The Weilers Have Left The Building

That's right. We've moved. Again.

But before you roll your eyes and suck your teeth at me, let me explain…

When Richard got into Internet marketing, it wasn't long before we realized that we could live anywhere we wanted. ANYWHERE. We could close our eyes, spin a globe, and choose with our finger. We both worked from home, with our clients being spread all over the country. So, we made a list of what we wanted out of where we lived. It was very specific. We were very thorough. In the end, we handpicked Dallas, TX (Flower Mound, TX to be exact). There were business perks for Richard, and I was in heaven living halfway between a sister in Oklahoma and a brother in Louisiana.

 I thought I was going to live and die there.

But then we unexpectedly started a whole new adventure just over a year ago (which was what inspired the creation of this blog - so if you want to fill in the holes, you can go to post #1). And what an adventure it's been! It was a flurry of activity and change.

When the smoke cleared, we were in Los Angeles, CA of all places. At the time, it was a necessity for several reasons. But even though we had a permanent address there, we did little else than collect our mail from time to time. We were travelling so much - for both business and personal reasons. That put a lot of strain on our ability to really become a part of our new community. It never felt like home to me. I always felt like a stranger in my own house. I struggled to make friends, which was made even worse by losing some very close ones. And to top it off - I plain hated living in the city. (Here is a colorful post on how much I actually despised it.)

Then one day, we didn't need to live there anymore. So we started talking again about where we would want to live - making lists and trying to determine what we wanted; just as we had over two years ago when leaving South Carolina.

Now, I have to tell you that it is not easy trying to decide where you want to live when you don't have to live anywhere for any particular reason. It's hard! So, we took our time and really thought things over. Sadly, the list of things we wanted for our family did not match up with all the things that we wanted for business reasons. For instance, business reasons suggested staying in California might be a good idea. Family reasons (i.e. ME!!!) suggested that California might be better off falling into the ocean, and we could live somewhere (ANYWHERE!) else.

Finally, we settled on the Las Vegas area, which miraculously proved to meet all of the things we wanted on both lists - in ways that I never would have ever conceived possible. It's a perfect place for business, since Richard spends a lot of time both there and in the surrounding areas speaking and networking, and it's a great place for me because I'm super close to my brother and other loved ones living in Utah.

So, as of yesterday, we are now living in a small town called Logandale, NV. It's halfway between Las Vegas and St. George, UT, near Lake Meade. We're in Moapa Valley, which is a small area, but honestly could not be more perfect for us and the lucky loved ones that get to come visit :) 

We're not usually small-town-living-folk, but this place was just too ideal for us to pass up. There is SO MUCH SPACE here. And I'm not just talking house-wise; I mean when I step into my backyard, I have to squint to see the next neighbor (not to be confused with the front yard, where we're fairly close to our neighbors). No traffic. No sirens in the middle of the night. No walking up to give homeless people food only to realize that I just offended them because they aren't homeless.

It could not be further from the last year of my life. And as grateful as I am for all the experiences I've had, and all the opportunities to grow over this last year, I have to confess that I am really, really glad it's over.

Goodbye, California - hello, Mayberry. 

City Schmity

This was previously an unpublished blogpost because it's so negative. But now that I don't live in the city anymore, I can share it!

I've been in California for one year. And I hate it. I never considered myself a city person, but that was before I lived in a city. So that was just conjecture. But now I know for sure. So much so, that if Los Angeles fell into the ocean tomorrow, I would throw a party.

Living in the city has given me a case of agoraphobia. I don't like taking my dog to pee and having to wade through an array of strangers several times a day. I don't like having to budget an extra 30-60 minutes for traffic when making a "quick" run to the grocery store a few miles down the road. I don't like having to circle the block five times looking for a parking spot, only to come back to my car an hour later to find a ticket waving at me from my windshield because the sign that said "no parking EVER OR ELSE" was a lot harder to read than the "parking allowed forever and always" signs lining the rest of the street.

And then there's the cost of living. OUCH! People need to sell a kidney just to survive around here. The part that really kills me is that I know we're just paying for location - a location that I despise. Talk about adding insult to injury.

When I look out of my window, I see houses, palm trees, AND THE MALL. That is not pretty to me. And when I go to bed at night with the window open so I can enjoy the cool air sweeping off of the ocean, I often have to get up and close it in the middle of the night to block out the sirens and the choppers.

I don’t just hate the city. I feel personally offended by it. I feel like it's taken something away from me, and I'm going to have to fight to get it back.

Education vs. Exposure

As I was taking a college writing class several years ago, the class was reading and discussing a book that I found very offensive. It was saturated with vulgar language, and disgusting illustrations and themes. I refused to read or discuss the book, and opted not to come to class those days. I told my professor I was willing to do an extra assignment in order to be fair, and he asked me to write him an essay on the pros and cons of engaging students in materials that they find offensive. This was my response. 

Education vs. Exposure

            When students walk through their professor’s doors, the professor is automatically given the responsibility of giving them a broadened perspective of the world around them.  Students have existing ideals and opinions that have been formed by a parent, ecclesiastical leader, and life-experience in general.  Their views have been formulated through a mix of education and exposure, and are accepted as truth, whether they are or not.  It isn’t until these beliefs are tested and tried before one can really be sure if they are a practical, real-life view of the world.  Education is like a refiner’s fire.  Old views and opinions should be tested and challenged before they are accepted as a life-long creed of living.  People are, after all, only human, and they shape their belief systems around their own experiences.  A parent can still be ignorant, an ecclesiastical leader can still be narrow-minded, and life-experience can be misleading.

            When an individual makes the decision to be educated, they are saying they want more than what they have.  They want more experience, more knowledge, and more insight.  Because the very nature of education is a process of growing, this can often be uncomfortable.  In the course of learning, there are frequent challenges to one’s accepted truths, as they are required to stretch and grow into new principles and ideals.  As these situations arise, it is important to be able to decipher which of these experiences are necessary, and which are not. There are both pros and cons to engaging students in materials they find offensive.  This is determined by whether or not certain materials serve the purpose of educating, or just exposing.

            When a student comes up against offensive material, it serves as a crossroads.  Once they investigate their feelings, and decide why they are offended, they can better determine if their pre-existing views hold any weight, or if they need to be modified, or tossed out all together.  In order to do so successfully, students should ask themselves why they are offended.  Is it because of their adopted views of what is right and wrong?  Or what is normal or different?  As they answers these questions, they will either fight for what they believe, having a better understanding of the truths at their core, or discard or evolve them as they see that their pre-existing views were narrow or incomplete. 

            On the other hand, there are offensive materials that do not pose questions of right or wrong, normal or different - they simply carry the shock factor of immorality.  The difference between the two is best understood when one considers the difference between being educated and being exposed.  Being educated on certain subjects, ranging from drugs to religion, is far different than being exposed. Let's take rape as an example. The definition of this heinous act is enough to teach me that it is wrong. I believe we should all be educated about its dangers, what you should do if it happens, how to avoid it, etc. On the other hand, I don't need a graphic description of the act to understand or detest it any more than I would otherwise.  I read a book years ago that gave a graphic description of a father raping his daughter. It still haunts me. I vicariously lived through that. I do not feel it benefited me in any way. I wish I could erase those details from my mind.

That is exposure. And it hurts.

The same goes with certain materials adopted into academic curriculum.  For instance, I took a general Psychology class my freshman year of college.  During the course, we held a discussion on the myths about sex and sexuality.  In order to stimulate class discussion, our professor conducted a slide show that posed a series of true or false questions to the class.  Each slide was illustrated.  Sometimes, it was as innocent as two men holding hands.  Others were pornographic.  The question-and-answer session was educational.  The graphic images were exposure, and did nothing to further the educational aspect of the class.  This can have a negative effect on students’ learning.

            Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed a theory called the cumulative effects theory.  This theory basically says that media-messages are not all that powerful in the short-run, but in the long-run, after being repeated over and over again, they take a firm holding.  Once that occurs, people who disagree with those messages are discouraged from speaking up because they believe that if it's in the media, it must be the majority-view, and they are the minority.  The resulting silence of their views and their voices is referred to as the spiral of silence (Vivian 404).  What is most appalling about this is that the silence is self-induced because they think they are alone.

            Although this theory deals with media effects, this also holds true for the field of academia.  The fact that certain views or materials may be esteemed in academics gives credence to these views, whether they are worth entertaining or not.  This can create a ripple effect through students who are still striving to determine what is and is not true.  Because students so often come with open minds and open hands, they are not always thorough about sifting through what they are told and determining if it has any value.  Embracing certain offensive materials can create a mirage of truth about certain topics and issues that should not be held in high esteem.  This was demonstrated in the graphic slide show referenced earlier.  Showing such offensive materials in an academic environment gave credence to such behavior.  As offensive as the material was, the professor did not bat an eye.  From his demeanor and presentation, it could be assumed that this was normal, this was right, and this was ok.  As children, we learn through imitation.  This is still true at the crossroads of our adult lives.

            When we start a new job, we learn by watching to see how others perform and respond.  Not only do we want to know how to do our job right, but I think it’s safe to say that we also want to know what we can get away with.  When an individual is transitioning from high school to college, it is also a transition into adulthood. They are no longer sitting at the feet of mom and dad, but looking to the universe for answers to life’s most basic questions. 

Even outside of the budding adult, the academic arena is still a cross roads for all players.  This is the moment in a person’s life when they are willing, and wanting, to unwrap their brain and fill it with truth.  How that truth is handled, or mishandled, has lasting effects on the individual.  It is important to weigh each course’s material for its educational value, and be willing to “kill our darlings” if it crosses the line of exposure.  After all, the ultimate goal of education should be to arm us with the tools that will prepare us to extract Truth from the moments that make up the rest of our lives.  Although our lives may not be laced with rainbows and butterflies, there is no reason to pull ourselves through the mud to prove it.