Nature Vs. Culture: How Media Stereotypes Have Kept Women Out of Combat

Photo caption: U.S. Navy Operations Specialist 1st Class Megan Garcia. Image thanks to Flickr user isafmedia.

In 1994, women were officially banned from United States military combat when the Department of Justice implemented a government sanctioned glass ceiling called the ground combat exclusion policy. The policy stated that “Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.” This effectively excluded women from some 238,000 jobs within the armed forces, prevented meaning advancement, and, most destructively, contributed to gender-biased cultural constructs with its effect on the media.

Stories of male bravery abound as they have for centuries. In the past decade we have witnessed tremendous national tragedy, much in the form of dead soldiers returning home to be buried in American soil. The majority of the fallen have been men. According to The Washington Post, as of February 8, 2013, 6,483 U.S. service members have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Only 146 of them have been female. It might seem nice to be kept out of harm’s way, but it perpetuates a media image, and thus a cultural norm, of men as strong and brave and women as weak and timid, of men in leading roles and women in supporting ones.
If people were thoughtful and informed, it would counteract some of the cultural consequences. But for the most part, we aren’t. We don’t ask why more women don’t die in war. We don’t question whether it has to do with possible sexism embedded in every level of the process from recruitment to deployment. We just see men dying for our country, never see women dying for our country, and incorporate this information into our cultural understanding of gender, gender characteristics, and gender roles.

There are still many arguments made in support of the ground combat exclusion policy (despite the fact that women have unofficially been fighting in combat for years). Notably, that women are physically and emotionally weaker than men and that they are needed to do certain jobs, supporting jobs, like nursing and building schools. One of the most strongly advocated arguments in favor of the exclusion policy is that men have no self-control. Apparently their evolutionary drives to protect and impregnate women overpower their own free will, making women nothing more than a distraction to our mostly male military force. The argument that men have no impulse control and thus should have the exclusive right to jobs that, because of their deadly consequences, require acute abilities in quick assessment and constraint, is an interesting one. One would think this humiliating claim of infant-level discipline would do more harm to men than women, but instead it has allowed men to prosper, to build an infrastructure of support and advancement, while repressing women, in one of the largest and most important and respected employers in the United States.

The idea that self control is affected by gender is logically ridiculous, but culturally not so. In the recent New York Times article, “Darwin Was Wrong About Dating,” the theory that gender-specific sexual stereotypes have developed due to evolution is challenged. Rather, Dan Slater argues, our sexual stereotypes have evolved due to cultural norms. Slater presents research that shows that our ideas of gender-specific differences, at least when it comes to sexuality, are almost non-existent when controlling for cultural norms. We see cultural norms played out for us everyday in the media. Research of men in the media, from children’s programming to prime-time TV, has found them to be portrayed as confident, powerful, unafraid, competent, emotionless and ‘“engaged in exciting activities from which they receive rewards from others for their ‘masculine’ accomplishments,’”’ (Wood, 1994, p. 32). Additionally, men dominate the airwaves and control our media content.

This argument between evolutionary and sociocultural development matters because it goes to the heart of the gender conflict. Does our gender make us incapable of learning and executing a skill as well as the other gender? Are men, by virtue of being men, incapable of learning and executing self-control? Are women, by virtue of being women, incapable of learning and executing precise combat activity?

As Slater writes in his article, “This wouldn’t be the first time we’ve pushed these [evolutionary] theories too far. How many stereotypical racial and ethnic differences, once declared evolutionarily determined under the banner of science, have been revealed instead as vestiges of power dynamics from earlier societies?” I hope that with the lifting of the ground combat exclusion policy we are able to dismiss this government sanctioned sexism as a misled idea from an “earlier time.” A time when we gave both men and women much less credit than they deserve. If the government doesn’t see women as equal, why should their communities, their bosses, or their husbands? In fact, if the government doesn’t see women as equally capable, why should they see themselves as such? Let’s not forget that women make up more than half of this country and vote more than men do. They are pronounced in their patriotism and their investment in this nation, and if they want to fight for this country, and die for this country, they will learn how and execute.

References:
Wood, J. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Belmont, CA.

Women in Politics Matters

Image from flickr user marcn

This is from a recent speech I gave at the Capital Speaker Club, an international group of women from diverse professional, social and cultural backgrounds communicating ideas.

I grew up in Oakland, California, and growing up in a city with so many problems filled me with a drive to learn how to improve communities.

My education at American University and Georgetown University has allowed me to study the impact that communications can have on people and communities. I believe in the power of technology to connect people with one another and to connect the public with their government, and at Georgetown I am focusing on how to implement creative uses of technology in local, state, and federal governments that facilitate the engagement of people in government, policy development, and democracy.

My appreciation for public speaking really developed when I was the Program Coordinator at The Commonwealth Club of California. I produced speaking events for the public with thought leaders from around the globe, and was able to see first hand the impressive public speaking skills of women like Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright. And these experiences piqued my interest in women in politics.

This interest has deepened with my current work at both the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement and the National Political Science Honor Society. I am learning about some of the unique challenges that women face, and the need for these challenges to be addressed by more women entering into politics.

The fact is that politics in this country is dominated by men, and the policy decisions that come out of our government often times reflect this. When we talk about women in politics we speak of numbers like 16 percent of congress, 17 percent of mayors of cities with a population of over 30,000, a number that drop to 12 percent of mayors when we look at the top 100 most populated cities in the country, 6 female governors and only 6 executive positions in the current administration are held by women (according to the Center for American Women in Politics). These numbers really are astonishing, especially when you take into consideration that the latest US Census put women at over 50 percent of the population.

When women are elected we really do make a difference. Many of the policies in place today, especially the ones that affect the daily lives of women, exist because a woman was in the room when the important decisions were being made.

I know that the theme of the day is A Great World Out There. I wish that more women would believe in their ability to affect change in this great world through political means. There are many things that hold women back from running for office, but one of them most certainly is the struggle that many have with public speaking. I believe that public speaking ability will make or break the honest and passionate attempts of women who are running for public office. By focusing on the public communication skills of women, the Capital Speakers Club is helping to pave the path for more women to run for and win public office.

With my education I hope to use technology to get the public more engaged in government and policy development in order to strengthen and reconnect communities. I also want to help shape policy that is more sensitive to the unique needs of women by helping to support the growth of women in politics.

Why Oakland Doesn't Need An Activist Mayor

Wikimedia Commons, photograph by Wikimedia user Miskatonic
Lake Merrit Oakland California looking west at the Tribune Building

Oakland is a great city with tremendous potential. The  parks are glorious, the views are to die for, the restaurants are renowned and the local food movement is a model for the nation, the creative expression through art, dance and theater is spectacular and the people are hard working, kind and community oriented. The things that Oakland could accomplish if the stars aligned would be truly awesome. Unfortunately, Oakland's leadership fails to shine again and again.

Mayor Quan's actions in recent days demonstrate that her loyalties simply do not lie first and foremost with the City of Oakland, but rather with the activist community. And while she has every right to champion the causes of the activist community as an unelected official, she should not have the right to do so as Mayor of Oakland. Many times the wants of the activists and the needs of the city conflict and she should not question where her allegiances lie in such instances.

Case in point, yesterday, Mayor Quan condoned a protest aimed at boycotting local businesses and shutting down the Port of Oakland, one of Oakland's largest revenue and employment sources, by giving government employees permission to participate. The Port of Oakland is self-funded. It receives no tax money from the city and in return provides the city with millions in tax revenue and about 50,000 jobs. I truly hope that today, the Occupy Oakland protesters do not take their anger with Wall Street and Mayor Quan out on the city itself.

I am tired of Oakland's perception being one of a rage-against-the-machine populace clashing against a highly aggressive police force. Most people in Oakland are like most people all over this country, hard working men and women who do the best they can to act as responsible humans and citizens and would like to see their government do the same. And most Oakland police officers are respectful and caring and should be honored for their durable commitment to an ever losing battle, made so by the city's shamefully poor public education system, shamefully high unemployment rate and tremendous economic woes.

These are the issues that should be the focus of Mayor Quan's daily fight, but instead her fight is too broad and overreaching while her focus is on building her image as a leader in the activist community. I don't care about her history in activism. I could take it or leave it. But her job does not include taking on the troubles of a nation. Her job is hard enough taking on the troubles of the eighth largest city in the state of California. A city I was born and raised in. A city that is filled with delicate eucalyptus trees and hills that turn to mountains of gold in the summertime. And a city that is crumbling all around her while she tries to defend her place in the activism world. After the botched raid on the Occupy protesters, her way of saving face was to claim ignorance of the police's tactical plan and then absolve herself by explaining that she wasn't even in town when it all happened. How totally lame.

Now she is trying to climb back into favor with the activist community by allowing the Occupy protesters to rebuild their encampment in front of City Hall. If they were not creating unsafe and unsanitary conditions then why did she say they were? And if they are, why is she letting them stay? Not to mention that the city's $76 million deficit grew a million dollars deeper after the police raid and city clean up of Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, which seems to have all been done in vain. And for tomorrow's protest, "The Oakland Unified School District plans to pay about $40,000 for at least 270 substitute teachers to cover classes for those joining Wednesday’s strike." For all of its problems, Oakland's lake still shimmers at night, lit with bright, yellow bulbs and reflections of the moon. Its Mormon temple radiates so brightly from atop the mountain that it can be seen for miles.

This city has so much to offer and deserves more respect than crippling deficits, terrible community-police relations and a mayor who seems to bumble about without a clue as to what really matters. What might matter the most is the involvement of Oakland's wealthy community, which could provide the capital for many enhancements that the city desperately needs. However, Mayor Quan's perception of what it means to be a good activist has led to the ostracization of many of the more wealthy people who had vested interests in the city.

Instead of proving all the machine ragers wrong, she is raging with them, trying to separate herself from the machine. What she should be doing is showing us how the system can be wonderful, how the system can help people, how the machine can work nonstop to educate our kids, safeguard our neighborhoods and put our adults to work. How it can foster creativity and innovation while also providing us with social safety nets. If she wants to participate in the Occupy movement she is welcome to do so as an unelected official. But until then, she needs to hang up her activism hat.

When I close my eyes and imagine my city I see it alive and sparkling from atop Grizzly Peak, the silver lights on the Bay Bridge like icing on the outer edges of a wedding cake, their reflection on the smooth, dark, luxurious bay below. And yet when I tell people I am from Oakland they ask me how many drive by shootings I have witnessed. By the way, the answer to that question is zero. I want this outsider perception to change. I want a mayor who will be dedicated to the image of the city more than her own. Whose advocating will be for the city, and nothing else. When the world thinks of Oakland, I want people to see the sparkling lights!

Propaganda, Persuasion and Politics

Image thanks to Flikr user ctj71081

I have recently been studying two influencing tactics: persuasion and propaganda. In the text, persuasion is defined as a method to change opinion or behavior that does not use lies or try to hide alternative points of view. The basic principle of persuasion being an argument buttressed by righteousness or superior logic. Propaganda, on the other hand, is attempting to alter behavior or attitude with no concern for the truth and by concealing facts or opposing viewpoints.

When reading about these tactics my mind went straight to politicians and I struggled over which category to put them in. Do they lie to us? I think they do. But do they conceal opposing points of view? No, I don't think so, but only because they really can't. If they could conceal opposing viewpoints I think that many would. Do they argue their opinions because they think their opinions are morally or logically superior? Or because they know that is what we, their constituents, need to hear to give them our vote? This I just don't know. Sometimes, with some politicians, I believe that their honor is important to them, and that they are personally loyal to the ideas that they publicly throw forth. But with others I sense two-faced aggrandizers, who preach one thing while in privacy practice quite another.

It is a funny thing, trying to decipher the subtle difference between such an incredibly important distinction. Is someone trying to teach me or deceive me?

We all know the argument that many politicians convince themselves of, that the ends justify the means, that they will do such great things for the American people once they are elected that how they are elected is not the most important thing.

But it is. Because the most important characteristic of any politician is a fundamental respect for the people, for their right to make decisions based on accurate information, even if they come to regret those decisions later on. It is no politician's job to save the American people from themselves. Any attempting to do so shows a disrespect of individual rights, the right to make decisions for ones own life as one sees fit and the right to make mistakes in the process.

Making good decisions and bad decisions, apologizing and forgiving, regretting and rejoicing are what make up the process of life and the process of politics. It is ever moving. It is ever changing. Always searching for that satisfying equilibrium. And the more propaganda that is used the more the voters are forced to vote based on inaccurate and incomplete information. And the ebb and flow of success from our political system will become more tumultuous, floating us further off balance.

Fundamentally, our political system attempts to afford us a process by which we can elect a spokesperson based on how their opinions line up with our own. But if politicians are dishonest about their real beliefs, we end up losing the ability to accurately represent ourselves in our own government. And that is the most worrisome part about not being able to tell propaganda from persuasion.

Hear My Drumbeat

Photo credit: El grito- Scream by Dani_vr, on Flickr

Nancy Pelosi said recently that “We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women...We have to create a drumbeat across America.”

I agree. And as her constituent I am angry that she is not doing more.

I have not always considered myself a moderate, but my eyes were opened in college. In college I learned that Republicans’ points of view are valid, even if I disagree with them, which I usually do. I learned that political discourse should not be shied away from but embraced. That talking about politics, getting heated over politics, is invigorating, fascinating and by all means a very important discussion for people in this country to have. And on top of that I learned that those who cannot argue about politics and still be friends are childish and petty. Agreeing to disagree is not only for saints, humans are quite capable of this too. Almost all of the ones I choose to associate myself with are, so it can’t be that hard for everyone else.

But now I understand more than ever that people do have a compromise breaking point, an issue on which you have to draw the line because the other side makes no sense and compromising seems, frankly, offensive. I draw my line at women’s health rights. And what I see happening in this country is indeed a war on women, as Pelosi stated. Women’s health rights are being targeted and attacked. I am not just talking about abortion. I understand that is a complicated issue. I am talking about things such as access to cervical cancer screenings and birth control for the uninsured and low-income women in our country, of which there are too many.

As I watch this situation unfold I am unnerved and angry. I see it spreading like wildfire. From one state to the next. Using abortion as the front-of-the-house issue, while behind almost closed doors our other health rights are being dismantled. And the very thing that the women of history fought so hard for comes close to crashing down. That thing is control. Without control over our reproduction we cannot plan, and when we are not able to plan we lose everything. If we cannot plan our own pregnancies, it becomes incredibly hard to attend universities like we are now so lucky to be able to do. It becomes almost impossible to work our way up to President and CEO like we are now able to do. In essence, without the ability to control our family planning, we can no longer climb the social ladder that we have worked so hard to climb and we fall all the way down once again. We lose our rights, our independence and our dignity. 

We cannot let this happen.

We should have the right to be able to control our own reproduction and to be able to protect ourselves from life-threatening health problems. Of course we should. And right now we more or less do. But these rights are being chipped away at. Making blanket statements about the need to defund Planned Parenthood, drop birth control from health insurance and illegalize abortions nationwide is ridiculous. Because we do these things at an epic cost, which so many in government seem not to understand. The cost is that of our historic struggle, our current status and our future health, happiness and even our lives.

Pelosi should be doing more. No one I talked to knew that she had called for a national movement. Why? Because she made her statement during a Feminist Majority Foundation gathering rather than on the national news or The Daily Show. I want to scream! Where are you Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Lee? Barbara Boxer? Dianne Feinstein? Where in the hell are you?

You should be holding press conferences and writing articles and going on talk shows. Whatever you have to do to get this drumbeat started. This is about more than money and politics. This is about health and life and our right, as women, to have control over our own. Why are you, my elected liberal officials, not speaking up? You are from what could be the most liberal area of the country. You don’t risk being voted out of office if you do, so you should be leading the charge.

YOU actually have the power to spread this beat across the country.

And me writing this blog is unlikely to have the same effect. But I'm going to give it my all and see what happens.

I’m not Pelosi or Lee or Boxer or Feinstein and neither are you. But since they seem unwilling to do their job, it's up to us

Spread the word. Do what you can to add to the beat. I hope that soon we are all dancing atop the failings of the attempt to destroy women's health rights. Let's give Boehner something real to cry about.

This blog is my drumbeat. I hope the beat catches on.

Come Back to the U.S. – We Weren’t Shooting at You

Dave Barry makes me laugh so hard that I usually grab a paper bag and a box of tissues when I read his work, to prepare myself for the hyperventilating-crying fit that is inevitable. And when he pitched this slogan for his fine and classy city of Miami, "Come Back to Miami. – We Weren’t Shooting at You," it was hilarious. "Hahaha, that should be our slogan for Oakland!" I thought.

Now it seems less funny.

At this point, why assign it to just a city when it is a tragically accurate slogan for the current state of our entire country.

Signs should be posted at all of our border check points and international airport terminals: "Come Back to the U.S. – We Weren’t Shooting at You."

Since Gabrielle Gifford's "Congress on Your Corner" gundown, I have had to read about an accidental shooting at a Los Angeles High School where a student's gun, resting oh-so-safely in his backpack, went off during class, hitting a male student in the neck and a female student in the head. And a man in Philadelphia who shot his "friend" in the chest for eating some of his cake.

On July 18, 2010 I sat in my apartment in downtown Oakland and listened to Byron Williams, outfitted with a bulletproof vest and a carload of guns, open fire on the California Highway Patrol. Williams, inspired by the motivational teachings of Glenn Beck, was on his way to gun down the San Francisco ACLU and the Tides Foundation, which was prevented only because he was driving erratically on I-580. The rest of Oakland's summer was rife with racial tension due to the before, during, and aftermath of the Johannes Mehserle trial, where a young, white BART cop shot and killed a young, black BART rider named Oscar Grant. The protests, mobs and riots continued on through the rest of the year.

Can anything take place that is outrageous enough to entice stricter gun laws in our country?

It seems not, as too many people have the opposite reaction than I do. How it is that an increase in gun violence can motivate so many people to want more guns has to be the most confusing part. After the Gifford tragedy, the owner of an Arizona gun shop reported a stampede - stampede! - of new customers. The sickest thing of all being that the number one seller during this spike in gun purchases was the exact model used by Jared Lee Loughnerin against Gifford and so many others only days before. This increase in gun sales was seen across the nation.

And yesterday was the icing on the cake. On January 5, 2011, a 17-year-old Omaha, Nebraska student shot and killed an assistant principal of his high school, shot and wounded a principal and than shot and killed himself. Yesterday's response? A Nebraska lawmaker wants to pass a law making it legal for teachers to be able to carry concealed guns in school.

As amazing and thoughtful of a solution as this sounds, somehow it seems a better idea to rid schools of guns, not pack schools full of them.

It is obvious that our country has gone mad. So can't we just plead insanity? If we did, none of us would be able to "possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition", according to the National Rifle Association's website. "Mental defectives or incompetents" is one of the eleven, yes, only eleven, criteria that prevents you from running out and getting a gun today! Check that, a legal gun. Actually, check all that, Loughner was rejected from the military for having admitted to unlawful drug use, which should have prevented him from purchasing a gun, and he purchased a gun anyway. The bottom line is it is easier to buy a gun than a car. Or you can just buy a Hummer and get an AK47 voucher thrown in as a bonus prize!

I read these stories and I feel sad, but they don't make me feel scared. But being scared seems to be the immediate reaction of a lot of Americans. It really does seem to me that there is something to the study showing that conservatives have a tenancy to be more neurologically prone to fear than liberals.

Maybe if I really believed I would walk outside and be shot dead, I would want a gun with me at all times. But I don't believe that. And there may lie the fundamental difference. But can we really be an entire country, of roughly 3 million people, ruled completely by fear? That seems like a horrible way to live and a horrible place from which to make the serious national and international decisions that we must make as one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Finding My Religion

Growing up I never gave religion any thought. My first memory of anything having to do with religion involved having a nightmare at about the age of 12. All I knew was that there was this lady named Mary who had become pregnant without ever having sex. I woke up one night in a panic, having dreamed that I had become pregnant, through no fault of my own, and while I begged for people to believe that I wasn't some sort of baby harlot, no one did. I was marked with a scarlet "W".

Later on I attended a Catholic high school, but only because the thought of paying college-priced tuition for high school was not one that thrilled my parents and sending me to a school that had replaced doors with metal detectors appealed to them even less. But religion never took a hold on me. After four years of Catholic school I still can't tell you the difference between Easter, Ash Wednesday and Black Friday.

When I wasn't arguing with the Brothers about how birth control was fundamentally tied to gender equality or how wrong they were to believe that animals don't have souls, I was uninterested in what they had to say. They tried to teach me lessons on morality by giving examples of a man I felt no connection to, when people all around me did amazing, selfless and heroic things everyday. Alive people. People with families and friends and faults. I felt much more inspired by the man who ran to pull bodies out of a burning car or the random citizens who came together to help save a beached whale, than I did by Jesus. These people may not have had God, but they had love, compassion and courage. And my main problem with religion has always been this epically faulty notion that one has to have religion to have a moral compass.  I reject this concept as much as I reject anything.

But at a time in my life when things are tough, when I feel pulled in 100 emotional directions and I'm as confused about things as I've ever been, it has given me great comfort to come across people such as Bishop Jim Swilley,  Pastor Jay Bakker and Lubbock, Texas native Shelby Knox. Above all else these people talk about compassion and while I can't imagine ever using words like Christ and Grace and Scripture, I absolutely am in the "acceptance" and "love" bandwagon. They seem to have no hesitation in their honesty and sincerity, but unlike so many they do waver in their faith. And it's their admittance of doubt that I crave.They believe in God, so it is God that they doubt. Whereas I believe in me, and it is me that I doubt.

Recently Pastor Bakker said in an NPR interview that "Grace is unconditional acceptance. It's just that moment where you're able to say, 'I am accepted by a power greater than myself.'" I don't know that I believe in a power greater than myself, and so to me, grace would be unconditional acceptance of oneself. But this same notion of finding a personal peace within you, one that you can always fall back on, is something I strive for just like he does.

In the fabulous documentary "The Eduction of Shelby Knox" the film closes out with Shelby's comment that "I think some people never get their head out of the Bible to look at the real world. But I think that God wants you to question and God wants you to do more than just blindly be a follower. Because He can't use blind followers. But He can use people like me." It gives me comfort to know that questioning life and decisions is not something I experience alone, and that in fact being uncertain, even fearful at times, is probably a better and more honest place to be.

I believe so strongly in the good in people. People amaze me. Their strengths, emotions and abilities. Their innovation, creativity and dedication. Their vulnerability. Their ability to adjust, grow, evolve and change. To weather tough times and emerge stronger and smarter and better. And it is here that I find the common ground with the above Christians.

I love reading Bishop Swilley's blog. I find courage and peace in his words, and of the hundreds of his reflections I have read, The below words mean the most to me right now (I took the liberty of editing out the religious references because for me it takes on more meaning without them):

Today I will accept the fact that movement inevitably brings change. I will appreciate the seasons of my life. I will release from unrealistic expectations, those who cannot – or will not – change with me. I will be responsible for my own movement, and will allow others in my life to move at their own pace, without my judgment.

Today I will relish the excitement of not knowing every detail of my journey but will simply rejoice in the fact that I am in motion. I will welcome the adventure. My movement has meaning. My path has purpose.

Today I will not be distracted by an obsession with the past. Today is a day to clean house . . . to erase tapes . . . to delete files . . . to break ties with that which is negative and contrary to a now mentality. I will remember what needs to be remembered . . . pleasant memories . . . the lessons learned from past mistakes . . . traditions that do not make the Word ineffective – but my memory will not bind or hold me. I forget what needs to be forgotten.

Today I will not be preoccupied with the future. I will make necessary plans. I will speak prophetic words. I will call those things which are not as though they were. I will study. I will prepare. I will look forward to good things coming up. But I will not worry, fret, toil or spin. I can relax without anxiety.

Today I am not worried, anxious, fearful or depressed. My situation could totally change for the better today. I will keep things in perspective. I will not be negative. I will not burden others with the details. I will not exaggerate and magnify my problems. Today I will live in the now!

I doubt that I will ever own a Bible. And I have no interest in reading one. I'd rather learn from the modern-day experiences and current struggles of those around me than from stories of the past, especially ones coated in a belief I don't share. And I have found these modern-day experiences and struggles of Pastor Bakker, Bishop Swilley and Ms. Knox to be ones that resonate with me.


Lately I have found my own doubt to be overwhelming. The confusion and questions so persistent that I can't find any peace. This phase will pass. All phases do. I just hope that during this time I can learn something useful, that when I am again filled with the happiness and confidence that characterizes the usual me, I can say, "Here is what I know now that I didn't know before."