ukulele
my birthday wish

Some of you have made music with me over the years. You know what being in the room with me is like. Since my birthday is coming up, I’m hoping you’ll take a moment to hear what I’m asking for.
This past year, I decided to start something new. I wanted to nurture spaces that are explicitly neurodiversity-affirming. I wanted to make music that reflects the histories and cultures of the communities I’m in—not a fixed repertoire, but a living one. I wanted more instruments, wider age ranges, and a room that doesn’t sort people by developmental milestone or tax bracket. I wanted people to be able to attend as often as they like without paying more.
And I wanted to charge less than it costs to run the program, on purpose, knowing I’d be fundraising constantly to fill the gap. For years I taught in programs I couldn’t have afforded myself. That felt like a problem worth solving.
Enter imeetswe. We’re in our first year, and this is our Spring fundraising appeal. It would be a bait-and-switch to offer sliding scale classes and then only appeal at fundraising time to folks that are enrolled, so I’m reaching out to you. If any of this resonates—as a donor, a sharer, or just someone who wants to know more—I’d love for you to take a look, and share widely. Thank you!
a living wage: a guide for artists and gig workers in the bay area
What Are You Charging?
Three conversations happen regularly in our community.
A colleague texts: “what are you charging for lessons?”
Another sends an email: “a school offered me this schedule and this salary—is that reasonable?”
A third says, in person, something harder to articulate: “I feel like I need to charge more for a private gig, but I don’t know how to explain why.”
These are not three different questions. They are the same conversation, framed in different contexts—and the reason it keeps coming up is that most of us learned to price our work by looking sideways at what others were charging, or by accepting what we were offered, rather than starting from what we actually need to live.
Our starting point needs to be what an artist (or other part-time gig workers) needs to live—not what any particular institution, context, or tradition has decided an artist’s time is worth.
Start with the number
A living wage in the Bay Area—meaning housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and modest participation in ordinary life—runs roughly $100,000 per year for a single adult. That number will be uncomfortable for some. Sit with the discomfort for a moment before moving on, because the discomfort itself is information.
The numbers bear this out. A one-bedroom apartment in Oakland or Berkeley—the most affordable corners of the inner East Bay—currently runs between $2,000 and $2,300 per month, with Berkeley averaging around $2,270 and Oakland around $1,980 for a one-bedroom. That is before utilities, renters insurance, or the reality that many working artists need a dedicated space for practice or instrument storage that a standard one-bedroom does not accommodate. In San Francisco proper, a one-bedroom averages $3,790—a number that effectively removes the city from consideration for an artist building a career from scratch.
Food for a single adult cooking most meals runs $450 to $600 per month in groceries, with monthly grocery bills for a single adult ranging from $400 to $600 depending on shopping habits and dietary preferences—and that figure assumes discipline and time, two things a fractured freelance schedule does not reliably provide. Add modest dining out and the occasional meal grabbed between gigs, and a realistic food budget lands closer to $650.
Healthcare is where the arithmetic becomes genuinely alarming for independent workers. The enhanced federal subsidies that had made Covered California plans affordable for freelancers expired at the end of 2025 and were not renewed. For those earning above 400% of the federal poverty level—roughly $58,320 for a single adult—the full unsubsidized premium now applies, which in many Bay Area metro plans exceeds $700 to $900 per month for a single adult on a mid-tier plan. An artist earning $100,000 gross is above that threshold. Health insurance alone, at the lower end of that range, costs $8,400 per year before a single co-pay or prescription.
Transportation compounds everything. An artist who carries instruments—a cello, a keyboard, percussion equipment, a sound system—cannot reliably depend on BART and a bicycle. A car means insurance, registration, gas, and maintenance: conservatively $400 to $500 per month. Going car-free is possible, but transit gaps are real—and the rideshare charges that fill them have a way of arriving all at once, on the weeks you can least afford them.
Then there is the tax structure of self-employment itself. A freelance artist earning $100,000 gross pays self-employment tax of approximately $14,130—the employer and employee share of Social Security and Medicare combined—before federal and California income taxes. Total tax liability at that income level runs roughly $30,000 to $34,000 annually depending on deductions. Take-home is closer to $66,000 to $70,000.
Run the budget: $2,200 rent, $650 food, $800 healthcare, $450 transportation, $200 utilities and phone, $150 in professional expenses—instrument maintenance, strings, reeds, music, scores—and $25 in renters insurance. That is $4,475 per month, or $53,700 per year, before a dollar of savings, before an emergency, before a plane ticket to see family, before anything goes wrong. At $66,000 take-home, what remains is $12,300—just over $1,000 per month—for everything else a life requires.
$100,000 gross is not wealth in the Bay Area. It is the arithmetic floor of a life that does not require choosing between healthcare and rent.
We are going to work backward from $100,000.
A sustainable working year for an artist looks something like this: forty working weeks, thirty hours of paid work per week. That is 1,200 billable hours annually—not the hours you spend preparing, maintaining your instruments, traveling between gigs, managing your schedule, or recovering from an intensive week. Just the hours a client is present and paying.
$100,000 divided by 1,200 hours is $83.33.
We’ll call it $85. The extra $1.67 per hour is not generosity—it is a small buffer against the gap between a clean calculation and a life that does not run on clean calculations. Instruments need repair. Gigs fall through. A student cancels the week you needed them not to. The $85 baseline assumes that a working artist’s year will be, in some measure, imperfect—and builds that assumption into the rate rather than leaving the artist to absorb it after the fact.
That is your baseline hourly rate. Not your asking price for everything—as we will see, some work warrants more—but the floor below which a straight hourly arrangement stops supporting a dignified life.
Not all hours are equal
Here is what the baseline assumes: that you work a relatively clean thirty hours per week during working weeks, with predictable scheduling, minimal dead time between commitments, and enough calendar continuity that you can plan your life.
Most of us do not work under those conditions. And the gap between the baseline assumption and the actual texture of freelance arts work is where the money disappears.
Consider three types of client relationships, and what each one actually costs you.
The single-hour client wants one hour, at a time that works for them, possibly in a location that requires travel, possibly with an instrument you have to transport. That hour does not exist in isolation. It brackets dead time on either side. It may strand you somewhere between other commitments. It requires the same preparation as a longer session. And if it falls in the middle of your day, it fractures the working block that might otherwise have generated two or three additional hours of income. A single-hour commitment carries a real cost beyond the hour itself, and your rate should reflect that. A reasonable premium is somewhere between twenty-five and fifty percent above your baseline—not punitive, but honest.
The contiguous block client offers two or more consecutive hours in the same location, without travel between. This is the condition under which the baseline rate makes sense. The overhead is amortized across the block. Your preparation serves multiple hours. Your day remains legible. This client is not doing you a favor—they are simply meeting the basic condition that makes the baseline viable. The baseline rate is appropriate here. It is also the floor. Volume alone is not a reason to discount.
The multi-block client—a school, a program, a recurring institutional relationship—offers the most, and should be asked for the most in one specific sense: not a lower rate, but a more useful schedule. An institution that can offer you Tuesday and Thursday mornings, consistently, across a full session, is giving you something more valuable than money alone. They are giving you a scaffold on which to build the rest of your calendar. Adjacent blocks from other clients can attach to that scaffold. Your week becomes a coherent structure rather than a collection of isolated obligations. When negotiating with institutions, the scheduling ask is as important as the rate conversation.
One of the most powerful things an artist can do for their own calendar is to stop building it around individual client availability and start building it around their own working architecture. This means choosing your times first—the blocks that fit your energy, your transit patterns, your instrument load, your recovery needs—and then inviting clients into those times, rather than the reverse. A client who asks “when are you available?” is asking a reasonable question. The answer that serves you is not a list of every open hour in your week. It is an offer: I teach Tuesday and Thursday mornings, in this location, at these times. Here is what is open. That framing is not inflexibility. It is the structure that makes a sustainable practice possible.
Group instruction fits naturally into this architecture, and it is worth saying plainly to prospective clients why. A group lesson is not a compromised version of a private lesson—it is a different and in many respects richer learning environment. Students in a shared setting learn not just from the instructor but from one another. A beginner watching an intermediate student work through a passage learns something about the path ahead. An advanced student asked to demonstrate or explain consolidates their own understanding. Mixed-age and mixed-skill groupings, far from being logistically inconvenient, replicate the way musical knowledge has always actually traveled—through communities, through listening, through proximity to people at different stages of the same journey. Peer-to-peer learning is not a pedagogical concession. It is a feature.
For the artist, the case is also straightforwardly economic. Three students in a ninety-minute block, each paying a group rate, generate more income per hour than one student in the same time—while requiring a single preparation, a single location, and a single slot in the calendar. The efficiencies are real and they compound across a well-structured week. When you share this with prospective clients, you are not upselling them or managing them. You are inviting them into a model that works better for everyone: for the artist who needs a coherent schedule, for the student who benefits from a learning community, and for the parent or patron who is, whether they know it yet or not, investing in something more durable than a transaction between two people in a room.
This framing belongs in your intake language from the beginning. Before the first lesson, before the first invoice, a prospective client should understand how you work—not as a disclaimer, but as part of what makes working with you worth it. Something as simple as: My teaching is organized around group and paired sessions, which I find produce better outcomes for students and allow me to maintain a sustainable practice. I’d love to talk about how that might work for your situation. That sentence does several things at once. It positions group learning as a pedagogical choice, not a scheduling workaround. It signals that you have a practice with a structure, not a collection of available hours. And it opens a conversation rather than closing one.
The Bay Area layer
Everything above assumes a relatively frictionless working life. The Bay Area adds friction at every point.
Housing costs are the most visible part. At $100,000 gross, after taxes, a Bay Area artist is navigating one of the most expensive rental markets in the country. The living wage figure is not generous—it is the minimum required to remain housed and functional.
Transportation compounds this. Getting from one gig to another takes longer here, costs more, and frequently involves carrying instruments or materials that make transit difficult. A lesson in someone’s home in the hills is not the same as a lesson in a studio two blocks from your house. The travel is real work, and it belongs in your rate calculation.
Space is the hidden variable most artists underestimate. When a client invites you into their home or their school, they are providing infrastructure—a room, a piano, a floor. When they do not, and you are expected to provide or rent space, the math changes dramatically. Studio rental in the Bay Area can run $40-60 per hour or more. That cost does not disappear because it is inconvenient to discuss. An hourly rate that does not account for space rental is subsidizing the client’s infrastructure out of your own pocket.
Finally, schedule density. The Bay Area’s geography and the complexity of people’s lives means that filling a room—building a class, a cohort, a consistent group—is genuinely hard. When you find a time and place where people can reliably show up, that configuration has real value. Protecting it is not rigidity. It is asset management.
A note on scheduling as access

Many artists in our community are neurodivergent—autistic, ADHD, or both. The overlap between neurodivergence and a life in the arts is not coincidental. The same pattern-recognition, intensity of focus, and sensitivity that makes the work possible also shapes what sustainable working conditions look like.
For autistic artists, regular schedules and replicable routines are not preferences—they are the infrastructure of functional work. Unpredictable scheduling is not merely inconvenient; it carries a cognitive load that accumulates across the week and affects the quality of the work itself.
For artists with ADHD, intense focus periods need protection on both ends. A schedule that allows for deep immersion followed by genuine recovery is not indulgence—it is the condition under which the best work happens. A scattered calendar of single-hour commitments spread across the week is, in this light, not just financially inefficient. It is architecturally hostile to the work.
This is worth naming not as a disclosure but as a design principle. A schedule built around predictable blocks, protected recovery time, and calendar adjacency is better for neurodivergent artists. It is also, it turns out, better for everyone. The neurodivergent case just makes the logic visible.
Bringing it back to the three conversations
Your colleague who texted asking what you charge: now you have a number to start from, and a way to explain it. $85 is the floor for a contiguous block. Single-hour work, travel, space, and schedule friction each adjust it upward.
Your colleague evaluating a school’s offer: the salary question cannot be answered without knowing the schedule. How many hours per week? Are they contiguous? Is travel involved? Does the schedule allow for adjacent income? A number that looks reasonable in isolation may not survive contact with those questions.
Your colleague who felt she needed to charge more for a private gig but couldn’t explain why: she was right. She was absorbing travel, instrument transport, space provision, and schedule fragmentation—and pricing none of it. The discomfort was her knowledge of the real cost, looking for language.
The discomfort was understandable. The words just needed to catch up. What follows is the language our community has been reaching for—a framework built not from what the market offers, but from what we actually need to live, work, and keep showing up.
Know your value. Price accordingly.
neurodiverse community
Affirming neurodiversity is recognizing that, in a musical space, one person is tuned into the soprano register, even though their voice presents in the bass register; another person hears long melodic phrases when everyone else is creating short rhythmic phrases; and someone else’s brain is turning the patterns of sound into physical shapes, and they are internally designing a building. Guess what: there’s space for all of us in the room, and we’re better together when we recognize and support one another’s differences.
❣️
all the little things you do are done for love.
don’t doubt it. shout about it.
shout about the things you do for love.
(it’s about the little things)
little things are moved toward love.
(If you are moved, move the little things toward love)
love this, sweetie
lovethislovethislovethislovethislove
Role Development in Children
A couple of principles I see play out in my environments that connect my experience with my learning are verbal play and large motor play.
We learn, in early childhood development circles, the importance of babble–emergent non-structured sound production, to a child’s language and musical development. Children need to have the space to try out their equipment in a free-range way in order to discover the pathways to conscious control. The brain is hearing and recognizing patterns of speech and musical sound, and children are always trying to mimic the sounds that they are hearing. The sounds they make are their “emergent wisdom,” and at first a connection to the sources of these sounds might be unrecognizable. Slowly, with lots of repetition, lots of trying, lots of beautiful mistakes (that parents often find endearing and write down–one of my favorites, as a parent, was “apupup” for “octopus.” We laughed and laughed about that one for a long time, and I still laugh inside when I remember it), they form sounds that we recognize and can reflect back to them, further encouraging them to continue in their studies. A beautiful feedback loop.
As the brain is always seeking a variety of sounds to recognize as language or expressive sounds, you can imagine that the more of these types of sounds are in a child’s environment, the more sounds will be recognized and categorized by the brain as available for use in expressing, and will emerge as the salad of expressive sounds the child will use. I have many trilingual families in my environments, and the style favored among these families is for the one parent to speak their native tongue to the child, another parent or caregiver to speak their native tongue to the child, and for the two caregivers to speak English to one another. As a musician, the range of expressive sounds that emerges from children in these environments is so lovely to me–strange, and beautiful with variety, timbre, syntax, articulation, and all the other things that sounds make. All children’s babble is beautiful–I don’t want to single these kids out–but since everything in the room is visible, it’s notable.
Kinesthetic “babble” is also important to a child’s emergent wisdom, and equally wonderful to watch unfold. Children tend to have access to their head coordination first, and then their torso, and finally the impulses make their way out to the limbs. Play is the work of the child (look it up), and through unrestricted play, kids get to do “all the movements” before they are required to harness their movements in various ways. Not enough can be said about the value of providing kids with a rich variety of models of creative and varied and multi-level movement to allow them to access all of the pathways available to them.
In a musical environment, having a wide variety of expressive modalities–dance, vocalization, instrument play, and various conductive modalities, provides a child with a rich tapestry of models and invitations to engagement, as they explore their movement capabilities. And again, it is joyful to watch kids experiment, and the things they do “outside the box” often lead to novel discoveries. Shaking a drum, or using a shaker as a drumstick, lead to creation of novel sounds with unprescribed movements. When a caregiver entrains to their child’s movement, the child becomes the conductor. This is just how it should be, especially if we value the idea of our children being the innovators of the future.
Children in our culture have a wonderful window of exploration, when all of their impulses are met with love and admiration and reflected with joy and recognition. During the time that parents are able to be still and enjoy these unstructured moments, and celebrate their child’s emergent wisdom, development in these areas ebbs and flows like a joyful ocean. Not to sound alarmist, but to sound an alarm, from my privilege as a person who moves through various environments with children, this window of exploration is getting narrower, in our culture, as we move children into environments of obligation and expectation and rules of participation earlier and earlier. As an early childhood environmentalist, I’m seeing it happen, and I am advocating for the environment.
At some point, there comes a time when a child’s vocalizations and movements become recognizable enough that adults around them will begin to manage these expressions, for various reasons. Here are some examples:
“Use your inside voice,” for volume outside of a prescribed range;
“We don’t use that word in public,” for language outside of a prescribed range;
“Don’t hit!,” for kinesthetic impulses outside of a prescribed range;
“Share!,” for engagement outside of a prescribed range.
All of these prescriptions come from adults, and are ways that we prescribe specific rules of engagement. They make sense to the adults who prescribe them, but there is nothing universal in their nature. Different families have different expectations of conformity to these prescriptions, as well as different cultures–ethnic and socioeconomic and trade-related and spiritual-related, and academic, and various positionally-aligned cultures within the larger community. Some are more free-range in certain areas, while being more prescriptive in other areas. Living in a multicultural society is great, and it also has its areas of conflict, as different expectations in the same room can lead to cognitive dissonance and confusion about preferred outcomes.
Emerging from these realms of verbal and kinesthetic play comes a more complex realm of engagement: the realm of role. Role describes a position within, an area of engagement relative to. As a child becomes self-aware, they become aware of the many selves embodying roles that surround them. The first roles that emerge are those of nurtured self (child, ideally) and nurturing self (caregiver, ideally). This is the basic give-and-take of human relationship. The roles of nurtured and nurturer are fairly universal, and will usually be the first models of role to emerge. We see children in our environments embodying the nurtured role, often, when a child wants to “get up” or “uppie.” Or when a child just wants to sit on caregiver’s lap and just observe. We also see children embodying the nurturer role, and even the prescriptive role, when they do something for us that they’ve seen us do for them, or when they tell us, “don’t do that.” They are simply acting out the roles they’ve been shown.
In terms of caregiver engagement, it might be best to treat our child’s experimentation and play in these roles as a joyful exploration, that we encourage and laugh about and document for posterity. The fewer expectations that we have that require of them to meet us in highly-refined ways, the more we can see the range of ways they are trying to meet us, and enjoy their beauty and strangeness, and we might learn (or remember) new ways of engaging. Think of it as theatre improv.
I’m sure we’ve all seen a child that asserts that they are a fire captain, or a digger operator, or a princess, or a superhero. These are all roles that children are “trying on for size.” “What does it feel like to be the fire captain? How does the world respond to the fire captain? What does the world look like through the fire captain’s eyes?” Many children “capture” a role like this, and embody it for some time. Children understand that adults have roles that they hold onto for a long time, too. Why would we be concerned when our child practices long attentional arcs, in the form of captured role play, considering we’re always asking them to pay attention? It is play, after all, and play is the work of children, and they are hard at work, and sometimes they know themselves quite well early on, if we let them.
Sometimes we see a child that is a role player and a big mover together. To me, this is a beautiful sight to see. Often a child like this will move through roles rapidly, which can be confusing for adults around them who are not used to seeing people change roles rapidly. We recognize a role, and then there might be a sudden shift, which pulls the rug out from under our conception. Some people find this experience of having the rug pulled out disconcerting, while others find it exhilarating.
I am one of those who find it fabulous, and fun. Think of someone like Robin Williams, or Jim Carrey, who can shift tone and body language rapidly. We understand these shifts of tone in context, because we understand the role that the person is embodying: the actor. The actor is a fine role to embody, as it allows one to move through many roles at will. If you’re someone who is stuck in a role you don’t want to be stuck in, imagine the liberation of morphing into a different role at will. Temples have been built throughout the ages for actors to be actors in. Some people study for a long time to be actors–some people start their study early, just like some people start studying to be a fire captain early. We should embrace and support the actors among us, especially if we recognize their role in our society, and recognize how much of our money and attention we give to support those who embody that role. Pay attention, indeed.
Here’s one of the challenges that actors face, though, as they move through their embodied roles: they show us to ourselves. That’s actually their job, and it’s a job that actors didn’t make up, it’s a role that they embody by being just who they are. Recently a child came into my environment with a ukulele (I play the ukulele during class). He strode right in with long strides, and looked me straight in the eyes, intently, and strummed and strummed his ukulele, as he strutted around. I was enthralled! But here’s what I also understand (and have seen happen, all too often): when we are shown ourselves, we don’t always like the self we see, or we feel we are being mocked. We have hair-trigger responses inside us, (even well-educated adults) that can light up our feelings when certain things happen in a room. When that child looked me straight in the eyes, intently–that’s a signal in some scenarios, a signal of dominance and challenge. Some of us are wired to respond to this challenge to our dominance, even when it comes from a child–it’s just an impulse, and if one’s impulses aren’t trained, one can be carried away by them.
I could have taken this child’s challenge to my ukulele dominance to heart, and felt that they were mocking me, or belittling me, and I might have experienced a tingly feeling somewhere in my body that I wasn’t ready to feel. But, loving children as I do, I actually love being belittled–it’s actually my job, so I laugh when it happens. What many adults don’t understand is that the intention of a child (especially a child of 2 or 3 or 4) is never to belittle, but only to reflect, and mirror (that’s how they learn everything they learn). Love should always be the only response to the mirror a child gives us.
But some adults, being highly protective of their roles, for whatever reasons, can react in unloving ways when little actors like this reflect something back to them that they don’t want to see, and it can be heartbreaking, and my heart is broken all the time watching it happen. An adult might say “that child needs to learn to control their impulses!”
But the truth is that the adult’s impulses have not been trained to always respond to a child with love (they might have had a tingly feeling they weren’t ready to feel at the moment), no matter what role they are moving through in the moment. I call that finger-pointing moment “hocus pocus,” a little moment where an adult has a feeling they don’t want to feel, and they point the finger at the child and say, “Look over there at those untrained impulses.”
The next time you see an adult doing this, stop and reflect on what is happening (since you’re witnessing it, and witnesses are important allies in times like this). Consider whether there is a kind way to advocate for the child, and turn the finger back around, and allow the child to get back to their work of training their impulses, that has been so rudely interrupted. Because asking a child to control their impulses (especially a child of 2 or 3 or 4) is asking them to do something that many adults have trouble doing. We should give them a break, not break them.
Little actors like this are only moving through the roles that they see around them, and believe me, they see a lot of roles being played. There are a lot of roles in a big city like ours–highly sought-after and studied-for roles, roles that we hold onto only tenuously, or roles that we grip ’til our knuckles are white. If every role-player in our big city was trained to only respond with love to a child, wouldn’t the love reflected back to us by children like this be wonderful? But children like this see us playing roles that we don’t even know we are playing.
If you’re a parent, there will come a day that you realize you swear because your child will swear. Your child just helped you wake up. Hopefully you laughed about it and documented it and put it in your album of mementos, to laugh about later. But the environment around a child can be unkind when certain reflections our children reflect back to us make our insides tingle in ways we don’t like, and we take it out on them, instead of owning it and waking up to ourselves. We point the finger. “That child needs to control their impulses!” Who’s the one playing that role? They might be someone like me, who saw a little ukulele player, and recognized myself, but then my untrained impulses might have taken the challenge in their eyes to heart, and felt threatened, and not have had words for what was going on. And I might have tried to restrain that child’s impulses for reminding me of my own untrained impulses. That would have been a shame, to restrain that child’s beautiful human impulses to respond to the world in they ways that they do (and as a parent, I was ashamed when I found myself restraining my child’s impulses instead of my own). We put our kids in environments all the time where people with untrained impulses are restraining our children’s impulses (I’ve done it too, and been ashamed when I recognized it. Luckily, that kind of shame burns up when we recognize what’s going on. It’s kind of cool).
So having been there, and done the thing I now know I don’t want to do, here’s the little shift I’ve made in my role of parent and children’s environmentalist, with little method actors all around me, who are always on (like Robin Williams, or Jim Carrey, or Kate Winslet, or Angelina Jolie–look up “actors who stay in character”–it’s a thing, and it’s a thing of beauty when a child adopts the concept so early): My role has changed. My role is now of caretaker–not of my child’s beautiful human impulses, which I am there to nurture, but of their environment, the world around them that they move through. Knowing that these actors reflect back roles they see played around them, I try to put them into loving environments where the only response to any role they’re playing in the moment is love. Being that they are moving through roles so rapidly, there’s a good chance, that if they’re not seeing people around them playing challenging or aggressive roles (which is what someone trying to manage their impulses looks like to them), they will eventually forget those challenging or aggressive roles, and continue to reflect the loving roles that they see embodied around them. If I trust that what’s inside them is love trying to connect itself to the world, then I can take pride in my child’s devotion to their craft.
It seems like a no-brainer to say, “Surround your child with love,” but if we don’t understand the environments we are moving them through, we might not recognize the dangers–the micro-aggressions, the subtle or even harsh challenges, the managed or restrained impulses. But our kids are moving through the environments they move through, and they see everything. And sometimes, we are even moving them in front of us, before we’ve recognized the environment they’re moving into. I see it all the time, because all the time is right there to see.
And being a caretaker, and advocate, I’ve learned to advocate for the child, not for the adult’s untrained impulses, even if the adult in question is playing a role of authority, even if it makes my hands tremble (thanks for that one, Mrs. Roosevelt). Having found myself in loving environments, I’ve found that, generally, people in the room understand who I am advocating for, and they are there to support me. When that hasn’t been the case, it’s made me consider the environment, and my advocacy. Having been a children’s environmentalist for a long time, I’ve had a looooong time to consider what I’m saying. And I think it will stand up to scrutiny. I invite you to point out any inconsistency. I don’t occupy a role of authority (which kind of makes it easier to understand authority, frankly. It’s right there).
And I invite you to join the children’s environmental movement. The children’s liberation movement. The liberation of children’s movement through the environments they move through. It’s right there, in the heart. And remember the Lorax, who spoke for the trees? He was a children’s environmentalist, too. If you’ve forgotten, maybe take some time out and reread it. It’s a classic for a reason.
But who will listen?
i, advocate

If you’ve been following my neurodiversity journey–as I articulate the experience of a person with autism, ADHD, aphantasia, and proprioception hyposensitivity from the inside, along with the other ways i share myself–and you’ve found that the insights I’ve shared connect with your experience, or contextualize something you suspected, realize that sharing these insights is one of the ways I care for my community.
And realize that, as a person with no degrees or qualifications as an advocate other than my lived experience and my inborn gifts, what I share makes no sense in the context of capitalism.
If you find that a person like me is a valuable part of the community, and worthy of support, realize that, within the context of 21st century American capitalism, there’s not much support for people like me, or for the people I advocate for, who often don’t have the gift for articulation that I share with my community.
I could institutionalize myself: pursue an advanced degree that legitimizes my advocacy in the context of capitalism, and in doing so, would need to unplug myself from the community that I move through, and in doing so, become another victim of capitalism – saddled with huge debt, and most likely unable to find an official advocacy position that would pay off that debt in my lifetime.
I choose, instead, to move through my community in the ways I’ve been moving, because my community moves me to do so, and that’s how I show up. That’s how I care.
If you find this valuable, I’m asking to be allowed to continue advocating for your sensory and cognitive gifts, to continue recontextualizing valuable predispositions that have been pathologized. I’m asking to be adopted. I’m asking for your care. I’m asking for your support.
In asking for your support, I’m not asking to be the CEO of Spotify, or Starbucks, or Paramount+, or Ridwell, or any of the other services that folks find valuable and subscribe to. I’m asking for just enough care to be allowed to live and continue to do the work that I do. If you subscribe to even a little bit of the philosophy I share, consider subscribing to me, so I can continue caring for my community in the ways that I do.
Thanks for all you do, and thank you for being you.
the care economy
The care economy is an emerging model for supporting people, things, and processes we’d like to see more of in the world. It is about recognizing the things in our experience that bring us joy, that give us a [wow] or a [yes], and responding to these moments in a supportive way. It’s actually just, well, practicing care, and that’s not new at all. But the language of commerce is transactional, rather than responsive.
I recognize that I love the work that I do with people so much that I would offer it for free if I was supported–if all of my needs were met. But traditional models don’t allow for that type of responsiveness. I would like to try to move toward a more responsive system, built on trust. Why not?
People who know me can decide if they trust the work I do, and they can choose to support me so that I can do that work, or not. In doing so, they are allowing me to be more myself, and guiding me toward their own needs. I’m the product, in a sense, but since our relationship is based on trust, I’m allowed to do the work I believe, adjusting to the needs that arise, as they align with those who trust me.
This simple shift makes the difference between the transactional and the responsive. But it’s kind of vulnerable and scary. I have to trust those that are responding. Will I be supported? Will enough people believe in the work? If I am being truly responsive to their needs, then perhaps. I think it’s worth a try.
I see a difference between commitment and obligation. Commitment is a responsive engagement, where we meet the needs of the moment as it arises. Obligation can keep us stuck supporting processes that actually hinder our ability to respond to the moment.
So, I see a possibility emerging to do things in a more responsive way, and in seeing how obligation often thwarts connection, I would like to avoid transactions that create a sense of obligation, and nurture ones that give one a sense of [wow] or [yes].
So, think about our interactions in the spaces we share. If our conversations seem to be taking us in good directions, let’s continue the conversation. If helping to support me gives you a sense of [wow] or [yes], then you are participating in the care economy. Thank you for recognizing your own power to support, and if our goals align, thank you for your support.
Music Class In Uncertain Times
This is a post that I sent to my ukulele students.
Many people consider taking a music class at some point in their lives. Studying an instrument or using your voice in new ways can be a little bit challenging, and I think people think about doing these activities when things are peaceful, and they are feeling expansive, like they have some “wiggle room” in their schedule. That makes sense.
That being said, my own music practice has grown out of my tendency to focus on music at times in my life that were difficult. For me, playing music and singing is a powerful emotional regulation tool–when life is feeling chaotic or overwhelming, musical activity helps me focus on parts of myself that I can control and nurture.
I may have spent the whole day at work having to bite my tongue or not express my difficult feelings about my working atmosphere, but then I can come home and channel all of those feelings into a musical activity that helps to lower my heart rate, regulate my breathing, and stimulate my creative mind. I can learn to play a song that I then share with my friends or family, which creates a sense of shared experience, which also helps to relieve my stress and help me feel connected to my community.
So, even though taking on the challenge of learning an instrument might seem like an extra thing to have to manage in a busy schedule, that time that we spend making music can provide a welcome balance to our regular working life.
