The Boston Police Strike of 1919 - a look back at history

Boston, Massachusetts. Sept. 9th, 1919. That was the day that the police force in Boston ran out of negotiation options and went on strike. After the first night of quiet, the city went crazy and militia were called in. Murders, property damage, rape, and looting were rampant. The volunteers (scabs) taking the officers' place were in way over their heads. 

I thought I'd bring you some long-forgotten history today, and maybe some perspective. The police force in Boston had wages that hadn't risen since the Civil War, and the war wages that were promised to rise if they waited, didn't rise. They were denied having a Union to speak for them, most of them were immigrants (Irish, mostly), and working conditions were awful. They had to try to afford expensive uniforms that cost around  $207.25 on a $21.90 weekly salary.  

How bad were working conditions? Try rats in the bunkhouse and one day off for every fifteen days on the job. 12 hour beats ( walking routes) on the streets. They did speak up. They tried to get provided uniforms, higher wages, and better work conditions for months. Then Edwin Curtis became commissioner and forbid any outside clubs aside from American Legion. 19 officers were suspended for going against his orders and creating an AFL chapter (on Aug. 15th). The vote on Sept. 8th on walking out on the job was 1,134 (for) to 2 (against). 

Sept. 10th Arthur McGill was shot on Howard Street when Scollay Square was cleared. Four hours later, three men were shot dead or fatally wounded elsewhere. Sept. 11th Richard Reemts, a striking officer, was shot dead. Raymond Barnes was killed 11 am. that day for curiosity at a group of craps players being moved (more than 30 of them). That night two young men were killed after finding either a craps player or a man picking up a manhole. The final death was Sept. 13th, when Gustave Gaist (WWI veteran) was shot trying to seize a soldier's rifle. 

At the end of all this violence -when a majority of officers walked off the job - returning service men replaced them and got everything they had gone on strike for. Calvin Coolidge, the current governor, was quoted saying "There is no right to strike against public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime." This meant that no striking officer recovered their jobs, and they struggled long after to continue making income. Their last resort to get heard cost them everything.

Why remember this?

 Defunding police is a big issue nowadays. This time some of the public wants to cut funding to police, or disband them entirely. This could potentially resemble what our world may look like if it happens. Less police mean less help for the vulnerable. Do you want to see a world where you are afraid to leave your home at night? Or even during the day? The images of this historic strike may give you some idea of what disbanding police may look like and how Irish (or immigrant) police officers fought to make a living. Let's not forget our history lessons. 

Also, if you want a good representation of this historic event, I suggest the historical fiction The Given Day by Dennis Lehane. It is an excellent picture of this event and time period. The link for the book on Amazon is below. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015DROFK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Pictures:

UMass Boston Blogs

Universal Hub

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Police-Strike

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-boston-police-department-goes-on-strike

https://u-s-history.com/pages/h1348.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/07/when-city-was-lawless-recalling-boston-police-strike/0YgNYLshnyfcxYkQnGKhvM/story.html

Concubines, Mistresses, and Prostitutes- Oh My!

Of all the subjects to talk about, why am I talking about this?  Because why the heck not. There is, apparently, a difference between prostitute, concubine, and mistress - all in the lense of history. I'm not saying it is right, but I'm not going to argue with the history of the subject and it happened. Just for fun, let's explore this random topic. 

Definitions first! Mistresses (in our case) are lovers on the side, unmarried. Prostitutes are paid to have sex with anyone. Concubines are almost the same as a mistress, but includes living with their lover. All this in the lense of history is an interesting and scandalous topic. 

Women have been used for sex often throughout history. I don't like it, but there it is. I read a Phryne Fisher one day and it mentioned concubines were not prostitutes, so I was curious as to what they were, for real. Let's start with Mistresses.

Mistresses

The actual term did not start out like the definition above. For example, the mistress of the house might mean the female head of the house. However, it still made it to that definition through time. It is mostly connected to royalty and kings. If we know anything about kings, we know they had mistresses. The french favored mistresses often. Marriage was political. It was not uncommon for the mistress to demand luxury from her lover, or to even get more love and gifts than the wife. 

The royal mistresses held a lot of power over the king. You want influence over the king? Talk to the mistress, who tells him sweet nothings over the pillow and gives advice. Politics and friendship were connected by mere inches. Kings could usually get away with having many women, but the unfair thing was that women had no such privileges. Mistresses were often rivals of each other. Even Queen Elizabeth I was private about her gentlemen suitors. 

If the king needed to give them a title, he could. Sadly, the power of holding the king's attention led some to early deaths. Keeping beautiful led to using some harmful substances to keep skin "like porcelain", in the case of Diane De Poitiers. While beauty wasn't the most important for every king, it did prove fatal to her. Kings were expected to have mistresses for the sake of manhood. The unfortunate effect of losing king protection was humiliation and cruelty if things went wrong. Some mistresses, a few only, did become queen. 

Diane De Poiters - fatal beauty

Concubines

This is mostly an Asian practice, also appearing in Biblical times. They were not married, but they also weren't paid for sex either. They were a weird mix of a mistress and prostitute. They were confined where they were living. Harems are an example of this. Strangely, embroidery came from here because they would only be called on every once in a while, and they were bored. Other than bearing children and entertaining, it was not a fun life. It was being enslaved in a luxury palace, with all the rest of the women enslaved with you. 

Biblical debates on why this was allowed in Hebrew culture are out there. Some say that God allowed it for upping the population, in that time period alone. The biblical standard of concubines was that they weren't equal to wives, but did have rights. It was for the purpose of an heir to the throne. It has been said that God didn't approve of the practice, but man did it anyway because of the patriarchal system that was in place. They were either sold by their father, prisoners of war, foreign slaves, or Canaanite women. Sold women or prisoners of war had rights, but the remaining were not recognized or forbidden by Hebrew law. Hebrew law said that after six years the women were freed. Simply put, the women sold were released after the number of years is up, or they stay forever if they wanted to. Hebrew law said they couldn't be treated like slaves. They were not slaves, could not be mistreated, could divorce, and their children were legitimate. In contrast to the Asian culture, the Hebrews treated them well, if they obeyed laws.

Ming Dynasty Concubines

Now, let's look at what the Hebrew experience really was. Hagar's was that she was used by the wife of the house, as in ordered about in order to have an heir. King David's kingdom came to an end and the concubines and wives in the house were, "had" (to say it nicely) in public as a result of that (not by David, but by his enemies). In Judges 19-21 you can read about a concubine thrown to the wolves, then chopped into pieces once dead (all in order to call the country to war after her death). Those defiled by the enemy were at one time locked up and left lonely forever (2 Samuel 15, 16, 20). The laws may have said one thing, but humans are not known for following rules. It was not okay.

Prostitutes

Now, we get to a practice that still continues under-the-radar. You can still find a prostitute on the street if you drive around the right places at the right hour of the night (please don't, though). It is a form of modern-day slavery. And don't think only men are selling women, because women also sell women - or children - every day. They even sell men. Human trafficking continues on in places you wouldn't expect, like well-populated malls. Women and men should both be on their guard for it. 

When did this start? Well, maybe this blog is too short to go back that far. It is one of the oldest professions in history. Surprise! Greeks like both sexes for their entertainment. It isn't a woman-only problem. Prostitution was legal at certain times in history and certain places. There were legal and illegal brothels, in the same time period. Some sold themselves, others were forced into it, but either way it happened. Ohio law states you can't be a prostitute in Ohio legally. It is also a crime to sell someone and take a part of their earnings.

Pictures:

Dexion Logos

All Posters

Ancient Origins

Sources:

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/prostitution-laws-ohio.htm

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-a-concubine-why-did-god-allow-men-to-take-concubines-in-the-bible.html

https://cityhotpot.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/the-life-of-a-concubine/

https://www.history.com/news/royal-mistress-power-england-france-prince-william

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/secret-life-ancient-concubine-001301

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-prostitution-721311

https://www.historyextra.com/period/mistresses-through-history-the-term-wasnt-always-about-secret-sex/

https://medium.com/@ciarafitzgerald_20093/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-royal-mistresses-65a2e55410a0

Defund Police movement - what is it?

The Defund Police movement is all up in arms right now because, well, Black Lives Matter. Before you form any opinions based on what your neighbor, cousin, or your news source believes, let me tell you the factual basics on the movement, based on what I researched.

*The rest of this blog is facts from my research on the subject and the use of logic.*

First things first, what is it? In the most basic of terms, they want to lower funds for the police and give them to often-neglected needs in the community, possibly redefining police roles in the process. While there is a sister movement that goes farther and says disband the police, I am not talking about the sister movement. 

I'm not going into an overly-detailed description in this post, so if you want more information follow my sources below and go as far as you'd like in the research process. This is a deep hole of an issue. You should probably find a shovel at this point. 

Where does the money go?

This money, in theory, would go to the poverty-stricken, homeless, education system, youth, and public health. While that sounds great on paper, there are several problems here. How much goes to each, how the community decides who gets the money, how much the police budget gets cut....etc. I don't mean to throw a monkey-wrench into the theory, but people and making money decisions have a long, sad history. Communities would have to make those decisions and it wouldn't necessarily go over as smoothly as the plan indicates on paper. 

Police Roles

The claim here is that there are calls police "shouldn't" have to even take. The idea of sending in groups of social workers and specialized teams to take domestic abuse, drug calls, suicide calls, and any call dealing with mental health is that police don't have to touch it - licensed health professionals would. The only clog in this bathroom sink is that social workers are now in danger. The movement trying to help police could now cause premature deaths to social workers getting killed taking their calls. Then you have a homicide and police get called anyway. Domestic abuse cases can get increasingly violent, just like cases dealing with drugs and alcohol. Taking this into consideration, if you were a social worker would you want this job? I could also ask the police the same question.

The idea is to help police and reform the role of the police officer, but through logic, I'd reason we could make their job harder this way. Having to rescue social workers on a daily basis is less helpful, and when the count of officers could be lower due to layoffs the help could take longer to receive. That is a lot of dead social workers, and a lot of social workers that quit their jobs. Then police end up taking the calls anyway, and with less officers, that makes less solved cases. It may look good on paper, but let's be logical here. 

Police Jobs and Funds

Low funding already equals less jobs. Layoffs would be coming to police stations everywhere, should everywhere take this approach. With less officers to take calls, crime would rise. The rich could possibly make a mass-exodus or hire their own security, but think about the bad neighborhoods that people are too poor to move out of. With a longer response time to homicides, accidents, and other serious crimes the police may not get to the scene in time to stop violence. Riots alone take up a lot of police officers. Less officers may spell doom for the people who need their help. 

People in El Paso opposing Defund Police

Yes, I know I said some of the funds would go to poverty, but let's be real. People can make bad decisions on funding when uninformed or bribed. Is it possible that making good decisions would help the community? Yes, but human nature has proven that we are not innocents. The police already deal with a lot, and even if social workers succeeded in their response teams, you have to consider that police have families to feed. Less pay may put them in poverty if the money is not handled correctly. It may even put them in an early grave if they don't have training and equipment they can trust. Funds are used for training and equipment and if they aren't there, those officers who need to defend themselves from rioters or criminals may die doing so. 

Safer conditions

Another claim made by this movement is that social workers taking calls can help police have family lives and less hard hours. The idea behind this is that they could have lives outside work. It is truly touching that they considered this, but also think about the danger in having less officers. More overtime, more crime, less equipment, and less pay. Spending time with family? Can't, have to take a call of assault at the gas station - on overtime. Providing for family? Not so easy. While they "shouldn't" have to deal with the person with schizophrenia down the road, they might have to deal with more calls on a skeleton crew police force. Possibly without a partner to back them up, if they don't have a partner.

Is this truly safer conditions? With "less work", it may give them family time, but at what cost? Putting someone at a lower income may cause them to seek a second job, or depend on family and friends to pay rent. "Less work" may become overtime, as well, if crime goes up. With less police training (with funds down it is possible) they may be less equipped to protect us and themselves. Does that sound safe to you?

In conclusion

I know that I used logic to rip this theory apart. I also know that most of us don't want to relive the old west. On paper, without playing devil's advocate, this sounds like a plan that many can get behind, but please play devil's advocate. Think about what the consequences would be before you join the crowd that wants to defund police. Do your own research - on every movement you hear about! Find the truth. 

Pictures:

CNN

El Paso Times

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/06/09/the-movement-to-defund-or-disband-police-heres-what-you-need-to-know-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/12/black-lives-matter-defund-police-is-country-ready/

https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-the-phrase-explained.html

Controlling people with fear

The news these days is full of fear. Some of the news is true, while other headlines turn out to be lies and half-truths. Either way, they spread fear. Can fear be used to control a society or group? Let's dive into that.

Fear can be debilitating when present in situations that aren't dangerous. Imagined fears cause people to be afraid of their own shadow. If someone in power can cause a panic, they can take control by promising safety. "For your own safety" sounds reasonable compared to "because I said so". Claiming they, and only they, can save you puts the one who started the panic in the driver's seat. 

Covid 19 propaganda

Here is where you can insert propaganda of any type, wartime or otherwise, repeated multiple times. Images and words repeated can condition us and influence us over long periods of time. In times of crisis people are extra easy to influence. If one doesn't dig for the truth, they may remain ignorant to the entire situation. Knowledge will disarm propaganda and the panic itself. 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

The sad truth is that most of the people in the most dangerous of oppression situations don't know that they are in danger. They often don't know until it is too late. This is one of the reasons Germany didn't do much to stop Hitler - and after you look at the propaganda given to the German people you can see why. The ones who saw it coming were ignored, because the subtle steps taken were so small, and yet added up. What Hitler was doing was hiding his abuse of Jews from his own people, except for those participating, and by the time it was more obvious it was far too late. 

After having power for so long, the fear of losing power becomes stronger, thus the oppression becomes worse once confronted. It is the fear of giving up the position of power that corrupts. Political and social power are higher up on the power ladder, so let's all be careful out there. Fear is far more contagious than COVID 19, and I'm seeing too much similarity between propaganda and the "stay home" message.

One of the main things you can do to help yourself think and get out of fight-or-flight mode is to stop watching the news, except to search for what the truth is. Even turn off the television. Unplug yourself from your social media, take a hike, get out of wifi range, and take good care of yourself. Oh, and avoid the panicked people who absorb the TV and media like sponges. Doing all this, or even half of it, will help you disconnect and think for yourself. I'd highly suggest you do so.

A word of caution to those reading the statistics for Corona Virus with fear - they are skewed because the hospitals are given more money to say a heart attack victim (for example) died of Covid 19. It happened to my mother's friend and she made the hospital change it back, but most likely, most haven't made them change it. The statistics are wrong. Please know this when you hear the statistics announced. I'd like you all to know the truth, rather than believe lies. 

Pictures:

Alamy

Bored Panda

Sources:

https://academyofideas.com/2015/11/fear-and-social-control/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/201303/fear-vs-power

https://www.under-one-roof.net/spiritual/fear-control.html

men and women - socialized to communicate differently

We are all socialized to act a certain way in society, whether we know it or not. Gender, according to my Malone University gender class, is policed by those of the same gender. In simpler terms, if you don't act like your gender is supposed to act you get reactions you won't like. Women who don't act like women or men who don't act like men are less popular. 

What women and men are supposed to act like in communication style is based on your culture. Some cultures preferred silent women and loud men, while others made women queens (Nubians-black queens) and gave them power. It all depends on where you live and how you were raised, or socialized.

This all starts in childhood, when your family and teachers teach you what is for boys and what is for girls. It shapes your view of what you should do in society. The kids around you reinforce the ideas, most times, and "police" this by making fun of those who don't fit or not including them. If you were unconventional you know how it feels. It stings emotionally. The point here is that you naturally want to be like the people around you at a young age, so you might conform (or if you were me, embrace the fact you can't fit). The average kid will change for their friends. You will naturally want to fit in. The unconventional may also just give up on fitting in. 

For Boys Only And For Girls Only

The expectations of girls and boys are different. The label of boy toys and girl toys is based firmly on society. Dolls? girls. Trucks? Boys. Frills? Girls. Plain? Boys. (The last thing named is frustrating for those who want plain colors of t-shirts in the women's clothing department.) Point being, our society doesn't expect the same from both.  Soft is for girls and sturdy is for boys is usually the standard. This is all modeled for us by families and society. 

Communication is no different. With speech patterns, acceptable conversation, and accepted emotional releases comes a complicated web. It boils down to women being able to cry and men being able to express anger. Women are allowed more emotional release than men. This is taught by little boys being told not to cry early on, but yet allowed to yell on the playground. They are expected to be loud. Women, on the other hand, are taught social games like "house" in their childhood. They are given dolls, frilly stuffed animals, and teacups. They are taught more polite types of communication through these games, but it also gives more possibility of verbal damage from other women, as opposed to boys who fight with physical fists. 

Female

Interacting with women is verbal, mostly, with body language that actively reflects the emotions of the person they are talking to. They are less direct, more polite, and most likely sensitive. I have, even as a female, considered some social circles to be minefields of unspoken rules. It takes some time to figure out what is taboo. Female speech patterns are more complicated, by far. We are more equipped for communication or administrative positions as a result. Women communicate for relationship maintenance.

There is a nasty side to this, as most women who don't fit the normal pattern know. Not all women psychologically bully, to be fair, but it is more common to psychologically bully in women than men.  In my gender class several women and I agreed that we didn't trust our own gender. Women can be nasty to other women via gossip and complicated social rules. Not including so-and-so to a party can be done by any gender, but it is likely a woman may invite a person to a party in order to humiliate them. I am not trying to hate my own gender with this statement, but I am being honest. Women don't always trust other women.

Why do women backstab each other? It could be that women are competing for the attention of men, which we are taught to seek from childhood on. Yes, that is somewhat nature and less nurture, but many princess movies teach us to find a man. Barbie has a man, Cinderella has a man, even Anna from Frozen has a man. Ariel leaves the water for a man, even changes for him. This pattern teaches us to seek men and compete for them, thus any woman in our path could potentially take the one we want. Some women are known to home wreck, aka. steal men. Men can do the same thing, but women are blamed for it more often. 

Male

Men, on the other hand, fight with fists and not words. They speak more directly. Men use less facial emotion, less mirroring. They speak to negotiate, win, and for an end goal. They take up more space than women physically in personal space. They like face-to-face. It has to do with dominance, in some ways. Men man-spread naturally (meaning, sit with legs apart). It isn't complicated. They say it like it is. Though some men have gossiped, I won't say most do. Complex communication is not what they are socialized to do. They are socialized to be loud and masculine. They are taught from a young age to be tough and act, to solve problems rather than talk about them. This is modeled for them by men around them. This communication style is also why some women, exhausted by the verbal thrust-and-parry of typical female communities, turn to men as friends. Simple is quite refreshing compared to the world of women.

How is action-over-words socialized? Well, look at the role models in the movies and books. James Bond, Die Hard, John Wayne, etc.....Action stars who get the girl at the end of the movie. On top of that, we have more military-style toys marketed toward the little boys. I have a previous blog that includes a description of "the man box". It boils down to being manly and powerful, or being outside the norm and being a sissy. Men are taught to be powerful and dominant. I'm not saying all of them end up like John Waye and all the rest of the action stars that act virile, but it is what they are presented with in media from a young age. I want to say that this is shifting, but I also know it somewhat isn't, so I'll say this; it may be shifting as gender roles for women shift, but the image of the muscled man taking action hasn't left.

Pictures:

The Other Sociologist

Terminology Coordination Unit

Syfy Wire

Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/eat-the-damn-cake/201211/learning-trust-other-women-again

https://wgac.colostate.edu/education/gender-and-identity/men-and-masculinities/

https://online.pointpark.edu/public-relations-and-advertising/gender-differences-communication-styles/

https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/what-is-gender-socialization-and-why-does-it-matter/

https://sites.psu.edu/academy/2016/04/07/the-effects-of-gender-socialization-on-men-and-wculture

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/3-reasons-women-struggle-trust-women

https://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/socialization/section4/

Conditioning people

This past week it has occurred to me that we have all been conditioned to stand on a taped "X" and inside taped boxes in stores everywhere. Basically, we have been trained. What does it mean to be conditioned? Let's dive into that. 

It has to do with reward and punishment. It is how we learn, actually, so it isn't uncommon. It is the reason we obey enforced rules. When we break laws that are enforced we feel the consequences, thus we don't (usually) repeat our mistakes. It works the same way if there is an incentive to doing something consistently. For example, getting good grades and the reward of money may create a habit of working hard in school and wanting good grades. It creates good feelings when you get them after a while, reward or not. 

This is why, after two months of "social distance", we distance in public places whether we agree with it or not. After long-term conditioning, we form habits that are hard to break, thus we create a new normal in our lives with every conditioned response. It scares me sometimes how easily you can play with someone's normal by conditioning a response. 

The Operant 

Conditioning a response is fairly simple. You reward the behavior you want and punish the behavior you don't. You can probably see how this works. One is more likely to repeat an action when they get a good response. There are two responses, respondent and operant. Respondent is automatic. Operant is a conscious action. 

By removing a negative consequence or adding a positive event, you use operant conditioning for reward. Removing the positive event or adding a punishment is the opposite effect. An example of this would be a child learning to clean up their room. If they did the task well, we add a cookie reward or take away the threat of being grounded/spanked. In the opposite circumstance, we spank/ground the child and there is no cookie offered. Simple. It can also be said that an event they were looking forward to may be denied, like if they can't go to a party. 

A lot of times there is reinforcement on behavior. (Keep in mind that this can be done to anyone of any age, not just children and lab rats.) It can be continuous, have a fixed rate (after x amount of response it is reinforced), fixed interval (after x amount of time), and variable fixed rate/variable interval rate (which is random).  How effective is it? Well, continuous means learning quickly, but it doesn't last. Fixed ratio is steady. Fixed interval is steady, but not as sure. Anything variable is quite effective.  

The Respondent or Classical

Respondent conditioning (classical conditioning) is association. For example, my soft-toothed childhood. I associate dental visits with Novacaine. This is a perfect example because it was reinforced so often I began to react to the parking lot of the dental office like a dog reacts to the vet. Speaking of dogs, they are the first example of classical conditioning. Pavlov used his dogs and food to prove classical conditioning. Any psych class you take will talk about it. 

How do you condition classically? Take a neutral thing (a dental visit) and unconditioned stimuli (the feeling of numbness). For this I'm just going to break down my first example. The idea is for the idea of the neutral event or object (or even person) to cause a conditioned response (in my case, dread at the feeling of numbness). It isn't that hard of an idea. It is also scary how easily you can mess with someone in this conditioning. 

This is the part where I warn all you medical professions to be personable to young children. It is shockingly easy to create a phobia in young children by being scary to them, over and over again. Heed my warning. Learn to work well with children and you will be loved, not to mention the cooperation you'll get. Scare them on accident too many times and you create fear of you, a tool you use, or your profession as a whole. The child may even do the opposite of what you say because they don't like you. So, the choice is yours. Do you want cooperation and love, or fear and spite? Be careful and good luck!

The Pros and Cons of Conditioning

I mentioned that any age or species can be conditioned. I don't care if you are a dog, cat, human, or zoo animal - you can be conditioned. Society is evidence of that all by itself. We are taught to behave a certain way while young and grow up following that lifestyle, give or take some personality and life situations we face. We are not robots, to be sure, but we do tend to follow like sheep and be conditioned. 

The pros of this include raising well-disciplined children into well-rounded adults using operant conditioning. We raise our offspring using reward and punishment systems. If we let our kids run around without rules we'd have anarchy everywhere. You start young, with a kid of docile temperament, and you barely need any corporal punishment (according to my parents). This is just one example of a good use of this, but it is the best one I can think of. 

The con side of this is cases of abuse and manipulation. Emotional abuse is notorious for this. People conditioned to apologize for everything are usually victims of this. Being conditioned to cope with someone's abuse means there is a blind spot in your perception. It creates unhealthy normal and unhealthy habits of second-guessing your own judgment. It often creates a habit of having to text back immediately, because the response is flack for not texting back quick enough. It takes months to bounce back, and some don't truly bounce back at all. In short, you are conditioned to appease your abuser.

Pictures:

Thought Co.

Medical News Today

Elevator World

Sources:

https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863

https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-vs-operant-conditioning-2794861

https://pro.psychcentral.com/recovery-expert/2016/07/victims-of-emotional-abuse/

My first review- Lake City Way Ninja Girl

The other day I got a request to review a book on twitter - my first one ever! The book Lake City Way Ninja Girl was written by Cait Moore, wife of horror writer Michael J. Moore. From the minute I read the first chapter I was hooked. I read this book, and the chapter of the next book (previewed at the end) in one evening and a morning. No joke. 

Image from Book Sprout

The tale of a 12 year old girl, mentally haunted by the shooting of a man beside the food bank in Lake City Way, becoming a vigilante had me on my seat from the first five chapters and made me want more by the end. It isn't a "happily ever after" ending, I'll just tell you that now, but it is worth every penny, should you ask me if you should invest in it. It would make a fantastic addition to any personal or public library. 

This is a dark, young adult novel, but not so dark that isn't young adult. It is realistic to what might happen to a 12-year-old vigilante going after drug dealers in the street. It has several Batman references and characters that could come alive and actually be real people. I found myself sympathizing with the young girl throughout the book, much like when I read Hunger Games or Maximum Ride in high school. I connected deeply with this 12-year-old girl, Gaby, who was frustrated by the violence in her streets and decided to do something, reckless or not. 

What was truly unique was the various colored words that could be found throughout. I almost wanted to write them down and decipher them like some sort of code later, but I suspect that they represent her innermost thoughts. "My mom" and "my dad" are often in a red color, as well as other phrases that come up throughout the book. 

What really hit me like a ton of bricks was the ending, and because I want you to read it for yourself, I'm going to tell you nothing about how it ended. Nothing at all, except that her story will continue on in the next book, from a place you'd never expect her to end up. It was a plot twist that made me want to grab the next book and keep on reading. 

Thank you Michael J. Moore for asking me to review this book. I enjoyed it immensely and will be putting this series on my reading bucket list from now on. Thanks for putting it on my reading radar!