrow will be hard. The funeral on Tuesday will be even harder. It feels like too much sometimes. No, a lot of the time. But I wouldn't dare stay home. This is the kind of grief you have to do together.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Op-Ed: Why I Can't Completely Get Behind the #PrayforParis Movement
As you probably know by now, a series of explosions, shootings, hostage situations, and general mayhem occurred in Paris last Friday. Authorities have identified 129 deaths, and some 500 more with injuries. ISIS took responsibility for this coordinated effort amidst the chaos and confusion of rescue and President Hollande's declaration of a state of emergency. On social media, #prayforparis began to trend, Facebook users put a red/white/blue tint in the style of the French flag on their profile pictures to reflect their support, and hundreds of thousands of statements of prayer and solidarity erupted across many social media platforms.
You can probably guess that in the wake of ISIS's proud claim of responsibility, people got really upset and began to decry Islam as a religion of violence and terrorism. I even saw some Facebook posts pleading with God to guide the bombs dropped by France over ISIS training compounds, praying that they would hit their targets and wipe out all the Muslims.
Really?!
Are we really asking God to destroy an entire population (a population which numbers about 1.6 billion, by the way) based on the actions of one political extremist group? Are we really asking God to wipe out 1.6 billion human beings who He created in His image and has plans for? How is our blatant hatred of Muslims any better than ISIS's blatant hatred for the Western world?
Here are a few reasons that I can't fully support this #prayforparis movement.
1. Paris was not the only city devastated on November 13, 2015.
The western coast of Japan was rocked by a 7.0 earthquake.
Mexico had also been suffering earthquakes, registering about 4.3 and continuing for several days.
A suicide bomber in Baghdad targeted a funeral, killing 21 people and injuring 46 more.
Two suicide bombers in Lebanon killed 43 people and injured about 200 more. Exact numbers are not yet known because of the chaos in that area.
A suicide bomber belonging to ISIS killed 43 people in Beirut, Lebanon, and the number of injured is still unknown.
Some people caught on to this parade of devastation, sparking the hashtags #prayformexico, #prayforbeirut, etc., but the warcry against Islam was much louder. National landmarks across the world were lit with red, white, and blue lights to show support for France. Did anyone light up with colors for Japan, Mexico, Lebanon, or Iraq? If they have, it hasn't been publicized, which is a shame in itself.
I simply can't get on board with a campaign that supports so publicly one set of victims and remains silent on victims around the world. ISIS carries out acts of terror daily in the Middle East. Thousands have been killed by ISIS since the group first rose to power. Thousands. Why are we not outraged by that? Why are we not sending money and aid to their families? Why are we not coordinating efforts through social media to spread the word about safe places to stay and be taken care of? Why are we accepting only refugees who are skilled and educated (and, it needs to be said, wealthy) to our country?
Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted by ISIS's actions in Paris. I think we need to be more disgusted by what they're doing elsewhere on a much more regular basis.
2. There is implicit hatred for Muslims that hides behind innocent hashtags.
Let me reiterate: not everyone who uses #prayforparis also spouts islamophobic vitriol. I would argue that most don't outright hate Muslims, either. We have here a classic example of a few people ruining the whole batch, so to speak. We become lumped with the haters. The problem is that not enough of us are combating the anti-Islam rhetoric. Many of us stay silent, which is not the same thing as setting the record straight. I want to set the record straight:
The religion of Islam as a whole is not responsible for this past weekend's attacks in Paris, Beirut, Lebanon, and Baghdad.
In another example of "some ruining it for everyone," 1.6 billion Muslims are being painted as terrorists by the media, social media, and, I hate to say it, some Christians, all because of the actions of a political group styling itself as Islamic. Many people refuse to see the difference between Muslims and ISIS. Is it any wonder, when you consider the United States' history with the Middle East? Back in 2001, President Bush blamed the 9/11 acts of terrorism on Muslims, when, once again, preliminary evidence pointed to religious and political extremists. The terms "Arab" and "Middle-Eastern" became synonymous with "Muslim." The term "Muslim" became synonymous with "terrorist." Men and women who looked even remotely Middle-Eastern were rounded up en masse under suspicion of terrorist affiliation. The President says it was for national security, but let's be honest - detaining people based on their appearance and/or religion, holding them without criminal charges, denying their rights to legal representation, and playing fast and loose with their human rights? What does that sound like to you?
I saw a post on Facebook this morning that stated it really well - "If we can distinguish between Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and the average American Christian, we should have no trouble distinguishing between ISIS and the average Muslim." It's the same concept, folks.
3. We only seem to care when it affects people who are like us.
That's a rather simplistic way of stating it, but it goes back to the point I made about us not being outraged about ISIS targeting Muslims. ISIS activity only seems to become international news when it involves people who are white, or share a similar culture to ours, or practice a similar religion to ours, or share the same values as ours. Case in point - Paris attacks become international news shortly after they happen, but the bombings in Beirut that began two days earlier go unpublicized. Two people from the United States were killed in the Paris bombings, and the story goes viral. No United Statesians killed in Beirut; therefore, no outrage.
Why is this? I think the media is partly to blame, since they are of course going to cover the stories that will cause the biggest splash and make the most money for them. They know that lots of people have visited Paris (or at least really want to visit), and that most people don't know where Beirut is. Confession: I had to Google it. Learned Beirut is a city in Lebanon. I'd heard of Beirut before, but couldn't have told you where it was. The media plays on that. Paris is far more relatable to the average United Statesian, so Paris gets the coverage.
We can't blame it all on the media, though. We must shoulder this blame too. We have to figure out how to advocate for people who don't share our beliefs, culture, or value. We have to learn to recognize stereotypes and actively combat them. We have to learn to differentiate; to not take the actions and beliefs of an individual and apply them to the entire group. We have to stop promoting violence against our enemies in one breath and in the next breath condemning those who take violence against us. Violence is violence is violence, regardless of in whose name the violence is committed.
If we want the world to follow our example, we have to set a better example.
You can probably guess that in the wake of ISIS's proud claim of responsibility, people got really upset and began to decry Islam as a religion of violence and terrorism. I even saw some Facebook posts pleading with God to guide the bombs dropped by France over ISIS training compounds, praying that they would hit their targets and wipe out all the Muslims.
Really?!
Are we really asking God to destroy an entire population (a population which numbers about 1.6 billion, by the way) based on the actions of one political extremist group? Are we really asking God to wipe out 1.6 billion human beings who He created in His image and has plans for? How is our blatant hatred of Muslims any better than ISIS's blatant hatred for the Western world?
Here are a few reasons that I can't fully support this #prayforparis movement.
1. Paris was not the only city devastated on November 13, 2015.
The western coast of Japan was rocked by a 7.0 earthquake.
Mexico had also been suffering earthquakes, registering about 4.3 and continuing for several days.
A suicide bomber in Baghdad targeted a funeral, killing 21 people and injuring 46 more.
Two suicide bombers in Lebanon killed 43 people and injured about 200 more. Exact numbers are not yet known because of the chaos in that area.
A suicide bomber belonging to ISIS killed 43 people in Beirut, Lebanon, and the number of injured is still unknown.
Some people caught on to this parade of devastation, sparking the hashtags #prayformexico, #prayforbeirut, etc., but the warcry against Islam was much louder. National landmarks across the world were lit with red, white, and blue lights to show support for France. Did anyone light up with colors for Japan, Mexico, Lebanon, or Iraq? If they have, it hasn't been publicized, which is a shame in itself.
I simply can't get on board with a campaign that supports so publicly one set of victims and remains silent on victims around the world. ISIS carries out acts of terror daily in the Middle East. Thousands have been killed by ISIS since the group first rose to power. Thousands. Why are we not outraged by that? Why are we not sending money and aid to their families? Why are we not coordinating efforts through social media to spread the word about safe places to stay and be taken care of? Why are we accepting only refugees who are skilled and educated (and, it needs to be said, wealthy) to our country?
Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted by ISIS's actions in Paris. I think we need to be more disgusted by what they're doing elsewhere on a much more regular basis.
2. There is implicit hatred for Muslims that hides behind innocent hashtags.
Let me reiterate: not everyone who uses #prayforparis also spouts islamophobic vitriol. I would argue that most don't outright hate Muslims, either. We have here a classic example of a few people ruining the whole batch, so to speak. We become lumped with the haters. The problem is that not enough of us are combating the anti-Islam rhetoric. Many of us stay silent, which is not the same thing as setting the record straight. I want to set the record straight:
The religion of Islam as a whole is not responsible for this past weekend's attacks in Paris, Beirut, Lebanon, and Baghdad.
In another example of "some ruining it for everyone," 1.6 billion Muslims are being painted as terrorists by the media, social media, and, I hate to say it, some Christians, all because of the actions of a political group styling itself as Islamic. Many people refuse to see the difference between Muslims and ISIS. Is it any wonder, when you consider the United States' history with the Middle East? Back in 2001, President Bush blamed the 9/11 acts of terrorism on Muslims, when, once again, preliminary evidence pointed to religious and political extremists. The terms "Arab" and "Middle-Eastern" became synonymous with "Muslim." The term "Muslim" became synonymous with "terrorist." Men and women who looked even remotely Middle-Eastern were rounded up en masse under suspicion of terrorist affiliation. The President says it was for national security, but let's be honest - detaining people based on their appearance and/or religion, holding them without criminal charges, denying their rights to legal representation, and playing fast and loose with their human rights? What does that sound like to you?
I saw a post on Facebook this morning that stated it really well - "If we can distinguish between Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and the average American Christian, we should have no trouble distinguishing between ISIS and the average Muslim." It's the same concept, folks.
3. We only seem to care when it affects people who are like us.
That's a rather simplistic way of stating it, but it goes back to the point I made about us not being outraged about ISIS targeting Muslims. ISIS activity only seems to become international news when it involves people who are white, or share a similar culture to ours, or practice a similar religion to ours, or share the same values as ours. Case in point - Paris attacks become international news shortly after they happen, but the bombings in Beirut that began two days earlier go unpublicized. Two people from the United States were killed in the Paris bombings, and the story goes viral. No United Statesians killed in Beirut; therefore, no outrage.
Why is this? I think the media is partly to blame, since they are of course going to cover the stories that will cause the biggest splash and make the most money for them. They know that lots of people have visited Paris (or at least really want to visit), and that most people don't know where Beirut is. Confession: I had to Google it. Learned Beirut is a city in Lebanon. I'd heard of Beirut before, but couldn't have told you where it was. The media plays on that. Paris is far more relatable to the average United Statesian, so Paris gets the coverage.
We can't blame it all on the media, though. We must shoulder this blame too. We have to figure out how to advocate for people who don't share our beliefs, culture, or value. We have to learn to recognize stereotypes and actively combat them. We have to learn to differentiate; to not take the actions and beliefs of an individual and apply them to the entire group. We have to stop promoting violence against our enemies in one breath and in the next breath condemning those who take violence against us. Violence is violence is violence, regardless of in whose name the violence is committed.
If we want the world to follow our example, we have to set a better example.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
In Which I (possibly) Become a Guinea Pig
Hello, friends.
About a week ago, I was at the Christian Counseling Center for my weekly session with Sherry. Next to a stack of magazines, there was a new notice:
"Pine Rest is sponsoring a clinical research study for clients who have a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and who have not experienced relief through medication or therapy. Research is now being conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of Sirukumab, which is also being studied as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. If you have any questions or have interest in participating in this study, please call our research coordinator at (phone number)."
(That's the gist of what the notice said. It was a lot longer and had a lot more description and screening information. I would have wasted both my time and yours in retyping all of it.)
I mulled that study description over in my head for a week. What I should have done was asked Sherry about it right away at our session, since I had just read it and it piqued my interest. I had always thought that my diagnosis was more along the lines of Persistent Despressive Disorder instead of MDD, though, so it didn't cross my mind to ask her about the study.
Over the weekend, I kept thinking about it and I did some of my own research. What was Sirukumab? Where else was this study being conducted? Is this drug approved and safe and legit? Could I maybe get paid if I qualify to participate? Would I have to stop going to therapy? Thank goodness this sort of activity is all federally regulated and monitored, so there is an entire .gov website devoted to clinical trials happening in the US. I'll get into what the study is all about in just a little bit.
During the following week, I corresponded with the research coordinator at Pine Rest to tell her that I was interested and to ask for some more information to see if I qualify. I opted to do some pre-screening questions over the phone, but we couldn't get a solid half-hour on the phone til Friday because I had parent-teacher conferences and professional development during the second half of the week. Plus, I wanted to bring it up to Sherry before making any appointments. On Thursday, I had counseling again, so I got some more information and signed a consent form to be contacted about participation (just in case, I think, since I had already been in contact with the coordinator).
Then on Friday, after PD and some lengthy conversations with parents, I was able to get on the horn with Pine Rest for the pre-screening. She asked me a bunch of questions about my health, my age, my depression symptoms, comorbid conditions (i.e., my anxiety), and logistics of participating for the full six months the study would require (i.e., could I come to Pine Rest's main campus for appointments, could I take off of work if needed to accommodate appointments that might last up to five hours, would I be living in the area for the next six months, etc.). After answering all of her questions, she told me that as of right now, I seem to be a great candidate for this study. The only concern is whether my depression is "severe" enough. Anyone reading this who has depression will understand why I put that in quotation marks - one's experience of depression (and its severity) will fluctuate from day to day or season to season. In my case, the question is whether I am currently in a "major depressive episode." As in, is my depression worse right now than my baseline depression? Honestly, I couldn't begin to tell you, since what on earth is my baseline for depression? It's not "no depression symptoms present," since I haven't experienced that since I was 18. And if history is any indicator, my "major depressive episodes" tend to coincide with fall and winter, which means that I may be (and definitely probably am) heading into one right now. Plus, how are we gauging my symptoms? Symptoms with antidepressants + therapy? Symptoms with antidepressants without therapy? Symptoms with neither? It's too hard to evaluate myself on those terms since I've taken meds nonstop for four years and gone to therapy every week for three years.
Do you see why it takes so long for new treatments to hit the market?
Anyway, I will go to the study clinic on Thursday morning for official screening and, if all goes well, the initial contact session. Here's what the study entails, and some Research Methods 101 for those of you who are not familiar with how this sort of thing works:
- Participants will receive either an injection of Sirukumab, the treatment under investigation, or an injection of placebo (so that the doctors can determine if there is any clear benefit experienced by the people getting the Sirukumab). The participants won't know which injection they get, and neither will the study doctors, so that the results will be as free as possible from bias and unconscious interpretation. In studying a condition like depression, this is extra extra super extra important, as reporting of symptoms is entirely subjective - there's no blood test or exam to determine if my "level of depression" has gone down. If I think I'm getting the Sirukumab, I may unconsciously skew my reporting of symptoms by describing them as less severe than they may actually be. In other words, I may want so badly for this drug to work that I try to prove to myself and the clinicians that it is working. I'm hoping that my background understanding of research and my long-term experience of depression will help me to evaluate my symptoms accurately.
- Participants will get bloodwork done on a regular basis to see if the Sirukumab is having an effect on the thing they want it to have an effect on. From what I understand, Sirukumab works like an anti-inflammatory drug - something is signalling the body's immune (?) system to have a certain response, indicated by inflammation. And we're talking inflammation on a cellular level, not like inflammation of the lips or ankles. If only it were that visible. Introducing an anti-inflammatory tells the system to cool it, stop inflaming, nothing to see here. Sirukumab was first developed as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, which is all about inflammation, but research conducted recently claims to show a link between inflammation markers in the blood and experience of symptoms of depression. That is, the more "severe" the depression, the more likely it is that the person also has high levels of these markers. This study is meant to explore this link and see if an anti-inflammatory that is specifically designed to cooperate with antidepressants (many AIs are not) will lessen the severity of depression symptoms. Antidepressants have no effect on inflammation, so a positive outcome from this study could revolutionize the treatment of long-term depression (like I have) that doesn't go away with just antidepressants.
- Participants get three injections over 12 weeks, with appointments in between the injections as well, and then there are 5 or 6 appointments over 14 weeks after the set of injections is completed. This is probably to gauge response to the injection over time. To compensate for all the driving and time spent in the clinic, participants get a $50 Meijer card for every appointment completed. Lucky for me, I live in the Grand Rapids area and Pine Rest is not that far away from me. BLAMMO.
I really really really really hope that they will select me to participate in this. It's fascinating to me. While I have (more or less) come to terms with the idea that my depression may be a lifelong struggle, I still hold my candle of hope that new discoveries will be made that lessen the symptoms and severity of depression. This sounds like it could do that, since it's an entirely different direction for research of depression treatment. I honestly don't even care if I get the placebo. I just want to be a part of something like this. I want to put my depression to work for me, instead of working against me, like it seems to do a lot of the time. If it works and becomes a thing, I think it would be so cool to be able to say down the line, "hey, I was part of the clinical trials for that drug!"
This is going to sound like a very bizarre request, but would you all pray that my depression meets the criteria for "severity"? Odd, I know, to pray that a disease is bad enough instead of praying for it to get better. I just hope that I can convey to the interviewer that mine is the depression they are looking for - it may not prevent me from going to work or class or getting things done, but it is still with me every single day, in spite of meds and therapy. In fact, I think it would be a LOT worse without therapy. Maybe they can use my description of how I felt before starting therapy. Compared to now, that was pretty severe.
Hopefully, I will be able to tell you all on Thursday afternoon that I was accepted to the study! Until then, more middle school drama and joys of adolescence. I'll have to write about that sometime. That could keep me busy writing for weeks.
About a week ago, I was at the Christian Counseling Center for my weekly session with Sherry. Next to a stack of magazines, there was a new notice:
"Pine Rest is sponsoring a clinical research study for clients who have a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and who have not experienced relief through medication or therapy. Research is now being conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of Sirukumab, which is also being studied as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. If you have any questions or have interest in participating in this study, please call our research coordinator at (phone number)."
(That's the gist of what the notice said. It was a lot longer and had a lot more description and screening information. I would have wasted both my time and yours in retyping all of it.)
I mulled that study description over in my head for a week. What I should have done was asked Sherry about it right away at our session, since I had just read it and it piqued my interest. I had always thought that my diagnosis was more along the lines of Persistent Despressive Disorder instead of MDD, though, so it didn't cross my mind to ask her about the study.
Over the weekend, I kept thinking about it and I did some of my own research. What was Sirukumab? Where else was this study being conducted? Is this drug approved and safe and legit? Could I maybe get paid if I qualify to participate? Would I have to stop going to therapy? Thank goodness this sort of activity is all federally regulated and monitored, so there is an entire .gov website devoted to clinical trials happening in the US. I'll get into what the study is all about in just a little bit.
During the following week, I corresponded with the research coordinator at Pine Rest to tell her that I was interested and to ask for some more information to see if I qualify. I opted to do some pre-screening questions over the phone, but we couldn't get a solid half-hour on the phone til Friday because I had parent-teacher conferences and professional development during the second half of the week. Plus, I wanted to bring it up to Sherry before making any appointments. On Thursday, I had counseling again, so I got some more information and signed a consent form to be contacted about participation (just in case, I think, since I had already been in contact with the coordinator).
Then on Friday, after PD and some lengthy conversations with parents, I was able to get on the horn with Pine Rest for the pre-screening. She asked me a bunch of questions about my health, my age, my depression symptoms, comorbid conditions (i.e., my anxiety), and logistics of participating for the full six months the study would require (i.e., could I come to Pine Rest's main campus for appointments, could I take off of work if needed to accommodate appointments that might last up to five hours, would I be living in the area for the next six months, etc.). After answering all of her questions, she told me that as of right now, I seem to be a great candidate for this study. The only concern is whether my depression is "severe" enough. Anyone reading this who has depression will understand why I put that in quotation marks - one's experience of depression (and its severity) will fluctuate from day to day or season to season. In my case, the question is whether I am currently in a "major depressive episode." As in, is my depression worse right now than my baseline depression? Honestly, I couldn't begin to tell you, since what on earth is my baseline for depression? It's not "no depression symptoms present," since I haven't experienced that since I was 18. And if history is any indicator, my "major depressive episodes" tend to coincide with fall and winter, which means that I may be (and definitely probably am) heading into one right now. Plus, how are we gauging my symptoms? Symptoms with antidepressants + therapy? Symptoms with antidepressants without therapy? Symptoms with neither? It's too hard to evaluate myself on those terms since I've taken meds nonstop for four years and gone to therapy every week for three years.
Do you see why it takes so long for new treatments to hit the market?
Anyway, I will go to the study clinic on Thursday morning for official screening and, if all goes well, the initial contact session. Here's what the study entails, and some Research Methods 101 for those of you who are not familiar with how this sort of thing works:
- Participants will receive either an injection of Sirukumab, the treatment under investigation, or an injection of placebo (so that the doctors can determine if there is any clear benefit experienced by the people getting the Sirukumab). The participants won't know which injection they get, and neither will the study doctors, so that the results will be as free as possible from bias and unconscious interpretation. In studying a condition like depression, this is extra extra super extra important, as reporting of symptoms is entirely subjective - there's no blood test or exam to determine if my "level of depression" has gone down. If I think I'm getting the Sirukumab, I may unconsciously skew my reporting of symptoms by describing them as less severe than they may actually be. In other words, I may want so badly for this drug to work that I try to prove to myself and the clinicians that it is working. I'm hoping that my background understanding of research and my long-term experience of depression will help me to evaluate my symptoms accurately.
- Participants will get bloodwork done on a regular basis to see if the Sirukumab is having an effect on the thing they want it to have an effect on. From what I understand, Sirukumab works like an anti-inflammatory drug - something is signalling the body's immune (?) system to have a certain response, indicated by inflammation. And we're talking inflammation on a cellular level, not like inflammation of the lips or ankles. If only it were that visible. Introducing an anti-inflammatory tells the system to cool it, stop inflaming, nothing to see here. Sirukumab was first developed as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, which is all about inflammation, but research conducted recently claims to show a link between inflammation markers in the blood and experience of symptoms of depression. That is, the more "severe" the depression, the more likely it is that the person also has high levels of these markers. This study is meant to explore this link and see if an anti-inflammatory that is specifically designed to cooperate with antidepressants (many AIs are not) will lessen the severity of depression symptoms. Antidepressants have no effect on inflammation, so a positive outcome from this study could revolutionize the treatment of long-term depression (like I have) that doesn't go away with just antidepressants.
- Participants get three injections over 12 weeks, with appointments in between the injections as well, and then there are 5 or 6 appointments over 14 weeks after the set of injections is completed. This is probably to gauge response to the injection over time. To compensate for all the driving and time spent in the clinic, participants get a $50 Meijer card for every appointment completed. Lucky for me, I live in the Grand Rapids area and Pine Rest is not that far away from me. BLAMMO.
I really really really really hope that they will select me to participate in this. It's fascinating to me. While I have (more or less) come to terms with the idea that my depression may be a lifelong struggle, I still hold my candle of hope that new discoveries will be made that lessen the symptoms and severity of depression. This sounds like it could do that, since it's an entirely different direction for research of depression treatment. I honestly don't even care if I get the placebo. I just want to be a part of something like this. I want to put my depression to work for me, instead of working against me, like it seems to do a lot of the time. If it works and becomes a thing, I think it would be so cool to be able to say down the line, "hey, I was part of the clinical trials for that drug!"
This is going to sound like a very bizarre request, but would you all pray that my depression meets the criteria for "severity"? Odd, I know, to pray that a disease is bad enough instead of praying for it to get better. I just hope that I can convey to the interviewer that mine is the depression they are looking for - it may not prevent me from going to work or class or getting things done, but it is still with me every single day, in spite of meds and therapy. In fact, I think it would be a LOT worse without therapy. Maybe they can use my description of how I felt before starting therapy. Compared to now, that was pretty severe.
Hopefully, I will be able to tell you all on Thursday afternoon that I was accepted to the study! Until then, more middle school drama and joys of adolescence. I'll have to write about that sometime. That could keep me busy writing for weeks.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Op-Ed: A Dollar Sign on Every Forehead
Can we talk about Count Day for a few minutes? Until this year, I had never experienced fall Count Day because Christian schools don’t have to do it and my student teaching at Grandville was during the spring. Count Day is the first Wednesday in October and the number of students that attend school on Count Day translates directly into funding from the state. In fact, Count Day numbers are responsible for 90% of the school’s annual funding. NINETY PERCENT.
On Count Day, every single student has an imaginary dollar sign on his or her forehead. Or, more accurately, 7,500 of them.
That’s right - students in many Michigan school districts are worth about seventy-five hundred bucks on Count Day. If a student doesn’t come to school on Count Day, he or she doesn’t count toward the school’s enrollment for the year, and since funding is based on enrollment, the school loses money for that student, even though the student probably comes to school most of the time. You can probably imagine what a problem this causes for school districts.
Count Day becomes a game - incentives for attendance on this day are offered in elementary schools, like getting to wear your PJs to school, or having your teacher do something fun and crazy if everyone comes to school, or ice cream sundaes at the end of the day for everyone who was at school all day. Middle- and high school teachers remind students for several days leading up to Count Day about how important it is for them to come to school so that the government will give the school money to spend on their education. Administrators get pretty peeved when a student enrolls the day after Count because they won’t get any state funding for the student because he or she wasn’t at the school the day before, even though they will likely be enrolled for the next eight months.
But incentives and promise of rewards don’t always get teenagers to come to school. At their age, most students could care less about helping their school get the money it needs to teach them. Schools that could really use the extra funding pull out all the stops on Count Day: they arrange robocalls on Tuesday night to students who have a tendency toward absence and tardiness, secretaries put together the master list of students who are absent for Count and organize them by the neighborhood they live in, administrators and teachers who have first or second hour prep periods divide the list up and go to students’ houses to pick them up and bring them to school. I’m not even kidding. The stakes are that high - if each student is worth about seven grand, aren’t you going to do everything you can to put them in school on Count Day?
Some school districts are so desperate for funding that they put suspensions on hold - students who are suspended in-house get to go to class, and students who are out of school for suspension get to come back to school for just that one day. Teachers are strongly discouraged from sending kids to the principal or to in-school holding because their presence in class translates to thousands of dollars, even if the student in question is derailing the whole class. Some teachers even have to assume that the day is going to be a wash - if they make some progress on a lesson plan, great, but if they don’t, it’s because the money is more important and they just have to deal with the troublemakers being back in class.
What message does this send to our students? Students even as young as middle schoolers know what’s going on - they know that on Count Day, we don’t promote attendance simply for the sake of attendance and doing well in school. They know that as much as we don’t want to, we see them with dollar signs on their foreheads on the first Wednesday of every October. We can dress it up with incentives and school spirit and enthusiasm for learning, but underneath, we know that the system is so messed up and we just have to deal with it for what it is.
On the surface, it makes sense that the state government would base funding of schools on how many students it serves. The more students a school has, the more money it will need to pay for educational materials, teachers, parapros, support staff, food, building upkeep, etc. This system breaks down, though, when it comes to the actual implementation: to base funding on the attendance numbers of one single school day raises the stakes so high that some schools have to shift their focus from education and achievement and making a better life, which is what we’re at school for in the first place, to what is really pulling all of our strings: cold, hard cash.
This system uniquely punishes schools with high enrollment in low- or low-middle income areas. The more students there are, the more money the school will need to do educate them effectively. On the flip side, where there are more students, there are higher numbers of absences and truancy. Unfortunately, where there are more students, there are not always more educators. Large schools are already stretched for personnel, which makes the annual funding that much more important. Schools can’t (and shouldn’t have to) dispatch employees to go and pick up missing students, even for Count, just to get the money they need to educate these students the rest of the year. School should be about education, not about jumping through hoops and having to play a sinister zero-sum game.
Public schools are not in the business of making money, yet the State treats education as a business. Its policies reward the districts that are already doing well and punishes the districts that want to do well and could do well with the extra funding. Punishing the school by cutting its funding is not a simple “Well, you didn’t get your students’ tests scores up with the money we gave you, so we’re not going to give you as much as last year. It’s just not a smart investment for us.” Yet this is the mentality in the State legislatures. Cutting funding doesn’t just punish the educators by forcing them to do the same amount of work and achieve the same standard with less funding than before. It punishes the students who need education as their ticket out of the lives their parents are living. We say that to our kids all the time - education is your ticket out of here. But how can that be true if the State puts up all kinds of hoops and obstacles and contingencies?
Schools are not businesses from which to cut one’s losses. Funding should not be contingent on the attendance numbers of a single, isolated school day. What if we did Count Week instead? Students get sick. Students make appointments to see doctors. Parents can’t always be relied on to bring their students to school every day and on time. But does that make them less deserving of a well-funded and well-managed education? While it’s true that some administrators and educators don’t care enough about their job or their students to crusade so diligently for funding, most are not like this. The educators and administrators at my school, for example, fall into this latter category. You can tell by the way they conceptualize education - they educate the whole person, not just the content area they are responsible for. They are united in their commitment to lifelong literacy and learning. They communicate with colleagues and advocate for the needs of their students.
And then, when even their best efforts can’t get kids into school on Count Day, they are punished by being forced to do more with less.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Dear Tyler
Dear Tyler, love of my life, my Stinky John, my little man, my favorite...
First of all, let me say thank you for letting me use you as a great punchline these last two years when people ask me if there are any new men in my life. "Well, there is one...he's just great. He has these adorably soft brown eyes, a great smile, the softest hair...he's such a good listener and he laughs at all my jokes. He thinks my cooking is excellent, and he's content to just sit and cuddle and be."
Second of all...I am NOT ready to stop being your nanny.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Taking care of you was my first full-time job. Technically, I did work full-time at the Conference Grounds, but that was only summers. You were my first 8 hours a day, 5 days a week job. And let me tell you, this was the best full-time job I've had so far! Fantastic bosses, no annoying co-workers to deal with, challenging enough to not get bored, but not so challenging that I got stressed out and stopped enjoying the job. There was not a single day where I dreaded coming to work. Do you know how rare that is? They say that if you enjoy your job 4 days out of 5, you're in the right job and very lucky. I am beyond lucky, young sir.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
In all that time, you never once peed on me. You did poop on me once, though. You were crazy sick, so I'll give you a pass on that one. You never outright puked on me, either. Plenty of spit-up that first year, but I won't count that. Spit-up is pretty easy to clean up and doesn't have that horribly pungent smell that vomit seems to have.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
The first time you said "Nanny," I just about died. I melted inside. I suppose it was a small glimpse of how parents feel when their baby says "mama" or "dada" for the first time. Going into your room in the morning and seeing you smiling up at me (or, when you were younger, seeing you in your bouncy seat start bouncing and giggling when you saw me come in) was often exactly the boost I needed. You see, I have something called depression and it's hard for me to get out of bed in the morning. Knowing I had you to look forward and that you would always be excited to see me helped a lot with my depression.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Did you know that before I started as your nanny, I could count on one hand the number of times I'd changed a diaper? Now I am a diapering master. I could diaper anything. I could probably diaper a wet cat. I don't think I'd like to try though, because I'm allergic to cats and I feel like interacting with a wet cat would just flare that up. But I bet I could diaper a wet cat, if it came right down to it.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Right now, your mom is 8 months pregnant with a baby that she and your dad have nicknamed "Gummy" because they are waiting to find out the gender until the baby is born. Right now, you're really bad at the "guh" sound and every time I ask you the baby's name, you say "Dummy." And I laugh every single time. Ditto the word 'banana,' which you currently pronounce 'badada.' Odd, since you're perfectly capable of saying 'nanny'...
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
#thanksbutnotthanks for making me watch every episode of Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. You love that show right now. You ask for it every time we enter a room with a TV. Even if we're in someone else's house. There were a few times this year where I brought you to my neighbor Allison's house so that I could go to internship interviews, and you would run right into the house, start pushing buttons on the their TV, and saying "Dan-yo, Dan-yo" over and over. You had similar feelings for Thomas the Tank Engine, which you affectionately referred to as "Tommy." So while I could go my whole life without ever watching either of those television shows again, it was a delight to watch you watch them. You just get so excited...
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
The summer that you were a year old, you guys moved to a duplex in Grand Rapids after selling your Jenison house. This was before you moved to your house in Wyoming. That house was like a playground for you because it had a pretty open floor plan. Unlike the Jenison house, where we could put up a baby gate and keep you in the living room, you had access in the duplex to the living room, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, and bathroom. We quickly learned to shut the doors. I didn't see you much that summer, because your mom has summers off, but it was a joy to see you get so excited about walking and running around a new house.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
I forgive you for all the times you sent nonsense texts to my friends. And for the time that you took advantage of my love of cuddling to steal my phone. See, I thought I had finally outsmarted you by keeping my phone in my pocket where you couldn't reach it. Then, one day, you climbed up onto my lap and wrapped your arms around me and I thought, yes, finally, this kid is gonna calm down for a bit and come and cuddle with me! This wonderful cuddle-bliss lasted about ten seconds. All of the sudden, you hopped off my lap with my phone in your hand and started texting away. Oh, the betrayal. But I forgive you and I commend your craftiness.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
I've never met another 2-year-old (or indeed, a child of any age) who loves coffee as much as you do. It boggles my mind.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Speaking of coffee, I didn't start drinking coffee until this year, when you stopped taking a morning nap. Good thing your parents have a Keurig.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Starting around the time you turned 2, you started realizing the comedic opportunity of farting. You would come over to me, sometimes climbing up onto my lap, let a big one rip, and then go back to playing with your toys. The funniest times were when you stop what you were doing, bend your knees just a little bit, and then fart. Hilarious. Also very stinky.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Your favorite book right now is a Thomas the Tank Engine book. It is literally the only book that you will sit still and listen to. I don't remember the title, despite reading it to you elevendy-billion times. Every page ended with the sentence "'Peep, peep!' said Thomas." I would turn it around and prompt you with "Thomas said..." and then let you say the peep peep part. I suspect that's why you wanted me to read it to you so many times a day.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
You fall down a lot, despite having learned to walk a year ago. I think the sunken living room is to blame. Sometimes when you're really excited and running from place to place, you forget that there's a step down into the living room. You biff it into the living room at least 3 times a week. I hope you get the hang of this after I leave. Good luck.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
There are five pictures hanging above the fireplace in the living room. Four of you as a little baby, and a bigger one of you and your parents. Usually, when I ask you who's in the picture you say "mama. dada. tie-yo (you're not great at L's and R's yet)." Then, one day, instead of saying mama and dada, you said "wobbie" and "thoo-thee." I just about died. Hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Back when you would eat baby food, I would try to craft elaborate mustaches on your face whenever we had prunes. You didn't particularly enjoy this, but one day you really got into it and I took a bunch of pictures of you and made it into a No-Shave November PSA. You can see it here. Click on the first picture and cycle through them to get the full effect.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
You didn't often get hurt, but when you did, I could usually make it better by kissing whatever body part you held out toward me. Next year, I'll have middle-schoolers whose problems are much bigger and more complex than a hurt finger and can't be fixed by kissing the boo-boo. I pray that the kiss-the-boo-boo method works for you as long as possible.
Love, Nanny
--
Dearest Tyler,
I'm really going to miss being your nanny. Like, so much that it hurts to think about. You were the best job I have ever had. You taught me what it means to be a mom (an 8-hour-a-day weekends-and-holidays-off paid mom, anyway). Taking care of you never felt like just a job. That's the best kind of job to have, as far as I can tell. It will feel so weird and difficult to know that I won't be coming back to be your nanny in September. I'll definitely still visit you, probably at least once a week, so long as it's okay with your mom.
Don't forget about me, okay?
All my love always, Nanny
First of all, let me say thank you for letting me use you as a great punchline these last two years when people ask me if there are any new men in my life. "Well, there is one...he's just great. He has these adorably soft brown eyes, a great smile, the softest hair...he's such a good listener and he laughs at all my jokes. He thinks my cooking is excellent, and he's content to just sit and cuddle and be."
Second of all...I am NOT ready to stop being your nanny.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Taking care of you was my first full-time job. Technically, I did work full-time at the Conference Grounds, but that was only summers. You were my first 8 hours a day, 5 days a week job. And let me tell you, this was the best full-time job I've had so far! Fantastic bosses, no annoying co-workers to deal with, challenging enough to not get bored, but not so challenging that I got stressed out and stopped enjoying the job. There was not a single day where I dreaded coming to work. Do you know how rare that is? They say that if you enjoy your job 4 days out of 5, you're in the right job and very lucky. I am beyond lucky, young sir.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
In all that time, you never once peed on me. You did poop on me once, though. You were crazy sick, so I'll give you a pass on that one. You never outright puked on me, either. Plenty of spit-up that first year, but I won't count that. Spit-up is pretty easy to clean up and doesn't have that horribly pungent smell that vomit seems to have.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
The first time you said "Nanny," I just about died. I melted inside. I suppose it was a small glimpse of how parents feel when their baby says "mama" or "dada" for the first time. Going into your room in the morning and seeing you smiling up at me (or, when you were younger, seeing you in your bouncy seat start bouncing and giggling when you saw me come in) was often exactly the boost I needed. You see, I have something called depression and it's hard for me to get out of bed in the morning. Knowing I had you to look forward and that you would always be excited to see me helped a lot with my depression.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Did you know that before I started as your nanny, I could count on one hand the number of times I'd changed a diaper? Now I am a diapering master. I could diaper anything. I could probably diaper a wet cat. I don't think I'd like to try though, because I'm allergic to cats and I feel like interacting with a wet cat would just flare that up. But I bet I could diaper a wet cat, if it came right down to it.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Right now, your mom is 8 months pregnant with a baby that she and your dad have nicknamed "Gummy" because they are waiting to find out the gender until the baby is born. Right now, you're really bad at the "guh" sound and every time I ask you the baby's name, you say "Dummy." And I laugh every single time. Ditto the word 'banana,' which you currently pronounce 'badada.' Odd, since you're perfectly capable of saying 'nanny'...
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
#thanksbutnotthanks for making me watch every episode of Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood. You love that show right now. You ask for it every time we enter a room with a TV. Even if we're in someone else's house. There were a few times this year where I brought you to my neighbor Allison's house so that I could go to internship interviews, and you would run right into the house, start pushing buttons on the their TV, and saying "Dan-yo, Dan-yo" over and over. You had similar feelings for Thomas the Tank Engine, which you affectionately referred to as "Tommy." So while I could go my whole life without ever watching either of those television shows again, it was a delight to watch you watch them. You just get so excited...
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
The summer that you were a year old, you guys moved to a duplex in Grand Rapids after selling your Jenison house. This was before you moved to your house in Wyoming. That house was like a playground for you because it had a pretty open floor plan. Unlike the Jenison house, where we could put up a baby gate and keep you in the living room, you had access in the duplex to the living room, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, and bathroom. We quickly learned to shut the doors. I didn't see you much that summer, because your mom has summers off, but it was a joy to see you get so excited about walking and running around a new house.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
I forgive you for all the times you sent nonsense texts to my friends. And for the time that you took advantage of my love of cuddling to steal my phone. See, I thought I had finally outsmarted you by keeping my phone in my pocket where you couldn't reach it. Then, one day, you climbed up onto my lap and wrapped your arms around me and I thought, yes, finally, this kid is gonna calm down for a bit and come and cuddle with me! This wonderful cuddle-bliss lasted about ten seconds. All of the sudden, you hopped off my lap with my phone in your hand and started texting away. Oh, the betrayal. But I forgive you and I commend your craftiness.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
I've never met another 2-year-old (or indeed, a child of any age) who loves coffee as much as you do. It boggles my mind.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Speaking of coffee, I didn't start drinking coffee until this year, when you stopped taking a morning nap. Good thing your parents have a Keurig.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Starting around the time you turned 2, you started realizing the comedic opportunity of farting. You would come over to me, sometimes climbing up onto my lap, let a big one rip, and then go back to playing with your toys. The funniest times were when you stop what you were doing, bend your knees just a little bit, and then fart. Hilarious. Also very stinky.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Your favorite book right now is a Thomas the Tank Engine book. It is literally the only book that you will sit still and listen to. I don't remember the title, despite reading it to you elevendy-billion times. Every page ended with the sentence "'Peep, peep!' said Thomas." I would turn it around and prompt you with "Thomas said..." and then let you say the peep peep part. I suspect that's why you wanted me to read it to you so many times a day.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
You fall down a lot, despite having learned to walk a year ago. I think the sunken living room is to blame. Sometimes when you're really excited and running from place to place, you forget that there's a step down into the living room. You biff it into the living room at least 3 times a week. I hope you get the hang of this after I leave. Good luck.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
There are five pictures hanging above the fireplace in the living room. Four of you as a little baby, and a bigger one of you and your parents. Usually, when I ask you who's in the picture you say "mama. dada. tie-yo (you're not great at L's and R's yet)." Then, one day, instead of saying mama and dada, you said "wobbie" and "thoo-thee." I just about died. Hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
Back when you would eat baby food, I would try to craft elaborate mustaches on your face whenever we had prunes. You didn't particularly enjoy this, but one day you really got into it and I took a bunch of pictures of you and made it into a No-Shave November PSA. You can see it here. Click on the first picture and cycle through them to get the full effect.
Love, Nanny
--
Dear Tyler,
You didn't often get hurt, but when you did, I could usually make it better by kissing whatever body part you held out toward me. Next year, I'll have middle-schoolers whose problems are much bigger and more complex than a hurt finger and can't be fixed by kissing the boo-boo. I pray that the kiss-the-boo-boo method works for you as long as possible.
Love, Nanny
--
Dearest Tyler,
I'm really going to miss being your nanny. Like, so much that it hurts to think about. You were the best job I have ever had. You taught me what it means to be a mom (an 8-hour-a-day weekends-and-holidays-off paid mom, anyway). Taking care of you never felt like just a job. That's the best kind of job to have, as far as I can tell. It will feel so weird and difficult to know that I won't be coming back to be your nanny in September. I'll definitely still visit you, probably at least once a week, so long as it's okay with your mom.
Don't forget about me, okay?
All my love always, Nanny
Friday, May 22, 2015
Op-Ed: What's Missing From the Josh Duggar Molestation Discussion
I will do my best to avoid passing judgment or denigrating the Duggar's values/home culture/choices. But as I read more and more articles about this scandal (some of dubious origin and veracity), I find one thing missing. It's one very important thing: a discussion about what sexual abuse does to the survivor.
In case you're out of the loop, Josh Duggar, the oldest of Jim Bob and Michelle's 19 kids featured on TLC's series 19 Kids and Counting, admitted yesterday to molesting girls when he was a teenager. The allegations of abuse were brought to the media and when asked for comment, both Josh and his parents confirmed the story. Since then, PDFs of the redacted police report have circulated, rumors have swirled, and a witch-hunt has begun.
I've always enjoyed watching 19 Kids and I've read the books that the family has written about parenting, relationships, and their faith. I think their commitment to their convictions and their diligence in raising 19 children (and doing it well ) is very admirable. But when I read that four of Josh's five victims were his sisters, I had to see this police report for myself. I was skeptical, not because I believed a Duggar could never do such a thing, but because I figured the police would have done a better job of shielding the identities of victims when releasing official documents.
Alas.
The portion I have circled in red says: "The alleged victims are [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], who live with their parents Michelle and Jim Bob [redacted]." The report was made in 2006, but the abuse occurred over the course of a year, from 2002 to 2003. It doesn't take a psychic to figure out who these four redacted kids are. Even though the names are blacked out, their parents' names aren't, which strikes me as a quite poor job on the part of the person who was responsible for redactions before the report was released to the media. Personal pronouns and adjectives have been largely obscured, but if you read the rest of the report, you can find the occasional 'her' or 'she' that was missed. This would indicate that the victims were girls. The Duggars had 5 daughters as of 2003, so we know that four of them are named as the victims. (You can read the whole report here.)
Now that I've had my fun as an investigative journalist, let me talk about some of the glaring issues I see with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the family, the media, the critics, etc.
1. Redactions - come on, Springdale PD. What was the point of redacting the names of the victims if you're going to leave in other identifying information? It took me very little effort to figure out who these victims are because you left in the fact that their parents' names are Jim Bob and Michelle. If you truly want to preserve confidentiality and protect victims' identities, you've got to do a better job than that.
2. Immediate aftermath - Yes, Josh's actions were 'a mistake,' 'reprehensible,' 'inexcusable,' etc. What I have a problem with, though, is that Josh's parents did not take the appropriate action within a few days of Josh's admission to them of what he had done. The report of a police interview with Jim Bob and Michelle describes several disparate instances of Josh's behavior, spread out over the course of at least 9 months. Only after the last of these admissions did Jim Bob report any of Josh's behavior. However, no report was made to law enforcement initially. Jim Bob sought the counsel of his church elders, who recommended Josh be put into a treatment program. After Josh returned from that program, Jim Bob finally spoke with a law enforcement officer. The officer, an Arkansas state trooper, was a family friend and responded by giving Josh a "stern talk" and a warning about what would happen to him if he continued this sort of behavior. The state trooper concluded the meeting without filing a report. Big problems with this:
In case you're out of the loop, Josh Duggar, the oldest of Jim Bob and Michelle's 19 kids featured on TLC's series 19 Kids and Counting, admitted yesterday to molesting girls when he was a teenager. The allegations of abuse were brought to the media and when asked for comment, both Josh and his parents confirmed the story. Since then, PDFs of the redacted police report have circulated, rumors have swirled, and a witch-hunt has begun.
I've always enjoyed watching 19 Kids and I've read the books that the family has written about parenting, relationships, and their faith. I think their commitment to their convictions and their diligence in raising 19 children (and doing it well ) is very admirable. But when I read that four of Josh's five victims were his sisters, I had to see this police report for myself. I was skeptical, not because I believed a Duggar could never do such a thing, but because I figured the police would have done a better job of shielding the identities of victims when releasing official documents.
Alas.
The portion I have circled in red says: "The alleged victims are [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], who live with their parents Michelle and Jim Bob [redacted]." The report was made in 2006, but the abuse occurred over the course of a year, from 2002 to 2003. It doesn't take a psychic to figure out who these four redacted kids are. Even though the names are blacked out, their parents' names aren't, which strikes me as a quite poor job on the part of the person who was responsible for redactions before the report was released to the media. Personal pronouns and adjectives have been largely obscured, but if you read the rest of the report, you can find the occasional 'her' or 'she' that was missed. This would indicate that the victims were girls. The Duggars had 5 daughters as of 2003, so we know that four of them are named as the victims. (You can read the whole report here.)
Now that I've had my fun as an investigative journalist, let me talk about some of the glaring issues I see with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the family, the media, the critics, etc.
1. Redactions - come on, Springdale PD. What was the point of redacting the names of the victims if you're going to leave in other identifying information? It took me very little effort to figure out who these victims are because you left in the fact that their parents' names are Jim Bob and Michelle. If you truly want to preserve confidentiality and protect victims' identities, you've got to do a better job than that.
2. Immediate aftermath - Yes, Josh's actions were 'a mistake,' 'reprehensible,' 'inexcusable,' etc. What I have a problem with, though, is that Josh's parents did not take the appropriate action within a few days of Josh's admission to them of what he had done. The report of a police interview with Jim Bob and Michelle describes several disparate instances of Josh's behavior, spread out over the course of at least 9 months. Only after the last of these admissions did Jim Bob report any of Josh's behavior. However, no report was made to law enforcement initially. Jim Bob sought the counsel of his church elders, who recommended Josh be put into a treatment program. After Josh returned from that program, Jim Bob finally spoke with a law enforcement officer. The officer, an Arkansas state trooper, was a family friend and responded by giving Josh a "stern talk" and a warning about what would happen to him if he continued this sort of behavior. The state trooper concluded the meeting without filing a report. Big problems with this:
- As a state trooper, the officer was a mandated reporter. As in, once an instance of child abuse like this was brought to his attention, he was obligated under law to file a report and pursue police action. The fact that he didn't do so indicates that he broke the law to keep this secret. (The state trooper in question is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for child pornography convictions, which surely isn't a coincidence.)
- As a friend of the Duggar Family, this state trooper would have been ethically bound to remove himself from handling this case because of the blatant conflict of interest.
- Not filing a report resulted in Josh continuing to live with his parents and his victims. It doesn't matter that Josh seemed to have learned his lesson from the treatment program, or that his victims and parents had forgiven him, or that he had apologized to everyone. There was absolutely no way for anyone to be sure that he wouldn't re-offend, and not removing him from contact with his victims is a clear child safety issue. Had a report been filed, Child Protective Services would have gotten involved and separated perpetrator from victims. Yes, it likely would have involved removing one or more kids from the home, but which is worse: breaking up a family while the matter is settled by law enforcement, or risking continued sexual abuse? Neither option is even remotely desirable, but one is clearly safer for the victims.
- This series of events only came to the attention of law enforcement because of an anonymous tip from someone who had read a letter written by a Duggar family friend, which was hidden in a loaned book. The tip came in 2006, three years after the abuse first came to the attention of Jim Bob and Michelle. At that time, Arkansas's Statute of Limitations regarding sex crimes was three years. This means that even though there was a police report filed and confessions made by Josh and his parents, no legal action could be taken because the Statute of Limitations had lapsed. I can't imagine that any parents would be chomping at the bit to turn in their kid, especially when the kid was clearly remorseful and repentant, and they got very lucky that they lived in a state with such a short Statute. I don't fault Jim Bob and Michelle for handling things the way they deemed best. I do take issue with lawmakers who refuse to significantly revise the laws surrounding Statutes of Limitations. It not only rewards offenders who can keep their crimes under wraps until the clock runs out, but worse, it robs the victims of justice. Sex crimes are hard enough to prove and prosecute without the pressure of a countdown clock.
3. Focus on past actions - It is understandable that the media are feeding on this story despite the fact that the abuse occurred over a decade ago. Some media outlets are reporting as if it's an ongoing, developing story, which it is not. Other media outlets are freaking out because they perceive yet a third group of media outlets to be persecuting Josh and the Duggar family for 'mistakes' and 'actions taken by a curious young teenager.' I have yet to find an article (or, better yet, a statement from any of the Duggars) that talks about the impact that sexual abuse has on a survivor. The media are getting bogged down by the initial scandal, the police report, Josh's decision to resign from his director position at the Family Research Council, how Anna knew about his past and married him anyway, and so on. Why is no one talking about the impact this media circus (and possibly, re-victimization) has had on Josh's sisters and the other as-yet-unidentified survivor? It is possible to talk about this without revealing their identities (even though the botched police report has already done so, to some extent) and it would go a long way in contributing to our national dialogue on sexual assault and domestic violence.
4. Lack of adequate and appropriate aftercare for all parties involved - According to the police report, Josh spent a few months at a location described, in different places, as "a training center," "some sort of rehab place," "treatment," and a "training camp." Other references have been made to the family arranging for counseling for the victims. It was later revealed that Josh was, in fact, sent to live for a few months with a family friend, where he helped with construction projects. This family friend was not a certified counselor of any kind, but more of a 'mentor,' according to Michelle. There is no proof that the parents did not arrange for counseling for the victims, but it does lead one to wonder what kind of counseling the victims may or may not have received. If a few months of physical labor with a non-counselor family friend is their idea of counseling for Josh, what did the victims receive?
From the report, it sounds like Jim Bob took charge of forming perception for the whole family through a pair of family meetings. Many of the interviewees say that Jim Bob told them what had happened, what Josh had done, how he was sorry, etc. It also suggests that Jim Bob considered the matter settled after Josh returned, as evidenced by his reluctance to bring Josh in for an interview and his assertion that "if [he] thought the incident was a problem, [he] would have taken care of it when it happened." (I inferred that it was Jim Bob making the decisions based on the Duggars' commitment to patriarchal views on family values. And there are other instances of responses like "[redacted] said she would discuss it with her husband," which suggests that Michelle does not make statements or decisions without Jim Bob.) All of this is to say that the Duggar girls were not given the opportunity (that we know of) to speak with non-family members or impartial professionals about what had happened. And as a counselor, that bothers me.
5. Lack of adequate sex education - The Duggars have become famous for their views on modesty and sexual purity, their courtship and physical contact rules, and their modest clothing and swimwear. On more than on occasion, Michelle has talked about how they have raised their daughters to stay away from clothing that bares their shoulders, thighs, and midsections because they do not want to cause any boys to have impure thoughts and, therefore, sin. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude and set of principles, it is somewhat sexist. It implies that men are incapable of curtailing their thoughts and actions and that it is the woman's responsibility to dress and act in a way that helps the man to keep from sinning. It is disrespectful to both men and women - it diminishes the man's capacity for integrity and self-control, and it tells the woman that men think she is good only for her body and her looks, so she should cover herself up. In fact, by focusing so much on their daughters' outward appearance, they are doing exactly what they find so repugnant in secular culture - namely, reducing a woman to an object to be presented.
The Duggars' approach to sexuality is extremely conservative, as one would expect from watching their program. They are famous for their courtship approach to marriage, in which the man and woman do not engage in physical contact beyond "side hugs" and hand-holding until after they are married. They teach that sexual activity (even something that most would consider fairly innocuous, like kissing) outside of marriage is something to be avoided because it fills the person with impure thoughts and desires that cannot be fulfilled without engaging in sex. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude too, it promotes a flawed understanding of human sexuality. It seems to imply that sexual thoughts and urges are sinful if you aren't married, and it is just best to avoid anything (clothing, bathing suits, books, television, movies, pop culture in general) that might even come close to bringing sexuality to mind. In a way, they are setting their kids up to fail - regardless of marital status, their kids will experience sexual thoughts and feelings, especially as they grow older, and it's not always something they will be able to control. That's just how thoughts are. Telling them that they are sinning when sexuality occurs to them will just make them feel ashamed.
I can understand the Duggars' reluctance to expose their kids to comprehensive sex education, particularly because it will force them to think about, in their opinion, sinful things. I don't think that's a good enough excuse, though. I firmly believe that it is possible to teach someone about sex while maintaining the importance of one's values. They don't have to hand out boxes of condoms to their courting children or bring them to strip clubs, but as we've seen, how you handle your kids' curiosity affects quite a lot. The "he was just a curious teenager who made a mistake" defense speaks to this. At 14, Josh knew that touching his sisters was not okay, as evidenced by his guilt and remorse and confessions to his parents. The fact that he did it more than once to more than one person is what is indefensible to me. Once is a mistake, twice is cause for concern, three is a pattern, and beyond that is unconscionable. I'm not trying to say that this could have all been avoided by a good sex talk, because we can't know that for sure, but their attitude toward sexuality has created a culture of fear, guilt, shame, and ignorance about a natural part of life.
6. "Now everyone can see what hypocrites the Duggars are!" journalism - I don't like to see the Duggars raked over the coals for the way they handled the situation twelve years ago, and I'll be really sad if they cancel 19 Kids for good. The war cries about hypocrisy and trashed credibility mostly just show a flawed understanding of the Duggars' faith. I've watched at least a hundred episodes, and I like to think I'm a good judge of character (at least, the character they have put out on the show), and never have I heard them assert that they are in any way perfect or above reproach. I don't think this story coming to light should cancel all the good they have done with their program and influence in the media. It is hypocritical on their part to oppose transgender protections legislation, claiming that it will allow transgender individuals to molest children in bathrooms, when they've known for years that their son molested their daughters. In that arena, their credibility is shot. However, it shouldn't forever negate their portrayal of positive family values or irreparably scar their witness to the world. We all sin.
7. "He did what he did, we need to forgive him and move on" journalism - The problem I have with this is that it tells the victims that they need to move on too because what they experienced is not a big deal. It's another variation on "Boys will be boys," which implies that men can't be held responsible for what they do in the heat of sexual haze. Yes, it sounds like his family and his victims have forgiven Josh, but that's not the same as moving on. Survivors of sexual abuse need to know that not only is the abuse not their fault in any way, but also that the healing process can take years and lots of hard, painful work. I highly doubt that a family meeting and a pardon for Josh was enough to make the girls get over it. Even it did work that way for them, they are in a very small minority. Treating the Duggar scandal this way in the media teaches other survivors that it is more important to forgive their abuser and move on than to take the time they need to come to terms with and make sense of their experience. There is considerable clinical evidence to show that avoiding and repressing traumatic experiences can often lead to that pain surfacing in other ways. Telling survivors to forget about what happened to them not only invalidates what they are feeling, but also tells them that their experience is not important enough to remember.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to comment.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Op-Ed: The Cherry-Picked Gospel
With this latest round of discrimination disguised as religious freedom taking place in my hometown of Grandville, Michigan (search "dieseltec grandville michigan" if you haven't seen it yet), I feel the need to write about this issue. I just cannot handle it anymore. I am so sick of a small group of ultra-conservative Christians vocalizing a minority view of Christianity that gives the rest of us Christians a bad name. You may ask, how could one group of Christians be giving a bad name to another group of Christians? Aren't they all supposed to be loving toward others, avoiding passing judgment on people they don't like, and shining a light for Christ in a world of darkness?
(List derives from http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/list-of-examples-of-christian-privileg/)
"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position (Romans 12:16)," which includes the poor, the hungry, the sick, the immigrants, the LGBT, the Muslims, the people in the middle east, and the people who you believe are tearing apart the fabric of America.
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone (Romans 12:17)," not just what is right for white, Christian, conservative, upper-middle class American citizens.
"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites (or Americans) in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them (Deuteronomy 15:7)," and maybe don't take away their health insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, early childhood education, or veteran benefits.
"Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." (Proverbs 14:31)
"One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty (Proverbs 22:16)." Does this not sound like our political system?
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48b) It is not okay that the top 0.1% of America (318,000 people) has more money than the bottom 90% (286,200,000 people) COMBINED. If the top 1% paid the same tax rate as everyone else, the Republican politicians would not be justified in cutting necessary social programs because of "budget constraints."
Huh, that's what I learned in church school too.
However, there is a minority of Christians that is beginning to speak up quite loudly and "claim" their religious freedoms by denying service to members of the LGBTQQIAA community because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. They have taken it into their own hands to be the judges and juries of their fellow human beings. They spout off about their religious freedoms being trampled because of Obama and our country's departure from its strictly Christian roots.
Really? Your rights as a Christian have been trampled? When was the last time you...
- Didn't get Christmas Day and Easter off from work? (obviously, some careers require employees to work on Christian holidays, but many places of employment are automatically closed on those days.
- Couldn't access movies, TV shows, or music related to your Christian faith?
- Couldn't find a store that sold items you need to practice your Christian faith?
- Were pressured to celebrate another religion's holidays, particularly a religion whose values conflict with your own? For example, when was the last time you were expected to observe the month of Ramadan by fasting during daylight hours?
- Were wished a Happy Eid al-Fitr or a Merry Purim? When was the last time you wished a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter to a stranger without wondering whether they even observe Christmas or Easter? (I'm not saying that you are a bad person if you do this, I know I have done this without thinking, but at the same time, it's an example of a microagression)
- Found out that your church or place of worship had been bombed, shot up, or burned to the ground?
- Returned to your car to find that it had been vandalized because of a Christian bumper sticker?
- Were threatened, harmed, or detained for praying in public?
- Swore an oath with your hand on a Qur’ān, a Tanakh, or a copy of the Book of Shadows?
- Saw a politician or community leader harassed or criticized for openly declaring their Christian faith?
- Heard of a politician being labeled a heretic, extremist, or terrorist for making decisions based on their Christian faith?
- Encountered a person who had never heard of Christianity?
- Were criticized or socially penalized for not knowing the customs of other world religions?
- Were treated unfairly at work or fired from your job because people knew you were a Christian?
- Encountered a city that did not have a church or place for you to worship?
- Had your identity reduced to your religion?
- Held a fundraiser for your church or faith-based group and then had it investigated on suspicion of terrorism?
- Couldn't find friends who were Christians?
- Couldn't send yourself or your kids to a Christian school because there was none where you lived?
- Heard of anyone being denied for adopting a child because they identified as Christian?
- Heard of anyone being denied custody of their kids because they identified as Christian
- Were accused of attacking another religion because you complained about your Christian faith being under attack?
But its not just the blacks, Mexicans, and gays that are trampling our rights! We as conservative Christian (white) Americans are being discriminated against because of the degeneration of our country!
Let's talk about that. What was the last time you...
But the homos! They're taking over and I'm starting to be discriminated against for being straight!
Uh, seriously? When was the last time you...
Let's talk about that. What was the last time you...
- Were the only white person in the room/building/school/company/church?
- Had to move to a neighborhood where you were the only white person?
- Were threatened, avoided, glared at, or profiled because you were white?
- A store clerk kept an eye on you to make sure you wouldn't steal something?
- Saw or read a news report in which absolutely no white people were mentioned?
- Had your ideas or opinions discredited or criticized because you were white?
- Couldn't find American food, American music, or American books in a store?
- Heard someone tell you that they don't know how to cut your hair?
- Heard someone say, "You have a lot of money/property/education/articulateness/whatever for a white person"?
- Couldn't protect yourself or your children from people who don't like you because you're white?
- Had to give your kids The Talk? Not the sex talk, mind you, but the "society is unequal, be wary of law enforcement, keep your head down, don't put your hands in your pockets" talk?
- Experienced systemic racism? (and if you try to tell me that systemic racism no longer exists in America, I'll tell you that you need to look a little closer.)
- Were called "a credit to your race"?
- Were called a thug, bum, low-life, illegal, alien, nigger, or terrorist?
- Couldn't find posters, cards, picture books, dolls, toys, or magazines that featured white people?
- Felt isolated, out of place, outnumbered, isolated, or feared because of being white?
- Were told that you got a job or promotion because the company needed to fill a quota or was acting on affirmative action?
- Worried about whether your whiteness would get in the way of any of your social, political, or professional goals?
- Couldn't find band-aids, makeup, or flesh-toned clothing that did not match the color of your skin?
- Had your kid come home from school saying that he or she learned in school that it's wrong or bad to be part of a family that is white and made up of a married mommy and daddy and their biological children?
But the homos! They're taking over and I'm starting to be discriminated against for being straight!
Uh, seriously? When was the last time you...
- Couldn't see your loved one in the hospital or find out what happened in the case of an emergency?
- Heard that an engagement or a wedding was anything but a positive thing?
- Were afraid to touch, hug, or kiss your loved one in public?
- Were criticized for living with and starting a family with your loved one?
- Were not comforted or supported after the end of a relationship?
- Couldn't find any examples of heterosexual romance or relationships on TV, in movies, or in books?
- Couldn't find a heterosexual role model?
- Saw consistently negative portrayals in the media of straight people?
- Were the only straight person in a group/class/school/workplace?
- Were asked to stop talking about your relationship or family activities because someone told you they don't agree with your lifestyle?
- Were accused of being a child molester or trying to turn people straight?
- Were denied paid leave from your job when grieving the death of your loved one because your boss thought your relationship wasn't legitimate?
- Were asked, “how does sex work for you?” or other way-too-personal questions?
- Couldn't get a reduced rate for health, auto, and homeowners’ insurance policies because you were in a committed heterosexual relationship?
- Heard someone use "that's so straight" as an insult?
- Were accused of forcing a "heterosexual agenda" on someone?
- Had to petition a court for joint custody (instead of having it granted automatically) when you and your loved one welcomed a new child into your family?
- Were the victim of straight-bashing or other acts of violence because you were openly straight?
- Couldn't marry the person you loved because it was illegal?
- Had your basic civil rights taken away by people who disapprove of your straightness?
- Heard someone say that being straight is unnatural, perverted, disgusting, or an abomination?
- Heard a religious leader or members of your faith community say that being straight is a sin?
- Were fired because you were straight?
- Had someone ask you when you came out or when you realized you were straight?
- Had someone patronize you by saying that you brought all the hate on yourself by choosing to be straight?
- Had to wonder if your marriage was legal once you crossed a state line or border?
- Had to comfort your kid because another kid's parents wouldn't let your kid come over and play simply because you were straight?
- Heard that God hated you and you were going to hell because you're straight?
(List derived from http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/#sthash.MYZExlL1.dpuf)
And here's a burning question I've had since this whole freedom of religion thing blew up - would these people tolerate being denied service by a gay atheist in the name of religious freedom? Or would they take to the news media, wailing about the dissolution of Christian values and the discrimination they are facing at the hands of gays and atheists? It's hard to claim discrimination when you're part of the majority. Minorities (racial, ethnic, religious, political, cultural, and orientation-al) face discrimination and microaggressions every single day, but we don't allow them to complain about it because we try so hard to pretend it's not a problem and that they have no right to complain. Then, when even a hint of aggression happens to a person from the majority, it's all over the news and portrayed as a heinous crime. Will we see any stories about a Christian being denied service by a non-Christian? Will anyone even dare to do that, given how protected the Christian faith is the U.S.?
I don't want to argue theology or Christian morality with you here, mostly because then I would be doing exactly what I'm telling other people not to do (i.e. foist one's opinions on someone else as absolute truths), but I do want to say that, no matter what your views are, those views do not give you the right to discriminate against or mistreat your fellow human beings. When did we forget what our mothers always taught us - "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? When did it become noble to abide by the First Amendment instead of the Golden Rule? Even if a law give you permission to discriminate (or at least a legal shield if you did so), acting a certain way in the name of religious freedom is the opposite of what Jesus would have done. The Bible was not meant to be cherry-picked.
"Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39)," even if your neighbor isn't white, straight, and Christian.
Ask yourself this - are the politicians who campaign on a conservative courageous Christian platform REALLY representing your understanding of Christianity? Their platform is aimed at restoring our liberties and steering American back to the Christian nation it was mean to be, but what would a country look like when it's guided by the passages above? Are these politicians promising to enact policies that help everyone when the policies are actually discriminatory toward minority groups (defunding ACA, slashing Medicare/Medicaid, blocking immigration reform, etc.)? Do these politicians fight for the good of everyone, American and non-American alike, or do they pursue action like indefinite war, genocide, and the destruction of economy and resources in other countries? Do they stand up for the rights of people who aren't courageous conservative Christians, or do they use their courageous Christian conservatism to highlight the moral divide between "us" and "them"?
As far as I can tell, none of the current presidential candidates is going to get my vote. I just can't get behind someone who takes from the poor to give to the ultra-rich, prioritizes war and military over necessary social services, holds the government and legislative progress hostage in the name of Christian conviction, or condones (or worse, commits) hateful action disguised as Christian freedom.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Why Online Dating Can Be So Much Harder Than It Seems
I seem to be on a bit of a streak here, writing about online dating. What can I say - I write about what I know and what I feel, and right now, online dating takes up a lot of my emotional space.
On the surface, it would seem that online dating should be easier than the traditional method of going out, meeting new people, exchanging numbers, and waiting for the other person to call. With online dating, the site (sometimes) does the work of finding people for you. You put in some information about yourself and what you're looking for in a mate, and they send you the people who meet those criteria (again, sometimes). It removes the "sitting at the bar waiting for someone to approach you" element. It allows you to shop the pool of eligible singles without even having to hear them wax poetic about their favorite sports team or how awesome they are at their job. On some sites, you can even put in a few search criteria and browse hundreds of profiles at your leisure. It's easier than traditional dating in that you don't even have to interact with the person to determine if you're interested. You just have to look at their pictures and interests. Sounds better than approaching someone at the bar and wasting time chit-chatting, trying to figure out if you have something in common, right?
I have found this feature of online dating to be wonderful. I'm not great with striking up conversation with a complete stranger and the bar scene makes me queasy. A website that does that part of the process for me? Yes please. I can click through profiles that are sent my way, and if I decide that I'm not interested, I can just click to the next match and not have to worry about making a graceful exit! The other person doesn't even have to know that I'm not interested! That aspect really appeals to me because I don't like letting people down or crushing their hopes. Online dating lets you shop without the social commitment, however brief, that traditional dating requires.
The next step is where I feel like I get on an emotional roller coaster. I've been very intentional about sending emails and notes to the guys whose profiles interest me. I've read enough magazines and Buzzfeed features to know that a lot of guys appreciate the girl making the first move. If I had to wait for the guy to email me first...let's just say that the only guy to email me was a libertarian from Illinois who was looking for a housewife who would stay at home with the 8+ children he wanted to have.
Plus, if I am putting myself out there, I can prove to myself that I am making an effort, that I want to get something out of this process, that I'm serious...that I'm making some sort of progress in this area of my life, even when it feels like I'm standing still.
Emailing a new match is a small rush each time. I spend several minutes crafting the perfect casual greeting that will make him want to reply (or at least I used to...by now, I've got a pretty standard cut-and-paste version) and then when I hit Send, it's out of my hands. I get my hopes up just a little bit every time I email someone new. When will he reply? Will he reply at all? How much will it suck if he doesn't reply? Because there are some guys that I email because we have a few things in common, and I figure why not, and then there are others that I find a lot in common with and I really want to hear back from them. And deep in my heart, where thoughts of the future live...what if this is the person I'm meant to marry? I want to remember every detail of how we met.
A few days go by, no response from the email I've sent into the void, but my hopes are still up. Maybe he's busy this week. Maybe he got my email, but was in a place where he couldn't respond yet. Maybe he checks this account only once a week. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
A week goes by with no reply. No news is bad news. Now I have to make a choice - I could keep hoping that he'll respond, or I could let this one go, figuring he's not interested in me. It's not a conscious choice, exactly, more like a reluctant realization. It doesn't feel good to hear that someone isn't interested in you, but that's inevitable, especially in a forum like online dating, where there are so many potential connections to be made or broken.
I work through this process just about every day, over and over. I look forward to clicking through new matches every day, especially when there aren't any new messages in my inbox. Each day brings a new set of possibilities. New guys to make contact with. New guys who might want to talk to me. Maybe even The One. As much as I get annoyed by talk of soulmates, happily ever after, and The One, I can't help getting my hopes up just a little bit.
At the same time, each day brings risk. I risk being rejected. It might be easier to be rejected over the Internet, since I don't have to be embarrassed in front of other people, but it's also harder, because it's happening so much more often. It certainly doesn't hurt any less, at least for me. I've never been able to shake it off and move on as if I'm unaffected by it. I'm affected by everything, and sometimes quite deeply. Emotional depth is simultaneously a strength and a weakness.
Rejection just seems to be an inherent risk in online dating. I had no idea how hard it could be until I got into the thick of it. You put yourself out there, day after day, with no guarantee that someone will choose you. In the face of that scary truth, I still hold out hope that this process will yield a "success story." I don't want to stop putting myself on the line because I don't want to look back and wonder if there was something I missed, or something more I could have done. If I reach the end of my subscription with nothing to show for it, I will survive. It will be so so hard, but I've done hard before.
In the meantime, by the grace of God, we carry on. It will be worth it someday, right? :)
On the surface, it would seem that online dating should be easier than the traditional method of going out, meeting new people, exchanging numbers, and waiting for the other person to call. With online dating, the site (sometimes) does the work of finding people for you. You put in some information about yourself and what you're looking for in a mate, and they send you the people who meet those criteria (again, sometimes). It removes the "sitting at the bar waiting for someone to approach you" element. It allows you to shop the pool of eligible singles without even having to hear them wax poetic about their favorite sports team or how awesome they are at their job. On some sites, you can even put in a few search criteria and browse hundreds of profiles at your leisure. It's easier than traditional dating in that you don't even have to interact with the person to determine if you're interested. You just have to look at their pictures and interests. Sounds better than approaching someone at the bar and wasting time chit-chatting, trying to figure out if you have something in common, right?
I have found this feature of online dating to be wonderful. I'm not great with striking up conversation with a complete stranger and the bar scene makes me queasy. A website that does that part of the process for me? Yes please. I can click through profiles that are sent my way, and if I decide that I'm not interested, I can just click to the next match and not have to worry about making a graceful exit! The other person doesn't even have to know that I'm not interested! That aspect really appeals to me because I don't like letting people down or crushing their hopes. Online dating lets you shop without the social commitment, however brief, that traditional dating requires.
The next step is where I feel like I get on an emotional roller coaster. I've been very intentional about sending emails and notes to the guys whose profiles interest me. I've read enough magazines and Buzzfeed features to know that a lot of guys appreciate the girl making the first move. If I had to wait for the guy to email me first...let's just say that the only guy to email me was a libertarian from Illinois who was looking for a housewife who would stay at home with the 8+ children he wanted to have.
Plus, if I am putting myself out there, I can prove to myself that I am making an effort, that I want to get something out of this process, that I'm serious...that I'm making some sort of progress in this area of my life, even when it feels like I'm standing still.
Emailing a new match is a small rush each time. I spend several minutes crafting the perfect casual greeting that will make him want to reply (or at least I used to...by now, I've got a pretty standard cut-and-paste version) and then when I hit Send, it's out of my hands. I get my hopes up just a little bit every time I email someone new. When will he reply? Will he reply at all? How much will it suck if he doesn't reply? Because there are some guys that I email because we have a few things in common, and I figure why not, and then there are others that I find a lot in common with and I really want to hear back from them. And deep in my heart, where thoughts of the future live...what if this is the person I'm meant to marry? I want to remember every detail of how we met.
A few days go by, no response from the email I've sent into the void, but my hopes are still up. Maybe he's busy this week. Maybe he got my email, but was in a place where he couldn't respond yet. Maybe he checks this account only once a week. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
A week goes by with no reply. No news is bad news. Now I have to make a choice - I could keep hoping that he'll respond, or I could let this one go, figuring he's not interested in me. It's not a conscious choice, exactly, more like a reluctant realization. It doesn't feel good to hear that someone isn't interested in you, but that's inevitable, especially in a forum like online dating, where there are so many potential connections to be made or broken.
I work through this process just about every day, over and over. I look forward to clicking through new matches every day, especially when there aren't any new messages in my inbox. Each day brings a new set of possibilities. New guys to make contact with. New guys who might want to talk to me. Maybe even The One. As much as I get annoyed by talk of soulmates, happily ever after, and The One, I can't help getting my hopes up just a little bit.
At the same time, each day brings risk. I risk being rejected. It might be easier to be rejected over the Internet, since I don't have to be embarrassed in front of other people, but it's also harder, because it's happening so much more often. It certainly doesn't hurt any less, at least for me. I've never been able to shake it off and move on as if I'm unaffected by it. I'm affected by everything, and sometimes quite deeply. Emotional depth is simultaneously a strength and a weakness.
Rejection just seems to be an inherent risk in online dating. I had no idea how hard it could be until I got into the thick of it. You put yourself out there, day after day, with no guarantee that someone will choose you. In the face of that scary truth, I still hold out hope that this process will yield a "success story." I don't want to stop putting myself on the line because I don't want to look back and wonder if there was something I missed, or something more I could have done. If I reach the end of my subscription with nothing to show for it, I will survive. It will be so so hard, but I've done hard before.
In the meantime, by the grace of God, we carry on. It will be worth it someday, right? :)
Sunday, March 1, 2015
One in Four: Anatomy of an Anxiety Attack
I attend church just about every Sunday. I've gone to the same church since I was 13. I know almost every person there by name, and I'm pretty sure that most people know me. If not by name, then they at least recognize me from week to week. I teach Sunday school at that church, I've spoken in front of that church, I've played guitar and sang in front of that church, and I can get almost any kid in that church to give me a high five. I love that church.
I get anxiety in that church.
Usually it's pretty manageable. I have this homemade stress ball (a balloon filled with flour) that I can play with when I'm feeling fidgety or easily distracted. It helps me focus. My parents usually let me sit on the end of the aisle instead of in the middle, and that helps too. I don't feel so closed in that way.
In the past, I've had times where I had to leave the sanctuary and listen to the sermon from the narthex, where I'm not surrounded by people. I had to do that today because focusing on my stress balloon wasn't cutting it. I was sitting in my seat, Pastor Phil had just started his sermon, and I felt like I couldn't breathe properly. I tried to take deep breaths, but I couldn't make my lungs work. My hands were trembling, even with the balloon to hold. I felt like there was a small child sitting on my chest. My stomach was twisting. I felt warmer than usual. Then I felt colder than usual. Then I went back to feeling too warm.
This my friends, is a minor anxiety attack.
I stayed in church as long as I could, trying to ride it out, thinking that I could just sit tight and wait for it to end. It didn't, and I had to leave. There are these super comfortable chairs in the narthex and I went to sit on one of those. It took at least twenty minutes for me to feel normal and calm again. At one point, one of my students came down from the balcony and passed by me. She asked in a joking sort of way, "Hey Andrea, whatcha doin'?" I replied in a similarly joking sort of way, "Oh ya know, just hanging out!" I do that a lot - I reach for a flip one-liner before my mouth says the truth.
I've had this happen before. Most notably was during my semester in Spain. Our whole group was in Granada for the weekend, and they took us to a traditional flamenco dance hall. When I say 'traditional.' I mean that it built into a rock face. No windows, one door, and small rooms. Part way through the dance performance, I started panicking. There were lots of people packed into the room, it was getting warm, the stomping and castanets were echoing everywhere, and I just couldn't handle it anymore. I had to get out of there before I made a scene.
This anxiety disorder of mine rears its ugly head like this from time to time. It's not nearly as prevalent in my life as my depression is. I don't experience it every day or think about it every day the way I do with depression. Depression and anxiety often go hand-in-hand and they feed each other. I am fortunate enough that mine seems to be pretty mild and occasional. Some people, though, feel like I did every single day. They live in continual fear of having a panic attack and falling apart in front of other people.
Anxiety disorders are more common than you might think. Recent surveys show that about 1 in 4 people experience clinical anxiety at some point in their lives. That number is higher in college students and in people with co-occurring physical or mental health conditions. That's a lot of people, wouldn't you say?
Probably the most frustrating thing to me about anxiety is that, like depression, it doesn't make sense. I love my church, I love the people who go there, I would be comfortable talking to anyone there. I even feel comfortable getting up in front of church to play music or speak for 15 minutes about a mission trip I took recently. That doesn't faze me in the slightest, though you would think it would, if I have a tendency to feel anxious. But just sitting in church and listening to a sermon makes me feel like I can't breathe and like I need to escape to an empty area? What's up with that?
I don't have a logical answer. There's a biological answer, though - people with anxiety disorders have an overactive nervous system. Your body perceives a threat, and the system activates the processes that cause you to focus and get ready to respond to the threat. Most of the time, though, the threat is minimal (the full fight-or-flight reaction is not necessary to respond to the threat) or there's not a threat at all. But your body thinks there's something to be threatened by, and it all goes from there.
It's this illogic that makes it hard for other people to understand anxiety, I think. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't understand it if I hadn't experienced it before, even with my education and training as a counselor. People can say, "You're fine, there's nothing to be afraid of here, you know everyone here, the door is right there, why are you panicking?" But it doesn't work that way. I could have said all of those things to myself this morning in church, but it doesn't make me panic less. It's just something that I have to sit in and endure.
Chances are good that, if there are more than 3 people in your life, you know someone with anxiety. It could range anywhere from mild to severe. OCD, PTSD, and agoraphobia are all anxiety disorders. Please don't discount or minimize their experience. It's very real for them, and that's what matters. I'm lucky to have people in my life that understand me and let me be who I am, but that's not true for everyone. Please don't tell someone with anxiety to calm down, or to think positively, or to try doing something to distract themselves. They've probably already tried these things and they probably just need someone to sit with them and ride the anxiety with them. Speaking from experience, that simple presence is more helpful than hearing advice or subtle reminders that there's something wrong with me.
I embrace my church and I embrace my anxiety. Both are part of my life and taking either of them away would leave me somehow incomplete.
I get anxiety in that church.
Usually it's pretty manageable. I have this homemade stress ball (a balloon filled with flour) that I can play with when I'm feeling fidgety or easily distracted. It helps me focus. My parents usually let me sit on the end of the aisle instead of in the middle, and that helps too. I don't feel so closed in that way.
In the past, I've had times where I had to leave the sanctuary and listen to the sermon from the narthex, where I'm not surrounded by people. I had to do that today because focusing on my stress balloon wasn't cutting it. I was sitting in my seat, Pastor Phil had just started his sermon, and I felt like I couldn't breathe properly. I tried to take deep breaths, but I couldn't make my lungs work. My hands were trembling, even with the balloon to hold. I felt like there was a small child sitting on my chest. My stomach was twisting. I felt warmer than usual. Then I felt colder than usual. Then I went back to feeling too warm.
This my friends, is a minor anxiety attack.
I stayed in church as long as I could, trying to ride it out, thinking that I could just sit tight and wait for it to end. It didn't, and I had to leave. There are these super comfortable chairs in the narthex and I went to sit on one of those. It took at least twenty minutes for me to feel normal and calm again. At one point, one of my students came down from the balcony and passed by me. She asked in a joking sort of way, "Hey Andrea, whatcha doin'?" I replied in a similarly joking sort of way, "Oh ya know, just hanging out!" I do that a lot - I reach for a flip one-liner before my mouth says the truth.
I've had this happen before. Most notably was during my semester in Spain. Our whole group was in Granada for the weekend, and they took us to a traditional flamenco dance hall. When I say 'traditional.' I mean that it built into a rock face. No windows, one door, and small rooms. Part way through the dance performance, I started panicking. There were lots of people packed into the room, it was getting warm, the stomping and castanets were echoing everywhere, and I just couldn't handle it anymore. I had to get out of there before I made a scene.
This anxiety disorder of mine rears its ugly head like this from time to time. It's not nearly as prevalent in my life as my depression is. I don't experience it every day or think about it every day the way I do with depression. Depression and anxiety often go hand-in-hand and they feed each other. I am fortunate enough that mine seems to be pretty mild and occasional. Some people, though, feel like I did every single day. They live in continual fear of having a panic attack and falling apart in front of other people.
Anxiety disorders are more common than you might think. Recent surveys show that about 1 in 4 people experience clinical anxiety at some point in their lives. That number is higher in college students and in people with co-occurring physical or mental health conditions. That's a lot of people, wouldn't you say?
Probably the most frustrating thing to me about anxiety is that, like depression, it doesn't make sense. I love my church, I love the people who go there, I would be comfortable talking to anyone there. I even feel comfortable getting up in front of church to play music or speak for 15 minutes about a mission trip I took recently. That doesn't faze me in the slightest, though you would think it would, if I have a tendency to feel anxious. But just sitting in church and listening to a sermon makes me feel like I can't breathe and like I need to escape to an empty area? What's up with that?
I don't have a logical answer. There's a biological answer, though - people with anxiety disorders have an overactive nervous system. Your body perceives a threat, and the system activates the processes that cause you to focus and get ready to respond to the threat. Most of the time, though, the threat is minimal (the full fight-or-flight reaction is not necessary to respond to the threat) or there's not a threat at all. But your body thinks there's something to be threatened by, and it all goes from there.
It's this illogic that makes it hard for other people to understand anxiety, I think. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't understand it if I hadn't experienced it before, even with my education and training as a counselor. People can say, "You're fine, there's nothing to be afraid of here, you know everyone here, the door is right there, why are you panicking?" But it doesn't work that way. I could have said all of those things to myself this morning in church, but it doesn't make me panic less. It's just something that I have to sit in and endure.
Chances are good that, if there are more than 3 people in your life, you know someone with anxiety. It could range anywhere from mild to severe. OCD, PTSD, and agoraphobia are all anxiety disorders. Please don't discount or minimize their experience. It's very real for them, and that's what matters. I'm lucky to have people in my life that understand me and let me be who I am, but that's not true for everyone. Please don't tell someone with anxiety to calm down, or to think positively, or to try doing something to distract themselves. They've probably already tried these things and they probably just need someone to sit with them and ride the anxiety with them. Speaking from experience, that simple presence is more helpful than hearing advice or subtle reminders that there's something wrong with me.
I embrace my church and I embrace my anxiety. Both are part of my life and taking either of them away would leave me somehow incomplete.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Andrea Tries: Online Dating - Match.com
Back in October, shortly after my 25th birthday, I bit the bullet (where did this expression come from, anyway? I would think biting a bullet would just cause a toothache) and decided to give online dating a real effort. I say "real effort" because I already had free profiles on a few different sites, but realized pretty quickly that you can't really DO anything with them if you don't pay. You can send "winks" and "smiles" and maybe search users for free, but you can't actually TALK to them without paying the membership. After some research and survey of a handful of popular sites, I narrowed it down to Match and eHarmony. I knew personally a few couples who had gotten married after meeting their spouse on one of these two sites, so I figured they would be good finalists. The final step was to crunch the numbers - which site was going to cost me less? After all, I am a fiscally responsible young adult (read: poor grad student), so I wanted to make sure that I would get the most out of my hard-earned money.
While this conversation had great comedic value when I posted it to Facebook, I was dying a little bit inside. I kept coming around to those feelings of sadness and frustration and hopelessness. I couldn't help feeling like I'd failed at this. Yeah, it didn't work out with Barry, but there was sure to be someone else, right? Except there wasn't someone else. Barry was the first date I'd had in years, the first guy to show any interest in me. I couldn't help taking that personally and feeling like it was my fault.
I settled on Match.com - $20/month for 6 months. It ended up being the same monthly price as eHarmony, but eH was going to make me pay for 12 months instead of only six. That's the other WONDERFUL thing about online dating sites. If you want to pay the least, you have to pay for at least six months upfront. A month to month plan costs upward of 60 bucks a month! No thanks. The other thing that attracted me to Match was their "6 Month Guarantee." Basically, if you paid for 6 months, kept a visible profile and picture, and emailed at least 5 different guys per month, they would give you an additional 6 months free if you didn't find your "Special Someone" in the first six months. I figured, worst-case scenario would be that I could think of it as $10/month if I didn't find someone; best-case scenario would be that I find my person and the $120 will be a distant memory in my financial landscape.
The first couple of months with Match were great. They send you between 8 and 11 Daily Matches based on your preferences (mine were Christian, Never Married, No Kids, Non-Smoker, and at least an associate's degree). I figured this was pretty reasonable - I wasn't stipulating only white guys, or only athletic and toned guys, or only guys with blonde hair, etc. They ask you to "rate" your Daily Matches, i.e. you click the check mark if you're interested in the person's profile or the X if you're not. Then, about 24 hours after you finish a round of Daily Matches, they'll send you another set.
Since I was really committed to this online dating venture, I rated my Daily Matches almost every day. About 75% of the time, I would X all of them. Either I was being extremely picky, or the matches were just bad. I was looking not only for a Christian guy, but a guy who mentioned something about his faith in the Biography section of his profile. I didn't want someone who just checked a box. So many of my matches mentioned nothing about their faith in their biography, and I would X them.
Around January, I started to notice that the number and quality of my matches was declining. I would get matches without any pictures or no profile information boxes filled in or matches that didn't meet even my basic preferences. Was I seriously getting to the end of the possible matches and now the system was just grasping at any guys that remotely fit what I was looking for? The claimed the system "gets smarter" with each match you rate, but I was unconvinced.
Logging into Match was sometimes the best and worst thing in my day. Initially, I would feel excited about the prospect of new matches to click through. About halfway through, my excitement would wane and give way to frustration, especially if I had Xed all of them so far. After the last X (and I always Xed the last one or two because they were those dud profiles with no picture or profile info), I felt dejection. Another day without finding someone. The optimists would say "Another day weeding out the wrong ones will bring you to the right one!" I tended to think on the more pessimistic side - another day, another set of matches behind me, hurtling toward the bottom of the barrel. I mean, there had to be a finite number of matches meeting my preferences, right? I was sure to meet that end sooner or later.
To remain eligible for the 6 month guarantee, I had to email at least 5 people every month. To this point I had emailed at least 20 different guys - probably more, since I tended to email anyone that interested me. Let's estimate that I had made contact with 25 people. Of those 25, one emailed me back to say he wasn't interested, and another one emailed back a couple of times, perhaps to be polite, then simply stopped replying.
The rest didn't reply at all.
Again, the optimist would say that those guys were jerks and to not waste any more time worrying about it. But this is me. I took it pretty hard. I couldn't stop wondering why I wasn't getting replies from these people that I thought I matched well with. Was there something wrong with me? Did they not like the way I looked? Was this always going to happen to me, no matter what site I used?
Around this time, I got a 3-Month Satisfaction Survey from the site, and they got an earful from me. I admit, I wasn't entirely objective, as I had just finished Xing eleven matches and getting no emails. When I came to the last question, "How likely would you be to recommend Match to a friend?" I said "Not likely at all" and explained that I was frustrated with the system sending me matches outside my preferences, not getting emails, etc. It turns out that the way to get free stuff from these sites is to say you wouldn't recommend them! The following day, I got an email saying that I had been upgraded for free to a membership that included Email Read Notifications (normally $3.99 a month). When I clicked through to my sent emails, I would be able to see if the email I sent had been opened or not. This was GREAT - at least half of the ones I had sent weren't even opened, which meant I could reasonably assume that those guys didn't have memberships and couldn't open the emails. The ones who had read and hadn't replied, well piss off. Forget you.
I was a bit more encouraged about Match after that upgrade because I could see that it wasn't necessarily my fault that I wasn't getting emails. I did get a handful of "winks" and profile likes and an email or two from guys that were way outside my preferences, but I was not exactly encouraged by this. For a humorous look at some of these men, read this post.
One day, one of my matches caught my eye because I recognized a very familiar college campus in his photo. I emailed him, asking "is that Calvin College in the background of your photo? I went there too!" I probably wouldn't have made contact with him otherwise, since his profile didn't mention anything about his faith. But, I figured, what could be safer than a Calvin guy?
He emailed back, and we corresponded for a week or so before he asked me for a date. I was OVER THE MOON. And also terrified. I hadn't been on a date in six years. And I had NEVER done this casual dating first date thing. The two guys I had gone out with previously started first as friends and then morphed into a romantic relationship. I was excited to meet this guy, but so scared that I was going to screw it up somehow, that he wouldn't like me once he saw me in person, that he would change his mind and not want to see me again.
Everyone tried to convince me that it would be okay, that I would charm him, I had so much to offer, etc. My therapist talked me down, so to speak, one afternoon in her office. I was so keyed up and fidgety and I talked about the prospect of that date for the entire session. By the way, it was still NINE DAYS AWAY. If you didn't know this about me already, this should illustrate to you that I get wildly anxious about things like this.
For the sake of this story, let's call this guy Barry. The day of the date with Barry came, and I was feeling reasonably calm. Still nervous, of course, but nothing like it had been previously. He had asked me to a coffee place, and I made explicitly sure that this would be a date, rather than two acquaintances meeting for the first time. He said it was a date, and that he loved that I asked that. Good sign.
I arrived to the coffee place and he was already there, so I went to where he was sitting and introduced myself, even though he probably had a decent idea of who I was already. He got up out of his booth and walked with me to the counter to place our orders. He went first, and paid for his, and then went to sit back down. I was a bit thrown, thinking that if this was truly a date, he would have waited for me to place an order before paying, right? That's usually how dates work, right? I shook it off and ordered my coffee, and went back to the booth and sat down. We chit-chatted about shared interests, our jobs, and memories of Calvin. He was a speech therapist, which automatically meant he had a master's degree, which I loved. Since he went to Calvin, we had a few mutual acquaintances, so we talked about those for a little while too. I felt nervous the whole time I was there, but I tried my best to act confident and at ease. I thought the date was going reasonably well. A little awkward, since this was only our first time meeting face-to-face, but going well nonetheless.
After he finished his tea, and we came to a small lull in our discussion of favorite television shows, he said, "Well, this was fun. It was nice to meet you." Then he made a move to get out of the booth, and gather his tea cup and trash. I was once again thrown by this abrupt change, but I followed his lead, gathering my things and sliding out of the booth. He came back and said, "Have a good weekend!" I responded with a similar sentiment, and he turned toward the back door, where he said his car was parked. I turned toward the front door and walked toward my car.
I got in, turned the key in the ignition, and saw that the clock read 7:54. That "date" lasted a grand total of 54 minutes. As I drove home, I went over and over the date in my mind, trying to figure out exactly what had just happened. That didn't feel like a successful date. 1) He didn't pay for my coffee, which came to a grand total of $3.17. 2) He ended it abruptly after less than an hour. 3) He didn't ask for my phone number or even my last name to find me on Facebook. 4) He didn't express anything to the effect of seeing me again, no "Let's do this again sometime" or "When can I see you again?" On the highway, I realized that we hadn't played Banangrams - he had told me earlier in the week that he would bring Bananagrams and we could match wits and vocabularies at the coffee place. On the bright side, this was a reason to email him, which I did shortly after getting home. I said, "We didn't play bananagrams! What happened to that?"
His reply was, "You're right!"
Relationship time of death: 9:36 pm.
I cannot express to you how devastated I was by this. Deepest down, I believed that the date would ultimately go well, despite what my anxiety and depression were telling me. Well, it didn't go well. To this day, I never emailed him back to find out why we didn't hit it off in person when things seemed to be going so well through email. Mostly, I'm afraid of what I'll hear. I try to avoid situations in which I actively seek bad news.
I returned the next day to Match, determined to keep trying. I was getting fewer and fewer matches, and almost all of them were duds. After 2 straight days of receiving no new Daily Matches, I got on the chat line with a customer service rep. Here is an abridged transcript of our conversation:
Me: Hello. Can you tell me why I have been receiving only 2 or 3 matches every 48 hours instead of 8+ every day, which is what your website promises? Also, why do the majority of my matches have no picture and no profile information boxes filled out? Is there a way that a someone can screen these profiles so they don't make it to me and waste my time?
CS Rep: Please remain on the line while I look further into your inquiry.
Me: Okay, thank you.
(a few minutes later)
CS Rep: Please remain on the line while I look further into your inquiry.
Me: Okay, thank you.
(a few minutes later)
CS Rep: I think I have the information you are looking for.
Me: Awesome. Hit me.
CS Rep: According to our records and your usage history, we have sent
every Match.com member that matches your compatibility criteria and you have rated each one. But don't worry! More people are joining Match every week!
Me: Are you saying that there are no other Christian men who have never been married and don't have kids who are located within 250 miles of my zip code on your site? I made it through all of them in only 4 months?
CS Rep: I cannot say for sure, but it looks that way, yes.
Me: I would like to request a partial refund.
CS Rep: I cannot do that because it is against company policy. However, I can deactivate the auto-renew feature so that you do not get billed for additional months on Match.com.
Me: Good enough.
CS Rep: I'm glad I can help. I'm sorry to hear that you have been frustrated by this. Would you say that you have been satisfied with your Match.com experience?
Me: What do you think?
CS Rep: I'm afraid I do not understand your question. Could you be more specific?
Me: Awesome. Hit me.
CS Rep: According to our records and your usage history, we have sent
every Match.com member that matches your compatibility criteria and you have rated each one. But don't worry! More people are joining Match every week!
Me: Are you saying that there are no other Christian men who have never been married and don't have kids who are located within 250 miles of my zip code on your site? I made it through all of them in only 4 months?
CS Rep: I cannot say for sure, but it looks that way, yes.
Me: I would like to request a partial refund.
CS Rep: I cannot do that because it is against company policy. However, I can deactivate the auto-renew feature so that you do not get billed for additional months on Match.com.
Me: Good enough.
CS Rep: I'm glad I can help. I'm sorry to hear that you have been frustrated by this. Would you say that you have been satisfied with your Match.com experience?
Me: What do you think?
CS Rep: I'm afraid I do not understand your question. Could you be more specific?
Now, before we get too mired in sadness, this story does have a good ending. In my frustration and sadness and tears over my Match experience, I made the snap decision to leave Match behind and subscribe to eHarmony, starting immediately. I had always told myself that I would wait out the year with Match before switching to another site if it didn't work out, since I had already paid for Match and wanted to make the most of my money. However, emotional mind took over and I decided I wasn't going to waste any more time on this site that had nothing more to offer me.
Luckily for me, eHarmony had a pre-Valentine's Day special offer going, $9.99/month for 12 months. This was half of the price I saw several months ago, so I figured, why not go for it? Valentine's Day itself sucked this year, but at least I got a deal on online dating out of it.
I'm only a few weeks into eH, so I can't give it an objective review yet, but I'm more optimistic about this site than Match. For one thing, almost all of the matches I get have mentioned something about how their faith is important to them or how they're looking for someone who takes her faith seriously. Quite a few of them also have political views that are very different from my own, which is unfortunate, but like I said, I remain optimistic. It's possible to put aside political differences, but I am not willing to put aside differences in faith.
Thank you for reading this incredibly long post. If you have experiences with online dating that you'd like to share in the comments below, I'd love to hear it. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)